Lords Sitting of 13 December 1926

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

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION OF REPORTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD DARLING: My Lords, may I beg the indulgence of the House in somewhat peculiar circumstances? I desire to ask the House to take the Second Reading of this Bill to-morrow. Your Lordships will recognise that it is a very important Bill, and that it is necessary that, if it can be done, it should pass through all its stages by Wednesday. Therefore, I would at the same time to-morrow ask your Lordships if you would suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX in order that the Bill may be proceeded with in all its stages and concluded to-morrow.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think something should be said from this Bench in regard to the most unusual course of procedure suggested by the noble and learned Lord, though perhaps it will be more convenient if we take the discussion to-morrow. I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships' House, but I hope, if we take it to-morrow, that we may be informed what precedent there is for a Private Member's Bill being rushed through your Lordships' House at the very fag end of the Session in this kind of way. I recognise the special nature of the case, and it is not entirely for noble Lords on this side of the House to express too strong an opinion. But it is quite clearly a matter on which we ought not to proceed without a very well thought out opinion from the Leader of the House, or the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I appeal to the noble and learned Viscount, in the absence of the Lord President of the Council. I am sure that he will see that a Private

1533
Member's Bill is in a very different category from a Government Bill, and to ask your Lordships two days before the adjournment to pass the Bill through its first stage to-day and all the remaining stages to-morrow, is a very unusual procedure, which I think ought to be received with a little caution and explained fully to your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, in the case of an unopposed Bill like this I think very much the same considerations may apply as in the case of a Government Bill, and I would like to know whether there are any other measures, Government measures for instance, for which the suspension of Standing Orders is required because it might be well to take them along with this one. Perhaps the noble Earl opposite can answer that question.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, there is one Bill, the Palestine and East Africa Loans (Guarantee) Bill, which it is hoped to pass through all its stages to-morrow. There is also the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill, which will reach Report stage to-morrow and to which it would be desirable to give a Third Reading on the same day. I think those are the only two Government measures which are affected.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Has the Loans Bill passed through all its stages in the other House?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: They hope to pass it to-night.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think that the Motion might well be taken to-morrow, as suggested, and taken with a view to making it possible to deal with those measures. It is true it is an alteration of our normal procedure, but towards the end of the Session that is not only very common but very desirable and I, for one, should be quite prepared to look sympathetically on any proposition made to-morrow.
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in the circumstances I should like to
1534
give notice that a Motion will be put on the Paper for the general suspension of Standing Orders to-morrow, and I hope your Lordships will agree to that.

GLASGOW GOLDSMITH COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed.
PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS (GUARANTEE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed

NORWICH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Peel, I beg to move the Motions standing in his name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 9th of November last be approved with modifications.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BAKEWELL AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 23rd of November last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION (SUPPLY TO RAILWAYS) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
LUDLOW GAS ORDER, 1926.
HODDESDON GAS ORDER, 1926.
WARRINGTON GAS ORDER, 1926.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 25th of November last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IRISH LAND PURCHASE ANNUITIES.
LORD DANESFORThad the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state the total capital moneys now outstanding and payable to the British Government for land purchase annuities in respect of lands situated in the Irish Free State, and the amount of the sums which should be collected annually by the Irish Free State in respect of such purchase annuities and paid over to the British Government; what are the actual amounts paid over to the British Government by the Irish Free State in respect of such purchase annuities in each of the last four years; whether they will give the dates and particulars of the Agreements between the British Government and the Irish Free State as to the collection and payments of such purchase annuities, and will lay such Agreements and, in particular, the Agreement of 12th February, 1923, on the Table of the House; and when a further statement of the financial position between the British Government and the Irish Free State Government will be issued in continuation of Command Paper No. 2482 of 1925; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Paper and to move for Papers. This Motion raises questions of great importance to the British taxpayer and my object is to elucidate the financial position as between the British Government on the one hand and the Irish Free State Government on the other. I hope that my noble friend Lord Clarendon, who, I understand, is to reply for the Government, will be able to give me some satisfactory assurance. The British Government have been, and still are, and rightly so, sedulous to discharge all their obligations and Debts, whether internal or to foreign Governments, and they have had their reward in the fact that our credit stands at the highest possible point. But while careful to pay their Debts the Government have not been so equally persistent or successful in obtaining the Debts due to them and in the matter of the Debts due from the Irish Free State the British Government have been extraordinarily generous need not, however, enlarge upon that topic at the moment.
1536
As regards the land purchase annuities there seems to have been some little misapprehension both in this country and in the Irish Free State. As your Lordships are aware, the British Government, under a series of Land Acts passed before the establishment of the Free State, advanced very large sums of money in cash, considerably over £100,000,000, to enable the tenants of Irish land to purchase their holdings, the tenants on their part undertaking to repay capital and interest by a series of land purchase annuities extending over a large number of years. When the Free State Government came into existence they undertook to collect these land annuities on behalf of the British Government and to pay over the proceeds to the British Exchequer. Some of the Agreements affecting this matter have been published and laid before Parliament and some have not, and it is in reference to one or two of those that I desire to obtain Papers to-day.
So far as I know, the first Agreement made between the British Government and the Irish Free State which deals with this matter is a document headed: "Heads of Working Arrangements for Implementing the Treaty," the reference to which is Command Paper 1911 of 1923. That document is dated January 24, 1922; but for some reason which I have never yet heard explained that document was not laid before Parliament until about a year and a half later, in July of 1923. Article 42 of that Agreement provides that pending a definite arrangement for capitalisation the Irish Government is to be responsible for, amongst other things, the collection of land purchase annuities and the handing over of the proceeds to the British Exchequer.
The next document that bears upon this question is an Agreement between the British Government and the Free State Government dated February, 1923. This Agreement, which dealt with land purchase annuities and a large number of other exceedingly important financial matters, has never been published to this day. For nearly four years it has been kept, I will not say secret, but it has not been disclosed to either House of Parliament. Why that has been done I really do not know and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the keeping back of

1537
a vitally important financial arrangement made between this country and the Free State is a matter that requires explanation. I should have thought that Parliament was entitled to have Papers relating to finance of that magnitude laid on the Table at once so that the public and members of Parliament may know what has been going on. It may be suggested—I think it is suggested—that this Agreement is superseded by a later one. I do not know whether that is so or not, but even if it be so I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that it does not take away the right of your Lordships' House to demand to see it, to see what arrangements were made in February, 1923, and to decide for ourselves whether those arrangements have been properly brought to an end or not. I hope that His Majesty's Government will, as a matter of propriety and constitutional right, see their way to lay this Paper on the Table. If my noble friend says that it would cause expenditure to the taxpayer to print and circulate it, may I suggest a simple and cheap way of getting over the difficulty, which has often been adopted in the other House and I see no reason why it should not be adopted here, and that is lay a copy of it in the library of both Houses? That would cost nothing at all and members who are interested in the matter could look at it themselves. But I do ask your Lordships to say that this is an important matter—the right of Parliament to see what is being done by their representatives on these large financial questions.
Although the Agreement itself has not been published, by courtesy of the Under-Secretary for the Dominions I have been recently furnished with an extract from the Agreement so far as it relates to Irish land purchase annuities and the extract states:—
"The Free State Government undertake to pay at agreed intervals to the appropriate fund the full amount of the annuities accruing due from time to time, making themselves responsible for the actual collection from the tenant purchasers."
Your Lordships will note those words "to pay the full amount … due." The payments by the Free State in respect of these land purchase annuities were allowed to fall very considerably into arrear. That appears from a Paper which was published in 1925 headed "Further statement of the financial position between the British Government and
1538
the Government of the Irish Free State in 1924–1025." The reference to the Paper is Command Paper 2482 of 1925. It appears from that Paper that on April 1, 1925, the estimated amount outstanding as due from the Free State in respect of these land annuities was something over £1,000,000 and that sum was reduced by subsequent payments of £750,000 to about £260,000. It further appeared from that Paper that from the amount so repaid, the Free State Government claimed to deduct a sum for Income Tax in the Free State. They claimed to deduct that £260,000, or whatever it was, for income Tax, although, as I have already indicated, they had agreed in February, 1923, to pay the full amount over. I confess I do not know why that amount is claimed, but perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell us.
The documents that I have mentioned are the only Papers or Agreements on the subject of which, as far as I am concerned and I think the House is concerned, there was no cognisance until the time when my Motion was put on the Paper. Since my Motion was put on the Paper, in November of this year, a very important Agreement has been laid on the Table and published. It is headed "Heads of the ultimate financial settlement between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State." For reference I may tell your Lordships that it is Command Paper 2757 of 1926. Again, in regard to this sum, seven months or more overdue, the same practice seems to have been followed of keeping back from Parliament this Agreement affecting the financial relations between the two Governments. I confess I do not quite understand why this Agreement was not published before, but perhaps my noble friend will be able to explain that.
Clauses 1 and 2 of that Agreement deal with the question of land purchase annuities. The first clause reads thus:—
"The Government of the Irish Free State undertake to pay to the British Government at agreed intervals."—
I suppose that would be half yearly intervals—
"the full amount of the annuities accruing due from time to time under the Irish Land Acts, 1891–1909, without any deduction whatsoever whether on account, of Income Tax or otherwise."

1539
I am glad that claim to deduct Irish Income Tax has been abandoned. The second clause says:—
"The Government of the Irish Free State agree to pay to the British Government prior to March 31, 1926, the sum of approximately £550,000, being the amount hitherto withheld by them in respect of Income Tax on annuities payable under the abovementioned Acts."
Perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell us whether that £550,000, which was agreed to be paid prior to March 31, 1926, has been paid. I hope it has.
I will not read my Questions on the Paper because they are rather long and my noble friend knows what I am asking for, but there are one or two supplemental Questions that I propose to ask of which I have given my noble friend notice. They arise under this Agreement of March 26 from which I have just been reading. The first Question arises under Clause 6, which says this:—
"Subject to the provisions of this Agreement the British Government undertake to make no further claim—"
this is a somewhat important concession so far as I can gather—
"in respect of any portion of the value of property taken over by the Irish Free State belonging to British Government Departments whose administration and Powers were. … excluded from transfer to the Irish Free State Government."
How much that concession amounts to I should be glad to know because, by the Agreement of January 24, 1922, to which I have already referred, the Free State undertook to pay their proper proportion of the military and police establishments or other property handed over to the Free State Government, and the value of that property, as estimated in the Paper of 1925 to which I have referred, is over £5,500,000. I should be glad if my noble friend would tell me what proportion of that £5,500,000 the Free State Government ought to have paid under the Agreement of January, 1922. In other words, what was the proportion of this very large amount of property which they contracted in that month to pay to the British Government? My noble friend will perhaps also be able to tell your Lordships why the claim of the British Government to this payment, amounting undoubtedly to a large sum—it may ran into millions for aught I know—was abandoned and why we are not going to ask for this payment?
1540
There are only two other short points with which I will trouble your Lordships. One is under Clause 7 of this Agreement, which runs:
"The Irish Free State Government agree to pay to the British Government the sum of £275,000 in full and final discharge of all claims made to the Compensation (Ireland) Commission in respect of damage done prior to July 11, 1921, to property belonging to any of the British Government Departments. …"
That is a considerable sum of money and I should be glad to be assured by my noble friend that that money has been paid. The last point to which I will refer is in Clause 8. Clause 8 runs thus:—
"The British Government waive all claims against the Government of the Irish Free State for the refund of any portion of the sums paid by them under Section 1 of the Irish Railways (Settlement of Claims) Act, 1921."
I venture respectfully to ask what was the amount of the claims by the British Government which were so waived, and why was it found necessary to waive them? These are the facts which are before me and I thought it right to bring them before your Lordships' House so that we may know how we stand with regard to the Irish Free State. I urge the Government not to keep back any longer the Agreement of 12th February, 1923. It would be an evil precedent if an Agreement affecting enormous sums of money between us and any other Government—the Free State Government or any other—were kept from Parliament for nearly four years with no indication given as to its points and if we were then told at the end of these four years: "Oh, it is unnecessary to publish such an Agreement because it is now superseded." I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF CLARENDON): My Lords, as your Lordships will observe, my noble friend's Question as printed on the Paper is somewhat lengthy. I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I divided that Question into compartments and dealt in my reply with those compartments one by one. I do not wish to detain your Lordships at unnecessary length in answering my noble friend's Question, but as I think there is a certain amount of misconception in

1541
regard to this whole question of Irish land purchase annuities it would be well, I think, this afternoon if I endeavour in the reply I have to make on behalf of His Majesty's Government to clear the air as much as possible.
In the first part of my noble friend's Question he asks whether I will state the total capital moneys now outstanding and payable to the British Government for land purchase annuities in respect of land situated in the Irish Free State. In that precise form the Question undoubtedly does disclose a certain amount of misconception because the obvious inference which one must draw from those words is that there is a capital sum owing by the Free State Government to the British Government. This, however, is not the case. In Clause 1 of the "Heads of the ultimate financial settlement," which is now upon the Table of your Lordships' House and is Command Paper No. 2757, it is shown clearly what is payable by the Irish Government to the British Government.
I will quote from that clause. It says—
"… the full amount of the annuities accruing and due from time to time under the Irish Land Acts, 1891–1009."
The approximate total amount of capital advances on which the annuities are based is a sum of £90,554,000. But against this sum must be set approximately a sum of £7,330,000, which represents the value of the proportion of the securities held by the National Debt Commissioners which may be deemed to correspond with the amount outstanding in the Irish Free State. The approximate annual amount of the annuities which are now payable in regard to these advances is £2,996,000. The general scheme embodied in legislation consequent upon the Articles of Agreement of December, 1921, was that the government of the area which ultimately became the Free State was handed over to the Provisional Government and by them in turn to the Irish Free State as a going concern with all its assets and liabilities as upon a given date. In accordance with this principle the Irish Free State became entitled to collect all arrears of taxes which had accrued at the date of transfer, notwithstanding the fact that they were for a period prior to that date. Similarly the Provisional Government and subsequently
1542
the Free State Government itself became liable for all Debts owing by the transferred Government Departments within their area.
It is quite clear, and it was admitted by the Irish representatives, that these annuities were not in the ordinary sense of the word assets of the Government of the area, inasmuch as they were simply repayment of capital and interest on loans to tenants. It was agreed therefore that when these sums were collected the practice should be continued of paying them to the British Government. Your Lordships will find the Agreement in paragraph 42 of the "Heads of Working Arrangements for Implementing the Treaty," to which my noble friend has referred, which were drawn up in January, 1922, and have been laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House as a Command Paper No. 1911. Statutory force is given to these arrangements under Article 4 of the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1922, No. 315.
But there is another point which I should like to mention before I pass from the first part of my noble friend's Question with regard to the collection and payment of these annuities. Inasmuch as these annuities were devoted to the payment of interest on Irish land stock and to the service of the Sinking Funds set up under the various Acts it was essential that the full amount should be available for the National Debt Commissioners whether these sums had or had not been paid. For this purpose a guarantee fund was established into which any annual deficiency was paid. When the Irish Free State took over the collection of the annuities they undertook and agreed to continue that practice—namely, to pay to the British Government the full amount of these annuities whether or not, they had actually received the annuities themselves.
Now I come to the second part of my noble friend's Question, in which he asks what are the actual amounts paid over to the British Government by the Irish Free State in respect of such purchase annuities in each of the last four years. As I have already stated, the sum of £2,996,000 is the approximate total for the current year, but the actual amount varies, being liable to an increase on

1543
account of further capital advances made for the completion of pending purchase agreements under the Acts of 1903 and 1909, and to a decrease on account of decadal revisions under the Act of 1891 and on account of the redemptions of annuities by annuitants. The actual amount that is payable by the Irish Free State to the British Government is assessed by the National Debt Commissioners and their decision is communicated to the Irish Free State Government.
Coming to the actual amounts that have been paid over by the Free State Government to the British Government, these are the figures: For the year ending March 31, 1923, the sum of £2,712,200 has been paid over; for the year ending March 31, 1924, a sum of £2,181,600; for the year ending March 31, 1925, a sum amounting to £2,663,600; and for the year ending March 31, 1926, a sum of £3,995,900. Your Lordships will have noticed that there is a certain discrepancy between the figures that I have just given. The reason is that until quite recently there was a dispute, or rather a difference of opinion, as to whether the Irish Free State were entitled to deduct Income Tax from these annuities. This difference of opinion has, however, been settled. It was settled in March of this year, and your Lordships will find that settlement set out in Command Paper No. 2757, which gives the "Heads of the ultimate financial settlement" between the two Governments. By Article 1 of that settlement the Free State undertake to pay to the British Government the full amount of these annuities without any deduction whatsoever; and by Article 2 they agree to pay the whole balance of the arrears that have been withheld in respect of Income Tax. All these arrears have now been paid, and they account for the excess over the average of the amount paid in 1926, just as the withheld Income Tax accounts for the deficiency in previous years. The total amount has been paid down to March 31 of this year, and I should like to inform your Lordships that this total amount coincides with the total amount that has been notified by the National Debt Commissioners for the whole of that period taken together.
I now pass to the third part of my noble friend's Question, in which he asks
1544
whether we will give the dates and particulars of the Agreements between the British Government and the Irish Free State as to the collection and payment of these purchase annuities. I have already referred to the heads of working arrangements for implementing the Treaty, but with your Lordships' permission I should like to read Clause 42 of that Agreement. It runs as follows:—
"That, pending a definite arrangement for capitalisation, the Irish Government be responsible for the recovery of payments due in respect of local loans and the collection of land purchase annuities, and for paying over the proceeds to the British Exchequer. …"
That Agreement laid down a principle, but it had no statutory effect.
The statutory provisions are, however, contained in Article 4 of the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, to which also I have previously referred. Let me just read to your Lordships the words of that article:—
"All sums collected by the Provisional Government after the day of transfer on account of purchase annuities payable in respect of land situated in Southern Ireland, including any existing arrears thereof, shall be paid into their Exchequer.
"Subject to any arrangements which may be made under this Order there shall from time to time be paid out of the Exchequer of the Provisional Government into the Irish hand Purchase Fund or Account, or other appropriate fund or account, such sums as may after the day of transfer be required to discharge the liabilities of those funds or accounts in respect of interest on stock or advances issued or made in connection with land purchase in Southern Ireland and to meet the corresponding sinking fund charges.
"Any question which may arise as to the sums to be so paid out of the said Exchequer or as to the times at which payments are to be made shall be determined by agreement between the Provisional Government and the British Government."
By this Order, as your Lordships will observe, provision was made for the settlement of any question that might arise between the two Governments. Such an Agreement has now been made and appears in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the "Heads of the ultimate financial settlement" between the two Governments. I do not know that I need quote those paragraphs, because my noble friend Lord Danesfort, in asking this Question, has already dealt with the first two.
I come now to what I believe will be the only point of difference between my

1545
noble friend and myself—to the penultimate paragraph of his Question, in which he asks us to lay upon the Table the Agreement of February, 1923. First of all, let me say with regard to that Agreement that it was a purely provisional and temporary one, dealing, amongst other things, with the collection of annuities in the Irish Free State and the payment thereof to the British Government for the credit of the appropriate fund. May I tell my noble friend that this Agreement of February, 1923, contains nothing that is not fully consistent with the general principles laid down in the "Heads of Working Arrangements," with the Transfer of Functions Order or with the final arrangements embodied in the Agreement of March last. Therefore now that the final Agreement has been made between the two Governments this document of February, 1923, has been superseded. If it will help my noble friend at all, I would like to give him my personal assurance that I have been through these two documents only this morning in the Dominions Office, and I can assure him that what I have said in regard to them is absolutely true. With regard to the last, part of the Question, where my noble friend asks when a further statement of the financial position between the British Government and the Irish Free State Government will be issued in continuation of Command Paper No. 2482 of 1925, I would inform him that this Paper is in course of preparation. We anticipate that it will be ready very shortly, and will in a short space of time be presented to Parliament
I apologise for keeping your Lordships for so long, but I have to deal with the three supplementary Questions which my noble friend has addressed to me. I come now to those Questions, and first of all I should like to thank my noble friend for his courtesy in having given me private notice that he was going to raise them. The first is this: What was the amount of the claim against the Free State which is waived by paragraph 6 of the Agreement of March 19, 1926? I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend that I fear it is impossible for me to answer that Question. As, in the case of the claim to a contribution to the Public Debt of the United Kingdom, under Article 5 of the Articles of Agreement, there was also a counter-claim
1546
against the Irish Free State to be taken into account, so here the claim of the British Government was to the value of certain Government property after admitting the claim of the Free State Government to a certain proportion, not precisely defined, of the whole. The claim is based on paragraphs 18 to 22 of the "Heads of working arrangements," which provided, first of all, that the barracks and establishments necessary for police administration in normal times should be transferred to the Irish Government; secondly, that in regard to military and police establishments and their equipment not covered by the above provision, the proportion of the actual buildings or their value which should be recognised as the property of the Irish Free State should be arranged in the ultimate financial settlement; and, lastly, that surplus moveables should be disposed of through the medium of the Disposals Board, unless for any reason the Free State Government should desire to secure them at a valuation.
It would be necessary, therefore, in order to arrive at any net value of the British claim, to determine between the two Governments what were the police, establishments and barracks, and so forth, necessary in normal times. The whole of these would have to be transferred in any case, as of right, and the British Government would therefore have to waive any claim as to any share in the value thereof. Secondly, it would be necessary to determine the value of the remaining police establishments and equipment, likewise to determine the value of the remaining military establishments and equipment, and, finally, it would have been necessary for the two Governments to agree on some principle of apportionment as to the value of these establishments and equipment. The "Heads of working arrangements" themselves do not lay down any precise basis of apportionment in regard to this second class of property. Numerous other considerations have to be taken into account. For instance, some of the property was held upon tenures involving obligations on the part of the lessee, other property had been destroyed and compensation therefore is included in the sum of £275,000 mentioned in paragraph 7 of the statement of financial settlement between the two Governments. All these things would have had to be taken into

1547
account, and therefore although the figure of £5,668,000 was inserted in Part II of the statement of the financial position between the two Governments, it must be regarded as a rough valuation only of the whole of the property which was left behind, without any deduction whatsoever in respect of the items I have just enumerated.
Now I come to the second supplementary Question which my noble friend asked me. He asked whether the sum of £550,000 mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Agreement, and the sum of £275,000 mentioned in paragraph 7 of the ultimate financial Agreement, have been paid. The answer to the Question as to the first of those two sums, namely £550,000, is in the affirmative. That sum was paid by the Irish Free State on March 31 last. With regard to the second sum, that has not been paid yet, but credit has been given for it in the outstanding account which exists between the two Governments. In the Second Reading debate which took place in this House on December 9 last, on the Ireland (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill, my noble friend the Secretary of State for India, Lord Birkenhead, stated, in dealing with the financial provisions of the Agreement, which was confirmed by that Bill, that whereas Ireland had agreed to pay Great Britain the sum of £150,000 in cash, and had also agreed to pay her the sum of £250,000 a year for a period of sixty years, Great Britain owed Ireland the sum of £900,000, and that it was agreed that that sum of £900,000 should be set off in part payment of the sums that Ireland had agreed to pay.
This arrangement is further referred to in the Supplementary Estimate for Compensation (Ireland), Unclassified Services. Vote 4, which was presented to Parliament in March of this year. Both the payment by Ireland under the December Agreement, and the £900,000 owing by the British Government to Ireland, were payments arising out of compensation for damage to property, and inasmuch as the £275,000 also arose in the same way, it was thought only right and proper that it should be brought into the account in the same manner. No cash, as I have already informed my noble friend, has passed in regard to this, but the date on which cash will be payable by Ireland
1548
under the December Agreement has, to this extent, been brought forward.
Now I come to the third supplementary Question which my noble friend has asked me. He asks what was the amount of the claims which were waived by Article 8 of the Agreement. The amount is £1,500,000. This is one half of the total of £3,000,000 which was payable to the Irish Railways under the Irish Railways (Settlement of Claims) Act, 1921, Section 1. The other half had been paid previous to the change of government in Ireland itself. The ground upon which that claim was brought into the settlement was that it was open to argument as to whether, as a matter of law, there was a liability upon the Irish Free State Government, and whether the liability was transferred under the enactments setting up the new Government. The contention of the British Government was that this liability was so transferred. The contention of the Irish Government was that, the liability having arisen out of the interference by the British Government with the Irish railways under the powers that they could exercise under the Defence of the Realm Act for the purposes of the War, this liability was not connected with any function transferred to the Irish Government.
They further contended that, as matter of equity, they never contemplated that this remnant of the War, unaccompanied as it was by any corresponding asset of government, would be transferred, any more than that they should be called upon to pay disability pensions or other obligations to ex-Service men, all of which obligations were purposely and expressly withheld from the transfer under Article 9 of the Order in Council of April 1, 1922. And when the second moiety, that is to say, the second £1,500,000, became due under the Act, on January 15, 1923, it was very doubtful whether the Irish railways themselves would not have had a claim under a Petition of Right to the British Government for a payment of this sum if it had not actually been paid when it became due. The British Government accordingly paid this sum without prejudice to their claim that the payment should be treated as part of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom for the purposes of Article 5 of the Articles of Agreement, and the repeal of Article 5 in toto has formally deprived the British

1549
Government of any claim to any right of repayment hereafter.
I think I have covered all the ground that my noble friend has explored, and answered all the Questions which he has put to me. I hope that he will consider that in the main the reply that I have been able to give him this afternoon is satisfactory. In regard to the 1923 Agreement, I hope the arguments I have used in refusing publication of this will have been of such a nature as to have convinced him that the publication is unnecessary.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for his careful and clear statement of these financial matters—a statement which, on the whole, appears to me satisfactory, subject to this, that I am really very greatly disappointed to find that in Article 7 and Article 8 of this last Agreement we have given up the claim to very large sums of money—in the case of Article 7 to a portion of £5,500,000, the precise amount of which my noble friend cannot give me, and, in the case of Article 8, to £500,000—on grounds which, at any rate to me, were not at all convincing, and which, so far as I remember, were not referred to when we were discussing the repeal of Article 5 in December last. In view of what my noble friend has said as to the contents of the Agreement of February, 1923, and of his personal assurance—which, of course, I absolutely accept—that the Agreement contains nothing which is not entirely consistent with the Agreements which have been placed before Parliament, I shall not press for the publication of that Agreement of February, 1923. But I do hope that in future, whenever important financial Agreements are made between the Irish Free State and this Government, or between any other Government and this Government, they will not be kept back from Parliament for four years, hidden away from every one who is interested in these matters; but that what I conceive to be the constitutional right of Parliament to know all the financial matters in which the Government are engaged will be strictly observed. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that there are no fewer than 41 Amendments, but I hope that I shall not take long in inflicting them upon your Lordships, and I am going to ask you to be good enough to agree to all of them.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord might tell the House generally the reason why it has been found necessary to place before your Lordships six pages of Amendments to a Bill which came to this House originally as practically an agreed Bill. I know something about it, because I sat on some of the Committees arranging compromises—for it was a compromise Bill between the agriculturists and the traders. It went down to another place practically as an agreed Bill. That your Lordships should now be asked to consider six pages of Amendments made to it in another place seems rather remarkable, and it is only due to your Lordships to know why the Minister of Agriculture has found it necessary to make all these enormous alterations.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is a very reasonable one. This Bill, as will be realised, is a technical and a very complicated Bill, and since it passed your Lordships' House last summer it has been a matter of considerable discussion as between the farmers and the traders as to whether certain small Amendments should not be incorporated in order to make it more intelligible on the one hand and easier of administration on the other. Most of the Amendments that I have to submit to your Lordships are pure drafting Amendments, and will certainly make the Bill more intelligible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 127.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out ("printed") and insert ("marked").
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 2, page 2, line 38, after ("ingredients") insert ("or as to the fineness of grinding").
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. I will try to make the explanations of those Amendments as short as possible. But, of course, if your Lordships are prepared to accept them without explanation it will reduce my labours very much. Perhaps your Lordships would indicate if there is any Amendment about which you desire information. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Bledisloe)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps your Lordships will stop me at any moment if there is any Amendment about which you desire information.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 3, page 3, line 27, leave out ("a copy of")
Clause 3, page 3, line 28, at end insert ("or a copy of")
Clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out from ("being") to ("marked") in page 4, line 2, and insert ("removed from the premises where it is so prepared, be")
Clause 4, page 4, line 2, after ("marked") insert ("in the prescribed manner")
Clause 4, page 4, line 18, leave out ("article") and insert ("parcel")
Clause 4, page 4, line 19, leave out ("article") and insert ("parcel")
Clause 4, page 4, line 25, leave out ("article") and insert ("parcel")
Clause 4, page 4, line 28, leave out ("article") and insert ("parcel")
Clause 4, page 4, line 34, after the first ("or") insert ("having in his possession or disposition for the purpose of sale or"), and leave out ("article") and insert ("parcel")
Clause 7, page 6, line 15, after ("sampled") insert ("by an inspector")
Clause 7, page 6, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert:—
("(2) Any substance mentioned in the Fifth Schedule shall, if present in a feeding stuff or, where a maximum quantity with regard to the substance is indicated in the Fifth Schedule, if present in excess of that quantity, as the case may be, be deemed to be a deleterious ingredient unless the contrary is proved.")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 6, line 34, leave out line 34 and insert ("on summary conviction be liable, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding five pounds and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.").
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the reason why it is proposed to reduce the penalties in respect of offences under Clause 8 to £5 and £10, whereas the penalties under other clauses are £20 for the first offence and £50 for subsequent offences. Offences under Clause 8 might be very serious indeed and might result in a good deal of damage to those concerned. Therefore, I think some explanation ought to be given as to the reasonableness of these smaller penalties, which seem to snake it almost worth while in certain circumstances for an offence to be committed.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, the reply is quite simple. The general penalties under this Bill are up to £20 for a first offence and up to £50 for the second and subsequent offences. As my noble friend Lord Strachie will notice, this Amendment only excludes from the imposition of the heavier penalties what are really technical offences. This refers to failure on the part of the person to give the statutory statement in such form as may be prescribed in a case where he is required by the Act to do so, and there is no suggestion of fraud in that. If the noble Lord will turn to Clauses 16 and 19 or, particularly, to Clause 14,

1553
he will find that Clause 14 begins in this way:—
"If any person fraudulently—
(a) tampers with any article so as to procure that any sample of it … does not correctly represent the article."
That, obviously, is a much more serious offence and involves fraud. It is only desired in reducing the penalty to do so in the case of these more technical offences which do not involve allegations of fraud.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not press my objection, but I should like to know the reason why, if these are only technical offences, the Bill as introduced contained the heavier penalty for them.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not bully me overmuch for my apparent negligence in submitting these Amendments to the House. On mature consideration we are sometimes able to amend Bills and I hope the noble Lord will agree with this Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDENTS.
Clause 8, page 7, line 15, leave out from ("shall") to the end of the clause and insert ("on summary conviction be liable in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding five pounds and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.")
Clause 9, page 7, line 22, after ("period") insert ("(not exceeding four months)")
Clause 11, page 8, line 14, at end insert ("or in the case of a joint appointment of one or more of the councils concurring in the appointment")
Clause 12, page 9, line 20, leave out from the first ("of") to ("take") in line 21, and insert ("this Act")
Clause 12, page 9, line 25, leave out ("result of an analysis of") and insert ("name of the seller or purchaser or owner of the article of which"), and after ("sample") insert ("is")
Clause 12, page 9, line 26, leave out from ("person") to the end of subsection (2).
Clause 12, page 9, line 44, at end insert:—
("(4) Where a sample of a parcel packed ready for retail sale which is of fourteen pounds weight or less and is exposed for sale by retail is taken under this section, the retailer may require the inspector to purchase the parcel on behalf of the local authority or of the Minister, as the case may be.
(5) In the exercise at any railway station or upon any railway premises of the powers conferred upon him by this Act an inspector
1554
shall conform to such reasonable requirements of the railway company owning or using such station or premises as are necessary to prevent the working of the traffic thereat being obstructed or interfered with.")
Clause 13, page 10, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
Clause 16, page 11, line 29, leave out from ("discloses") to ("any") in line 30.
Clause 16, page 11, line 32, after ("Act") insert ("except to parsons acting in the execution of this Act and so far as such information may be necessary for the execution thereof")
Clause 20, page 12, line 31, leave out from ("applies") to ("shall") in line 34.
Clause 20, page 12, line 37, after ("particulars") insert ("(except particulars which are not required to be contained in a statutory statement)")
Clause 20, page 12, line 37, at end insert ("or in respect of failure to include in the particulars marked or indicated by a mark or entered in a register or written on a label, any particulars which are required by this Act to be contained in the statutory statement")
Clause 20, page 12, line 38, leave out from the second ("of") to ("any") in line 40
Clause 20, page 13, line 4, leave out from the beginning to ("making") in line 5 and insert:—
("(2) Where proceedings under this Act are taken against a person in respect of causing or permitting any name, mark or particulars to be false, or for")
Clause 20, page 13, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("he shall not be liable to conviction.")
Clause 22, page 14, line 17, leave out ("either before or during the proceedings")
Clause 23, page 15, line 14, after ("shall") insert ("after consultation with such associations as appear to them to represent the interests concerned")
Clause 23, page 15, line 15, leave out from ("committee") to the end of subsection (2).
After Clause 23, page 15, line 29, at end insert as a new clause:
Exemption for sales under statutory authority and for sales by sheriffs and Bailiffs.
(".This Act shall not apply to the sale of an article used as a fertiliser of the soil or as a food for cattle or poultry where the sale is in exercise of a statutory power to enforce a right or to satisfy a claim or lien, or where the sale is made by a sheriff, bailiff or other officer to satisfy a writ of execution, or warrant or decree of any Court, or a distress for rent or warrant of distress")
Clause 24, line 35, after ("and") insert ("that")
After Clause 25, page 16, line 38, at end insert as a new clause:
Application to City and Port of London.
(".This Act shall apply to the Port of London and the City of London subject to the following modifications:—

(a) The sanitary authority of the Port of London as regards the district of that authority and the Common Council of the City of London as regards the City of London shall, to the exclusion of any other council, perform and exercise the duties and powers by this Act imposed and conferred on councils of counties and county boroughs:

(b) The expenses of the Port of London sanitary authority and the Common Council incurred in the execution of this Ant (including any expenditure incurred in the purchase of articles for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act) shall be defrayed out of the general rate of the City of London.")

Clause 26, page 27, line 24, at end insert:—
Provided that—

(i) no proceedings shall be brought in respect of causing or permitting any name, mark or particulars (except particulars which are not required to be contained in a statutory statement) to be false or in respect of failure to include in the particulars marked or indicated by a snarls or entered in a register or written on a label any particulars which are required by this Act to be contained in the statutory statement or in respect of the presence in a feeding stuff of any deleterious ingredient until the part of the sample retained by the agricultural analyst has been analysed and a certificate of analysis given by the Government Chemist; and

(ii) in any prosecution to which subsection (3) of section twenty of this Act applies there shall be served with the complaint a copy of any certificate of the agricultural analyst obtained on behalf of the prosecution.

Clause 28, page 18, line 33, leave out ("January") and insert ("July")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, four Amendments have been introduced in another place into this Bill which was initiated in your Lordships' House, and I would ask your Lordships to be good enough to agree to all of them. I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The References are to Bill No. 131.]
Clause 4, page 4, line 5, after ("shall") insert ("in particular").
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment and is intended to make it clear that the powers of the Statutory Commissioners to receive representations or evidence are not restricted to receiving such representations solely from the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2). I beg to move that the House agrees with the Commons in the Amendment.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 4, line 10, at end insert the following new subsection:
"( ) If representations with respect to any proposed statutes are made to the Commissioners by the governing body of any college, school or institution which is at the commencement of this Act a school of the University in the Faculty of Theology, objecting to any alteration which would be necessitated by the making of the statute in the constitution of the college, school or institution, or in respect of the appointment of teachers therein or the financial administration thereof, the proposed statute shall, unless the objection be withdrawn, be modified so as not to necessitate the alteration objected to."
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, the second Amendment gives effect to a promise made by the President of the Board of Education to the theological schools which had expressed the apprehension that their denominational character would be affected by any statute. I understand that this Amendment has been inserted after consultation with the noble Earl who expressed concern

1557
upon the point and with representatives of the theological schools. I understand that their views have been met. I beg to move that the House agrees with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 4, lines 32 and 33, leave out lines 32 and 33.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, this Amendment is of a simple character. The words omitted merely empowered the Statutory Commissioners to declare a particular statute unalterable by the University. They are not in the Oxford and Cambridge Act and there seems no reason why the University of London should have less power over its future and its new constitution than the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 5, line 42, at end insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to appointment by Crown of members of a council of the University.
".Whenever there occurs among the members of a council of the University a vacancy which is in accordance with statutes made under this Act to be filled by a person appointed by the Crown the vacancy shall be filled by a person appointed by His Majesty in Council, and before any draft Order in Council is submitted to His Majesty for that purpose sufficient opportunity to submit recommendations in regard to the appointment shall be given to such persons or bodies representative of the University as may be designated in that behalf by statutes made under this Act."
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, this new clause, I think, speaks for itself. It indicates the desire to appoint persons agreeable to the University and gives, full opportunities for the University to make representations and recommendations to the Crown on this subject. I beg to move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Power of Minister to contribute towards losses.
(4) The Minister may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make regulations for carrying this section into effect:
Provided that every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days during which that House has sat next after any regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
LORD STRACHIEmoved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words in the proviso after "Provided that every Regulation so made," and insert
"shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if either House of Parliament, within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Regulation is laid before them, presents an address to His Majesty praying that the Regulation or any part of it may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new Regulations."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be within the recollection of the House that in Committee I raised the question whether the Regulations which had to be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament should be subject to either House not presenting an Address to His Majesty for annulment. The noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture opposed my Amendment, although he said that he had no desire to reduce the privileges of your Lordships' House. I asked him whether he would tell me the Standing Order which would make this an interference with the privileges of another place. He was unable to do so. No doubt he is now armed with that information.

1559
I cannot see in the Standing Orders anything to show that your Lordships' House has no right to move an Address to His Majesty, the effect of which would be to annul the Regulations.
But the noble Lord later, in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, who suggested that the matter should be put off to the Report stage to give an opportunity for further consideration, said:
"I cannot, however, resist the appeal of the noble Earl, particularly as there is a possibility of reducing the already scanty privileges of this House, and I certainly accept his suggestion that the matter should be reconsidered on Report."
In the circumstances I asked leave to withdraw my Amendment. I am not now putting the question upon the merits of the case. I merely ask whether the noble Lord, having considered this question, is able to tell us that the Government have made up their minds that they do not want further to restrict the powers of your Lordships' House. If they do desire to do that then I would point out that it is a very dangerous course to adopt, for other Governments may come after them who may wish still further to reduce the rights of your Lordships. I would wish to point out this, too. The question of Standing Orders does not deal with an Address to His Majesty. If it is a question of privilege it is equally a question of privilege as the clause now stands. Once you begin to argue in that way you will conclude that this House has no right to move an Address to His Majesty asking that Regulations be annulled. If the Government have made up their minds that they do not want the House of Lords to have any power to annul these Regulations, I should like to know whether they equally desire to prevent the House of Commons having any power of control over Government Departments in the making of Regulations?
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, leave out from ("made") to end of line 4 on page 3, and insert the said words.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am not quite sure if I fully understand the purport of the noble Lord's last remarks. I gathered from him that rather than move an Amendment more or less to the effect he desires he would be prepared
1560
to introduce the words "House of Commons" instead of "either House of Parliament." I do not know if I heard him correctly.
LORD STRACHIE: All I said was that if the Government would wish to restrict the House of Lords in the matter still further and the House of Lords has no right to interfere I would give the House of Commons control of the Government Department in reference to the matter.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I need hardly tell the noble Lord and, indeed, this House, that we who sit on this side of the House at any rate do not desire to restrict the present attenuated privileges or the authority of this House in any respect whatever. If these unfortunate questions do arise now in this House it is obviously due to the passing of the Parliament Act by the noble Lord or his friends, whom of course he supported in the line which they then took. But I quite frankly tell my noble friend Lord Strachie that on merits I, for my part, prefer his form of words rather than the common form which is inserted in this Bill but when we come to consider for the moment not privilege but precedent I find myself in considerable difficulty.
I have, as I promised the noble Lord, thoroughly explored this matter since it was discussed on his Amendment in Committee and I have examined the precedents during recent years. I find by the precedents that in every case where Regulations of this character deal with financial matters it has always been customary to pass the clause in the form appearing in this Bill and not in the form proposed by the noble Lord. If the noble Lord will refer to Section 7 subsection (3) of the Housing and Town Planning Act, which was passed in 1919, he will see a precedent for the words exactly as they appear in this Bill. In that Act, as in this Bill, the section which requires provision to be made for Regulations has a marginal note to this effect: "Power to recoup losses." Your Lordships will realise there is a similar marginal note in this case: "Power to contribute towards losses." Obviously the whole of this clause deals with nothing but financial matters.

1561
The same thing occurs in the Housing Act of 1921, in which exactly the same words appear in connection with Regulations under that Act, and as recently as last year there was passed the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, in which exactly the same point arises. In that Act the annulment of the Regulations is at the instance of His Majesty in Council on an Address by either House. The difficulty that arises, which, I think, I dealt with when this was under consideration in Committee, is that if, by presenting an Address to His Majesty, that ipso facto annuls the Regulations, the net result in this case will be that whereas the Exchequer might be prepared, and would be prepared in most cases, to make a grant in order to meet the losses incurred by a county council in respect of small holdings, the House of Lords would be in a position, by passing such a Resolution, to stop such a grant being made by the Exchequer.
All I say is I do not want to deal with the question of privilege, because we have known cases in which the House of commons has waived its privilege, upon a certain Resolution being passed by this House or a certain clause being modified, which might appear to encroach upon that privilege, but, so far as precedent is concerned, I am bound to tell your Lordships that there is no precedent for adopting such an Amendment in relation to a Regulation dealing with finance as that which the noble Lord has submitted to your Lordships. I therefore feel that I have no alternative but to ask the House not to accept this Amendment, but your Lordships will realise that the very last thing I desire to do would be to trench in any way upon your already attenuated privileges.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think your Lordships should be much obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has just given upon this matter. He seems to me, in what he has said, to have laid more emphasis on other topics than the one he laid so much stress upon in Committee of this House. There are, I think, two points: one is constitutional, the other is practical. Whether, indeed, it is constitutionally correct or not we are not called upon to decide this afternoon. The point upon which the noble Lord laid most emphasis and about which we
1562
did not hear so much in the Committee stage was that this form was more in accordance with precedent and that there are many precedents which show us that this is the line we ought to take. Upon that I am quite prepared to yield to the noble Lord and to offer no objection to that line of argument. Whether there has been in the past any ruling upon the question that this House should not even pass an Address to the Throne which might in any way limit expenditure is another point, and the noble Lord, as the matter has not been mentioned, not unnaturally said nothing on that point.
What I do feel very strongly is that it is very desirable that all these Bills should be as much alike as possible. It is very inconvenient in administering these matters that one Bill should take a certain line and a certain procedure and that another Bill should take another course of procedure. The Amendment adumbrated by my noble friend Lord Strachie would be to introduce yet another method of procedure which is for that reason, and that reason only, really to be deprecated. It would make yet another form. I hope that in future we may be able to agree on one common standard, some model clause which would always be inserted in Bills of this description. So much on the point of procedure on which I yield to the noble Lord in what he has said.
There is, however, a practical point which I confess makes me less anxious to press the Amendment. As the Bill stands at the present time it leaves complete discretion to the Minister and the Government of the day to act, or not act, as they think well. I can imagine a House of Lords which was antagonistic to the Government of the day—I have known such a House in my experience—and the Amendment which was suggested by my noble friend would, of course, when next there is such a Government in office allow your Lordships' House to render nugatory the Order promulgated by the Minister. I cannot imagine that your Lordships' House would in any circumstances pass an Address which would interfere with the intention of a Conservative Government. I can understand that they would with some pleasure pass an Address which would interfere with the intention of a Liberal or a Labour Government. I should

1563
certainly advise my noble friend not to press an Amendment which in those circumstances might place more power in the hands of your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I now move Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in older to its being dispensed with.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Then Bill read 3ª, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED GOODS) BILL.
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I want to say a few words upon this Motion be fore it is adopted. I am sorry I had not an opportunity of speaking on the second Reading because this is a Bill about which I feel very strongly. I think it will do more harm than almost any Bill that has been before this House for a good number of years. I feel that I should make some excuse for intervening at this stage and it is that I have had very considerable experience of business. I have been in the textile trade for something like fifty years. I have been intimately connected with more than one branch of it and I am still more or less connected with it to-day. I can assure your Lordships that from my experience, and from the experience of most people that I know, this Bill will really do a very great deal of harm. It will act as an advertisement for Germany, France, Italy, and Japan and other countries, who are now the younger firms, if I may say so, who are trying to take our business away. We are going to give them a most excellent advertisement.
We are the old people in business. We have the good will and our goods are looked well upon all over the world. Italy and Japan, and to some extent
1564
Germany, are the new and young firms trying to get into the business to take it away from us. By this Bill if they produce a good article we are going to advertise it for them by saying it is made in Germany, or Italy, or wherever it may be made. It is a delusion to suppose that the public will pay more for English goods than they do for foreign goods. There may be a very few people who are very well off who can afford to be patriotic and say they will not buy German goods, but the vast bulk of the people who buy textiles and other things—I think more of textiles because I know more of that business—are the working classes and the lower middle classes, who simply buy in the shops things they can afford, and they will not give one penny more for anything because it is English.
When a working-class woman goes into a shop she does not buy all she would like. She has her husband's wages and she tots up this, that and the other, and if she can buy a German-made thing a little bit cheaper than an English-made thing she buys it and has a certain surplus to invest it may be in a few things for the children or it may be in anything else. The working woman has only so much to spend and she has to spend it to the best advantage. She cannot and does not consider whether a thing is English or German. She buys the cheapest and best thing that is produced. You are not going to induce people to buy a thing simply because it happens to be English. What you are going to ensure is that people shall in future know, when a certain article is better or cheaper, whether it is made in Germany or in some other country. You are going to ensure that those countries shall have a very good advertisement for their articles because you are going to say that those articles made in Germany, or in some other country, shall be so marked.
I particularly rise to speak about something of which I really have technical knowledge, and that is the subject of the bleaching, dyeing and finishing industry. The rule now is for merchants in Manchester or Bradford to send their goods to the dyer or bleacher or calico-printer, as the case may be, and have the process of bleaching and dyeing or finishing put on the goods. The dyers do not manufacture goods themselves, but simply dye

1565
them at so much apiece. The Germans, in particular, have great technical knowledge and great chemical knowledge, and in certain processes of dyeing they are very good. It is becoming a habit to some extent for the Manchester merchants, since they get goods dyed for less in Germany, to send them there and bring them back again. We have not all the brains in the world. The Germans, French and others are often bringing out new processes making the goods more saleable. If this Bill passes, whenever goods go to Germany to be dyed—and they put on very good dyes and very good finish—they will have to be marked to the effect that this was done in Germany, or France or wherever it is, anybody who sees those articles will say: "We also will have our goods dyed in Germany," or wherever it may be, and this will be an immense disadvantage to the great dyeing and finishing industries in this country.
The noble Viscount will remember very well that some of us objected very strongly to the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, which was introduced at the very last minute in this House and passed by your Lordships. The result was that the British Government subscribed £101,700,000 to British Dyes, Limited. Some of us said that this money would be lost. It, has been lost, every penny of it, and the Government, in taking part in the dyestuffs business, induced thousands of comparatively poor people to invest their money in it and these people have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds as one of the results of Government interference with business. The Government put certain safeguards in that Bill, but they have all gone by the board and the company has now been sold to the huge combine of Brunner, Mond & Co. All those safeguards in the Bill were done away with, and what is left of the company has been joined to this huge combine, which can combine with the German people, and the British people will have to pay. That is one of the results of Government interference with business.
The result of this Bill will be more or less the same. It will advertise foreign goods, interfere with trade and do a great deal of harm to the country. It will be an enormous disadvantage in every way. I do not think that the great textile industries of Lancashire and
1566
Yorkshire have ever been consulted in the matter. The Chambers of Commerce of Liverpool, Manchester and London are all against the Bill. Indeed, everyone with practical experience is against it. It is going to cost the country millions of money, and I feel that we ought to do something to lessen the evil that is sure to result from it. Its effect on the great entrepot trade is only one of the disadvantages that this Bill will create, but it is a very great disadvantage. These goods come into the country and are sold over the counter in London and Manchester warehouses.
To explain the point more thoroughly I should like to give what might be called a concrete case, though I do not say that this has ever happened. Let us say that Messrs. Cook, of St. Paul's Churchyard, have obtained some good articles from Germany and have them in their warehouses. Supposing a representative of Messrs. Barker comes into the warehouse, sees the article, realises that it is a very saleable article and notices that it is made in Germany. What does he do? Very likely he wishes to have a great deal of it, and might be expected to buy every bale, but instead he buys one piece and takes good care to find out where it comes from in Germany. You cannot get buyers from people like John Barker, Whiteleys, and others to pay more for an article than they are obliged to pay and, as soon as they see that the article that they are buying has been made in Germany, they immediately take steps to find out who made it and to buy in Germany instead of here. The consequence is that we lose trade, transport charges and all the profit that should have been made.
I do not think that one single advantage will result from this Bill. It may be that some manufacturers think that they are injured by foreign competition. Perhaps they are under the impression that they make a very superior article and they would like to see marked any article that competes with it. I think that in most cases they make a mistake because, if the article is better and cheaper than theirs, the customer will buy it. In the case of dyestuffs we have given Germany, Italy and Japan cheaper colour and we have to compete with countries that have been given enormous advantages through the horrible Bill that we passed here four or five years ago. We have actually given them a chance of buying their dyestuffs

1567
from 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. cheaper than we can get them ourselves. I am told—I will not say that I have absolute information—that Japan is now putting up the biggest dye and print works in the world, and the advantage that Japan will gain has been largely the result of Government interference in our trade.
Then again, we have to compete with Italy, which is doing a very large business in dyed calico. Why are they doing this business? Largely because of the advantage that has been given them by us. We are now to give them a greater advantage by advertising everything that they make and sell. This is a suicidal Bill, and I cannot imagine how any Government could allow themselves to push it forward. They have certainly done so without consulting the public, and I would almost implore your Lordships to use the privilege that you have of delaying and revising any measures that you do not think will be to the good of the country. The House of Lords used to have a great many enemies, but I think it is far more popular now than ever it was, and I think it would be still more popular if it would delay and revise measures like this a little more often. The Bill of which I speak was brought in, like this measure, at the fag end of the Session, and it was passed without the public knowing anything about it. If this Bill goes through it will do an infinite amount of damage, without the people most interested having had any opportunity of really protesting against it. If you throw out a Bill like this I believe you will destroy one of the greet arguments used against the House of Lords. The great argument against this House has always been that when a Liberal or a Labour Government was in office the House of Lords would throw out or revise anything, but when a Tory Government was in office it always did what the Tory Government wanted. I should really like to see the position of the House of Lords strengthened very much by Bills of this sort, which are really not Party measures, being amended or thrown out.
So far as the agricultural part of the question is concerned. I do not think that the fraud which it is said you want to see prevented is anything like so great as we are led to suppose. I think the genesis of this Bill is to be found in speeches which Conservative Members
1568
of Parliament make at agricultural shows, when they are animated by a desire to please their friends, by telling them how good are the things which they produce, and how the wicked foreigner is sending in his produce and pretending that it is British. Whatever small good may be effected by this Bill in the prevention of fraud, I believe that it will weigh very little against the enormous losses which will be brought about by this measure, if it is carried through. A good deal has been said about retaliation. I do not think much of the argument of retaliation generally, but if foreign countries would only retaliate by saying that everything that comes from England must be stamped "Made in England," I think it would be of immense value to us. You will not, however, see them doing anything so foolish. We are the only people who are going to stamp goods with their country of origin. If you ask foreigners to do the same with goods made in England, they will reply: "We are not going to give England a good advertisement." With regard to the thing that I do know most about—namely, the process of dyeing and finishing, I hope that I have said something to your Lordships which was worth while being said.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate, but I hope you will pardon me if I intervene on a personal matter. The tragic and sudden death of a member of your Lordships' House, who took part in the proceedings on this Bill when the measure was last before us, must be my excuse. The sudden death of Lord Emmott has been, I am sure, a shock to all those who listened when he spoke, apparently in his usual health, on Thursday last. The respect in which he was held was not confined to one political Party. He was distinguished by sound common sense, and an independent and wise judgment. I know how much he appreciated the attention with which his speeches were listened to in this House. More than once he referred, in speaking to me, to the courtesy with which he was always listened to in this House, due, I am sure, not only to the general respect in which he was held but to the fact that he never spoke unless he had something useful to say, and furthermore to the fact that he prepared the speeches which he made in this House with very great care.

1569
For more than twenty years I have had the privilege of being more than a political friend of Lord Emmott. For more than twenty years I have been a personal friend of Lord Emmott, and in those circumstances, I am sure, your Lordships will forgive me for having intruded upon your proceedings with these few remarks, in relation to one who, I am sure, those who knew him will agree that his death is a real loss to this House.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a moment. Everyone, I am sure, will feel the great loss which this House has sustained through the death of Lord Emmott. The noble Lord possessed great knowledge and experience, particularly in business matters. I was a member of the other House for a long time when he acted as one of the Chairmen of Committees, and I think at one time as Deputy Speaker, and in every position which he held, and in everything which he did in his Parliamentary life, he showed great tact as well as great knowledge. I should like especially to emphasise what the noble Earl said with regard to his share in our debates. He never took part in our Parliamentary discussions without taking the greatest care to prepare himself, and he gave to this House the full benefit of his knowledge and experience. I am sure we all deeply regret the news of his sudden death, which means a real loss to public life and to this House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I need hardly say that I entirely agree with the two speeches to which we have just listened from the Leaders of the two Parties opposite, and I should be sorry that this brief, but surely most well-deserved, tribute to Lord Emmott should not receive a formal statement on these Benches. In my case the statement is much more than a formal one. I probably had more to do with Lord Emmott in political life than any noble Lord whom I am now addressing, for he was Chairman of Committees during many years of my active House of Commons life, and I was necessarily, and constantly, brought in contact with him on matters deeply concerning the conduct of business in another place. I always
1570
found, as your Lordships will readily understand, not only that he possessed that clear common sense to which the noble Earl opposite has so properly alluded, but that he was an admirable adviser upon all questions concerning the interest of the House of Commons as a House of Commons, and from which Party was wholly excluded.
He was always a firm supporter through his long political life of one Party in the State, but never, so far as I know, was his judgment ever deflected by Party feelings, and he was never moved by any partizan instinct, certainly while in the Chair. I hardly mention that as praise, because it is an attribute common to all those who preside either in another place or in this House, but quite apart from his actual duties as Chairman of Committees he had a sense of what he owed, and what each individual member of the House of Commons owed, to the public at large. That debt he was always ready to pay, and I believe there was no man in the House of Commons who was listened to with more regard than he was during the many years which he spent in the service of that House. When he came to your Lordships' House the qualities which he had so admirably shown in another place were exhibited with equal lustre here, and I feel, as I am sure all your Lordships will feel, how great is the loss which we have so suddenly and so unexpectedly suffered.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, after the very eloquent tributes that have been paid to the late Lord Emmott, your Lordships will not expect me to say anything, but I wish to add a word from my own personal experience, because it was only a few days ago that I was dealing with Amendments on which Lord Emmott was speaking, and I have for many years in this House had the opportunity of listening with great interest and pleasure to speeches made by him on all sorts of commercial and business questions, on which he spoke with great force and was listened to with the greatest attention. I had also the pleasure for many years of sitting under him when he was Chairman of Committees in another place, and I can bear my humble tribute to the great fairness and dignity with which he occupied that

1571
very high position. I may be allowed very respectfully to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to Lord Emmott by other speakers.
I rather dislike passing so suddenly into an atmosphere of controversy on the Merchandise Marks Bill, but perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words in reply to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. I rather regretted that the noble Lord could not take part in the discussions on the Second Reading and the Committee stage because, if I may say so very respectfully, I think it would have made it unnecessary for him to make some of the observations he has addressed to us this evening. Not once but, I think, four or five times, I replied in the course of those discussions to the point that has now been presented by the noble Lord. Possibly he may forgive me for not going into the big question of general State interference with industry. I should be delighted to do so, but this is not the occasion; perhaps he will put down a Motion some time next year. Nor will I pursue the inquiry into the result of the Act dealing with dyes, on which he also spoke. I may be allowed perhaps to confine myself to those of his remarks which were relevant to this Bill.
LORD CAWLEY: I only introduced the question of the Act dealing with dyes as showing how great was the advantage which other countries have over us in the dyeing of goods.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is a very large question, with which I should like to deal at the proper opportunity. Another advantage which the noble Lord would have had, had he been here at the earlier stages, would have been to follow the general trend of the arguments used by noble Lords on the other side in regard to this Bill, because the whole force of their attack was that we were really preventing the importation of foreign goods, and that the importers, and consequently the consumers, would suffer. But the argument of the noble Lord is of a precisely opposite kind. He is afraid, not that this Bill will prevent the import of foreign goods, but that it will increase the import, because it will advertise them. I said in my opening observations that I would leave the advocates of those different schools—those who said
1572
that the Bill would stop imports, and those who said that it would increase them—to fight out their own difficulties together, because they must elect on what lines they are going to attack this Bill. That is another advantage which the noble Lord would have had had he been present.
LORD CAWLEY: I have read all the speeches.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord may have read them, but my next observation will show that he has not marked, learned and inwardly digested them, because he has told us that everybody of experience is against this Bill. Had he done me the honour to read my speech on the Second Reading it would have been absolutely impossible to make a statement of that kind—a statement, may I say, that I can only describe as ridiculous. I quoted a long list of the people who supported this Bill in the country. Let me take one or two of them. Will the noble Lord get up and say that the Federation of British Industries have no experience of business? Of course, he will not say anything so absurd. What about the National Union of Manufacturers? Do they contain no men of experience? I challenge the noble Lord to get up and say whether he supports so absurd a thesis that nobody of experience supports this Bill.
LORD CAWLEY: The Manchester Chamber of Commerce knows far more about the textile trade than any other body.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have not got to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce at present. The noble Lord is too hasty. I began with the manufacturers because I said we ought to consider the interests of manufacturers. As I have said, the Associated Chambers of Commerce support this Bill. When I stated that a few days ago the noble Lord opposite, Lord Parmoor, said, "Oh, but those people only meet once a year."
LORD PARMOOR: No, I did not take any part in the discussion on that point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: At any rate, it was suggested from the opposite Bench, and an effort was made to discount my statement.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it was the late Lord Emmott who made that suggestion.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I respectfully reply to that point, because I have made inquiries, and I find that, apart from the fact that this body meets several times a year, the Council of the Association meets every month, and therefore, if the Council had wanted to alter its opinion, it would obviously have done so, and have made representations on the subject. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, again is entirely wrong in stating that people of experience are all ranged with him. On the contrary, there are all these great bodies of manufacturers, and there is also the great agricultural interest which, I suppose, contains people of experience. I really must apologise to noble Lords for going over this old ground again, but I am forced to do so because we have had a Second Reading speech made by the noble Lord on this occasion, and I cannot deal with it as shortly as I otherwise should, because I might be told I was shirking some of these issues.
With the other point I can deal very shortly. The noble Lord spoke about textiles, and about his great knowledge of textiles. I could not help thinking that, although he may have great knowledge of textiles, he has no knowledge whatever of this Bill. He cannot have read or studied the Bill.
LORD CAWLEY: Yes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then why does he make observations about it which are not relevant to the Bill itself?
LORD CAWLEY: Which are these?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The attack of the noble Lord was based on this, that the Bill damages British trade. That is his whole thesis. He assumes it; he does not prove it, but he attacks the Bill on that ground. He has not taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the provisions of the Bill itself.
LORD CAWLEY: Well, you say so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I say so because the noble Lord assumes that the textile trade is going to suffer by the provisions of this Bill. I challenge him to show how the textile trade will suffer.
LORD CAWLEY: I have tried to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I challenge him to show it, because all the representations that may be made to the Committees are to be made by persons having a substantial interest in these businesses. What the noble Lord does not seem to see is that if the dyers and manufacturers do not want these articles to be marked when they have incurred some substantial change on coming back from another country after having been dyed, and so on, they will not be marked. The whole object of the Bill is to assist industry, and is it to be thought that a Committee before which these interests appear is going to give a decision about the marking of goods when the substantial interests engaged in them are against it? The noble Lord does not seem to understand that these Committees advise the Board of Trade, and that the Board of Trade acts on the advice of Committees who have heard all the evidence and have had the whole position put before them whether by dyers or manufacturers or other allied trades, and having heard all this, they come to a conclusion.
Any representations, of course, made by the noble Lord himself would, no doubt, carry great weight if they were brought before these Committees. But the assumption is—and that is the assumption of the opposition to this Bill all through—that these Committees apparently are not going to act on evidence, but will come to the most absurd and ridiculous decisions. I really cannot go through the safeguards again, because I have pointed them out many times. If you assume that the Bill will be administered in a spirit quite contrary to that in which it is conceived and in a way in which no reasonable body of men would ever administer a Bill, there may be something in the noble Lord's contention; but as the whole matter is to be brought before carefully selected Committees, semi-judicial Committees, consisting of men of great experience in affairs and in business, I think that all these suggestions that have been made at this stage, on the Committee stage and during the Second Reading, are really without any foundation at all, and I think the noble Lord may well keep his fears to himself.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, it might not be inconvenient, perhaps, if I were to say now the very few words that I wish to say before this Bill passes from your Lordships' House rather than on the Third Reading to-morrow, because I think there will be a full programme of business before your Lordships then. The noble Viscount has used some very strong language in regard to this matter and he has reminded your Lordships of a certain support which he claims for the Bill. He indicated, for instance, the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers and so on. Speaking for myself, I have said before (and I am sure the noble Lord behind me would not dissent) that so far as the manufacturers are concerned some of them are in favour of some provisions of the Bill. Obviously that will be so because it will give them Protection and many of these manufacturers would prefer the import of certain foreign goods to be prohibited altogether. Therefore there is really nothing in that. But there are other persons in the country as well as the manufacturers. There are the traders and importers, there is the shipping trade and, above all, there are the consumers, and we do not think that the interests of all these people are sufficiently protected.
The noble Viscount says that when we say that this Bill will damage trade we do not prove it. But our arguments do prove it so far as that can be done in advance. The same arguments were used in regard to the Safeguarding of Industries legislation. It was pointed out then that the Act would particularly injure the re-export trade and I gave figures proving how very seriously the re-export trade had been injured. What did the noble Viscount say in reply? He did not challenge the figures. He said it was very inconvenient to have figures brought forward by themselves, but that probably it was all right because there might be a big increase in the home production. But he did not support that in any way.
I have taken the trouble to look into it since and I find that there is nothing whatever to support that view. So far as the silk manufacturers are concerned, for instance, unemployment, which is some test if studied carefully, is decidedly greater now that it was two years ago, and even in April, before the coal strike,
1576
it was decidedly greater than it was in October, 1924, the last month down to which I could give figures. So far as lace in concerned, unemployment is no worse; indeed, so far as that goes the position is slightly better. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the current issue of a trade journal of that industry the statement is made that it is in a most unsatisfactory condition. I do not want to bind myself to the words as I have not seen them and everything has to be done in a hurry, but I believe they are: "The Trade was never worse." When you come to the facts, the noble Lord has advanced statements that can be put to the proof regarding the Safeguarding of Industries Act and its effect on the export trade. And I think that what we have said regarding this Bill will prove to be correct.
The noble Viscount has not adduced to your Lordships any support, so far as I know, from really representative bodies in Lancashire and Yorkshire in reference to the very important Amendments regarding dyeing and bleaching about which the noble Lord has made a statement. On the other hand as I pointed out on Thursday evening—the hour was late and the matter could only be inadequately discussed—very important sections of the trade, indeed, in Lancashire and Yorkshire were extremely disturbed about this matter and it was not sufficient to be told that the Committees would see that it was all right. We have been told that before and it has not proved satisfactory. We have no confidence in these Committees which are set up by the Board of Trade. It can be proved to five places of decimals—I do not say in all eases—that on various occasions they have gone behind their directions in the White Paper, and, therefore, there are very great misgivings as to what might happen.
There is no real demand from industry for this measure except so far as agriculture is concerned—I have not denied that the poultry farmers want Protection—therefore, I say it is not a right thing to introduce such legislation as this. It is more particularly not a right thing to do in view of the pledges given at the General Election by the Prime Minister in order to get the votes of those who are opposed to Protection of any kind.
On Question, Motion 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.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), after "prohibiting the sale, or the exposure for sale," to leave out "in the United Kingdom" and insert "or by way of advertising goods of some other kind the distribution." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had given notice to move on the Committee stage an Amendment to insert the word "distribution" in Clause 2 of this Bill. When it came forward, as the noble Viscount had already proposed in Clause 1 that the words "distribute by way of advertisement" should be "by way of advertising goods of some other kind distribute," my Amendment was deferred with a view to considering whether those words could be put into the Bill and what effect they would then have. If the two Amendments that I have on the Paper are accepted the Bill will read that under certain circumstances His Majesty in Council may thereupon
"subject to the provisions of this Act, make an Order prohibiting the sale, or the exposure for sale or by way of advertising goods of some other kind the distribution of imported goods of that class or description in the United Kingdom unless they bear an indication of origin."
I think that would be in quite as good English there as it is in Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("in the United Kingdom") and insert ("or by way of advertising goods of some other kind the distribution").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord raises again the question which was discussed, I admit at some length, on Thursday last. But there is one question and one question only, which I should like to ask in regard to it, because although I asked this question twice myself and several other noble Lords asked it last Thursday, it really was not answered. Will the noble Viscount explain to your Lordships before this Bill passes on to the Statute Book what is the reason for this distinction between advertising goods of some other kind and advertising goods of the same kind? Why, in future, it to be legal to distribute articles, or receptacles, or whatever they may be, which have been imported from abroad and made abroad which have on them a British name if they are advertising goods of the same kind, but illegal if they are advertising goods of some other kind? It seems to me that there is no logical distinction whatever in principle between the two things. Why, for instance, should you be allowed to give away little sample penknives made abroad and marked with a British name if they are to advertise larger penknives, or little razors if they are to advertise larger razors, when you cannot give away penknives to advertise razors or razors to advertise penknives? That is the real point.
This clause might in certain circumstances have a distinctly unfortunate effect. If it is said, as it may be said—I do not know; I am asking for information—that it has relation perhaps to little samples, or sample books, and that merchants or manufacturers ought to be allowed to distribute sample books in future, because they are advertising the same kind of goods as those it is desired to sell, the point remains that it must not be done if they are advertising goods of some other kind. I do not think that is really logical. If the sample book is made abroad and bears the British name it seems to me, so far as logic is concerned, that there is no difference between that and a case, such as I have been describing, of giving away or exhibiting something which is advertising an article of another kind. I have done my best to understand what is the reason for this distinction and I should be very much obliged if the noble

1579
Viscount in his reply would explain why this extraordinary provision is made in this way.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, my noble friend has asked me to reply to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. As regards the small penknives and the big penknives and the little razors and the big razors, my noble friend (Viscount Peel) is looking forward to the pleasure of replying personally on those matters. My noble friend Lord Askwith desires to see incorporated in this clause words which are taken almost literally from Clause 1 of the Bill. That clause, as your Lordships will remember, deals with what is called "latent misrepresentation" and is merely an extension of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. But this clause goes very much further and is intended to go very much further. It gives a power to require a qualifying indication of origin, even when there is nothing whatever marked upon goods to suggest they are British and the opinion of the Government is that it is not desirable to stretch the present clause beyond what is to be found in the Bill.
To take an illustration, it does not matter whether it is Dewars who are advertising their whiskey with a pencil or whether it is Guinness who are advertising their particular product with an ashtray, if the ashtray or the pencil has the advertiser's name upon it—has the name of the firm which it is intended to advertise on it—and it comes from abroad without any mark of origin, it will be caught by Clause 1 of the Bill. If it has not got the advertiser's name on it, it is difficult to see what value it would have as an advertisement. In fact, it surely would not be an advertisement, but would be only of the nature of a gift or present. I think my noble friend, if he will look a little more into Clause 5 of this Bill, will find that the distribution of such articles by way of advertisement will be adequately dealt with there in the course of administration and this will probably entirely satisfy his requirements. I regret that we do not see our way to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I only rise for a moment because the noble Lord asked me a question. I know it is not in order, but perhaps your Lordships will
1580
permit me to make one observation about another question which the noble Lord asked me in an earlier speech. He raised certain points about the Silk Duties and gave some figures from which he drew the inference that the re-export in silk had suffered as a consequence of the Silk Duties. I think that was his point. He must take my answer as provisional, because I have not had time to look into it thoroughly. I took the trouble, however, to make an inquiry after he spoke and I am told that the Customs have reason to believe that as far, anyhow, as a considerable part of this trade is concerned, it is not a fact that the trade has disappeared but that it only goes on under a different name—that is to say, it is carried on under the heading of "transhipment under bond" and does not appear in the re-export figures. I understand that we have not yet got the figures of transhipments under bond, but I am told that when those figures are given the complexion to be put upon them will be very different from the interpretation that the noble Lord put upon the figures he gave. The noble Lord does not accept my statement I see, but that is what I am informed officially.
The noble Lord's other point, I think, has practically been answered by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. The noble Lord's point was: "Why do you only penalise, as it were, these goods when they advertise other goods?" The mischief that it is designed to meet comes under Clause 1 of the Bill dealing with cases, as my noble friend very justly called them, of latent misrepresentation. If, being foreign goods, they have upon them the name of a British manufacturer or trader, they no doubt would tend to advertise goods which are foreign goods as if they were British goods and would tend to suggest that they are probably made by the man who sends them round. At any rate, the object of penalising this particular form of advertising is to make sure that the foreign goods do not masquerade as British goods. That really is the point. The case of firms sending round the goods themselves when they do not advertise other goods but advertise themselves is dealt with under Clause 5. The point really is that Clause 2 deals with the general marking of goods, whereas Clause 1—and I think that is where the

1581
difficulty comes in—deals with the specific case of goods coming into this country and being sold under a British name which might give the idea, or indicate, that they were of British origin. That, as far as I understand it, is the real distinction.
LORD ARNOLD: Is it not the case, if there is anything in this point about latent misrepresentation—as a matter of fact, there is nothing in it—that it applies equally if they are goods to advertise goods of the same kind as if they were goods to advertise goods of another kind?
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, after the explanation of the noble Viscount I do not wish to press this Amendment. I see that subsection (5) is wide and the noble Viscount gave me an assurance on the last occasion that the provisions of Clause 1 would not prevent such trades as the printing trade from having an inquiry under Clause 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount FitzAlan of Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Savings relating to the Church of England and saving of rights of title.
3.—Nothing in this Act nor the repeal of any enactments or parts thereof specified in the Schedule thereof shall in any way
1582
alter, add to, or abridge the law relating to services, acts, matters, or things performed or done in any church or chapel of the established Church of England or relating to clergy or ministers of the said established Church of England, or relating to any right of presentation to any benefice or other ecclesiastical living or office in the established Church of England.
Nothing herein contained shall adversely affect the title to properties which were vested in the Crown by the Statute, 1 Eliz., cap. 24.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEmoved, after "Church of England," where those words last occur, to insert "or authorise the carrying of the Host in procession through the streets." The noble Lord said: I fully realise the delicate task before me in moving this Amendment, especially as I have many Roman Catholic friends and relations. The Amendment is not put forward in any hostile spirit and I will deal with the subject as reverently as may be in my power. I think I ought to explain in the first place what the Host is for the benefit of those of your Lordships who may not know. I am given to understand—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—that it is a wafer consecrated by the priest and thereupon, according to the Roman Catholic faith, it becomes the body of our Lord. That doctrine, of course, is diametrically opposed to all other creeds in this country. Members of the Roman Catholic church naturally look upon the Host as particularly venerable and their Church commands its followers to uncover and kneel as it passes by. It is much to be feared that if Protestants do not do the same assaults may occur. Furthermore it is feared, having regard to the very strong Protestant feeling in the country, that disturbances will very likely take place, even if there is not actual violence, in the event of such processions being legalised. At all events I submit that great bitterness of feeling would be likely to be engendered on both sides which would be deplorable.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 5, at end insert ("or authorise the carrying of the Host in procession through the streets").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: I thank my noble friend for having given me private notice of his Amendment, of which otherwise I probably should not have been aware. I regret that there was not time for it to appear on the Paper in

1583
the ordinary way, but we have to accept the exigencies of Parliamentary business. I cannot possibly accept my noble friend's Amendment because the whole purpose of this Bill is to remove disabilities and restrictions and this Amendment would create a new restriction. These processions—let me tell my noble friend that he was perfectly correct in the description he gave—are held now all over the country every year. The only point connected with them which is dealt with in this Bill is the removal of the existing liability of a Roman Catholic priest who takes part in these processions in his canonicals, in his habit, to a fine of £50 for so doing. As regards the processions, I repeat that they are held throughout the country every year.
I would ask your Lordships also to consider whether the whole point is not sufficiently guarded under Clause 2 of the Bill. These processions do not take place now except by leave of the police, nor will they under this Bill. No change whatever is made in the present arrangement as regards these or any other religious processions They are the custom and in no circumstances whatever would they take place without the permission of the local authorities and the police. My noble friend seems rather anxious for our care in this matter, but I can assure him we are really old enough to take care of ourselves in this regard. Naturally, with processions of this kind, sacred processions which my noble friend has described, we should not want or dare to run a risk in the matter. We should never do anything at all in this direction without the leave and the sanction of the local authority and the police.
I must remind your Lordships with regard to this Amendment that, as I told your Lordships the other day, a similar Amendment to this was attempted to be moved in another place and was declared by Mr. Speaker to be out of order. It is true the actual words of the Amendments are not the same, but the intention is. I will read the words of that proposed Amendment—
"In page 1, line 11, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'be deemed to authorise or make lawful any public procession
1584
carrying and exposing for adoration or religious worship any image or other object of religious adoration in or through any street or public place whatsoever.' "
I submit that the Amendment proposed by my noble friend is precisely similar to the one I have just read out. Mr. Speaker's words on that Amendment were these:—
"The next Amendment, I am afraid, is not in order. It is outside the scope of the clause and I think also would have been outside the scope of the Bill as a whole."
I quite admit that our proceedings here are not dependent on the proceedings in another place and I should be one of the last to suggest that we should be in any way at all so dependent. But I would suggest that we ought to consider whether to pass an Amendment of this character, which has been declared by the Speaker in another place to be out of order, would be wise. I doubt whether it would be wise and I doubt whether it would even be polite. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In view of what my noble friend has said I am in somewhat of a dilemma. I promised faithfully those societies that are interested in this subject to press this Amendment to a Division. Therefore I am afraid I must do so.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I must say that I hope my noble friend will not interpret his pledges—I do not know what the pledges are or to what body they were given—as requiring the House, in this very unexpected fashion, to deal with a subject which must inevitably be one of embittered religious controversy. The other House of Parliament was declared by the highest authority to be incapable of dealing with that subject in connection with this Bill. I imagine that under our rules there is no authority which can make a similar pronouncement, but I do think it would be very unfortunate if the unanimity which marked all our proceedings in the earlier stages of the Bill were so violently upset as must necessarily be the case if an Amendment of this character is pressed at this stage. If my noble friend could find it consistent with his obligations to those outside this House—of which, of course, I cannot judge—to withdraw the Amendment, or not to press it to a Division, I

1585
am sure that he would be acting in harmony with what I believe to be the general spirit of those who have been dealing with this Bill hitherto.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: After what the noble Earl has said, I feel that I am really forced not to take the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BLIND PERSONS FACILITIES) BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve intself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power of local authorities to make grants or loans.
(4) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to grants under this section:
(a) the grant may be made in either of the following ways—

(i) by way of a lump sum payment to be made after the completion of the works; or

(ii) by the provision, during a period not exceeding twenty years, of any part of any periodical sums which may be payable to any persons by way of interest on or repayment of advances made by those persons for the purpose of the works;

LORD OLIVIER LORD OLIVIER moved, in subsection (4), immediately before paragraph (a,) to insert: "Assistance by way of grant shall be given only to an owner of a dwelling of which he is himself the occupier or of which his father, mother, brother, sister, son-in-law or daughter-in-law is the occupier or occupying tenant." The noble Lord said; I have given Notice of this Amendment in order to give effect to the criticism that I ventured to make upon this Bill in your Lordships' House last Friday as regards the grants proposed to be made under the Bill. Under the conditions attached to these grants—namely, that the grant shall not exceed two-thirds of the estimated cost of the works in respect of which it is to be made—they will practically be of no use to the small holders of property in villages who let that property to poor occupants, because they cannot afford to find another £20 when they are going to get an addition of only 1s. a month rent for it. This would not apply to the owners occupying these small cottages, or those whose families occupy them, because they would very likely be able to scrape together the money and think it worth while to pay for the improvement by which they or their families would benefit.
Accordingly my Amendment proposes to allow the Bill to continue to operate with regard to small occupying owners of property or the members of their families. I do not know that there is any comprehensive definition, so I have put in a whole table of affinities. These people should be allowed to receive the benefits of the Bill, but I wish to except from the purposes of the Bill the only class which, in my opinion, will be able to make use of the Bill—that is, those small owners who are themselves owners of house property and who let it. I cannot conceive how noble Lords on the Liberal Benches can support the principle of giving to the owners of estates who, for the most part, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, pointed out the other day, maintain their cottages thoroughly, grants out of public funds in order to enable thorn to house properly the labourers employed upon their estates. This appears to me to be an entirely wrong principle, and I accordingly wish to limit the operation of the grants to occupying owners or members of their families who can expend the

1587
money for the benefit of the family (excluding other persons) while leaving all other owners of property to make use of the Bill so far as it allows them facilities for borrowing money under its terms. To those loans I have no objection whatever.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Olivierv.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I see that at the conclusion of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, on this Bill on the Second Reading, he said:
"We shall certainly do what we can on this side to further this Bill. Any Amendments we may think necessary will be entirely in that direction and I hope the noble Viscount will regard from that point of view any suggestions we may make."
LORD PARMOOR: I hope that he regards this Amendment in that sense.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, places rather a liberal interpretation on those words, because the Amendment that he proposes will really wreck about three-quarters of the Bill, and I think that the view that he expressed on the Second Reading would tend to wreck the whole of the Bill. He said:
"With regard to these grants, I think the noble Viscount will see that, where £40 and £50 is needed to put a roof back into condition, none of these small people are going to spend £16 or £20 of their own money on it."
Of course we cannot possibly accept this Amendment as, in our view, it excludes at least three-quarters of the persons whom it is desired to assist. We anticipate that the bulk of the cases under this Bill will be those of owners who do not themselves live in the cottages, and the Bill is intended to assist owners of agricultural properties generally to provide more up-to-date cottages for their tenants. The noble Lord must himself agree that the discrimination that he proposes would very largely defeat the object of the Bill, and I really think that I need not waste any more of your Lordships' time in expressing our attitude.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Conditions attaching to dwellings in respect of which assistance has been given by way of grant.
3.—(1) In the case of a dwelling in respect of which assistance has been given under this Act by way of grant the following conditions shall, subject as hereinafter provided, apply in relation to the dwelling for a period of twenty years from the date on which it first becomes fit for occupation after the completion of the works and shall so long as they continue to have effect be deemed to be part of the terms of any lease, agreement for a lease, or tenancy of the dwelling, and shall be enforceable accordingly:—
(c) The owner of the dwelling shall from time to time, on being so required by the local authority, give to the authority a certificate to the effect that the foregoing conditions (a) and (b) are being complied with in respect of the dwelling;
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to insert "and any tenant of the dwelling shall, on being so required in writing by the owner, furnish to him such information as he may reasonably require for the purpose of enabling him to comply with this condition." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to enable the owner to whom a grant has been made to comply with paragraph (c) of the statutory conditions which bind the dwelling. That paragraph requires him to certify from time to time that the statutory conditions (a) and (b)—namely, those relating to the class of person who may occupy the dwelling and the rent which may be charged in respect of the dwelling—are being fulfilled. If the actual occupier of the dwelling is not the tenant of the owner but a sub-tenant, the owner might find it impossible, in the absence of the words proposed to be inserted, to discover whether these conditions were, in fact, being fulfilled.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, after ("dwelling") insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think that this is really an Amendment which is necessary in order to make clear the provisions of the Bill. That is the view which I take of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

CORONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at five-minutes past seven o'clock.