Lords Sitting of 14 May 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the management of the Imperial Institute, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

PERSIA.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement as to the present position of affairs in Persia; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now almost three years since we had any information in this House regarding affairs in Persia. I think that the last occasion on which that country came under review here was in July,1921. As your Lordships will agree, little information is now given in the Press about what takes place in Persia and it is very difficult to follow events there. I obtained some information from a society which was formed with the idea of creating a better understanding between ourselves and Persia. I have also obtained information by attending lectures and from conversations in commercial and literary circles, but on the whole the information is very vague and sometimes, in regard to its authority, dubious. Therefore, it would be well if the Government could give us some enlightenment.
When the Question was last raised in July,1921,there had been in Persia a

397
succession of Ministries. I think there were five changes of Ministry in twelve months. But that has been outrivalled in the last few months, during which various forms of constitution have been in existence in Persia. When the Shah left Persia, some two or three months ago, it was declared that he would never return as Shah and a very strong movement for the establishment of a Republic arose in the country. The Mejliss was going to deal with this question, but a large demonstration headed by the ecclesiastical authorities in Tehran went to the Mejliss and so intimidated its members that they declared that a Republic was contrary to the religious principles of Persia and therefore could not be set up. What the position is to-day I really do not know, and I hope the noble Lord who will answer me—I understand it will be the Lord President—will be able to give me some precise information as to what is at the present moment the constituted authority in Persia.
Through all these kaleidoscopic changes there has been one very notable figure and that is a person known by the name of Sardar Sepah, the Commander-in-Chief, who I think might literally be called the dictator in Persia. Under his régime Persia has no doubt attained to a very fair administration; at least, so far as my information goes, that is so. Certainly in Southern Persia good order prevails, trade has been resumed, and the revenue is collected. I understand that revenue is collected even from the chieftains who inhabit the wild country and, going still farther south and even more remote from Tehran, I believe revenue has also been collected from the Bakhtiari chiefs and from the Sheik of Mohammerah. That, at any rate, is the opinion that I have got; whether it is accurate, or not I cannot say, but certainly revenue has been collected. This is due not only to the activities of Sardar Sepah but also to his working in collaboration with Dr. Millspaugh, the American financier, who was asked for by the Persian Government and who apparently is superintending the reorganisation of the finances of the country with great ability. For the reasons I have just given there is every probability that the Budget this year will be balanced. No doubt, Sardar Sepah, in his position as Commander-in-Chief, has been able, by reason of the financial resources afforded to him by Dr. Millspaugh, to set up a strong military force and has therefore secured good
398
order. He has certainly done so in Southern Persia and I imagine also in Northern Persia. One reason for this, I understand, is that the Army is now regularly paid, as also are the State officials. Moreover, a great check has been imposed upon the misuse of squandering of money, and this is all very satisfactory.
As regards our own relations with Persia, the picture, apparently, is not quite so pleasing. I think everybody is agreed that this country is now viewed with great suspicion, and indeed almost with hostility, by the Persian Government and Persians generally. The reason for this dates back to that unfortunate, and as I think ill-conceived, Anglo-Russian Convention. It was subsequently clearly proved that under that Convention Russia had intended to establish a very strong Russian hold over Northern Persia. Whilst the Persians would naturally not be inclined to accuse us of doing anything similar in our sphere of influence, yet the mere fact that we assented to, and approved of, that Convention weakened our prestige with the Persians. They felt that we lacked confidence and had not sufficient strength to refuse such a Convention, which is distinctly prejudicial to the interests of Persia. That, I think, was the commencement of the feeling of suspicion against us. Then came the war. Although Persia was not a combatant in the war, the country was subjected to many of the evils of war. There were German intrigues and Turkish inroads, and these had to he met by sending troops into the country.
Then, after the Russian Revolution, there came the Bolshevist advance into Northern Persia and we had to send more troops to Northern Persia to secure the country against this advance. That again no doubt created further suspicion in the minds of Persia that we intended to remain a military power in Persia. Although, indirectly, Persia suffered from all this warfare, on the other hand she must have gained a good deal by the fact that a large sum of money had been spent by us in safeguarding her real independence, in making roads, and, generally, in establishing good order, particularly in Southern and Eastern Persia. After the war my noble friend the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston framed, and we discussed in this House, the Anglo-Persian

399
Convention, by which, no doubt, he intended to set Persia on her feet and make her independent. Unluckily, national feeling was so much aroused in Persia, and there was so much suspicion of our desire to see an independent Persia, that that Agreement was never ratified. The feeling in Persia was still more embittered. Latterly there came the expulsion from Iraq of the Sheik-el-Kalise which was attributed to British influence. Great hostility indeed was excited amongst the Mohammedan world against us because of this action, but quite wrongly, because Great Britain had nothing whatever to do with it. It was entirely owing to the action of King Feisal.
The strength of the hostility against this country is proved by this one feature. Your Lordships know that negotiations were going on with regard to oil concessions in Northern Persia. I do not wish to go into the details of these transactions, but, roughly speaking, a concession was given—the Khostaria concession—some years ago, and then by agreement with the Standard Oil Company an understanding was reached with the Persian Standard Oil Company that it should be worked jointly. The Persian Government became so hostile in their attitude that they said the concession did not hold good because it had not been ratified by the Mejliss. They broke it, and they are now on the point of giving the concession to a group called the Sinclair group, one of the conditions of which is that there must be no British money or British participation at all. That is one of the conditions, so strong is the anti-British feeling in Persia. Some years ago, at the request of the Persian Government, a Persian railway syndicate was formed and invited to make a survey for a railway from the Gulf of Mohammerah to Northern Persia. About £180,000 has been spent in making that survey, but now the Persian Government repudiate the concession, saying it was never ratified by the Mejliss, and they are negotiating with American financiers for the construction of this and other railways. It is unfortunate that we should incur this extreme animosity on the part of Persia.
Another factor may also partly account for it. At the end of the war His Majesty's Government took a large holding in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, on
400
the plea that it was desirable to secure a supply of oil for naval purposes. I think the policy was an absolute mistake; but that is not my point. It is quite natural that a country, when it finds that a strong company is closely allied to the Government of a foreign Power, should rather resent it. We should not hail with satisfaction the idea that a large coal syndicate, dominating perhaps half the coalfields in Great Britain, was closely allied, say, to the French Government. There would naturally be considerable suspicion with regard to such a transaction. This was felt to be so undesirable that the last Government in Great Britain negotiated for the sale of those shares, and it was about to be carried through. But after the disastrous General Election, a change of Government came about, and the Labour Government refused to proceed with the proposal. If that is so, it is really very strange that a Labour Government should be so shortsighted and should wish to carry out a policy which is detrimental to our own interest and absolutely displeasing to the national feeling of the country interested. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us some indication that this policy will be reconsidered.
Those are the main points which I desire to bring before your Lordships this afternoon. I am asking my Question chiefly for the purpose of obtaining information as to the real position of affairs. I do not think any apology is needed for troubling your Lordships. Years ago the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said that it would be regarded as an unfriendly act for any Power to attempt to obtain a position in the Persian Gulf, and my noble friend the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston has described Persia as the glacis of the defences of India. For hundreds of years we have spent much money and exposed our soldiers and sailors to one of the worst climates in the world, but we have secured and made those seas absolutely free from danger. We have lighted some parts of the coast and encouraged traffic for the benefit not only of Persia but the whole world. I hope that the Persian Government may look back a little and try to forego their present resentment, remembering that in doing this great work in the Persian Gulf we have never acquired a single acre of land for ourselves. We have never had any desire to

401
aggrandise our position at the expense of Persia. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give us some information about the present position of affairs and some indication that there will be an improvement in the relations between ourselves and Persia. I beg to move.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, who is fully justified in bringing this Question forward, has shown that he has himself a very accurate knowledge of most of the questions which are involved. There are one or two outside matters to which he referred, on which I should like to say a word or two before giving any connected story of what has happened in Persia during the last two years and how matters stand at the present time. Towards the end of his address he referred to the Persian Gulf. I do not think it has ever been suggested that there has been any weakening of the position by the present Government, or any other Government, in reference to our strength in the Persian Gulf. He seems to have referred to it on the ground that the Government of Persia ought to feel gratitude for what we had done in the Persian Gulf. I think that is a fair paraphrase of what he said.
LORD LAMINGTON: And what we had done not for our own special benefit.
LORD PARMOOR: That may be quite true, but I wished to say that I think it would be a great mistake to mix up this question of Persia with any question of our position in the Persian Gulf, which I am told is at the present time absolutely untouched and unassailable. I do not desire it to be thought for a moment that the question of the Persian Gulf is involved in any of the references which I am about to make to the position in Persia. I want to make that clear at the outset, because not only that which we have done in the Persian Gulf, but our position there, as the noble Lord has rightly said, are matters of importance far beyond Persia, and involve some very critical questions regarding our whole position in the East and in India.
The noble Lord referred to another point upon which I should like to say a few words before I come to the general question. He spoke, I think, of the oil policy, and, if I followed him aright, he
402
referred to the policy regarding oil from Mosul. Is that right, or was he referring to Northern Persia?
LORD LAMINGTON: The Persian shares.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged. I did not quite appreciate what the noble Lord meant. As regards the policy of the late Government, I see that the noble-Marquess, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, is present, and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not understand that they ever came to the conclusion that the interest of the Government in the Anglo Persian shares should be surrendered, because, amongst other reasons, it was important from the point of view of the Admiralty that the position should be maintained. I do not desire to go further into that question, because it has already been discussed in the other House, and in answer to a question there the policy of the present Government was, I think, clearly indicated. It is not their view that these shares should be surrendered at the present time. There are various grounds upon which they have come to that con elusion, which I do not understand to be in any way in opposition to the policy of the late Government.
LORD LAMINGTON: I referred to what I understood to be their policy.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought the noble Lord wished me to state quite clearly what the position was. The position is that the present Government have determined, under all the various conditions, and having regard to the interests affected, that they are not in a position to make the surrender of these shares that has been suggested.
Our real position in Persia is this. It is to the interest of this country that there should be as stable a form of Government in Persia as possible, so far as matters of law and order are concerned, and, on the other hand, that the financial position of Persia should be placed on as sound a basis as possible. During the last two years great progress has been made in both these directions. No doubt there have been incidents, such as those to which the noble Lord referred, and to which I shall refer Presently, regarding the Republican and anti-Republican movements, but on the whole Persia during the

403
last two years, both in the stability of its Government and in the greater soundness of its finances, has advanced in a direction which is entirely favourable to the views of His Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord also said—if I may deal with this point before I come to the general question—that our prestige in Persia had been imperilled or endangered, or had become less marked than it should be, having regard to what we had done and to our veal position there. Undoubtedly, certain attacks have been made upon the position which we hold in Persia, but according to my instructions and to the information which I have obtained, it need not be feared, as I think the noble Lord indicated, that our prestige there may not be adequate to support our real interests, which, as I have said, are that the country should be governed in a stable way and that its finances should be put upon the best foundation possible.
The noble Lord referred, first of all, to the political position in Persia. This has undergone considerable change during the last two years, owing to the appearance in that country of what he, I think rightly, called the military dictatorship of Reza Khan (Sardar Sepah), who possesses qualities which have been somewhat rare amongst Persians. These have enabled him to form a disciplined Army composed of 22,000 Infantry, 8,000 Cavalry, 94 guns and 200 machine guns, together with a number of aeroplanes and armoured cars. The result is that he has succeeded in establishing his own personal authority and that of the Persian Government throughout the whole Persian country, and he has introduced conditions of stability in political matters which the country had for a long time no opportunity of enjoying. He has also, since October last, added to his former post of Minister of War that of Prime Minister, and I may here mention that as late as April 13 he formed a new Ministry in Persia of which he is the head. In fact, he seems to be establishing the same sort of position in Persia as Kemal has established in Turkey.
A Republican movement, to which the noble Lord has referred, began early this year, but owing to the opposition of the clergy, the plan was abandoned in March last. Upon that point I may perhaps
404
read a passage from the latest Despatch dealing with this matter which we have from Persia, and which, I think, puts the position very clearly. It says:
"The matter"—
that is, the Republican movement——
"now bore a religious aspect, and the priests came out into the open as the champions of the anti-Republican movement. Henceforth all anti-Republican demonstrations had a religious foundation, and the speeches made were based on Islam. The people are ignorant but show considerable fervour in matters of religion. The slogan used by the anti-Republicans brought the silent and half-hearted to their side, and the result is a solid feeling amongst the masses of Tehran against a Republican form of government."
My information shows, therefore, that although there is a strong movement in favour of Republican government, there has recently been a set-back, owing to the action of religious feeling in Persia, and there is no immediate further movement in that direction.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Does the noble Lord propose to lay that Despatch before Parliament?
LORD PARMOOR: It could be laid—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: But it surely ought to be.
LORD PARMOOR:—if necessary.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If asked for?
LORD PARMOOR: If asked for.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I ask for it.
LORD PARMOOR: So far as I know, there is no objection whatever. It is very often convenient, in order to make the position quite clear, to use the actual words, in order that there may be no misunderstanding. The Shah and his immediate entourage have, as the noble Lord knows, left Tehran, fearing that his personal freedom or even his life might be in danger if he remained, but since he left the Republican movement is not of the same strength as it was at that time.
I wish to refer next to the financial side of the Question which the noble Lord has asked. In November of 1922 an American financial expert of the name of

405
Dr. Millspaugh, to whom the noble Lord referred, arrived at Tehran and lost no time in taking over the task of reforming the Persian financial administration. Wide powers were conferred upon Dr. Millspaugh and his associates by the Persian Parliament, and they have succeeded in introducing a large measure of reform and stability into the financial and fiscal branches of the administration, with the result that, in spite of the fact that the requirements of the Minister of War have absorbed the sum of about £2,000,000 a year for the upkeep of the new Army, they have also succeeded in balancing the Budget estimate for the current year, a task which has never before been achieved in Persia. Then is no doubt, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that the local Press unfortunately did for some time keep up a constant attack upon Great Britain, thereby endangering our relations with the. Persian Government, but the recent advent to supreme power of Reza Khan, the military dictator, who is greatly feared by the people, has brought about the temporary cessation of this form of propaganda, and the anti-British propaganda is not being carried on at the present time.
The importance of the financial stability and improvement in Persia may be gauged by the extent of their debt to the British Government at the present time, and I will give your Lordships the figures. During the war His Majesty's Government advanced considerable sums of money to the Persian Government of the day, and the claims of His Majesty's Exchequer and of the Government of India, who together advanced these sums, amount to over £4,000,000 in equal sums
LORD LAMINGTON: For what exact purpose would these advances be made?
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid I have not got that information, or I would give it to the noble Lord. Added to this sum, His Majesty's Government have a claim upon the Persian Government amounting to about £315,000, for military stores supplied to the Persian Government after the withdrawal of the British forces operating in that country. To this must be added a further claim which we have, amounting to the sum of
406
£576,000, representing the claims of British subjects against the Persian Government. These figures show, of course, that the British Government and the British people are interested in the stability of Persian finance.
There has been very little progress as regards railway construction. During the war the Indian railway system from Quetta was extended to Nushki and eventually to the Persian eastern frontier at Mirjawa. This line was eventually extended to a distance of about 52 miles within Persian territory to Duzdap. On the western side again there has been very slight development, although in 1919 a survey was actually made, but the present Prime Minister of Persia, Reza Khan, is now reported to be directing earnest attention to the question of railway construction, and, as the noble Lord pointed out, has invited American groups to send representatives to Tehran to study the question.
As regards the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, I have this information that I can give. It has a pipe line in Persian territory about 140 miles long, and it continues to carry on its operations in complete security. There is no difficulty whatever about it, and the royalties which the Persian Government are receiving amount to £700,000 a year. There has been no difficulty and it has been carried on with complete security. As regards the concession recently made to an American group, I do not know what is to be said about the Sinclair group at the present time, but this concession, whatever it is worth, has not yet been ratified by the Persian Parliament. I think that gives all the information with which I have been supplied, subject only to this, that I think there should be no mistake as regards the position of Reza Khan, the military dictator. I do not think he has ever shown anything like hostility towards this country. So far as he is concerned we are interested in the political stability that he has brought about, and on the other hand, in whosesoever hands the financial question may be placed, we are interested that financial conditions in Persia should be as good as possible. I have now given all the information which I have, and I have answered so far as I can the Question which the noble Lord has asked me.
THE MARQUESS QUEZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has made a comprehensive statement about the position in Persia from the information, no doubt, which has been supplied to him from the Foreign Office. It was comprehensive, but it was not in all respects precisely exact. For instance, my noble friend was rather shaky in his history of the Persian railways—the extension of the railways from the British to the Persian frontier—and he attributed to quite recent years, and during the course of the war, a railway which I had the honour of constructing quite twenty-five years ago. But let that pass.
On another point the noble and learned Lord showed some innocence, not for the first time, of the regular procedure in this House as regards the quotation of Papers in Parliament. He read out a very pertinent extract from a Despatch received, presumably, from His Majesty's Minister at Tehran, and was at once challenged by Lord Birkenhead to lay it upon the Table. The passage which he read was pertinent, and there was nothing in the Despatch which ought not to be made public, but, of course, in practice, you cannot lay a single Despatch out of a long series, and if it is thought desirable to lay a Blue Book upon Persia that is a matter for His Majesty's Government to decide. I hope the noble and learned Lord will not take it amiss if I suggest to him that he should be a little more particular in following the regular procedure, and not drop into these traps which he creates for himself.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to say much upon the topics that have been raised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, was, I think, right in saying that there is nothing in recent events to indicate any change of attitude or policy, either on the part of His Majesty's Government, or on the part of the Persian Government, with regard to the Persian Gulf. The phrase he used was that our position there is untouched and unassailable. And I myself regard the statement of our policy that was first made by Lord Lansdowne, and which I have had occasion, as other Foreign Ministers have had, to repeat, as still the fundamental tenet of British foreign policy. From time to time the Persian Government, to an extent which perhaps he was not aware of, has challenged and impugned our position
408
there in small particulars, but I take the statement of the noble and learned Lord to mean that His Majesty's present advisers will be just as resolute as their predecessors have been in vindicating that which I have described as a cardinal feature of British policy.
The noble and learned Lord then went on to speak of the position as regards the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and there I think he was right in removing a misapprehension from the mind of my noble friend behind me (Lord Lamington). My noble friend was evidently of opinion that there had been a definite reversal of policy on the part of His Majesty's present advisers—that the late Government had decided to part with their interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and that the present Government came in and reversed that decision, for whatever reasons might have seemed to them to be pertinent. Lord Parmoor pointed out that that is not the history of the case. The proposal that the Government should divest itself of its interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company never came before the recent Government in any form which admitted of a decision by it. As a matter of fact, it appeared for the first time in the newspapers, and no doubt was introduced there for interested reasons, and I remember myself raising the question at a meeting of His Majesty's then advisers, to know what had been done, or what was in course of being done, and I was informed, quite rightly, that nothing had been done, and nothing could be done without the matter being brought before the Cabinet. It never was so brought, because the General Election took place, and the Government fell before the matter had been brought before us. And it is only fair to the noble and learned Lord and to his colleagues to say that, in acting as they have done, they have in no sense reversed the policy of their predecessors, but they have continued the course of action which was adopted by us, and which, for all I know, we should have continued to adopt.
A good deal of the discussion this alter-noon has turned on the personality and the achievements of the present Persian Prime Minister, Reza Khan. With what has been said about him on both sides of the House I agree. This soldier-states-man of humble origin—he himself served

409
for a while in the Cossack force in Persia—has built up for himself, by character and public service, a position that has not been known in Persia during the last forty or fifty years. He is Commander-in-Chief and head of the Government, and his achievements in establishing a high state of military discipline, in bringing up the Army to a condition of efficiency, in securing law and order, and in introducing a certain amount of order among the turbulent tribes in the mountains of the South, have been very considerable indeed. Throughout this time his policy, although it has been a purely national one, inspired by a patriot's regard for the interests of his country, has not, so far as I know, shown any mark of antagonism or hostility towards us. I was a little apprehensive when I heard from the noble and learned Lord that Reza Khan was modelling himself on the example of Mustapha Kemal, because I can foresee that if he follows certain lines of policy which have been pursued by Mustapha Kemal in Turkey, he may come to grief at an early stage in his own country. However. I take it that the noble and learned Lord meant nothing more than that he is a strong and self-reliant soldier, who is anxious to put his country into the forefront of civilised strength and progress. Certainly His Majesty's Minister at Tehran, Sir Percy Loraine—who during the last two years has shown great vigour and, I think, great success in defence of our interests there—and his Majesty's Government have shown nothing but sympathy for the efforts of this statesman. I join with the noble and learned Lord in wishing him every success in his endeavours.
The only other points to which I need refer were, first, the position of what has been described as British prestige, British influence, in the country generally at the present time; and, secondly, the part that is being played by America. As regards the former, I think the narrative given by Lord Lamington was substantially correct. He pointed out that a long series of events, beginning with the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, and very much fomented by the unhappy experiences of the war, when, really in the interests of Persia and in defence of Persia, we were obliged to undertake a military occupation, which was in no respect agreeable to ourselves, but which was regarded, disinterested as
410
it was, with great suspicion by them—that it was those events which largely produced the subsequent feeling. But there were two things to which my noble friend hardly attached sufficient moment. The first is that since the war, and since the reappearance of the Soviet Government of Russia upon the scene, we have been exposed, as everybody knows, in Persia to the most relentless and unscrupulous propaganda, directed against our interests by the representatives of the Soviet Government at Tehran. When I say it is well known, it has been a matter of public protest. I had myself to take part in a controversy upon the point, and, without desiring to raise that issue now, I am alluding to a fact which is notorious and indisputable. That, no doubt, has added to our difficulties.
But the real cause of the setback (if that, be the phrase that you like to apply) to the British position in Persia is not due to any individual act of the British Government, nor any individual display of hostility on the part of the Russian Government, or any other Government: it is due to that spirit of inflated, exaggerated—I do not necessarily say unworthy—nationalism, which is spreading everywhere throughout the East, and which was enormously aggravated and fomented by the whole of the incidents of the war. You find exactly the same thing going on from China in the East to Turkey in the West. The ferment of all these new ideas is at work particularly in the veins of a singularly sensitive and proud people like the Persians, just as it is in other Eastern countries, and you cannot expect in the future—you certainly do not get now—any of that sort of natural, instinctive, automatic deference to Western ideas and Western opinion to which we were accustomed in olden days. And, of course, when that spirit of nationalism takes the form of hostility to the interests of our country, or of any other country, that country is apt to think that it is some special measure of antagonism directed against itself. I do not think it is that. It is really a symptom of a world-wide movement which is going on, which will not be abated, which is causing you enormous difficulty in India at this moment, and the weapons to cope-with which, have not yet been forged by the West. Little by little we shall learn how to meet this sort of insurgent spirit of nationalism of which I speak, and its

411
local manifestations, of which Persia affords one instance, although they may cause us some anxiety, ought not, I think, to cause us very great surprise.
The last point about which something has been said is the position of the American financial adviser in the country. Upon that I hold very strong views. Knowing what was going on, knowing this nascent feeling in Persia, I always took the view that Persia being a country which stands immensely in need of foreign assistance, financial, military, administrative and otherwise, if she looked with suspicion upon the offers or the efforts either of Great Britain or anybody else, let her turn in her own interest to some quarter which could not be suspected of any interested motive. Therefore, for my part I warmly and entirely encouraged the American appearance upon the scene and, indeed, if my noble friend would go to the Foreign Office he would see that the despatch of Dr. Millspaugh and the active part that America is now taking in Persia—which I view with not the slightest jealousy but with the warmest sympathy—were really due to representations made by myself at Washington encouraging America to take the part she has done. There is no question at all that the financial reorganisation of Persia has been warmly seconded by our Minister there, and for my part I wish him every possible success in the efforts he has taken in hand.
The only other point that remains to be noticed, and that in a sentence, is the question of the Persian debt to us. The noble Lord gave us the figures, amounting, I think, to £4,500,000. It is a debt arising out of many causes: partly to assistance given to Persia in the war, partly to damages incurred by our own subjects, and partly to advances made to the Persian Government to assist them in the task of administering their country. So far as I remember that, in every case, is secured upon substantial assets. That policy of financial assistance to the Persian Government is no new thing. It has been going on for twenty-five years. When I was in India the Government at home and the Government in India, in combination, on more than one occasion made such advances so secured. I dare say the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, when he was head of the Government of India may have done
412
the same. The policy, therefore, is one well established and on the whole very beneficial to Persia. But I do not think the Persian Government should for a moment entertain the idea that the debt is likely to be wiped out. On the contrary, one of the things upon which we have always insisted is that in due and proper time Persia must be reminded of her obligations and she must not look upon Great Britain or upon the Indian Government as a sort of milch cow to which she can turn at any moment when she wants financial help
These are the only observations which it occurs to me, to make. I do not say that the situation in Persia is altogether satisfactory, but the emergence of a strong man is one symptom of a favourable character. The Persian Government may always rely upon the generally friendly attitude of the British Government on whichever side of the House it sits. As regard American assistance, as I have before said, I am sure we all of us wish it the greatest success that it can attain.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord opposite for the answer that he gave me, but I should like to make one thing quite clear. The noble and learned Lord seemed to think that I accused the present Government of being responsible for the lowering of our prestige in Persia quite lately. I did not say that. I said that our prestige was lowered in Persia at the time of the Anglo-Russian Convention, and that the lowering of our prestige had since caused hostility on the part of Persia towards us. The noble and learned Lord did not make much reference to the illustrations I gave him of how very pronounced that hostility was. It was in this connection that I mentioned the Persian Guf; not qua Persian Gulf, but as showing that while our policy there was beneficial to the world at large, we had not done anything for ourselves towards securing a single acre of land. That might be brought to the notice of the Persians in order to disabuse their minds of the idea that we had any intention whatever of aggrandising our position or of safeguarding our interests so far that we wished to impair their integrity.
The noble Marquess, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, referred to the spirit of

413
nationalism that was spreading through the Near East and the East generally. I think that is very largely due not only to the war but to the very idealistic phrases used from time to time by leaders of public thought, by statesmen and politicians here and in America about the ideals connected with that war. We heard something about the self-determination of small nationalities, "a war to end war," and other phrases of the sort which we who are accustomed to hear and to deliver speeches understood and which for a moment were the subject of leading articles in the Press, but they do not affect our feelings or actuate our policy. But that is not the question. To these other countries who are subjected, perhaps, to some form of tyranny or maladministration they do mean a good deal and therefore, I think they have inflamed that spirit of nationalism which was referred to by the noble Marquess. In regard to the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, I will withdraw it if the noble and learned Lord is not ready to have the Papers laid.
LORD PAEMOOR: I think I will ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion. In regard to the particular Paper to which I ought not perhaps to have referred, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, I do not suppose that the noble Lord would want one document of that kind. I would ask him not to press his general Motion. I have given him all the information that we have at the moment.
LORD LAMINGTON: I beg to withdraw the Motion. If necessary, I will make a Motion later on when the noble Lord has had time to consider the matter.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON STREET ACCIDENTS.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to call attention to the large number of street accidents that take place in London, and to ask whether accidents occur chiefly in crowded areas or in any special locality, also on any particular day of the week. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships I should like to quote some figures that I have worked out from past records and Reports to Parliament. In 1909 the number of fatal accidents in
414
the Metropolis was 287 and in the City 16—making 303. Of this total 171 were due to motor vehicles and bicycles— "mechanically propelled vehicles" is, I think, the official term. In that year in the Metropolis and the City there was a total of 13,085 non-fatal accidents. In 1922 the fatal accidents in the Metropolis numbered 675, while there were nine in the City, making a grand total of 684, of which 645 were due to mechanically propelled vehicles. Thus, it will be noted, between 1909 and 1922 the annual casualty list from street accidents in London had more than doubled. As we can suppose that on Sundays there are fewer accidents than on other days of the week, the average works out, at nearly two a day.
It is a very remarkable thing that in 1922 there were only fire or seven—I cannot at moment remember which— passengers killed on the railways through no fault of their own, and there were seventeen killed in 1921. When a railway accident occurs we all know—the calamitous accident which occurred about a month ago is an example—that the newspapers are full of details and that inquiries are held in order to discover how the accident occurred. About three or four weeks ago five people were killed. That is about two and a half days' average of the number who are killed in the streets of London. I do not understand the psychology of people. When it is a case of a railway accident the whole of the public interest is excited, while you have this daily bill of mortality taking place in the streets and it passes practically unnoticed. The truth is, I suppose, that none of us quite realise that two people are killed in our streets every day. I know that in another place a Bill dealing with transport is being discussed, but I do not think the object of that Bill is concerned so much with the safety of pedestrians as with the devising of means of increasing the traffic possibilities. In the first three months of this year 175 people were killed. This is a further increase as compared with 1922. It is an alarming bill of mortality, and yet it goes on almost unrecorded.
I have no ideas as to how these dangers can be minimised. I have put down my Question in order to ascertain chiefly where these accidents generally occur, because my experience is that the narrow

415
escapes which most of us have from time to time do not occur in the crowded parts, but usually in the non-crowded streets. You are walking along and see nothing in the shape of a motor vehicle, and then all at once you hear the swish of one of these juggernauts rushing along at a speed far in excess of twenty miles an hour. You are almost overwhelmed by it before you realise that there is any vehicle anywhere in your neighbourhood. It is not fair that those frightful risks should be incurred by the general public, and I think a speed limit ought to be strictly imposed. Why should the public have to run these terrible risks because someone wants to save a few minutes in getting to his or her destination?
I also should like to know whether most of these accidents occur on Sunday when there is less traffic, or whether there are fewer accidents on Sunday than on week days. Another point upon which information is desirable is as to the localities or streets where the accidents take place. It is a notable fact that in 1909 there were sixteen fatal accidents in the City, whereas in 1922 there were only nine. I presume the traffic in the City has increased as it has done elsewhere, and yet there were fewer accidents there in 1922 than there were in 1909. That seems to support the view that it is not in the crowded thoroughfares, where there is constant police supervision, but that it is where there is not so much traffic and where the police supervision is less, that most accidents occur. I should like to know whether there is any possibility of preventing or reducing the number of these accidents.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to intervene at this stage, because I am connected with an association—the Safety First Association—which has collected a vast number of facts and figures with regard to London traffic. I should like also to refer to a gentleman who, I believe, is considered almost the leading statistician in this or any other Government—namely, Mr. Sidney Webb, who told a deputation the other day that walking in the streets of London was a more dangerous occupation than working in a coal mine. I should be sorry to associate myself with any opinion of that kind, but a statement of that sort, proceeding from Mr. Sidney Webb, who is not only a leading
416
statistician but is head of the Board of Trade, is one that cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed.
My noble friend is, I think, in the opinion of everybody here, well justified in raising this Question. Accidents continue to increase at an alarming rate. Last year there were killed in London just short of 700 persons, and there were no fewer than 72,000 accidents of a nonfatal nature to pedestrians in London. Taking the first three months of this year, the accidents are 20 per cent. more numerous than they were last year, and they are actually 52 per cent. higher than they were in 1922. With regard to one inquiry made by my noble friend, I am able to answer it myself to some extent. The information of the society to which I belong is that these accidents do not occur in places where one would naturally expect them, such as Trafalgar Square, Hyde Park Corner, the Bank, and so forth. They occur chiefly in the suburbs. The reason is clear. When motorists are in the congested districts they naturally drive with extreme care, but as soon as they are clear of them they exercise less care.
It is instructive to note that commercial motors and private cars kill far more people than are killed by what I would term public service vehicles, such as motor omnibuses. Again, the reason is perfectly obvious. The drivers of public service vehicles have to pass an examination of proficiency, and are obliged to show whether they are really capable of driving these vehicles, whereas in the other case anybody can obtain a licence, whether he is blind, or deaf, or suffers from any infirmity. I have a licence myself, and I occasionally drive. I detest it more than I can say. I am not quite satisfied in my own mind that I ought to have been granted a licence. I do not think our practice is followed in any other country. At all events in France, I believe, they are extremely particular, and nobody obtains a licence there unless he or she can show that they are qualified to drive.
There is another very obvious reason—at least it always seems to me a very obvious reason—why there are so many accidents. It is because, in my opinion, and I hope in the opinion of noble Lords who are present this afternoon, the penalties inflicted upon offenders are not

417
nearly severe enough. I have in mind one gentleman in particular, a Member of the other House. That gentleman, if I am not mistaken, has been summoned upon fourteen or fifteen separate occasions and if was only upon the last occasion that his licence was withdrawn. All I can say is that if I had been in the happy position of adjudicating upon this gentleman's ease, if I had been a magistrate on the bench before which he came, he would have languished in gaol long before now, and would not be in the position of having a licence at all. The achievements of this legislator are equalled by another one, a member of this House. I read in the papers not long ago that a member of this House, whose sole title to distinction is that he is a scorcher, drove, I think, from Land's End to John o' Groats, in a preposterously short period of time. He could only have made the journey in the time by grossly infringing the law in regard to speed, and yet that was done without any conviction whatsoever. This legislator, so far from meeting with any punishment or even reproof, was held up as a sort of hero in the sensational Press because of his adventure. If was treated as a remarkable instance of the enterprise of the British aristocracy. If members of this House and of the other House, who make laws, or nominally make laws, defy the law in this way, how can you expect people in humbler branches of life to pay any attention to the law?
But there is another more fertile source of fatalities that I wish once more to bring to the notice of this House, although I have done so on many previous occasions. A large proportion of these accidents occur owing to the fact that, unlike every other country, we have two rules, one for the road and one for the pavement. The Safety First Association made a careful analysis in the year 1913 of the fatal accidents in which motor omnibuses were involved, and it was found that out of 158 persons killed, 60 were pedestrians who had left the near-side of the footpath in order to cross the road. It ought to be obvious to the meanest intelligence that if you walk on the left you will always have a free and uninterrupted view of the approaching traffic. This question of walking on the left instead of on the right has been considered by all kinds of bodies. It has been considered by
418
Committees of the House of Commons, by Committees of the Ministry of Transport, by county councils and urban district councils, by chief constables and by the Metropolitan Police, and every one has expressed approval, in principle, of the change.
I may add that two ex-Ministers of Transport, Sir William Joynson-Hicks and Colonel Moore-Brabazon, have both expressed to me their strong approval of the proposed change and have permitted me to quote their names in connection with it. But in addition to these gentlemen, there is one other person who has been converted to this view and who perhaps will carry greater conviction to other people than anybody else, and that is my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam. I have actually succeeded in persuading him to approve of this proposed change, and if one is able to convince my noble friend of the desirability of any change whatsoever one ought to be able to convince everyone else in this country.
There is only one obstacle to this proposed change. Whenever I have interpolated the Government on the subject they have always taken refuge behind this particular objection. The sole obstacle, as far as I can gather, is the Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police, and this official has the audacity to state that in his opinion you are much safer with the traffic behind you than when you are facing it. I think this gentleman would have been an official after the heart of the late President Kruger, who was under the impression that the earth was flat. It is preposterous that a reform of this nature, if it is desirable, should be held up by the obstinacy of one reactionary official. I hope on the present occasion that I shall receive a more favourable reply, and also that some attention will be paid to these considerations when the London Traffic Bill comes before this House.
LORD KNABESBOBOUGH: My Lords, I should like to know whether the rules and the regulations which apply to ordinary motors in the way of speed and other matters apply also to motor-bicycles and side-cars. From my own observations it would appear that these are subject to no regulations whatever. A rule has been made in Hyde Park, a very proper one, that in the space around the magazine

419
no motor vehicles are allowed because an enormous concourse of people, including women and children, assemble there. The other day I was going round there and saw a motor-bicyclist coming at a tremendous pace, forty or fifty miles an hour, scattering the people in every direction, and grinning and enjoying himself very much. I saw another one at Marble Arch on a Sunday afternoon, when hundreds of people were walking across. He drove a motor-bicycle with a side-car with a woman and child in it, and came along at such a pace that he scattered the people right and left. The occupants of the sidecar roared with laughter and treated it as a tremendous joke. I was nearly killed myself by a motor-bicyclist a short time ago. I was crossing by the Albert Gate. He came through at a tremendous pace. He would not have hit me but for another person who happened to be crossing too, and in swerving to avoid him he actually touched me. I watched him down Hyde Park Corner and he still went at a furious pace.
Anywhere in the suburbs there are regulations for motors to go slowly, and most of them do; but motor-bicyclists come dashing by. They are not only breaking the rules but act as a great inducement to other chauffeurs to put on the pace as well. I cannot see why these people should be exempt from the rules which govern other people. Opposite the barracks in Hyde Park the other day I saw two of them racing at a most fearful pace. I should like to know in what way the police are able to regulate the pace. I have spoken with several policemen and pointed out a man going at a great pace. I have asked: "Why do you not control him?' They have replied: "What can we do?; unless we stop-watch him we can do nothing. If we take his number, how are we to prove that he was going at an excessive pace?" I should like to know, therefore, whether there are any rules and regulations limiting the speed of motor-bicycles in London, and, if there are, in what way the Government think it is possible to enforce them.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords. I think I am right in saying that motor-bicycles, and motor-bicycles with side-cars, are subject to the same rules as motor-cars, and if the offenders are caught then they can be fined and dealt with in the same way as the driver of a
420
motor-car. I am very glad that my noble friend has introduced this subject because it really is hardly safe to walk about the streets of London at the present time. Only this morning I was very nearly run over at Hyde Park Corner. An omnibus was standing by the side of the road waiting to take up passengers. I went in front, looked round to the right to see if anything was coming. I saw a taxi-cab some distance away, but, as you know, it is difficult to estimate the speed of a taxi-cab which is coming like an express train on some of our railways and to know exactly how-soon it will be before it is upon you. I rather misjudged the speed of this taxi-cab. There was plenty of room, but before I could get to the refuge a few-yards away it was practically upon me. I ran and managed to reach the refuge. The man sounded his horn, and there is no doubt that many accidents are caused through the prevalent idea that all a man has to do is to sound his horn.
One of the first questions asked when a man is brought before a magistrate is: "Did you sound your horn?" and if he says "Yes," then it is supposed that he has taken all the precautions to avoid accident. Many people think that, if they sound their horns they have done all that is necessary and that people who are walking in the road must get out of the way. Apparently the idea of slackening speed does not occur to them. When I was driving about London we always pulled up or slackened down; but motor-cars and motor-cyclists do not. The taxi-cab driver—and taxi-cab drivers are not by any means the worst—never slowed up or attempted to Blowup. He did not even attempt to pass behind me, where there was plenty of room. There he was, and he knew that if I did not get out of the way I very likely should not have the honour of addressing your Lordships again, and I had to exercise what little agility is left to me in order to get upon the refuge.
Last Friday I was walking across from Hyde Park to Hyde Park Gardens. I looked to the right and saw a clear road. I looked to the left and saw a man driving what I believe is called a touring car, a long way off. He came at a tremendous rate, blowing his horn. I had to stand still in the middle of the road, for he made no attempt either to

421
slacken pace or to get out of the way. My experience is the same as that of my two noble friends. Where thoroughfares are crowded you are much safer. A motorist cannot drive fast where there is a crowd, because if he does he will break his motor-car. The worst danger is to be met with in the more-or-less un-congested thoroughfares, where people can drive at a great pace.
I think there is a remedy, and only one remedy, and that is that the magistrates, when a mar; runs over somebody or knocks somebody down, should enforce sterner penalties than they do at present. A day or two ago I read a case in a London court which was headed "Convicted after two years." It appears that a man driving a motor car of some description (I forget which) knocked someone over two years ago, and made off without stopping, and without being caught. He appears to have gone to Belfast, where he did the same thing, injured somebody, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. When he came out of prison he was prosecuted here, and let off with a fine. If a man knocks somebody over and goes on without stopping, and then, a short time afterwards, knocks over somebody else and is sentenced to three months imprisonment, surely, when you have an opportunity of getting him, he ought to be punished with something more than a fine.
The thoroughfares in the towns were never, in my opinion—perhaps I may be a little prejudiced—meant to be used by persons travelling at the rate of trains, and so long as motorists are allowed to drive in towns at anything over twenty miles an hour—I should prefer a limit of fifteen miles an hour—these accidents will continue. I know it is very difficult to be certain as to the exact speed, but it is not difficult for a police constable to say: "I do not quite know whether the driver was going at twenty or twenty-five or thirty miles an hour, but be was going at too great a speed considering that there were pedestrians about, and was driving at a dangerous rate." If the magistrates would then enforce penalties against the driver who behaved in that way, we might have some cessation of these dangers, which are really very serious.
There is another danger which, if it does not come from the mechanically propelled
422
vehicle, is very nearly is bad and that is the danger of the pedal bicycle. The pedal bicycle makes no noise, and, for some unknown reason, everyone who rides a bicycle in London rides with his head down, does not sec in the least where he is going, rides close to the kerbstone, and goes probably at about ten or twelve miles an hour. If you stop to avoid a motorist or try to run in front of a motorist in London, you are very likely to be run down by a pedal bicycle coining from nobody knows where. My wife was knocked down and had her arm broken by a pedal bicycle, which went on, and nothing more was known about it. Though these are not mechanically propelled vehicles, they are very dangerous in view of the way in which they are ridden at the present time.
My noble friend Lord Newton ventured to exercise his wit upon such a humble person as myself, and stated that I had been converted to his proposal. That is quite true. When he first told me that he thought the rule of the pavement ought to be changed, I admit that I did not agree with him, but, being of an enquiring mind and anxious to try everything before coming to an opinion, I tried it myself by walking first on one side and then on the other, and I found that there was no question that it was far safer to walk on the left instead of on the right, because you see the vehicles which are coming towards you. But I do not think the greater number of accidents are caused by following the present rule, though if somebody steps off the kerb with his back to oncoming traffic he may easily meet with an accident. The greater number of accidents, however, are caused by the reckless driving of motor cars, the drivers of which seem to think that they are entitled to drive at any pace they like, and if you happen to be in the way I think the old story of Stephenson and the cow will apply to you. It was "bad for the cow," and it will be bad for you if you get in the way.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I venture to make a suggestion to the Government, and I do so with the more confidence because it fell to my lot to pass the first Act of Parliament dealing with, and attempting to regulate, motor traffic. As that Bill was drawn by

423
me, it did not impose any speed limit at all. What I put in the first clause was that anybody driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle to the danger of the public must be liable to be stopped, interfered with and arrested. I think the words were struck out of the original Bill in favour of penalties for going beyond a certain speed, but until a change is made in favour of the original plan I am very much afraid that the police will adhere to the view which they hold, and which was expressed just now, I think, by my noble friend Lord Newton, that it is impossible for them to arrest a man unless they have two constables at different points so that they can swear that he has exceeded a certain speed. That really is a very difficult thing to do.
Like my noble friend, I have talked to police constables, very often when on duty, and I have been watching the motor traffic for a long time. I cannot help saying that it is one of the greatest scandals that can be found in any town in the world. People drive these mechanically-propelled vehicles, especially heavy lorries, very much too fast. I saw, to-day, a very heavy lorry coming along, and the fellow driving it came round a corner and over a crossing. I am certain that he was going twenty miles an hour, if not more, and it was by the merest good luck that he did not knock down half a dozen people. They do not care. I have stood in Hyde Park at Albert Gate, and above at Prince's Gate, where the President of the Royal Academy and Sir Luke Fildes met with that dreadful accident the other day. The police do not stop men who are driving too fast, and, when I asked them why, they said that they could not prove that these people were exceeding the speed limit, and unless they proved that there was no means of obtaining a conviction. The heads of the police told me the same thing. What you want is a general power enabling the police to deal with the people who drive to the danger of the public.
I am quite aware that if you adopt this method you run a risk which is always run when you put additional powers in the hands of the police. There are some people who believe that if the police have a general power of this kind they will exercise it in a tyrannical manner. I do not think so for a moment. The police can be trusted, not only here but in the country, and I am glad to see that provincial
424
chief constables have now, almost all over the country, instituted a practice of posting constables at all the dangerous crossings and turnings. It is a most admirable plan, and one which tends greatly to our peace and comfort; but until they can summon a man for driving to the public danger, without being compelled to prove that he is exceeding fifteen to twenty miles an hour, you win, I am afraid, find that whatever you do the powers given will not be fully used.
I am satisfied that if any one of your Lordships were to stand in one of these streets, or in Hyde Park, any day, and take a note of the mechanically-propelled vehicles which pass, he would see how recklessly they are driven. He would see that they are driven only from the point of view of the driver getting to his destination as quickly as he can. It is a perfectly monstrous thing I remember an old friend of mine, a member of this House, who always told boys, when they had a gun for the first time, never to forget that at the end of every gun there is a man's life. So it is with these mechanically-propelled vehicles. They cannot be compared to other carriages or wagons. Even when driven slowly they proceed much faster than other vehicles. They are very heavy, and if you are hit by one of them, heaven help you; Even when Lord Banbury drove his coach about London if somebody had got in the way of the leaders the probability is that that somebody would not have been hurt very much; but if a person gets in front of a motor car the probability is that he will find himself the inmate of a hospital.
The other day a relative of mine was going out to lunch and was fortunately close to St. George's Hospital. I do not know what happened, because the man who was driving died almost at once, and so paid his penalty. He drove into a great lorry, and my relative was thrown into the road, and she suffered from concussion of the brain. The driver died in a few minutes. The whole accident happened so quickly that the police could not see who was to blame. I submit that the thing to do is to have a general power which will enable the police to stop men who are driving, as they think, to the common danger. It is only by having a power of this kind that any good can be done, and those who deal with these offences must really inflict substantial

425
punishments. What is the good of fining a man £5 who can afford to keep a large motor car? Send offenders to gaol and let them serve time in prison, and then they will not be so ready to commit these offences. The Government should make a change in the existing powers on the lines I have suggested, because I believe that without this change you will not be able to put an end to these dangerous practices.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the returns of the street accidents do not show the type of vehicle concerned in the accidents. Lord Lamington is no doubt familiar with those returns. No separate statistics have been kept as to the areas and streets in which such accidents occurred. But the police do, in fact, note the incidence of accidents in the principal streets, and endeavour to ascertain the cause of any increase and to determine whether any remedial measure can be adopted; but to classify accidents according to the congestion of the streets from these returns would involve immense labour and be virtually impracticable. One has to be very cautious when making any broad generalisation as to the cause of accidents, but obviously the number of accidents tends to increase where there is a considerable amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. On the other hand, it does not follow that considerable traffic connotes congestion. Present investigation tends to suggest that where congestion occurs, necessitating police control—and here the Home Office is in general agreement with what noble Lords have said to-day—the number of accidents of a serious nature is less than in places where there is no actual congestion necessitating constant police regulation.
With regard to the classification of accidents according to the day of the week on which they occur, the police have compiled the following figures, which relate to fatal accidents in 1923: on Sundays, 56; Mondays, 98; Tuesdays, 81; Wednesdays, 106; Thursdays, 97; Fridays, 115; and Saturdays, 115.
LORD GAINFORD: These figures relate to London?
KARLDE LA WARR: Yes I think so.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Are these accidents to pedestrians?
EARL DE LA WARR: They are the totals of fatal accidents in the course of the year.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Accidents of all kinds, whether to pedestrians or others?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes. It will be seen that there is a considerable difference on different days of the week. It probably confirms the old adage that Friday is an unlucky day. On the other hand, the high figure for Saturday is probably due to other causes. The accidents probably happen during the evening on Saturdays, and are due to specific causes. These figures are interesting and may suggest certain deductions, but it has to be remembered that congestion of traffic may be due to many extraneous causes. Thus, Derby Day and similar days may fall on Wednesday, and may tend to swell unduly the figure for that day of the week. Equally the cessation of particular sources of traffic—for example, during a strike—may have a marked effect on the figures. In general, therefore, deductions must be made with caution. The problem of accidents offers a wide field for investigation, and it seems one which might very well be referred, in the opinion of the Home Secretary, to the London Traffic Advisory Committee when that body is set up. It may be interesting to note that of the 668 fatalities which occurred in 1923 no fewer than 485 of the persons killed were pedestrians, and the inquiry at the inquests almost invariably showed that it was the incautious conduct of the victim which led to the accident. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, I believe, himself admitted that his accident was due very largely to misjudgment of his own.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: What I said was that I looked carefully to see if anything was coming, and I saw a taxi-cab a long distance off, and there would have been plenty of time to get through if the taxi-cab had been travelling at an ordinary rate. But the taxi-cab was moving much faster, and came upon me.
EARL DE LA WARR: Either the taxi-cab increased its speed when the driver saw the noble Lord, or else the noble Lord misjudged its pace. I may now be speaking with some lack of sympathy,

427
but perhaps I am rather younger than some of my superiors in the Government. There were also ninety-five riders of pedal cycles killed during 1923, which seems to point to this method of locomotion as being ill-adapted to the busy-streets of the Metropolis. It is impossible to impress upon people too much that their safety depends upon their own acts, and that they must exercise the utmost care in present-day traffic. If I may interpose one or two personal remarks, I think that many people fail to distinguish between those who are not skilled in driving and those who drive fast. Reference has been made particularly to a certain Member of the other House. I personally know that particular Member, and, though I hold no brief for him, I understand that he has never had an accident. That illustrates my point. It is very often the people who drive fast who have the nerve to know what to do when something-does happen. A noble Lord referred to a test for driving which he says they have in France. That sounds a very excellent thing, but if they have that test in France I challenge anybody to say that Paris is any safer than London.
With regard to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as to a change in the rule of the pavement, I understand this has been tried once before, but under very unsatisfactory conditions, some authorities trying to enforce it, and others not trying, so that there was general confusion. Mr. Bridge-man, during the term of office of the last Government said, in answer to a Question:—
"I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has promised that, if the London Traffic Bill heroines law, this matter will be referred to the Committee proposed to he 6et up under that Bill."
I have great pleasure in saying that the present Government intend to adhere to that statement. The matter will therefore be fully enquired into, and if the practice is enforced it will be enforced generally by one authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Knaresborough, mentioned the matter of motor-cycles, and I believe that the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, was perfectly correct. With regard to the Park, I understand that there are separate Park regulations. But if the noble Lord would like I will confirm that, and
428
write to him personally. At the present moment the police have the power to stop a motorist when going too fast, using their own judgment. I have had experience of this, as it once happened to me to be stopped when nobody was timing me, and it was just left for the policeman to say that he considered that the pace was too fast. I think that perhaps that answers that point.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether a twenty-mile speed limit is general in London? Or is there no limit at all? As to his statement about the police having the power to stop anybody proceeding, as they think, to the danger of the public, could not a public notice be circulated broadcast both to the police and the public, intimating that motorists are liable to be stopped? I think that course would be very efficacious to prevent fast driving, and it ought to be done at once so that more lives need not be sacrificed than can be helped.
THE MARQUESS CURZOX OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble Earl's reply was characterised by his usual engaging candour, but I venture to say that a mere profoundly unsatisfactory reply and a more ultra-official reply I have rarely heard from those Benches. He gave all manner of figures to show what happened on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, how these accidents are divided up between different parts, and so on. That is not in the least what we want to know. We want to know what the Government is going to do in order to bring matters to a head. When he came to that all that the noble. Earl could do was to suggest, with an amiable smile, that somehow or other it was always the fault of the victim.
As regards a certain Member of Parliament in another place, whose name presents a strange similarity to my own, it apparently redounds enormously to the credit of this noble Lord that he never killed anybody. I deprecate very much the performances of that noble Lord, and I recall an incident that happened a little while ago to myself, when I had an accident in the street, and was picked up by a motor-car and taken to my destination. The man who picked me up said: "Who are you?" I replied: "My name happens to be Lord Curzon." He said: "Ah, not the first time you have been

429
in this sort of business." He had never heard of this particular Lord Curzon, but the other name was perfectly familiar to him. Therefore, I have to a certain extent been a sufferer. The only consolation that the noble Earl could give us was that a Traffic Advisory Committee is going to be set up at some unknown time in the future, to which the Government are going to refer this question in due time. That is not enough. I would beg the Government to treat the thing rather more seriously, and, instead of referring this matter to a nebulous Committer in the future, to consider whether they could not set up a Committee ad hoc, with a view to considering a situation of affairs which is rapidly becoming a disgrace to the Metropolis.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords. Lord Lamington asked me whether there is a general twenty-mile speed limit in London. I think I am right in saying that there is, excepting where it is specially indicated that the speed limit is ten or twelve miles an hour. With regard to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, if he will look at the Question he will see that it has been answered point by point. We were asked to say where the accidents occurred, and the particular day of the week. Therefore, the answer is a thoroughly satisfactory answer to the Question on the Paper. And what I
said about accidents being often the fault of the pedestrian was not my own personal opinion; I simply stated what was usually the verdict of the coroner at inquests.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, so fat-as I can gather from the Government's reply, it means that we can be killed wholesale wherever we walk in London. That is what it amounts to. The noble Earl said that the police have power to stop people for excessively fast driving, but if they have that power they do not use it. I come to another point which is the most important of all. When the police stop people for driving too fast, and those people are brought up before the magistrates, the magistrates do not inflict a sufficiently large fine. Referencc has been made to Ireland. It is perfectly true that means are taken there to stop scorching and to stop it effectually, because people are sent to prison now if
430
it is found that they have offended two or three times in this way.
It was stated that 485 pedestrians were killed in London in 1923. That is a ghastly number. The noble Earl also said that it was for the pedestrian to look after himself. There is another aspect of that question. The motor car, as it is now made, is much easier to control than were the older cars. Modern cars can swerve more easily and they can travel faster than the earlier cars, while the brake can be applied to all four wheels. I have often stood in the middle of a road in order to see whether a motor car would go near me or not. I have done it in Pall Mall, and the driver has neatly swerved a little and avoided me. That is very often done by a man who sees people trying to get a good start when the hounds are running. If those people run across the field one of them is often knocked over, whereas had he stood still the rider could have avoided him.
The truth of the matter, as the noble Lord said, is that the police can act. Why do they not act? When people are brought before a magistrate why is not a proper fine imposed? The magistrate can do it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, that the powers of the police should be circulated broadcast throughout, the Metropolis. It is no good for the Government to say that these accidents occur in the crowded streets. They do not occur in the crowded streets. They occur when a motor driver goes "all out," as it is called, through the suburbs. Anyone who has stood in Oxford Street on a Sunday and watched these fellows going out to the country will have seen that they do not go at thirty miles an hour but at fifty miles an hour. I often go out to buy newspapers on Sunday morning, and I find that you cannot judge of the pace at which a modern motor car is travelling. If you are not very careful, and if the sun is in your eyes, you will find yourself in hospital "and wake up dead." as they say in my country.
LORD LAMINGTON: Would the noble Earl act upon my suggestion that the powers possessed by the police in this matter should be made known both to the police and the public in the way I mentioned?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, this discussion has taken place as though there was no measure before Parliament which would affect this subject materially. There is in another place a Bill introduced by the Minister of Transport on behalf of the Government, which has been read a second time and is in Grand Committee. That Bill arose, it is true, primarily out of the dispute among the omnibus companies, but it is a Bill which, to relieve congestion, does propose to set up a control of the traffic in the streets of London. That control will involve the assistance of the Advisory Committee to which my noble friend Earl De La Warr referred. I only mention the fact to your Lordships that the Bill is in existence lest it should go forth that the Government is doing nothing in reference to traffic control.
There are other aspects of the problem, of course. Whether the magistrate should impose more severe sentences is a matter with which the magistrates have to deal. They have the power to impose very severe sentences indeed, but they do not exercise it. No doubt, in many cases the accidents which happen to us are largely due to our own fault. We do not always see, although we try to do so. Such things do happen from time to time to tint", as the noble Lord said, as an accident even to a member of your Lordships' House. I speak from personal knowledge. There are an enormous number of people in London who are dependent upon all sorts of miscellaneous modes of conveyance and we never shall perfectly regulate them. But when the Transport Bill has been passed there will be more possibility of indicating the way in which traffic is to go. In that case the evil will be diminished, and I trust your Lordships will no longer have to complain that such a great number of these accidents occur.
EARL BEATJCHAMP: My Lords, this has been a very interesting discussion, and I would venture to make a practical suggestion to His Majesty's Government. I think your Lordships, with the exception perhaps of His Majesty's Government, are all agreed that something ought to be done, and I would ask whether, apart from the Traffic Bill, His Majesty's Government would be good enough to put before the Home Secretary
432
the possibility of sending a circular round to Quarter Sessions. If that were done the circular would be read at Quarter Sessions. All magistrates are present, or ought to be present, at Quarter Sessions, and if a suggestion was made by the Home Secretary that they should suspend the licence for a considerable period in serious offences of this nature, I think a very great deal might be done in this direction. The fortunate difference between this capital and Paris is, no doubt, due to the fact that, whereas in France the right of the road belongs to the vehicle which is going along it, in England, I understand, the presumption is that it is the pedestrian to whom the right of the road really belongs. There is, therefore, that difference, which is apt to make our own drivers somewhat more careful.
The Bill to which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack referred has, no doubt, this particular merit in his eyes—that it is one of those Bills of continuity which His Majesty's Government have taken over from their predecessors. When it reaches this House no doubt it will pass through without very much difficulty. In the meantime I venture to express the hope that this little practical point may be considered by His Majesty's Government, and perhaps the Home Secretary would see his way to adopt it.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am afraid that the Government cannot give any undertaking, but I will certainly lay the noble Lord's suggestion before the Home Secretary. It will give me great pleasure also to lay the noble Earl's excellent suggestion before him.
LORD LAMINGTON: Surely the noble Earl can give me some undertaking in regard to the police?
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid that I cannot, give any undertaking.
LORD LAMINGTON: They have the power.

HOUSING.
LORD TREOWEN LORD TREOWEN had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To draw attention to the effect on housing schemes of the recent statements made by the Minister of Health on the Government policy in regard to housing; and to move for Papers.

433
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that on April I the Motion which stands in my name was on the Paper of your Lordships' House. On that occasion, in consequence of an intimation that I received from the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I postponed the Motion, and it appears again to-day. I did so because I understood from the noble Earl that an opportunity would arise, probably before we separated for Easter, for a full discussion of the proposals of the Government in regard to housing. No such opportunity has been offered to your Lordships, and, therefore, a sufficient interval having elapsed, I felt there was no other course open to me than to place my Motion once more on the Paper.
If I do not press that Motion to-day it is for this reason. I was acting not with a view to bringing on a premature and probably futile discussion of measures which the Government have not yet disclosed to your Lordships, but I was acting on behalf of those local councils in the South Wales mining area who had taken advantage, of the Housing Act of 1923 to launch certain schemes, which undoubtedly would, to a considerable, degree, have relieved the congestion in their areas during the present year. I, therefore, did not think it desirable to abandon any means available of pressing the interests of those councils, and I had the privilege of a consultation with the Minister of Health. I wish now to pay tribute to the courtesy and frankness with which he dealt with me, and explained the main difficulty he had in this particular case. I will not enter upon that, however.
When his main difficulty was explained to me I could not fail to recognise his position. The view of it that I had assumed in my mind was that such a difficulty need never have arisen had it not been for the injudicious, premature, and, so far as I can see, perfectly useless statement of the Prime Minister in regard to the housing policy of the Government—a vague statement such as is made more often on the eve of an Election than by a responsible Minister at the outset of his career as a Prime Minister. That was the cause, as it seemed to me, of the main, difficulty, and I could not but feel some, sympathy for the Minister of Health in the situation in which he found himself placed. My object, therefore,
434
in rising to-day is to move this Motion formally in the hope that I may get some information from a member of the Government as to when the proposals of the Government will be definitely placed before Parliament, so that your Lordships may have an opportunity of discussing them.
The situation created in the part of the kingdom with which I am most closely connected is very serious. I view the whole situation with grave concern. In these crowded areas in the South Wales valleys, the local authorities had taken advantage of a measure passed last year to launch certain schemes which undoubtedly would have provided, to a considerable extent, for the requirements of their areas during the present year. Those local authorities have been suddenly brought to an absolute standstill, and nothing is being done. The only thing that has occurred—and this has made everything more difficult for them—is that there has been a steady rise in prices during the last few months. Therefore, we are faced with this position, that instead of feeling certain that some hundreds of families would, in the course of the year, he lodged in good houses, and certain slum areas eliminated, we have to look forward to seeing nothing done by the beginning of next winter.
What can happen even if the Government has its programme prepared and were to produce, it to-morrow? We are already in the middle of May. Bills take some time to pass through another place, and the only thing that I foresee is that, if these measures are produced in the shortest possible time, they will come before your Lordships only towards the end of July in the heat and flurry that are associated with the end of a Session, when such measures cannot be properly considered and discussed. If your Lordships do give to them that proper deliberation which they require your Lordships will possibly be exposing yourselves to an accusation by the least scrupulous persons in the community that you are obstructing the achievement of a great promise made by the Prime Minister in one of his early speeches. I do not wish to open a discussion upon the general question of housing, because, until we have the proposals of the Government before us, it is impossible to

435
have an effective and a useful debate I do not wish to press the question which I have put personally before the Minister of Health. He has given me his answer, and I must admit that it is a fair answer, and one that I must accept with all respect. I see his difficulty, but, for the sake of these people who are being disappointed of what they looked upon as a certainty—namely, getting relief during the present year—I do ask that some indication shall be given that the policy of the Government will shortly be placed before the country, and that we shall have an opportunity of discussing it calmly and not in the rush of the end of the Session. I beg to move.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, after the very generous words of the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, in regard to his dealings with the Government over this matter, it is hardly necessary to point out to your Lordships the difficulties with which we have been faced. Your Lordships will realise that our housing policy is entirely, or very largely, dependent on the result of agreement amongst countless numbers of different and varying bodies. I am afraid that, as the noble Lord has already said, it is impossible to start any general discussion now, or to make any definite statement. It might, however, interest your Lordships to hear the answer that was given to-day by the Minister of Health in the House of Commons. He said that he proposed to circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a letter which he Had caused to be addressed to the representatives of local authorities, whom he met at the end of last week, giving the result of the discussions which he had with them. He hoped to introduce the Housing Bill at a very early date.
This Report and letter, which I presume will be obtainable by your Lordships as well, will not I am afraid satisfactorily answer the Question of the noble Lord, but it will put your Lordships in possession of the facts, and will bring the information thoroughly up to date. Beyond that I cannot say anything definite. The Bill will be ready very shortly and will be introduced as soon as the exigencies of business in the House of Commons permit.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords. I suppose it is not possible to
436
press the noble Earl for a little more information, but it would have been convenient if he could have told your Lordships whether he expected the Bill to be produced before Whitsuntide. I was not quite sure from the tenor of his answer whether we are to understand that there will be a complete expression of the housing policy of the Government when the Bill is introduced. He said he was not sure whether the statement of the Minister of Health would be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
EARL DE LA WARE: I was referring to the letter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I will press the Government to state a little more clearly when the Bill will be introduced. A Bill which is not introduced before Whitsuntide generally has great difficulty in passing into law, and it is vital we should know that. It is not as if the Government are faced with difficulties for which they themselves are not responsible. If they had left our Bill alone a great deal more progress would have been made. They found fault with the policy of their predecessors and the result is that housing has stopped. They are no longer in the position of being able to say that it is no fault of theirs, for by their own optimism they have put a stop to housing. I almost guess from what the noble. Earl has said that we shall not see the Bill before Whitsuntide. In that case not much progress will be made with housing before the winter. That is a serious matter and one upon which I feel a great deal of anxiety, which I hope the noble Lord will be able to relieve.
LORD PARMOOR: The difficulty of relieving the anxiety of the noble Marquess is that there are unforeseen difficulties in the other House as regards the arrangement of business. Our desire is to introduce the Bill before Whitsuntide, and I have no doubt that when it is introduced a full statement will be made.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Is the Bill ready? I can understand that there are often delays in getting a Second Reading, and still more in getting the later stages, but there never need be any delay in introducing a Bill. If it is ready I imagine the Bill could be introduced tomorrow.
LORD PARMOOR: I believe the Bill is ready.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are the negotiations with local authorities complete?
LORD PARMOOR: I should not like to be positive on that. I know they have been carried a considerable extent towards finality.

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS CONTINUANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I am very sorry to find myself in the position of moving the Second Reading of a Bill the day after it has been introduced in this House. There is no member of this House who feels more strongly than I do the disadvantage of this House being in any way curtailed in the time it has for dealing with legislation. But we are in this difficulty. The object of the Bill is to carry on the provisions of a measure which comes to an end to-morrow, and therefore steps of an emergency kind have to be taken to deal with the matter. The noble Marquess opposite indicated yesterday that he would expect to hear some reason why the Bill is presented here so late. It is contrary to the Orders of this House to criticise what takes place in another place, but in this instance there certainly was nothing in the way of rushing the Bill through in the other Mouse. It was introduced in March, and it received a Second Reading on April 10, which gave plenty of opportunity not only for the discussion in that House but for sending it here in time. For one thing, the Recess intervened, and there was also a little delay in setting up the Scottish Committee in the House of Commons, and the time slipped away without being sufficiently noticed. Thus the Bill arrived here at too short a time in my opinion before it has to be carried into operation. There is one little point which may have escaped your Lordships' notice, and that is that this House docs not sit on Mondays. The Bill passed the Commons on Monday and might have been here the same day. We should then have had three full days and one over in order
438
to get it through. That was a misfortune for which the Government are not to blame.
The Bill is a very short one, and it is quite unnecessary for me to go into the merits of the legislation. It is legislation which was brought in by the penultimate Government, and carried on by the late Government. All that the Bill does, with the exception of one little point, is to carry on the provisions of the existing Act until May 16, 1925. The reason for the Bill is to introduce into Scotland what is the law of England—namely, that poor relief can be given to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment. The reason for the legislation which was enacted in 1921 was the state of unemployment in Scotland. There has been, your Lordships will be glad to know, in the last few months some mitigation of the distress arising from unemployment in Scotland, but it is still on so great a scale that undoubtedly the House could not hesitate to answer the call of the Government that for another twelve months this power of giving relief should continue. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into figures on this subject. The state of things in Scotland is notorious, and I cannot imagine that this House would wish that the Bill should not pass.
There is one small addition to the present provisions which gives power to the parish council to make allowances, not for the purpose of direct relief, but as an assistance towards emigration. That is put in perfectly general terms, although one knows that there is a strong feeling in many quarters that assistance of emigration ought to be directed to assisting emigration to our own Colonies and Dominions. The Government have not thought proper to put it in that limited form here, but I am in a position to state that their proposal is to communicate with the parish councils and to exhort them in the administration of this matter to keep themselves in the closest touch with the body which is called, I think, the Oversea Settlement Committee, a Committee which deals with the question of assisting emigration to the Colonies and the Dominions. I do not think I have anything else to say on the subject of this Bill, except that I hope the House will put us in the position of being able to pass it to-morrow.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I need hardly say that I do not wish in the least to object to any continuance Bill which the Government deem to be necessary and desirable, but do I understand the last part of the noble Lord's speech to mean that there is to be public assistance to Scotland under this Bill while there is no corresponding provision in the Act applying to England? I dare say that I only show my own ignorance in asking this, but I should be glad of the information if my noble friend can give it me.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am sorry that I did not mention the point. I ought to have said that power already exists in England, and it is only proposed to extend that power to Scotland.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as the noble Lord referred to myself and to what passed in conversation yesterday, may I say that I think—as he knows very well—that it is a very objectionable practice if business is brought before your Lordships' House at such a late moment as to render it quite impossible to give due deliberation to any measure. This is a Bill which it is necessary to pass, because it is a continuance Bill, renewing an Act which, I understand, expires to-morrow. It must, of course, go through. I asked the Government yesterday what was the reason why it has been introduced here so late. I know that the noble Lord agrees with me on this subject, and he has been very candid, for he has told year Lordships that there is no reason why it has been introduced here so late. It is not a controversial Bill, and I understand that there was no difficulty in getting it through the House of Commons. On the contrary, it was more or less an agreed Bill, and I hope that it will not be thought that I am using an offensive word if I say that it was mere mismanagement that the Bill was not passed through the House of Commons in sufficient time to give your Lordships an opportunity of considering it.
But it is no use crying over spilt milk. We do not wish to stop this Bill, and would not do so, even if we had time to discuss it. In the circumstances there is nothing to be done, but I think (if the noble Lord will allow me to put it in that way) that it is his duty to represent to
440
those who are in charge in another place that it is not fair to treat your Lordships in this way. Were this a Bill which was likely to be controversial a real difficulty might arise. I think it would be much wiser if Bills were passed through the House of Commons in sufficient time. I do not know whether the noble Lord would pardon me if I went so far as to mention what we considered the proper practice when we sat on the Bench opposite. Roughly speaking, it was that there should be at least a week's interval between the different stages of a Bill, and, of course, more if necessary. That appears to be a normal and proper period of time. I do not know whether the noble Lord and his colleagues will see fit to carry on the same practice. I hope they will, and, if they do not, I hope that your Lordships will take steps to secure that they do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I quite agree with the remarks which have fallen from the noble Marquess. There ought to be adequate time for Bills to be put down in your Lordships' House, but the House of Commons is rather like a street down which a stream of motor cars is passing, and my noble friend's little motor ear got blocked in the street and could not get here in time. It was not his fault, and I think that the Government are quite aware of the disadvantages of its delay. I was going to suggest—since the noble Marquess has been good enough to say that he will make no difficulty about the Bill going through—that the most convenient course will be for my noble friend to put down Notice of Motion to suspend the Standing Order to-morrow, and also that this Bill should take precedence of other Orders. It will not take a moment, and the Bill at present standing first on the Order Paper may occupy your Lordships fill pretty late in the evening. We have communicated with the other House, and I think that half-past six will be a convenient hour for the "Royal Commission. We might adjourn the discussion of other matters to take the Royal Commission, and resume, the debate afterwards.
On Question. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.