Lords Sitting of 13 July 1925

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

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, with reference to this Bill, will the noble Marquess the Leader of the House be good enough to confer with me as to the date of the Second Reading?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I shall be quite ready to study the convenience of the noble Lord in regard to all stages of the measure.

BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the order made in the 10th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 30th of June next," be dispensed with and
2
that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a.

BOOTHFERRY BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill. Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: An Amendment proposed by the Committee made.

COMMITTEE OF CIVIL RESEARCH.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY had given Notice to ask whether His Majesty's Government is now in a position to make public the details of the proposed Advisory Colonial Council as announced by the Lord President of the Council on May 20 last; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on May 20 of this year the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, referred, in his speech during the Kenya debate, to a proposal for setting up a Committee analogous in character, though not, of course, in functions, to the Committee of Imperial Defence, to deal with the multifarious topics which arise in the course of the administration of a great Empire. He illustrated his intention by referring to one or two subjects, such as transport, scientific research and other matters of the sort.
In drawing an analogy between the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Committee which it is proposed shall be set up, he pointed out that it would be like the Committee of Imperial Defence in that it would perform no executive action of itself; that it would advise the Cabinet and provide machinery for examining problems with which there was
4
at present no departmental method of dealing; and that it would deal with civil questions as defence and military questions were dealt with by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The noble Earl said it was desirable to have a permanent Committee, though, as I understood, fluctuating in composition, to which should be referred the various problems which might arise, not in one Department alone but in several Departments, and it would exercise co-ordinating functions between the different Departments in regard to such problems. I understand that the proposed Committee could advise the Secretary of the State for the Colonies upon such subjects as research, education, transport, possible economical developments and, possibly, migration.
In making the Motion which stands in my name I desire to ask whether we can have in rather more detail than was possible on May 20 in the Kenya debate the exact functions, the exact position and the exact duties of this proposed Committee. The first thing that strikes me in regard to the analogy between the Committee of Imperial Defence and such a Committee as it is proposed to set up is that the Committee of Imperial Defence, though it advises the War Office, the Admiralty, the Air Department, and so on, has no objective functions and therefore has no control over expenditure. Presumably, then, if this new Committee is set up with a view of carrying out analogous functions in regard to civil matters, it will merely advise and will have no functions of expenditure, though it may devise schemes which will involve expenditure. But there is this great difference between the two Committees. Defence is one of the most expensive functions of government. We have no hesitation in spending, and probably spend wisely, sums running into millions and tens of millions sterling on defence. I imagine that the Committee mentioned by the noble Earl would not, in the advice it gives to the various Departments, approach in lavishness the expenditure advised by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The sums necessary to be spent in connection with advice on the civil side would not, I take it, amount to much more than a few thousand pounds. Transportation is an expensive matter, but it does not compare now, and probably will not for many years to come, with that

5
involved in defending ourselves against material foes for which we have created a War Department, an Admiralty and an Air Department.
One might urge, perhaps, that we should be doing well in concentrating rather more on defending ourselves against the natural enemies of mankind—the insects, the microbes, the invisible animalcules—if that is the right scientific phrase—the ills which take off mankind indiscriminately, rather than spend large sums of money, which only create a rival expenditure on the opposite side of the Channel, or the opposite side of the world, in defending ourselves against enemies who ought not to be enemies but who ought to be co-operators. However, I propose to make no particular point of that, except to urge that if the Government do desire to develop these scientific investigations of our Empire by means of a Committee or by means of public expenditure, such work, such expenditure, will be not only for the benefit of our own selves and our own Empire but will be for the benefit of the world at large, and if we do have rivalry in that expenditure it will be rivalry of a healthy and useful character, whereas the rivalry which we see in the rivalry of armaments of defence is ruinous.
I would like to suggest for the noble Lord's consideration whether, in fact, there is not another Department recently set up which might be perhaps better as an exemplar for this Committee to follow than that of the Committee of Imperial Defence—I refer to the Development Commission that was set up in pre-War days by the Government which I supported when I was in the House of Commons, a Committee which, for the United Kingdom, expended money in various directions for the investigation and development in all its stages, but for the development I think entirely, of industry and enterprise in the United Kingdom. Would it not be possible to extend such Committee's work or to re-create a Committee dealing with Imperial development as the Development Commission dealt with home development. There is already scope for such a Committee to carry out work in regard to entomology. Two very closely inter-related sciences call for intensive investigation in relation to the possibility of carrying disease, putting
6
down and, even more important, destroying the causes of disease. Much has been done in the last twenty or thirty years in that direction. The triumph over malaria and over Malta fever has shown that science, properly applied and with but a humble expenditure, can do a great deal in a way that has improved the condition of the world a thousand-fold. There remain problems similar in character still to be solved. As to the problems of tropical disease some of the causes, indeed, have been discovered, but, others are left unsolved.
The noble Earl, in speaking on May 20, referred to the tsetse fly, a devastating though minute influence throughout the whole, or practically the whole, of tropical Africa. If you could only get rid of the tsetse fly you would re-create economic possibilities in Central Africa which would add enormously to the resources of our Empire, and well would it be if such a Committee as the noble Earl suggests could devise or discover a method by which that one economic evil could be destroyed, even though the Committee did no more than that alone. There are, one might say, hundreds of other fruitful channels which might be investigated. Only last week we debated in this House on the problem of transport in Uganda. We were told by those who were acquainted with the economic problems of that country that the whole transport system of Uganda is out of date, inefficient, and very irritating and disastrous to traders. I have no doubt that entered the mind of the noble Earl when he moved on this subject. There, again, such a Committee as he proposes might deal fruitfully and wisely with the question.
A week ago I had the honour to be a member of a deputation to the Colonial Minister on the subject of a school of tropical agriculture. The deputation was moderate in its demands. It put forward, it seemed to me, a case of great urgency for practical agricultural investigation and asked for a small sum as things go now, a very small subsidy of £25,000, to enable the college to be continued in the West Indies. We received a favourable reply from the Secretary of State—as favourable as any Secretary of Stale can give, having in view the possibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer looming behind his chair. But

7
there was no promise that anything definite would be done. All we got was an undertaking from the Secretary of State that he would represent the case as strongly as he could to his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he hoped to be able to persuade him.
I do not know if it is proper, I do not know that it is wise, that the possibilities of economic development and economic research should be dependent year by year on the good will of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It might well be that as a sum of money was annually voted for the Development Commission in the old days (I am not quite certain whether that sum of money is still voted) a sum might be given to an Imperial Development Commission, a Committee of Imperial Development, rather than a Committee of Imperial Defence—I would not say "rather than" but in addition to a Committee of Imperial Defence—and to that Commission might be assigned within the limits of its function a substantial grant, not such a grant as we give to our Army and Navy but such a grant as would produce very fruitful results indeed.
So far I have dealt with subjects which cannot be considered by any one to be within the realm of political controversy and, perhaps, it might be well to form the Commission in such a way that it should have the support of men of public Parties of all kinds and not introduce the more burning questions which involve differences of opinion between different schools of political thought. Yet such a Committee, if it were merely confined to scientific investigation, would, I think, not be fulfilling all its objects. There are two closely inter-related subjects which might also be made topics of inquiry and investigation by such a Committee—migration and the relations of different races settled in different parts of the Empire. We have been discussing migration throughout the Empire for the last four or five years and the results from the various Acts passed have not been equal to the expectations raised when those Acs were first brought forward. No doubt migration is a plant of slow growth and, having been checked or absolutely stopped during the War by other more urgent calls upon the young men of the country, it has been difficult to re-establish it. But those who are acquainted with the problems of migration between the Mother
8
Country and the daughter nations of the Empire must be aware that the emigration movement from England to Australia, New Zealand or Canada during the past five years has not come up to what we expected, and has not satisfied either the Dominions or ourselves. It certainly has not relieved the over-burdened population which exists in this country.
It is a thorny question, it is a question full of difficulties, it is a question where feelings are very often aroused and hot words passed; yet it is a question of urgent importance, not only to this country but to every Dominion throughout the British Empire, and it might be that the question of furthering the matter and making more effective the money we spend on migration might be referred to such a Committee and such a Committee might be of service in bringing together the various interests. There it would more closely resemble the Committee of Imperial Defence in bringing together the Departments, not merely of this country but of the self-governing Dominions across the sea. There is no doubt that such a Committee would have to be purely an advisory one. You could not put upon any Committee of this country the duty of settling the policy of the Dominions. Such a course, though it may be logically argued, is politically impossible. I should not for a moment suggest that such a Committee could have anything more than a co-ordinating and unifying influence on the Departments concerned. But such a Committee would act as a very effective link—and we are all searching for links—between the Mother Country and the Dominions.
More difficult perhaps is the problem of coloured race migration within the Empire—the problem of how to deal with your Indian population which is moving out from India into the various self-governing Dominions and Colonies and which is a source of constant irritation to a large section of public opinion in India and, equally, a source of irritation to a large section of public opinion in the Dominions and the Colonies. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that at present there are difficulties which have not been overcome in dealing with the problem of Indian migration within the Empire. There is also the problem of the coloured races within the Dominions, and fiat is a subject which might well be

9
investigated by the Committee. Again, the dangers and difficulties are so great that I, for one, should prefer to be excused attendance on the Committee when this subject was under discussion.
I do not need to enlarge upon the various duties which such a Committee might undertake. I have given one or two examples, and it would be perfectly easy to multiply them. But in asking the Lord President of the Council to enlarge a little the sketch which he made some six weeks ago, I am asking him to give us this information not in any captious spirit, not with any desire to create embarrassment—I do not think any single word of mine can be said to be dictated by any political or Party prejudice—but with a real desire to know, in this country and also in the Dominions, what is proposed. I believe there are great possibilities in the suggestion made by the noble Earl, and I should like to see the sketch filled in.
Like all constitutional and political developments in this country we begin with one idea, one political idea, and it develops perhaps in a very different way to that which we expected. It grows by use into something newer, perhaps something better, and I therefore welcome the announcement which has been made that such a Committee may be set up. I trust it will be set up very soon and will have functions assigned to it of real importance, functions the exercise of which will do something to improve the condition of the people of this Empire, enable trade to be developed and the producing power of our Colonies to be greatly extended. It is with this object in view that I put the Question which stands in my name, and I trust the noble Earl will be able to give us full information on the subject, as it will be of real interest, not ony to members of this House, but to the Empire as a whole. I beg to move.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I hope one of the tasks which will be given to this Committee will be that of attempting to co-ordinate the different systems of administration which are now in force in British Colonies. I propose to deal with the question of Central Africa. Our Colonies in the Tropics extend from the Sudan to Rhodesia and from the Gambia to British East Africa, and, broadly speaking, they are all inhabited by the same
10
kind of people living the same kind of life. Nevertheless the systems of government in force in these Colonies are astonishingly different. In some of them the legislatures are elected by the people; in others the people have no voice in the government whatever. In some of them all the executive officials are British; in others there are no British executive officials. In some of them the Chiefs have unlimited power; in others the Chiefs have no power whatever. In some of them no European may own land; in others no native may own land. In the same way, in the administration of the law, there is every possible confusion of British law, Indian Mahomedan law, and tribal law.
What has happened is that these systems have grown up more or less haphazard, and they appear to be like the laws of the Merles and Persians, for the attitude taken up by the Colonial Office is that whatever system happens to be in force in any particular district is not only the best possible system but the only possible system, and any criticism of it amounts almost to blasphemy. It may be wrong, it may be right, it may be wise—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord will forgive me. I do not make a practice of rising to a point of order, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he really thinks this is relevant to the question of this particular Research Committee? The noble Lord is discussing at length the method of government in the African Colonies of the British Empire.
LORD RAGLAN: I did so in order to suggest that these various systems should be discussed by this Committee which it is proposed to set up. I suggest that if the Committee could employ itself in co-ordinating these various systems it would perform an extremely useful task.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I am a little puzzled with regard to the Question that has been asked and the observations of the noble Lord who has just sat down. He seems to think, or at least I gathered from his example that he does, that any question which can by any possibility come before the Committee of Civil Research might be dis-

11
cussed on its merits on the question as to the constitution and purpose of the Committee. But I think he will feel that that would extend the bounds of the Question beyond any reasonable limit and that your Lordships could not conveniently be asked to discuss on their merits questions which might be submitted to the Committee of Civil Research. I think the particular example he chose is not very felicitous even from that point of view. He seemed to think that it would be the business of this Committee to co-ordinate the British Empire; that only one system of government and one system of law should be applied throughout its wide extent to every race, to every stage of culture, to every tradition of history to which every part of the Empire has been subjected.
I think he will feel—at least I should feel—that, in the first place, that was a topic far beyond the scope even of the most flexible and far-reaching Committee; and, in the second place, the object that my noble friend has in view, which is that of securing that the British Empire, with all the varieties of race, religion and geographical position that I have indicated, should be brought under one simple law, a law evolved by one particular race in that vast Empire, with institutions which, as he truly said, vary enormously from area to area and from continent to continent, but which in all cases have some relation to the historic continuity of the districts with which they deal—I do not know that it would be wise for any Committee to undertake such an object. I am not sure that it is an object at which we should aim, and, in any case, my noble friend seemed to me to be wholly irrelevant to the particular Question put to me by the noble Lord who initiated this discussion.
If I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, he seemed to be rather afraid that I should regard his observations as being of a Party or partisan character and should criticise the spirit in which he put the Question to the Government. That is very far from being my view. I think nobody could complain of the spirit of the noble Lord, and nobody could complain of his objects or of the tone and temper of his observations. If I have a cause of complaint against the noble Lord it is of a very different kind. It is that he has
12
not made himself acquainted with the debates in your Lordships' House which have already taken place upon this subject. He was good enough to send me a very courteously worded letter with regard to his Question. The tenor of that letter a little surprised me, but I imagined that when he spoke he would elucidate the problem which, I confess, in his letter itself was left unsolved. But his speech has not helped me more than his letter for, so far as I can make out from what he said, he has never even heard of the debate of June 30.
Every observation that he made related, so far as I could see, to some incidental observations—I do not say unimportant observations, but incidental observations—that I made with regard to the Report on the British Dominions in Central Africa in a debate which took place in May. That was, no doubt, the first indication made in public of the intentions of His Majesty's Government. It was incomplete, it was necessarily incomplete, it was deliberately incomplete, but the noble and learned Viscount opposite—I am sorry to have to remind your Lordships of an event which occurred so very recently, but I think it is unknown to the noble Lord who asked me the Question, so for his sake, if not for anybody else's, I feel bound to refer to it—the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition, with a view of expressing his own very valuable views upon this subject and eliciting from the Government a more complete account of their views, initiated a debate upon this new Committee, and the result was a discussion of considerable interest which. I should have thought, answered every one of the questions and dealt with every one of the topics upon which the noble Lord who asks the Question desires information.
He will find that the debate, which took place on June 30, begins in column 872 of Volume 61 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is the column on which the noble and learned Viscount opposite explains his views on the subject, and, if the noble Lord wants to know my views, he will find them set out in column 879 and succeeding columns of the same volume. I really believe that there is not a single sub-question which the noble Lord has asked which does not find its answer in the speech which I then had the honour

13
to make to your Lordships. The noble Lord has himself more or less misconceived the character and objects of the Committee. I think he would not have misconceived that character and those objects if he had read these speeches. For example, he suggested that the Committee of Civil Research should be a Committee endowed with a large sum of money which it would be its business to allocate among the different Imperial and domestic questions which it might think worth considering. Anything more utterly antagonistic to the whole character, object, purpose and constitution of the Committee I can hardly conceive. The noble Lord thinks that the, Chancellor of the Exchequer should, for certain purposes, be dispossessed of his authority by this Committee, that it should not be left to the Treasury and Cabinet to deal with these problems, that they should be relieved of some of the most difficult of their functions and that those functions should be handed over to the new Committee, amply endowed out of public funds. As I have repeated, I think almost to weariness, this Committee is to have no executive functions, least of all the function of saying authoritatively what sums are to be spent out of public monies on what objects. That is not the object of the Committee, and the Committee is wholly unfitted to carry out such an object.
That, perhaps, is all that I need say as relevant to this particular inquiry, but I may remind the noble Lord opposite that there are already bodies in existence which have done and are doing most admirable work in relation to disease, to the development of medicine and to other great causes upon which the noble Lord dwelt with great eloquence and great sincerity and on which, I am sure, he carried the sympathies of the House. But, in the first place, they have nothing whatever—as he put the Question—to do with this Committee; and, in the second place, there are already, as I have said, institutions in existence which carry out much of the work which he desires to see carried out. Of course, I do not mean that the Committee of Civil Research is not to deal, in its own way and under its own limitations, with these problems. Take the tsetse fly, which was mentioned by the noble Lord and which
14
figured so largely in the first debate—the debate which the noble Lord has read—upon the subject of the Committee of Civil Research. This would be enough to show that disease is, of course, one of the subjects which may well come under its purview, which is coming under its purview.
The reason is quite plain. This Committee of Civil Research is, as I have said, an addition to our administrative machinery specially required to deal with problems with which more than one Department is concerned, and certainly these problems of tropical disease come under that category. They certainly may do and, I hope, will do and, indeed, are already setting to work to do really valuable service in advising the Cabinet upon these administrative problems, but it would be, and is, a complete misinterpretation of the functions of the Committee to suppose that they are an independent or semi-independent body of fixed constitution, endowed with large sums of money which they are to spend even on the most admirable objects in accordance with their own sweet will and pleasure. That is not the business of the Committee; that is not the sort of work its constitution fits it to do; and it involves a complete misapprehension of its character and its functions to suppose otherwise. I am certain that if the noble Lord will take the trouble to read the speeches—not very long speeches as speeches go—delivered by my noble and learned friend opposite and by myself, on behalf of the Government, in the last debate on the subject, he will feel that all his points have really been dealt with. In particular, I was amazed to hear him say that one of the defects which he would like to see removed in this new Committee was that it should include the self-governing Dominions. If he will take the trouble to look at column 882 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that the participation of the Dominions in any inquiry which concerns them is provided for by the machinery of the new Committee and is one of the objects for which the new Committee has been set up.
In these circumstances I really hardly think that it is necessary that I should further detain your Lordships on this matter. The noble Lord gave a list of the subjects with which he thought the Committee ought to deal and with

15
which, as I understood him, he thought that with its present constitution it could not deal. The noble Lord's list was a long one, but surely it was far shorter than a list of the subjects that may be looked into and may deserve to be looked into. All that can be dealt with under the constitution of the Committee. The flexibility of this Committee, which differentiates it from all other such Committees, except the Committee of Imperial Defence, gives it a latitude which will enable it, whenever the Government of the day desires it to take into account all these considerations, to call in all the experts it desires and the heads of all the Departments, and to bring the whole of the administrative machinery of the country into consultation and thereupon and thereafter to advise the Cabinet as to the course which it will be desirable to pursue.
I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I have at all ignored his Question or that I have endeavoured to evade any of the problems he put before me, but I do assure him that if he will take the trouble to go through the speeches which, however wearisome, certainly were not long, delivered on the occasion to which I have more than once referred, he will, I believe, find all his misconceptions removed. He will obtain a real view of what the work of the Committee is, what its instruments for carrying it out are, what relation it bears to the Executive of the country, and I hope and believe that when he has made himself acquainted through the ordinary sources of information with all these facts he will find that the Committee is nearer to his ideal than apparently it seems to him to be at the present moment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I cannot differ from the noble Earl in his criticism of the terms of the Motion and the grounds on which it has been supported. At the same time I should like to say this, which I think he, in effect, said also, that we have reason to congratulate ourselves when a noble Lord takes so much interest in science and in knowledge of this kind as to bring the matter to the attention of the House and open up a discussion upon it. Having said that, I am bound to agree with the noble Earl opposite that there really was no question which needed putting. There is not only the debate of June 30 last in
16
which the noble Earl explained everything in a way that left, so far as I can see, no ambiguity; there is this in addition—I am speaking from memory but I am nearly certain—that on June 13 last a Treasury Memorandum was circulated to Parliament and laid upon the Table of this House in which the whole thing was explained quite shortly and definitely. In these circumstances it is strange that, so little is the interest in the machinery of government in this country, that the debate and the Memorandum could both have been overlooked in connection with this Motion.
There are many Committees already in existence and I have no doubt there will be many more. They deal with many subjects; they are invested with more or less authority. One with a great deal of authority is the Development Commission to which my noble friend referred. The Development Commission is a very different body to the one we are discussing and, indeed, to any other of the kind that I know. It took its origin in the fact that the Departments kept putting in demands to the Treasury for money for agriculture, for development of roads, and so on. The Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day discussed it and got the Government to appoint a Committee of experts, containing representatives of different kinds of knowledge, who should sit together and should definitely recommend what grants should be made and in what proportions. They sit and make very careful inquiries and the policy of the Treasury in distributing money among the different Departments is largely based on the recommendations of the Development Commission.
That is a very different body from the one we are discussing. That is a body with very nearly executive functions. But in this case the Committee of Civil Research will not have a single executive function. My noble friend seemed to think that the Committee of Imperial Defence had to deal with large sums—
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I said it advised on subjects which involved large expenditure. That is a different thing.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It advises on subjects involving large expenditure, but on the sums it never advises. It

17
keeps itself clear of finance. So, in this case, the new Committee of Civil Research is clearly analogous. It has not to go into the sort of exact details with which a committee that was to advise the Government as to how much money they were to spend on this or that, would be concerned. It is, in effect, a Committee to give knowledge to Ministers and to give knowledge, in particular, to the Cabinet. Cabinet Ministers, a most worthy body of people, bring up propositions which occasionally are not based on much exact knowledge or very exhaustive research, and there is no way at the present time of getting them the overhauling which is necessary unless by the appointment of a special Committee, which may be very difficult to appoint. I myself have seen millions and millions wasted because of the want of accurate knowledge on the part of the government of the day.
Well, this is a new instrument of government, under which the Cabinet, when a question of that kind comes up to it, will be able to say from the lips of the Prime Minister, who is president of the new Committee: "This is surely a matter which should go for research to the new civilian Committee." The new civilian Committee will be under his eye, and in the end will devolve its functions to a sub-committee of experts, if it follows the analogy of the Committee of Imperial Defence. When the new Committee has assembled then there will come up a Report—a Report, the progress of which and the collection of material for which have been assisted by the services of the members of the secretarial staff of the Cabinet, who are there to guide it and to keep the Prime Minister in intimate acquaintance with what is going on.
In that way, and through the Chairman of the new Committee of Imperial Research, you will have an organised body, the function of which is solely and entirely to provide Ministers with an amount and a kind of knowledge which they do not get at the present time. That is the whole object of this Committee. It has had a predecessor of the same kind in the Committee of Imperial Defence, which has entirely succeeded, and now the same method is going to be applied in another direction. Thinking costs nothing, and that is a maxim that is very often forgotten in government, and which has been too much forgotten by our-
18
selves. Now, I hope, we shall have more of it. We cannot have too much. If that be so, my noble friend will see that, however right he is in the views he has put forward, he is not right about this body, which is not directed to any of the purposes of which he spoke, but is directed solely to informing the minds of the Cabinet.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, in withdrawing the Motion which I have put before the House, I have only to apologise to the noble Earl for having, as he has rightly discerned, missed his speech of June 30. I must plead guilty of having been unaware of that speech. It is my own fault, but my attention was not called to it. May I suggest that when the noble Earl's secretary asked me for information as to what the Question was about he might perhaps, if he had thought of it, have called my attention to the debate of June 30, and thus have saved your Lordships' time in the moving of this unnecessary Motion? I have to throw myself on the mercy of the House, therefore, for having wasted the time of the House.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Not at all; you have not wasted our time.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, this Bill is designed to give a measure of protection to quite a large number of persons whose livelihood is in the main dependent upon giving dramatic and musical performances. As your Lordships are well aware, during recent years there has grown up in this country quite a big and potential industry in the making of gramophones and of gramophone records, and performers and artists look for a considerable part of their incomes to sums from the manufacturers of records, and the fees payable for performing for mechanical reproduction to these artists are of quite a substantial character.
Now a new situation has arisen—one of the many situations that are constantly cropping up in these days, owing to the

19
rapid progress of science and of mechanical invention. The position is that broadcasting can be used by any person who is in possession of a receiving set and a loud speaker, for purposes which were certainly never intended by the Broadcasting Company—namely, the illicit mechanical reproduction of a performance transmitted by the Broadcasting Company. If you and I were the happy possessors of a recording instrument and also of a wireless set with a loud speaker, by placing the recording instrument in close proximity to the loud speaker we could get a record of any performance, and we could make that record into quite a number of gramophone records. This has been quite clearly demonstrated by the Gramophone Company. Last year His Majesty's speech at the opening of the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley was recorded by the Gramophone Company from their loud speaker, and that record was made use of also for demonstration purposes the same evening by the Broadcasting Company for the transmitting of that speech to the public.
How does that situation affect artists? It affects them in this way. Artists are becoming apprehensive, and increasingly apprehensive, of performing for the Broadcasting Company, for, in so doing, there is a large danger of their earning capacity in performing for manufacturers of records being lost. If the record is illicitly made by the process which I have described, and if that record proves, when made, to be as saleable an article as a record made by the manufacturer of records—who pays the performer—then the artist's prospect of obtaining further employment from the manufacturer of records will be jeopardised, and, in fact, it may altogether cease. Again, there is another side to it from the artist's point, of view. Supposing that record which has been illicitly produced is proved to be of an inferior quality, then it is the artist's reputation that will suffer, and will suffer to a serious degree.
A considerable part of the remuneration of artists in these days is derived from the sale of gramophone records of their voices or of their instrumental playing, and if there is no law against the listener-in who makes a record and multiplies it, as I have described, by the usual processes, and offers it for sale to the public, artists are hound to suffer.
20
The listener-in having no cost of remuneration to the artist and having nothing to pay for rehearsals or for accompaniments, the cost of production to him is infinitely lower than it would be to the gramophone company, which is making similar records. And if his costs of production are lower, then he is certainly able to offer the record on sale to the public at a considerably lower price than the manufacturer of records. Therefore it follows that the gramophone company can no longer afford to pay the fees to the artists that they are now earning, and this source of their income must immediately cease and be closed to them.
There is one more point, and I think your Lordships will appreciate it. There is really a great feeling amongst artists that the recording of their voices and their instrumental playing for posterity is a matter that should be done with great precision and great skill. For this reason they are thrown, for the continuation and perpetuation, for perpetuation it must be, of their art on to one or other of the gramophone companies. The gramophone companies and the Broadcasting Company are equally affected by this situation and are most desirous to see this measure placed upon the Statute Book.
This Bill endeavours to deal with this new situation. Clause 1 makes it an offence to make records for the purposes of sale without the consent of the performer and it inflicts a penalty for so doing, upon summary conviction. The other clauses of the Bill merely amplify the principle laid down in Clause 1. The Bill has been thoroughly considered in another place and it comes before your Lordships having been properly hammered into shape and thoroughly digested, and I hope it will meet with the general approval of this House, especially of His Majesty's Government, of noble Lords who sit on the Benches opposite, and noble Lords who sit above the gangway. There is only one other point that I wish to make. During the discussion on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, two points were raised, both in the form of technical objections. One was that this situation should have been dealt with under the copyright law and the other was that it would be preferable to deal with an offence by a civil action through means of an injunction with damages,

21
rather than under criminal procedure. I do not want to detain your Lordships upon these points. I merely say that if they find their counterpart in your Lordships' House I am prepared to deal with them at length. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I think this is a Bill which ought to pass. Somebody with a beautiful voice gives a performance, perhaps lives by giving such performances, and as things now stand a gramophone record can be made perhaps indirectly and then reproduced and published, with the result that the people do not go to the performances a great many of them, at any rate, are content with the record and what it reproduces. I think that is very wrong. It has been suggested that this might be dealt with under the Copyright Act. I had the privilege of piloting the Copyright. Act through your Lordships' House. It was a gigantic Act and to put in such as would require to be put in to cover this would be to make it still more gigantic. I much prefer to deal with this simple case in a simple way. And I do not think there is any hardship in it, because at then end of Clause 1 there are these words:—
"Provided that it shall he a defence to any proceedings in respect of an alleged offence under the foregoing paragraph (a) if the defendant proves that the record in respect of which the offence is alleged was not made for purposes of trade."
If the thing is done innocently or harmlessly there can be no offence committed under the Act. If it is done, as it is generally done, for the purpose of enabling people to put money into their pockets by stealing the talents of their neighbour it is an offence. I think this is a harmless Bill and I think it is right that it should proceed by way of a criminal law. I see no reason why there should not be a special Bill on the subject, and so far as I am concerned I shall support the Second Reading.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I ought perhaps, to say one word on this Bill from the point of view of the Board of Trade. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury is a very interest-
22
ing one as showing, as he said, the development of the gramophone industry That development leads to new methods. I will not say illicit methods because they are not at the present time condemned by Parliament. But the records made by gramophone manufacturers already enjoy of course, as the noble Earl knows, copyright as musical works under Section 19 (1) of the Copyright Act. Under that subsection it would be a breach of copyright for any person to make a record from a performance broadcast from the manufacturers' records.
I understand that at the same time the artist may desire to give the same performance for the purpose of broadcasting If from that broadcasting some ingenious person takes a record, obviously that would compete very seriously with the record of the performance which the artist has already sold to the manufacturers. I understand that this Bill is to the advantage both of the record makers and the artists, because, obviously, the manufacturer has a depreciated article in his hands if another and competitive record is made. At any rate, the artist is not likely to get such a good price from the record manufacturer if that record manufacturer finds that in return for the contract he has a depreciated article. Therefore it seems to me to be certainly to the advantage of both those sets of people. It appears also to the Board of Trade equitable from the point of view of the general public, which is of course the point of view I am specially representing here. Therefore, from that point of view, the Government not only do not offer any opposition, but are ready to give support to the Bill.
There is only one other point to which I might allude, and that is the question of making this a criminal rather than a civil liability. The matter was raised, of course, in another place, and it was raised by the Solicitor-General to the late Labour Government, but after hearing the authoritative statement of the noble and learned Viscount on this point I presume I may consider that the objection, anyhow of the Solicitor-General in his own Government, has been overruled, and, therefore, I refer to it no further.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have not read it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then the noble and learned Viscount unconsciously overruled the Solicitor-General in his own Government.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Unconsciously.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think the noble and learned Viscount mentioned the point that under the Copyright. Act certain breaches of copyright, if committed for the purposes of trade or profit, are the subject of summary proceedings. The noble and learned Viscount has pointed out that if it is done merely for private purposes it does not come within the ambit of this Bill. Therefore, from the point of view of the Government I have no opposition to offer.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH CLAIMS AGAINST TURKEY.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to call attention to the claims of British subjects against the Turkish Government for losses sustained by them during the War, and to ask what progress has been made by the Assessment Commission at Paris. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this question is one of a certain amount of complexity. Two Government Departments are really concerned. I understand that I am to be answered by the representative of the Treasury, but I am glad to observe that my noble friend the Earl of Balfour is present this afternoon, and I look to him to give us the Foreign Office point of view. This is a question which cannot possibly be dissociated from what has happened since the War. All the post-War Treaties contain an obligation to recoup private individuals, and that is accomplished by sequestrating, or, as I prefer to call it, confiscating, the property of enemy aliens. It never seemed to me a very moral proceeding, but on the whole British subjects have not done very badly out of it, If I am not mistaken, British claimants against the German Government will get something approaching 20 s. in the £ The creditors of Austria and Hungary will receive pretty much the same amount, and I believe the creditors of Bulgaria have been paid in full, or are about to be paid in full, and are also to receive the accruing interest.
The only people who get nothing at all, or next to nothing, are the creditors of Turkey who, perhaps, have suffered more than anybody else. The original Sevres Treaty, as the House is well aware, contained the same provisions as the other Treaties which were negotiated at Paris, and it made provision for the compensation of British subjects, but owing, if I may say so, to the vagaries of Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson, the Treaty of Sevres went to the wall, and was succeeded by the Treaty of Lausanne. In the meanwhile Turkey, which was almost literally ground into the dust, has more or less recovered. Its position is now, without exaggeration, a nuisance to the whole civilised world. The first draft of the Lausanne Treaty fixed the claims of the creditors of the Turkish Government at £13,500,000 sterling. Eventually, by a process which is well known to everybody here, this sum of £13,500,000 was reduced to a sum of £10,800,000, and the Turks who, whatever may be their other failings, are never wanting in impudence, put forward two counter-claims. One was for £4,500,000, representing the gold which had been deposited in Berlin and Vienna as security for their loans. The second counter-claim was one for what is known as the battleship money, which amounts to £6,300,000.
I leave the battleship money alone for the moment, and deal first with the deposit money. This, which is called deposit money, consists of a fund amounting, as I have stated, to £4,500,000. It is vested in an International Commission which has been set up at the instance of the Turkish claimants, and, so far as I am aware, this Commission has made no payments whatsoever. I should like to remark that although the £4,500,000 sterling sounds a very imposing sum, it does not amount to much from the point of view of Turkish creditors when you examine it completely, because this £4,500,000 is a fund for which there is a kind of international scramble going on at the present moment. We are not the only claimants. There are French claimants, Italian claimants, Rumanian claimants and, I understand, even Japanese claimants, and all these people are represented on the Commission.
The circumstances are further complicated by the fact that the Smyrna claimants, who have nothing whatever to

25
do with the War, have also been brought before this Commission, for what reason I am unable to discover. The two cases were entirely dissimilar. In the one case, the case of the War claims, we were belligerents, and each national considered that he was entitled to compensation for the loss which he had suffered. The Smyrna fire was a totally different matter. We were not at war with anybody at the time. The destruction of Smyrna was the result of hostilities between the Turks and the Greeks, and we had nothing whatever to do with it. It seems to me quite illogical that these two sets of claimants should be dealt with simultaneously. I may add that the prospects of getting anything substantial are most unsatisfactory. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that I believe the claims of the British nationals alone amount to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, although they have never been actually assessed. These claimants were first of all told to wait for the Treaty in order to get their claims settled, then they were told to wait for the ratification of the Treaty, and finally they were told to wait until the Commission made its award. As I hive already observed, no payments so far as I am aware, have been made at all.
I shall probably be told when the answer is given that the British claimants, on the other hand, have got another sum to fall back upon in the shape of that sum of £5,000,000 associated with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner which is a kind of ex gratia fund that was founded for the purpose of compensating British sufferers in all these belligerent countries. I understand that out of this ex gratia fund a considerable sum has been paid over to the claimants against the Turkish Government. I believe something like £600,000 has been paid. Here I would like to emphasise the fact that these payments from the ex gratia fund really amount only to a loan, because any money that these claimants obtain from the ex gratia fund will have to be refunded as soon as they obtain any payment from the deposit fund now administered at Paris. Therefore the prospects of these unfortunate people receiving any substantial sum are as unlikely as unlikely anything you can conceive. I am acquainted with one gentleman who put forward a claim to, I think, £43,000,
26
and who has received from this ex gratia fund something between £600, and £700, and he thinks it extremely improbable that he will ever receive anything more, unless I am able to make some impression by my statement this afternoon. So much for the so-called deposit fund.
I pass to what is known as the battleship money, which raises a much more important and a much more contentious point. This fund concerns British subjects only, and it is a much larger fund than the other. It amounts to no less than £6,300,000. The House will recollect that in 1914, when War broke out, there were in the English building yards three ironclads, two Turkish and one Chilian. The British Government, exercising their rights, appropriated these three ships. In the case of the Chilian vessel they paid full value for it, but in the case of the Turkish ships they refused payment, and, therefore, the ships were acquired for nothing. This action of the British Government at that time—I am not finding fault with it—naturally created extreme exasperation in Turkey, and created especial exasperation for this reason. These ships ere not built in the ordinary way by the Government, but were built largely out of private subscriptions provided by the population of Turkey. It was a kind of patriotic appeal to them, and I believe everybody in the country subscribed towards the battleships.
Naturally the greatest exasperation was caused by their appropriation by the British Government, and the people who are good judges of politics in the Near East have often maintained that if we had not effected this seizure it is quite conceivable the Turks would never have gone to war, and that the extreme exasperation and irritation caused by this proceeding enabled Enver Pasha and his friends to work up a violent agitation against us which eventually brought Turkey into the War. But it is no use discussing this particular point. The fact is we seized these vessels and we refused to pay for them, and the immediate and natural result was that the Turkish Government at once seized all the property of British subjects that they could lay their hands upon.
The question as to whether the British Government were entitled to seize then battleships without compensation has

27
never been actually made clear. Recently, in questions which have been put to the Government, the Government representatives have constantly denied that we had incurred any liability at all or were liable for any compensation. On April 13 of last year the late Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, when interrogated on this point, replied as follows:
"I am aware that Ismet Pasha renounced, On behalf of Turkey, any claim to the value of these battleships, but in doing so he was renouncing a claim which His Majesty's Government never recognised as valid."
That sounds plain enough, but if you look at Article 58 of the Lausanne Treaty, you will find these words:
"Turkey also agrees not to claim from the British Government or its nationals repayment of the sums paid for the warships ordered in England by the Ottoman Government."
There is here, therefore, a flagrant contradiction.
How can you renounce a thing which does not exist? The Lausanne Treaty was not a dictated Treaty like the Treaty of Paris. It was a negotiated Treaty on even terms, and if you admit an Article of that character and put your name to something to which you have given your agreement, it certainly looks, on the face of it, as if His Majesty's Government at that time realised that if the Turkish claim was not substantiated there was a good deal behind it. In order to fortify that view let me read to your Lordships v hat the late Lord Curzon is reported by the Blue-book of the proceedings at Lausanne to have said on this subject. The Blue-hook contains the following, under date February 4, 1923:—
"Let Ismet Pasha"—
he was, of course, the Turkish representative—
"realise quite clearly that in making a concession to Turkey regarding the payment for the ships which Great Britain had requisitioned in 1914, Lord Curzon had taken upon himself a responsibility which he would he obliged to defend before British public opinion. He had made this concesson and assumed this responsibility in order to please Ismet Pasha. It was by far the greatest concession Great Britain had made, and Ismet Pasha should fully appreciate its magnitude."
All this can be found in the Blue-book.
Further, Lord Curzon pointed out—and this is absolutely vital to my point—that
"The concession is made at the expense of British nationals in Turkey who have
28
steadily ever since the Armistice held the view that this money was in the hands of the British Government and have asked that it may be used to pay something on account of admitted claims."
Here, as I have already said, the validity of the claims is practically acknowledged, and it was on the basis of this acknowledgment that Turkey consented to sign the Treaty. I do not want to throw any blame on the late Lord Curzon, for I consider he was, perhaps, the most valuable statesman this country has possessed of recent years, and it must be remembered that he was fighting this battle by himself and with absolutely no support from any of our Allies on any important point. The long and short of all this is that His Majesty's Government have got two very valuable battleships for nothing, and, on the other hand, the claimants upon Turkey, who have very strong claims, get nothing whatever. That is really the whole case.
I only desire to point out in conclusion that these are claims on the part of British merchants in the Near East who have been the mainstay of British trade in that part of the world for centuries. They suffered severely during the War. At a moment's notice many of them were turned out of the country, their property seized, their houses seized, and everything they enjoyed seized. They are now in an impoverished and crippled position. On the other side you hear laments that the trade of this country in the Near East is diminishing. In former years, indeed only a short time ago, British trade in Turkey was predominant and was, perhaps, as important as the trade of most of the European nations put together. If there is any real desire to recover that trade the most practical means of attaining that object is to enable these British merchants in Turkey, who thoroughly understand the question, to be allowed to recover; and we should try to set them on their feet again. It is only by obtaining some measure of compensation for the heavy losses they have sustained that anything of the kind can be effected.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord divides itself into two parts. The first part consisted of a criticism of the policy of His

29
Majesty's Government so far as British nationals' claims against Turkey during the War are concerned, and the second part was merely an inquiry as to the progress of the Paris Commission which has been formed to deal with these claims. I will deal with the first part of his speech first. The claims were, as the noble Lord has said, divided into two classes—first, those for damage which was suffered during the War with Germany, and for which Germany as an Ally of Turkey is partly responsible; and, secondly, that damage which was suffered during the Nationalist régime in Turkey from 1920 to 1923. I do not intend so enter into an argument with the noble Lord as to whether these claims should be admitted at all in so far as the Paris Commission is concerned, but at any rate the damage was suffered during the War between Turkey, our late enemy, and Greece, our late Ally; and it was just as important to the people concerned as the previous damage
The first class of claims, damage suffered during the War with Germany, was treated in exactly the same way as damage due to German action itself. The noble Lord was quite right. In May, 1920, the Government decided to allocate a sum of £5,000,000 for compensation for War damage, and a Royal Commission was subsequently set up, of which Lord Sumner was Chairman, to deal with the distribution of this sum of money. The country owes a very great debt to that Commission for the extremely successful way in which they performed a very difficult task. It is not necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with the details and the conclusions and the rates that the Commission laid down. So far as British nationals' claims against Turkey fire concerned, these payments were made as an advance recoverable out of awards which were to be made by the Paris Commission later on. The claims, I think, amounted to something like £2,000,000, and so far about £750,000 has already been paid.
I now come to Article 58 of the Lausanne Treaty. Under this Article Turkey renounced her claims to a sum of approximately £5,000,000 which had been given by Germany and Austria to Turkey during the War. This money remained in Berlin and in Vienna during that time and it was transferred to the
30
Allies under the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty with Austria. It was decided to set up an inter-Allied Commission to deal with the distribution of this sum of money and there were British, French and Italian claimants, as well as a small claim from Japan, which, I understand, is to share in the distribution. I should like to say a word about the second class of claimants—namely, those who claim for damage done during the Nationalist régime later on in Turkey. For this damage Germany naturally has no responsibility, and therefore the claims under this heading are not eligible for awards from Lord Sumner's fund, but their claims will rank against the stun held by the Paris Commission. I understand that there are claims amounting to something like £1,000,000 and, although it is difficult to give an exact estimate at the present moment, that means that altogether there are claims of about £3,000,000 by British nationals.
Before I say a word or two about the progress that the Commission has made, I think it would be right, to refer to some of the criticisms which have been levelled against His Majesty's Government with regard to the arrangements that they have made on behalf of British claimants. The first and most important point to which the noble Lord referred was undoubtedly the question of the requisitioned battleships. His Majesty's Government have never admitted any claim for compensation from Turkey with regard to these battleships, and the argument that the requisitioning of British property in Turkey was a direct result of the requisitioning of these battleships does not, I think, hold water because this requisitioning was made, not against British nationals alone, but generally against all enemy nationals in Turkey. Payment would undoubtedly have been made to Turkey if she had remained neutral, but it was common knowledge at that time that Turkey was not very favourable to our cause and, when she joined the Central Powers against us, all her rights with regard to this claim were confiscated under International Law. To pay such a sum as the noble Lord refers to would involve a separate Vote by Parliament, and in view of the provisions which have been made—namely the Sumner Fund and the Paris Commission—successive Govern-

31
ments, including the present Government, have not felt justified in advising that such a course should be taken.
With regard to what happened at the Lausanne Conference, I would like, first, to say this. It is suggested that originally a sum ranging from £12,000,000 to £15.000,000 was claimed for, and that finally a sum of approximately £5,000,000 was accepted on condition that Turkey renounced her claim with regard to these battleships. I wish to repeat that this claim was never admitted. The reason why this considerable sum—namely, £12,000,000 to £15,000,000—was originally claimed was that it was obviously necessary, in order to negotiate with Turkey, to ask for a sum of money which it was not expected to obtain in the end. The second reason why this £5,000,000 was accepted rather than the larger sum, was that, in view of the fact that Turkey was then and still is in a very impoverished condition, it was no good asking her for a great deal more than she could pay, because the result would have been to lead to endless discussions and to cause a further delay which would not in any way have helped the claimants.
The noble Lord has referred to the part that Lord Curzon played at the end of the first part of the Conference, but I think it is only fair to say that the sole reason why Lord Curzon made his offer was that the Reparations question was the only outstanding one at that moment and he felt that, if this matter could be settled, it might be a question of averting a fresh Mar with Turkey. I only wish to emphasise the fact that, not only did it not entail a liability to contribute to the Reparations pool, but far less did it admit the claim of compensation upon the part of the Turkish Government so far as the requisitioned battleships were concerned. The noble Lord referred to the fact that German property in this country was sequestrated with a view to helping British claimants against Germany for damage suffered during the War, whereas claimants against Turkey did not have the satisfaction of seeing Turkish property in this country sequestrated in the same way. The explanation of that is really comparatively simple. It is that there was, to all intents and purposes, no Turkish property in this country to sequestrate. In the circumstances which I have tried as briefly as possible to
32
explain to your Lordships, His Majesty's Government, like successive Governments before it, does not see its way to ask Parliament to vote further money for compensation to claimants under this head.
The noble Lord asked what progress the Commission had been making, and before I sit down, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon that point. The Commission referred to, which is now known as the Paris Commission, was set up almost immediately after the Treaty was ratified in August last year and delegates from three countries—Britain, France and Italy—were forthwith appointed. They drew up their budget, which was then submitted for approval to the respective Governments. I do not think it is at all necessary to trouble your Lordships with the details of this budget. They invested the sum at their disposal—namely £T5,000,000, which amounts to something over £4,600,000 in British gold—in various bonds, nearly all in dollar securities. With regard to the collection of claims, the Commission put advertisements in the Press, both in Europe and the Near East, and furthermore the British delegate made arrangements with the Reparations Claims Department and the Dominion and Indian Government and other bodies to ensure that all documents emanating from claimants should be sent to that Commission, so that the claimants should be able to put their case before the Commission in as favour able a light as possible.
The claims up to the present moment number 4,820, and it is estimated that by August 6, 1925, the final date for sending in claims, there will be about 5,000 claims. There still remain important questions of principle to settle, and, in these circumstances, it is impossible yet to make any definite statement with regard to the aggregate number and amount of claims which are likely to rank against the Paris Commission. There are still outstanding questions of protected persons, which involve, I understand, a large number of French claims: the position of Cypriots, a matter which involves at least 500 British claims and some Italian claims; the position of religious and other unincorporated bodies; of limited companies where the members do not all belong to the same nationality; and various other questions of that kind. Some important

33
decisions have been reached. The question of damages to the person have been settled, and the question of how far the legal personal representative can be admitted, which is very important seeing that the damage was in many instances done as long as ten years ago. In fact, tables have been laid down with regard to these matters and progress has been made.
There is the question of the Smyrna fire, to which my noble friend referred is a rather strong terms, which is a rather complicated matter owing to the fact that a good many war damage policies have been paid there. The position is improving and, in view of a final settlement, the Commission sent out a sub-Commission to Smyrna to consult with the local experts. They have made suggestions to the Commission which have been adopted and which, it, is hoped, will prove of considerable value. In order to pave the way to that Sub-Commission and to other Sub-Commissions which it is hoped may be sent out, the Commission decided to pay a visit to the Near East this year. They left Paris in March and visited Constantinople. Smyrna, Rhodes, Cyprus, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, and the British representative took the opportunity of going to Malta as well. They were able to glean a large, amount of useful information, to discuss the general situation with the people on the spot and to explain their views with regard to the system under which compensation should be paid. Furthermore, claimants were allowed to meet their delegate if they 60 wished to do, and in that way to make it unnecessary to secure further proof later on in matters which are generally accepted to be facts and to be true.
That is as far I think as I can go. It will be admitted that to deal with something like 16,000 claims in a reasonable time is an immense task for any body of men and this task has been immeasurably increased by the fact that much evidence has been lost in the course of time which has elapsed. Claimants in many eases have died or are untraceable, but nevertheless His Majesty's Government are very conscious of the necessity that the work of this Commission should be completed at the earliest possible moment. The British delegate has always pressed this view upon his colleagues, and it is hoped that the work of the Commission
34
will be accelerated and His Majesty's Government will, if necessary, suggest the taking of any steps for distributing this fund which may be required in order that it may be distributed at the earliest possible moment.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, a Question has been raised by my noble friend Lord Newton that is of an extremely complicated character, but I must congratulate the noble Earl on the lucid way in which he has replied to it. His closing remarks were, I understand, completely devoted to the work of the Paris Commission. The only observations I wish to make are in regard to the money that our traders claim in respect of the requisition made on their property owing to the seizure of those Turkish ships at the beginning of the War. Here, it seems to me, the Government are extremely unsatisfactory. These two ships were seized when they belonged to a nation with which were at perfect peace at the time. All the Government say is that they never recognised this claim. That is a peremptory way of dealing with the question when the Turks retaliate and seize the property of our British subjects in Turkey. Apparently the only redress due to those unfortunate people of our own nationality is that the Government do not recognise that they did anything of a high-handed nature in seizing those ships.
Lord Newton said that he would not go into the legality of the action, but undoubtedly that act provoked Turkey later on to enter the War against us. Many people felt that the action was of a very provocative character. It is owing to that act that our people have, lost any claim to redress. It is extremely unfortunate for our fellow citizens that the Government should deal with a subject in this very inconsequential manner on the principle that "might is right." I only hope that my noble friend will press his Question on this particular point and will get some compensation paid to those whose property was seized owing to the direct action of His Majesty's Government immediately after the outbreak of War.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, if the appeal is made to me, which I gather it is I am afraid I have very little information to give my noble friend. I

35
would ask him to remember this. In the first place, I understand that it is a complete misapprehension to suppose that the requisitions made at the outbreak of War upon British subjects were in consequence of the seizure of the ships. They were made upon the nationals of all the Allied Powers. They were not directed towards British subjects chiefly or alone. The other point I have to make is one that is constantly forgotten. Though it is perfectly true, if my memory serves me aright, that His Majesty's Government had not conclusive information that Turkey was hostile to the. Allied Powers when the War broke out, they had strong suspicions that that was the case, and those suspicions turned out perfectly accurate because Turkey had made a secret Treaty with Germany prior to the outbreak of War which committed her to the Central Powers. In those circumstances there is no case that the British Government acted harshly towards Turkey in seizing those ships, or that British subjects suffered owing to the action with regard to the ships, or that Turkey had the least right to complain of our taking the ships and not paying for them, considering that at the time they were taken they belonged to a Power which had actually entered into a Treaty directed against this country.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it is only by the leave of the House that I can comment on what has been said by the two noble Lords on the Front Bench, but I confess that I am positively shocked at the immorality of my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth, more, especially in one so young. The view of my noble friend is, if I interpret him correctly, that it is quite right that the creditors of Turkey should be sacrified for the purpose of obtaining a Treaty and, in the second place, that it is quite unreasonable for these creditors of Turkey 10 expect to be recompensed because there wore not a sufficient number of Turkish subjects in this country to rob. That argument might have been applied to the creditors of the Bulgarian Government and the Austro-Hungarian Government. You could not seize an equivalent amount in those cases and the difference had to be made up out of reparations.
Lord Balfour is not quite accurate as to the retaliation exercised by the Turks when the ships were seized. I am
36
informed that the Turks retaliated almost exclusively on British subjects and that other nationals did not suffer at all, or if they suffered it was to a very small extent. I must emphasise the fact that the contention which I made has not been disputed at all. It is all very fine for the two noble Lords to say that there is no responsibility and no liability for these battleships. That liability is clearly admitted in the Treaty.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is not admitted.
LORD NEWTON: I refer my noble friend to Article 58.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I contend that that merely emphasises the attitude which His Majesty's Government have taken all along. It was merely to make it absolutely definite and certain.
LORD NEWTON: There is nothing in the Treaty saying that you do not recognise this liability. What you do is to ask the Turks to renounce it; it is no good denying it, nor is it any good denying the facts that we have obtained these two very valuable warships for nothing at all, and that the creditors of Turkey may, with a certain amount of justice, and stretching the argument to its utmost, almost contend that they are the people who have to pay for them. I hope this subject will be revived in another place and by people who can make more impression on the Government than I am able to do personally. At all events, I hope it will not be lost sight of.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, it is quite unnecessary to make a long speech on this Bill. The Bill was passed unanimously on both Second and Third Readings in another place. It was promoted in the first place by the Municipal Corporations Association, but it is equally strongly supported in its present form by the Association of County Councils, the Association of Urban District Councils and the Association of Rural District Councils, a very unusual combination. My noble friend Lord Derby, who is the president of the Association of Municipal Corporations,

37
ought to have introduced the Bill, but he is unfortunately unable to be here. That is why I, as one of the vice-presidents, inn venturing to do so. The measure is also supported by His Majesty's Government, particularly by the Ministry of Health. Successful efforts have been made to safeguard the interests of any organisation specially affected, and I am able to tell your Lordships that such bodies as the National Federation of Property Owners, the Central Landowners' Association, the railway companies, the Canal Association, and the National Gas Council, composed of the gas, water and electricity authorities, are all satisfied with the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to collect into one Act, subject to certain restrictions and limitations, and to make available for the whole country, provisions already enacted in local Acts which have stood the test of experience over several years. Every clause of this Bill is founded upon local precedent except some that were introduced on the Committee and Report stage on the initiative of the Government in another place. The Bill follows the principles of sanitary and local legislation which have grown up in this country. All through the last hundred years Private Bills have been passed giving special powers to the local authorities. After the provisions of those Bills have been tested by experience they generally assume a stereotyped form and when that is the case they are collected from time to time into General Acts such as this.
These Acts are of two kinds,—one consisting of such Acts as require another Act in order to incorporate them and apply them locally. Examples of that are the well-known Lands Clauses Act, 1845, the Gas Works Clauses and Markets and Fair Clauses Act, 1847, and many other Acts. The other kind of Acts consist of those which are either of general application or are adopted by the localities on a resolution of the local authority. Examples of those Acts are the Public Health Acts of 1848 and 1375 and the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, of 1689, once adoptive but now compulsory. I could mention many others. It is to the latter class of Bill that this Bill belongs. I can assure your Lordships that it is quite in accordance with precedent that a Bill of this kind should be introduced by a private member. The
38
greater part of our sanitary and local legislation in its original form has neon introduced by private members both in this House and in another place, acting, as the promoters of this Bill are acting, as a rule with the co-operation and advice of the Government.
It is eighteen years since the last measure involving Public Health provisions was introduced—the Public Health Acts Amendment. Act, 1907. Many new provisions have been inserted in local Acts since that time and have been found useful in practice and the time seems ripe for putting those into more general form. That is the opinion of the Local Legislation Committee of the House of Commons. That Committee reported in 1921 as follows:—
"The Committee is further of opinion that a consolidation and extension of the Public Health Acts would be extremely beneficial and if consolidation cannot be attained at an early date they urge the immediate extension of the Public Health Acts to include all powers which are now regularly granted in Private Bills of local authorities."
In 1922 and 1923 they made similar observations in their Reports for those years.
It is hardly necessary for me to go through the clauses of this Bill in detail. They deal, on the lines that I have explained, with many subjects which are ripe for general legislation. I must, however, say one or two words of general description of the Bill. The Bill is divided into nine parts. Part I deals with the machinery for bringing the Bill into operation. The Bill does not apply to Scotland at all and only Part IX applies to London. Parts II, III, IV and V are adoptive; but with certain limitations. For instance, Clauses 21, 22 and 24 can only be put into force in a borough or an urban district council area of fewer than 20,000 inhabitants if they get the consent of the Ministry of Health. It cannot be put into force in those places simply on the motion of the local authority. Those clauses, as well as Clauses 17, 19 and 35, also require the consent of the Ministry of Health in order that they may be put into force in rural district council areas.
Part VI of the Bill deals with recreation grounds. It is an extension of Part VI of the 1907 Act, and it is proposed that this part of the Act shall operate where that

39
Act operates. There was considerable discussion on this Part of the Bill in another place on the Report stage, and I imagine there may be some discussion here when we come to the Committee stage. It is a matter for the Committee to settle. All I can say is that I do not desire to give any unduly extended powers to local authorities, and I should be glad to listen to any reasonable proposal that is brought forward in regard to this somewhat contentious matter.
In regard to Part VII of the Bill, dealing with infectious diseases and hospitals, this is to come into operation at once. So far as I know, there is nothing contentious in the proposals made, and no opposition has appeared in regard to them. Part VIII contains a number of miscellaneous clauses. There is one inserted on the suggestion of the Ministry of Health to allow local authorities to do something to assist to prevent blindness, as well as to treat it when it occurs, in localities. There is a clause dealing with parking places for tars. Clause 71, which has also led to a certain amount of discussion, deals with the, question of cold storage. I have met the representatives of the Cold Storage Association this afternoon, and, although the arrangement we came to was only verbal, and has to be reduced to writing and to print, I may say that we did agree verbally, and I shall hope to have this clause in an entirely non-contentious form, so far as they are concerned, in the Committee stage. I shall have a word or two to say later on with regard to Clause 74, which deals with offences in regard to driving motor cars and other vehicles.
Part IX deals with baths and wash-houses and this is the only part which applies to London. It gives greater powers to increase the charges. The scale of charges allowable in regard to public baths and washhouses was fixed so long ago as 1878 and has never been altered. It also gives power to meet other uses of baths sanctioned by precedent. I do not know of any objection being raised to that part of the Bill. Such, shortly, is the scope of the Bill. I have described its origin, the care taken in its preparation and the attempts to meet all well-founded criticisms. I repeat that it is supported by all the great associations of local authorities and by the Ministry of Health. It is on the lines suggested by the Local Legislation Committee of another place,
40
and I would fain hope that it will have the support of my noble friend the Lord Chairman of this House, who has unique experience in regard to Private Bills. It only remains for me to refer very briefly to the two Motions for the rejection of this Bill of which Notice has been given. One stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I at once inform the noble Lord that I am not moving?
LORD EMMOTT: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I will not take up your Lordships' time in dealing with what I imagined was the cause of this objection. The other Motion stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam. I have often admired hi another place the ingenuity with which he found arguments to oppose Bills, and I have no doubt he will have ingenious arguments to offer against this measure if he pursues the Notice he has given. I do not know what his reasons are, but it is possible that he thinks this Bill might make local expenditure rather easier than it is. There are some clauses only that can possibly be used in that way. I would venture to remind your Lordships that the Bill is also meant to save money inasmuch as it will lessen the cost of promoting Private Bills and reduce the number of such Bills. I might also remind your Lordships that whatever may be said about local extravagance—and Heaven knows the rates are high enough—the rates have not gone up as much as our taxes have done, and I think there are often more genuine incentives to economy in localities than there are in regard to Imperial expenditure.
Has not our sanitary legislation been justified? In the decade 1891 to 1900 the death rate was eighteen per thousand. In the last three or four years it has come down to between ten and twelve, or an average of somewhere about eleven per thousand. The death rate for infants in the earlier decade of which I speak was 153 per thousand, and I am informed that to-day it is less than half of what it was then. Those are results that must be stated in favour of some of the sanitary legislation which this country has adopted.
It may also be that my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam prefers the

41
system of Private Bill legislation to incorporating these stereotyped clauses in General Acts. If so, I would venture to remind your Lordships that the people who seem to know most of this question—such as, for instance, the Local Legislation Committee in another place—take, a different view. In fact, I may say that this Bill gives no reason for complaint by anybody, so far as I am aware, except three classes of people possibly. One consists of the Parliamentary Agents and another the Parliamentary Bar: and these gentlemen have hitherto managed, somehow, to find profitable occupation in spite of a long course of legislation of this kind. The third class of people who may possibly complain are members of your Lordships' House who are such gluttons for Committee work on Private Bills that they would regret to see anything done to curtail the number of such Bills. That being so, I ask your Lordships with some confidence to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Emmott.)
LORD BANBUKY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBUKY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was only a short time ago that we listened to a very powerful speech from the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, in the course of which he pointed out that this country must exercise economy if it was to return in any kind of way to its ancient prosperity. The noble Earl pointed out, as the noble Lord has just said, that taxation had increased enormously and that the rates had also increased to a very great extent. I think we all know that whereas we used to pay something which varied from 2s. to 5s. or 6s. in the £, the rates are now somewhere between 15 s. and 20 s. in the £. After the noble Earl's speech I hoped that there would have been some signs of a return to sanity and a little attempt at any rate to stop increased expenditure. But, as has always happened, I find that this is not going to take place and that whenever anybody wants to spend money he can always find excellent reasons for doing so.
This Bill is brought in by a private member of another Place who has only been for eight months in the House of
42
Commons. So far as I can see from the names on the back of the Bill, there is not one who had been more than, if as much as, three years in that House and all but one of them were, I believe, connected with municipalities. We all know that the officials of municipalities are anxious to interfere with our private life and to impose fresh burdens upon us. It may be the case, and I think it is, that there are a few provisions in this Bill which might be advantageous if this country was still rich and prosperous. As it is a poor country, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth and to do everything we can, not only to avoid increasing expenditure but to diminish it.
The noble Lord, Lord Emmott, will excuse me, I do not want to misrepresent him in any way but I rather gather that he laid it down that this was a consolidation Bill.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT indicated dissent.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It has been said to me that it is, after all, only a consolidation Bill, which combines certain Acts which are already the law of the land. As a matter of fact the title is: "An Act to amend the Public Health Acts … and the Baths and Washhouses Acts … and for other purposes relating to public health." It is true that there might be a number of municipalities—as a matter of fact, there are some ten or twelve—which have power at present to provide amusements, theatres, concerts, etc. But that is under special Acts which were given to these particular municipalities because they were either seaside resorts or watering places; and I do not think it is wise at any time to extend those powers and certainly not at present. We are now getting into the position of ancient Rome shortly before her downfall. We are providing panem et circenses at the public expense. I hope that your Lordships will take warning from ancient Rome and give up what, to my mind, are very foolish extravagances.
Allow me now for a few moments to direct your attention to the Bill. There is another very bad feature in this Bill in that it allows a Minister of Health to do all sorts of things without the authority of Parliament. One thing that it allows—I will come to it presently—is that the Minister of Health may authorise

43
municipalities to spend any sum of money, and to levy any rate, without limit. We do not know how long the present Government is going to exist, but it is not without the bounds of probability that we might have a Labour Government in power. Are we prepared to give to a Labour Minister of Health that power? Assume that the Minister of Health was a woman—not an unlikely event—what on earth might she not do, moved no doubt by the most excellent reasons, and a desire to improve the health of the country, though how theatrical entertainments and cold meat storages are going to improve the health of the country I do not know.
Let me call your Lordships' attention to subsection (2) of Clause 4:
"The Minister of Health may by order apply to any rural district, or contributory place therein, any provision in Parts II to V of this Act, in the same manner as provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, which apply to urban districts, may be applied to rural districts."
That is to say that though this part of the Bill only applies to urban districts, the Minister of Health, without going to Parliament, may on his own initiative apply it to rural districts. It is true that there is a clause saying that notice must be given of the Order once at least in one or more of the newspapers circulating within the area to which the application relates in each of two successive weeks, but that of course is a perfectly illusory safeguard. Clause 14 says:—
"The local authority may, in proper and convenient situations in any street or public place, erect and maintain seats and drinking fountains for the use of the public and troughs for watering horses or cattle."
A most excellent thing, but up to the present time a very considerable number of drinking troughs for horses and cattle have been provided at private expense. Why alter it, and put this expense upon the rates, especially at the present time? My noble friend the Earl of Balfour says "especially when there are no longer any horses." I venture to disagree with him there. There are still a few.
I would like next to direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 22, which says:—
"The urban authority may give notice to the owner or occupier of any lands abutting upon any street within their district which is repairable by the inhabitants at large, requiring him, within fourteen days
44
after the service of the notice so to fence off, channel or embank the lands as to prevent soil or refuse, from such lands, from falling upon, or being washed or carried into the street, or into any sewer or gully therein."
That clause can again be applied by the Minister of Health to a rural district so that you may have a farmer being told, because there is a certain overflow of water from his land, that he has to go to this expense. There is no appeal against the decision of the surveyor Jacks-in-office, as they very often are, who come down and think they are doing something very fine if they compel an unfortunate inhabitant of England to fall in with their order.
Subsection (8) of Clause 33 allows a local authority to enter into land speculation. It says:
"The local authority may purchase any land not occupied By buildings lying between the improvement line and the boundary of the street, or any interest in such land—"
It does not actually confiscate the land, I will say that for it, but why should a local authority enter into a land speculation? Land speculation is sometimes remunerative and sometimes is the very reverse. Then Clause 39 says:
"It shall not be lawful for any person to repair, reconstruct or alter the course of any drain, which communicates with a sewer or with a cesspool or any other receptacle for drainage, without giving to the local authority at least twenty-four hours previous notice in writing of his intention so to do except in case of emergency."
This is no longer a free country. We cannot do anything. We cannot see that a drain into a cesspool is put right without asking the permission of the gentlemen whom the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, so ably represents.
Now we come to verminous persons and premises. In the Act of 1897 there was power to the local authorities to wash and clean a verminous person if the verminous person was diseased, but that is not enough for the local authority at present, because they say that if a person is verminous under certain circumstances they may take him and wash him against his will and detain him for a period. Perhaps I had better read the words, which are to be found in Clause 48:—
"(2) Where it appears to the local authority, on a report from the medical officer, that any person, or the clothing of any person is infested with vermin, or is likely to be so infested, if that person consents

45
to remove to a cleansing station the local authority may cause him to be removed to such station—"
How on earth is the local authority to know whether the clothing of any person is likely to be so infested? The clause goes on:
"and, if he does not so consent, then a petty sessional court, if satisfied on the application of the local authority that it is necessary that he or his clothing should be cleansed, may make an order for his removal to a cleansing station and for his detention therein for such period and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order."
Really what are we coming to in these days when a person who may have given some offence to a medical officer or some local person may be, when in their opinion he is likely to be infested at some future time with vermin, hauled up before the magistrates, who, so far as I can see, have no option in the matter if the local authority say that is their opinion—no proof is apparently required. Then the person may be detained for any time and under any conditions that the local council may impose. There is power to enter any house and order it to be re-papered and painted if the local authority thinks that possibly vermin may come in. There is no definition, by the way, of vermin.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHM0RE: Clause 50, page 27.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, yes, I see it says:
"The expression 'vermin,' in its application to insects and parasites, includes their eggs, larvae and pupae, and the expression 'verminous' shall be construed accordingly."
I was wrong; there is a definition, but it is rather an involved one. Then Clause 56 provides for theatrical entertainments. It is a fact that in ten or twelve places the municipal authorities have power, which was given to them in the old days when we were more or less prosperous, to provide theatrical entertainments. It is one of the worst features of the present day that when once something has been done, whether it is right or wrong, and when some power has been given, everybody else seems to think that he ought to have the same power. My idea is that these powers should be taken away from these ten or twelve municipalities. The local authority, or the persons responsible for this Bill, had a more or less economical fit at the beginning, and they said
46
that for the purposes of this Bill no rate more than one penny in the £ could be imposed, but then they had another feeling, and they said that the Minister of Health may alter this and may allow them to impose any rate they like. With the Minister of Health possibly a wild Socialist woman, what on earth can you expect, and what mercy will the ratepayers get? And you must remember that they are not the people who have the votes. The majority of electors do not pay rates, but they have the votes; and if you are going to open up a vista of public entertainments to be provided at the expense of the small minority who pay rates I do not know what the financial position of the country may be in the future.
Then Clause 62 says that where it is proved to the satisfaction of a court of summary jurisdiction that any person suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is in an infectious state and that the lodging or accommodation provided for that person is such that proper precautions to prevent the spread of infection cannot be taken, the court may make an order for the removal of that person to a hospital or institution. That may be all right, but we got on very well without it before. All this costs money and at a time when we ought not to spend money. And there is another clause, Clause 71, which enables a local authority to provide cold air storage, but I understand that on this point some arrangement has been arrived at. What it all comes to is this. These local authorities are anxious to extend their powers, and an extension of their powers means the spending of more money and the raising of the rates. I sincerely trust that in the interests not only of the ratepayers but of the finance of the country as a whole your Lordships will reject this Bill. I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved:—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, though I am sure you have all been delighted with the speech to which we have just listened and would have been very sorry if you had not had an opportunity of

47
enjoying it. I did my best to follow the noble Lord and as far as I could make out, on a rough calculation, he only objected to eight proposals in the Bill. There are 81 clauses in this measure, and basing it on that one fact alone I think I shall be justified in asking your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. I need not follow the noble Lord in all the points on which he made a criticism. They are all Committee points, and I am sure the promoters themselves would welcome the criticism of your Lordships in Committee.
This Bill is not a big general scheme. In its essence it is a number of detached points, many of them of great importance, which have been discussed by Parliament in individual cases. As was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, what this Bill provides is a procedure by which facilities which have been found of advantage in many individual cases can be conferred in a cheap and inexpensive manner on authorities similarly situated. Take, for instance, the clause which so much alarmed the noble Lord, the clause dealing with the cleansing of verminous persons. I admit that the language is not very picturesque, but it does not deal with a very picturesque subject. They are all clauses which have been common in Bills for Sessions past. I do not think the noble Lord need be alarmed. Take the theatre clause. I admit that many people hesitate as to how far municipalities should be allowed to give public entertainments, but it is done now, and most successfully done, and the artistic side of music would be much poorer—I quote a case of which I have some personal experience as a member of the audience—but for the Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra.
But I want to emphasise the fact that these are all Committee points, and they ought to be discussed in Committee, as they have been discussed in Committee over and over again. I regard this Bill
48
really as eight or ten years late. We ought to have had it long ago, and if we had we should have saved a great deal of public expenditure and public money. I have no doubt that certain of the clauses will come in for criticism in Committee, and possibly they can be improved. I have no doubt your Lordships will welcome opportunities for discussing various points in the Bill, just as the noble Lord desires to discuss cold meat storage and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Clause 74, which deals with penalties for the neglect of traffic directions and for dangerous driving. I hope, however, that Lord Montagu of Beaulieu is satisfied. I can assure your Lordships that I am speaking with a full sense of responsibility when I say that by passing this Bill with the majority of the clauses in it you will be saving the ratepayers thousands of pounds of money, and you will therefore be going a long way towards meeting the views even of the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of the Bill.
There is one personal point I desire to mention. I agree with Lord Emmott in the description he gave of the origin of this Bill, and I am giving away no secret—we do not generally refer to the draftsman of a Bill by name—when I say that the late Sir Francis Greer had a great deal to do with the drafting of this measure, and, in fact, that this was the last work of his extremely useful life, I believe that in consecrating last winter at any rate to assisting those who are now engaged in the promotion of this Bill, he performed the last of very many valuable public duties on this and the other side of the Irish Channel.
On Question, Amendment negatived, and Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.