Lords Sitting of 4 June 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read 2a.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
Read 2a.

CENTRAL LONDON AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, with reference to this Bill I have received, and I dare say others have also received, a Petition from the inhabitants of Fulham assembled at a public meeting in the Lecture Hall, West Kensington, on Saturday, March 22, 1924, showing that this Bill has recently been presented to the House of Parliament, both companies asking for further powers. The Petitioners urge that such powers should not be granted until, and unless, the Metropolitan District Railway Company have reserved out of the twenty-one acres of surplus and derelict lands at Earl's Court a proper and suitable open space and recreation ground for the public health and recreation.
I do not, for a moment, intend to press this proposal upon your Lordships. I do not think it would be wise or right. But at the same time, as founder and chairman of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, which has been instrumental in opening since 1884 over 120 parks and playgrounds within the Metropolitan area,
848
your Lordships will not be astonished if I ask you to join with me in expressing a hope that these powerful companies—who apply to your Lordships under this Bill for further powers, including, as I understand, that of erecting workshops on the twenty-one or twenty-three acres of surplus and derelict lands at Earl's Court, which is claimed by the Metropolitan District Railway—will recognise the responsibilities of landownership in a crowded city like London and will voluntarily set apart, and place at the disposal of the local borough authority, some portion of these twenty-three or twenty-one acres (for I do not think it is accurately calculated which it is) to be maintained by that authority as a playground or open space for the benefit of the railway employees and the public generally. The Fulham Borough Council has already expressed its willingness to approach the London County Council and assist in the maintenance, should the railway companies see their way to grant this favour to the public.
Your Lordships may like to know that these vacant lands, which are at the junction of several railways, are alleged to have been originally common lands, subject to the public right of sports and pastimes. I should remark that if I make any errors it is not my fault because the Bill was only put into my hands yesterday evening and, moreover, I have had no time to look into the legal position. Therefore, you will see that I am not asking anything from a legal point of view; I am assuming that all that they claim is just and right. In the year 1914, when the war broke out, the Metropolitan District Railway, the Midland Railway and other railway companies claimed the right to be lawfully in possession of, and to own, certain surplus railway and derelict lands called and known as the Old Exhibition Grounds of Earl's Court of about twenty-three acres in extent, and they let them on lease in that year to the then Government at the enormous rental of £14,000 a year so as to enable the Government to find a home temporarily for the Belgian refugees who came from the theatre of war to this country for safety.
On November 11, 1918, when the Armistice was declared, the Belgians returned to their own country, but nevertheless the Government continued, most extraordinarily, to pay this enormous rent

849
until September 29 last, when the waste of public money thereby entailed was brought to the attention of the Government by the inhabitants of Fulham. It is now stated that an offer of £17,000 per annum has been made by a dancing hall company to the railway companies for a twenty-one years' lease of these grounds—but here, again, I cannot vouch for the truth of this, though I have clone my best to find out, and I believe it is so. But whether this be true or not, it is evident that the value of the land is great, or the Government would not have paid the railway companies £14,000 a year for so many years for twenty-three acres of derelict land. The railway companies may well, therefore, be generous in these circumstances.
It may be a surprise to some of your Lordships to learn that the population of Fulham is 160,000, whereas in 1891 it was only 91,000. It is a more crowded area than that of Poplar, of which we have lately heard so much. There are 93 inhabitants to the acre in Fulham, whereas there are only 70 to the acre in Poplar. To-day I visited all the three grounds, which are divided by the railways. The one called the Western Gardens is surrounded on two sides by small houses, and would appear to be most suitable for a recreation or playground. The nearest open space to these derelict grounds is over a mile distant, and two are over two miles distant. These are Bishop's Park, given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and South Park, given by a Miss Sullivan. If the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and a private lady have given such a generous lead, I have little doubt that the railway companies would not turn a deaf ear if your Lordships drew their attention to this opportunity of showing the world that the popular opinion in regard to companies is erroneous. It would redound to their honour if they showed that if companies do not possess bodies they at all events have souls.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down said that your Lordships would not be surprised at his having called attention to this matter. He must permit me to express some surprise at the course that he has followed—anyhow, as regards myself. Your Lordships are, of course,
850
aware, and the noble Earl is aware, of the usual procedure in regard to all Private Bills. The Chairman of Committees moves them pro forma. When there is any opposition to them he does not move them. It is left to some Peer who is more particularly interested in the Bill to father it, whereupon it becomes my duty to give your Lordships House such advice as I can as to what I consider to be the most convenient procedure to follow. The noble Earl, having given no notice in this case, leaves me in the position of having to defend it. I am very glad to see that owing to a fortunate accident my noble friend Lord Ashfield is here and he may perhaps feel called upon to address your Lordships.
In the meantime, I wish that the noble Earl had raised a Second Reading objection or suggested some instruction for the guidance of the Committee to which this Bill will be referred. I think it would have been very much more convenient had he given me due notice, in order that we could have been posted as to what the intentions of himself and his friends were in calling attention to this matter. I think I ought to tell your Lordships that a Petition has been deposited on the lines of the desire expressed by the noble Earl. This Petition, of course, is of no value to your Lordships. The Standing Orders, which give ample time for the deposit of Petitions, state certain hours by which Petitions must be deposited. Any Petition against this Bill ought to have been deposited before three o'clock yesterday. The Petition which I hold in my hand was deposited this morning, and therefore is of no value to your Lordships, though it is of some value to me as I shall quote it in a moment in connection with the merits of this question.
The noble Earl referred to what is familiarly known as the Earl's Court site—the site of the old Earl's Court Exhibition—and desires somehow to bring about the setting aside of this site as an open space. There is nothing in this Bill, I can assure your Lordships, that affects the Earl's Court site in the least, and if any Amendment was made in the Bill affecting the Earl's Court site, it would be outside the Parliamentary Notice and therefore very wrong. More than that, the Bill is promoted by the Central

851
London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies. The Petition specifies the particular five acres of the Earl's Court site as those which the noble Earl has stated a desire to see made an open space, and I am assured that that portion of the site does not belong to these railway companies at all. That being so. I cannot imagine a more unreasonable thing, or indeed a greater waste of your Lordships' time, than to discuss whether a certain site which does not belong to the promoters should be made an open space or not. I sincerely hope therefore that your Lordships will allow this Bill to be read a second time and to proceed through your Lordships' House. There are a number of other points which I could bring before your Lordships, but I think I have said sufficient to elucidate the matter and need not say more. The noble Lord, Lord Ashfield, is present, and I hope that he will correct me if anything that I have said needs correcting. Subject to that, I feel that the only course before your Lordships is to allow the Bill to proceed in the ordinary way.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
Read 2a.
SCARISBRICK ESTATE DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I venture to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack what will be the extent of our holiday this Whitsuntide?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, in answer to the noble Marquess I may say that, after consulting the opinion of a number of members of your Lordships' House, I do not think we need sit to-morrow if there is no business. In that case we should adjourn to-day, and I understand that it is the general opinion that we should adjourn until Tuesday, June 24.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STRAT-FORD-UPON-AVON EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BENEFICES ACT, 1898 (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1923.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY had given Notice to move that the Benefices Act, 1898 (Amendment), Measure, 1923, the Union of Benefices Measure, 1923, and the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powders Act, 1919. His Grace said: My Lords, I am going to ask your Lordships to consent to three successive Resolutions which bear upon one another in a certain sense, but are entirely independent as regards your Lordships' decision about each of them. It would probably be right before I move them, which I shall do seriatim, that I should say a few words to remind any one of your Lordships who may for the moment have forgotten what is the procedure we are following in this matter, how far your Lordships are acting upon adequate advice already given, and how far the matters which will be brought before you have been the subject of adequate consideration and inquiry.
May I remind your Lordships that what we are doing to-night, if we pass these Resolutions, is the fifth stage in the consideration of the particular Measures which are specified in the Resolutions. When a Measure is going to be introduced upon Church matters it comes, or it can come, first before the Church Assembly, as we call it, for discussion. That Assembly can discuss it in detail, first in the Assembly as a whole and then, as is done almost always, in Committees of one kind or another which look into details. Afterwards it is discussed in what we should call here a Committee of the Whole House before it receives what is described in our Assembly Regulations as the final approval of the Assembly. When it has received the final approval of the Assembly it passes through a second stage. It goes to what is called the Legislative

853
Committee of the Assembly. That is a body consisting of Bishops, clergy and laity, with a preponderance of laity. That, body considers the whole question and formulates an account of it, specifying its purpose and describing its provisions in some detail. This Legislative Committee, which consists at present of 31 members, is an important body.
When that Committee has drawn up its report it transmits it to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament which, as your Lordships will remember, is a body of 30 members, 15 of whom are nominated by the Lord Chancellor from your Lordships' Ho use and 15 by the Speaker from the House of Commons. That body considers the whole subject afresh, with the report upon it which has been submitted to it by the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, and that is the third stage. Then the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament makes a Report upon the subject to Parliament which is laid on the Table of your Lordships' House. But before submitting the Report to Parliament it sends it back again to the Legislative Committee of the Assembly, in order that it may there be considered to see whether any modifications are necessary or whether anything has been inadequately understood.
That is security against inadvertent misrepresentation or mistake of any kind. But the Ecclesiatical Committee has to report in the end whether it is expedient or not that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects. That is the purport of their examination. If they recommend that it shall receive the Royal Assent, and that is also agreed to by the Legislative Committee of the Asembly, the stage comes which we have reached to-night. Members of either House of Parliament are requested by the Legislative Committee of the Assembly to introduce in this House a Resolution in the form in which the Resolutions are before this House now.
With regard to the first of those Measures, the Motion is: That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices Act, 1898 (Amendment) Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. What your Lordships have to do to-night
854
is to say "Yes" or "No" to that Resolution—not to consider the Measure in detail, or at all events not with the power of amending it in detail. I venture to remind your Lordships that it is impossible to devise any manner of procedure which would more thoroughly secure that a matter as to which your Lordships are asked thus to vote whether or not it should be presented for Royal Assent, should have, been considered by those qualified to consider it. The Church, in a gathering which is preponderantly lay, considers the whole question in detail. It then goes through all the stages that I have mentioned, and it comes to your Lordships to say, to-night, whether or not you desire, as all these bodies have up to this point desired, that the Measure should receive the Royal Assent.
In regard to the three Measures in respect of which I am about to propose Resolutions there is practically no difference of opinion existing. A report has come from all these bodies in favour of the Royal Assent being given, and I shall have to ask your Lordships to give it in each of the three cases. I have thought it right to remind you of the procedure in a general way before coming in detail to the Resolutions which I have to propose. The first which I propose relates to the Benefices (Amendment) Act, 1898. This is a Measure with a perfectly simple intention and purport. It is really to abolish the sale of advowsons, as such, not at once but after a little time. I do not think any of your Lordships who have been familiar with Church controversy, and even controversy outside Church regions, during recent years, will doubt that among the so-called blemishes, or even scandals (for that word is sometimes used) that attend a certain part of our Church administration in connection with the State the possibility of the sale of an advowson, as such, has been found to be a stumbling block, a difficulty and a blemish upon our life which we have long been anxious to remove. By this Measure we propose to abolish in future days the recurrence of that which has caused so much anxiety, so much pain, and, occasionally, so much actual wrong in regard to the possession of advowsons.
But in making the proposal that that system shall before very long come to an end, we do it with what I venture to think

855
is perhaps even over-scrupulous care lest we should, by rapid action, be doing harm to anybody, or inflicting a wrong where we did not intend to inflict it, or unfairly injuring what are called the rights of property. We make provision in this Measure that any private patron who has now the possession of an advowson—that is, the right to nominate to the Bishop for institution to a benefice a duly-qualified clerk—shall be able to exercise that right not once but twice after this Measure becomes law before his power to sell the advowson actually comes to an end.
Liberty is also given, and given for the first time, to the person whom we call the owner of the advowson, to divest himself of that power of sale. Your Lordships may, perhaps, be hardly aware that at this moment any of you who are in that position—and I know some of your Lordships are the owners, as we say, of advowsons—cannot while retaining the patronage divest yourselves of the power of sale without very elaborate procedure. If this Measure becomes law you will be able to declare at any time, in a way that here specified, that you do desire to divest yourselves of that power of sale, and then the benefice will fall into what is called public patronage. When a benefice becomes one that is in public patronage it gains, because at present some of the benefactions which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and others give to particular benefices can only go to those which are in public patronage. Benefices the advowson whereof may be sold do not get those benefits. This is in order to prevent the augmentation of what might vulgarly be called a marketable commodity. We are all desirous of securing that a benefice which is to be augmented from public funds, must not be a saleable commodity. Under this Measure, any owner of such a benefice will have the right to divest himself at once of the power of sale, and then the benefice will become public patronage, and will be eligible to receive that kind of help or benefaction to which I have referred.
I think I have told your Lordships all that is necessary in regard to this Measure. It will be years before it will come compulsorily into operation. With regard to any lay patron it will not be until two vacancies have taken
856
place that that can happen, unless by the voluntary act of the patron himself he resigns his right of sale in the way that I have described. What I am anxious to make clear to your Lordships is that this Measure, if it becomes law, will not in any way, in the sense of abolishing or restricting, interfere with the existence of private patronage of advowsons. Some people think and have spoken of it as though it were a Measure for putting all advowsons into public hands—into the hands of the Bishops, or the Crown, or someone else. That is net so at all. What it does is to prevent the advowson being something that may be sold; but it will equally remain in the power of a man, though he cannot sell it, to exercise it as a private patron. We are not interfering with private patronage, but only with the rights of sale. I ought, perhaps, to mention that the Measure is drawn so as to be applicable to, and to include, even the rights of the Crown. The Lord Chancellor will, I hope, be able to assure us that no difficulty need arise on that account, but in the rare case where any question could arise with regard to the rights of the Crown in the matter, this Measure places those rights in the same category as the rights of other patrons.
If your Lordships pass this Measure it will be a very real gain to the Church in two ways. It will prevent wrong things being done, things which I deplore as much as any one can, and which have done untold mischief and harm in every sense. It will also prevent the exaggerated account of those things which is current, and which makes some of them appear a great deal worse than they really are. The grievance, though real, is not on the scale that it is sometimes said to be. It is spoken of as if there was a traffic on an immense scale in advowsons. That is not so. Some years ago it was more extensive than it is now; at the moment it is very restricted. It should be done away with. I have advocated this for many years, and I esteem it a privilege to be able to ask your Lordships to give the coup de grâce to a system which has been mischievous, and to do so in a manner which gives the fullest consideration to, and treats in the tenderest way, the existing rights of individual persons. I have

857
purposely avoided going into minute details. I could do so if it were necessary, and I am perfectly prepared to answer any questions that may be asked. I hope I have made the purport of the Measure clear. It is quite simple, and I hope your Lordships will assent to the Resolution which I now move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices Act, 1393 (Amendment), Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I crave your indulgence in intervening thus early in the debate, but I have to be elsewhere in a few moments. The most rev. Primate has given a clear and succinct account of the procedure which is necessary with regard to the Resolutions he is moving, and it is probably convenient that general observations should be made on the first Resolution. I should like to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of everything His Grace has said. I should like to go one step further and say that under the Church Assembly Powers Act it is intended that Resolutions moved in your Lordships' House and in another place should be real Resolutions, carrying, if they are passed, the independent judgment of both Houses of Parliament. It would be a great misfortune if such Resolutions were regarded as being something in the nature of pro formâ Resolutions, or if this House were to say that as five or six inquiries have been made by the Church Assembly and the matter thoroughly thrashed out there, when a Measure conies before Parliament Parliament has no clear and independent say in the matter.
It may be urged that the Ecclesiastical Committee have already approved of these Measures and have therefore saved Parliament the trouble of making a personal and individual examination of the Resolutions on each occasion. I do not think there could be a greater mistake or disaster than to say that because the Ecclesiastical Committee has recommended the passing of this or that Resolution, Parliament should therefore be silent. There are many cases in which there is a happy borderland between Church and State; where Church and
858
State can unite their forces for the benefit of the citizens of this country, and I deprecate any attitude in this House by which the Ecclesiastical Committee are considered to be the final arbiters in such matters.
It will be remembered that during the debates on the Church Assembly Act it was difficult to find any satisfactory method that would combine the spiritual independence of the Church with the rightful powers of Parliament in dealing with matters that concern us as citizens as well as Churchmen. Much time was spent in hammering out a satisfactory way by which the rights of the Church, on the one hand, and the rights of the State, on the other, should be safeguarded and united together in the common cause of righteousness. It is, therefore, exceedingly important that each item in that procedure should have full and constant value given to it Hitherto, the Measures proposed have not been of a very grave or formidable character, and where a Measure is merely of a technical nature this House might well act upon the mere recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Powers that are never exercised tend to fall into desuetude, and when an important group of Measures comes before this House then is the occasion for your Lordships to recognise what those powers are, and not stand by and say that, just because these matters have been passed in the Church Assembly and approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee, they should there and then be passed.
I am not speaking against this particular Resolution, or against the next two Resolutions on the Order Paper. I am merely pointing out the principle. Before now it has been made quite plain how useful this House can be in the progress of Church legislation. One of the Resolutions to come before your Lordships this afternoon will be found to be based upon discussions in this House. It is merely the development of decisions at which your Lordships have already arrived. That appears to me to be a singularly happy instance in which righteous forces have combined. When we have these important Measures before us, then is the time to emphasise that this House and the other House of Parliament form the last link in a long chain. It should be recognised as being a definite

859
link on the road to legislation, and it would be a grave mistake if it was thought that because the authorities concerned had given their approval this House should, therefore, necessarily and without discussion, signify its assent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, before I indicate the general attitude of the Government towards the particular Measures which the most rev. Primate has brought before your Lordships' House, it is right that I should say something on the wider aspects of the question to which he, and also the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken, alluded. The Church Assembly Act of 1919 is a very sweeping Measure in two respects. In the first place, it was so drawn that it was impossible for us in this House to discuss in detail the constitution of the Church Assembly. In the second place, it endowed the Church Assembly, supervised no doubt by the Ecclesiastical Committee, with the power of passing, by mere Resolution if it could get the assent of both Houses of Parliament, Measures which this House could not amend, and which it must take or reject as they stood. When you add to that the fact that the powers given to the Church Assembly by that Act were such as to enable the Church Assembly, in connection with any matter concerning the Church, to repeal the Statute Law and repeal the Common Law unlimitedly, and deal with questions affecting the Constitution of this country without restraint, you realise that it was obviously a very formidable Measure. I, for one, opposed it to the utmost of my ability at that time, but a large majority of your Lordships decided to pass the Act, and it also passed the other House.
As the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken has observed, the only opportunity that is given to Parliament to intervene is in the event of a Resolution being brought forward that the Royal Assent be given to one of these Measures which has been passed by the Church Assembly and sanctioned by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and which comes before Parliament in a form in which Parliament has no power to amend it. That consideration might give rise to a very serious situation. If a serious situation did arise, in which it was sought, in the opinion of the Government of the day, to
860
alter the Constitution of the country unduly—for instance, to place the appointment of the two Archbishops in the hands of some Ecclesiastical Committee instead of the Crown, or to proceed in a multitude of other ways which I might mention—then I think the Government would have to give very close attention to the matter, and to consider what power it possesses to reject any such Resolution.
Happily, no such question comes before your Lordships on this occasion. I said, in the case of the debates in 1919, that if the measure had simply been one for enabling the Church to deal with domestic difficulties, I, for my part, should not have offered any opposition to it, but should have been in favour of it. We have seen too much of the enormous and unjustifiable difficulties which have been placed in the way of the Church in bringing about measures of domestic reform on account of the narrow minded opposition which has broken out in Parliament. This possibility was removed by the Act of 1919, which, I think, went a great deal too far the other way. But that question need not be discussed now. Regarding purely domestic matters we said at the time that if the Act had been confined to matters of that kind we should not have offered the least opposition.
Coming to this particular Measure, it is designed to prevent the sale of benefices under certain conditions. That is a very right thing to do. It falls to me to see a great many instances of the disposal of benefices; such matters come before me in all sorts of forms. I observe that there is a very reckless sense, among a certain number of owners of patronage, of their rights of dealing with patronage as if it were mere private property. The matter concerns the Crown also. It does not apply to the patronage of the Prime Minister or of the Duchy of Lancaster, but it does arise in respect of the patronage of livings which are in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is prohibited by Statute from selling these livings except for the purpose of augmenting other benefices, and it is often very beneficial that he should possess that power and sell the rights of patronage in order to augment other benefices. But whatever may be said of that power being left in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, the conclusion of the Government, on consideration—and it is

861
a conclusion which I, for one, heartily endorse—has been that it would look very ill if the Government sought to make any exception of themselves as distinct from the private owners of benefices.
I desire to say, therefore, that the Government are ready to advise the Crown to place its rights at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of this Measure. The result will be that it will no longer be open to private persons to sell their livings as they used to do, in a manner which was sometimes corrupt. The matter will be regulated in the manner proposed by this Measure, and consequently the system under which the sale of benefices used to take place will vanish, and there will be substituted for it a Measure which the Church, I think, ought certainly to be in a position to pass, and which will enable this matter to be regulated by the only body which can deal with it properly—namely, the Church itself. I say to your Lordships, therefore, that, so far as the Government are concerned, they assent to the Resolution which the most rev. Primate has proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

UNION OF BENEFICES MEASURE, 1923.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg now to move, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Union of Benefices Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. I apologise to your Lordships for troubling you again upon the second Resolution, but it is obviously right that I should do so. The Measure to which I now ask your Lordships to assent is described in a very-clear way in the words of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, which I will read to your Lordships They say:—
"The object of the Measure is to set up permanent machinery for carrying into effect the policy long ago approved by Parliament of providing for unions of benefices where economy of endowments or of man power or other reasons makes such unions desirable in the interests of the Church of England as a whole."
This matter is complicated in its details, but not in the least difficult as regards its general principles. I will deal with general principles only, for I think it would probably be your Lordships' wish
862
that I should not touch upon the details which are both complicated and technical.
For many years everybody who has looked into the matter has been struck by the difficulties which besot the administration of the Church of England in the case of exceedingly small benefices. I have before me the case of a benefice containing forty-seven people. Up to recent times it would have been exceedingly difficult to handle this question in any other way than by letting things go on exactly as they were, and having an incumbent and churchwardens appointed with the sole duty of administering the work of this incumbency of forty-seven people, inhabiting perhaps a dozen houses and providing a congregation of, let us say, ten people, or something of that kind. The difficulties which surround administration in such a case as that are very great indeed. This is an extreme case, but there are many others in which the difficulty exists in a less terrible way.
May I remind your Lordships where these difficulties lie? They lie, first of all, in my opinion, with the incumbent himself. Very few men who are really in active use of their faculties and powers are content to be incumbents of tiny parishes, because they really get no opportunity of using their powers fully, and the work is too small to give them an opportunity for usefulness. Such men are always longing for wider scope in order that they may perform more effectively the work to which they have devoted their lives. But it is not merely the man who suffers. No doubt he suffers by deteriorating, if he stays in the position in which he is placed, from the very lack of opportunity for active service. But the parish also suffers enormously. It has, in the first place, a less fit man than they might otherwise have, because a man who consents to take such a post is often worn out, or else a man who for some other reason is not likely to do his work with any great originality or thoughtfulness. In the next place, the loss to the parish of esprit de corps and vigour of any kind in a corporate sense is perfectly obvious, when we are thinking of tiny parishes of that sort.
The number of very small parishes of the size I have mentioned is, happily, few

863
but your Lordships will be surprised to learn that in one-fifth of all the parishes in England there are populations of under three hundred people. It is therefore no small matter that we are thinking of when trying to deal with the union of small benefices, so as to give more work to the worthy incumbent and more spirit and life to the organisation as a whole. You will get better men and more reasonable emoluments for the better men. Where you add to a benefice the work of adjacent benefices you add the income of those adjacent benefices also, and in that way you give a man a living wage for what is more nearly approaching a good day's work. That is one of the objects which most of us have in view in promoting this Measure. We believe that you will get better men, that they will be better paid, and that the work will be better done. Then we are all pressed constantly by the poverty of the clergy in rural areas, but is it to be expected that from outside sources public or private money is likely to come for increasing the emolument of a man who admittedly has not got enough to do? You are not giving a fair day's wage for a fair day's work if you give it for what is not a fair day's work, and it is not to be expected that public or private money will be forthcoming for that purpose. Therefore, for that reason, too, there is a great gain in the union of benefices.
For years past almost every public body in Church or civil life which has debated this subject has said: "Surely the way out of our difficulties is, so far as possible, to unite the small benefices," and I have been for some years in Assembly after Assembly where that has been carried almost without a dissentient voice. But if, as you leave that room, you say to one who has voted: "I am very glad you voted for that," the answer will invariably be the same, namely: "There are peculiar circumstances in my parish which would render it very undesirable. We could not do it in my parish, but I think generally we ought to do it." That shows that there will always, and naturally, be a certain amount of local disinclination to sacrifice individual entity and individual rights, even where the individual entity and individual rights are of the sort that I have described.
So, for five years past, we have had in operation an Act of Parliament, which has enabled inquiries to be made into the
864
circumstances of adjacent parishes with very small populations, or where one at least has a small population, with a view-to bringing about union where it is desirable. We have had very hard work by competent men, who have made inquiries and gone into all the facts about each particular case, and have then recommended, if they thought it desirable, the union of benefices under the Act which will now naturally, by itself, expire. The Act was a temporary measure, in order that the matter might be dealt with upon a larger scale. That temporary measure is coming to an end, and if your Lordships do not pass this Measure, and it does not receive the Royal Assent, there will be nothing substituted to take the place of the temporary Act.
Of course, some of your Lordships may say that you know what these inquiries mean—that they are mere formal matters, that the thing is a foregone conclusion and all settled beforehand, elsewhere. No greater mistake could be made. The inquiries were most careful and thorough, and by no means have the proposals always been given effect to. I believe that 452 separate inquiries have been carried on in the matter, and that out of that number eighty proposals at least have been declined as unsuitable. That is evidence which I am anxious your Lordships should consider, in order to realise that this is not a formal matter, or one which slips through as a matter of course. Where practical difficulties have proved to be considerable, or where practical objections have proved to be real, and union is considered to be undesirable, the proposals have not been approved. If you pass this Resolution and let the Measure become an Act it will do two things. It will consolidate what is a rather complicated state of things, and it will provide new machinery, or improved machinery, for doing much better the work which during these five years we have been doing. That is the principle and purport of this Measure. I would remind your Lordships what an amount of detailed consideration such a question requires, and the amount of consideration which has already been given to it.
I may interpolate a word or two to say that I rejoice in what has been said as to the recognition of the right and privilege and duty of the Houses of Parliament to exercise absolute freedom of

865
judgment on the final rejection or acceptance of Measures which come before it in this way. In no sense do I wish to regard what we are doing as a matter of formality. If your Lordships see good reason for rejecting this Measure, reject it, but do it with the knowledge of the elaborate care which has been given to it by others, and because you see reasons for departing from the conclusions that they have reached.
There is one part of the Measure upon which I wish to say a word or two. Your Lordships are aware that there already exists the power, in certain cases, of taking away a portion of the income which belongs to one parish and giving it to another parish which may have a larger population and smaller endowment, which is immediately adjacent, or in the same diocese, and which ought in the opinion of the authorities to receive a portion of the emoluments going to the richer of the two parishes. This Measure would make the doing of that at once more easy to investigate, and perhaps in some cases more easy to effect, but let nobody suppose that in doing that we are introducing anything new. Not only have we, for more than five years, been doing it with regard to certain parishes where conditions of a restricted kind rendered it possible, but it is the very principle upon which, for more than eighty years, we have proceeded in Church finance generally. When the Ecclesiastical Commission was formed in the earlier decades of the last century, arrangements were made, where it was found that the emoluments were coining in a large degree to quarters where there were not adequate means of using them, while others were in need of more emoluments, that we should be able to use what has been commonly called the "shaving" of the larger property with a view to providing for the less well endowed.
That is the principle on which the Ecclesiastical Commission took steps with regard to bishoprics, cathedrals, and canonries, and a very large number of parishes. But in this Measure we render the plan capable of being worked in a rather more regular and thorough way, and with full investigation before the action is taken. And it is only to be taken, even after this Measure becomes law, with one very
866
marked restriction. We do not touch any emoluments which have come to a parish or area in modern times. Nothing, great or small, that has been given to a parish since the year 1800, that is 125 years ago, can be taken away from it except by some special legislative enactment. This Measure would not empower us to do it. We deal only with those properties which have come down with regard to a particular parish or area from long, long ago, when circumstances may have been entirely different from what they are to-day. That is one condition which belongs to all this readjustment of income. The further condition which belongs to it is that the thing must be thoroughly investigated, and a large number of assents have to be secured both from central quarters and from local representatives, both of patrons and of people. The thing is to be thoroughly gone into by them before a consent is given.
I have purposely put it in general terms. The matter is much more technical and detailed. The Measure is a full one, which works out all these details in a consolidating way. The previous Acts would cease to operate, the new Act would come into operation, and, I believe, would come into operation effectively and well. The whole proposal is the outcome of an immensely long consideration of a very difficult subject, by most competent men who have gone into it carefully and believe that the Measure, as finally drawn, will effect what we want to do, and effect it without inflicting any hardship, while doing great good to the Church at large. I hope your Lordships will pass the Resolution.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Union of Benefices Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in this case the Crown has authorised the Government to place its rights at the disposal of Parliament. These rights are affected in this instance less in the case of the patronage of the Lord Chancellor than in the case of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Crown, as your Lordships know, has large possessions under two titles—jure coronæ and jure, ducatus. In

867
jure ducatus the Crown has large patronage in the Duchy of Lancaster which will be, I think, more affected by this Measure than any other patronage over which the Crown exercises dominion. However, the view of the Government is that this is a thoroughly useful Measure.
In one respect, I congratulate the most rev. Primate on the Government under whoso auspices he brings it forward. If I were to take your Lordships through the forty-eight clauses of this Measure, you would find that it is a Measure of a highly Socialistic character. It regards the interest of the Church as a whole to the utter disregard of the interest of individuals. That is in accordance with the tendency of the time, not only in the Church, but I think in an increasing degree in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, is one of the few supporters of the old tradition of the early Victorian period, and it is enough to bring the early Victorian Peers from their graves to see such a Measure as this brought before your Lordships. Property is dealt with discreetly and wisely, but it is emphatically proclaimed that it has its duties as well as its rights. But it is not a Measure of Parliament. Now, all that your Lordships are asked to do is to give your assent to this Measure going forward for Royal Assent.
I am entirely in favour of this Measure, and I speak with some practical knowledge of it. I suppose that I have a larger amount of patronage to deal with than anybody else in the country, and what causes me pain is the number of small livings for which I have to find incumbents, where the income is £100 or £150 per year, and perhaps a large vicarage. In those circumstances cruel hardship is inflicted, and it is more cruel because very often there is a small benefice next door with which my benefice could most easily be united, but I have no power. Now it is in the hands of the Church, which, I have no doubt, will exercise its jurisdiction very fairly. I think the Measure is thoroughly useful, and I commend it to your Lordships' consideration for the broad reasons which the most rev. Primate put before your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS MEASURE, 1923.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg to move, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. This Resolution deals with what we know as the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure, which is of all the three, from my point of view at least, at once the most important and the most urgent. It does not affect the larger principles, but it is more important than either of the other two, and the matter is one in regard to which it is urgent that we should get something passed quickly into law. I have for over half a century been engaged, as a member of ecclesiastical bodies, in ecclesiastical discussions, and any of your Lordships who, like myself, have been in such debates will find it difficult to recall a single week of such discussions in which the dilapidation question has not figured largely. It has been the common talk of every ecclesiastical gathering, because the difficulty is a ceaseless one; the hardship and the inequality have been real, and the desire to amend it has been real, but the practical way of doing it has been found quite extraordinarily difficult.
My fellow-countrymen north of the Tweed long ago settled this question as regards the Established Church of Scotland in a much more drastic manner. They relieved the incumbent altogether of liability, either for his house or for the incidental expenses of his church fabric, and so on. The whole of this falls upon the heritors, the ratepayers of the parish, that is, and not upon the parson at all. But England has never taken that line and the burden has lain, however it has been apportioned, upon the clergy, and not upon their parishioners.
Under the present law every incumbent is liable for the upkeep of his residence, however large, and when he vacates the benefice, if he has not adequately attended to the upkeep during his tenure of it, the expense that falls upon him may be very large indeed. In order to avoid that he is given power of having an inspection made every five years, and if, in accordance with the results of that inspection, he then effects the improve-

869
ments which are necessary, he is entirely free from liability, whatever happens during the five years that ensue. But a great many clergy, with the best of intentions, find it exceedingly difficult to invite these periodical inspections and to raise the money to meet them. Therefore, without any evil intent on his part, when a benefice is vacated by an incumbent or the incumbent dies, the liability may be very large. No system could be worse than the one which at that moment throws upon the shoulders of an out-going man or of his widow (which is still worse) the liability for the expenditure, possibly, of a very considerable sum of money. We have long striven to find some mode of altering the system of this compulsory payment of large sums of money at a moment when, perhaps, that payment is most inconvenient or difficult to make.
The remedy appeared to be a system of annual payments of a reasonable amount which would ensure the proper upkeep of the house. I need not go into the reasons here and now, but it has been found extraordinarily difficult to arrange either for the proper assessment of what that amount should be, or for the enforcement of the annual payment when it became due, or, what is exceedingly important, how to start the matter by getting all the premises and houses into good order. If you are going to set up a system of annual payments you are met by the immense difficulty of starting fair, of making a beginning with the houses in good order and everything in proper condition. Until now it has been insuperably difficult to get over all those complications and to produce a Measure which would enable a payment to be made annually and to be enforceable to a reasonable amount, and to bring to an end these large payments which have to be made at inconvenient moments.
This Measure deals with that with the greatest care. We believe that we have devised a mode alike of consolidating the very complicated Acts which exist at present, and of originating new measures to meet the particular difficulties and to remove the unfair inequalities which exist between one benefice and another in this connection. We do it, roughly speaking, by setting up in every diocese a dilapidations board which will consider the whole question in each case and make the
870
arrangements prescribed in the Act for securing the annual payment of the quota by the incumbents concerned, who will, of course, in addition be liable for what is called wilful waste or gross neglect of a culpable kind. That will not fall under the annual payment. We believe that we have devised here a method, very elaborate and necessarily somewhat technical in detail, by which the thing can be done.
If it is said that we shall still leave upon the shoulders of an incumbent a burden which he will find it difficult to bear because, though the sum is a small one, it will have to be paid annually, my answer—I may be mistaken—is that once it is realised that, for a small annual payment, an incumbent who is doing his work properly can be relieved of his liability, by degrees that annual payment of a few pounds will be taken over by the parochial Church council. Nothing could be more proper than that the parochial Church council should take from the shoulders of an incumbent the annual payment of a small sum of money to keep his house in repair. But it is quite another thing to expect a parochial Church council to pay a sum of £300 or perhaps of £500 which may become due on the vacancy of a benefice when the house has been long neglected. Those lump sums cannot be forthcoming, though I believe the small sums will be.
In regard to the first stage, you have, as I have said, to start fair by having the houses put in order. There will be the difficulty of how to get over the first stage when the annual amounts paid in will be very small and the responsibility of putting things right will necessarily be very large. If this Measure becomes law it will give power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to depart so far from the ordinary application of their funds and their customary mode of expenditure as to give a sum, if necessary, of no less than £500,000 to enable a proper start to be made and to assist parishes to put their houses into order now in such a way that the annual payment may start fairly, and with past liabilities practically taken away. We do not want to relieve any one of liabilities which legitimately fall upon him now. We intend for the future to equalise them and to make them annual and not occasional, as they are now. We intend that such liabilities as exist shall still exist, but that they shall be met in a proper way. I can

871
explain more of the difficulties if necessary, but if it could be said that the last Measure, the Union of Benefices Measure, was difficult, it can be said with far greater force of this one. Be that as it may, if the Measure receives the Royal Assent I believe that we shall have rolled away one of the greatest difficulties from the path of the practical administration of the work of the Church, which has bothered and irritated the administrative side of the Church for many years past. I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure, 1923, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a subject which has troubled those who are responsible in the Church for a very long time. There are few more cruel situations than that which arises when a clergyman who is leaving his benefice, or his widow if he is dead, is called upon to pay for dilapidations. This Measure does not make any very great alteration in the law, but it enables what is necessary to be done. The Measure is a long and complicated one, and, fortunately, I am not called upon to explain it. Even my noble friend Lord Banbury would expend his ingenuity in vain in an attempt to get inside it. The Government fully assent to it as a Measure which puts the clergy of the Church of England in a better position than they are in at present.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly,

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I have to propose the Motions which stand in my name. Your Lordships are accustomed to agree to these Motions without going into any details, although I have them all here with me. A Committee is about to sit to deal with what I will not call the formalities but the procedure in these cases, and when next it is my duty to propose Motions of this kind it may be that I shall have to occupy more of your Lordships' time than I propose to do now.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Freshwater Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 21st May, and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Urban District Council of Poultonle-Fylde, which was presented on the 20th May, and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution of which Notice has been given.
Moved, That the Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, constituting the East-Midlands Electricity District and establishing the East Midlands Electricity Advisory Board, which was presented on the 8th day of April, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEST INDIAN ISLANDS (TELEGRAPH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1.
Extension of powers of Pacific Cable Board.
1.—(1) The Pacific Cable Board may, subject to the approval of each of the Govern-

873
ments represented on the Board, undertake as agents for and at the expense of the Governments of any parts of His Majesty's Dominions any work in connection with telegraphic communication, whether by means of cables or by means of wireless telegraphy, without any restriction as to the geographical limit of their operations:
Provided that the accounts of any work so undertaken shall be kept separate and distinct, from all other accounts of the Board.
(2) Any work undertaken by the Board as agents for His Majesty's Government before the commencement of this Act in connection with any trans-atlantic cable worked by that Government shall be deemed to have been within the powers of the Board.
(3) The Board, in the event of its undertaking work in connection with telegraphic communication in the West Indies, shall have power to provide and supply to the West Indies a news service similar to the news service supplied by telegraph companies at the commencement of this Act.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had an. Amendment on the Paper to omit from subsection (1) the words "without any restriction as to the geographical limit of their operations" and to insert "in the West Indian Islands and British Guiana". The noble Lord said: The Bill as it stands confers great powers upon the Government. It enables them to make cables or wireless communications all over the world, and I think I shall be able to show your Lordships later on that that is an unnecessary and dangerous power to grant to the Government. On the Second Reading of the Bill Lord Arnold said:
"It is not at present contemplated, however, that the Board should be asked to undertake any other work than cable and wireless communications in the West Indies."
The Amendment that I have put down is designed to carry into effect the wishes of the Government, but since I put that Amendment down Lord Arnold has been good enough to see me upon the matter, and he has suggested that my Amendment does not go quite far enough. I asked Lord Arnold if he could tell me what Amendment would go far enough, and he gave me these words instead of those in my Amendment:
"within their existing sphere of operations in the Pacific and Caribbean areas."
With the leave of the House I would alter my Amendment, in order to bring it into conformity with the wishes of the Government on that particular point.
I am very much obliged, if he will allow me to say so, to Lord Arnold for the courtesy which he has shown in discussing the matter with me. I do not wish to convey to your Lordships the impression that the Government intend to accept my Amendment even though it is drafted in their own words. I am not quite certain what it is they are going to do, because Lord Arnold has told me that if he accepts my Amendment it will be necessary that this Bill should be returned to another place and he is afraid there might be some difficulty and delay in consequence. He has very kindly offered to give me an assurance that the Government do not intend to go beyond the Amendment which I have just outlined to your Lordships. However, I venture to say that an assurance in this House, given by the Government in perfect good faith, though it might bind the present Government, could not be held to bind any succeeding Governments. We do not know how long the present Government is going to last, and I dare say our views as to the desirability of its length of life are somewhat different, but I think it is quite certain that any pledge given by this Government, or by any Government which is in power for the moment, could not bind a succeeding Government. Therefore, if we desire to ensure what I hope I shall be able to prove is necessary, we must have this Amendment in the Bill.
For myself I do not think that there is likely to be any delay in another place. I do not suppose that supporters of the Conservative Party in another place would oppose an Amendment coming from this side of the House, and as the Amendment carries out what the Government desires I feel certain that the supporters of the Government in another place would not oppose it. I am almost inclined to say that if I was in another place I could get this through in a very few moments. But even if there is likely to be a little delay, I might call your Lordships' attention to subsection (2) of Clause 1 in the Bill which says—
"Any work undertaken by the Board as agents for His Majesty's Government before the commencement of this Act in connection with any trans-atlantic cable worked by that Government shall be deemed to have been within the powers of the Board."
I do not think that is a good provision; whitewashing of that sort is not good. But if the clause is passed in the form in

875
which it appears in the Bill the Government need not be afraid of any little delay that might occur.
I have not been able quite accurately to discover the whole amount of capital invested in cable and wireless communications by private companies, but I shall be under-stating the amount if I say that it is about £30,000,000. Is it advisable to put a clause like this in a Bill which would enable a Government to start in competition all over the world with existing private companies? Suppose that an undertaking is given that they will not do it without coming again to Parliament, is not the fact that a clause of that sort is in a Bill which has been sanctioned by Parliament likely to stop private enterprise and to discourage the further development of cable and wireless communications in the world by private enterprise?
Lord Arnold was good enough to say that he would give me the undertaking that no Government should extend their operations beyond what I am prepared to give them without coming to Parliament. But may I point out to your Lordships what would happen if this Bill, without my Amendment, became law? The Bill gives sanction to the Government to make cable or wireless communications anywhere all over the world, and all that would be necessary would be to get the money. As Lord Arnold pointed out to me, nothing could be done unless money was obtained. Money would have to be obtained by Parliament. Yes, but by one House of Parliament only. All that would be necessary if this Bill became an Act would be, not for this Government, of course, if they give the undertaking, but another Government to put down a Vote in Supply authorising the expenditure of a certain sum on a cable—in competition with private enterprise very likely—and your Lordships would have nothing to say to it. It is a Vote in Supply, and this House would be debarred from expressing its opinion on what, I think, is an important matter. If your Lordships pass the Amendment that I suggest, you do not debar the Government from doing what they are desirous of doing at the present moment, but you do reserve in your own hands the power of saying, should they desire to do anything further later on, that they must bring in a Bill. That Bill would come
876
before this House as well as the other House. I shall be glad to answer any questions if I have not put the matter clearly. In the meantime I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("telegraphy") to the end of line 13, and insert ("within their existing sphere of operations in the Pacific and Caribbean areas").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): The noble Lord, on the Second Reading of this Bill last week, raised this point, and I ventured respectfully to point out to him that he had read into the Bill a good deal more than was there. As a matter of fact, he has done precisely the same thing this afternoon. On the Second Reading he told your Lordships that the Bill gave power to lay cables against private companies, to instal wireless stations against private companies, and so forth, and he has told you the same thing to-day. But that is not so. The Bill does not empower the Government to lay a single yard of cable or to put up a single mast for wireless stations. All that the Bill does is to allow the Pacific Cable Board to work any cable or system at the request of any Government of His Majesty's Dominions. In view of the conversations I have had with the noble Lord, who was good enough to give me time to put the position before him, I have great hopes that he will not press this Amendment, particularly having regard to the pledge which I am prepared to give, and which, I think, is sufficient to allay any reasonable, or I might add any unreasonable, apprehension on this matter. I am prepared to go a long way in order to meet the noble Lord.
At the same time, I am most strongly opposed to the insertion of an actual Amendment, owing to the fact that the passage of this Bill is urgently needed. Any Amendment whatever, however harmless or innocent, does involve considerable delay. The Bill would have to go back to another place and, having regard to the position of business, delay is inevitable. I have said that it is desirable that the Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment, and I will tell your Lordships why. There are many essential preliminaries to be got through before the cable can be open for the traffic in the autumn. A staff must

877
be engaged, agreements as to traffic must be made with other cable authorities, rates must be settled in the agreement with the Government or with the other cable authorities concerned. All these things take a long time to arrange and negotiate, as your Lordships will appreciate, and the Board cannot deal with them until Parliament gives it power to do so by passing this Bill. The present arrangement comes to an end in September, so that time is pressing. I submit that in the circumstances it is only reasonable to ask the noble Lord to be satisfied with a pledge instead of an Amendment. I was so hopeful of his doing so—unfortunately, this is a world in which human expectations are frequently falsified—that I did not to-day, owing to great pressure of work, see him with regard to a slight change in the words of the Amendment, not a change which will alter the sense but which would be better in an Act of Parliament.
The definite pledge which I am prepared to give is this: That the Pacific Cable Board will not use the powers under this Bill to operate any cable or wireless telegraph system outside the present area of the Board's operations and outside the Caribbean area without coming to Parliament on the subject. I maintain that that pledge is sufficient to meet any apprehensions which may be entertained. It would mean that the Pacific Cable Board would not, without coming to Parliament, go outside its present area of operations in the Pacific and outside the Caribbean area. As the noble Lord has been good enough to say that if this were inserted in the form of an Amendment he would accept it, I do not think I need take up your time in order to explain why these precise words have been adopted. At the present time there is a project for putting up a wireless station at Montserrat, which is within the area of the West Indies. It, would link up with that system and would be worked by the Pacific Cable Board. I am sure your Lordships will not think it necessary in the case of a small change of that kind to come to Parliament for a new Bill, Unless the undertaking is worded in this way—or the Amendment if it came to an Amendment—strictly speaking, it would be necessary to come to Parliament again.
I want to deal with the extremely interesting point referred to by the noble
878
Lord as to what might happen in Supply. As your Lordships are aware, before any new cable of any size could be constructed or any new wireless telegraph system put up by the Government, it would he necessary to proceed by way of a Money Resolution in another place as precedent to a Bill. The noble Lord's apprehension appears to be that a small Estimate of this kind might be slipped through in Supply. I do not think that is so, except in regard to a very small sum. Any operation of any magnitude would necessitate a Money Resolution followed by a Bill. But if that is not so, if the noble Lord is right, I submit that there is no conflict as between that procedure and this Bill. I do not think there is any substance in the point. I do not think it could be done except in connection with some very small amount. It might be done under the Post Office Estimate, but you could not put an amount of any real magnitude. For any considerable scheme you would have to proceed in the ordinary way by a Money Resolution and a Bill, which means coming to Parliament again. In any case, if it was done in an Estimate for Supply it means that the subject is open for debate in another place. I submit that the noble Lord has ample protection there.
The present arrangement comes to an end in September, and there is a great deal of work to be done before then—work which will take a long time. If there is delay, if this Bill has to go back because of a perfectly innocent Amendment, which in normal circumstances we should have no objection to accepting, there may be considerable delay. Then there is a grave risk of the failure of telegraphic communication with the West Indies, with all the resulting dislocation of business, and of administration, quite apart from private matters. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. If he does I ask the House to support the Government in resisting it.
Let me put this point. I think the Government, and the officials who have all these various matters to arrange, are entitled to some consideration because of circumstances for which they are not responsible. This Bill ought to have been introduced last autumn. It is the Bill of the late Government, and no time

879
has been lost by the present Government in connection with it. It has been pressed forward as fast as possible. In these circumstances I think the Government is entitled to support. The pledge, as I have given it, is specific and ample. It will not only bind the present Government, but it will bind future Governments. Even if it did not bind future Governments there are other safeguards in the procedure which would have to be followed. In all the circumstances, I feel compelled to resist this Amendment as strongly as I can. I would ask the noble Lord to accept the pledge as an alternative, but, if he will not do so, and presses the Amendment to a Division, we shall feel compelled to resist it, for the reasons which I have put before your Lordships' House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out that I think the noble Lord is wrong in his description of that which will take place in Supply? A Vote in Supply has to be confirmed by an Act of Parliament. But here is the Act. Under this Bill you have power to do certain things, and all you want is the money. Consequently, if this Bill becomes an Act, all that will be required is a Vote in Supply which has already been confirmed by the Bill which you are considering to-day and which will become an Act. The noble Lord has quite frankly said that this is an innocent Amendment, and that he would be prepared to accept it if it were not that he thought that a little time would be lost. This is, in some ways, perhaps, a minor question, but it is too big a thing to reject merely because you might lose a little time in sending the Bill back to another place. In those circumstances, if I can get any one to tell with me, I am afraid that I must press the Amendment to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a very familiar difficulty with which the noble Lord has presented us. He is requesting your Lordships' House to legislate under duress. Of the merits of this Bill I have, of course, no doubt whatever. The noble Lord, the Under-Secretary, has said with truth that this is a Bill of the late Government, and I have no doubt of its general merits. Of the specific necessity of having better arrangements in respect of the West Indies I have personal knowledge, for I have been there and
880
know what complaints are made, and I am sure that the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary, will not think that I wish in any way to depreciate the importance and value of this Bill.
The point is a very small one. It is whether your Lordships are to put in an Amendment which is admittedly a good Amendment—not only my noble friend who moved it but the Government also have said that they think it a good Amendment—or whether we should be content with a Parliamentary understanding, given with all proper solemnity by the representative of the Government. I confess that I should be very reluctant indeed to advise your Lordships to take any course which would really imperil this Bill, because I know its importance, but I do think that it is taking very strong measures to say to a House of Parliament: "This is a good Amendment, but we ask you not to put it in because the result would be that the Bill would go back to another place." If that contention were put forward, let us say, towards the end of July, then I am very familiar with the observations that would be made. Your Lordships are generally very generous in abandoning your rights towards the end of July in the interests of the country. But surely it is rather a strong proceeding to use that argument at the beginning of June. It really is a strong measure to come to your Lordships and say: "This is a good Amendment, but at the beginning of June there is a risk that the Bill will not pass into law if you insert it."
I cannot advise your Lordships to withhold your judgment in this matter when there is an enormous amount of time before the Session comes to an end. The Government have told us that the actual moment when the existing system lapses is in September. No doubt there is a great deal to be done before September, but there is a very large margin of time. I cannot say that I think it would be proper for your Lordships not to pass an Amendment (which is admittedly a good one) on the plea put forward by the Government. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I doubt for a moment his good faith in the assurance that he gives to the House that the Government would act upon the Amendment even if it were not inserted. But the remarks of my noble friend behind me are perfectly

881
true. This Government cannot bind a future Government, and understandings are awkward things which often lead to recriminations later. All sorts of misunderstandings arise as to the exact meaning of pledges given. Although they may be given in perfect good faith, yet difficulties arise afterwards. It is better, if you possibly can, to have your arrangements in the form of an Act of Parliament. I am afraid that I cannot take any other view than that which I have ventured to put to your Lordships.
LORD EMMOTT: May I ask the noble Lord opposite whether there is to be a Royal Commission to-morrow, and, if not, what possible harm there can be in this matter being left over Whitsuntide? I have not heard that there will be a Royal Commission to-morrow. In that case there will be none until June 24 or afterwards, and there will be plenty of time for the House of Commons to deal with this Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: To reply, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, who has just spoken, I think it is only fair to point out that, even if this Bill went back to another place as soon as it could, there is no guarantee whatever that the business which has to be done and all the matters which have to be considered there would allow it to pass speedily. The Amendment might be the subject of debate and an opportunity might have to be found for it. The noble Lord is well aware of what that means, and what difficulties it often causes the Government. I certainly could not give any pledge that this Bill would come back here speedily. It might not return for weeks if it went down to another place.
I endeavoured to prove that this Amendment is not really required even without the pledge. If I may say so with respect, there is really very little substance in the noble Lord's contention, because I still maintain that practically every other project would have to come before Parliament one way or another, and. could then be discussed on its merits before there was any question of the Pacific Cable Board coming in to perform work other than that which I have outlined or outside the sphere of their existing operations. The noble Marquess has indicated that he does not see his way to support the Government. He
882
suggests that there is ample time—a large margin of time. I can assure him that that is not the case. There is a very great deal to be done. The matter is most urgent, and if this Bill is to go back to another place it is possible that the most serious dislocation to the telegraphic system in that part of the world may be occasioned. There is only one other remark which I think I need add, and that is that, if it should be the case that this Amendment is carried against the Government, the noble Lord will, I know, understand that it is subject to the actual wording being amended on Report, that being a matter which it was not necessary to determine precisely to-day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, In moving the Second Reading of this Bill to amend the existing law in regard to the management of the Imperial Institute, I will briefly relate the course of events which have made necessary the enactment at the present time of further legislation in connection with this institution. Early last year, the late Secretary of State for the Colonies found himself obliged, by reason of the withdrawal of certain oversea contributions and the consequent financial difficulties of the Imperial Institute, to appoint a strong Committee of Inquiry with very comprehensive terms of reference, to consider the whole question of the future of the Institute and its relations to other research organisations in the country. After a prolonged and exhaustive inquiry, this Committee, which included among others three noble Lords, Lords Islington, Kylsant, and Stevenson, recommended extensive changes in the management and organisation of the Imperial Institute and the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau. Their Report, which has subsequently been laid before Parliament, was considered by the Imperial Economic Conference in the autumn of last year, and their scheme of re-organisation was, subject to one or two modifications in

883
matters of detail, recommended by the Conference for adoption by the various Governments of the Empire.
The Bill which is now before your Lordships' House is designed to give effect to the recommendations of the Conference. These were, briefly, to the effect that the Imperial Institute should be re-organised, that the exhibition galleries should be closed, and that a new governing body should be established in place of the present Executive Council; that the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau should be amalgamated with the Institute in order to avoid duplication and overlapping of work on mineral subjects; that the Governments of the Empire should contribute in agreed proportions to the combined institution; and that the Imperial Institute when re-organised should be made responsible not to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as at present, but to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. Other minor reforms recommended by the Conference have already been effected by administrative action, but as regards the more important changes described above, legislation is necessary, both because the composition of the present governing body is fixed by Statute—the Imperial Institute (Management) Act, 1916—and because the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau cannot be amalgamated with the Institute until the Charter of the Bureau has been repealed.
Owing to representations from some of the Dominions it has been decided not to act upon one of the recommendations of the Economic Conference for the future of the Imperial Institute. I refer to the recommendation that the exhibition galleries of Empire resources at South Kensington should be closed. The Conference acquiesced in their closing for financial reasons, although even then complete unanimity was not attained on this point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The only point upon which complete unanimity was not attained.
LORD ARNOLD: That is so. Since last November, however, the majority of the Dominion Governments have changed their attitude. They have expressed the desire that the galleries should be retained and have declared their readiness to make the additional proportionate
884
contributions required for their maintenance. The financial situation has been further relieved by a most generous offer of the noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, to furnish a sum of £5,000 for a period of five years towards the upkeep of the galleries. His Majesty's Government have decided, after communication with the Dominion Governments, that in the altered conditions there would be no justification for adhering to the conclusions of the Economic Conference in regard to the closing of the galleries. Provision has therefore been made in this Bill for the maintenance of the galleries and for the payment of the additional contributions towards their maintenance required from the Imperial Exchequer.
I do not think it is necessary for me to consider in detail the clauses of the Bill because they merely carry out the scheme I have outlined and they do not appear to call for special comment. I must, however, say a few words about the financial provisions of the Bill, because without some such explanation I cannot make the position reasonably clear. It is estimated that the cost of maintaining the institution in its new form after amalgamation with the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau and allowing for the continuance of the exhibition galleries as at present, will be approximately £44,000 per annum. To meet this expenditure, the Institute will provide from its own resources—the interest on the endowment fund, the North Gallery annuity, and fees for work done at the Institute—an estimated amount of about £6,000 per annum. A contribution of £5,000 for five years is also assured as a result of the generous offer of Lord Cowdray of which I have spoken. An amount of £33,000 therefore remains to be raised by fixed annual grants for a period of five years from the various Governments of the Empire. This sum of £33,000 will be obtained in almost equal shares from three main groups of contributory Governments—namely, the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India, and the Colonies and Protectorates. The United Kingdom's share, which will be slightly larger than that of the other groups, is estimated at an amount not exceeding £12,000 per annum, of which £9,000 will be provided for the main work of the Institute, and the remainder as a contribution towards the upkeep of the exhibition galleries.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that the great Dominions do not subscribe to the maintenance of the galleries? The noble Lord used the phrase "the Colonies and Protectorates." He did not say "Dominions."
LORD ARNOLD: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to point out that I did. I said the sum of £33,000 would be obtained in almost equal shares from three main groups of contributory Governments: first, the United Kingdom, secondly, the Dominions and India, and thirdly, the Colonies and Protectorates.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was my mistake.
LORD ARNOLD: Broadly speaking, that is the present scheme. There are two forms of contribution, but I do not think I need go into details of that kind. In conclusion, I would impress upon your Lordships that the passage of this Bill is imperatively needed, because the present financial position of the Institute is precarious, and the Dominion and Indian contributions cannot be secured until effect has been given by legislation in the Imperial Parliament to the recommendations of the Economic Conference. Indeed, the Institute would be obliged to close its doors unless these contributions were assured for the current year. The Government is confident, however, that the scheme of re-organisation which this Bill is designed to carry out is one that will commend itself to your Lordships' House, because it should ensure for the Institute a future of increasing usefulness in the important work which it is intended to perform for the Empire. I think, too, that your Lordships will consider it most appropriate that the year which will be memorable for the opening of the Empire Exhibition at Wembley should also be identified with the reform of a great Imperial institution which was established to commemorate the Jubilee of Queen Victoria in 1887. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD SHANDON: My Lords, there is a matter in connection with the Bill as it stands that I think you would desire to have brought before you, and, having regard to the statement made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, it seems
886
still more desirable that I should mention it, although to a certain extent it may seem rather a technical matter. The noble Lord stated very clearly and frankly that it was not intended that these galleries should be discontinued, but that they should continue in their sphere of usefulness, with the addition of a sum to be devoted by Parliament for that purpose. I am sure that His Majesty's Government and the noble Lord intended and desired that that should be so, but he has mentioned that a very considerable sum per annum is also to be supplied through the generosity of a member of your Lordships' House—a private source.
Accordingly, it occurred to me that it would be most desirable to look carefully to see whether there may not have been, as I think there has been, a slip in the drafting of the Bill, perhaps due to the fact that it was originally drafted in one form and is now hurriedly adapted to the altered conditions of the case. Be that as it may, I should like to explain why I think that, in Committee at any rate, it will be necessary to make some much clearer declarations as to the objects of the Statute than are contained in the Bill as it stands.
The Acts under which the Imperial Institute are managed are two. There is an Act of 1902 and an Act of 1916. The Act of 1002 is the Statute which, for the most part, states the objects upon which the funds are to be used and employed. These funds, so far as I can see, amounted about 1902 to something like £140,000 in cash. There were also the valuable buildings at South Kensington. At that time I do not think the collections had come into existence. That is a matter, however, upon which I cannot enlighten your Lordships. But the scheme of that Act is set out very clearly in one section, because it is provided (and it is recited in the present Bill) that the moneys and the property are to be applied for "such other similar purposes as the Secretary of State for the Colonies may determine having regard to the commercial, industrial and educational interests of the Empire." That is a statutory enactment in the Act of 1902.
The present Bill is "an Act to amend the law with respect to the management

887
of the Imperial Institute." But it amends the law by repealing in toto the Act of 1902 and the Act of 1916, and, accordingly, if it becomes law, we are left entirely to the construction of this Bill itself to ascertain what purposes are to be fulfilled. It seems to me perfectly clear that, as the Bill stands, there would be a grave doubt whether the purposes for which these buildings and galleries have been used in the past and the purposes for which they are to be further endowed, as stated by the noble Lord, both from public and private sources, will be carried out. I think it is due possibly to an original drafting and subsequent amendment.
The old Acts having been repealed in toto, we must see now what are the purposes of the Imperial Institute. Its purposes are described by Clause 4 to be the purposes set out in the First Schedule. When you turn to the Schedule you find a number of very useful and proper purposes, but to my mind you do not find the exact purpose for which the Institute has been carried on, and for which it was originally established. The purposes are, firstly, the collection of information relating to possible uses of raw materials, markets, sources of production, the best means of increasing supplies, the best means of treating materials, and technical and scientific information bearing upon the industries of the British Empire. The purpose of the Institute is certainly not in that. Further, the Schedule states among the purposes of the Institute that it is intended to advise on the development of the resources of the Empire in raw materials, to conduct preliminary investigations of raw materials, to collect samples of raw materials, and to cooperate with other agencies within the Empire for similar purposes.
Then comes the only clause which by any construction could be held to refer to the galleries, the exhibition and the educational work carried on: "To organise, so far as practicable, exhibitions of Empire products." Obviously that is not it. That means the organisation of ordinary exhibitions of objects produced in the Empire. Lastly, there is this: "To do anything incidental" to these purposes. I hazard the view that the original intention of the Statute was to carry out, first, the Report of the Commission, and it did it very effectually, but afterwards,
888
when some of the Colonies and, I suppose, others interested in the matter, put their view before His Majesty's Government, it was thought desirable to introduce words which might cover the work which had been done previously by the Imperial Institute.
Let us see what that work was. When I say "the Imperial Institute" I mean the galleries of the Imperial Institute. First, there were exhibition galleries containing rows of bottles of products and things of that kind, which were all very interesting and useful, and were intended to be kept going. But another and far more important purpose was subserved by the galleries and that is the purpose which, in my opinion, is not properly preserved by this Bill—the educational part of the galleries. There is not one word in the Schedule about education, and you are bound hand and foot by the Schedule, because Clause 4 says that the Imperial Institute building, and all the property and all the sums received are to be applied by the responsible Minister, so far as practicable, in carrying out the purposes set forth in the First Schedule to the Bill. No matter what may have been the intentions of the draughtsman, the purposes of the Bill are perfectly clear and do not include an educational exhibition at all. The purposes of the Act are those named in the Schedule and nothing more. You cannot construe an Act by reference to a general idea that because something was done in the past you can continue it in the future. You cannot construe it in that way unless the purposes of the Act are clearly so defined. Consequently, it would seem to me to be absolutely necessary when the Bill comes into Committee that its purposes should be clearly defined so as to include the existing educational purpose for which, unquestionably, those galleries were largely constructed and have been used.
What was the nature of that educational purpose? I take an interest in museums and I have frequently gone to the Institute to see the museum. It is not a bit like anything that is in this Bill. It consists mainly of a collection of instructional material—maps, and everything which will show those who visit the museum what the Colonies are like and for what they are fitted. Above all, it impresses upon the minds of those who intend to leave this country for the

889
Colonies what they have to face, and what are the physical, geographical, and ethnological conditions and the proper productions of those places. That is not a matter of gallipots in a row. It is a question of co-ordinating the exhibits so that they can be used from day to day for purposes of practical instruction. These exhibits are used for that purpose, and anybody who takes the trouble to visit the museum on any day of the week will see parties of children and others receiving actual instruction. Those children have afterwards to show their proficiency in the acquisition of the information so given. That is the great work which these galleries are carrying out at present. I can understand that there was no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government that this instruction should not be continued. But whatever their intention was, I wish to point out that in my judgment it; is not sufficiently carried out in the Bill.
Two points may be urged against what I have said. The first is that there is in the Preamble to the Bill a general statement to this effect—
"And whereas it is desirable to empower the governing body hereinafter constituted of the Imperial Institute, in co-operation with the Governments represented at that Conference, or such of them as for the time being may be making contributions for the purpose, to maintain galleries for the exhibition of Empire products."
Maintaining the gallery for the exhibition of Empire products is certainly not what some of us are at, and I hardly think it can be what the private donor is at. The idea is to carry on this exhibition as I have described it and not merely for the exhibition of Empire products, of which I spoke just now, without any disrespect, as a row of bottles and gallipots and things of that kind. That is what it would come to. It is not commercial.
The next point is far more material—namely, that a Preamble which is in itself sufficient cannot control the clear words of the Act. As I understand the law the Preamble to an Act of Parliament can be used to construe the Act if the Act is ambiguous. If the Act is not ambiguous then there is an end of it. The only clause that seems to me to suggest that the Act might be considered to be ambiguous is the financial clause which provides that
890
"There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament—
such additional sum (if any) towards the maintenance of exhibition galleries"—
and so on. In the first place, exhibition galleries are not at all the same thing as the galleries of an instructional character that have been carried on hitherto at the Imperial Institute, and, unquestionably, if it was a question of construction, I should think that the galleries which were intended to be dealt with by the moneys voted by Parliament were galleries of such a character as would carry out the purposes of the Act, and as I do not find them there I should think it is extremely doubtful whether the contribution, if any, provided by Parliament, or the provisions of the Schedule, got rid of the difficulty.
Shortly stated, that is what occurs to me. If I am right, and I think I am, it is very important. I hardly think that the Government would be unwilling to frame the clause in such a way as to give effect to what I think most of us believe was the intention after some of the Colonies had stated that they did not desire that the whole of the original Report of the Commission—I think it was a Commission should be carried out. I mention it now, and at such length, in order to show clearly what my view is, so that the noble Lord and those who advise him may consider the matter. As at present advised, I should think it absolutely necessary, if I had any support, to place Amendments on the Paper which would make the Bill perfectly clear on this point. It is admitted now that it is intended that these galleries shall be continued for instructional and educational purposes. Then let us have it in the Bill so that there may be no doubt about it.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I welcome the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in introducing this Bill and I welcome also the attitude of His Majesty's Government in reference to the Imperial Institute. I was first brought into close, connection with that organisation when I was Under-Secretary for the Colonies from 1911 to 1914. At that time my chief, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the late Lord Harcourt, was a warm friend of the Institute and it was in no danger. I think it was after he had left the Colonial Office that he carried the Bill of 1916 through the House. Under that

891
Act an Advisory Committee was appointed, and I was one of the members of that Committee. How it occurred, or why it occurred, I cannot pretend to say, but the Colonial Office, which was the Department really responsible at that time, adopted for some years a very step-motherly attitude towards the Imperial Institute, and my noble friend Lord Islington, who was Chairman of the Advisory Committee on which I sat, and the whole Committee were more or less constantly fighting the Colonial Office on largo points and small in regard to the Institute. Therefore, I welcome indeed the attitude which has been adopted by the Government, and I welcome the broad lines of the settlement which is proposed in this Bill.
I have no desire to oppose, indeed I support, the Second Reading that the noble Lord has proposed, but my experience of the treatment of this organisation in the past, and the attitude of the Colonial Office of which I was a witness, make me a little careful in scanning the terms of the actual measure which is put before your Lordships' House to-day. There are several points in it which arouse at any rate a spirit of inquiry in one's mind, and on which I think Amendments are likely to be moved in this House or in another place. After all, the Imperial Institute was built from private benefactions. The new trustees are all to be members of the Government. I cannot help thinking that there ought to be some trustees representing unofficial interests, and that the trustees ought not to be entirely confined to members of His Majesty's Government, who, with all due respect to them, are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and are constantly changing.
The next point on which I shall only say a word or two is that which has been so fully and ably dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Shandon—namely, the location of the buildings where the galleries are to be, and the use to which those galleries are to be put. There is no mention in the Bill that those galleries should be in the present building of the Imperial Institute. I think that is what the Government intend shall be the case, and I think it ought to be so stated. Moreover, the words to which my noble and learned friend Lord Shandon referred seem intended to confine the exhibits in those galleries to bottles of
892
specimens of the produce of various kinds of the Dominions. As Lord Shandon suggested, those galleries ought to be conceived on a much broader scale than that. They ought to be capable of having, and ought to set out to have, an educational effect. They ought to show something of what the Empire is. They ought to deal with the suitability of the Dominions for emigration purposes from this country. All that, so far as I can see, is omitted from this Bill, which will require amendment in the Schedule and also in the Preamble. I speak on such a matter with great diffidence, however.
With regard to the question of finance, I do not want to say very much, but I would ask whether it is wise to mention the specific sums which are stated in the Preamble of the Bill. That is a matter into which I have not had time or opportunity to look, but may I say, in passing, how deeply we must all appreciate the great generosity of my noble friend Lord Cowdray in offering £5,000 a year for the support of these galleries? I do not treat the Government as at all hostile to the views which I have endeavoured to put forward; I hope that they will favour them.
The Colonial Secretary is unwell, I am sorry to say, at the present time, although I am glad to hear that he is recovering. I think it advisable that some of those specially interested in the Institute should see him with a view to ascertain if it is not possible to amend this Bill on generally agreed lines. That would probably save time both here and in another place. The House is adjourning to-night, I understand, until June 24. That, in itself, gives some considerable delay. Before June 24 I believe my noble friend Lord Islington, who has done so much for this Institute, will have returned to this country, and I am very anxious that he should be back to take part in the Committee stage of this Bill. Therefore, the practical question I wish to put to Lord Arnold is whether he will see that the Committee stage is put down for a date which will give us time to see the Colonial Secretary and for Lord Islington to return.
THE LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in relation to this Bill, and, in the first place, to express the hope that the matters suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Shandon and Lord

893
Emmott, will receive the full consideration, as I feel they will, of the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill. I rise merely for the purpose of saying a word or two with reference to the proposed amalgamation between the two bodies, the Imperial Institute and the Imperial Bureau of Mineral Resources. I do not intend to detain your Lordships more than a minute or two.
Since the formation of the Bureau of Mineral Resources I have been a member of it, and its Vice-Chairman. The governors of that body have, I think, at least laid the foundation of very good work for the minerals of the Empire, In the first place, it is important to know—and this can be said without in any way depreciating the Imperial Institute—that the Bureau of Mineral Resources was established as the outcome of two Imperial Conferences held, I think, as recently as 1916 and 1917. We may reasonably assume that those Conferences would never have recommended the creation of an Imperial Bureau of Mineral Resources for the Empire, and that the Government of the day would hardly have gone to the trouble of enacting a Royal Charter to give effect to that recommendation, if there was not a need for that body. The Imperial Institute, in other words, could not be doing what it was proposed that the Imperial Bureau of Mineral Resources should do.
Be that as it may, the body was created, and we find that body working for the last five or six years with the object, in the first place, of ascertaining what are the mineral resources of the Empire, and, if possible, finding out why they are not developed—why in an Empire like the British Empire, representing probably a third of the population of the world and with all the money and the minerals that are required in the Empire, those minerals are not being developed. Take two examples only. We have all the iron required to supply not only the Empire but the whole world if necessary, yet last year, with a third of the population of the world, we produced in the Empire less than seven per cent. of the world's requirements of iron. I think the figure for copper was still lower, and it is the same in regard to other minerals.
The point I want to make is that in connection with the Imperial Bureau, and
894
as part of its machinery, we have been able to get together something like 160 experts on all the minerals that the Empire produces, and all these men have been working freely. They represent all the great mineral interests of this country, manufacturers, men engaged in mines, great professors and authorities upon minerals, and we have been able to set up a committee for every mineral—a copper committee, an iron committee, an asbestos committee, a tin committee—and these men have been working freely. That is the point I want to make. Week after week, and mouth after month, they have been making inquiries and researches and bringing the result of their work before the world, particularly before the technical bodies that influence mineral developments. I hope that the Colonial Office in setting up this new machinery, and all the other authorities concerned, will not lose sight of the importance of keeping in touch with these men who, so far, have worked without pay and without recognition, and given their splendid talents and their time to the development of the mineral resources of the Empire. It was with the view of making that point that I rose, and I trust some little attention will be given to it.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I rise just for a few moments in order to draw my noble friend's attention to what I consider is the chief blot on the Bill—namely, that the tropical parts of the Empire, especially Africa, are not in any way represented on the Governing Council. That is a matter which I should like to bring before the attention of the Under-Secretary of State before the Bill is taken in Committee, so that possibly some arrangement might be come to with regard to it. In the original proposal there were to be thirteen members drawn from the various Dominions and elsewhere, and fourteen representatives to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which would enable him to give a fair representation to the Crown Colonies, and especially to tropical Crown Colonies, on the governing body. Under the Bill as it is drawn, that power is taken out of the hands of the Secretary of State. Practically the whole of the members—fourteen—are to be nominated by the Dominions and various Departments, and ten, who are to represent scientific and commercial interests, are to be nominated by the Secretary of State.

895
Having regard to the great importance, from the point of view of raw material, of our tropical Colonies in Africa and elsewhere, there should be some direct representation of them on the governing body, and I rise only to emphasise this point. I am sure my noble friend will give it his sympathetic consideration, and I hope that when we come to Committee we shall be able to obtain more direct representation for these Crown Colonies. They are going to contribute £8,000 a year between them to the expenses, as much as all the Dominions put together; and the Dominions have a full representation. I hope the point will not be lost sight of; and that is why I emphasise it to-day.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: My Lords, the particular point that interests me is the one that will ensure the galleries being retained for the purpose for which they are now used, but with increased usefulness. I see the Bill speaks of "galleries." But galleries may be anywhere, and I assume that the present galleries are intended. The Bill also restricts the galleries to exhibits of Colonial and Dominion products. That limits the purpose of the galleries. At the present time they are very educational and one goes through them with interest, learns something about Colonial life, visualises what exists in the various Colonies, and comes away pleased with the great Empire that is represented there. But if we are merely going to see the products of the Dominions shown in a more or less crude or manufactured state, then the galleries would lose half their purpose and certainly would not be anything like so useful, educationally, as they are at present. If those two points are covered I shall be content. I think they are very essential.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need not assure your Lordships that I do not rise for the purpose of criticising this Bill because it is the direct outcome of a decision of the Imperial Economic Conference, a decision with which I had the honour personally to be closely concerned. Therefore, my duty is to welcome this Bill and to thank the Government for having introduced it. But I should like to say a word or two as to the course this debate has taken. Noble Lords in various parts of the
896
House have intimated their desire to suggest Amendments, and recognising as I do their great position and their knowledge of the subject, I understand quite well why they should wish to propose Amendments, and also that your Lordships may be largely influenced by their advocacy in putting them into the Bill. It may be that many of them ought to be in the Bill, but I should like to utter one word of warning.
This measure is the outcome of very elaborate discussions with the representatives of the various Dominions. When they were over here last year in conference with the Imperial Government they agreed to a certain Report. While that does not bind your Lordships, it ought to have great influence with you. I would remind the House that this agreement was come to in the face of the immense difficulties of the Imperial Institute itself. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has already brought this to the attention of your Lordships. The Imperial Institute was in great difficulties. It had failed in many respects. I am sorry to say, to fulfil certain of the purposes with which it was originally entrusted. There was also great overlapping, and the most important thing of all, the Dominions showed a very strong tendency to have nothing to do with it. That was the situation. I thought, and I think the Government to which I belong also thought, that if anything fatal happened to the Imperial Institute it would be a matter for profound regret. Not only was it associated with the name of Queen Victoria but it represented the institution of a union between the various Dominions and the Mother Country which we were most anxious to encourage in every respect.
But it was in great difficulties and in great danger—danger is perhaps the more appropriate word—and it was necessary to do all we could, and we did all we could, to bring before the representatives of the Dominions at the Imperial Conference the strong reasons which existed for continuing the Imperial Institute. They agreed, but they agreed upon terms, and although I do not mean to say that they might not be induced to reconsider certain of the terms, yet, if I were responsible for affairs, I should be reluctant to go very far in attempting to alter the settlement that was arrived at, for fear

897
the thing might break down. After all, your Lordships have to remember that, when we are dealing with these Imperial subjects and the agreement of a very large number of independent Governments is concerned, we have not really quite so free a hand as we have in respect of our own country. We have to consider their views.
There is only one very important change in this Bill from the arrangements which were arrived at by the Conference to which I have referred, and that is in respect of the galleries, to which reference has been made so often in this debate. When the Conference sat the Dominions, or at least a large majority of them, absolutely refused to contribute any more money for the support of the galleries, and we were obliged to defer to that view. I am very glad that the Under-Secretary and his colleagues have been more fortunate in that respect than we were, and that they have induced the Dominions— not I think all of them, but, I gather from the Under-Secretary, the majority of them——
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, the majority.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They have induced the majority to change their minds. One Dominion was always very strongly in favour of it, but the others were against it. That has been changed, and I congratulate the Government on having modified our arrangements to that extent. Even so, it would not have been possible but for the great generosity of the noble Viscount who sits above the gangway. Between the two they have been enabled to make this change. I assume that the Government have the assent of the Dominions to the changes which have been made in the Bill. If not, it ought, of course, to be obtained, hut assuming that this has been done I congratulate the Government on this change. With regard to the rest, I venture to hope very respectfully that the House will not disturb the main lines of the settlement. That does not affect details, as I need hardly say, for there are many details upon which it is possible to make improvements. But on the main lines I hope that there will not be any change; not that I have any power to do more than make the suggestion to your Lordships, but I think it might have a rather unfortunate effect if the result
898
were that the Dominions re fused to be bound any longer by the terms of their agreement to which they signified their assent at the. Conference and which is now embodied in the Bill.
There is only one other subject to which I will refer and that is the Mineral Resources Bureau. I think I ought to say that, so far as my information goes, I entirely confirm that which the noble Lord on the. Cross Bench [Lord Morris] said as to the excellent work of the Mineral Resources Bureau. There was universal testimony to this, and it was only the necessity of preventing overlapping which induced us to put forward a proposal for an amalgamation of the Mineral Resources Bureau with the reformed Imperial Institute, but I share with the noble Lord on the Cross Bench the hope that, in the formation of the personnel of the new body every effort will be made to secure to the country and the Empire the services of the officials of the Mineral Resources Bureau, who have shown by their history and experience that they are well capable of doing the work which they had in hand. I congratulate the noble Lord on this Bill, and hope, that it will have an easy passage.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lends, I think your Lordships will expect me, by permission of the House, to say a few words in reply before the debate closes. They need be very few. The Government appreciate the generally favourable reception—I think I may so describe it—which has been given to this Motion for the Second Reading. The points which have been raised for consideration between now and the Committee Stage, and also in Committee, are points which I think are capable of agreement to a large extent between the Government and others interested in this very important matter. The noble Lord who spoke first, Lord Shandon, made the point—and the noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, also referred to it—that the objects of the Institute were rather too restricted in the First Schedule, and they desired some amendment of the present wording of the Schedule in the direction of ensuring that the galleries shall lie conducted, so far as the exhibits are concerned, in the same manner as in the past. I think that is putting it fairly.
This seems to me to be a matter upon which agreement could be arrived at, but

899
it is really one for consideration in the Committee stage. I do not think that it would be wise to put too detailed a definition of every aspect of the exhibition into the Schedule, but I am hopeful that some few words could be devised which would meet this desire, and, without pledging myself, I shall be quite prepared, for my part—and I shall, as I need scarcely say, put all these points to the Secretary of State—to consider the speeches which have been made in this relation. I do not want to be taken to he saying more than I am saying. Noble Lords, I am sure, do not expect that any additional activities on their lines will be undertaken involving considerable expenditure, because there is no money available for such additional activities. The whole financial position is still such as to require very careful consideration, but if the suggestion is that the galleries should be continued in the main as they have been in the past, I hope that we can come to an agreement on that point.
I ought, perhaps, to say a word in reply to the noble Marquess who spoke last. He said that he presumed that the assent of all the Dominions had been obtained to the retention of the galleries. I think I made it clear in my Second Reading speech that assent had been obtained from a majority of the Dominions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I explain? I understand the noble Lord to say that money contributions in respect of the galleries have been obtained from the majority, but what I intended to say just now was that I hoped that their consent to the retention had been obtained. I quite understood that only a majority were going to contribute.
LORD ARNOLD: I want to make it quite clear that only a majority are going to subscribe to the retention of the galleries. As the noble Marquess is probably aware, views have been expressed about these galleries in the past by India and South Africa, and those views have remained substantially unchanged. I want to make that clear, but it does not apply to the main objective of the organisation and of the schemes.
The other point which was raised by Lord Shandon, and also by Lord Cowdray and Lord Emmott, was that of the location of the galleries. I do not think
900
that there will be any difficulty about that, because the Government have not the slightest intention that the galleries should, either now or in the future, be anywhere else than where they are at the present moment. A point was raised by Lord Buxton about the representation of the African Colonies and Protectorates. This again is a point for consideration, and I think that under the machinery of the Second Schedule opportunities are given for dealing with that point to a considerable extent. But that also is a matter which the noble Earl will no doubt raise in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Emmott, asked that there should be ample time between now and the Committee stage, and it was a very reasonable request. There must be ample time, on account of the coming adjournment of your Lordships' House. I do not wish to postpone the Committee stage too long, and I should not like to give any pledge in that direction, but at any rate the Committee stage cannot take place until the return to this country of Lord Islington, which, I understand, will be about June 20, and probably the Committee stage can be taken a few days afterwards. I hope that this will be satisfactory, and will give time for all that is desired.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SPEED OF MOTOR CARS.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved for a Return showing the regulations in force in the principal European countries with respect to the speed of motor cars The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that the Ministry of Transport offer no objection to producing this Return, but in fact are very glad to do so, although it will take some time to collect the information. In the meantime, I have obtained a certain amount of private information myself, which I believe to be more or less reliable, and as the question is of some general interest, perhaps I may be allowed to give a few instances.
In France there is no restriction to the speed of motor cars on the open road, but the speed must be reduced at night and in case, for instance, of fog. In towns and populous areas the speed

901
is not allowed to exceed twenty kilometres, and is frequently reduced to a much lower figure. In Belgium the maximum speed is forty kilometres on the open roads, and fifteen kilometres in towns and villages. In Switzerland, where motor cars are not regarded with much favour, thirty kilometres is the maximum on open courtly roads, and in some districts the limit is as low as five. In Italy there is no speed limit on the open road, or regulations, and with regard to the towns and villages I am not aware of any limit. In Germany, on the open country roads, there is no speed limit, but in populous districts the maximum permitted is twenty kilometres per hour, and in many instances the maximum is not so high. These are not official statistics, but I believe them to be more or less accurate, and the countries named are those in which the circumstances are substantially the same as our own. I hope that the figures I have asked for will be forthcoming before long, because obviously they will be of considerable value. It is equally obvious we may be able to profit by the information we receive.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing the regulations in force in the principal European countries with respect to the speed of motor cars.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting the request for a Return, but I observe that there is a great difference between the methods of enforcing the law in the countries to which the noble Lord has referred. The speed limit is never enforced in France, it is rarely enforced in Belgium and Italy, and in other places it is not enforced at all. In this country it is enforced in places. In fact, the speed limits are a farce to a large extent, and I have always, as your Lordships know, bean of opinion that we ought to rely in this country, as many other countries rely, upon the enforcement of the law against driving to the common danger. That is a more common sense method than the mere imposition of a speed limit. As to this Return, I think it would be more valuable if the Government saw their way to include in it, besides the speed limits, the number of prosecutions undertaken in each country in certain years and with-
902
in certain limits. After all, a speed limit may be nominally on the Statute Book in France, but practically never enforced, and if you give in the Return only speed limits you may be giving a wrong impression and create a demand for a stricter enforcement of a speed limit which some of us hope will shortly be abolished.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I do not wish to east any doubt upon the figures given to the House by the noble Lord. In fact, so far as the Ministry of Transport has information on the subject, their information rather agree than otherwise with what the noble Lord has said. As I said last Thursday, they have no official information on the subject. Such information as they have is gathered, as I rather think the noble Lord's information is gathered, from private sources, and I am not in a position officiallly to confirm those figures. With regard to the Return, the Ministry regard it as a very useful proposal. They will assist it in every way they can. I think information of that sort will probably have to be derived through the Foreign Office, and the process of obtaining the details may be rather more prolonged than perhaps the noble Lord might wish, but if he thinks he is not getting his information as soon as he ought I shall be most happy to hear any remarks he has to make upon that subject in the House. Therefore, I think I may say that the official answer to his Question is that the Return will, as soon as reasonably may be expected, be obtained.
I cannot help thinking, although upon this I have no instructions from the Ministry of Transport, that the additional information for which Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked will be more difficult to obtain, but I will see what can be done at the Ministry of Transport about it. I realise the necessity and importance of what he says. In fact, it is only in relation to whether the regulations are given effect to that there is much importance in the information, because if you have information that there is a speed limit but nobody attends to it, and there are no prosecutions, you might as well do without the information altogether.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE RODEO AT BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD rose to call attention to the announcement in connection with the British Empire Exhibition of a public entertainment of the kind known in America as a" Rodeo," in which (it appears) various operations, incidental to Western cattlefarming and legitimate and necessary therein, are reproduced under artificial conditions likely to aggravate any suffering caused to the animals concerned, and in a manner which converts such performances into displays of needless cruelty; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will use any influence or power of control which they may possess over the British Empire Exhibition and the entertainments connected therewith, so as to prevent any entertainment which is fairly open to the imputation of cruelty.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the shortness of my notice, I hope, has not inconvenienced my noble and learned friend in any way. The public entertainment to which the Question refers is not, so far as I can gather, connected in any way with the British Empire Exhibition. To the best of my belief it is one of the least desirable of the cultures of the United States. I understand that some of the more exciting incidents connected with cattle ranching are artificially got up and reproduced for the purposes of display. The sort of thing that will be done, I imagine, will be that a steer, more or less wild and scared, is roped, thrown, and after a more or less exciting struggle—the more exciting the better—exhausted, intimidated and subdued. That kind of exhibition, of course, involves the display of a good deal of courage and nerve on the part of the men concerned. Those qualities, though good, are common enough in the English people, and there is no particular reason why they should be exhibited as matters of curiosity. On the side of the animals concerned obviously a certain amount of terror and suffering must be involved, and when the thing is got up and artificially performed, day after day or night after night, with the intention on the part of the management that the performance shall be as exciting as possible, obviously, in a variety of ways, whatever suffering is involved is going to be aggravated. If, for example, a bucking horse
904
is going to play up his best day after day in the same spot, making a good show every time, we can easily make a guess as to the sort of inducement that is applied to it.
There is another side of the matter at which my question glances, and it is this. Surely, there are heaps of things that are perfectly unobjectionable when they occur naturally, but which at once become more or less contemptible and degrading when they are artificially got up to create a stir in the breasts of a lot of idle spectators. It is a matter in which lines are difficult to draw, and it is not well that we should be over squeamish or censorious, but there is one pretty easy distinction of principle of which I will give a possibly absurd, but a plain, example. Most, if not all, of us have often seen a fox broken up by hounds—I hope I may see it again—but if one can imagine people collected round a relatively small enclosure, and a bagged fox, or several, turned out in that enclosure, and hounds turned on to them to break them up for the amusement of a few curious townspeople, such an attraction as so silly a performance might possess for some minds would entirely consist in the debased pleasure of seeing a wild thing wiped out. But that would make too dull a show to draw. What I am referring to is going to be a far more exciting kind of performance. But the analogy is good enough to suggest to your Lordships the distinction which I think is to be drawn between what necessarily, naturally and wholesomely occurs in the way of sport and agriculture, and cattle raising, and the same thing when artificially performed as an attraction to a gaping crowd.
I confess I am disposed to look very critically on all public performances in which animals take part, and, when a considerable amount of struggle, terror, exhaustion, and actual suffering on the part of animals is a necessary ingredient in the performance, I think it is not Pharisaical or squeamish that we should draw the line at it. I am sure I shall be assured by the Government that these performances, which I understand are now irrevocably fixed, will be carefully watched, so that nothing is done that would justify a bench of Justices in convicting anybody of cruelty to animals. But that does quite satisfy me. I confess to a feeling, which, I think, some of your

905
Lordships will share, that all this class of performance is rather low down, and, to some appreciable extent, demoralising, and I could have wished that the Government authorities responsible had not sanctioned this particular addition to the attractions of this great and noble Exhibition. I should rather like to hope that the Government's reply will encourage me to expect that in future, where a Government Department has to exercise discrimination in some question of this kind, it will scrutinise the matter with the good judgment and feeling which most English gentlemen would apply to it.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, after reading the Question which the noble Lord has put on the Paper and after listening to the speech which he has made, I am not sure whether he is a judge of horses and horsemen, but I am sure that he has discovered a mare's nest of no usual dimensions. For my part, I confess I have never seen a Question, nor listened to a speech, so remote from the actual facts of the case. I will tell your Lordships what these rodeos or "round-ups" really are. They are competitions which are held in America, in Canada, and, not so frequently but still fairly frequently, in Australia. They are tests of skill, of courage, of strength, and of horsemanship. The horses used in these competitions are well known outlaws. They are vicious horses—so vicious that their vice has become a positive virtue—and they are kept for that purpose, and for that purpose only. The noble Lord said that inducements were offered to these bucking horses to become still more fractious. He did not say what inducements were offered. I confess I should rather like to see the noble Lord himself offering an inducement to one of these bucking horses to buck even worse than they generally do. I think the spectacle might be rather remarkable.
The cattle that are used are rounded up wild from the ranches. I submit that they undergo no more cruelty than, probably not so much cruelty as, cattle which are in the ordinary course rounded up from the plains or the ranches and despatched by rail or steamship to their destinations in other parts of the world. If there be danger in these competitions
906
it is to the men and women who take part in them. These men and women are not salaried performers; they are really amateurs. Part of their travelling expenses, but I believe only a part, is paid for them. Their expenses while they are here are paid by themselves. They may, if they are successful, win money prizes—at this particular round-up, money prizes of considerable value—and also cups and trophies. But I venture to say that the renown that they attain in their own country, if they are fortunate in winning these prizes, is a far greater inducement to them to take part in the competitions than any actual gain.
Now I come to the Question which the noble Lord has on the Paper. He speaks of displays of needless cruelty on the part of these persons. I do not know these people, but I have travelled in different parts of the world, and I know men of their type. I am sure that they are just as kindly and humane people as are to be found anywhere. I am sure also that they will bitterly resent the imputation of cruelty which is contained in the Question. I submit that it is stretching the privileges of your Lordships' House rather far when the noble Lord makes an imputation of this kind upon men and women who obviously cannot speak for themselves.
With regard to this particular competition, I understand that about forty competitors are coming from Canada, several from Australia, and fifty or more from the United States and Mexico. Among the competitors, I may mention, is one well-known rider from Canada who lately won a cup given by the Prince of Wales at Calgary. I think your Lordships know the Prince of Wales well enough to agree that he is certainly not likely to encourage a sport against which cruelty can fairly be alleged. If cruelty can be alleged against this sport, it could be alleged with equal force against racing, steeple-chasing, polo, and almost any field sport in this country.
I do not desire to weary your Lordships, but in to-day's isue of The Times there is an advertisement of the British Charities Association, who are, I believe, to receive the takings from the first day of the exhibition of this rodeo. The promoter carefully told these gentlemen exactly what it was proposed to do. They went into the matter very carefully,

907
and I think we may be quite sure that they would not have consented to take money for British charities—for hospitals or any other purpose—if it was earned by cruelty to animals. There is a further point that I would venture to make about the Wembley Exhibition. I have no sort of financial or other interest in this rodeo nor in the Exhibition itself. It is obviously to the interest of the Exhibition that as many people as possible should go to see these competitions, and I submit that we ought to be very careful not to say anything here which would prejudice the public from going to witness these competitions and the displays of skill and courage which are to be seen there. It is scarcely fair that the noble Lord, by the Question he has placed on the Paper and the speech he has made this evening, should prejudice the public against these exhibitions by statements about the cruelty and so forth which is supposed to be going to take place, before he really knows very much about it or, as it seems to me, has inquired very much into the matter.
I have two further criticisms to offer upon his speech. I submit that it is not customary in your Lordships' House to belittle or asperse sports and pastimes which are in vogue in any of our Overseas Dominions. Nor is it customary in this House to make imputations regarding visitors to our shores. The noble Lord, in his Question, has made rather serious imputations regarding men and women who ought to be regarded as our honoured guests. I have one practical suggestion to make to the noble Lord. I suggest that he might go to Wembley to see what is to be seen there and ask these cowboys to allow him to ride one of their buck-jumping horses. After what he has said I am sure that they would willingly agree. And if, most unfortunately, there was any cruelty in this particular instance, I am sure that it would not be the horse that would suffer.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lambourne, who is the President of the Council of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has asked me to inform your Lordships that the promoters of this show have refused to allow his inspectors to examine at any time the horses or animals employed in the show.
LORD DENMAN: I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend. I would have stated that, but in the interest of time I did not go into it. What really happened was that the society approached the promoter of the show, and he said that he was very willing for their inspectors to go there.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My noble friend Lord Lambourne, who is well-known to your Lordships, tells me that the promoters of the show have deliberately refused to allow the inspector of the society at any time to examine, and have refused to give him any facilities to examine, any of the animals. My noble friend has sent me this extract which I will read to your Lordships. It is an extract from a letter which appeared in all the papers—
"It is desirable the public should know that the promoters of the 'rodeo' contests at the Empire Exhibition have definitely refused to allow any facilities to the inspectors of my society to examine the animals engaged in these contests at any time. The only reason given for this refusal by the promoters is that the attitude of the society is 'unfair,' because it has publicly objected to the introduction of the 'rodeo' contests into this country, and has not waited until the contests actually commenced before it raised any objection."
That is signed by my noble friend Lord Lambourne. It appeared, as I say, in The Times, where I saw it, in the Morning Post, and I believe in all the morning papers to-day.
Now that looks as if there was something to conceal, and as if these particular people were not desirous that the inspectors of the society should see what was going on. At this late hour I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily, but I might observe—I do not profess to be a rough rider such as I am sure my noble friend Lord Denman is—that I have had experience of horses for over fifty years. I had in my charge over 3,000 horses when I was chairman of the horse committee of the Great Northern Railway. I break all my own young cart horses and harness horses, though I am not a good enough horseman to break my hunters. It is my experience that after you have dealt with a horse and had him in the stable for a certain time he becomes quiet. That is true of nearly every horse. These horses were brought from America or Canada. They were confined on a ship

909
for ten or fifteen days and probably longer, and they must have been sufficiently tractable for the men in charge to feed and water them and to deal with them. In those circumstances it is very unlikely that they are really like the wild horses which are caught on the prairie and elsewhere and mounted for the first time. I agree with the noble Lord that these excellent feats of horsemanship are all very well in their proper place, but their proper place is the country and not in a small and confined space in a town.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, although the notice is short I think that the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, was well advised to bring this matter before your Lordships' House because before your Lordships meet again after the Recess the rodeo show will be in operation. In the first instance I should like to say a word in reference to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, because in my view, and I think I may say in the view of the Government, a great safeguard would be provided if every facility was given to the inspectors of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in order that the supervision might be as good as could possibly be obtained.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: And that would end the matter.
THE LORD PARMOOR: I do not think that the noble Lord quite stated all the conditions which attached to the refusal to which the noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, whom we all honour in these matters, referred in his letter of to-day. On March 21 when this matter was first brought to the notice of the people responsible for this show—who are really the Stadium Contests Syndicate, Limited—this answer was made; to Captain Fairholme, who is the Secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I will read one extract from it:—
"I should be most happy to give you any information that you desire in regard to the contests and every facility for yourself and your inspectors to see them; also to see the animals before and during the contests."
Now I understand it to be satisfactory to the noble Lord in those terms.
910
Unfortunately, that offer was withdrawn, and it is to the withdrawal of the offer that the noble Lord has really referred and to which Lord Lambourne referred in his letter.
The reply which we got, on this Question being put down by the noble Lord, was that, in the letter to which I have referred, he offered the society every facility for satisfying themselves that no cruelty would occur. Their only reply to his offer was to attack him in the Press, and he has, therefore, felt obliged to withdraw his offer. His correspondence with the society subsequent to that included another document to which I need not refer. Speaking on behalf of the Government, who do not desire in any way to interfere with a show of this kind if it can be properly conducted, I may say that we do attach enormous weight to proper supervision, and I sincerely hope that any interference of any sort with inspection by the Royal Society will be withdrawn. I do not think there could be any greater safeguard than that the society's inspectors should have access to these shows at all times, and be able to see what the condition of the animals may be.
So far as the Government are concerned, our powers are extremely limited; in fact, we have no powers of interference at all. Of course, the ordinary law applies. If animals are treated with cruelty those who are liable for such cruel treatment can be brought before the magistrate and subjected to appropriate penalties, but that, of course, is after the deed, and is not the protection that I understand the noble Lord desires. He wishes to prevent the evil, or at any rate to reduce the possibility of it to a minimum. I am representing here the Overseas Department of the Board of Trade. The only powers which the Board of Trade have under the Act of 1920, which sets out the conditions which we are empowered to enforce when the sum of £100,000 was subscribed towards Wembley, are these. We can approve the executive council and the general manager, and we can ask for the supply of information, but beyond those two points we have no powers at all.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: You have influence.
LORD PARMOOR: Subsequent Acts do not give any increased powers, but merely apply the same powers, although the date at which the show was to be held is altered. I can only say further, on behalf of the Government, that we sincerely hope that the inspection will be allowed. We think it ought to be allowed, and, so far as the Government are concerned, of course we should use our influence to prevent cruelty. The problem is: Is there cruelty? One of your Lordships took the view that there is not cruelty, while Lord Charnwood expressed a contrary opinion. It ought to be decided whether or not there is cruelty, and the proper persons to decide it are the inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. So far as the Government can influence the matter they earnestly urge those responsible for this show to permit inspectors to have full opportunity of supervision.

PREVENTION OF EVICTION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words upon the present stage of this Bill. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Strachie, who is responsible for the Amendment that was introduced into the Bill, is unable to be present to-day, and he has asked me to make one or two remarks on his behalf. It really is in the nature of an appeal to His Majesty's Government. Those of your Lordships who were present when we dealt with this matter in Committee will remember that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, and also, I think, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, both insisted
912
on a point of privilege, and asked your Lordships not to consider the Amendment simply on that ground. The merits of the Amendment were never discussed at all by any speaker on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Whether the Amendment was, on its merits, good or bad really was not touched upon by either of the speakers on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I think that was, if I may say so, rather a mistake.
We all know that Amendments of this kind are frequently introduced in your Lordships' House, and that a question of privilege is frequently waived in another place. Amendments exactly like this are admitted, even though there may be technical questions of privilege in the way. The real danger which will follow if His Majesty's Government, on similar Bills on future occasions, abstain from arguing the question on merits, is that a Bill will run the risk of being rejected even on Second Reading. If a Bill is rejected on Second Reading no question of privilege arises at all. If Amendments which in themselves are sound are not to be considered on their merits but are to be rejected without discussion merely on the ground of privilege, it may make legislation in this House of a somewhat summary character, because noble Lords who have Amendments which are sound, if they realise that His Majesty's Government will not consider them on their merits but will simply dismiss them without a further word on the question of privilege, will be tempted to ask your Lordships' House to reject a Bill on Second Reading. That, I think, would be a very great misfortune, and it is in order to prevent that happening in future-there is no question of it being done on this Bill—that I venture to make this appeal to His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are instances very different from that in question here to which the observations of my noble friend would apply. This is a Money Bill, and it is well known that the Upper House cannot amend a Money Bill. Here is a case in which the question was the difference between two years and one year. The Amendment proposed to cut down the provision by one half. That clearly is a matter of money, and, therefore, the question of privilege applies.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble and learned Viscount is mistaken. Surely Money Bills come up with a Certificate from the Speaker of the other House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is another thing altogether.
LORD EMMOTT: I agree this may be a matter of privilege. That is a matter for the Speaker in another place to decide. I do not think that this Bill is a Money Bill, technically.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has just sat clown is abundantly justified in correcting the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. We are very familiar with what is a Money Bill. That Bill is a Money Bill which reaches us with a Certificate from the Speaker to that effect. The noble and learned Viscount persistently declines to realise the difference of treatment, by the practice of Parliament, as between charges which are thrown upon the State in the shape of taxes and charges which are thrown on the subject in the shape of rates. He will find, if he looks at the precedents, that where it is a question of rates the House of Commons is much more accustomed to waive its privilege than to insist upon it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it were necessary to do so I could read a paragraph from Sir Erskine May's book to the same effect as that which I have stated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not relying on Sir Erskine May's book. I am relying on our own working of the
914
Constitution. I confess that I always find it difficult to understand Sir Erskine May's book. It is a monumental work, but it is written in such a style that it is difficult for the ordinary man to follow it. The practice of the Constitution is as I have stated: rates are treated on a different footing to taxes by the House of Commons, The noble Lord says that this is a matter for the Speaker. Primarily it is, of course, a matter for the Speaker, but it is really a matter for the House of Commons itself. I must say that I think the noble Earl is abundantly justified in pointing out to your Lordships and to the Government that if the Government run this doctrine of privilege too hard, and use it to prevent discussion on an Amendment that is otherwise quite justified, the only result is to drive your Lordships to take the more extreme step of rejecting the Bill itself. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount does not wish us to do that, and I hope the Government will use their influence in another place to have this Amendment, which is a good Amendment in itself, allowed, notwithstanding that it may be a breach of privilege.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until Tuesday, June 24.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.