Lords Sitting of 9 December 1926

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

BRIGHTON AND HOVE GAS ORDER, 1926.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 11th of November last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GLOUCESTER GAS ORDER, 1926.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 16th of November last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is a question on the course of business about which I gave private notice to the Government. It is to ask whether it would be possible for this House to have a debate on the proposed Charter to the new British Broadcasting Corporation. We cannot in this House discuss the financial provisions, but I think there are many things connected with the constitution and the powers of that new Corporation upon which some of your Lordships might like to say something. I do not know whether the Leader of the House will put down some Motion or make a statement on some future day which would give this House an opportunity before the adjournment of discussing it?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, as the noble Earl is well aware time is not very plentiful at this period
1394
of the Session and in existing circumstances, but I believe in existing find an opportunity next Wednesday for the discussion to take place. If the discussion should take place may I, as a commentary on the noble Earl's question, say that I do not think we are precluded from discussing finance?

PUBLIC PLACES (ORDER) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, this Bill is described as "a Bill to repeal certain laws relating to prostitutes, and to amend the law relating to order in streets and public places." That is a very concise and entirely accurate description of what the Bill is intended to do. My justification for troubling your Lordships with the Bill is quite simply that a matter of common justice is involved. The present law in its operation works unjustly, not only as between men and women, but also as between different classes of women themselves. I am quite sure that the fact that the class of people on whom the law operates hardly is a despised and peculiarly pitiful class is only a reason for your Lordships giving the matter even more careful consideration than you would give it in any case.
The fact is that the laws relating to solicitation are entirely out of date. They are not modern enough to be in line with present day requirements. At the same time they are not old enough, I think, to have become covered with any sort of sacred antiquity which entitles them to special protection. When I say that the laws relating to solicitation work unfairly, that is not because the actual position is that it is the law on the Statute Book which is administered in this manner, but it is something quite different. It is really a series of legal fictions which have been brought about in order to meet the necessity of the case.
In the first place, there is the legal fiction to-day about the annoyance of the person solicited. Under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, paragraph (11), one of the paragraphs which is repealed by subsection (2) of Clause 1 of this Bill, penalties are provided for every common prostitute

1395
or night walker loitering in a public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation to the annoyance of inhabitants and passengers. In point of fact, when a woman is dealt with under this section it is the rarest possible thing for evidence of annoyance to be given at all. The police constable, as a rule, when in the witness box tells the magistrate that the man looked annoyed. Of course, some men always look annoyed, and in any case it is a very difficult thing for a police constable, even from a distance of fifty yards, to judge with any certainty whether the man really is annoyed. The fact is that it is a legal fiction that the man is supposed to be annoyed and that is held in the majority of cases to be good enough.
Then there is another legal fiction under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and the part of the particular section, Section 3, which is quoted in Clause 1 of the Bill, is also repealed. Reference is made there again to a common prostitute wandering in the public streets and behaving in a riotous or indecent manner, and the same thing applies to this riotous or indecent behaviour as to the case of annoyance. And I can quote no less an authority than the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who said in giving evidence in 1918 before the Joint Select Committee on Criminal Law Amendment—
"The only evidence of behaviour in a riotous or indecent manner is the same evidence of solicitation."
Therefore, I think it is fair also to describe that as a legal fiction. Moreover, before a woman can be judged under either of these sections she has to be condemned as a common prostitute, and before she even stands her trial, because these sections apply only to women described as "common prostitutes." It is the fact that there is no legal definition of a "common prostitute" and in that case the police constable goes into the box and states that the woman is a common prostitute. It really seems to me to be contrary to every principle of British justice that the case of a person on trial should be prejudged as in this particular instance. In the ordinary way when a man is on trial for any offence any previous convictions or evidence as to character are most carefully kept to the close of the proceedings and only then revealed to the jury.
1396
I would like to read two brief extracts from letters from a very much greater authority than I can claim to be—Mr. Forbes Lankester, until quite recently a Metropolitan Police Magistrate who, of course, has very great experience. He writes as follows—
"The policeman's evidence on two questions of fact, which have to be proved before any conviction can take place, is usually accepted without corroboration: (1), that the woman is a prostitute; (2), that she was soliciting to the 'annoyance of passers by or inhabitants.' … The first fact is held to be proved by the policeman swearing that she is a prostitute, and if asked why he says so, he replies that he has seen her talking to and consorting with other prostitutes, i.e., other women against whom similar evidence has been given or whom the police think are prostitutes. The second fact is usually held to be sufficiently proved by the police saying that the man accosted appeared to be annoyed. There can be no doubt that conviction on such evidence has led to a widespread belief that the police in these cases do unjustly discriminate between women acting in exactly the same way, either through favour or through the offer of money from these unfortunate woman. I have personally met no evidence of the latter suggestion, but the opportunity is there, and the belief that the suggestion is well founded does notch harm to the police themselves.
"I yield to no one in admiration of the way in which the police discharge their primary duty to the public in the protection and defence of the life and property of His Majesty's subjects, but I do not regard them as ideal custodians of public morality, and the sooner they are relieved of their duties in this respect the better it will be for their own reputation and the safety of women lawfully using the public streets."
There is one other short quotation I should like to make from Mr. Forbes Lankester's letter, regarding the Vagrancy Act. He writes:—
"Since recent decisions of the Quarter Sessions, the police have prosecuted under the old Vagrancy Act, and some magistrates have held that accosting amounts to riotous and indecent conduct, and have sentenced the unfortunate woman to one month's hard labors without the option of a fine. This I regard as a monstrous injustice. The Act was never intended for such cases, but no decision has been possible, because it has been laid down that what is indecent or riotous is a question of fact for the magistrate. These poor women do not know that they can appeal on fact to Quarter Sessions and have not the means to do so if they knew of this right. The whole system under which it is sought to put down prostitution is an elaborate hypocrisy and to my mind is a disgrace to a community which professes to be Christian."

1397
Those are pretty strong words from such an authority as a Metropolitan Police Magistrate, and I think they are bound to carry considerable weight with your Lordships.
I should like to make it clear that in bringing forward this measure in this way I am not making any attack upon the police. What I am attacking is the law which puts the police in an absolutely impossible position. The police are put in the position of having to decide and to act, and to have regard not to what these women do but what they are. That is the impossibility. The police are set up as a kind of censor moram to judge of people's character instead of confining their functions to arresting people if they do anything contrary to the law. It is no exaggeration to say that where these legal fictions are accepted by the magistrate women of this class are completely in a state of servitude. I do not say that the police abuse their powers, but that the position is one which is capable of very great abuse and I think it ought to be put an end to.
I have here papers relating to a case which took place only this summer in which a woman was convicted of being a common prostitute and the conviction was quashed on appeal. I shall not quote it to your Lordships or go into details regarding it because I very much hope that I shall not be represented as attacking the police. Any failures that have occurred are due to the inevitability that mistakes will occur. The police do their duty extraordinarily well, but under the existing system it is absolutely inevitable that mistakes should happen. Your Lordships will very soon realise that any mistake happening in such a matter as this may inflict irreparable injury on the unfortunate woman who is so dealt with.
Having shown, I hope, that something ought to be done, we come to the question of what form the reform ought to take. I think it is clear that the basis of any reform must be justice and also equal treatment for men and women. The question arises whether it is necessary to have special laws at all for dealing with these matters. If special laws are necessary, then I say that they must be the same both for men and women, but I myself and the promoters of this Bill, which is backed by a very
1398
large number of influential societies well versed in these matters, take the view that the general law ought to be sufficient and that special laws are unnecessary. It is on the basis of applying the general law that this Bill is founded.
If your Lordships will turn to the Bill you will see that Clause 1 merely repeals the present special laws. Clause 2 defines the offence for which proceedings may be taken and provides a penalty. Clauses 3 and 4 provide that evidence of annoyance must be given by the person annoyed. That is a very wide departure from the existing law and I recognise that it requires very full justification. As the principle of the Bill is involved in it, I think it is right at this stage to say a word about it. Before your Lordships consider whether it is practical politics to insist that this annoyance must be proved other than by police evidence, I would ask you to remember that in cases where men are accused of this offence public opinion will not tolerate that a conviction should take place merely on police evidence. In 1922 there were a number of cases of men who were arrested for annoying women in Hyde Park and one of them, in particular, went to the London Sessions and was dismissed on appeal.
In dismissing the case the Chairman of London Sessions, Sir Robert Wallace, said:
"The conviction was for wilfully annoying. That charge should be clearly understood to mean, not that the conduct which the constables saw was such as, in their opinion, ought to annoy, but that the person who was there was annoyed in fact. … Unless some person had made a complaint, a conviction under that section ought to be impossible."
There were a good many comments in the public Press of the same character. One paper, the Daily Express, said—this was not appropriate to that case but it was to the Hyde Park cases—
"No complaint whatever was made against the man by any of the women who were alleged to have been interfered with. …. There must be something radically wrong with a police system which permits continued scandals of this kind."
There your Lordships have a good illustration of the difficulty that the police are in. On the one hand they are blackguarded up hill and down dale by the Press if they make a mistake, and on the

1399
other hand they are called over the coals severely if they do not keep public order in the streets.
I really do not think it can be seriously disputed that, whatever evidence is required, it ought to be the same in the cases of offences by men and by women. I know that some people whose opinions are entitled to respect are afraid if this Bill became law that it would add so greatly to the difficulties of the police that no convictions would be obtained. They are afraid that solicitation would become rampant and that there would thereby be involved a great danger to young men. I do not think that is so. I believe that all that would happen would be that the sham offences would be done away with—those sham offences of annoyance—and in the event of a real offence taking place it would still be possible to get the necessary evidence. In considering the result you have to take into account the enormous improvement which has taken place in the streets in the last fifty years. We hear stories of what the position was in the 'seventies when, undoubtedly, the condition of the streets was such as would not be tolerated for a moment to-day. But that is an improvement which has taken place in every country in Europe, not only in this country but in every country, whether the countries are what are called regulationised countries or abolitionist—that is to say, whether they believe in the regulation of prostitution and the authorisation of these women to carry on their trade under certain restrictions, or whether, as in this country, all such regulations have been abolished and no official countenance is given to it.
Whatever the country, that improvement of the streets is universal in Europe. It is not due to any change in the law, because the law is exactly the same to-day as it was in 1870, but the improvement, of course, is due to the pressure of public opinion. Public opinion will not tolerate that sort of thing nowadays and the police have, of course, responded, as they were sure to do, to the pressure of public opinion. I believe that order is maintained now because of the pressure of public opinion and that it will continue to be maintained. I do not believe in the suggested danger to the youth of the country. The class of the professional
1400
street-walker is a disappearing one. The whole thing is changing its form. Nowadays young men and young women have a great deal more freedom and a great deal more knowledge, I suppose, than in any previous generation. I believe that the best protection for young people to-day is simply the advance of public opinion in favour of an equal moral standard and to secure that the first thing you have to have is an equal standard of justice in the administration of the law. So long as you have one law for men and another for women an equal moral standard is quite impossible to attain.
This change is a very big one, and I recognise that it is too big a change to be carried into effect as the result of a Private Member's Bill. Therefore, if your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, which I hope you will, I shall propose that some inquiry ought to take place in order to ascertain, not only how equal laws for rich and poor and for men and women of all classes can be obtained, but how they can be obtained in a manner compatible with the preservation of order and decency in the streets. I think the best form to suggest for the inquiry would be a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, if the Government will not oppose the Second Reading to-day, that is the course which I would ask your Lordships to adopt. With that in view I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I think perhaps it might shorten matters if I stated the position of the Government, without interfering with the debate. An appeal has just been made to me by my noble friend. I am grateful to him for the very temperate way in which he moved his Motion, but I suppose he will acknowledge that this Bill is founded on the same lines and may, perhaps, be identical with a Bill that was introduced in another place. I am sure he would be one of the first to admit that. Although this Bill has the support of a great many of those societies in which he is interested, yet even they were by no means unanimous in regard to the exact wording of the Bill. Therefore, if I state on behalf of His Majesty's Government—or at all events on behalf of the Department

1401
which is interested in this Bill—that the Government do not intend to oppose the Second Reading, I must make it clear that they do not wish to be understood to tie themselves down to the letter of the Bill or perhaps even to some of its main provisions as drafted.
It may be of interest to the House if I briefly state what has occurred in regard to this matter hitherto. This is a subject which has interested the Home Office for some considerable time and especially has interested—I think my noble friend will acknowledge this—the Home Secretary himself. On the 25th March last, in the House of Commons, in reply to a Question by Sir Robert Newman, who asked whether the Government had decided to appoint a Committee—I will come to that later on—to inquire into the law dealing with street solicitation, he said:—
"I am considering the terms of reference and the personnel, but my Department is at present very overworked, so I hope my honourable friend will not press me too urgently."
I am sorry to say that, instead of the work becoming less, very shortly after that answer was given by the Home Secretary the work of the Department was very considerably increased by the outbreak of the General Strike and subsequently by the prolonged dispute in the mining industry. A state of emergency, as we all know, was declared and the administration of the Emergency Regulations and the numerous other matters arising in connection with the emergency have so fully occupied the Home Secretary's time that he has been unable to give such consideration as he had intended to give to this question.
On November 24 Sir Herbert Cayzer asked the Home Secretary whether he was now able to say if the Government had decided to appoint a Committee, and the Home Secretary replied:—
"It has not as yet been possible to proceed with the consideration of this matter, but I recognise its importance and it will not be overlooked."
On the information which has reached the Home Office, it is clear that there is a very wide difference of opinion on the whole matter. I think my noble friend will acknowledge that. The police are certainly of opinion that if a complaint of annoyance were required in all cases
1402
before an arrest could be made solicitation would very greatly increase and they would have great difficulty in keeping a reasonable measure of order and decency in the streets. The police view of the matter—and it is rather obvious—is that there are very few men, young or old, who would wish to go into a court of law in a case of this character, partly because of the trouble and annoyance, and partly because they have no wish themselves to proceed against the woman. I think most people would be willing to acknowledge that. Many societies which are interested in public morals are also of opinion that the Bill as it stands might be harmful. In particular the National Vigilance Association, which has exceptional experience of this problem, is opposed to the proposed amendment of the law.
On the other hand the Home Office have received important representations that the present law is not satisfactory. It is because of the importance of the matter and the wide divergence of view in different quarters that the Home Secretary has been considering the question of an inquiry. As to the form of the inquiry—I know now the particular form my noble friend advocates—representations have been made in favour both of a Select Committee and of a Departmental Committee. My noble friend favours, I understand, a Select Committee. Some of those who are opposed to a Departmental Committee are apparently not quite aware what a Departmental Committee is, or at all events what it might be. In reply to a deputation which the Home Secretary received on this subject, he pointed out that a Departmental Committee did not mean merely a Committee of officials. Such a Committee could include persons from many quarters—for example, persons with legal qualifications, social workers, representatives of the police and of women's societies. It could also include members of both Houses of Parliament and the Home Secretary said he was inclined to think that such a Committee would be more useful for the purpose in question than a Select Committee, which must be constituted—or usually is constituted, at all events—on the basis of representation of the various political Parties, who may not be the best judges in matters of this sort.

1403
In present circumstances, and especially in view of the temporary indisposition of the Home Secretary, I can only assure the House that the importance of the matter is fully recognised and will not be overlooked by the Home Secretary, and ask that the Home Office should not for the moment be pressed for any immediate decision. It is hoped that in the early part of next year the Home Secretary, who is acknowledged to take a great personal interest in this matter, may be able to take it up and make some further announcement as to the course which he proposes to pursue. I can only repeat that, without pledging itself too much even to the principle of the Bill and certainly not to the details of the Bill, the Home Office does not take up the position that it should not be read a second time. When the Home Secretary returns the whole matter will no doubt receive his personal, and obviously his favourable, consideration.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, after hearing the speech of the noble Lord who represents the Home Office in this House I need not detain your Lordships more than a minute. I was going to give a general support to this Bill and the reason why I thought myself entitled to trespass for a moment upon your Lordships' time is that I was Chairman of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament which went into the subject. That Committee dealt with practically all except the last of the subjects dealt with in this Bill and we had much evidence and considerable discussion, to which some allusion was made by the noble Lord who introduced this Bill.
On certain aspects of it the Joint Committee was of a unanimous opinion—namely, as to the state of the streets and as to the state of the law. We realised what the noble Lord who represents the Home Office has said to-day, that there was great divergence of opinion about the matter and we did not, as far as I can recollect, make any definite representations upon that part of the Bill which was before us. But I think that we were unanimous in feeling that inquiry was necessary and that the matter was urgent and also that more information was desirable. In fact, we anticipated the views which the noble Lord has stated on this subject. I only desire to add that after hearing the noble Lord I think my noble friend who has
1404
introduced the Bill would do well to accept the position which he has foreshadowed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the noble Lord who speaks for the Home Office say that he is not prepared to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and in view of what he has said I will do nothing further for the moment with regard to the appointment of a Select Committee. I would only like to say that I retain the view that a Joint Select Committee is a better tribunal for this kind of inquiry than a Departmental Committee, and in view of what he has said I hope he will give that point of view the best consideration he can.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED GOODS) RILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGH MORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Imported goods bearing name or trade mark of British manufacturer or trader not to be sold unless accompanied by indication of origin.
1.—(1) It shall not be lawful to sell, expose for sale, or distribute by way of advertisement, in the United Kingdom, any imported goods to which there is applied any name or trade mark being, or purporting to be, the name or trade mark of any manufacturer, dealer or trader or the name of any place or district in the United Kingdom, unless the name or trade mark is accompanied by an indication of origin.
(3) If the Board of Trade are satisfied after considering such representations (if any) as may be made to them by any persons having a substantial interest in the matter that, having regard to the special circumstances of the trade, difficulties would arise if this section applied to goods of any class or description, or goods sold under any particular designation, and that public interests in the United Kingdom would not be materially prejudiced by exempting such goods from the operation

1405
of this section, they may direct that this section shall not apply to such goods, or that goods shall not be treated as falling under this section by reason only that they are so designated. Every such direction shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Belfast Gazettes, and in such other manner as the Board of Trade may deem suitable.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "It shall not be lawful to sell," to insert "or." The noble Lord said: The first Amendment that stands in my name is consequential upon that which I have given Notice to move later, but no doubt it will be convenient to move it at once and then, in accordance with the decision of the Committee, the substantial Amendment will or will not be moved. The object of this Amendment is to omit from the first clause the provision that it shall be unlawful to distribute certain goods by way of advertisement. The noble Viscount, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, told the House, not once but twice, that the Bill was not intended to have any protective meaning. He said that it was intended to safeguard consumers from being misled or deceived, and he recommended it to the House on those grounds. I think I can say that there can be no deception of any one if an article is distributed for the purpose of advertisement to the prospective or hoped-for customers of the vendor of that particular article.
The case that I put on the Second Reading was that of an aerated water manufacturer who, in order to commend his aerated water, distributes an ashtray or some similar article, which he has imported. Who is conceivably deceived by such a process? Certainly not the manufacturer, who knows where he gets his advertising article. Presumably he gets it where he thinks it can be got most conveniently and cheaply. The recipient of the article is not deceived, for he is not concerned with the ash-tray, or whatever it may be, but with buying the soda water, and, if he is induced to buy the soda water by the receipt of an ash-tray, so much the better for the manufacturer. Nobody is deceived by receiving such a present from a manufacturer. I think, therefore, that it is quite clear that the primary object of this Bill is no more achieved by the retention of the words "distribute
1406
by way of advertisement" than if they were omitted. I observe that the noble Viscount proposes to make an alteration in phraseology—
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is more than that.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I am not quite sure whether I understand the proposal, and perhaps it will be convenient to postpone my criticism of it until the noble Viscount has explained it. In any case this alteration does not most the objection I have to this clause that it brings into the Bill a paragraph that is not necessary for carrying out that which, not merely in his original speech but also in his reply, the noble Viscount said to be the intention of the Government in introducing the Bill. I will not weary the House with any long quotation from the noble Viscount, but he said, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill:—
"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."
Then again in his reply, referring to the noble Viscount, Lord Inchcape, he said:
"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 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."
Obviously the advertiser who is buying an ash-tray knows perfectly well whether he is buying British or foreign goods and does not need to be told that he is buying an article from Bohemia or wherever it may be. Accordingly I submit to the Government and to the Committee that this prohibition of distributing articles for advertisement is superfluous.
It may indeed be more than superfluous, as I think I pointed out. It may actually be injurious to a British manufacturer, for, if he distributes his advertisement of starch, of mustard or of aerated water or whatever it may be that he is selling, and marks it with the inscription "Buy So-and-so's Starch," or mustard or whatever it may be, and at the bottom there is printed the word "Foreign" or "Made in Czecho-Slovakia," he may be compelled to injure himself, because he is stating to the

1407
persons to whom he sends the advertisement that which is not indeed a fact—namely, that his production is of foreign make. Surely that cannot be the intention of the Government.
I dare say that I shall be told that there are safeguards and that there is a provision later on which enables the Secretary to the Board of Trade to mitigate the harshness of the provision where he thinks fit. I should like to see this removed from the discretion or option of successive Secretaries to the Board of Trade. It would be far better to have it definitely stated in the Act of Parliament that this shall not be done, that it is not the intention of Parliament to give a free hand to Secretaries to the Board of Trade to do what they please. I have not sufficient confidence, and I do not think that the country has sufficient confidence, in remote Secretaries to the Board of Trade to leave in their hands the control and regulation of these matters. Accordingly I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after ("sell") insert ("or").—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
LORD ARNOLD: This Amendment applies to the sixth line of the Bill before the words "expose for sale," and it does not immediately precede the words which relate to advertisement, but it is an Amendment upon which it is germane to raise the whole clause, and I think it would be well if we were to try to get clear what it is that this clause does. On the Second Reading I addressed your Lordships at some length, but, as I did not wish to make any undue draft on the time of the House, it was not possible in regard to a very complicated measure like this to deal with everything in detail. I think that this is an opportunity to try to understand exactly what this very important clause means. It does not depend upon Orders in Council or the discretion of a Committee, but begins to operate six months after the Bill becomes law.
The clause has two main effects. In the first place, it applies to British manufacturers or traders who get some of their productions made abroad or who buy from abroad and then, when the goods or whatever they are come to this country, put upon them a British name
1408
or a British trade mark; and in future, when that is done, it will be the law that any such goods must contain, in a conspicuous way, some indication of foreign origin. The second main operation of this clause is quite different. It relates to goods imported from abroad, which have on them the name of some foreign manufacturer, or of some foreign place, and if that name happens to be the same as the name of any manufacturer or trader in the United Kingdom, or if the name of the place happens to be the same as that of a place in the United Kingdom, then an offence is, committed unless it is made clear that these articles come from abroad. They must be marked "Foreign" or "Made in Czecho-Slovakia," or something of that sort.
I will deal with that second point later, because I have an Amendment on the paper dealing with it, and I will return now to the first main operation of the clause. I think it becomes more and more clear that the real object of this Bill is to restrict foreign imports. It is intended by this Bill to create as much prejudice as possible against foreign goods, and thus to compel persons to buy goods wholly made at home It is this insensate hatred of foreign imports which is responsible for the measure. The noble Viscount, on the Second Reading, put before your Lordships an array, which he made as formidable as possible, of manufacturers and chambers of commerce who supported this Bill. He could not quote them all. Of course I know that many manufacturers are against goods coming in which compete against their goods. They desire prohibition, naturally, many of them, but there are a great many people in the country besides manufacturers. There are importers and merchants, there are those engaged in the shipping trade, and above all there is the consumer; and it is these people who need protection against legislation of this sort.
It is true that some of our big firms do import goods from abroad and put their names or their British trade mark upon them, or have some portion of their products made abroad. In future, if that is done, under this clause it will be necessary, anyhow, to have it made clear that these goods have been made abroad, and therefore you will have great confusion,

1409
more particularly as for this purpose the United States of America counts as a foreign country. As your Lordships are probably aware, there is an enormous trade in food imports from America—for instance, tinned salmon and fruit, and so forth. In future, under this clause, it will be necessary, although those goods have a British name and in a sense a British trade mark—and British firms have been for long years most particular only to stamp with their name goods as to the quality of which they are amply satisfied—it will be necessary to stamp these goods as made in the United States, or wherever it may be. That will, I think, lead to a considerable amount of confusion.
There are further points which have been made in connection with this matter and this Bill in other ways. It is said that if you do not do something like this what about Dominion produce? How are people to know the difference between foreign and Dominion goods? There is no difficulty about that. There is nothing to prevent Dominion producers or makers of goods putting their trade marks upon them, if they want to do so. Many do so now, and therefore there is really no point about that. Then take a big glove firm. Supposing I take the name of Brown for an example. It may be that part of the production is made in France, but the gloves are known here as Brown's gloves. These gloves will have to be stamped either "Brown's gloves, foreign made "or" Made in France," and so forth. Then there is a point made about the textile firms. J. & P. Coats have mills abroad, they may bring the production of those mills to this country, and sell it here. It will have to be marked as having been made in a foreign country, as in fact it has been, but it will give the impression that it is really a foreign import, although it is a perfectly legitimate operation on the part of J. & P. Coats.
This Bill is not necessary to stop fraud. It is merely a messing, muddling and mischievous interference with trade. There is no demand for the Bill, and this is an extraordinary clause to be put into a Bill by the present Government, who tell us that they are against all interference with trade and that private enterprise should be left alone to develop on its own lines, without interference. Yet, by this Bill, they are going to
1410
meddle and interfere with trade, without any real compensating advantage whatever. The Bill is totally at variance with the view that there should be no interference with trade, and those who take that view cannot in my opinion consistently support this clause.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I suppose the noble Lord opposite has a strong objection to the Amendment moved by Lord Stanley of Alderley.
LORD ARNOLD: Not at all.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I thought that he had, because he tried to draw your Lordships away from consideration of the particular Amendment by a general discussion of the whole clause—a discussion which did not strike me, if I may say so, as having very close relation to the Amendment moved by Lord Stanley of Alderley. Therefore I think it would be most businesslike if at first I dealt with the Amendment moved by Lord Stanley of Alderley. May I read the first few words of the clause?—
"It shall not be lawful to sell, expose for sale, or distribute by way of advertisement."
The noble Lord wants to cut out those latter words about advertisement. I think he will admit that advertisement has a very close connection with sale, because I understand that if you do not advertise you get very little sale. In fact sales very largely depend upon advertisements. Therefore, prima facie, it seems rather absurd to allow foreign goods to be distributed as advertisements without saying they are foreign goods, and at the same time to insist that foreign goods when sold shall be marked as foreign goods. I think the onus is distinctly upon the noble Lord to prove his case for this Amendment.
The intention of the Bill is simply that it shall be an offence to distribute by way of advertisement, without indication of origin, any imported goods to which is applied the name or trade mark of any manufacturer or dealer in the United Kingdom. I understand that a great deal of annoyance and protest is raised because these goods—the noble Lord referred to ash-trays—are sent round, without an indication of origin, as an advertisement of the dealer's own goods, let us say. They are distributed

1411
by way of advertisement. It is perfectly open to the dealer in that way to give us a present of goods, whatever they may be, and it is perfectly open to him to give us a present, if he likes, of British goods: but if he is going to distribute foreign goods in this way, and if those particular goods are brought here in his own name, and sold in his own name, why should he not declare them as foreign goods, exactly in the same way as he is bound to declare as foreign goods all goods which he sells?
There seems to be a sort of distinction in the noble Lord's mind between what is given by way of advertisement and what is sold. From the point of view of the of the British manufacturer there is very little in that distinction, because, of course, whether goods are sold or are distributed does not make very much difference to him. The buyer of the goods is entitled to know, and the receiver of goods is surely entitled to know, whether they are or are not foreign goods. The noble Lord suggests that, if they are sent round as a present and distributed in that way, the other goods, on which the name of the distributor is placed, may also be held to be foreign goods. Surely there is no difficulty about that. If there is any doubt at all, he can mark his ash-tray "ash-tray foreign" or whatever it may be. Therefore there is no danger of any confusion between the goods which are distributed and those which are sold under the name of the manufacturer.
There is one point I would like to add because it is relevant to the actual Amendment. I have put down an Amendment to leave out the words "distribute by way of advertisement" and to insert "by way of advertising goods of some other kind distribute." The object of that is to make it clear that the provision put in the Bill operates only on the distribution of goods of one kind to advertise goods of another kind. Representations have been made as regards certain classes of goods, samples of paper and other things of that kind, that under the operation of the Bill some difficulty might be caused for traders. I propose, when the time comes, to move that Amendment in order to limit the operation of the clause.
The noble Lord opposite raised a general discussion. He will permit me
1412
to reply to that very shortly because the whole purpose of the clause was only to make it quite clear that, when foreign goods were sold in this country under the name of a British firm—a proceeding which might lead people to suppose that the goods were British—in order to get rid of what I might call a latent misrepresentation, those goods should be marked as foreign. I really do not think there is any Protection in that. The principle of the whole Bill is that people should know what they are buying, whether they are buying British goods, foreign goods, or Empire goods. That principle seems to me entirely consistent with the whole operation of the Bill. The noble Lord is entitled to call it "Protection" or any other name he likes, but that does not alter the character of the Bill. Therefore I am fully entitled to say, as in replying to my noble friend Lord Inchcape, that he has misconceived and exaggerated the operation of the Bill.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I think there is a very considerable difference between giving goods away and selling them. If you sell something you guarantee what you are selling, but if you give it the recipient takes it for what it is worth. If the noble Viscount gives me asparagus out of his garden it would be a different matter from my buying it from some foreign grower.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It would be much better than some.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: There is a great difference between selling and giving. In the latter case the recipient merely receives the article, and in the former the recipient is seeking for an article of a particular nature. I do not think the noble Viscount has realised the difference between the two.
LORD ARNOLD: There are down upon the Paper two Amendments in the name of Lord Stanley of Alderley. Presumably the first one is the one to be taken first. The noble Viscount spoke in terms of some censure of the fact that I had raised a wider discussion. I did precisely what was done in another place where the Rules of Order are more strict. The second Amendment deals with advertising. The first is a totally different

1413
one, and it is to that that all the arguments at this particular stage should be addressed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That covers the second Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "distribute by way of advertisement" and insert "by way of advertising goods of some other kind distribute." The noble Viscount said: This is the Amendment to which I referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("distribute by way of advertisement") and insert ("by way of advertising goods of some other kind distribute").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment is this. If a wine merchant wishes to give away imported penknives with his Christmas hamper of wines, or wishes to use them for advertising his Christmas hamper of wines, they must be marked. If, however, a foreign penknife maker sends to this country a large number of penknives, and distributes them free to advertise his penknives and in order to make a market for his knives, he need not mark them. Again, if a hardware dealer wishes to advertise his supply of penknives to the public generally, he may bring in foreign penknives and give them away and mark them with his name in order to advertise the article itself and not any other article. But, as soon as he began to sell those penknives, they must be marked. For the purpose of giving them away, however, he might mark foreign penknives with his own name and give them away, if they are wanted merely to advertise penknives.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is not the only clause in the Bill and, of course, if the man were going to import a number of penknives and sell them they might come under Clause 2 of the Bill. This particular clause only deal with the particular case of latent misrepresentation. I cannot say offhand whether he would be perfectly free to sell or distribute foreign penknives because I do not know what action would be taken under other clauses of the Bill.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Under this clause he would be free?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Under this clause. We are not dealing with other clauses.
LORD ARNOLD: As I understand Clause 1, it is not dependent on the approval or otherwise of a Committee. It comes into operation six months after the Bill is passed. Though this may seem small, yet it is most important in trying to elucidate this extraordinary measure. What rationality is there in making it illegal to distribute by way of advertisement a small baby penknife if it is to advertise a silk blouse, whereas it is perfectly legal to distribute those small penknives by the million if they are to advertise a larger penknife because that is the same kind of goods and not a different kind? What is the reason for it? Where is the rationality of it? The noble Viscount claimed on the Second Reading that the Government were intelligent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not claim that they were intelligent. I said I hoped the noble Lord thought they were intelligent.
LORD ARNOLD: The Government are always claiming virtues for themselves because no one else will do it for them. Surely one may ask where is the intelligence or the common sense here? What is the reason for the distinction? Surely we are entitled to know.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord seems to me himself to be a little unreasonable. He complains of the clause, and when I move an Amendment which limits the operation of the clause he is more indignant still. I try to help him, and when I do help him I am charged with lack of intelligence. It is really a most deplorable situation.
EARL RUSSELL: I rather think that the noble Viscount agrees with my noble friend as to the Amendment. The clause begins by saying it shall not be lawful to do the things named, one of these things being "by way of advertising goods of some other kind to distribute in the United Kingdom any imported goods" and so on. Does not that mean that a person is at liberty to distribute them by way of advertisement, if they

1415
are advertising the same goods, or goods of that class? I do not know whether it is my intelligence that is at fault, but I can only read this as meaning that people may distribute these goods as much as they like as long as they are their own goods they are advertising; but, if they are distributing them to advertise, say, Schweppes' soda water, then they may not do so. If that is so, I do not grasp the reasoning of it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said this Amendment was limited to that particular operation. But as regards the distribution of other foreign goods that would come under Clause 2, and therefore I could not say, before I knew what the operation of Clause 2 was in this particular case, what would happen; but this is limited in the way I have stated.
LORD ARNOLD: It is not a question of distributing other foreign goods; it is a question of distributing some small articles to advertise, may be, British goods, not foreign goods. What we want to know is why should it be laid down in law that you may, without indication of foreign origin at all—though the article may be made abroad—distribute things, if they are advertising goods of the same kind, but if they are advertising goods of another kind then it is illegal.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will try again. No doubt it is my fault. What I said was that my Amendment tried to limit the operation of Clause 1. Clause 1 has a particular operation dealing with latent misrepresentation. Noble Lords opposite say, "Ah, if you distribute the same kind of goods that is all right, but why limit it in this way to the operation in connection with other goods? "The only reason is that I take the general distribution of goods out of the operation of Clause 1, and bring it under the operation of Clause 2. If you will look at Clause 5 (2) you will see there that the marking of other goods is covered by that clause. I only wish here to limit the operation of Clause 1 to a particular class of advertisement, and leave others to the more general clause.
EARL RUSSELL: I am very sorry I have not understood; I am sure it must be my fault. Do not these other clauses deal with selling goods? This particular
1416
Amendment deals with making a present of goods by way of advertisement. Does not the noble Viscount's Amendment mean that you may distribute free as a gift these goods unmarked, provided it is the particular kind of goods you are advertising, but you may not distribute them free if it is some other kind of goods you are advertising?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Certainly, I have said so four times; because, as I said, the other case of the general distribution of goods is dealt with under Clause 5 (2), where it comes under the operation of Clause 2 of the Bill.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I understand that the Amendment would include such articles as posters, that might be sent over for the advertisement of cinema films—which are not the same kind of thing—but these advertisements would have to be marked. They are coming here in very large quantities both in northern towns and also London. In Belfast in one week out of 236 kinds of posters exhibited, 148 were British and 88 came from other countries. In Liverpool-almost the same proportion prevailed. In view of those facts, it seems to me that the Amendment will be extremely satisfactory to the Master Printers' Federation.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, has not done justice to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, because the Amendment as it stands applies to all cases of gifts for advertising purposes. It does not mean that there might not be cases such as Lord Askwith refers to; this Amendment goes far beyond that. What you are really doing is preventing the English trader from sending out advertisements on his own behalf, and substituting for them advertisements on behalf of the foreign manufacturer or producer, who would never have been known to the consumer without this device. So that what you are really doing is preventing the British seller having the benefit of this system of free distribution; and, on the other hand, you compel him, if he does distribute goods by way of advertising, to advertise foreign goods, and, I presume, to give some indication to his own customers of

1417
the source Of origin of those goods. How that can be of advantage to the British trader is an entire conundrum to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), after "trader" to insert "of or in similar goods." The noble Lord said: I indicated at an earlier stage what the scope of this Amendment was. It deals with the second operation of Clause 1. It affects persons who import goods from abroad, which goods bear a name, the name of the foreign maker or manufacturer, or the name of a place; and if that name, whatever it is, whether of a maker, manufacturer, or a place, is the same as that of any place, maker or manufacturer in the United Kingdom, then an offence is committed, unless the imported article is marked to indicate that it is of foreign origin. That establishes a punishable offence. This Government is constantly creating new offences. I suppose since it came into office it has created some scores of such offences, but it will be evident to your Lordships that this offence depends upon chance. There is no kind of reason or logic whatever behind it. If a man who imports something from abroad with his own name on it happens to have a name which is not the same as that of the manufacturer in the United Kingdom he can do that as long as he likes; but, if his name happens to be the same as that of some manufacturer in the United Kingdom, then he mast show that the article is of foreign origin. It really is a very extraordinary thing that this should be enacted, because it is so very irrational.
Take, for instance, the question of old stock. This is a real case in point, because the onus in this matter in the last resort rests upon the retailer. The retailers, particularly in small country towns, have stocks especially of woollen goods and the like, which they may have held for a great many months, and yet, if they happen to have stocks which they have not disposed of at a date six months after the passing of this Bill, and if these stocks come under this clause in the way I have described, then an offence is committed. The difficulty is all the greater because, as I have already mentioned, the United States counts for this purpose as a foreign country and many
1418
of the names there are, of course, the same as the names here.
It is perfectly clear, I think, that this clause will create great difficulty and confusion and probably create, or the Bill may create, as I indicated on the Second Reading, some measure of retaliation. When I mentioned that point upon Second Reading the noble Viscount made the usual stock reply. He said: "Oh, there is nothing in that because we now have tariffs to face and, therefore, it really does not matter; they have done all they can." That is not necessarily so at all. It is quite true that we have tariffs to face abroad and it would be better if we had not got to face them; but that is no reason why we should run the risk of making things worse. Incidentally, the noble Viscount said:
"It is perfectly true that, owing no doubt to Fascist principles, Italy"—
which I had cited as a country which was likely to take some counter measures—
"has been recently raising its tariffs. …"
I may say in passing that the admission on the part of a Conservative Minister that tariffs are in accordance with Fascist principles has been noted and full utility will be made of it in the coming times. As a matter of fact, it was not tariffs that I had in mind at all.
The noble Viscount told your Lordships that he had inquired—I suppose he meant at the Board of Trade—and that he was informed that apart from this raising of tariffs no other measure was taken. That is not my information. As a matter of fact the Board of Trade do not know everything, and in regard to certain aspects of trade if I wanted information the last place I should go to is the Board of Trade. It is the fact, I am informed, that there is taking place in Italy a sort of "Buy Italian goods" movement which will certainly hit this country because of the large exports we make to Italy. If we do this kind of thing we must, as indicated on Second Reading was the danger, expect other countries to do the same.
My Amendment, if agreed to, would be a limiting Amendment. The noble Viscount seems to like limiting Amendments. I cannot say that I am hopeful of it, but I should be glad if he would accept this one because it would make the clause very much more in accord with common sense.

1419
It would affect persons who import goods from abroad bearing a name, whether of a place, maker or manufacturer, that corresponded with the nome of a place, trader or manufacturer in this country who was trading in the same class of goods. I think that is a very reasonable proposal to put forward. There is really no clash at all, and a particular trader or manufacturer here who happens to have the same name as an American who is exporting goods to this country may have no more interest in those goods than the man in the moon; they may be totally different. This Amendment brings the clause, at any rate, a little more into the region of common sense, and I hope it will receive favourable consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after ("trader") insert ("of or in similar goods").—(Lord Arnold.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord was good enough to read out a passage from my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am much flattered to know that he should have studied it so carefully. In that passage I made some allusion to information I had received from the Board of Trade as to the position in Italy, and in it I stated, I think, that tariffs had been raised as a consequence or as part of Fascist principles, and that there was no other movement as regards I will not say boycotting British goods but rather buying only Italian goods. I was going to reply that I should be glad to make inquiry about the matter from the Board of Trade, but as the noble Lord has just informed me that the Board of Trade does not know anything about trade—
LORD ARNOLD: I did not say that.
VISCOUNT PEEL:—it would be hardly useful for me to make an inquiry of that kind; but I will make inquiry and I will make it in other quarters, if I may be allowed, than the Board of Trade. As to the noble Lord's Amendment, the proposition with which we are dealing here in subsection (1) of Clause 1 is a very simple one indeed. If an English-sounding name is placed upon imported goods the impression is given to people in this country that they are buying British goods. To take two names of great similarity and equal respectability almost, there is the name of Grünbaum
1420
and the name of Greenwood. If you translate one into the other the meaning is identical. As the noble Lord no doubt knows, the equivalent of Greenwood in German is Grünbaum. If you put Grünbaum on goods the impression is given, of course, that they are German goods because Grünbaum is not yet one of our good old English names. But if you put the name of Greenwood on the goods the impression naturally created would be that they were British goods because Greenwood has a long and distinguished history among the names of our country. All that this clause says is that if a name is put on imported goods it should be made clear that those goods are foreign and not British goods in order to make clear to the consumer what he is buying.
The noble Lord wants what he calls, using my phrase, a limiting Amendment, and he wants to apply it only to cases where similar goods are made by the person whose name is put on the goods to those made by a person with a British name. I am afraid there still would be great deception. There would be opportunity for deception. After all, the British consumer cannot always know what are the goods that Greenwood makes, he cannot always know what goods different manufacturers make, but he would generally consider they were British goods. I again suggest that there is really not only opportunity for deception but for endless argument and confusion if you have to decide what "similar goods" are. It is a very vague term, and I should be really very sorry to say what goods are similar to any others. As I say, I think it would cause confusion. I think also it might cause deception. It would prevent the issue being clear to the mind of the British consumer, and the clause, therefore, is much better left as it is. The noble Lord objects, I know, to the whole clause, but if you have to have the clause I think it is clearer in the simple language in which it has been introduced by the Government.
LORD ARNOLD: There are other important Amendments to come before your Lordships and I therefore do not wish to make any reply. I should like, however, to offer one observation upon the noble Viscount's remark about the Board of Trade. I did not say that the

1421
Board of Trade had no knowledge of trade. I said that there were some matters about which if I wished for information I would not go to the Board of Trade. I said it was my information that this voluntary boycott, or whatever you call it, has been started in Italy, and I think the noble Viscount will find that that is so.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out the first "having" and insert "appearing to the Board of Trade to have." The noble Viscount said: This is not a very important Amendment. It really brings the clause into line with other clauses in the Bill and is very little more than a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("having") and insert ("appearing to the Board of Trade to have").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power to require indication of origin in the case of certain imported goods.
2.—(1) After an inquiry in relation to goods of any class or description has on a reference from the appropriate department been held by a committee appointed for the purposes of this Act (in this Act referred to as "a committee") and the report of the committee on the matter has been taken into consideration by the department, that department may, unless it appears to them 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 prejudiced if imported goods of that class or description for use or consumption in the United Kingdom were prohibited to be sold unless they bear an indication of origin, make a representation to His Majesty that it is desirable that an Order should be made under this section, and His Majesty in Council may thereupon, subject to the provisions of this Act, make an Order prohibiting the sale, or the exposure for sale in the United Kingdom, of imported goods of that class or description unless they bear an indication of origin.
(5) If on an inquiry under subsection (1) of this section it appears to a committee to be desirable that any imported goods should bear an indication of origin at the time of importation, and the committee so reports to the appropriate department, that department sinless, 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, it considers such action undesirable, may make a representation to His Majesty that it is desirable
1422
that the goods should bear an indication of origin at the time of importation, and His Majesty may by Order in Council under this section (without prejudice to his powers under subsection (1) of this section) make provision accordingly, and if any such goods required by any such Order to bear an indication of origin at the time of importation do not at that time bear such an indication they shall be deemed to be goods which are prohibited to be imported by virtue of section sixteen of the principal Act:
Provided that—
(a) 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; and
(b) Nothing in this subsection shall be taken to be in derogation of anything contained in the said section sixteen.
(6) A committee after hearing persons representing such interests as may appear to the committee to be substantially affected shall, from time to time, and as soon as may be practicable in each case after an inquiry under subsection (1) of this section make reports to the appropriate department specifying the classes or descriptions of imported goods, if any (being goods to which the committee consider that it is practically possible to apply an indication of origin effectively and without injury to the goods), with respect to which, in the opinion of the committee, an Order in Council ought to be made under this section, and the committee shall if it reports that such goods should bear an indication of origin, recommend in what form and manner the indication of origin should be applied to the goods.
(8) An Order in Council under this section shall specify in every case—
(b) the date (not being a date earlier than three months from the date of the making of the Order, except in the case of an Order revoking a previous Order either entirely or as respects some of the goods to which that Order relates, or an Order made for amending a previous Order in consequence of a direction having been given with respect to that Order under the provisions of this Act relating to provisional exemptions) on which the Order is to come into force; and
and any such Order may contain such other provisions as appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient for carrying this section into effect.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises, I think, a point of very great importance. It is in relation to the powers which are given under this Bill to Committees. I submit that the tendency during the last year or two on the part of the present Government to hand over large questions of policy—because that is what it comes to—to the jurisdiction of Commitees is not a right policy and I should very much like to know from the noble Viscount one or two things about these Committees. These Committees are to be appointed either by the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Agriculture. I do not wish to press the noble Viscount too closely, but can he give us any estimate of what number of Committees he expects will be set up and, secondly, can he say—and this presumably is more or less decided—what is the remuneration which the members of these Committees are to have? They are to be paid Committees, and I should like to know how much they are to be paid.
It is true that on the Second Reading the noble Viscount indicated that in addition to the Committees who were to consider Which goods should be marked and which should not, there were what he called further safeguards. First of all, there was the clause in the Bill which gives a sort of over-riding power to the President of the Board of Trade the Minister of Agriculture. As I stated then I have not very much confidence in that because the President of the Board of Trade is a very strong Protectionist and I do not think there is any real security in that provision. The noble Viscount went on to say there was also the possibility of Orders in Council, that when the Committee had decided what should be marked on importation then, if the recommendation passed the Board of Trade, an Order in Council would be laid and so the matter could be raised in that way.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I apologise for interrupting, but is the noble Lord dealing with this Amendment about six months and twelve months?
LORD ARNOLD: I think the noble Viscount has an old Amendment Paper. That is not the point I am dealing with. I am dealing with subsection (1) in
1424
Clause 2. I did put down the Amendment to which the noble Viscount has referred, but I did not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time and I took it off the Paper intending to devote myself more to other matters. Therefore that Amendment is not now on the Marshalled List of Amendments. Let us be clear what we are talking about. I am dealing now with an Amendment to leave cut subsection (1) of Clause 2, which deals with the appointment of Committees.
I was on the point of the Orders in Council, and because I was a little sceptical about that procedure and its efficacy when I spoke on Second Reading the noble Viscount charged me with saying that I did not think much of Parliament. I did not say anything of that sort and I think it would be better if the noble Viscount stated his opponent's arguments accurately. What I said was that I did not remember, in the course of my Parliamentary experience, effective action being taken on an Order in Council. I did not say that it had never been done—I said I could not remember it. The noble Viscount, when he replied, said he could remember several instances, but he did not give us any. I will ask him now if he will give us instances of effective action taken in the last fifteen years under an Order in Council relating to any measure of this kind. I think we are entitled to have that. If there is no such instance, or if there are at most only one or two instances, it is quite clear that this particular provision gives no effective safeguard whatever.
I shall be interested to hear if the noble Viscount can give us those instances, as I cannot myself recall any. I have made inquiries. I believe there was one rather earlier than fifteen years ago, but that kind of thing is done very seldom and it is to put forward something which is demonstrably unsustainable to suggest that this procedure by way of Orders in Council gives any real security with regard to the work of these Committees. The President of the Board of Trade has claimed that these Committees should be impartial. I do not, of course, suggest for a moment that the members of a Committee would be consciously unfair, but I do think it is highly probable that the members of these Committees, appointed by the President of the Board

1425
of Trade or the Minister of Agriculture, will have—I think they are bound to have—a subconscious bias (I will put it no higher than that) in a certain direction. I think the noble Viscount will agree with this, that if, for instance, such a thing were conceivable as that this measure were being put into operation by a Labour Government and we were setting up Committees, the findings of those Committees would certainly be different from the findings of the Committees set up by the present Protectionist President of the Board of Trade.
It must be remembered that these Committees are paid, and is it conceivable that they will go on constantly refusing applications? They have been set up by a Protectionist President of the Board of Trade and everybody knows he wants a lot of marking to be done. Is it conceivable that these Committees will go on rejecting application after application? If they do that, of course, they will be disbanded. I think it is quite clear that that is extremely unlikely to happen. That is, I think, another reason why this procedure in regard to Committees is extremely unsatisfactory. I leave the case there. I know that there are some noble Lords on the other side of the House who do not like the growing tendency on the part of the Government to depute these extremely important duties—which amount practically to determining policy—to Committees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Arnold.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Viscount has asked me some questions upon this Amendment. I think the effect of leaving out subsection (1)—I do not know that the noble Lord seriously pressed it—I understand he raised it rather to ask me soma questions.
LORD ARNOLD: I certainly press it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I must say that if it is pressed it destroys the whole of the Bill and it is in fact a Second Reading objection to the Bill. Your Lordships have decided by a large majority in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill and I do not think you would wish me to repeat the whole of the arguments in the
1426
rather extended speech that I then made to show why you should pass the Second Reading. In fact it would be lacking in courtesy to your Lordships if I were to do that. I had perhaps better try to answer one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord.
He asked first of all as to the number of the Committees. This is all laid down in Clause 4. There are to be two or more Standing Committees, of which at least one shall be charged with inquiries relating to agricultural and horticultural produce and produce in the fishing industry. I understand the intention is to set up two Committees, one for the Board of Trade and one for the Ministry of Agriculture. Then the noble Lord asked me what they were to be paid. He knows that it is laid down that they are to get such remuneration as the proper Department may determine. It has not vet been settled what the exact remuneration is to be, but I am informed that the remuneration will be small—"inconsiderable" is the phrase that has been given to me—though it has not of course been settled.
Then he suggested, I think, that these Committees might have a considerable bias and that, having been set up by what he called a Protectionist Minister they would have a desire to follow the behests of the Minister. I do not think that is at all the experience of Ministers in setting up Committees. Committees take a very independent line and they very often defeat what may be supposed to be the ambitions or desires of a particular Minister. I do not wish to cite too many examples, but I certainly can recall to the mind of the noble Lord the Committees set up under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, because a number of these Committees have refused to recommend that a Duty should be put on specific articles. Therefore I do not think he can assume that these Committees will be biased in the particular direction in which some Minister may be supposed to desire to guide them. He also said that a decision or a recommendation given by a Committee appointed by a Labour Government might be different from one appointed by a Conservative Government. Well, I really do not know what decision would be arrived at by a Committee set up by a Labour Government and as it will be such a very long time before a Labour Government

1427
rules this country it does not seem to be of much advantage to deal with it. The only other point on which he challenges me to give particular instances is that of an Order in Council being defeated by a Resolution in either House.
LORD ARNOLD: Not defeated, effectively amended at the instance of the Opposition. That is really what it comes to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Well, I do not know whether I can give very many instances of a thing of that kind because obviously an Opposition is usually unable to carry its proposals. Though their criticisms may be extremely effective the result in the Division Lobby is usually unfortunate for the Opposition. I must make a present to the noble Lord of that argument. Really I need not say more, I think, except that there is no other way practicable of dealing with matters of this kind as to which goods should be marked and which should not be marked than by setting up Committees. We have a great many Committees in this country and we can generally trust our countrymen to be fair.
LORD PARMOOR: There is another point to which the noble Viscount might have referred. It is one which I raised in connection with the Safeguarding Duties, that by appointing Committees you really take responsibility away from the Board of Trade and put it on the Committees. In that way you take responsibility away from Parliament because the answer that is always put forward when matters of this kind are questioned is that the Board of Trade has been following the Report of the Committee. I am not going to argue with the noble Viscount what the future political outlook is likely to be in one direction or another, and I am not now talking about bias, but when you are dealing with what is, after all, a very important question the Department concerned—that is, the Board of Trade—ought to be primarily liable, and the decision taken ought to be their decision in order that it may be brought before Parliament in the ordinary way. That is the only way in which you can control official bodies. I can see that this clause is vital to the Bill as a whole, but I think my noble friend will probably realise there is objection
1428
to this Committee system. I admit it has been introduced in recent years, but always, I think, on wrong constitutional principles.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord must not think that it is the Committee which decides. The Committee only recommends, and the responsibility rests with the Department.
LORD PARMOOR: That was said in regard to the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and the answer was "No, the effect is really to put the responsibility on their shoulders." That was certainly stated in the case of the Safeguarding of Industries Committees.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "appropriate Department," and insert "Board of Trade." The noble Lord said: This Amendment proposes to confine the execution of this Bill to one Department and not to two. The Amendment I have put on the Paper is to leave out "appropriate Department," and to insert "Board of Trade." Obviously the result if that Amendment is carried will be that the Ministry of Agriculture will disappear from this Bill. There will be a number of consequential Amendments to be made if this Amendment is carried, but sufficient for the day is the evil thereof, and I will deal with the Amendment I am now proposing. The objection to the proposal in the Bill that the Ministry of Agriculture should deal with certain applications for the marking of imports, is that if you are going to have imports marked the matter should be in the hands of the Department most closely associated with oversea trade. Nobody, I am sure, would wish to deny the excellent work which the Ministry of Agriculture has done for agriculture, but it has not hitherto concerned itself very much with those broader aspects of trade which the Bill says shall be considered by the appropriate Department when it is deciding whether to impose marking or not.
This is a short point, and I do not think it is necessary to labour it, but I wish to point out to your Lordships that in order to arrive at this division of authority between the two Departments concerned it was found necessary

1429
in Clause 10 to enact a rather grotesque—if I may use the word—definition of what foodstuffs are. I think it is really only necessary to read the clause in order to see that this division has involved the Government and the Departments concerned in a certain amount of embarrassment. They finally come to this:—
" 'Agricultural and horticultural produce and the produce of any fishing industry' includes all foodstuffs other than such foodstuffs as the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, may declare not to be foodstuffs for the purposes of this definition."
Surely, when you have to define foodstuffs as being all foodstuffs that two Departments say are foodstuffs, excepting what the Departments say are not foodstuffs, you are coming to something approaching absurdity. In fact, in regard to foodstuffs there are matters quite outside the scope of the Ministry of Agriculture. Matters relating to currants, imported dried fruits and such things really are matters relating to the trade and commerce of the country and ought to be dealt with by the Board of Trade.
No doubt the noble Lord who replies—whether it will be the gaoler of the Board of Trade or the custodian of the Ministry of Agriculture I do not know; perhaps both will reply—will say, "That is all provided for in our definition." But when you are dealing with trade you are dealing with a thing which has infinite ramifications and infinite possibilities, and I suggest to the Government—though I do not imagine that they will accept my suggestion—that in dealing with the trade of this country it is better to rely on one Department which is accustomed to deal with all the facts, rather than to pass on one part, and a truncated part, as it must be, to another Department which has not in the past had an acquaintance with the difficulties and ramifications of the external trade of this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("appropriate Department") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord is anxious, I understand, that the whole administration, and any Committee set up under this Bill to deal with the marking of goods, should be under the
1430
direction of the Board of Trade which should not divide its duties in any sense with the Ministry of Agriculture.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I think that is the intention of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was only stating it in order to be quite clear, because we are not always clear as to what we really mean. I am bound to say that I was myself rather entertained (shall I say?) by the method of defining foodstuffs under Clause 1, but the only reason why I support the terms of the Bill is that it is generally good administration that a Department should deal with those subjects which it understands better than any other Department, and I think that this must be said to be the case with the Ministry of Agriculture. I am rather afraid of appropriating any credit to the Board of Trade, because it is has been so criticised this afternoon, but, though it can deal, I think, very well with general matters of trade, special considerations enter in relation to agriculture upon which the Ministry of Agriculture is infinitely better informed than the Board of Trade can be.
Further—though I think this is a minor consideration—the Ministry of Agriculture would, I think, be much more likely to be able to appoint without difficulty competent persons who would be very good judges on these agricultural questions and to put them upon the agricultural Committees. I think that in this respect the arrangement proposed would be an advantage. The third point is that this proposal is, I believe, very strongly pressed for by the agricultural community, which would, I think, rightly or wrongly, probably have more confidence in a Committee set up by the Minister of Agriculture than in a Committee set up by the Board of Trade. Those are the grounds upon which I defend the proposals of the Bill. My noble friend beside me may even take the view that Committees of the Ministry of Agriculture would in any case be very much better than those of the Board of Trade, but that is for him to say. If your Lordships want any more information on that point I appeal to my noble friend to say a word or two, because he is a mine of information on all these subjects.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): I do not know if your Lordships really desire to hear me on this subject, but should like to tell my noble friend straight away—since he used the term "rightly or wrongly" in reference to the confidence of the public and the agricultural community—that agriculturists in this country quite rightly trust in their own Department rather than in any other Department who are not specially designated to deal with their interests. We in this country, unlike some other countries, are fortunate in having a Department which devotes its whole time and attention to agricultural interests. Let me remind your Lordships that the agricultural community, so far as this Bill is concerned, are very keen indeed that the British consumer should have a fair chance of knowing what is grown on British soil and what on foreign soil, and I am bound to tell your Lordships that the acceptance of an Amendment such as that proposed by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley would cause a very strong feeling on the part of the agricultural community against the choice of a Department which "rightly or wrongly" is regarded as not knowing very much about the agricultural community and the disposal of agricultural products to occupy a judicial position in reference to agricultural interests.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), after "sale" ["prohibiting the sale"] to insert "distribution." The noble Lord said: I should prefer in this Amendment to use the words which the noble Viscount himself introduced in Clause 1 and to insert not in line 2 but in line 3, after "exposure for sale," the words "or by way of advertising goods of some other kind, the distribution." I think that this will read. The point is that there are certain classes of goods in the printing trade—I say this subject to reading more carefully the critical remarks of Lord Parmoor tomorrow—which are affected by this distribution, and apparently, under Clause 2, sale and exposure for sale are the only two things that are covered in relation to goods of any class or description. I suggest that this class of goods ought to
1432
be allowed to have a similar inquiry to that applying to goods which are sold or exposed for sale.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not sure if the words proposed by the noble Lord quite fit into the clause, and I think that perhaps the noble Lord might do well to put the Amendment down again for the Report stage. I do not think that the words as I heard them read very well.
LORD ASKWITH: I shall be very pleased to do so.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, near the end of subsection (1), after "description" to insert "not excluding articles mentioned in Clause 1, subsection (4)." The noble Lord said: This is quite a different point. What the printers are very much afraid of is that they would not be able to have an inquiry into certain classes of goods owing to the restrictions in subsection (4) of this clause. They want to have it made clear, if possible by the acceptance of an Amendment, or at any rate by some statement, that an inquiry would be open to them and that the class of goods which are being brought into this country and spread about in a method that they consider most detrimental to their trade should be covered.
I have had scores of types before me of a practice that is being carried out that amounts almost, to fraud. I selected only two to bring here. This kind of thing comes from Budapest, from the Oriental Printing, Addressing and Mailing Company, to say that, in consequence of the favourable rate of exchange, they are able to execute work at considerably below half the cost ruling in England; and then, right at the bottom, there is a postscript:
"In no case does the printer's name appear in our clients' work."
Here is another one, in a very German writing, which advertises printing blocks and coloured plates, and they state that they can furnish any number of plates you like. They add: "The name of our firm, as well as the words 'Printed in Germany' can be omitted on all our printings, and thus our work does not differ from British make." The manner in which these are coming in gives rise to the thought that if inquiries should take place they should be sufficiently

1433
elastic to protect the printing trade. I remember that under Clause 1, subsection (4) the action is somewhat limited, and it also says that it applies to that section, but their fear is that there may be the application of a phrase which the noble Viscount may remember having come across when he studied Latin at Harrow and other places, namely, expressio unius exclusio alterius. I suggest, therefore, that there is no harm in the insertion of these words, "not excluding articles mentioned in Clause 1, subsection (4)."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, after ("description") insert ("not excluding articles mentioned in Clause 1, subsection (4)").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I quite understand the motive which prompted the noble Lord in putting down this Amendment, but I am advised that it is really unnecessary, and that it might even be confusing. It is clear that that is so, because the words that the noble Lord wishes to put in are "not excluding articles mentioned in Clause 1, subsection (4)." I was going to say that they are, of course, not excluded, because, I think, it is perfectly clear that this particular subsection (4) of Clause 1 relates only to the provisions of Clause 1, and certainly has no relation to Clause 2. The inclusion of the words might be a little dangerous, because it might suggest connection in other parts of the Bill between Clauses 1 and 2, and I think I explained on the Second Reading that Clause 1 dealt with a totally different subject, that any limitation of Clause 1 dealt with Clause 1, and not in any sense with Clause 2, and that therefore all these things would come under the operation of Clause 2. I am ready to give the noble Lord that definite assurance.
LORD ASKWITH: I am very glad to have the noble Viscount's definite assurance, and will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a point which has aroused the greatest controversy. It was debated at some length on the Second Reading, and I wilt not go over all the
1434
arguments again. Briefly, it comes to this—whether goods or agricultural produce must be marked, if ordered to be marked by a Committee, on or before importation, or whether it can be done afterwards. I propose to confine what I have to say to the question of the entrepot trade, because this clause has special relation to that trade, which amounts to nearly £200,000,000 a year. The noble Viscount said, on the Second Reading, that there had been put in the Bill a provision under which goods coming to this country, intended for re-export, need not be marked, and therefore he argued that it was all right. It is not all right, in the view of the persons who will be hit by this clause, and in the view of the London Chamber of Commerce and those they represent, because they have issued a letter saying that the supposed safeguards are quite inadequate to deal with the matter.
I pointed out on Second Reading that apart from anything else it was not the easiest thing in the world to satisfy Customs House officers; I pointed out that there was bound to be delay, that goods arrived in British ports irregularly, and that there would not always be available sufficient Customs officers. The noble Viscount said that that did not happen in the United States, and that there were always Customs House officers available there. However that may be, they are not always available here, and I put this to the noble Viscount, that since the Paper Duties of last year there had been considerable delays at the docks from time to time. I asked him whether he would deny that, and he did not do so. It is, as a matter of fact, true, and there is very serious delay. It is the same thing with regard to the silk trade. Since the Silk Duties were imposed there has been actual loss of trade, apart from annoyance. There has been great congestion in the ports, and there is now.
Take the question of foodstuffs. I understand that even at Hull, which is not one of our largest ports, at times there arrive 150,000 packages or receptacles containing foodstuffs in one day and if some of these have to be marked it is asking too much to expect us to believe that it will not mean delay. I brought before your Lordships last week a Scottish protest on the matter and I asked whether any notice was going to be taken of that, and if the matter would

1435
be referred to the Food Council, to see what would be the effect upon the price of food. The noble Viscount did not reply, and I should be glad if he would do so to-day. We have had assurances with regard to the export trade. We had assurances on the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. We were told that it was all right, that drawbacks would be allowed, and so forth. But what has happened?
I would ask your Lordships' close attention to three sets of figures, which I think are most significant in this connection. I will deal with the first ten months of 1924, before the Silk Duties and Lace Duties were imposed, and I will deal with the first ten months of 1926, when they had been in operation, and show what has been the damaging effect of those Duties upon the re-export trade. I will take the re-exports of cotton lace. In 1924 they amounted to £1,410,000. In the first ten months of 1926, after the Duties were in operation, they had been cut down to £49,000. The trade had been ruined—practically wiped out. Then take exports of silk laces. In the first ten months of 1924 they were £22,000; in the first ten months of 1926, £2,000—practically wiped out. Then take a larger matter, the re-exports of silk yarns and manufactures. In the first ten months of 1924 they were £5,000,100. In 1926 they were £1,687,000.
No wonder that trade is bad, that unemployment has increased, and that there is a prospect of increased taxation. When I said that trade was bad it was twisted by the noble Viscount into a charge by me that the Government wanted to damage trade. It is not a question of what they want to do but of what they are doing, and in face of such figures it is preposterous to say they are not damaging trade. If this clause is carried as it stands, with this subsection in it, it will undoubtedly cause great loss to some of our traders, to the shipping trade and to others in this country.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I shall put the first line only in order to safeguard the Amendment of Lord Stanley of Alderley.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord wishes to leave out subsection (5) which deals with marking before importation. The noble Lord has made a number of very vigorous assertions about the damage that is going to ensue to trade, to the shipping industry, to the re-export trade, and to a number of businesses of that kind by this marking. He will excuse me if I do not go into the question of the figures he brought up. As he knows, it is very difficult to examine figures when you have not got them before you and when they are quoted without notice and without any opportunity being given of looking into them. It occurred to me, when he was reciting his melancholy tale about the loss of trade, whether there was a large extension in home production. He did not give us the figures, but it would be important to know whether there had been a large increase in home production at the same time. It only shows how little weight can be attached to figures when you do not have all the figures relevant to the subject.
The noble Lord objects to marking before importation. What is his alternative? Is it that they should be marked after importation? Because, if he says that there is any difficulty or delay at the docks, then I suggest it would be a good deal more if you waited until the goods were brought in and then insisted on their being marked in warehouses or elsewhere. I do not know what the alternative of the noble Lord is. He was not good enough to give us the benefit of his advice on that subject, but the delay, I am sure, would be very great if the goods were only marked on importation. This Bill is really full of safeguards as regards the re-export trade. Throughout all the discussion the noble Lord has been speaking as if all the goods that come into this country are to be marked. I have observed before that the Government refused Amendments of that kind in another place, refused to do that, and only certain goods may be marked after investigation by the Committees. The Committees have to consider, as part of their duties, what is the effect on the re-export trade. In addition there are also the provisos in subsection (5). We have heard a great deal about the damage that is going to be done to the

1437
re-export trade, but I want to know from the noble Lord how that damage is going to be done. He has not dealt with any of those provisos or said how, if those provisos are fairly and carefully administered, it is possible to do any damage to the re-export trade. We do not deal in this House with imaginary fears, but with practical considerations.
LORD EMMOTT: I must say that, in regard to this question of the entrepot trade, Lord Arnold has put the real point in his Amendment. What happens to-day is that London is the great centre of trade in the whole world and foreign buyers, and buyers from our own Empire, come there to select great quantities of goods because they have such an enormous choice there. They come to select goods for their own particular markets and, if they find there the goods that they want, they do not for the most part care where they come from. They order the goods and our shipping gets the benefit of it both ways, bringing them to this country and taking them from this country, while our middlemen reap the benefit in the profit which accrues. What will happen under this Bill, if the process of marking becomes a regular part of our practice in this country? They will find that certain goods, which they wish to buy and which are suitable for their own market, are marked as made in a certain country. They will go to that country in the future to cut out the middleman in London. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech—there are too many Second Reading speeches this afternoon—but my objection to this Bill is that it is going to do harm to our trade by teaching the buyer where he can get his goods elsewhere.
LORD ARNOLD: The Bill as originally introduced did not impose marking on manufactured goods. When the noble Viscount asks me what is the alternative, I say that that was their own alternative when the Bill was introduced. This change was only accepted in Committee. As to the Committees, I should like to point out that the Safeguarding Committees had similar instructions to safeguard the re-export trade, yet the trade has been nearly ruined. The noble Viscount does not realise that this is a merchant business and that the point
1438
about home production which he raised as to my figures does not really apply. What has been lost is trade corning in and going out again.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord is perfectly right in saying this was introduced in Committee. That makes it all the more important because the Government found, after discussion and after the whole matter had been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee in the House of Commons, that it really would be necessary to introduce a proviso of this kind. It was not a wicked Government trying to smash trade, as the noble Lord thinks, but it was a Government being impressed by free discussion in another place and feeling that, without that proviso, the whole Bill would not be workable. I think it was a slip of the noble Lord, but the Silk Duties were not the result of the Safeguarding of Industries Act but were put on as a measure of finance in the Budget.
LORD ARNOLD: That was merely a matter of convenience.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was only pointing it out for the noble Lord's information.
LORD CAWLEY: The manufacturers of goods are not the people, as a rule, who export the goods. They sell to the merchants in London and Manchester and the merchants are the people who export the goods. The manufacturer would always like to put his name on his goods—if the article is good—because it would advertise his name, but the merchant will not allow it. The merchant says: "I am not going to advertise those goods as yours, because if I get a repeat order I shall be obliged to come to you. I have other sources from which I can get them, but if I put your marking on them I am obliged to come back to you and it lessens the market from which I can get them." If you say to the foreign manufacturer by this Bill that he must put his name on the goods, and the London merchant then sells the goods with the foreign manufacturer's name on them, then this Bill is giving the foreign manufacturer a very great pull over the English manufacturer. I am not speaking of goods that are sold in bulk; I am speaking of goods that actually come to the warehouses

1439
in London. The warehousemen in London will not allow the manufacturer to put his name on the goods, but they are obliged to allow the foreign manufacturer to put his name on the goods. Therefore the foreign manufacturer gets an advertisement which the English manufacturer cannot get.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I would ask the noble Lord who has talked about putting the name of the foreign manufacturer on goods where in the Bill is there anything whatever said about puffing on the name of the foreign manufacturer? There is nothing at all.
LORD CAWLEY: They have to put on "Made abroad."
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is a very different thing.
LORD CAWLEY: But the manufacturer does put his name on, and the English merchant does not object to it, as he does to the name of the English manufacturer.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is really nothing in the Bill about putting on the name of the manufacturer.
LORD EMMOTT: If the goods are foreign made the buyer from abroad worries away until he knows where they are made, and he goes there to buy them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That point is not relevant to the Bill. These goods are only marked when they are to be brought into this country for sale in this country. When they are for re-export they need not be marked, and therefore the point made by the noble Lord is not relevant.
LORD EMMOTT: The noble Viscount has not got the elements of the case in his mind. These goods are brought into this country, and the importer does not know whether he is going to sell them to an Englishman or whether he is going to sell them to a foreigner who comes to this market. But, if they have to be marked under this subsection before they are exposed for sale, then, when the buyer from abroad comes in, he knows that they are foreign made. The noble Viscount's argument does not meet that point at all.
LORD ARNOLD: May I ask whether it is not a fact that in one clause of the Bill the Committee has, at any rate in many cases, the power to order in what way the goods shall be marked? May the Committee not order that they shall, in some cases at any rate, be marked with the name of the foreign manufacturer? If that is so, how can the noble Viscount say that the Bill contains nothing of the sort?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Because the noble Lord again is quite wrong about the Bill. If he would look at the other section he would see that the goods have to be marked "Foreign," or, alternatively, with the name of the foreign country. The clause that he quoted just now only refers to the method in which the marking is to be done, and not to whether it has to be marked "Foreign origin."
LORD FORBES: I think there is a little lack of understanding on this point. Surely it is clear that you can advertise where the goods come from by putting on the goods or the cases the country of origin. I would give the House an example of what might happen. It is true it is an exceptional case, and happened during the War, still it might happen again. There was a scarcity of macaroni. A certain firm discovered that macaroni was made in Chile by an Italian factory there, Chilean wheat being very suitable for the article, having a high content of gluten. This macaroni was brought to Europe and sold from London all over Europe, and the buyers did not for a time know where this macaroni came from. The consequence was that the merchants had a considerable pull. If those cases had been marked "Imported from Chile" those buyers would have gone direct to Chile, and the London merchants would have lost their trade. My objection to this clause is an objection which refers to a large part of the Bill: it is based on the fact that by this proceeding of marking goods you are only putting impediments in the way of trade. It is a complete mistake to think you will accomplish what you intend by marking these foreign goods; you will do injury to a considerable amount of trade and make trade more costly to conduct. It is very clear to those who, like myself,

1441
have considerable experience as merchants, that you are going to put a hindrance on trade. That is my objection.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very glad to have the advice of the noble Lord. I profited by his advice on the Electricity (Supply) Bill, and the noble Lord has experience as an importer. But I should like to say that we have great support from the merchant interests. I should not like the noble Lord to think that he represented the merchant interest in this matter. On the contrary, the Associated Chambers of Commerce support the Bill, and therefore, though the experience of the noble Lord is very valuable, it has to be set against the united experience of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. With regard to his Chile macaroni, that is exactly the sort of point that would be brought before the Committee, and probably if any intelligent man was sitting on that Committee he would give great weight to that. The probability is that, even if there was some pressure to have these goods marked, they would not be

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore)

Argyll, D.

Falkland, V.

Ernle, L.

Sutherland, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hampton, L.

Bath, M.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Novar, V.

Kylsant, L.

Airlie, E.

Peel, V.

Latymer, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Lawrence, L.

Caithness, E.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Clarendon, E.

Atkinson, L.

Merrivale, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Biddulph, L.

Newton, L.

Lovelace, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Minto, E.

Saltoun, L.

Morton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E.

Darling, L.

Teynham, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Desborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lincolnshire, M.(L. Great Chamberlain.)

Askwith, L.

Islington, L.

Avebury, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [

Bethell, L.

Olivier, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Carson, L.

Parmoor, L.

Buxton, E.

Cawley, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Clwyd, L.

Shandon, L.

Russell, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Southwark, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. Sheffield.)

Allendale, V. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Gladstone, V.

Farrer, L.

Strachie, L.

Leverhulme, V.

Forres, L.

Swaythling, L.

Gorell, L.

Sydenham of Combe

Arnold, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomson, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Illingworth, L.

Treowen, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

marked if the noble Lord had come before the Committee and made out a good case for not marking them, or suggested that the entrepot trade would be interfered with. What some noble Lords seem to assume is that all these things are going to be marked. That is not the idea at all, and I think, as a matter of fact, that, although the entrepot trade is very well protected, a very small percentage of goods with which the entrepot trade is concerned is in any circumstances likely to be marked.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord talks about the Committee considering this. That would mean, I take it, a delay of three or six months before the trade began, or else it would mean that meanwhile these goods had come in, marked with their country of origin.
On Question, Whether the first line of subsection (5) shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47: Not-Contents, 36.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved, in subsection (5), after "goods," where that word firstly occurs, to insert "being foodstuffs." The noble Lord said: It was hardly to be expected that the last Amendment, which was in the nature of a wrecking Amendment, would be accepted. It was voted for by many of us in the desire that the Bill should be wrecked. But the Amendment I am now moving is in a very different category. It is intended to remove what many people think is a grave defect in the Bill—that it will interfere with the entrepot trade of this country. The noble Viscount has told us that there are adequate safeguards and that the entrepot trade is entirely protected. Against his ipse dixit, however, one must put the somewhat weighty opinion of those who are directly concerned in the business.
As the noble Viscount knows, the matter has been before the London Chamber of Commerce from the time the Bill was introduced and has continued to be before it. When the Bill was first introduced the London Chamber remained neutral. They neither blessed nor cursed it but left the matter in the air—for one reason only: because the Bill as introduced contained two words which, in the opinion of the Chamber, were vital and which they considered adequately safeguarded the entrepot trade. Those two words—"being foodstuffs"—were in this subsection and my Amendment proposes to put them back again.
In Committee in another place those two words were cut out. I will not discuss why that was done but almost immediately, the day after, I think, the Council of the London Chamber of Commerce met and discussed the situation. I will not weary your Lordships with long extracts from the speeches delivered on that occasion. I do not know whether it would be out of order for me to do so, though hardly anything is out of order in your Lordships House; but it would certainly be an imposition upon the patience of your Lordships. I will, however, make one or two short quotations to show the feeling of the Chamber as the result of the acceptance of that Amendment by the Government.
1444
In moving a Resolution Mr. E. B. Tredwen said:—
"The Government had accepted certain Amendments to meet the entrepot trade objections but the concession was totally inadequate. … The importer frequently did not know who his eventual customers would be or what part of the goods (if any) would in fact be re-exported. Still less did he know who his customers' customers would be. If, as an importer, he sold the goods to a wholesale warehouse in this country he would probably have to mark them. In any case he could not be answerable for their subsequent destination. Nor did the warehouseman know what portion of the goods might be required to meet home trade orders and what portion would be either directly shipped or sold to shipping houses. Moreover, an immense quantity of imported goods was sold to British manufacturers as raw or semi-raw material. The ultimate destination of these goods could not possibly be defined on importation."
The end of it was that the Council carried a very strong resolution as a matter of urgency.
The resolution was in these terms:—
"That the Council of the London Chamber of Commerce is of opinion that the country cannot afford, at the present time, voluntarily and by its own act, to destroy any portion of its existing trade. It therefore views with alarm the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment to the Merchandise Marks Bill enabling an Order to be made for the marking of manufactured goods before importation, and it is especially disturbed that the Government should have accepted this Amendment on the ground that such marking would only be ordered where 'the re-export trade is relatively small,' and the marking before importation can be done 'without substantial injury' to the re-export trade.
"This Council, conscious of the fact that the re-export trade, representing some £165,000,000 per annum, is made up of a multiplicity of commodities, see in this the possibility of the re-export trade being destroyed piecemeal. Moreover, it is opposed, on principle, to such comprehensive power for harm being entrusted to any appointed Committee or Minister of the Crown."
Your Lordships have already debated the last point and I do not propose to re-discuss it.
After all most of us are not experts in the matter of the mechanism of trade and we have to decide as best we can, on the information of those who are daily engaged in commerce, what is best for commerce. Surely it is our obligation to give great weight and serious consideration to the points which are made by those who represent the traders of

1445
the City of London. They may be wrong, but at least their view is entitled to the most careful consideration. They declare with unanimity, as a matter of urgency, that there is grave danger to the entrepot trade and to the importation and re-export trade. This Amendment has been moved on my own responsibility, of course, as every Amendment must be moved by a member of either House of Parliament, but it is being moved at the request of an important body, the London Chamber of Commerce, and I do ask your Lordships to give weight not to opinions which you may say are founded on a small amount of knowledge—for obviously every one of us must be deplorably lacking in a great deal of information on a great many subjects—but to opinions founded on the united information and the united views of those who are engaged in all the various trades and all the various transactions which make up the business of the City of London.
I have very little doubt that at least the Government will give benevolent attention to this Amendment, inasmuch as it was in their own Bill in the original draft. Whether they will say they have learned better, whether in the course of debate the arguments against their Bill, as introduced were so potent as to convert them from their original opinion, I know not, but if they do say that I would ask them not to be afraid of changing their minds once again. It is a sign of obstinacy rather than firmness to refuse to change your mind when facts are, put before you. The Government have good reason for believing that this clause as drafted is looked on with anxiety by those who are engaged in trade and if it is the desire of the Government, as I am certain it is, to meet reasonable objections to their Bill, I trust they will look upon this as a not unreasonable objection and that they will find themselves able to accept the Amendment. In view of the great ramifications of trade, tampering with the delicate machinery of commerce may do harm in many directions. The consequences of touching our industry and commerce are far-reaching and you cannot tell where the end of the injury will be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, after ("goods") insert ("being foodstuffs").—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord will perhaps allow me to answer briefly, because I think we are travelling very much over the ground that we discussed on the last Amendment. I note with great interest that he does not object to foodstuffs being marked on importation, which shows that his mind has travelled some way to meet that of the Government. May I say, as regards this criticism of the marking on importation, that I can claim one recruit among the serried ranks that face me opposite—the serried ranks of the Front Bench, because the ranks behind seem to be rather less than they were a few days ago.
LORD PARMOOR: Is that worth while?
LORD ARNOLD: Is that argument?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, because I am going to claim a supporter among them, the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, who introduced into this House in 1922 a Bill which did contain this very power to mark goods on importation. Therefore, if we have a Division on this subject, I trust he will abide by the opinion he then expressed and not depart from it merely because he has crossed from one place to another in your Lordships' House and from one Party to another. I hope he still remains faithful to that Bill which he pressed upon your Lordships four years ago. The whole of the noble Lord's argument was based on support from the London Chamber of Commerce. If we are going to quote authority, I have far more overwhelming authority for this than the London Chamber of Commerce. I have great respect for that body, but I have already said the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the Kingdom support this measure.
LORD EMMOTT: What date?
LORD ARNOLD: Last April.
VISCOUNT PEEL: And they support it still.
LORD ARNOLD: Have they not passed another resolution?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, they have not passed a resolution against it.
LORD EMMOTT: They only meet rarely.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the whole trade of the country is to be so upset as has been suggested, do you mean to say the Associated Chambers of Commerce would not have met since April in order to criticise the Bill? The proposition is quite incredible. I will say to the noble Lord that I doubt whether the Chamber of Commerce is fully conversant with all the safeguards that are placed in this Bill, and I believe that, if I had the opportunity of going before them and explaining to them the provisions of this Bill and the way in which this entrepot trade is protected again and again in this Bill, I could change their minds. Resolutions are very often passed without full knowledge of the subject with which they deal. But I really have stated at some length my argument on this matter and your Lordships will forgive me if I do not state again all the provisions that there are in this Bill. I think we have made up our minds on the subject and, if your Lordships wish to proceed to a Division, I think we had better do so without further discussion.
LORD GORELL: As the noble Viscount has made a personal reference to me I might perhaps be allowed to say that the Bill which I introduced in your Lordships' House in 1922 seems to me to be very widely different from the Bill which your Lordships are considering to-day. Even if it were not, 1926 is not the same as 1922. Much has happened since and even if the Government are unable to change their minds others are not.
LORD ARNOLD: Before the Division is taken I think I ought in one sentence to state my position and that of my noble friends in relation to this. Of course we are not in favour of the marking of foodstuffs.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said the noble Lord was.
LORD ARNOLD: Neither is he. The noble Viscount knows that perfectly well. It is owing to the complexities of Parliamentary procedure that we have to vote for this in order to limit the mischief. That being the case we will support this Amendment, but it is, I hope, perfectly understood—everybody who knows anything about it must know that it is so—
1448
that Labour Peers are not in favour of this Amendment literally in the sense in which it could be interpreted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say you are.
LORD ARNOLD: Well, I wish to make it quite plain myself.
LORD EMMOTT: I do not wish that your Lordships should be under a wrong impression or a misunderstanding about the Associated Chambers of Commerce and I should like to explain that they never meet more than twice a year. I think this year they only met once and they do not have meetings in regard to Bills of this kind. The Associated Chambers of Commerce at any rate do not meet especially on a matter of this kind and the argument of the noble Viscount opposite is entirely unfair on that. As to consistency, I do not see why my noble friend Lord Gorell should be more consistent than the Government has been. If it were any use I should really like on this extraordinarily serious matter to appeal to members of your Lordships' House to put this alteration in the Bill and let it go down to the other House. So far as I am concerned I would not try to alter it again if the other House sticks to the Bill as it now is and strikes out the words we put in, but I do say in a matter of this extraordinary seriousness, where a great part of the entrepot trade of the country is in jeopardy, that it is a very serious matter for us not to give the other place another chance of considering it.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I should like to explain that of course on this particular matter I vote against the subsection as it stands. To claim me as a supporter of the marking of foodstuffs is of course ridiculous, if I may say so. What I have said was that if you are going to mark some things at least mark the minimum number of things. There is a clear distinction between things which come in and are re-exported and foodstuffs which are never re-exported.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am sorry. I will not make any more jests.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 31: Not-Contents, 40.
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, after subsection (5), to insert:—
"(6) This section shall not apply to goods imported for the purpose of forming part of or for use with other manufactured goods, or for the purposes of replacement, repair, or maintenance, and which goods so imported are—

(a) of so small a size as to render marking impracticable; or

(b) of such a nature that marking would impair their efficiency; or

(c) of such a nature that it would not be practically possible to apply either at all or effectively an indication of origin."

The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment to a large extent explains itself, because it sets forth the articles to which I think this section should not apply. They are articles of a very small size and of such a nature that marking would impair their efficiency and so forth. I do not think it is necessary to make any long speech in support of the Amendment because I think if your Lordships read the exact words it is fairly clear what is designed. The noble Viscount will probably reply that subsection (6) of the clause affords protection in this regard. If your Lordships
1450
will be good enough to look at that subsection you will see that the Committee may consider this matter and where there are goods
"being goods to which the committee consider that it is practically possible to apply an indication of origin effectively and without injury to the goods,"
and so forth, in this case they will do it. Presumably the idea is that in cases different from this they will not order the marking.
I want by this Amendment to put the matter beyond any doubt, because, as I have said, I have no faith in these Committees and I think it would be better if things were put quite clearly in an Act of Parliament. It is then perfectly definite. As the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, said the other day:
"My own idea is that the clearer you make a Bill the better, and the clearer the Bill is the less chance there is of legal gentlemen having a great deal of work to do."
That is an argument which, I think, supports the view that I am taking, and there is much force in it from the point of view of avoiding confusion and difficulty afterwards. I think there is much to be said for putting these words into the Bill.
To some extent the point has been in a sense recognised already, because, although your Lordships will scarcely deem it credible, it is the case that when this Bill was first introduced there was actually some provision in regard to certain foodstuffs—I think chiefly eggs—that in order to distinguish them and on account of the difficulty of marking there should be a special colour and they should be painted black, or something like that. It is true that this has been taken out, for happily there are some limits to the follies which even this Government will commit, but this Amendment will avoid difficulties in regard to delicate and small parts and it really will not do any harm. I cannot see that a strong case can possibly be made against it.
There is a further difficulty. Your Lordships are aware that there are some composite machines which may include one or two parts made abroad. Look at the confusion which that will cause. The main machine may be of British make, but if one or two parts are of foreign make, it may give a wrong impression. Moreover, the Bill provides towards the end that all marking shall be in conspicuous form. How on earth can you mark little things such as those to which this Amendment relates in a conspicuous form? You cannot do it, and therefore the Bill is not only opposed to common sense, as I pointed out before, but some of its provisions are mutually destructive. The fact that it will cause ambiguities, discussions, confusions and complications for our merchants and manufacturers is in itself a sufficient reason why this Amendment should be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Arnold.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I recognise the desire of the noble Lord opposite to make his Amendment clear, and my only doubt is as to whether he has succeeded in his object. I will call his attention, first of all, to the first part of his Amendment, which reads—
"This section shall not apply to goods imported for the purpose of forming part of or for use with other manufactured goods, or for the purposes of replacement, repair, or maintenance. …"
1452
The noble Lord has commented upon the delays that would be caused in the Customs and the multiplication of Customs officers if parts of this Bill were carried, but it is quite clear that the delays would be terrible if this Amendment were carried. Who on earth is going to say—what Customs officer, even, is going to say—whether goods are to form part of other goods, or are for purposes of replacement, repair, or maintenance? It would really be impossible to admit a clause of this kind which would cause such difficulty of interpretation to the Customs officers, and on that ground I am sure that your Lordships will properly be opposed to this provision.
As to the descriptions in the three paragraphs of the noble Lord's Amendment, he was quite right—leaving aside paragraph (a) for the moment—in his anticipation of the objections that I should make. These points are covered by the words in the Bill. The only good part of the noble Lord's Amendment is, in fact, lifted from the Bill and I suggest that it should remain there. I refer to these words of the Bill:
" .… being goods to which the committee consider that it is practically possible to apply an indication of origin effectively and without injury to the goods."
That, in a compact sentence, really covers the whole point of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Amendment. The only other point is the question of the small size rendering marking impracticable. It is no good putting in an Act of Parliament that you are to mark something that you cannot mark, and of course it would prevent buttons or things of that kind, which are to be on frames, being marked on the frame. Therefore I do not think that there is any difficulty in that part of the Amendment. I must reject the Amendment on the ground that it would cause inextricable confusion in the Customs and would be wholly impossible to work.
LORD PARMOOR: Without going into further details, I thank the noble Viscount for pointing out the part of the Bill which appears to him in substance to cover the points which my noble friend Lord Arnold very properly brought before the Committee. I should advise my noble friend, after the noble Viscount's statement, not to press the matter further.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is covered.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My three Amendments to this clause are drafting.
LORD ARNOLD: I wish to make some observations regarding the third of the noble Lord's Amendments.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the noble Viscount would first move the first two Amendments.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out from ("recommend") to ("should") in line 28, and insert ("what should be the form of the indication of origin and in what manner it")
Page 4, line 40, after the first ("date") insert ("on which the Order is to come into force").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move, in subsection (8) (b), to leave out "on which the Order is to come into force."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("on which the Order is to come into force")—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD ARNOLD: Will your Lordships turn to paragraph (b) of subsection (8)? I may say that throughout this Bill I extend to the Government draftsman my respectful sympathy and, indeed, the President of the Board of Trade has suggested that this is his due. Here is the paragraph in question:
"(b) the date (not being a date earlier than three months from the date of the making of the Order, except in the case of an Order revoking a previous Order either entirely or as respects some of the goods to which that Order relates, or an Order made for amending a previous Order in consequence of a direction having been given with respect to that Order under the provisions of this Act relating to provisional exemptions) on which the Order is to come into force."
The noble Viscount proposes, as I understand him, to lift the words "on which the Order is to come into force" from the end of the paragraph to the beginning. Does that really make it clear? I take it that this is the last occasion on which such a point can be discussed in your Lordships' House, and we should
1454
try to remove all possible ambiguities. Is this really clear? It may be so, but I raise the point.
I understand the real point to be in regard to the date of an Order in Council and to be that when that date is given—and a date has to be given—it shall not be a date earlier than three months from the date of the making of the Order except in the case of an Order revoking a previous Order. But I do not think it is made quite clear that the cases which are excepted must have a date at all. Is the contention of the noble Viscount that these brackets which will follow after the Amendment and go right to the end of the paragraph cover everything? Would it not be better to make it perfectly clear that in the case of these Orders there is to be a date. The only good thing in the Bill in my opinion is that the Board has power to revoke. Ought we not to make it clear that the revoking Order must have a date. I submit that there is ambiguity in the words as they now stand and that it should be made clear.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): I think if the noble Lord will look a little more carefully he will see that it is quite clear. The clause says that an Order in Council under this section shall specify in every case the date on which the Order is to come into force. That is absolute in every case, but it goes on to say that the date, except in certain cases, shall be not less than three months after the date on which the Order is made. I think it is quite clear.
LORD ARNOLD: I hope it is now that the statement has been made but otherwise I think there was a certain amount of ambiguity.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will look further into it before the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved to add to the clause: "This section shall not apply to raw fruit or raw vegetables." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment. It is a straightforward, comprehensible Amendment. There is no difficulty attaching to it such as we have been discussing but it may

1455
be that he will consider that it will wreck the Bill. I hardly think it will. This Amendment provides that there should not be compulsory stamping of individual potatoes, or if apples are brought here in barrels they are not each of them to be marked. I trust I shall persuade the Government to do this side of the House the kindness of accepting something. I remember on the last days of the Electricity Bill the noble Viscount took some credit to himself that he was occasionally able to accept an Amendment, even, I think, from the Opposition Front Bench. This Amendment is supported by the Front Opposition Bench and it is also supported on this side and I trust the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, at end insert ("This section shall not apply to raw fruit or raw vegetables").—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have been asked to reply on this Amendment. I want quite frankly to say that a good deal of agricultural produce may be difficult to mark. There is no doubt about that and it has occasioned already considerable discussion in the Department I serve as to what agricultural produce is susceptible of effective marking and what is not. No doubt your Lordships will remember the Bill of 1923, which sought specifically to provide for certain imported goods, including fish and vegetables, to which the noble Lord has referred. All that this Bill says if you study subsection (6) of Clause 2, is that these goods like others shall be liable to investigation by a Committee as to whether they shall be marked or not, and the subsection particularly provides for consideration as to the practicability of marking them. Quite obviously, if it is not easy or possible effectively to mark such commodities as potatoes or apples, the decision of the Committee would be to that effect. We feel that there is no justification for omitting any particular commodity now, but that as a matter of equity all should be put on the same datum level. Once commodities are omitted the whole machinery of the Bill breaks down.
I want to say, however, that this is a matter upon which, especially in regard to apples, our oversea Dominions feel somewhat strongly. As your Lordships may be aware I am the English repre-
1456
sentative upon the Empire Marketing Board. The Imperial Economic Committee have reported very strongly in their third Report relating to fruit as regards both apples and oranges. I will not trouble to read to the House what they say, but paragraph 85, page 108, of this Report refers to apples and paragraph 78, page 132, refers to oranges. The conclusion in each case, substituting oranges for apples in the latter paragraph, is this:—
"We recommend therefore in the case of apples [or oranges] that the retailer shall be required to distinguish between 'Empire' and 'Foreign' apples exposed for sale by attaching to the heaps of apples tickets indicating whether they are of 'Empire' or 'Foreign' origin."
I think myself that the difficulty which would arise in this connection is not so much between English and foreign produce as between Empire and foreign produce, particularly with regard to fruit.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Will the noble Lord say whether under this Bill you can mark separately a heap of apples which you are going to sell to a consumer?
LORD BLEDISLOE: It is not for the Imperial Economic Committee or anyone else to decide what is practicable. The Bill makes provision for that, and I have no doubt that in the case of a good many commodities a Committee under the Bill will find it wholly impracticable to mark them effectively. But that is a point which the Committee is authorised to consider.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Can a Committee, under this Bill, order the marking of a heap of apples? My impression is that they can only order the marking of each apple, and therefore your Bill does not give effect to the desire of the Imperial Economic Committee, that the heap should be marked.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am sure the noble Lord does not want to pursue this discussion unduly—but that is, of course, the suggestion of the Imperial Economic Committee. There is a long paragraph in the Report as to the alternative methods of marking, and that is the particular method of marking which they suggest. The main issue as regards

1457
this particular Bill is as to whether it is practicable in the view of the Committee to whom the matter is referred, and, if so, it is for them to consider the best means of marking. As I have said before, even at the Ministry of Agriculture, where we have very distinct views as to the desirability of marking certain agricultural produce, so that the English consumer can realise what he is eating, we feel strongly that, certain produce is unmarkable.
LORD THOMSON: Is it not a fact that Empire apples and oranges come here with paper round them, marked with their place of origin? It is perfectly possible, therefore, to mark certain fruit that comes from the Empire, in order to show its origin and prevent the consumer being deceived. That rather disposes of the last answer of the noble Lord.
LORD ARNOID: Can the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, say why it is necessary to have legislation, seeing it can be done, and is done now, without legislation?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Offences.
5.—(1) If any person—

(a) sells, exposes for sale, or distributes by way of advertisement, any goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act; or

(b) acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any Order in Council made under this Act;

he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guilty of an offence against the principal Act:
Provided that—
(i) in the case of a person who is guilty of an offence against the principal Act by virtue of this section the principal Act shall have effect as if the following were substituted for subsection (3) of section two of that Act:—
"(3) Every person guilty of an offence against this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and the court may in the case of a second or subsequent offence order the goods
1458
in relation to which the offence has been committed to be forfeited';
and
(ii) in the case of the sale wholesale of any goods, other than goods which by virtue of an Order in Council made under this Act are required to bear an indication of origin at the time of importation or of exposure for sale wholesale, it shall be a good defence to proceedings under this subsection if that poison satisfies the court that the goods were sold to the purchaser on an undertaking in writing that they would be exported or sold for exportation to a place outside the United Kingdom, and any such undertaking in writing if it purports to be signed by the purchaser and specifies the usual business address of the purchaser shall be admissible as evidence of the facts appearing therein.
(2) If any person advertises or offers for sale as being goods of a particular brand or make or other wise under a specific designation, whether by means of an illustration or by means of any written matter, any imported goods of a class or description to which an Order in Council under this Act applies, he shall, if he does not include in the advertisement or offer an indication of the origin of the goods, and subject to the provisions of this section, be deemed to have acted in contravention of an Order in Council made under this Act.
This subsection shall not apply in the case of any advertisement made, issued, or published before the date on which the draft of the Order is laid before Parliament.
(5) A person shall not be treated as being guilty by virtue of this section of an offence against the principal Act if he proves—
(a) that having taken all reasonable precautions against committing such an offence he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to suspect that the goods were goods to which this Act or an Order in Council made thereunder applied, and that on a demand made by or on behalf of the prosecutor he gave all the information in his power with respect to the persons from whom he obtained the goods; or
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the substituted subsection (3) in proviso (i) in subsection (1), to leave out the first "pounds" and insert "per centum on the value of the goods." The noble Viscount said: I submit that the person who deliberately sets out to

1459
defraud not only his competitors but the public in general, will not be deterred by a paltry fine of £5. I do not think, therefore, that it is asking too much to propose that he should pay a fine not exceeding five per cent. on the value of the goods. I must remind your Lordships that we have a very lenient magistracy and in a technical case they are inclined to be very lenient indeed. Indeed, even in a bad case they may not fine the offender.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("pounds") and insert ("per centum on the value of the goods").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the noble Viscount will not accept this Amendment. It is true that the magistrates have very different ideas as to the penalties they should impose, but under this Amendment the penalty might be enormous.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was going to object to the Amendment, but to some extent on grounds exactly opposite to those of the noble and learned Lord. I was going to say that in some cases it would be too small and that the £5 penalty should be left in as really heavier. In some cases it would be only on the goods exposed for sale, a tin of salmon or something like that, and the fine might work out at a penny or a half-penny. I do not like the scale which the noble Viscount proposes by his Amendments because, according to that, on the third offence the Court is bound to order the forfeiture of the goods. That might be a very severe penalty, because the offence might be a very small one. He speaks as if they are all frauds, but sometimes they are only mistakes, and his ascending series of penalties might work out very severely. Again, if you are going to make it a percentage on the unmarked goods which are in warehouses and elsewhere, you would have to get orders for search and things of that kind, and here again the penalties would be extremely heavy. I think the penalties might be left as they are, for I do not think the noble Viscount's carefully-constructed and ingenious system of penalties would be very effective.
VISCOUNT RERTIE OF THAME: It is perfectly true that the fine might be very
1460
small, but, supposing the goods were worth some thousands of pounds, then a fine of £5 would be smaller still.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is quite true, but we do not want to be vindictive in the matter.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Do all the noble Lord's Amendments hang together?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Yes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, leave out ("hat person" and insert ("he person charged with the offence").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the omission of the last eight words in subsection (2):"draft of the Order is laid before Parliament" and the insertion of "Order was made." The noble Viscount said: The words with this Amendment would then read:—
"This subsection shall not apply in the case of any advertisement made, issued, or published before the date on which the Order was made"
I do not think I need say much about this, because it is an Amendment in the direction in which some noble Lords opposite would argue. That is to say, it gives a little more liberty about the use of an advertisement before an Order is made for marking the goods. I shall not say anything more about it if the noble Lords opposite are disposed to agree.
Amendment moved—
"Page 8, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("draft of the Order is laid before Parliament") and insert ("Order was made").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD ARNOLD: Of course we accept it so far as it goes, because it is in the direction we think right, but it does not go far enough. There are cases which it will not meet, and I am sorry the noble Viscount has not gone further because then he would have saved people who otherwise would be committing an offence through no fault of their own.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to add to subsection (2) "and shall not apply to the distribution of general trade catalogues or price lists "The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a point of considerable substance. It has to do with the question of advertisements in trade catalogues. When the Bill was introduced, it was not to apply to trade catalogues. In the course of the Committee stage an Amendment was accepted making it apply to trade catalogues. I explained upon the Second Reading that these trade catalogues are very expensive productions in certain cases and that sometimes it takes a very long time to compile them. Some of them are quite as big as books, and it does seem to me a very unfortunate thing that such an Amendment should have been accepted, because it is going to lead to all sorts of confusion and complication.
Let me take one quite real point. Suppose a British trader sends one of his trade catalogues to France describing certain articles and that that trade catalogue contains some articles of a specific brand, with regard to which in future a statement must be made that they are of foreign origin. So far as the catalogues of that trader circulated in this country are concerned, it is clear that, if an Order is made covering such articles, the catalogue must indicate that those articles are of foreign origin. I presume, however, it will not be necessary, if a trader sends one of these catalogues abroad, for that catalogue to be precisely identical with the one circulated in this country. Surely it is not suggested that a trader, who sends a catalogue like that to France, should have to say that a good many of the articles in it are of foreign origin, because that is a direct invitation to French business people to do the business direct. There are many articles which we import from Belgium in that way and we do not want the French to go to Belgium direct. If I am correct in my assumption that in such a case it is not legally necessary for the British trader to circulate abroad a catalogue with these indications of foreign origin in it, it necessarily follows that in future such a trader will have to have two sets of catalogues printed, one for circulation here and one for circulation abroad. If that be so it is really putting
1462
upon our traders here an enormous amount of work and trouble which they ought not to have imposed upon them.
Again, take the case of an illustration of a dressing case in one of those catalogues, a dressing case with all kinds of fittings. The case may be British, though the leather may come from abroad, but it is highly probable that some of the fittings or parts of the fittings will have come from abroad. What is going to happen in a case like this? Is this catalogue to have a list of the various fittings that come from abroad or will it be sufficient if the trader describes it as partly British and partly foreign? If so, is that a wise thing to compel a trader to do? The wording of subsection (2) is extraordinary:—
"If any person advertises or offers for sale as being goods of a particular brand or make or otherwise under a specific designation, whether by means of an illustration or by means of any written matter, any imported goods of a class or description to which an Order in Council under this Act applies …."
The difficulty which arises out of those words is this: What is a "specific designation, whether by means of an illustration" or otherwise? What does that mean? I wish the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, were here, because I cannot help thinking he would support me in this. He said our Acts of Parliament ought to be clear and not Acts that made work for lawyers.
This point has been raised in another place, and the President of the Board of Trade explained that if the illustration were a good one, so that you could clearly see what it meant, then you would be guilty of an offence if you did not mark it as being of foreign origin. If, on the other hand, it was not a good picture, that is, not easily identifiable with that particular article, you were not guilty of an offence. Really, this is not a parlour game or a picture puzzle. We are making an Act of Parliament, compiling offences, and I do say this provision is an extraordinary one. It is not right to impose these difficulties upon traders. They have quite enough to contend with at the present time without being worried out of their lives with silly provisions like these. I really doubt whether such rubbish has ever been suggested before for an Act of Parliament

1463
in your Lordships' House. I hope we shall get some satisfaction from the noble Viscount from this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 6, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Arnold.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think, as the noble Lord stated, these words were in the original Bill.
LORD ARNOLD: And were taken out afterwards, and I want to put them in again.
VISCOUNT PEEL: As a matter of fact, an objection was raised in another place by the late President of the Board of Trade in the noble Lord's Government, Mr. Sidney Webb, who said: "What a monstrous thing it is to give this special exemption" Really, the Government were only following out what they thought was the wise advice of Mr. Webb. Apparently the noble Lord opposite differs from him. But I think the position is a very simple one. If you allow the bigger people to send out their trade catalogues as they like you will hurt the smaller people, and the National Federation of Fruiterers and Fishmongers wanted to be on the same basis as the bigger people. I appeal to noble Lords not to give a preference to those who can afford to publish general trade catalogues, but to allow everybody to be equal.
LORD ARNOLD: With regard to what Mr. Webb said, the reply is this. He was pointing out what an extraordinary Bill this is, and he said, in effect: "If you are going to do this, and cause all this confusion, there is something to be said logically for following it through," because he was against the whole thing. So it is not correct to cite him as supporting, the view which the Government take. But will the noble Viscount reply to the question I asked? In the case of a catalogue circulated abroad, and not in this country at all, is it necessary to indicate that certain things are of foreign origin?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the noble Lord knows the answer. Obviously abroad you would not be required to do so.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved in subsection (5) (a), to leave out "all" before "reasonable precautions" The noble Lord said: If this Amendment is considered a niggling sort of thing, that is to say, if it is only regarded as a matter of customary phraseology to put "all" in that juxtaposition I feel sure the noble Viscount will accept my Amendment, and leave the word out as redundant; if, on the other hand, "all" is put there on purpose then I think it does lay this Act open to abuse. I do not think it can be denied that, however beneficial the Act may be, when passed, for poultry farmers and market gardeners and a certain very limited number of manufacturers, it undoubtedly does spread innumerable pitfalls for the honest but unwary trader. I think that all the documents that most of us have received from various merchants in the country prove that.
There are innumerable pitfalls for a perfectly honest man who is trying to obey the law, but, owing to its immense complications, finds himself unable to do so. In other words, he is forced to err in innocence. It was only this morning that I was in a shop of mixed goods, where they sell the sort of thing one buys for Christmas presents, and the number of things of foreign origin was amazing—things which it would be perfectly legal to sell this Christmas, but which, if they were not sold this year, would be a dead loss next Christmas.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Why?
LORD THOMSON: Because the Bill would have cane into force.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But they have not been stopped.
LORD THOMSON: But they easily might be by one of these Committees appointed by the appropriate Department. It seems a little hard that a trader so placed should have to prove that he has not omitted any reasonable precaution—because that is what this wording amounts to. He may be prosecuted—and the number of prosecutions will certainly increase—by people who are anxious to prove that he is doing something hurtful to themselves, and he will be put in a very difficult position. I do not see that my Amendment affects the principle of the Bill in the least, and I

1465
think the noble Viscount might accept it, because it will temper the wind to a lamb which, whatever one's views about this Act may be, is decidedly closely shorn—I mean the trader.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("all").—(Lord Thomson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I certainly should not apply to any Amendment of the noble Lord's the opprobrious epithet that he suggested that I might, but I really would ask him not to press this Amendment. It is a very old friend. It is the old phrase of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, so it has been in life a considerable time. It is a very respectable old phrase, not newly invented for the purpose of this Bill. Then, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means. Does he mean that when there are reasonable, precautions to be taken we should only take some reasonable precaution, and omit others?
LORD THOMSON: No, what I mean is that a man may take reasonable precautions; but under this wording he must, to prove his innocence, prove that he has not omitted any reasonable precaution. You get rather into the realm of theory, because there are all sorts of ideas as to what are reasonable precautions. As I say, to prove his innocence he must prove that he has not emitted any reasonable precaution, because that is the meaning of "all."
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that the noble Lord has really argued as if the word was "precautions." The man has not got to observe all precautions; that would, indeed, be a rather theoretical and general obligation which no one would wish to have imposed upon him. But he certainly has to take all those reasonable precautions which the ordinary reasonable man would take in the circumstances of the case. If you omitted certain reasonable precautions from your list you would get into some difficulty.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Interpretation.
10.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the
1466
following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:—
"His Majesty's Dominions" includes territories under His Majesty's protection and such, if any, of the territories in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by His Majesty as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct to be included in His Majesty's Dominions for the purposes of this Act:
"Imported goods" does not include—

(a) goods which since the date of their importation have undergone in the United Kingdom any treatment or process resulting in a substantial change in the goods; or

(b) goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom which after exportation are brought back into the United Kingdom, including any such goods which have undergone abroad any treatment or process not resulting in substantial change in the goods.

"Indication of origin" means, at the option of the person applying the indication, either—

(a) in the case of goods manufactured or produced in any foreign country, the word "foreign" and in the case of goods manufactured or produced in a part of His Majesty's Dominions outside the United Kingdom the word "Empire"; or

(b) a definite indication of the country in which the goods were manufactured or produced;

the indication being given, in either case, in a conspicuous form:
"Principal Act" means the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887:
(3) For the purposes of this Act, imported goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured in the country in which they last underwent before importation a substantial change by reason of any treatment or process.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved to omit the paragraph beginning "His Majesty's Dominions." The noble Lord said: This paragraph introduces a new and rather startling definition of His Majesty's Dominions and I really wonder why it is necessary to define His Majesty's Dominions in the Bill. I have carefully searched the Bill and I can only find two mentions elsewhere of His Majesty's. Dominions, one in subsection (1) of Clause 2 and the other in subsection (1)

1467
of Clause 10. If this is meant to confer on the coolies of Zanzibar and the Bedouins of Iraq and the many races which inhabit Palestine the benefits of the Act I really do not see where those benefits come in. Those people are producers to a certain extent, but whether it would do any good to their produce if it were marked "Empire" I do not know. It seems to me to be a definition of His Majesty's Dominions which requires a little more explanation than we have had up to date. I can imagine instructions being given to consuls and various representatives of His Majesty in different parts of the world and this particular phrase striking a great many, especially at Geneva, as something rather extraordinary when you apply the term "His Majesty's Dominions" to a mandated territory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, leave out lines 29 to 36.—(Lord Thomson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: First of all, of course, with regard to what the noble Lord has said, the provision is that "His Majesty may by Order in Council direct to be included" that is to say, if it was advisable to do so. The noble Lord said, I think, that it would be wrong or unwise to give so wide a power to extend, as it were, His Majesty's Dominions. But there is a very recent precedent on the subject in the Finance Act, where power was taken to extend the Preference—that dealt, of course, with the question of Preference—in the same way, and there has been no criticism from His Majesty's Dominions or any other quarter. I am told also that no question was raised with respect either to the Treaty of Versailles or the Covenant of the League of Nations. If this advantage were extended and for the purposes of this Act and only for the purposes of this Act the definition were to be extended, I do not think any difficulty would arise.
LORD THOMSON: Am I to understand from the noble Viscount that the Finance Act defined a mandated territory like Iraq as part of his Majesty's Dominions?
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend must not misunderstand me. I say that no Order of that kind would be made but on consultation with the Foreign
1468
Office and Colonial Office as to what was and what was not a mandated territory. As a matter of fact technically for certain purposes I am not sure whether Iraq is not an independent State
LORD PARMOOR: Technically, as the noble Viscount knows, there is a distinction between the Dominions and what are called Protectorates, which are dealt with in different Acts of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Certainly.
LORD PARMOOR: Also in regard to territories known as mandated territories I understand him to say that this is a definition—it would be a matter of drafting, I suppose—as regards this particular point and not more than this point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is right.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it is extremely important that that should be made quite clear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If it is not made quite clear I will have it made so; but I think it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is purely drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 3, after the first ("in") insert ("a").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("in a conspicuous form") and insert ("conspicuously").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to insert the following proviso in subsection (1) before "Principal Act' means the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887":
"Provided that, in the case of goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom which have undergone in any particular country abroad any treatment or process resulting in a substantial change in the goods, the indication of origin may at the option of the person applying it be given either by using in conjunction with

1469
the word 'foreign' or the word 'Empire,' as the case requires, words descriptive of that treatment or process or by a definite indication that the treatment or process was undergone in that particular country."
The noble Viscount said: This is a more important Amendment and I should like to read it to your Lordships:
"Provided that, in the case of goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom which have undergone in any particular country abroad any treatment or process resulting in a substantial change in the goods"—
that is to say, following the definition in the Bill, that the goods would be treated then as foreign goods if they were brought back to this country—
"the indication of origin may at the option of the person applying it be given either by using in conjunction with the word 'foreign' or the word 'Empire,' as the case requires, words descriptive of that treatment or process or by a definite indication that the treatment or process was undergone in that particular country."
That, I think, was to meet the case of those who said that it might be rather damaging to this country if the goods were sent out and underwent a process in the foreign country and should then be treated as foreign, though they were really British woven cloth, let us say. This was a concession to meet the requirements of those who might wish to say that these goods are foreign dyed and so on. But these phrases would only be used if the dyers or those connected with the trade wished they should be used. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16 at end insert the said new proviso.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD ARNOLD: I shall have an opportunity of saying something in this connection upon my next Amendment, and, therefore, I do not propose to speak now. But it should not be assumed if we say nothing that there is not a great deal to be said against this
VISCOUNT PEEL: Quite.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "but nothing in this subsection shall apply to any textile goods which have been sent abroad for the purpose of being bleached, dyed, printed, finished, embroidered or decorated, and which are
1470
returned to this country to be made up for sale or re-export" The noble Lord said: My Amendment rather extends the concession, if it be a concession, that the noble Viscount has made to those who export articles in a semi-finished condition with a view to their having some further process carried out upon them. It is, perhaps, a little wider than the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, who, I think, is more modest in this matter than I am. But I would put it to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that this is almost the most modest Amendment on the Paper. We are getting very near the end of the Bill and perhaps he might see his way to surrender a little of the adamantine attitude with which he has received Amendments from this side and accept, if not the Amendment which I move, at any rate that which will be moved by my noble friend Lord Arnold. There is something to be said for not branding an article as an article of foreign manufacture when it is really an article that is primarily British. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
LORD ARNOLD: Perhaps it might save time if I spoke now. If the noble Viscount is disposed to accept my Amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has remarked is more modest than his, perhaps he would indicate it in the course of his reply. If my Amendment is more modest than that of the noble Lord, it is not because I think it goes nearly far enough. It was put down in that form in the hope that possibly something might be extracted from this Government. We have tried very hard, but we have got nothing so far from the Government. I would like to put this point to your Lordships. What demand has there been for this kind of legislation from Lancashire and Yorkshire, which are the Counties affected by it? I say deliberately, speaking with some knowledge at any rate of one of those Counties, that it almost makes me despair that the Government should have come along with legislation like this, which may cause endless trouble and do tremendous mischief, mainly because we have a Protectionist President of the Board of Trade who has had very little real knowledge

1471
of trade and has not been able to reply to the arguments that have been advanced. I do not think the position could be more unsatisfactory.
This is opposed by very large sections of important people in Lancashire and Yorkshire. I do not say it is opposed by all, because in regard to this kind of legislation, which is protective in its effect, it necessarily does operate to the advantage of somebody. We do not deny that, but it will do far more harm than good on balance. It is true that the President of the Board of Trade when he was, if I may say so, cornered by these arguments in another place, replied in effect: "Well, probably nothing may happen, because after all if it is going to do a great deal of harm the Committees will see that, nothing is done." Surely that is a very extraordinary way of legislating. If three-quarters or seven-eighths of a Bill is to do harm we are assured that it will not be brought into force because of the harm that it would do. I contend that that is not the way we ought to legislate. We ought to pass measures which are demanded and put them into force and not put measures on the Statute Book that are not to be put into force. However, I do not accept those assurances. We have had too much experience in the past of those methods. This Bill will give rise to very great uncertainty and very great opposition from most important sections of the community in Lancashire and Yorkshire.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am much attracted by the idea of a modest Amendment but I find some difficulty in distinguishing between the precise degrees of modesty of the two Amendments. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to deal with the specific Amendment. He brought general charges against the Government which he will pardon me for saying he has brought several times during this debate.
LORD ARNOLD: I will bring them again.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have replied to them and though no doubt the House would like to hear the attacks of the noble Lord they would not be likely to pardon me if I were to repeat the defence which I have already put forward to these attacks. I have some objection to
1472
both Amendments on this ground—and it is a very usual objection on the part of those who are defending Bills: if you refer specifically to any particular processes in a Bill of this kind you may do some damage, and I think there are only two courses you can adopt. You must either make it general or you must put in a list of all the goods which are to be dealt with either by the process of exclusion or inclusion. If you make a few exclusions you create difficulties. I think you have to take your choice one way or the other and the Government have taken the choice of leaving the matter general to be dealt with by Committees rather than by putting in the Schedule a long list of goods which either should be excluded or included. I think that must be my general defence on this point.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to add to subsection (3): "'Substantial change by reason of a manufacturing process' does not include a change effected in any textile material by way of bleaching, dyeing or finishing." The noble Lord said: I move this formally. The reply of the noble Viscount does not at all meet the points that have been made.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, at end insert ("'Substantial change by reason of a manufacturing process' does not include a change effected in any textile material by way of bleaching, dyeing or finishing").—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("four") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Short title and application]:
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 4, after ("nine") insert ("or Section 10").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes past eight o'clock and resumed at half-past nine o'clock.]

RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Owners of certain subjects in counties may be charged with occupiers' rates.
6. Without prejudice to the provisions of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Acts, 1911 and 1920, a county council or any other authority (not being the town council of a burgh) having statutory power to levy a rate may, if they think fit, levy upon the owners any occupiers' rate in respect of lands and heritages separately let for a shorter period than one year, but the county council or other authority shall allow to such owners a deduction from the occupiers' rates equal to two and one-half per centum thereof, and every such owner charged with and paying such occupiers' rates shall have relief against the occupiers of such lands and heritages for the full amount thereof without deduction corresponding to the period of occupancy and, so far as he fails to recover the amount payable by any such occupier, he shall be entitled to repayment from the county council or other authority upon lodging a claim on or before such date as may be fixed by the council or other authority, without prejudice to the light of the council or other authority to make adjustments with such owner in respect of any sum subsequently recovered by him in respect of such occupiers' rates.
THE EARL OF STAIR: On behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch I should like to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in his name to substitute "five per centum" for "two and one half per centum" I understand that the Lord Advocate in another place originally put this in and I should be very much obliged if the noble Duke in charge of the Bill could give us any reason why it was withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 36, omit ("two and one half") and insert ("five").—(The Earl of Stair.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): I should like to explain briefly this clause. The clause empowers but does not require a county council to levy occupiers' rates from owners in the case of short lets, that is, houses let for less than a year. The owner, who is allowed a discount of 2½ per cent., is given the right to recover the amount of the occupiers' rate from the occupier and if he fails to do so he is entitled to repayment from the county council. The clause reproduces in modified form a provision which was formerly the law in counties but was inadvertently repealed. Under Section 9 (6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, the county council were authorised to collect occupiers' rates from owners, not only in the case of short lets but also in the case of houses let at less than £4 annual rental. This provision was included in the Statutes repealed by the Representation of the People Act, 1918. The clause as introduced in the Commons related to both short lets and houses of under £4 rental, but by an Amendment in Committee the reference to houses of and under £4 rental was deleted.
As previously mentioned, the clause allows a discount to owners of 2½per cent. in payment of occupiers' rates and provides that the owner is entitled to repayment if he cannot recover from the occupier. On both these points the clause is more favourable to owners than was the original provision in the 1884 Act which contained no such provision. The county councils found the power useful; and even after it was repealed in 1918 one or two county councils made administrative arrangements with owners to pay occupiers' rates in the case of short lets, such as of miners' houses. In burghs, town councils have a similar power. Moreover, in cases of small houses to which the House Letting and Rating Acts, 1911 and 1920, apply (that is to say, in most burghs and in certain county water and drainage districts), the rating authority are compelled to collect occupiers' rates from owners. The clause, therefore, embodies no new principle.
This Amendment seeks to allow owners who are called on to pay occupiers' rates a discount of 5 per cent. instead of 2½ per cent. as under the Bill. The rate of

1475
commission or discount was fully discussed in Committee in another place, as your Lordships may see from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the fourth day's proceedings, and particularly the following statement of the Lord Advocate at column 106:
"There is also this very important point that undoubtedly the most expensive compounded rates to collect are those under £4. The short lets are not so expensive—indeed, one of the landowners' associations from whom we received representations requested that under £4' should be left out and went on to say: 'If you are going to leave them in 2½ per cent. commission is not enough. It ought to be 5 per cent.' In other words they took the view that the ones that really troubled them were the ones under £4."
The association referred to by the Lord Advocate was the National Federation of Property Owners and Factors of Scotland and the Property Owners and Factors' Association, Glasgow, Limited.
In one case where since 1918 there has been an administrative arrangement between the county council and owners whereby the latter pay occupiers' rates on houses under short let, the rate of discount allowed is 2½ per cent. as under the clause. The Government are against any increase of 2½ per cent. One serious objection is that it would give a higher rate of discount than that allowed under the House Letting and Rating Act, 1911; and this would be unwarrantable. Accordingly His Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: The noble Duke has, no doubt, made a very admirable statement in reply to this Amendment, but he has omitted the real question, which is whether this 2½ per cent. under the old Act is anything like sufficient under the new system which we are now, by this Bill, carrying into effect. No doubt some difficulty was felt in the House of Commons on this question. Personally I put an Amendment upon the Paper, which I do not now propose to move, in order to deal with it. It was originally intended that in this particular case no percentage ought to appear in the Bill at all, but that the various sheriffs in the different counties should have an opportunity of deciding what was and what was not a fair charge for the collection of these rates.
1476
The Amendment which dealt with this point was apparently ruled out of order by the Chairman in another place. It is difficult to understand on what principle he ruled it out of order, because the very next Amendment in the proceedings was an Amendment increasing a charge for superannuation. This was apparently dealt with and passed, while the Amendment to which I refer was ruled out on the Report stage, which appears to me, as an old House of Commons man, to have been a mistake. In other words, an Amendment which really does not affect the charge at all was refused and ruled out of order by the Chairman. It is hopeless in the circumstances to suggest that that be put right here. I do not think the Government could ask the House to waive privilege, because they accepted the ruling and the situation was accepted by them. Therefore I do not propose to move an Amendment, because I do not see why this House should put itself in the position of receiving a slap in the face, and having the Bill sent back. There it is, however, and the whole thing is in a complete muddle, and I hope and believe that if it is found that this 2½ per cent. is far too little to give, then the Government itself will in another Session put that right by a single clause.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  DEDUCTIONS FROM CROSS ANNUAL VALUE OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF LANDS AND HERITAGES FOR THE PURPOSES OF RATES.
  Class of Lands and Heritages.

  Rate of Deduction.

  THE EARL OF STAIR, on behalf of the Duke of BUCCLEITH, moved, in reference to Item 13, to omit "Twenty-five" and insert "Seventy-five." The noble Earl said:—The object of this Amendment is to place the rating relief in Scotland on

  1477
  the same footing as in England. In Scotland the rates are divided equally, or approximately equally, between the owner and the occupier, and also the relief which has been given by the various Acts. In 1896 English agriculture got the full relief. In Scotland the occupier got—I do not know the exact figure, but the equivalent of what under this Bill will be seventy-five per cent. The owner got nothing. I think it has been agreed by practically every political Party in the country that it is desirable to increase the number of occupying owners, and under the present Bill, if passed as it stands, an occupying owner will not obtain any of the relief conferred by the measure at all, or he will get twenty-five per cent.
  I think it has been the experience throughout the country of the large number of fanner tenants who have purchased their holdings, that life with the present increase of rates is practically impossible for them, and that if this Bill is passed as it stands at present it means more or less a knock-out to practically all the farmers in Scotland who have bought their holdings. I think noble Lords opposite will agree that it is desirable that this particular form of ownership should not be wiped out, and unless the Amendment which I have moved is accepted by the Government it is practically impossible for occupying owners to continue as such.
  Amendment moved—
  First Schedule, page 31, line 41, omit ("Twenty-five") and insert ("Seventy-five").—(The Earl of Stair.)
  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, this Amendment was moved in Committee of the Commons, and, by leave, withdrawn after discussion. The effect of the Amendment would be to put on houses and shops an additional amount of rates of nearly £300,000, assuming that the agricultural rates grant were continued at its present amount. As, however, the supplementary grant under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, is calculated on the basis of three-eighths of the agricultural owners' share of the assessment, the Amendment would automatically reduce the supplementary grant, and this additional loss (estimated at about £150,000) would be thrown on the whole body of ratepayers. In order to prevent this additional loss it
  1478
  would be necessary to recast the whole scheme of calculating the supplementary agricultural rates grant.
  The Amendment is doubtless designed to remove the inequality in the amount of relief given to agricultural land in Scotland and England respectively for rating purposes. This inequality is the result, of the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896 to 1923, which were passed specifically for the purposes of giving relief to agriculture. The Rating Bill, on the other hand, does not profess to give relief to any particular class of property. It deals mainly with the machinery of rating and, at the same time, endeavours to preserve as far as possible the present incidence of rates falling on the various classes of property.
  Accordingly, if farther relief is to be given to agriculture it would be more appropriately dealt with in a separate Bill—a Bill for the relief of agriculture. Any provision for an increased grant to redress the inequality above referred to would be incompetent under the Rating Bill. It may be pointed out that agricultural land in counties will gain slightly (19 s 5¾d. for each £1 of rates paid at present) owing to houses having been taken at zero. It may also be pointed out that farm houses in Scotland will get the advantage of the average deduction of 50 per cent. (owners 25 per cent., occupiers 75 per cent.). Farm houses in England get no such deduction—the 75 per cent. in England being confined to land and farm buildings other than dwelling houses. The Government therefore cannot accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved to leave out Item 13, and to insert:
  ("Agricultural lands and heritages for "the purposes of the owners' share of "rates—
  "in a burgh … Fifty per cent.
  "in a county … Twenty-five per cent.")
  The noble Lord said: We have heard the noble Duke say that this is not intended to be an Act which does more than practically regulate the present system of rating, but here it does entirely the reverse. This places on agricultural land in burghs an exceptional charge, which is not at the

  1479
  present time levied—I suppose for the sake of uniformity. We are not accustomed to uniformity in Acts of Parliament as a rule, and we are certainly not accustomed to uniformity in rating. Why on earth a Bill like this, which the Government pretend is merely a Bill to regulate the present system, should make the owner of agricultural land inside a burgh in future pay twice as much as he does to-day, I cannot understand. At the present moment he pays only on one fourth of his rental; under this particular Bill he has got to pay on one half. I should like very much to have some explanation why this special provision is proposed. Why do you except only one thing? When you are doing a thing you might do it thoroughly.
  There has always been great dissatisfaction as to the way owners of land are treated in Scotland as compared with England. In Scotland the landlord pays 86 per cent. of the rates, while the tenant only pays the balance. In England it is the other way round. The tenant pays most of the rates and the landlord the balance. The result is that in Scotland the landlord is ruined and in England the tenant. There is no reason for this matter at all. We ought to have a decent deal. I want to know, and I ask the noble Duke, why it is that in this particular instance of agricultural land inside burghs in Scotland they are doubling the charge at the present moment on the landlord and why it is that they pretend that this Bill is doing nothing more than stabilising and regulating the existing system.
  Amendment moved—
  First Schedule, page 31, line 41, leave out from ("13") to the end of the paragraph and insert:
  ("Agricultural lands and heritages for the purposes of the owners' share of rates—

  "in a burgh

  …

  Fifty per cent.

  "in a county

  …

  Twenty-five per cent.")

  —(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My noble friend Lord Younger was quite right when he asked whether uniformity was the chief reason for the Government resisting this Amendment. It is quite true it would mean giving different rates of deduction to agricultural owners in burghs and counties respectively and to that extent it would be a departure from
  1480
  the principle of uniformity in assessment which is one of the things which the Bill is designed to secure. On this point it may be observed that the Bill, as first introduced at the end of last Session, provided for the following deductions to agricultural land: In burghs, 50 per cent. to both owners and occupiers: in counties, 25 per cent. to owners and 75 per cent. to occupiers. Numerous representations were received from rating authorities and others in favour of having the same deductions in burghs as in counties and these representations have been met in the present Bill. The effect of giving a 50 per cent. deduction in burghs to owners of agricultural land would be to relieve them to the extent of about £7,800, of which about £5,900 would form an additional burden on houses and shops.
  VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: Does the noble Duke mean in rating or in amount?
  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: In amount. Another effect of such a deduction would be that it would automatically diminish to a slight extent the agricultural rates grant payable in respect of agricultural land in burghs for purposes of parish rates. The loss of grant would have to be made good by the other ratepayers. Three-fourths of the loss would fall on houses and shops. It may be pointed out that, as regards parish rates in burghs, the deductions set forth in the schedule, namely 25 per cent. to owners and 75 per cent. to occupiers, exactly reproduce the present position. The change introduced by the Bill is with respect to burgh or town council rates only. For purposes of such rates land used for agricultural purposes is at present allowed a deduction of 75 per cent. Under the Bill agricultural occupiers will continue to receive the 75 per cent. deduction, but the owners will receive a deduction of only 25 per cent. The effect will therefore be that agricultural owners will in future pay more in burgh rates than they pay at present. The increase will be rather less than three times the present rates because the 25 per cent. deduction will apply to farm buildings which at present would not appear to be entitled to any deduction for the purposes of burgh rates.

  1481
  There is one other consideration which may be mentioned to your Lordships. In some cases, the same landowner will hold land both within and without the burgh and in such cases he will get a certain measure of relief from rates levied in the county area which will be a partial offset against the additional sum which he may have to pay in respect of burgh rates. The total additional sum payable by agricultural owners in the whole of the burghs of Scotland is estimated at £8,500 only. That is not an excessive amount for the whole of the burghs of Scotland. Owners pay approximately one-third of the rates levied by town councils, the remaining two-thirds being paid by the occupiers. There may be some point of principle to which the noble Lord does not agree, but the total effect is not great and I do not think it will be dangerous or disastrous in any way from the point of view of the agricultural landlord
  VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I am very much obliged for the explanation given by the noble Duke, but it does not satisfy me a bit. I cannot see why this should be done. I have no interest in the matter personally as I have no agricultural land of any kind inside a burgh boundary, but there is near me, for example, a rather important case. Some time ago, thinking they had got rather a find, I suppose, the burgh of Dunfermline secured an Act of Parliament to acquire the whole of the land between the town and the dockyard at Rosyth, a distance of some four miles, embracing a very large part of the property of the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, within that burgh. I notice that the noble Earl is not in his place tonight. Why he should be asked to pay twice as much as he pays now in rates I cannot conceive, and I do not see why in this particular case there should have been any departure whatever from the principle of this Bill which merely carries matters on in, perhaps, a more clearly defined manner.
  The burgh rates and county rates in Scotland are two entirely different things. The burgh rates are very heavy in comparison with the county rates. The police rate is a very heavy one. In my county, I think, it is twice or three times as much in the burghs as it is outside and I cannot see why these
  1482
  people should be punished. I see no reason for it whatever except some insane desire for a uniformity which I have not seen in any other Act of Parliament.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My noble friend Lord Younger is generally so reasonable that I do not like to leave his observations wholly unanswered. I want to make this admission to him at once. This Amendment differs very greatly from the last one. That Amendment, which your Lordships did not accept, would have transferred a very heavy burden from the owners of land to the occupiers of land, a burden amounting, it was said, to hundreds of thousands of pounds. That may be right or wrong, but it is not within the purpose or scope of this Bill.
  I admit at once, as I said, that the present Amendment stands on a different footing. It is true, and I want to make the admission in a perfectly frank way to my noble friend, that the effect of the Bill as it stands is to increase, though to a very small extent as I shall show, the burden upon owners of agricultural land in the burghs. It does increase the share of rates which they pay, but, to begin with, the increase can hardly be said to be great, for in the whole of Scotland it is something under £8,000 a year—not a very big change in the incidence of rates. Secondly—I want my noble friend to take notice of this—this change does not stand by itself. It is a part of a general readjustment which, taken as a whole, will be found to be perfectly fair to the owners of agricultural land in Scotland, and, indeed, to be considerably to their advantage; for, if my noble friend will look at the White Paper which has been circulated, he will find that whereas the effect of the Bill is that the owners of agricultural land in burghs will pay £1 2s. for every £1 of rates they now pay, on the other hand the owners of agricultural land in the counties will pay something less than 19 s. 6d. for every £1 they pay now.
  If you treat agriculture as a whole and look at the effect on all agricultural land in Scotland, you will find by that Paper that the effect of the Bill is to reduce the rate on agricultural land to 19 s. 7¾d. for every £1 of rates now paid. If the noble Viscount will take the Bill as a whole he

  1483
  will find it is not an unfair Bill to the owners of land. I think those very few owners who have agricultural land in burghs and none in the counties ought to have regard to the fact that, taking the Bill as a whole, it is very fair to tie industry of agriculture in Scotland.
  I will add this. I believe that if this Amendment were carried it would reduce the grant in aid of agriculture in Scotland. I heard with some surprise on the last occasion that the agricultural grant for Scotland is less than in England. I could not understand how Scotland allowed that to be, but I have made inquiries and I have found that the cause of that is that as the owners pay half the rates in Scotland the grant was only made to the occupiers and, therefore, was less per £1 rateable than in England but I also found that Scotland took full care of itself, for, whereas they had to give up some part of the relief for agricultural land, they took the same amount in the relief of other rates and charges, so that the country as a whole lost nothing. But if this Amendment were carried you would reduce the grant to Scotland, because the grant is made, I understand, upon the amount paid in rates by the owners and, of course, if you reduce the amount paid the grant is reduced in proportion.
  VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: Is it not a fact that part of the grant is to be paid back to the tenant?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That may be. I am talking of the grant to Scotland as a whole.
  VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I was talking of the landlord.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was just putting before Scotsmen a point which I thought as Scotsmen they would appreciate. Scotland as a whole deserves some consideration and, if you carry this Amendment, you will reduce the grant to Scotland. I am sure that is one thing my noble friend would not like to do. But, after all, this is only a small matter. It only touches some £8,000 a year and if the House takes the view which I have put before it that the Bill as a whole deals quite fairly with the owner and does him no injustice it will support me when I say that we do not feel disposed to accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment, negatived.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Remaining schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NORTHERN IRELAND BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords offices.
The Committee reported inter alia:
1. RETIREMENT OF RECEIVER OF FEES AND EXAMINER OF ACTS.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that Mr. H. P. Norris, the present Receiver of Fees and Examiner of Acts, was due to retire on the 19th of December. This officer will then have completed 43 years and 10 months service in the House, and the Committee, in the special circumstances of the case, sanctioned an extension for two months of his service in order that he may be treated, for the purposes of pension, as having completed 44 years full service.
The Committee sanctioned the following payments, calculated in accordance with the Superannuation Acts, to Mr. Norris:—

(a) A pension of £300 per annum and a supplementary pension, subject to quarterly revision, calculated on the current rate of bonus. Taking the present rate of bonus this supplement amounts to £88 3s. 4d.

(b) A capital sum by way of additional allowance calculated on his present salary, together with 75 per cent. of the current bonus, amounting to £1,213 10 s. 0d.

The Committee also approved of certain re-arrangements of duties which the Clerk of the Parliaments purposed to make in consequence of the retirement of this officer, and which were explained to the Committee. As a result of these re-arrangements a new junior Clerical Assistant will be appointed as from the 1st of January, 1927, at a salary

1485
of £110 per annum rising by £7 10 s. 0d. to £250, but no separate appointment will be made to the post of the retiring officer; his duties will be performed by the existing officers.
4. ANNUAL ACCOUNT OF THE FEE FUND.
The Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords for the year ended the 31st March, 1926, was laid before the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords,
1486
I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

BARNET DISTRTCT GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.