Lords Sitting of 2 December 1926

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
FORTH AND CLYDE NAVIGATION (CASTLECARY AND KIRKINTILLOCH ROAD BRIDGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED GOODS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill. For some time there has been a demand both from industry and agriculture for merchandise marks legislation and there are, I think, two main reasons for this. First of all, there is a desire to remedy the defects in the existing Merchandise Marks Acts. The Bill is also based on the assumption that the consumer will give the preference to British goods and Empire goods if he knows they are British and Empire goods. This view is based both upon sentiment and upon interest. I need not enlarge to your Lordships on the question of sentiment because you are very familiar with the great campaign that has gone on lately to urge our people to purchase British goods, to assist British manufactures and to purchase Imperial goods and assist Imperial development. Perhaps the sentiment is partly made up of interest, and no doubt the two things are so closely bound together that it would be difficult to disentangle them; but on the pure basis of interest, where you get two comparable goods and where the prices are fairly the same, if the British consumer knows that one set of goods is British and the other set is foreign, I think, knowing the quality and the durability of British

1075
goods, that he will probably think it to his interest to buy the British goods in preference to the foreign.
Before dealing with the details of the Bill, may I say a word about its history? This Bill, like many others, has a long history behind it, but I will only touch on two points in that history. Going back to the year 1919 during the life of the Coalition Government, I must refer to the appointment of a Committee by that Government to go into the whole question of marking foreign goods. In 1920 that Committee reported against a general marking of all foreign goods but in favour of a system of indicating the origin of certain classes of imported goods after there had been a careful official inquiry into the matter and after a Committee had recommended the marking. In 1922, in consequence of and based upon the Report of that Committee, a Bill was introduced into this House by the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, who was at that time, I believe, a Liberal. Later on I understand he took service under the banner of the Labour Party. I think I may therefore conclude that I have some measure of support both in the Liberal camp and in the Labour camp.
Not only is the Bill supported by industry but also by agriculture and by the Imperial Economic Committee. I should like to give your Lordships some idea of the extent to which that support is accorded to the Bill by industry in this country, and not only by industry but also by chambers of commerce as well, which of course represent the merchant side as well as the manufacturing. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce on April 23 last passed a resolution approving the general principles of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill. The Federation of British Industries expressed their general approval of the Bill subject, I believe, to the marking of goods in certain cases on importation. The National Union of Manufacturers passed a resolution supporting the Bill, which was also supported by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers. The National Council of the Pottery Industry, the Sheffield Cutlery Manufacturers' Association, the Walsall and District Chamber of Commerce and the Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce also support it. It is supported
1076
also by the Electrical and Allied Trades section of the London Chamber of Commerce who passed a resolution urging the stiffening of the Bill. Therefore, from British industry and also from British trade, as noble Lords will observe, there is a tremendous body of organised and representative opinion which supports this Bill.
Turning for a moment to agriculture, meat and eggs, I understand, have been labelled since 1921 and the Committee under the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, in 1923 strongly urged that, further action should be taken. A Bill was introduced last year dealing with imported agricultural produce which contained a provision to make marking compulsory in the case of meat, eggs, cheese and honey. I am going to deal rather lightly with the agricultural side of the case because my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, who as your Lordships know is so well armed on all agricultural points, is prepared to turn his artillery on to the agricultural question.
Then I come to the other great contributory influence which supports the Bill and that is the Imperial side. The Imperial Economic Committee, which, as your Lordships know, combines representatives of this country and of the Dominions, strongly urges in its Reports—I need not quote them because it is all set out in the four Reports the Committee has issued already—marking for meat, canned fruit and fish, fresh fruit, cheese and butter. The Committee also suggests that any concerted action for marketing Empire produce in this country must have the assistance of compulsory marking on sale so that the consumer may be able to distinguish between foreign and Empire produce. Your Lordships will also remember that not long ago it was decided that £1,000,000 a year should be devoted to the improvement of the marketing of Empire produce in this country and to some extent of British produce in this country. These two things go together and the spending of this considerable sum on the marketing of Empire produce will be immensely assisted if the consumer knows whether he is buying Empire produce or foreign produce. I need not remind your Lordships that the larger consumption of Empire produce

1077
will greatly enlarge our market for the consumption of manufactured goods in the Dominions themselves. Thus we have in favour of this Bill these great bodies of opinion to which I have alluded, British industry, the agricultural industry and what I may call briefly the Dominion and the Imperial interest.
Let me say one word about any possible opposition to the Bill. I understand that there is some apprehension in shipping circles about the entrepot trade. I shall show in the course of my remarks how very carefully the entrepot trade is safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill. There were some fears of delay being caused in the case of perishable produce in circles in Hell and in Liverpool, and the fears of importing merchants from foreign countries are represented, and strongly represented, on the Chambers of Commerce in London and Manchester. After all, I think this is very natural. Some of these importing merchants are naturally afraid that if British or Empire goods are substituted for foreign goods they may import fewer foreign goods. Perhaps they are afraid, too, that they may have to reduce the prices of foreign goods in order to compete with the British goods and that their profits may to some extent be reduced. But if that is so the price to the consumers will be reduced, and in weighing the interests of the great mass of consumers and a certain number of importers I think your Lordships will consider that the balance weighs on the side of the consumer.
I pass now to a very brief description of the chief provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with what I may call cases of latent misrepresentation. This clause provides that if a trader sells imported goods in this country under a British name or trade mark he is bound to indicate that the goods are foreign and not British. This, I understand, is merely an extension of Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. But I should add that where there are special circumstances and it can be shown that difficulties might be caused by the provisions of this Clause 1, the Board of Trade have been given an exempting power. I should add, too, that for obvious reasons this clause only
1078
becomes operative six months after this Bill becomes law.
Clause 2 is the most important clause in the Bill. Under certain conditions imported goods of any class or description are to be marked with an indication of origin, either at the time of sale or exposure for sale or at the time of importation, but before any Order is made subjecting these goods to the necessity of being marked certain conditions have to be complied with. First of all, an application has to be made to the appropriate Department by some substantial interest. The application has then to be referred to a Committee, every reference must be published and no Inquiry by a Committee can commence until twenty-eight days after such publication. Then the Committee have to hear all persons representing the different interests which may appear to the Committee to be substantially affected. They may, if they choose, report to the Department specifying the classes or description of imported goods in respect to which they consider an Order in Council ought to be made and the goods must be goods which it is possible to mark effectively and without damage to the goods.
After that the Report of the Committee is published and the Department may then recommend the making of an Order unless—and I would call your Lordships' special attention to this proviso—unless they consider that the trade of the United Kingdom, or the trade generally of other parts of His Majesty's Dominions with the United Kingdom, would be thereby prejudiced. The Department may recommend marking on importation unless, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the re-export trade of the United Kingdom in that class or description of goods, they consider that such action is undesirable. Before an Order can be made the Order has to lie in draft before both Houses for twenty Parliamentary days—that practically means six weeks—and if no Address is presented against it the Order may be made, but it is not to come into force until three months at earliest from the date on which it is made.
So much for goods other than agricultural. As regards inquiry relating to agricultural and horticultural produce and the produce of the fishing industry,

1079
which is always united for some reason with agriculture, that would be dealt with by a Committee appointed jointly by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary on behalf of Northern Ireland. Every other Inquiry will be dealt with by a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade. The Committees are to consist of not less than three and not more than five persons. As has been already abundantly made clear, these Committees are to be of a quasi-judicial character. The penalties for infringement of Clause 2 or an Order in Council under Clause 2 are laid down in Clause 5. They are, I understand, rather lighter than the penalties for offences laid down under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887.
The only other point in the Bill I would like to call your Lordships' attention to is Clause 10, which deals with definitions. Certain classes of imported goods are excluded from the scope of the Bill. If, since importation, they have undergone any substantial change in the United Kingdom, they are exempted from the marking requirement; further goods made in the United Kingdom which, after exportation, return to this country without any substantial change are also excluded. As regards the indication of origin, the word "foreign" or the word "Empire" may be used, or the indication may state the country where the goods were manufactured or produced. Blends or mixtures are excluded from Clause 1 and from Clause 2 also, unless the Order expressly states that they should not be so excluded.
That is a very short summary of the method by which the Orders are made relating to different classes of goods, but I want to deal for a moment with safeguards which are provided by the Bill against any possible injury being done to British trade through these provisions. First of all, the obligation is laid upon the person or persons who sell the goods. Generally speaking, goods may come in unmarked and be re-exported unmarked, but if they come under the provisions of Clause 1 or under an Order made under Clause 2 they must bear an indication of origin. The Bill, therefore, in its general framework does not affect the entrepot trade at all. Clause 2, subsection (5), does give the power to mark
1080
on importation. The appropriate Department has got to consider not merely the question of the United Kingdom and of the trade of other parts of the Empire but especially the re-export trade of the United Kingdom in that class or description of goods. Quite apart from the statutory obligation to consider the interest of the entrepot trade, the proviso in Clause 2 lays down that an Order is not to apply to the transhipment trade of the United Kingdom or to goods declared on importation to be for re-exportation.
I should like, if your Lordships will allow me, because this is a very important part of the Bill, to read proviso (a) in subsection (5) of Clause 2:—
"Subject to compliance with such conditions as to security for the re-exportation of the goods as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose, an Order under this subsection shall not apply to goods imported for exportation after transit through the United Kingdom or by way of transhipment or to goods declared on importation to be for re-exportation."
Then, if I may return to the question of safeguards, the Committees must hear at the public Inquiry all the interest substantially affected. The parties have plenty of time to make out their case, the Report of the Committee is to be published when the Inquiry is over and, as I have said, the draft Order is to lie on the Table for twenty days, giving to critics ample time for raising any objection which they may have to the Order. But, in addition to these safeguards, and after all this elaborate care has been taken, if any difficulty does arise which might cause some hardship and is brought to the notice of the Department, the latter has power by direction to relax the Order and give effect to such direction at once, but such direction cannot continue for more than twelve months unless confirmed by a Special Order. Therefore, I think your Lordships will see that really the danger of any interest being affected prejudicially is indeed very remote.
I want to allude very briefly to one or two criticisms that have been passed upon this measure. It has been said that the object of the Bill is protective and that its intention is to exclude foreign goods. At the same time it is also said that the effect of this Bill will be to advertise foreign goods and to

1081
stimulate their sale. It does not need very much acumen to see that these two propositions contradict each other and I think we may safely leave the professors of these schools to fight out the subject among themselves. The Bill, of course, does not exclude foreign goods. It merely gives to the consumer the opportunity to say whether he shall buy foreign goods or whether he shall buy British goods.
If he prefers British goods he probably will purchase less of foreign goods. That is a necessary result of his operations of purchase. But if the foreign article is consistently good and cheap and the British article consistently poor in quality and expensive, then perhaps the foreign article may be assisted by the Bill. But after all British manufacturers as a result of that may be put upon their mettle, may improve their manufacture and possibly sell their goods rather cheaper. The Imperial Economic Committee itself observed that marking carries with it obligations as well as privileges, but in spite of that they still strongly pressed for the marking of Empire and foreign goods as essential to a systematic effort to develop Imperial trade.
The next objection that has been raised is as regards the entrepot trade, but I think I have dealt sufficiently fully with that already. I have shown the numerous safeguards there are to prevent any interference with the entrepot trade. The Government, of course, are extremely well aware of the importance of the entrepot trade and would not commit themselves to any proposition or any rule which had the remotest suggestion that it might hinder that great trade. There are some minor objections which I may perhaps notice. It is said that the free flow of trade may be hampered in two ways. One of those ways is by causing congestion in the docks. But I would observe first of all that not all goods coming in are to be marked in this way but only certain selected classes or descriptions of goods which have passed through the tremendous sieve of examination by these Committees, and I would also say that in the United States, where all goods are marked on importation, there is no congestion at all.
Another point is that British traders may be checked to some extent in
1082
buying freely goods abroad because they may not know the origin of the goods. I understand that that charge is a libel on British traders and that they are perfectly well aware by inspection of goods from what country they come. The objection, therefore, is a purely theoretical objection. It is also said that it may increase the expenses of traders, but it certainly has not done so in those cases where goods are already marked. For instance, I have never heard that Danish and Dutch bacon, Empire fruit, and butter were hindered in their sale in this country because they come in as they do already marked in the countries of origin. Then we are threatened also—and that is a very familiar charge—with retaliation in other countries. But even if they did retaliate and insisted that our goods should be marked when going into their countries, I think we might hug the suggestion to our souls that the superior quality of British goods would not suffer and that we really might get an advertisement in that way in foreign markets.
There is, further, the fear of some increase in the cost of the goods, but I suggest to your Lordships that really the opposite effect will be observed, because the merchant may have to lower his prices and diminish his profits in the case of foreign goods which he has bought perhaps cheaply abroad in order that they may compete with British goods of the same class and description, and induce the British consumer to put aside for the moment his affection for British goods and to buy the cheaper foreign goods which have been decreased in price in order to compete with the British goods. In that case, as I suggest, the consumer will have the advantage both ways: If he wants to buy foreign goods he will get them more cheaply, and he, can buy British goods if he wishes. That, my Lords, is a short summary of some of the objections which have already been stated to this Bill. I would ask your Lordships, in the interest of British manufacturers and in the interest of Imperial trade, to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 2ª this day

1083
six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Viscount in moving the Second Reading of this measure has devoted most of his remarks to an explanation of what, in the view of the Government, will be its advantageous effects. He has not said a great deal about the difficulties which the Bill will create or about the harm which it will do. In moving the rejection of the Bill I propose to supply these omissions. The fact is that this Bill is likely to do a considerable amount of harm, and any advantages that may come from it will be far more than outweighed by the injury that it will cause. This Government has done so much damage to British trade and has thrown so much grit into the industrial machine that nothing that it does occasions surprise, though practically everything that it does ought to be opposed. The best that can be hoped from its measures dealing with trade and industry is that they will not do a great deal of damage. That is the position to which we are reduced under Conservative Government.
The noble Viscount explained to your Lordships that this is not a new Bill. It is not. Since the War I think three or four attempts have been made to pass a measure more or less upon these lines. Those attempts have not succeeded, partly because the case for each Bill was so weak and partly because, when it came to be examined closely, it was subjected to such devastating criticism. Indeed, this Bill has had the same experience, because, just as with the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it is the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has proved quite unable in another place to meet at all adequately the criticisms that have been made. There is no real demand for this Bill from any widespread section of the manufacturing community. I quite admit that there is a demand from certain interested parties. There is a demand from some manufacturers, and there is a demand from some agriculturists; certainly there is a considerable demand from poultry farmers. The noble Viscount has put forward as impressively as he could an array of support from various bodies, such as chambers of commerce and so forth, and the President of the Board of Trade has claimed that this measure has the support of the Federation of British Industries. Of course it
1084
has the support of the Federation of British Industries. Most of the members of that body are Protectionists, and anything that is likely to stop the flow of foreign manufactures into this country has their support. This Bill will help in that direction.
The statement that the noble Viscount made and that has been made elsewhere, that this measure has the support of the majority of the chambers of commerce of the country, is very misleading. It may be nominally true, but it is not the case that this Bill has the support of anything like all the important chambers of commerce in the country. It has not the support of the London Chamber of Commerce, which was at the outset in favour of the Bill but which, as the Committee stage went on and the Bill became worse and worse, became entirely antagonistic to it. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce—and I think Manchester is entitled to some consideration in this matter in view of its position with regard to industrial interests—is strongly opposed to the Bill. The noble Viscount quoted a resolution which was passed in April by the Associated Chambers of Commerce. It would be very interesting to know whether the Associated Chambers of Commerce would pass that resolution now. I have told your Lordships that at the outset the London Chamber of Commerce was inclined to be favourable to this Bill but that they have changed their view, and I would call attention to the fact that this resolution of the Associated Chambers of Commerce was passed as long ago as April.
This Bill purports to protect the purchaser from fraud with regard to the origin of manufactured articles or of agricultural produce which is advertised or exposed for sale, and the method, as the noble Viscount has explained, is to make it compulsory that certain goods imported—I do not say all goods—shall be marked with the name of the country of origin, as for instance: "Made in Czecho-Slovakia," "Made in France," "Made in the United States of America."
VISCOUNT PEEL: Or marked "Foreign."
LORD ARNOLD: Or possibly marked "Foreign." I should like to put a very simple question to the noble Viscount, and I hope that he will reply, because I submit that it goes to the crux of the whole matter. Is it not the case that the ostensible object of this Bill can be equally well attained and with far less difficulty and interference with trade by marking British manufactures "Made in Britain" or by marking, if it is so desired, agricultural produce as of British origin? If that be so—and it is so—how is it that this simple and effective method has not commended itself to the Government? The reason is that, if that were done, if goods were simply marked "Made in Britain" or if agricultural produce were designated as of British origin, the real object of this Bill would not be achieved, because in that way you would not stop foreign imports coming into the country and it is really to stop foreign imports coming in, or to lessen the quantity that comes in, that all this machinery is set up. It is hoped by the very elaborate and complicated provisions of this Bill and by the prejudice created against foreign goods in some degree to stop the import of foreign goods. That, I repeat, is what this Bill is really for.
I say nothing about the dishonesty of this policy, though I could say a good deal, except to remark that the Bill is not in accordance with the pledges given by the Prime Minister at the General Election in order to get the votes of persons who were opposed to Protection. The contention of the Government with regard to Clause 1 that the main purpose of the Bill is to prevent fraud or deception as regards the character of goods sold is really a piece of window-dressing. The fact is that there is no need for additional legislation as regards fraud of this description. All that is really necessary can be done under existing legislation and, as a matter of fact, existing legislation is by no means fully enforced at the present time.
The Bill, as I have said, purports to give the consumer security in the way that I have described and that the noble Viscount has described, and, as he has said—he was quite plain and honest, as was the President of the Board of Trade in another place—this
1086
Bill is really part and parcel of the "Buy British Goods" campaign. That campaign has to a large extent been fathered by the present President of the Board of Trade; and that is not surprising, because it is not very long ago—in fact it is only a few months ago—since the President of the Board of Trade went so far as to say that every time a person in this country entered a shop and bought a foreign article he was depriving a British workman of a job. That statement is so foolish and so opposed to the simple laws of economics that one scarcely has the patience to deal with it, but consider for a moment what would happen to our trade if other countries began to do this sort of thing, to institute campaigns against British goods and to attempt to stop their countrymen buying our goods.
What would be the effect of that on the export trade and on the shipping trade? This Government, as I have shown your Lordships more than once, has done very little indeed to help the export trade. On the contrary, it has done a great deal to injure it though, considering the parlous condition of that trade, it ought to be one of the first objects of the Government to try to help and foster it. The Government has not done so, and in this "Buy British Goods" campaign we have one of the factors which is only too likely indirectly to injure that trade. The fact is that the "Buy British Goods" campaign is really founded on very fallacious economic reasoning. It would be of enormous advantage to the trade of this country, and especially to the export trade, if the President of the Board of Trade would come to realise that the great thing you want to do is to sell British goods. This Merchandise Marks Bill is another instance of these perverted economics. The objections to the Bill are so numerous that it is quite impossible for me, without making an undue draught upon your Lordships' time, to state them fully now, but we shall have a Committee stage and we will take advantage of it.
I will on this occasion content myself with stating some of the main objections, in our view, to the Bill. First I take the question of the expense which will be involved to manufacturers and merchants, and of the labour which will be involved in seeing that goods are marked, the

1087
actual marking of them, and the examination to see that they are marked when they arrive at our ports. Whatever the noble Viscount may say, and I feel bound to state that I found his remarks singularly unconvincing, it is humanly certain that this Bill will mean additional cost and expense, and that that expense will come back upon the consumer. So far from the Bill making goods cheaper for the consumer it is bound, in the end, to make them dearer; but about the last thing which this Government ever thinks of is the interest of the consumer, and so they will not be much concerned about that.
As regards machinery, the noble Viscount has described the method of Committees, and I submit to your Lordships that this policy of giving these very important powers to Committees is being carried altogether too far. I do not object to Committees doing their proper work—inquiry or executive work—but they should not have such a, big say in policy as they will have under this Bill. Who are these Committees? They are to be set up we do not know exactly how, and composed of persons we do not know whom. All we know, judging from Committees under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, is that they are bound to be biased and that there is no power of appeal from them. They are irresponsible Committees and there is no power of appeal. The noble Viscount seems to think that there is a safeguard, though I personally do not attach great value to it, in the fact that the President of the Board of Trade, or the Minister of Agriculture, as the case may be, has some say before the final decision is taken.
VISCOUNT PEEL: And Parliament.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Viscount has been in Parliament a good many years, and so have I, and I am afraid I have not got his touching faith in the procedure of Orders in Parliament. I cannot remember, in all my long experience, a single instance in which effective action was taken in that way. Coming to the consequences of the Bill, and the harm which will be done to trade, I must point out that a fundamental change was made in the Committee stage in the other place. It is highly important that I should make that clear, because it was this change which caused
1088
the London Chamber of Commerce to turn round and become antagonistic to the Bill. When this Bill was introduced goods coming to our ports need not be marked when they arrived, although they might have been ordered to be marked by the Committee. They could, if necessary, be marked afterwards. In the Committee stage, however, the President of the Board of Trade accepted a very fundamental Amendment, by which goods which have been ordered to be marked must be marked when they arrive at a port in this country. That is to say, they have to be marked before they leave the country from which they have come, and it is no good the noble Viscount dismissing in an airy way the difficulties about the entrepot trade. This entrepot trade amounts to £165,000,000 in identifiable re-exports. Goods come to this country from foreign countries and are re-exported, and a profit is thereby made, and profit also accrues for our ships.
Altogether this trade in identifiable re-exports, and articles which have come here or goods incorporated in manufactures which are exported, amounts, taking it altogether, I should think to nearly £200,000,000 a year. Think what consternation there was in the minds of the people carrying on this trade when this Amendment was accepted. It is true that the Government, in order to safeguard this very serious state of affairs, accepted an Amendment, or at any rate undertook, that when the importers could prove to the satisfaction of the Customs House authorities that the goods were intended for re-export then they need not be marked. But we have, I suppose, all had some experience of Customs House officials. It is not always easy to satisfy them about very obvious things. Here let me digress. I understand that since the Silk Duties were imposed, owing to the inquisition which goes on at our ports and the obstruction which occurs, an appreciable percentage of the Americans who otherwise would have come to this country are going straight to the Continent, and are going back from the Continent, without coming here, in order to escape from the rigorous Customs examination to which they are subjected in this country. That causes loss of valuable custom, and loss to our shipping trade.

1089
As to the entrepot trade, it is only necessary to have very small knowledge of that trade to know that very often, in the case of goods that arrive here, the merchant may not know exactly which are going to be re-exported and which will be retained here. He may not know when the goods are coming here, and if under this Bill it is necessary to have all these goods marked with the country of origin think what that means. The noble Viscount made certain humorous observations about this. It means that in future, under that procedure, a merchant abroad who buys from this country goods which may not be made in this country will know that those goods do not come originally from this country—he may not have known before—and with a view of cutting out intermediate profits it is only too likely that, in many cases, an attempt will be made in the future to buy direct. That again means loss to this country and loss to our shipping both ways.
These really are some of the results which will come from this measure; and it does not do for the noble Viscount to dismiss these matters in an airy way. They are very serious and there is great consternation about them. When he replies I should like the noble Viscount to confirm what I have said—namely, that it was the acceptance of this Amendment about marking on importation which caused the London Chamber of Commerce to change its mind. Consider what this marking on importation means in another way. The noble Viscount suggested that there need not be any delay at our ports, and no congestion, because he said there was none in the United States. However that may be, the fact does remain that in this country, with our enormous over seas trade, and with our shipping arriving not with clockwork precision, there are times of congestion and times of comparative slackness. That means that at times of congestion there is bound to be delay, because Customs officials cannot be kept in such numbers as to deal with any goods which arrive at any time.
This means delay, and it is no use saying that all the merchant or importer has got to do is to satisfy the Customs officials that the goods in question, or some of them, are intended for re-export. It will often work out that owing to congestion
1090
there will be no Customs officers available immediately. There are delays, and delay means loss. So it is quite wrong, and it is really misleading your Lord ships—I do not say deliberately—to suggest that no harm will be done. Great harm will be done, and that is why it is that we, and the Government also, have had these representations from bodies like the London Chamber of Commerce. This huge entrepot trade has been largely built up because we have not had difficulties with Customs officials, because goods have been allowed to come in and go out freely. We have had that great advantage over other countries, and that great advantage is in course of being frittered away and destroyed by the present Government.
This point about the congestion at the ports has a great application in respect of foodstuffs of a perishable nature, because this Bill gives power to mark all kinds of things, some of them perishable, and any delay there may be very serious. The Bill is likely, indeed, to have no small adverse effect on the food supply of the country. I will not go further at present into the precise things that may happen at the ports, because we shall have opportunities in the Committee stage to consider them, but I should like to call attention to an important resolution sent to the President of the Board of Trade by the Scottish Federation of Grocers and Provision Merchants' Associations. I have no reason to think that this is in any way a Party body. I should be very much surprised if any of its members belonged to the Labour Party—I should think most of them support the present Government. They are not Party, but business men.
The Resolution states:
"This Federation has very carefully considered the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, and, while anxious to be of all possible assistance in the matter of food distribution, and willing to assist the Government in framing and carrying out any useful legislation which would be beneficial alike to home producers and consumers, has very great fears that if the above Bill becomes law in anything like its present form it will have a very serious effect upon the food supply of this country. While quite willing to provide detailed reasons for this opinion we think a more useful purpose would be served"—

1091
and it is to this that I want to draw attention—
"by suggesting that the Board of Trade, before proceeding further with this Bill, should remit it to the Food Council in order that that body could go fully into the whole matter and report as to the effect the Bill would have upon the volume and price of the various staple food commodities."
That resolution has been sent to the President of the Board of Trade, and I presume it will have been sent on from there to the Ministry of Agriculture. I should like to ask whether anything of that kind is going to be done, whether this Bill is going to be remitted to the Food Council for their consideration as regards its effect upon the volume and prices of the various food commodities. Because there is no hurry; there is no reason why the Bill should come into operation very quickly.
There is one point which I do not think the noble Viscount touched upon at all, but it is a very extraordinary thing in this extraordinary Bill. It is with regard to the marking of advertisements. It is actually laid down in this Bill that, where specific articles of foreign origin are ordered to be marked, the advertisements of those articles must also set forth that they are of foreign origin. Consider what that means, for instance, in regard to a full-page advertisement, perhaps at Christmas time, of one of our very large shops. Consider the amount of work and trouble it will mean to go through the goods advertised and find out whether a clock, or something or other, is of foreign manufacture and must be so specified in these advertisements. But the mischief does not stop there. Advertisements in trade catalogues have also, in the adjudged cases, to show that specific articles are of foreign origin. These trade catalogues are, in many cases, as big as books, and are very expensive to get up. All this will mean in future great worry and trouble and labour.
Apart from that—and I want to ask the noble Viscount whether this is so or not, because I think your Lordships will agree that it seems almost incredible—as I understand this Bill, what I am saying is perfectly correct, that under Clause 1 in the case of a trade catalogue which contains advertisements of some specific article made by a manufacturer abroad,
1092
if that foreign manufacturer's name happens to be the same as that of one single person of the 45,000,000 living in this country an offence will be committed under this Bill if that catalogue is still circulated. I believe that is correct. That would mean that the minute this Bill is passed many persons will be committing illegalities if they continue to circulate expensive trade catalogues some of which may have been prepared months ago. We shall have opportunities of going into many other details in Committee. We are going to take those opportunities, and we shall be able to show some of the absurd results which this Bill will have.
I will only touch upon one more at the moment. It has to do with agricultural produce. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, here and I would put this to him. As I understand this Bill it gives power to order the marking of crates of imported bananas, tomatoes, cabbages, and so on. I do not say that every individual cabbage has to be marked, although I do not see anything in the Bill to prevent that being made compulsory. But the crates have to be marked. These crates go, we will say, to Covent Garden market, and the goods are divided and sub-divided, but there is laid upon the retailer the legal obligation to show which of these cabbages or tomatoes are of foreign origin or of Empire origin. How on earth is that to be done? How on earth is the retailer to know? The obligation, I believe, is partly on the wholesaler to see that it is carried out, but you are laying down provisions here which it is impossible to carry out. If a Bill with provisions like this had been presented to your Lordships by Labour Government it would never have had the remotest chance of passing, and the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, would have been speechless with indignation.
A NOBLE LORD: Not speechless.
LORD ARNOLD: At any rate he would have been extremely indignant, and he would have strongly disapproved. The fact is that again and again in the passage of this Bill through Committee in another place the President of the Board of Trade was compelled to fall back upon the defence that the fears entertained were groundless because the Committees set up under the Board of

1093
Trade or the Board of Agriculture would see that nothing of the kind was done in view of the harm that would be produced if it were done. That is the defence which has been put up more than once. I am sorry to say that I find these assurances of very little value. We had similar assurances in regard to the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Your Lordships will not have forgotten the White Paper which was to be a direction to the Committees in that case, and was to provide some kind of guarantee. Has it done so? It has not done so. It has furnished no reliable security at all. That White Paper very soon became a "scrap of paper."
VISCOUNT PEELdissented.
LORD ARNOLD: Oh, but it has been violated over and over again.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have read all their reports.
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, but the point is that things have been done quite contrary to what was to be done in legislation and therefore the safeguard was of no real value. There is no confidence to be placed in these Committees of the President of the Board of Trade. So it comes about that this Bill creates for our already harassed trading community more uncertainty just at the time when business very much needs stability and certainty, because, owing to the War and the unsettlement which followed therefrom, anybody who knows anything about business is aware that there has been very great uncertainty and chaos, and this Bill is deliberately going out of the way to create more.
The noble Viscount touched on the question of retaliation. It is not very often as a matter of fact, that Protectionists trouble about retaliation. As a rule they leave it out of account, and that is a very serious danger. This Bill is likely to lead to retaliation. That retaliation need not take the form of counter-provisions about the marking of foreign goods. It may take other forms. Indeed, I understand it was stated in another place, and as far as I know it has not been disputed, that already in connection with this Bill something of the kind is being brought about. I refer
1094
to Italy. There is in Italy I think at the present time something being done; measures are being taken to discourage foreign imports, and, since the introduction of this Bill, have been taken with special reference to this country. The Government will no doubt say, and they are right if they say, that some other countries have Bills like this and, therefore, why should not we have them. But we get back there to the eternal dispute about tariffs, and the reply to that is that because other countries do unsound fiscal things and resort to unsound fiscal expedients is no reason why we should do the same. It is mainly because we have not done the same that we have built up our overseas trade of unparalleled dimensions.
In conclusion, I should like to make this point. I do not think it can be denied that Europe at the present time is suffering severely owing to trade barriers and trade restrictions. As I say, I do not think that can be denied; in fact, there are many competent judges who foresee catastrophe unless something is done to ameliorate the present conditions. The manifesto published recently, signed by very important commercial magnates and other business people in most of the important industrial countries of the world, calling for the lessening of tariffs and trade restrictions was a document of historic importance. The so-called Safeguarding of Industries Acts passed by this Government have been a decidedly adverse factor in the movement against tariffs. They have been regarded abroad, and not unnaturally, as a sign that Great Britain is at last departing from her historic Free Trade position. Therefore, that legislation has been a great discouragement to the minorities, abroad who are struggling to bring about freer trade.
Now, on top of these Safeguarding of Industries Acts we have this Bill which will restrict imports and which, undoubtedly, has a protective influence of a serious character. And that is done just at the moment when, as I have said, there is only too much reason to believe that Europe is heading for calamity unless there is a freer interchange of commodities. I think then I am entitled to say that the time chosen for the introduction of this Bill is as unpropitious as it is

1095
possible to conceive. At the last General Election this Government got many votes on the ground that it would inaugurate an era of better trade, of confidence and of industrial peace and harmony. That has not happened, and, so far from that having happened, there has been in the last two years in this country worse trade and more industrial unsettlement than at any period in modern times, and the blame for that in no small degree rests upon the present Government. In my view it is scarcely less than a tragedy that the commercial interests of this country should be committed to the present President of the Board of Trade and that he should be free to come down with his bludgeon crashing into the delicate and complicated mechanism of our trade and industry; because that is what he is doing and that is what this Bill does. There is no real demand for it from the manufacturing community. There is, as I have admitted, some demand from agriculturists and poultry farmers who want foreign eggs branded or painted black or something of the sort.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That has been taken out.
LORD ARNOLD: That has been taken out, but the eggs can still be branded. Even the Government had to recognise that they were going too far and took it out. Yet because the poultry farmers of this country want protection against foreign eggs, vital and important trading interests are going to be placed at the mercy of an irresponsible Committee and a Protectionist President of the Board of Trade. Shortly put, that is what this Bill comes to.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at end of Motion ("this day six months").—(Lord Arnold.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I listened to the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill with, if I may say so, some amusement. It seemed to me that the speech was not one such as would recommend this Bill to those who were not whole-heartedly its supporters. Those of us who have heard the Bill discussed, particularly in agricultural circles—I am not speaking of Protectionist circles which, no doubt, support the Bill—know that the driving
1096
force behind it is not the desire to protect the consumer against misrepresentation and is not really a desire to protect the individual producer against unfair attack; but it is really a desire to secure what is known as Protection for the producer by placing some barrier or obstacle in the way of his competitors meeting him on equal terms. It is certain that the driving force behind this Bill is a Protectionist force, a desire that by some means, by hook or by crook, foreign competition, an admittedly fair competition, should be handicapped for the benefit of the home consumer.
The noble Viscount's introduction of this Bill sounded very plausible upon the subject. He would have us believe that it is a mere regulating Bill to protect the innocent consumer against being misled by the absence of labels; yet I think it is certain—and I believe your Lordships will agree with me—that the driving force behind the Bill is something very different. Had the speech of the noble Viscount to which we listened this afternoon been delivered at a farmers' club or in the market place on a Saturday afternoon, I wonder whether it would have been received with enthusiastic applause by the farmers and agriculturists there assembled. The speeches made by supporters of the Bill have been a great deal more full blooded than his speech. He minimised as far as he could the effect of the Bill. He suggested that there would be but little, if any, interference with the trade of this country; that this Bill could only be applied under most stringent safeguards; that the re-exporter is protected on every hand by the carefully devised safeguards which the Bill contains. He would have us believe, in fact, that but few Orders would be issued under the Bill, and that most articles would continue to come in untouched by regulations and unhampered by any Order in Council issued after Inquiry.
For my part I hope that will be the case. I would not have it thought that we on these Benches or in the Liberal Party are in any degree unsympathetic with the desire to protect the consumer against fraud and misrepresentation and against buying an article other than that which he expects to buy. Nor would I have it thought that we are indifferent to the effect on producers of articles competing unfairly and masquerading as

1097
British when they are not British. Free Trade does not imply that Free Traders are indifferent either to the interest of the producer or of the consumer. We are concerned with the interests of all. We are concerned to see that no man has an unfair deal in the markets of this country or of the world. But the driving force behind this is the request that some obstacle shall be placed in the way of those who import into this country perfectly honest articles, not misrepresented in any way, in competition with British articles. The British article now stands on its own merits and ought not to be bolstered up by any undue interference on the part of a Government Department. It may be said that this Bill does not give unfair interference, that it merely lays down that foreign articles shall be sold as such. That is true as regards the Bill, but one cannot leave out from one's consideration what; is in the minds, I will not say of the present Government but of a good many of those who support this Bill. It is thought that somehow or other, if you cannot get Protection at the present moment, you can at least get something equivalent to Protection, some sort of obstacle—it may be a small one, though I think the whole-hearted supporters of this Bill think it is going to be quite a substantial one—put in the way of the foreign trader.
I will do the present Government the compliment of believing that they do in fact hold by the pledges they gave at the last Election, that they do not go beyond the promises they gave. Promises are often given by political Parties seeking office that certain questions shall be left out of account in the ensuing Parliament if they come into power. That has happened to every Party in the State. They have excluded themselves from dealing with certain points in their programme (points in which they believe) because they hold that there are more important points, more vital points in regard to which the country needs the services of the Party immediately, and they do not wish to complicate the electoral position by bringing in a question, important in itself but which may prevent them getting that power to deal with other questions which they consider to be of more immediate urgency. I cannot blame. I never have blamed the Con-
1098
servative Party for having done what they did at the last Election—postponed or hung up the question of Protection until a future date. By so doing they have not abandoned their principles; they have merely declared that for the present there are other questions of more immediate import. I believe the present Government desire to live up to, and on the whole have lived up to, that declaration; that, with some exceptions perhaps, they have avoided giving a handle to those who would say, "You are now bringing in protective legislation." Even in this case it may be said that the Bill is hardly in itself protective. I believe that the Board of Trade in its administration will leave the protective aspect of the question out of account.
This Bill is composed, as the noble Viscount; explained to us, of two parts. Clause 1 deals with one point and the remainder of the Bill deals with others. May I deal with the second part first. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill I think provide for elaborate machinery for the imposition of these markings on imported goods, subject to a considerable number of provisos. In the first place a request has to be made by a substantial body of persons representing producers, consumers, importers and so on, and a Committee has to be set up in response to that request. Whether the President of the Board of Trade can decline to set up the Committee, even if requested to do so by a substantial body, I am not quite clear. Perhaps we shall be told whether that is so or not. But granted the Committee is set up, the President of the Board of Trade is perfectly free to disregard the advice of that Committee and can neglect it altogether. Further, the President of the Board of Trade can after he has accepted the advice, impose restrictions by means of marking, and he can withdraw those restrictions subject to his referring his action to the Committee which advises him.
The whole thing is made up of the discretion of the President of the Board of Trade from beginning to end. The President of the Board of Trade can, subject to getting, as I understand, the advice of the Committee, impose such restrictions, limitations and markings as he thinks fit with regard to the recommendations of the Committee, or he can impose markings in diminution of the recommenda-

1099
tions of the Committee. He can take off part or the whole of a Regulation. It is obvious that with an option such as the Bill contains at every turn, an option in the hands of a Government Department, you are bound to have less application of this Bill. I know the Government will not use this in a protective sense, that the regulations they impose will be reasonable and will not have any protective effect, but one must remember that this Bill will not be for the period of the lifetime of this Government but will be available to any future Government and that it will be possible under this Bill for a President of the Board of Trade to go a great deal further and to impose many more difficulties in the way of our foreign import trade than will be imposed by the present President of the Board of Trade.
Then, as to the Committee, it is most difficult to know what is impartiality. Who can say what it is? It is almost as difficult as to say what is truth. Who can say whether the Committee, honestly believing it is desirable to exclude foreign goods, will not come to the conclusion that it is desirable to impose marking obligations on every sort of article imported. The Committee will declare itself and honourably believe itself to be impartial, but there is such a thing as innate belief. The Committee will believe that they are acting impartially, they will desire to be impartial, but the trend of mind of a Committee will affect the recommendations which any Committee makes. You may get a Committee made up of high Protectionists who will approach the question in a different atmosphere and in a different way from that in which it would be approached by another kind of Committee.
As to Clause 1, I understand it is very little more than a re-enactment of the existing law. It is illegal now to pass off a foreign-made article with a British name; to sell Danish butter as British butter is already illegal. The whole clause is, I think, practically covered by the existing law, with this exception, that there are words in this clause which provide that to distribute a foreign-made article by way of advertisement shall be an offence. The words are: "It shall not be lawful to sell or distribute by way of advertisement any," etc. Surely under that clause there is a possibility of misleading people. Take, for instance, the case of a British
1100
aerated water manufacturer who desires to distribute ashtrays to his customers as an advertisement of his trade as an aerated water manufacturer. He buys the ashtrays from abroad and, therefore, there must be on the ashtrays, as I understand it, a statement that they are of foreign manufacture. That in itself is likely to give rise to a wrong impression in the minds of the recipients of the ashtrays. They may well think that it is the aerated water which is advertised as of foreign manufacture. Take the firm of Schweppe, if it is an English firm. It does not sound very English but I believe it to be purely English. Would people be able to distinguish Schweppe aerated waters from waters manufactured abroad if Schweppe were to issue as an advertisement ashtrays which contained the words "of foreign manufacture"? It is easy to see that such a thing might be a great detriment to the Schweppe firm if customers thought they were being invited to consume aerated water of foreign manufacture.
I must say it seems to me that it would be a considerable hardship on a British firm to insist that they should do themselves harm by the possible implication that they are advertising their water as foreign water or else be restricted to employing British manufactures for the purpose of advertising. Who is injured by such an advertisement? Clearly not the recipient of the advertisement for he does not buy the advertisement and he is not misled. It is sent to him whether he likes it or not. We all of us get calendars, catalogues and almanacs sent to us about Christmas time by firms who have dealt with us or who desire to deal with us and we are not injured by the fact that we get one which has been printed abroad. We are not deceived by it. The only person who could be said to be injured is the competing English porcelain manufacturer or the printer of the catalogue who does not get the business from the advertiser, presumably because the advertiser finds that he can get his articles cheaper or better or more conveniently from a foreign market. But surely to compel a manufacturer to go to a British advertising contractor to get his articles is simply the imposition of Protection. It is practically saying to him: "You must either misrepresent your articles

1101
by printing on your advertisement 'Made abroad' or 'Foreign made' or you must buy your articles from a British advertising agent." It seems to me that that might very well be subject to further consideration in Committee.
The Bill really leaves one very much in the dark as to what it is going to do. One does not really know how much it will be used, or whether it will be used to the same extent by one Government as by another; whether the present Government is going to use it largely or with discretion, or whether the next Government that comes in will not make an entirely different use of it. The Bill contains the possibility of every sort of use. The Bill is, in fact, one which really does not inform us as to what is going to happen under it. All we know is that interests will go to the Board of Trade and will request the appointment of a Committee, the Board of Trade will appoint the Committee and after the Committee has reported the Board of Trade will be free to act on the Report or not. I do not much like that sort of legislation. I like greater certainty as to what is to ensue if the Bill is passed into law. I prefer to know what the Bill really involves us in. Does it involve us in general irritating little obstacles in the way of imports, or is it to be used in a mild, inoffensive, harmless way? The noble Viscount suggested the latter, but we have no guarantee and can have no guarantee that such will be the use to which the Bill will be put hereafter.
We hear objections to legislation by reference. Legislation by reference confuses the layman for he finds when he reads the Bill that it is impossible to understand what it means. But there is something worse than legislation by reference, and that is legislation by Order in Council which gives freedom to the Executive to do nearly what they please, freedom to impose provisions to the full or to relax them, freedom to enforce the Bill to its full extent or to enforce it to some extent. The whole Bill is nebulous and uncertain and I do not know how it may be used. For that reason I agree with the Motion which has been moved by Lord Arnold.
I do not wish to accuse the Government of any fraudulent intention in the introduction of the Bill—I do not think they have any fraudulent intention—
1102
but the Bill can be used in a way that is oppressive and hard. That convinces me that it would be desirable either greatly to amend the Bill—though I doubt whether the Bill in its present form can be amended—or to ask the House not to give assent to a Bill which is full of danger, which is full of uncertainty, and which has behind it the support, not of the honest producer or of the honest consumer, but of those who wish to alter the system under which the country has existed, the Free Trade system which has been the great bulwark of the general prosperity and the financial and commercial prosperity of this country.
VISCOUNT INCHCAPE: My Lords, may I mention a small personal matter before speaking to your Lordships on this Bill? I found myself a little time ago out of sympathy with many avowed intentions of the Liberal Party as now constituted, including a certain "land stunt" and a certain support given to the man who has wrought infinite danger to the country and the people and who is now urging the miners who return to work to break their agreements. I found myself on this side [the Government side] of your Lordships' House for a few minutes some little time ago as a matter of convenience after a Division beside a Conservative noble Lord. He said he presumed I should be sitting where I was but for one thing—the menace to Free Trade. I agreed with him and though I have now moved over for what I consider adequate reasons it does not mean that I have abandoned or will ever abandon my belief in Free Trade for this country. Under Free Trade the country has prospered for the last century beyond all bounds. I am getting on in years and if the catastrophe of Protection comes it may not come in my time, but I venture to say that in my humble judgment, if the Government interfere with the free exchange of commodities between this country and the world, Great Britain will become a mere cypher, unemployment will increase, taxation, if we are to stand up to our obligations, as I hope we will, will wipe out the country's wealth and these little Islands in the North Sea will sink to a place of no importance in the world. Some weeks ago I told my noble friend Earl Beauchamp what I had decided to do and a few

1103
nights ago he came over to me here and chaffingly remarked: "So you have joined the Protectionist Party." What I have just said is my reply.
We are not a self-contained country and we never shall be unless our population diminishes by three-fourths of what it is at present. We live by what we manufacture and send abroad and by the ships we build, and these are paid for by international trade. The result of this Bill when it becomes law, so far as I can see, will be to hamper trade. Think of the Committees and the machinery which the noble Viscount has just told us will have to be brought into force to carry through this Bill. The whole thing, to my mind, is absolutely preposterous. It will involve a huge increase of functionaries who will fatten on the people until such time as the people will rise and rend them. I am convinced that those who are behind this Bill have nothing but the interests of their country at heart, but I am equally convinced that if their policy succeeds and leads to the people of these Islands purchasing and consuming only the products of this country and of the British Dominions it will bring disaster to that world-wide trade and those exports which have been our sheet anchor for nearly a century. Do you believe that the people of these Islands, or even your Lordships, will refuse to buy Danish butter or China tea if they are cheaper than and as good as British butter or Indian tea, or that they will refuse to buy oranges from the Levant if they are cheaper than and just as, good as oranges from any of our Dominions? Would your Lordships or the people refuse to buy eggs laid on the Continent if they are as fresh as and cheaper than eggs which are laid by our own barndoor fowls? I do not believe it for a moment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, referred to the advertising of foreign goods. I remember that many years ago in India a Merchandise Marks Act became law, following a British Act. Everything had to be stamped with the country of origin. The consequence was that the goods that were coming into India from Germany were thereafter stamped "Made in Germany." These articles permeated all the bazaars, they were bought by the million and when the million came to replenish their stocks they had got accustomed to good stamped "Made in Germany" and
1104
would buy no others. It was the very best advertisement German goods ever had. The proposal of the Government in this Bill may sound all right to those who know little or, it may be, nothing of business or political economy. To them it has an attraction; to me, if I may venture to say so, it has none. It is getting us on to the slippery plane of Protection and that, if it eventuates, will kill many industries and will inflict untold hardship upon our people. I have no personal axe to grind. By dint of industry and, I hope, honesty during a long period of years, some of which have been spent in working for my country and India, I have all that I shall ever be likely to need. No doubt the Second Reading of this Bill will pass your Lordships' House but, although I am sitting upon these Benches, I cannot support it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, we who are opposed to this Bill may well congratulate ourselves upon the admirable speech to which we have just listened. We could not have had from any Bench in this House a more thoroughgoing denunciation of this measure than that to which we have just listened from the noble Viscount. I only wish that I had persuaded him, as I have tried to persuade him on previous occasions, to make similar speeches from these Benches. As for the noble Lord who has in charge the whipping of the Conservative Party, I do hope, if I may venture to say so that he will not find all his new recruits as recalcitrant as the last and that they will be sometimes found voting in the Lobby with the Party that they have just joined. On this occasion I look forward with much pleasure to the first vote given by the noble Viscount since he joined the Conservative Party being given against the measure that they have just introduced.
VISCOUNT INCHCAPE: No, no. I will not support it but I am not going to vote against it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Viscount will allow me to say so, I think that the speech that he has just delivered will be far more effective than twenty or even a hundred votes given in support of or against this measure. His speech will be of very real influence. It is quite evident that your Lordships have had a thoroughgoing examination of the Bill,

1105
and I do not propose to add at great length to the criticisms of the measure that have proceeded from both sides of the House. I quite agree that there was some real reason for the existence of the original Merchandise Marks Act and that, supposing people wished to mark their goods as having a certain origin and then found that other goods were marked in the same way by fraud and forgery, there is every reason why the offenders should be penalised, and if those penalties do not prove to be sufficient their further measures may well be introduced into your Lordships' House increasing them until the fraud or forgery is completely stopped. Unfortunately we know that this has been the case in the past. People have been prosecuted for giving false descriptions, and I should have thought that the original Bill was really sufficient.
But the intention of punishing fraud is not really the reason for the introduction of this Bill. His Majesty's Government wish to go a great deal further than to strengthen the law or increase the penalties. They want to make producers mark their goods and to encourage purchasers to make their choice as to the goods which they wish to purchase, at any rate in cases where this is desired. This Bill may lead—I do not say that it will—to the compulsory marking of all foreign goods brought into this country. A Committee may be appointed and the President of the Board of Trade may agree, and in that case the requisite Orders in Council will be made. I confess that I regret this reference to Committees, especially Committees ad hoc. I do not think that it is really a sound method of procedure to isolate one industry and make it a subject of Inquiry without going into the question of its relation to the industry of this country as a whole. It would be very much better, I believe, if all these things were discussed on the floor of the House of Commons, where all the interests of the nation have complete representation and where the competing interests of different trades would have an opportunity of being heard and the situation would be reviewed as a whole rather than the situation as regards one special and particular industry.
I am tempted to repeat an electioneering story which shows the harm which may be done by having too tender a regard
1106
for one single industry at one moment. It is the story of a Scotsman in a convalescent hospital who did not seem to get any better. A sympathetic doctor who came along thought that he might be improved and inspirited if he were confronted with some of the sights and sounds of his native land and very kindly arranged for a Highlander with kilt and bagpipes to go one afternoon and play up and down the ward. Next morning the doctor came and asked how the Scotsman was getting on. He was very much better for this encouragement, but unfortunately all the other patients in the hospital were dead. What we need to do is, not to regard too intimately the interests of one particular industry or one particular individual, but rather the industry of this country as a whole.
The importance of the entrepot trade has already been dealt with, as also the importance to the mercantile marine of that trade itself and also of the imports coming into the country. I can well understand the feeling of the noble Viscount who has just spoken in this matter, because everything that hampers trade and prevents imports coming into this country is certain to be a blow to the mercantile marine. Just as we always find that where trade is most free you get the best mercantile marine, so also the opposite theory holds and the mercantile marine is never so successful as in a Free Trade country. There are many technical difficulties to some of which I may perhaps make reference. The difficulty, for instance, of marking pineapples. How, if it is requested, can a pineapple possibly be marked? Your Lordships may have seen, in the course of this week, a very interesting exhibit in the Bishops' corridor of this House, showing the tariff walls which exist between one country and another, and I suppose there are few of your Lordships who were not shocked by the height of those walls, in some respects. This Bill may go some way in increasing the height of the walls which exist against goods coming into this country, and it may give some encouragement to people in other countries still further to raise the walls which exist around their own countries.
There are other difficulties than those which have been mentioned. What about a dressing-case, of which the component parts have been collected from a number

1107
of different countries. What about the case of the bottle of beer, the bottle coming from Czecho-Slovakia and the beer from this country? How are the labels to be fixed, and what degree of prominence is to be given to them? I heard only yesterday of a friend who went into a shop in Victoria Street and asked for a pencil. He was given a pencil stamped with "Made in Czecho-Slovakia." He asked whether he could not be given a pencil made in this country. The reply was: "Oh, it is all right, Czecho-Slovakia belongs to this country now, and has done so since the War." I am not sure that it may not be necessary to add lessons in geography for the people who have to sell the goods in future. I look with a good deal of dread also to the increase in the number of bureaucrats which this Bill is going to bring about in this country. I look with dread to the fact that you must have a large number of officers to administer this measure. The object of this Bill, I confess, is ostensibly that people may know what they are buying, but I cannot help thinking that the result will be great hindrance to our trade and real damage to employment in this country. For that reason I shall certainly give my vote against the Second Reading to-night.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me I should like to say one or two words in reply. May I first of all reply to my noble friend behind me, because I naturally take great interest in his observations as he now belongs to the Party to which I also belong. I always have listened with the highest respect to observations which he makes, especially upon trade matters, and may I say that that respect is enhanced now that I find him sitting on the same Benches. It is a matter of profound regret to me that he should find it necessary to signalise his entry into my own Party by a speech critical of the Bill of that Party which he has just made. May I respectfully hope that this will be the only fault that he has committed in joining the Party? I think my noble friend, if I may say so without disrespect, took rather too melancholy a view of the effect of this Bill. He really did treat it, I think, generally as a Protectionist measure and as part of a Protectionist scheme. I think he is putting it rather high, and
1108
that all that it really means is that the British consumer should be able to see, when he buys goods, whether he is buying British or foreign goods. It is rather difficult for me to see how that can be translated into what I call the language of general Protection.
Then Lord Stanley of Alderley, who made, if I may say so, a very moderate and careful criticism of the Bill, mostly took the view, I think, that although he had a good deal of confidence in the wisdom of the Conservative Government he feared that other Governments might possibly misuse the measure.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I had no confidence in their wisdom, but I had in their honour.
VISCOUNT PEEL: And I hope also in their intelligence. I share his view very much. I think it is quite possible that in administration some of the measures passed by the Conservative Government may, I will not say be misused, but possibly may not be so well administered by other Governments as they will be by the present Government. That, however, is a general criticism, is it not? It applies not only to this Bill but to all the measures which are being produced by the present Government. The noble Lord also, I think, took a serious view of what he called entrusting so much power to Committees, and he said that he would prefer—I think it was also said by Lord Beauchamp—to have matters thrashed out on the floor of the House. No one has a higher respect for the House of Commons than I have, but I think that the House of Commons, and your Lordships, would be a great deal assisted in your criticism of any of these proposals, when they come before you, as they must do, if you are reinforced by the labours of (I hope) an impartial and certainly a quasi-judicial Committee. I need hardly say that an independent House like your Lordships' House is not necessarily moved by the Report of a Committee. You form your own opinions, but nevertheless I think you are glad to get information from a Committee which has thoroughly discussed and considered the matter.
Then Lord Beauchamp was afraid that this Bill might lead to the general marking of all goods. I suppose it might lead to that but I think, looking at the general probabilities of the case, it is extremely

1109
unlikely that such a wide application of the Bill could possibly be made. Anyhow, that is entirely within the power of this House and of another place. The noble Earl also suggested that it was a mistake—I quite agree with him—to consider the interests of one particular industry or trade without considering the interests of the whole. May I say that the same thoughts occurred to the Government, and that they have provided that the Department, in considering the interests of particular trades, shall have reference to the whole trade of the country and to inter-Imperial trade. I think that that point has been to a certain extent safeguarded. The noble Earl has given interesting examples such as of pineapples, dressing cases and pencils. Perhaps he will allow me to reserve my detailed examination of those points until we get into Committee. May I point out, however, that these Orders under subsection (6) are only to apply when the Committee "consider that it is practically possible to apply an indication of origin effectively and without injury to the goods." I am not a sufficient judge of pineapples to know whether you can apply such a mark to them without injury to the goods, but that is a matter which the Committee will have to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, also raised several points. In effect he challenged me on one case. He indicated what I suppose would be the policy of the Labour Party. He said, in effect, "Why mark these foreign and Imperial goods? You have a much simpler plan, mark British goods, and then you will know that other goods are foreign." Of course that would not apply to the distinction between foreign and Imperial goods. I will give him one reason why it might be a great mistake to proceed by his method, and why I trust the Labour Party will not bring in a Bill on the lines which he has indicated. Of the total production in this country six-sevenths, or possibly a little less, is consumed in this country, and the balance of one-sixth or one-seventh is exported. Therefore obviously it would be a great mistake. You would have to mark the whole of the production in this country, and that would be a very considerable business. Surely it is very much simpler to mark the more limited quantity of
1110
goods, or rather a portion of them, imported from foreign countries. If the noble Lord talks about bureaucrats I think he would have to develop his bureaucratic system very considerably if the contrary course were taken.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Viscount overlooks that you need not mark at all.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was only dealing with a very kind suggestion of the noble Lord, in which he said that we might attain the same object by what he said was a cheaper system. In fact, I do not understand the attitude of the noble Lord at all, because what is the object of this Bill? It is to permit the Briton to have a choice whether he buys British or foreign goods, that is to say, whether he buys goods made by well-paid labour or goods made by foreign labour that is less well-paid. I should have thought that many of the noble Lord's colleagues in the Labour Party would have agreed to a proposition of that kind, and I cannot help thinking that it is some of his old Liberal garments which are hanging to him when he denounces this Bill, and not the new robes which he has recently put on.
I think I. dealt in anticipation with a good many of the points he made, and many of them, I think, were in the nature of Committee points. He threatened us with rather dire results in other countries, and he said campaigns were already being set on foot to keep out British goods. I think they have been set on foot for some time; one speaker, indeed, referred to that very interesting exhibition showing the heights of foreign tariffs, which proves that the process has already been in operation for some time—long before this Bill was introduced. As regards Italy, the noble Lord was rather general but he told us that a number of operations, stimulated by the introduction of this Bill, were proceeding against British goods. I have made inquiries on that subject, and I have not heard of any such attack being made on British goods. It is perfectly true that, owing no doubt to Fascist principles, Italy has been recently raising its tariffs, but that is against all the world, and I can assure the noble Lord that it is not in any sense directed against British goods. Then he betrayed great distrust of Committees and also, I think,

1111
of discussions, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. He said he had been fifteen years in political life and he did not think very much of Parliament.
LORD ARNOLD: No, I did not say that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Well, he did not attach a very high value to Parliament.
LORD ARNOLD: No, that is a mistake. The noble Viscount was referring to Orders, in Council, and I said that, although there have been during the last fifteen years—the period in which I happen to have been in one or other House of Parliament—a very large number of Orders in Council, I could not at the moment recall a single case in which effective action had been taken.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I remember several cases, but I will not deal with that for the
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY BOROUGHS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment.
moment. I think the general criticism of the noble Lord was, I will not say vitiated, but a little altered, and possibly weakened, by the fact that he seemed to think that the object of the present Government was to inflict as much damage as possible on trade. He attacked us for having damaged trade very much already, and he took this Bill as only a particular instance of the general policy of damage to trade which was inaugurated by a Conservative Government. I think I might leave the subject there. It is not necessary for me to defend the Conservative Government against the charge of desiring the general destruction of trade.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Scarbrough, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Selborne, E.

Harris, L.

Sutherland, D.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wellington, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Peel, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Bath, M.

Kylsant, L.

Atkinson, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Airlie, E.

Belper, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Bradford, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Saltoun, L.

Clarendon, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sempill, L.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Lindsey, E.

Danesfort, L.

Lovelace, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sumner, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Templemore, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Teynham, L.

Midleton, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wavertree, L.

Minto, E.

Dynevor, L.

Wittenham, L.

Morton, E.

NON-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Bethell, L.

Phillimore, L.

Chesterfied, E.

Cawley, L.

Sandhurst, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Shandon, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Emmott, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Russell, E.

Farrer, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Allendale, V.

Illingworth, L.

Swaythling, L.

Haldane, V.

Islington, L.

Thomson, L.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Treowen, L.

Arnold, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR. (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY BOROUGHS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  [The references are to Bill (No. 53).]
  Clause 5, page 3, line 1, at end insert

  1113
  ("in its application to any adjustments consequent on an alteration of boundaries or other change effected after the passing of this Act").
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in their Amendment. It is not quite a drafting Amendment but has reference to the adjustments under Clause 5 of the Bill. As the clause was originally worded it would have applied to any adjustment not settled by the passing of the Act. Some of these matters take a long time to negotiate and, therefore, this Amendment lays it down that the adjustment shall be consequent on an alteration of boundaries or other change effected after the passing of this Act. The point is that they will not be effected until after the passing of this Act. Three or four Bills have gone through Parliament this year containing a clause to that effect, and this will make it applicable to all Bills in future. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

BENEFICES (ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES) MEASURE, 1926.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Ecclesiastical Duties) Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, I ask your Lordships to agree to the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper. On some occasions when the procedure of which I am now asking your Lordships to take advantage has been followed in this House comment has been made, not I think illegitimately, as to the Measure coming forward without there having been adequate time for deliberation upon it outside or beforehand. Such a matter will, I understand, be brought before
1114
your Lordships' House by the noble Earl opposite in a very short time. But in this case at all events no one will allege that difficulty.
This Measure, after a very prolonged discussion which began some three years ago, passed the Church Assembly by an overwhelming vote on July 8 of this year. It was at once sent by the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, and the Ecclesiastical Committee on August 2 recommended that it be presented for the Royal Assent. Four months have passed since then. There has been abundant consideration of the Measure and a great deal of detailed comment outside as well as in Parliament, and on the whole the opinion about it has been not only quite favourable to but overwhelmingly on the side of the proposals that are made in it. There have been adverse criticisms, but they have been based upon a curious misapprehension to which I will refer in a moment, and they are really insignificant in proportion to the support with which the Measure was welcomed in the Church at large. The Ecclesiastical Committee, to which your Lordships attach and rightly attach almost conclusive weight in this matter, are of opinion that it is desirable that the Measure should become law and that it does not affect prejudicially the constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects. That does not mean that your Lordships are bound to give effect to their recommendation. I have never brought a Measure forward in this way in the House without saying how entirely and loyally I recognise the complete right of Parliament to deal as it will with Resolutions which come before it. In no kind of way does the Ecclesiastical Committee's recommendation carry binding force and in no way whatever does the fact of a Measure having passed the Church Assembly take away from Parliament the responsibility and, indeed, the duty of carefully considering the Resolution which comes before it.
I would like to say a few words about the object of this Measure. It is simple and the need for it is very real. I do not think that many of your Lordships are unfamiliar with cases in England in which the work of a parish is being inadequately done and the parishioners are suffering

1115
therefrom. This inadequacy is sometimes due to positive wrong-doing on the part of the incumbent; I mean, to evil behaviour of some kind. With such cases this Measure has nothing whatever to do. I am anxious to make it clear that this is not a disciplinary Measure for correcting the wrong-doing of incumbents. It has the object of protecting parishioners from the inadequate performance of duties the performance of which they have the right to claim. Cases of the other sort are, happily, very rare, we deal with them in another way altogether and, as I say, they have nothing to do with this Measure. The Measure deals with no specific or overt act of wrong-doing, but with the inadequate discharge of a vicar's rather complicated responsibilities.
That inadequacy may be on two grounds. It may be due to no fault of his, but to advancing years, or illness, or physical incapacity to do the work of the parish; or, on the other hand, it may be due to negligence on the vicar's part, not to wrong-doing but to reprehensible failure to discharge his duties actively. It is obviously an extremely difficult thing to define quite accurately what constitutes that sort of failure. We have endeavoured to do it, and I shall refer to it in a moment. For the parishioner's sake the question of the inadequate performance of duty due to negligence must be definitely and clearly dealt with. This subject has been before the Church and before Parliament for nearly eighty years and successive Measures have been introduced to deal more or less with it. As long ago as 1838 the Pluralities Act dealt with this question, but dealt with it in rather a complicated manner and it is a little difficult to give effect to that Act in any satisfactory manner. A good deal later, in 1885, what is called the Pluralities (Amendment) Act was passed which endeavoured to deal with this question of negligence as well as several other questions. Then, in 1898, what is called the Benefices Act was passed which, again, attempted the same thing.
None of these Acts is quite effective and none of them works out very well. They are very complicated and difficult to work. I think everyone familiar with the subject will admit that what this Measure does is to consolidate and to simplify the provisions of those Measures as well as to add a little of a
1116
new kind. In all the Measures that have been proposed or enacted the same large line of procedure has been followed. In all cases it begins with a duly constituted Commission of Inquiry being appointed to give a Report upon two points—Are the duties being inadequately performed? If they are inadequately performed, is that due to mere age or illness for which the incumbent is not responsible, or is it due to negligence? To those two points the Commission has to reply. The existing law provides that in the first of those cases, where it is due to nothing culpable, to nothing for which the incumbent is responsible, but to the fact that he is incapable physically or otherwise of doing the duty, the Bishop may call upon him to appoint a curate who shall assist him or take his place when he cannot officiate in the parish and carry on its work; and, if he fails to comply with that and the Bishop thinks it necessary, the Bishop may himself appoint a curate. In that case there is an appeal to the Archbishop of the Province as to whether the incumbent is being fairly dealt with.
Where the inadequate fulfilment of duties is due to negligence, the Bishop may, without the incumbent having any say in the matter, appoint a curate himself and he may, if necessary, go further and inhibit the negligent incumbent from himself officiating. In that case again an appeal is most necessarily provided. The appeal then is to a Court consisting of the Archbishop of the Province and a Judge of the Supreme Court, who sit together to decide whether or not the incumbent is being unfairly dealt with. These cases are rare, partly because it has been so difficult to define exactly what negligence means and, in the second place, because the existing law has been, as I have said, cumbrous and complicated and difficult to apply. I have myself sat with a Judge of the High Court in two such cases—I think only two—and I have felt how much the law needed simplification if we were to carry things out satisfactorily. Therefore we have the need of this Measure, which has gone through these years of very careful discussion and preparation, and which your Lordships are now asked to submit for Royal Assent.
The Measure does three things. First, it consolidates in a clear form the exist-

1117
ing Acts, which are complex and difficult to apply. Nobody, I believe, doubts that such consolidation is necessary and no one, as far as I know, has taken the least exception to the way in which the Acts are consolidated and made clear in the Measure as it Stands. The next thing that the Measure does is to define more carefully than hitherto the exact meaning of the charge of negligence, applied to an incumbent who comes under its provisions. The greatest care has been taken as regards that definition. The words are somewhat long and will be found in the second clause of the Measure which describes them very carefully. I believe the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would be prepared to endorse what I say when I repeat that the very greatest care has been taken in drafting these words so as to be scrupulously fair to the incumbent as well as fair to the parishioners to whom he is called to minister. I will not go over the words, which are very far-reaching in their character.
The third thing the Measure does is to give great care to the improvement and re-drafting of the detailed rules about the possible inhibition of a negligent incumbent and the bearing of that inhibition upon the question of his residence or non-residence in the parish. Nothing is more unsatisfactory than that an inhibited man, whose duties and responsibilities have been transferred to another man nominated against the former's will, should continue to be resident in the parish notwithstanding that he has been found to have been negligent in the performance of his duties to such an extent as to involve the Bishop in the responsibility of sending someone else to take his place. We have in this Measure very carefully made arrangements in regard to that. There is a provision whereby, in case of necessity, an incumbent may be told that while the money will still be paid to him—he is not to be deprived of it—it will not be paid to him if he continues to reside in the parish the duties of which he has been forbidden to continue to undertake. The common sense of that will be obvious and it removes certain difficulties which have been found great in practice. I could go into them in much more detail if it were desirable, but your Lordships will
1118
find it very clearly set out in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 of the Measure. They go into the matter very carefully.
That is the Measure which is before your Lordships. It is the outcome, as I have said, of prolonged discussions. One of the Committees which sat upon it in the National Church Assembly consisted, I think, of between seventy and eighty men and everything was gone into with the very utmost care so as to ensure fairness to the incumbent as well as to the parishioners. I am sure that the real difficulties, with which we are all familiar, have been grappled with in a reasonable manner and I invite support for the Measure. There have been objections raised to it outside, but they are few and seem, by some strange accident, to have been based upon a real misapprehension of what the Measure is. In the first place, if anyone will look into the objections which have been raised and made public, sometimes in the Press, sometimes in speeches and addresses, not so much in the Assembly as outside it, they will find that the objectors seem scarcely to have noted the fact that the things they are objecting to are not things that are laid down now for the first time in this Measure, but that they are the existing Measures in a consolidated form. They are really objecting to something that has been the law for seventy or eighty years, but which is now made clear and lucid instead of being left complex and difficult. That cuts away the ground from a very largo number of the objections and criticisms which have been made with regard to the Measure.
Then again it has been said that the negligent incumbent is being treated unfairly because he has no certainty of having adequate knowledge of what is alleged against him. That is an extraordinary statement to make to any one who has the Measure before him. The provision of the Measure, if your Lordships will look at the last paragraph of Clause 2, is that
".… no incumbent shall be deemed to have been negligent in the observance or performance of any of his ordination promises or the duties imposed upon him by the Rules for the Representation of the Laity unless such observance or performance has been required of him in writing by the Bishop, who shall give him opportunity of replying, before issuing any commission under the provisions of Section three of this Measure."

1119
Therefore the incumbent knows at the outset from top to bottom what is alleged against him and why the Commission is appointed.
Then the Commission is appointed; and it has sometimes been said in letters to the Press that the Bishop appoints a number of Commissioners who are his nominees and that they are to report to him as judge upon something which he has prejudged, so to speak, by the appointment of the Commission. Nothing can be more directly contrary to the fact. The Bishop's sole business is to say that a Commission shall sit. He has no appointment of any single member of it. The members are appointed in three ways. Some are ex officio as officers in that particular part of the diocese, some—the larger number—are appointed by election by the clergy of the diocese, the men themselves whose conduct may be impugned, and others either by the Lord Lieutenant of the County or Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Those are the ways in which the Commissioners are appointed and with them will sit a Commissioner appointed by the incumbent himself. Could there be any better security that the man is not unaware of what is said against him or will be adequately heard before the Commission? Your Lordships will find these points are clear if you look at the First Schedule of the Measure. You will see how clearly it is laid down that the incumbent himself is to be represented on the Commission.
There is one other thing. Hitherto there has been a serious lack in the existing laws of any provision whereby an inhibition laid upon an incumbent under one of the existing Acts can be ended. I am not prepared to say that it cannot be done but we lay down here that it can be done, that if it is shown that the incumbent concerned is able and willing to do his duty properly the inhibition can be properly removed. It is true that after five years of an inhibition running without being removed it is provided that the benefice will become vacant. It has been said that in that case the inhibited man will lose his pension under other Acts. That is quite a mistake. There is nothing of the kind provided and the pension would go on for him exactly as before.
I have tried to put before your Lordships what is rather a complicated
1120
Measure as clearly as I can. It is a difficult Measure but it is a necessary one, and in my opinion the passing of this Resolution to-night would illustrate well the nature and the advantage of that mode of legislating in Church matters which has now come into force under what is called the Enabling Act. The consideration of the details of this Measure has involved hours of debate and a great deal of criticism and amendment by successive Committees. I venture to say that the enactment of such a Measure would have been almost if not quite impossible without the present machinery of legislation. In view of the objections which may be legitimately made to a Measure—no doubt objections can be met and criticisms answered—it would be literally impossible for either House of Parliament to give time to going into such matters in detail.
Over and over again some of us have had our hearts made sick at finding that though there was a common desire that a particular Measure should be passed for the benefit of the Church it was impossible—I find no fault with anybody on that account—for the House of Commons to give the requisite time to the task. Here is a case in which abundant time has been given for everybody who desired to do so to express his opinion on the matter. The subject has been threshed out and debated from end to end, and now the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament recommends that the Measure be presented for the Royal Assent. I ask your Lordships to endorse that recommendation.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Ecclesiastical Duties) Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I desire to make two observations in addition to those made by the most rev. Primate, First, I want to be allowed to confirm of my own knowledge what he said about the careful consideration which was given to the definition of "ecclesiastical duties" in this Measure. The most rev. Primate was, good enough to call me into consultation and to recommend the adoption of one

1121
suggestion which I made. I am confident that to the definition as it now stands no reasonable objection can be taken. The second thing that I want to say is this, in order to calm certain apprehensions which have arisen. I have seen it stated in a letter in the Press that the Measure is unfair to incumbents because they will not have the opportunity of being heard before a charge of negligence is held to be proved against them. I believe that to be entirely a misapprehension.
First, every incumbent who is charged with negligence in the performance of his ecclesiastical duties will have notice of the charge and an opportunity of replying to it before any Commission is issued. Secondly, if a Commission is appointed to enquire into his conduct the. Commission will be appointed, as has been said, not by the Bishop but partly by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions or the Lord Lieutenant and partly in other ways. That Commission will have to consider whether the allegation is made out. I hold most strongly that the decision of the Commission cannot be given against the incumbent without hearing what he has to say. It has been laid down time after time, and I have had to lay it down myself in another capacity, that a body having judicial duties must hear both sides before coming to a decision. I cannot conceive that a Commission under this Measure would fail to observe that rule, and I am certain that if it did so it would soon be called to account. Lastly, there is an appeal against the finding of the Commission. That appeal is to be heard by a Court composed of the Archbishop and a Judge of the High Court. The Measure says that the Court is to be a public Court and is to be bound by the rules of evidence. It is inconceivable that a Court over which a Judge of the High Court is to preside under this Measure will be neglectful of its plain duty to hear both sides.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I have read this Measure and I should like, if I may, to ask two questions of the noble and learned Viscount or of the most rev. Primate, who perhaps knows more of the details of its working. This Measure deals with the parochial clergy, but I should like to know if other Measures are proposed dealing with the more highly salaried clergy in the
1122
cathedrals which will enable similar discipline to be applied to them. My second question concerns the parochial clergy, who have as a rule very little pay. The tittle tattle of a village may cause a case to be brought up before the Commission without real foundation. As I read this Measure, if the incumbent goes up before a, Commission, or if he cares to communicate with the Bishop, he receives no costs at all, even if he wins, and it seems to me that this may lead to a certain amount of hardship. If the incumbent comes on appeal before a Court, I am not at all clear from the wording of Section 9 whether the expenses necessarily incurred in such procedure would be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners if the appeal succeeds. If not, the expense of an appeal might very well frighten the incumbent and put him in a position of difficulty in the parish in which he lives. The Bishops are already provided for, because all their expenses are paid out by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but do not know if a parish priest can get any costs and I doubt very much, if he goes before a Court, whether he will get the costs that he has incurred or, indeed, any costs at all.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, by leave of the House I should like to say that the question of the higher paid ecclesiastics in cathedrals is dealt with under the statutes of the cathedrals whereby the conduct of those responsible for those duties can be brought to the notice of the Visitor who is empowered to deal with the whole matter. It is a different system altogether, and these clergy are not in the same position, since there are no parishioners with special need of protection. We are dealing in this Measure with the parish clergy and their functions and we are protecting parishioners who find themselves in a position in which adequate discharge is not given to the duties imposed. I do not think it would be easy to draft any Measure which would apply the same discipline to a cathedral staff—deans, canons or minor canons—but I think the noble Lord will find, if he will study the matter, that very careful provision is there made with regard to neglect of duty on the part of those who are subject to the surveillance and authority of the Visitor.
LORD ASKWITH: I am much obliged to the most rev. Primate for his answer concerning the cathedral clergy, but he has not given me an answer concerning the costs, which, to my mind, is a much more important point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is an aspect of the Measure that has not hitherto been called to my attention, but my impression is that the Committee that has to meet to make rules under the Act could make rules under which costs could be given to the incumbent who succeeds in his appeal to the Court.
LORD ASKWITH: And to the Commission?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Commission is a different body and its proceedings will be less formal and less expensive than those of the Court. But as to the Court, there is a body to be established which will make rules of court and, although this point has not hitherto been brought before me, I do not doubt that it will be taken into consideration by that body. I think it is a matter to which they will have to pay attention. I only wish to add that if the Commission has power, I am sure that it will exercise it in such a way as to give to the incumbent who has succeeded all the costs.
LORD ASKWITH: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his remarks. I think that his answer may relieve some of the fears of persons who have expressed a doubt upon the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE CLERGY PENSIONS MEASURE.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the manner and the date on which the Clergy Pensions Measure was presented to this House on the 3rd August last. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have to begin with a confession that on August 3 last I found myself in the country instead of attending to my duties in your Lordships' House. By post that morning I received the Clergy Pensions Measure, and by the same post I received a copy of some Yorkshire paper, I think, containing many letters
1124
denouncing the Measure. Some of them were in no measured terms and they included one, I think, from a Bishop. I wondered whether all the things said against the Measure were true and I directed my attention to it and read it. The Measure seemed to me a reasonable Measure for providing a pension fund for a large section of what might be called employees, but I must confess that I had some doubt then, and I still have a doubt, whether it was constitutional. I hesitate to express such a doubt when so an important body of learned gentlemen as the Ecclesiastical Committee have pronounced that it is constitutional, but it appeared to me, and it still appears to me, to be a taxing Statute. A pension scheme which is inaugurated by a railway company or by any large business is a scheme which applies to people all of whom are employed by the same employer. That cannot be said to be the case with the beneficed clergy of this country, and what that particular Measure did was to impose upon them a tax in the form of a reduction of their income for certain very proper and legitimate pension purposes.
I have not risen, however, for the purpose of discussing the details of the Measure. After I had looked at it and decided that there was something that might be worth making an inquiry about, I said to myself, as I think one naturally would, that in the month of August a Measure so large and one which had only just been presented would not have any chance of being proceeded with until the next Session and that I should have plenty of time to look into it. Your Lordships may conceive my surprise when, on receiving my Parliamentary Papers the next day, found that it had been presented to your Lordships and had received your assent. I think I am right in saying that only twenty-four hours—it may possibly have been forty-eight hours—had passed between the time when that Measure was printed and in the hands of your Lordships and the time when it was presented to your Lordships for your assent. That does not seem to be carrying out the spirit of the Enabling Act or to be showing a proper respect to Parliament and to your Lordships' House.
I should like to pause here to say that I do not for one moment accuse the most

1125
rev. Primate of any conduct of that description. He, I know, would always show the greatest respect both to your Lordships' House and to Parliament, and, as he will no doubt explain to your Lordships, he had very good reasons for pressing that Measure forward. There were factors that would have caused inconvenience and even hardship, I believe, to those in whom he was interested if the Measure had been postponed for two months. I am quite sure that he was moved by the most proper motives, but in that case I think it was the duty of the Church Assembly, or whoever it is that prepares these Measures, to have presented it to your Lordships very much sooner.
We have complained in this Reuse, over and over again, that Bills coming from another place are presented at the tail-end of the Session, that we are given no time for their consideration before we are asked to pass them. We have to put up with that treatment from the House of Commons, but I am not at all sure that we have to put up with it from the Church Assembly, and I am not sure that we ought to put up with it. I rather venture to suggest to your Lordships that unless it is understood that it will be our invariable practice to insist upon being allowed proper time for the consideration of these Measures, it may be necessary to add something to the Standing Orders of this House, providing what interval there shall be between the time when a Measure is presented and the end of the Session. I regret also to notice from the OFFICIAL REPORT that the most rev. Primate himself, in introducing the Measure, made no apology for the short notice, but attention was called to it by Earl Beauchamp in the discussion which ensued. I dare say it was only due to inadvertence—I am certain that anything the most rev. Primate does or omits to do is not due to any sort of disrespect to this House or Parliament—but something might have been said to express regret that such short notice of the Measure was given, and to explain the reasons for its extreme urgency.
In the Enabling Act we have entrusted to the Church Assembly powers which are very large indeed, and some of us at the time that Act was passed thought that those powers were rather too large. Since
1126
I put my Notice on the Paper I have been approached by people about the procedure at the Assembly. It is hardly a matter which I want to go into to-night, but it was said that in some cases some people were not able to make their voices heard. It was also said that a good many of the members who sat upon the Ecclesiastical Committee—I think that is the name of the Committee that reports to Parliament—are also among the foremost advocates of Measures in the Church Assembly. If that is so, I think it is undesirable, because the Ecclesiastical Committee are by way of being a quasi-judicial body sitting upon the Measures of the Church Assembly. I thought it well that attention should be called to this matter, because it involves a constitutional point, and I think we ought to get, and I have no doubt we shall have, some assurance that such very short notice will not be given in future in the case of Measures of this sort. Of course I acquit the most rev. Primate of any intention to show disrespect to Parliament, but I think in this regard the Church Assembly has treated us rather cavalierly, and we should see that it does not occur again.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not think that any one can legitimately take exception to what the noble Earl has said. He is desirous, as a matter of principle, of insisting that great care should be taken that adequate notice of such Measures be given. He desires that in all cases it should be the general rule that full notice should be given. The case of this Measure was quite an extraordinary one, and one which is not likely to be paralleled in any other case. Years have been spent in hammering out what is one of the most difficult tasks which we have had to undertake. At last an agreement was reached, I will not say unanimously but by an overwhelming majority. At the end of the summer, just towards the close of the Parliamentary Session, that agreement was reached, and we were then in this position, that if we could get support for the Measure and send it up during that month, it would make all the difference to a large number of men who were beneficiaries under it. More than two hundred men would have lost their pensions for life if delay had been incurred by postponing action in the matter until the autumn

1127
sittings. The business which had to be transacted before the payment of pensions could begin was enormous. It was necessary before the appointed day that there should be adequate time for preparing these things, and therefore it was felt that to postpone matters from August to November would be to sacrifice the interests of a very large number of men.
We had therefore to choose between two evils and we chose the evil which has given rise to what is a perfectly legitimate cause of complaint on the part of critics of the Measure in this House. We had, however, to keep in mind the difficulties of the men to whom I have alluded, and we had no anticipation that the Resolution itself was likely to be opposed in any way, or indeed criticised. Nor has there been much criticism. In the circumstances we took the dangerous course, which I hope in no circumstances it will ever be necessary to take again. There was certainly no intention of endeavouring to make the matter a precedent. I apologise to the House for not having made this explanation in my own words at the time when the Measure was proposed, but Lord Selborne, who was present, said it in the clearest possible way and made it clear that we were not doing anything which ought to be regarded as a precedent. We agreed with what Lord Beauchamp said in criticism of such speedy action, and the hope was expressed that we should not be placed in such a dilemma again.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, naturally I do not want to comment upon what occurred on the occasion to which the noble Earl has referred, because I was myself partly responsible for agreeing that the Measure should go forward. We have heard what the most rev. Primate has said with regard to giving due notice; but the same thing has happened again since that date, and I feel bound to call attention to the facts of the matter. On Monday, November 22, your Lordships met for a special sitting. On that day there were two Measures down in the name of the most rev. Primate—one the Episcopal Pensions Measure, and the other that which you discussed earlier this evening. The first Measure was passed. It never appeared on the Order Paper until that morning, in exactly the same circumstances as have been referred to by the
1128
noble Earl. It is possible that criticisms of this Measure had not reached the ears of the most rev. Primate, but they had reached other people's ears and my ears, and it is not unlikely that I for one might have wanted to say something upon the case.
I urge not only upon the most rev. Primate, but upon laymen in this House who are interested in the Church, that they are doing the greatest injury to the work of the Church Assembly by trying to rush Measures through the House without warning of what they intend to do. This was a matter concerning episcopal pensions. No notice had been given of it, and it was not placed upon the Order Paper until the same day. It is a repetition of what happened on the previous occasion in August, and which we understood was never going to occur again. I feel bound to say that it may be necessary to have a Standing Order in order to prevent conduct of that kind becoming habitual on the part of noble Lords who are interested in the work of the Church Assembly. As my noble and learned friend below me knows, I have very little confidence in the work of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I do not think that they do their work with sufficient care or attention to the Measures which come before them, and I think your Lordships should be prepared to take this matter further into your consideration and see that these Measures are put upon the Order Paper in sufficient time to ensure their being properly considered, and that there shall be an end of what is beginning to become a precedent—the rushing of these Measures through the House.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl has given an example of the very thing of which he complains. Without giving any notice he has attacked the Ecclesiastical Committee, who, I venture to say, have served your Lordships' House and the other House very well, who have gone most carefully into all these matters, threshed them out most thoroughly under the presidency, first of all, of the noble Viscount who is now on the Woolsack, and, secondly, of the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie. And, if it is necessary to go into the pensions matter, I can assure this House that nothing was ever so much discussed by

1129
those who are, after all, the only people who are under orders from the Measure as the Pensions Measure has been.
A Committee to consider this was appointed as early as February, 1921. It proposed one Measure, and this indolent Ecclesiastical Committee of which the noble Earl complains turned that Measure down, and sent it back. Thereupon a new Measure was proposed, the first Report of the Committee being in July, 1924, the general approval, or Second Reading, being given in November, 1924, the matter then going to an appointed Committee, and coming before the Assembly in February, 1925. It was then re-committed and further discussed in July, stood over again, through November and through February, in order that some other suggestion might be made, and was not finally discussed till July. It then went before the Ecclesiastical Committee, which has the benefit of the counsel of the Chairman of Committees, who goes very thoroughly into all these matters, and it was discussed and accepted by the Ecclesiastical Committee.
I was not here when it came before your Lordships' House, having a public engagement at that moment which took me to the Continent, but, as I had been the Chairman of that Committee since its first institution in February, 1921, I am naturally very anxious that it should be understood that it was discussed, and every opportunity for deliberation was given to those who are affected by it. And on final vote, which was a vote taken very properly by orders, the figures were these:—Bishops, 18 for, none against; clergy, 138 for, 26 against; laity, 169 for. 11 against. It has been spoken of as if this was a taxing Act. It is an Act, no doubt, which does compel the clergy to be provident, but they are to get back all that they give, and more than they give, because there are very large contributions from outsiders. And, if I may go back again to the attack made by the noble Earl, the Ecclesiastical Committee has turned down five Bills—certainly four—and it has gone very carefully into several others, adjourned them and acquired information about them before it has finally passed them.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I think it is quite possible that I myself
1130
personally am open to the animadversions of my noble friend. I therefore do not propose to say a word about myself. But I should like to testify to the House that there is no ground whatsoever for the suggestion made by my noble friend as to the inadequacy of the manner in which the business of the Ecclesiastical Committee is carried out. It is a very strong Committee, not only numerically but personally. It is a statutory Committee, and the members of it are appointed by the Speaker of each House with great care. Speaking with a good deal of experience of the work of Committees, I repeat what I have already said, that there never was a Committee that was less open to the kind of criticism which has been uttered in your Lordships' House by the noble Earl.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the person whose duty it is at the beginning of every Parliament to appoint members of this House to serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee I want to say a word with reference to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the membership of that Committee. He rather complained that the Committee included noble Lords who take a part in the proceedings of the Church Assembly. Well, I think that is true of two or perhaps three noble Lords, including the noble Lord who has just spoken, who takes such an active and invaluable part in the work of the Assembly. I think it would have been a great mistake to exclude from the Committee noble Lords who are in -that position, and to make up the Committee entirely of those who take no part in Church work outside the House itself.
But I want to add this as regards the other members of the Committee. On the occasions on which I have had the duty of making the appointment I have had some difficulty in finding noble Lords who were able to undertake this very onerous duty, but I did my best to find noble Lords who would take the work and I think that I succeeded in making suitable appointments. I may say in mitigation of the allegation of the noble Earl that I did appoint the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, on the Committee, and I think there are few points which escape his attention. If Lord Beauchamp has any complaint about the Committee I hope he will offer himself for the first

1131
vacancy. He will find the work most interesting, and quite heavy enough to meet his wishes. I had the honour of presiding over the Committee for some years before I came to occupy my present office. I was, I think, the first chairman of the Committee, and I can confirm entirely what has been said as to the attention given by the Committee to the
1132
work entrusted to it. It always worked well in my time. I am sure it works equally well under my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie, and I do not believe there is the least ground for the complaints made.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.