Lords Sitting of 7 July 1926

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

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a.
Clause 35:
As to vehicles overtaking stationary tramcars.
35.—(1) When any tramcar is standing at a tramway stopping place in the City of which the position is shown by a notice sign or other indication placed painted or affixed near thereto the driver of any vehicle who intends to pass on the left or near side of such tramcar shall draw up before arriving at such stopping place, and shall not pass such tramcar until the carriageway on the left or near side is clear of passengers entering or leaving the same.
(2) Any person contravening the provisions of this Section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit Clause 35. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation this afternoon because, as a rule, I think every member of your Lordships' House would desire to support the decisions of Committees, which have been arrived at after a patient hearing upstairs. I am very sorry that I have on this occasion to challenge the decision of this Committee, if only on the ground that the noble Lord who presided over it, my noble friend Lord Redesdale, takes a great interest in the work of this House. I am informed that the Committee was extremely well conducted, and gave a most careful hearing to all the aspects of the case.
But this is one of the few occasions when a Committee upstairs has allowed a piece of legislation, or at least has suggested that a regulation be allowed, which not only affects the area concerned, but might affect the whole country. In the case of Newcastle an exceptional regulation is being asked for which has only been given in the case of Glasgow, and in the case of Glasgow it was allowed as a by-law and was never sanctioned by
868
any Committee of this House or of another place. This, therefore, was the first time that a regulation of this kind has been sanctioned by a Committee and that is largely my excuse for drawing the attention of your Lordships to it this afternoon.
There are two separate aspects of this question. There is the general question as to whether you should legislate piecemeal on a subject which is national and not local. Everyone knows that traffic, nowadays, is entirely general in character and that the streets and roads in this country are used by persons who need have no acquaintance or connection with a particular locality. It is not only the people of Newcastle who have to be considered but the general users of the roads of the country. On that point I would remind your Lordships that the Government has announced its intention of bringing in a Bill next year to deal with this and many other matters. As I understand it, the Bill is already in preparation at the Ministry of Transport and will be a revision of the Act of 1903. I suggest, on that ground alone, that it would be advisable to leave the matter to be dealt with at the proper time.
I shall be prepared to say something on the merits of the question later on. As I have said, it is only in the City of Glasgow that this regulation exists, and I think it would be inadvisable to extend it for the reasons I have already given. On the evidence given in Committee on the general question, I observe that my noble friend may argue with truth that one or two racing motorists came forward and supported the Newcastle scheme. I am not a racing motorist, but I have had a great deal of experience of traffic in various countries of the world. When I was on the Road Board I went on a Mission which studied the traffic in various cities of America and elsewhere, and from my experience my inclination is to the belief that a proposal to stop all traffic passing on the near side of a stationary tramcar would not increase the chances of safety.
Your Lordships will observe from the paper I have circulated that the Home Office has reported adversely to this particular clause, that the Ministry of Transport dislikes it, and that a conference of Chief Constables which met a

869
short time ago in London decided against it by a large majority. On page 8 of their Report the Committee of representatives of Police Forces and road users say:—
"In the interests of safety of passengers a Lighting from tramcars, it was strongly urged that, when a tramway car is stationary at any point authorised as a stopping place"—
that is exactly the Newcastle position—
"which is indicated by a notice or sign in the thoroughfare for the taking up or setting down of passengers, every driver of a vehicle who intends to pass on the left or near side of such tramway car shall draw tin immediately before arriving at such stopping place until the roadway is clear of passengers entering or leaving the car."
The Conference fully discussed the subject and the majority were of opinion that the existing powers under Section 1 of the Motor Car Act of 1003 were sufficient to enable them to deal with the matter. I am bound to say, therefore, that when a clause is opposed by the Home Office, by the Ministry of Transport and by a. large majority of the members of a conference of Chief Constables, there is something to be said for my asking your Lordships to reject that clause.
One thing that affects this question is the lack of uniformity. I dare say your Lordships are aware that on the open road you have to proceed in some countries on the right-hand side and, after a time, on the left. Such lack of uniformity causes serious obstruction and leads to a continual risk of accidents. In some French towns there is a special speed limit and when a case arises out of it, the defendant says, and with justice: "How am I to know when I enter this locality that this particular law is in force?" And if any of your Lordships were driving, or being driven through Newcastle, how would you know when you had passed over the high level bridge from Gateshead that this special law was in force in Newcastle and that if you saw a tramcar stationary in the road you could not pass it until it had moved on?
Then, in regard to passengers leaving tramcars, I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will hear me out when I say that the general rule has been in existence for a very long time, that a vehicle passing another has to pass it on the off side. That is the general law in this country under the Highways Act of 1835. I think I am correct in saying that the law has
870
never been altered and that if its provisions were strictly enforced you ought always to pass a tramcar on the off side. If that is so, in a very narrow street it would be dangerous, as I have no doubt your Lordships will realise, and if there is, as is often the case, a double line of tramways it would be a risky thing to pass on the off side, unless the road was clear. I have had a great deal of experience in London and other towns and I only do that when it is absolutely necessary. Under this clause the stipulation is that a conveyance shall not pass a stationary car on the near side, so that only those passengers which leave the car on that side are protected. There is no protection at all given to passengers leaving the ear on the off side. A lot of people, when they get off a car, cross to the off side. Further, passengers do not always know which is the near side and I can only come to the conclusion, therefore, that the protection afforded by the clause is very limited in character.
A case has been made out, or alleged, by the Newcastle Corporation that this particular regulation is needed because the powers under the Act of 1903 are not adequate. I do not think that can be the case. Your Lordships who are magistrates have, no doubt, often tried cases whore, on the evidence of two constables, it has been difficult to determine whether a car was travelling at a particular speed or not. But the question of speed limits does not enter into this matter. In Gateshead, on the other side of the Tyne from Newcastle, the General Act is in force and has a very good effect. So far from that being ineffective, since the Bill was in Committee under the Chairmanship of my noble friend I have ascertained that in the last eighteen months there were actually nine prosecutions which resulted in seven convictions in Gateshead. That rather looks as if the matter should be dealt with by the ordinary law without having this special clause.
Section 1 of the Motor Car Act of 1903, your Lordships will remember, gives very wide powers. When that section was originally passed in another place, the late Viscount Long, who was then President of the Local Government Board, and myself tried to draft it in such a way as to deal with every case of dangerous driving or driving to the

871
public danger and if there is one section in that Act of 1903 which is watertight that one, I think, is Section 1, which has served its purpose well. It has been used with effect and, in fact, it is the governing clause of the whole Act. I still think that it is sufficient to deal with this matter. As regards the accidents that are caused, I believe in Glasgow it is claimed that a clause like this has had the effect of reducing the number of accidents. But we want to know the circumstances in which those statistics were gathered and we want to trace a great many of the accidents in detail to see what value can be placed upon the conclusion that has been drawn. Until that is done it is very difficult to say precisely to what an accident was due in a particular case.
Some evidence was brought forward with regard to the operation of this law in the United States. The situation there is, however, quite different from ours. When once the police allow the traffic to go on in any direction and the red light is changed to green, if you do not run for your life it is your own fault. We do not want to imitate that system in this country. We have conducted our traffic, I think, on the whole more soberly than any other country in the world, and we do not want to have American precedents introduced here. I put it to the House that really this clause is not needed. I do not know that I have anything more to say, except this. This clause is objected to by a number of public bodies and by chief constables. It has been turned down already in, the cases of Manchester and Liverpool, and by, at any rate, three other great cities. It is, in my opinion, and I hope in the opinion of your Lordships, introducing an intolerable nuisance. Piecemeal legislation of this kind ought never to be passed because it leads to differentiations in the law as regards different towns. Although I am reluctant to disagree with the decision of the Committee, I think this is a case in which your Lordships should do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 35.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, as I was Chairman of the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships to deal with
872
the Newcastle Bill I think you may wish to hear from me why the Committee allowed Clause 99 as it was then—Clause 35 now—to pass. The real truth of the matter is that this clause merely seeks to enforce by law the consideration due and usually accorded by motor drivers and others to pedestrians. It is very important to appreciate what the clause does say. I have heard the strangest interpretations of this clause. What, in effect, it says is that when a tram car is stopped at one of its regular stopping stations no vehicle shall pass that tram on the near side until such time as the roadway is clear of pedestrians joining or leaving the tram. There is nothing to prevent a motor car passing the tram on the off side, assuming that the momentary conditions of traffic permit. The trams are of no use to the people unless the people are allowed to get into them, and there really is no reason why they should be compelled to thread their way through a string of motor cars, very often at considerable personal risk. They are just as anxious to reach their destinations as people in the cars.
Most of your Lordships are only too familiar with the procedure of Committees dealing with Private Bills and are well aware of the voluminous nature of the evidence that is brought both by promoters and opponents. I will not trouble your Lordships with more than the gist of that evidence and its source, because the source in this case is of great importance. The evidence differed from that usually heard upstairs, in that it was not the evidence of experts, as your Lordships understand the word; it was almost all evidence on matters of common knowledge, and I may safely say, within the personal experience of most of your Lordships. The opposition to the clause was based mainly on three points—firstly, that it would congest the traffic; secondly, that the existing law—Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, 1903—was sufficient to deal with the offenders; and, thirdly, interference with motorists.
I think it was the third point that worried the opponents, the Automobile Association, more than anything else and it would be convenient if I dealt in the first place with that point. Their fear is that the motorist from a. distance passing through Newcastle and being unaware of

873
the existence of this clause will get into difficulties with the authorities in Newcastle. That is true, but only to this extent, that he will have to deserve to get into the difficulty. As a matter of fact, no evidence of any kind was produced to show that the motorist had got into any such difficulties when passing through Glasgow, where this clause is already in operation. It is not reasonable to suppose that Newcastle is seeking these powers in order to obtain convictions of a frivolous nature on technical grounds and, further, Newcastle has undertaken to erect efficient notices of warning.
As to the first point in the opposition—the probable congestion of traffic—the opposition brought evidence to show that it was imperative to keep the traffic on the move. That, no doubt, is true, but even that must be subject to certain limitations. You cannot keep the traffic moving over, or even at the expense of, the pedestrians. The superintendent of traffic in Glasgow gave it in evidence that far from interfering with traffic it actually helped it. On the remaining point in the opposition—that the existing law is sufficient to deal with offenders—I was going in any case to direct your Lordships' attention to the Report that has been referred to by the noble Lord. The Committee which presented that Report, as he has told you, consisted largely of Chief Constables. There were seventeen Chief Constables sitting on that Committee and seven representatives of road users. But of course, it is misleading to soy that that is a large proportion of Chief Constables. There are over 250 Chief Constables in the country and there were only seventeen of them on this Committee.
Even then, this is only a Majority Report and there is nothing to show that it was adopted by a large majority. They discussed this particular clause. The noble Lord has read their recommendation, but I will read it again:
"We fully discussed this subject, and the majority of us are of opinion that the existing powers under the Motor Car Act, 1903, Section 1 (1), are sufficient to enable the police to deal with the matter."
That Committee was either right or it was wrong. If it was right, and the existing law is, in fact, sufficient, then this clause will make no practical change. If, on the other hand, they were wrong and the existing law is not sufficient, then this
874
Committee has advanced no reason whatever for objecting to the clause. It is true that the omnibus owners, in a Petition, claimed that the clause destroyed their chance of effective competition with the trams, but this claim was never supported by any evidence whatever. Are not your Lordships of opinion that, if the omnibus owners really thought they had a case, they would have brought that case before the Committee and would have supported it with some sort of evidence?
The promoters of the Bill called as a witness Major Seagrave, who holds the world's speed record, so that it must necessarily be presumed that Major Seagrave is a driver of very considerable experience. Major Seagrave supports this clause absolutely. Mr. McConnell, the chief examiner of Brooklands Racing Club, supports this clause absolutely. Mr. Crawley, the Chief Constable of Newcastle, the very man who is responsible for the smooth running of the traffic of Newcastle, supports this clause absolutely. Mr. Peters, superintendent of traffic in Glasgow, which is the only City in this country which has the provisions of this clause in force, supports this clause absolutely, as the result of his own practical experience of its working. As I have told your Lordships before, he gave it in evidence that so far from its interfering with traffic it actually helps it. Evidence was given to the effect that in Glasgow and New York, where the provisions of this clause are in force, it had not in any way increased congestion of traffic and had been the means of diminishing street accidents to a great extent.
Your Lordships will not object to my quoting figures, because they are of importance and tell their own story. In 1914 there were registered in the City of Glasgow 7,413 motor cars and there were in that year 45 accidents directly attributable to motorists pushing their way through pedestrians between the pavement and the trams. In 1925, that is to say after the clause had come into effect in Glasgow, there were registered in that city 25,900 cars and there were 43 accidents of the same sort. The noble Lord suggests that there may be other reasons for this extraordinary diminution—because while the number of cars has been multiplied by four the number of accidents has actually decreased. I

875
think, however, it is fair to say that probably a very considerable proportion of the decrease is due to the clause. Evidence was given—and very strong evidence—as to the difficulty of making efficient use of the existing law to meet the particular case dealt with by the clause, and to the effect that it was almost necessary that an accident involving loss of life or injury should actually have taken place before a conviction could be obtained under the existing law.
I turn now to the evidence that was brought by the opponents. Mr. Stenson Cooke, secretary of the Automobile Association, gave evidence to the effect that the Motor Car Act of 1903 was already far too wide, that the Automobile Association had had to defend scores of thousands of cases, and that there had already been too many convictions to suit the Automobile Association. Mr. Temperley, a solicitor residing in Newcastle, gave evidence against the clause as an ordinary motorist and not as a solicitor. He never touched on any legal point; in fact, when he did start to do so learned Cousel advised him to leave it alone. Mr. Spens, Scottish secretary of the Automobile Association, when giving his evidence, in effect merely contradicted the evidence given by the superintendent of traffic in Glasgow.
As for saying that such legislation should be general or should not exist at all, I submit to your Lordships that there is any amount of precedent for the inauguration in this way of legislation which has been found to be good and has subsequently been embodied in general legislation. It is either good or it is bad. If it is, as I submit, good, there can be no earthly reason why Newcastle should be denied the benefit of this legislation until such time as it can be made general. On the point regarding the recommendations that are received by Committees from Departments, while Committees sitting upstairs are very grateful for the assistance and guidance they receive from the Department and for the benefit of their experience, it must be left at that. If memoranda received from Departments are to be regarded as instructions to Committees it means nothing short of government by Departments.
876
The Committee allowed this clause after careful consideration of the evidence, and they were unanimous. It was not a case where any persuasion or discussion was necessary. I can understand opposition by the Government. If the Government, or those more immediately responsible for the conduct of the Select Committees upstairs, were of opinion that this matter had been mishandled, if they were of opinion that the Committee had arrived at an improper conclusion, it would be their duty to intervene in the interests of the public. But that is not the case, and I find it very difficult to understand intervention at this stage by a private body which has had a full hearing upstairs, especially in view of the fact that this clause has yet to be considered in another place. Moreover, it was open to opponents, if they did not intend to accept any decision of the Committee in favour of the clause, to move an instruction to the Committee on Second Reading, and if your Lordships had accepted that instruction the Bill would have been unopposed. It is not necessary for me to point out the saving to both parties that would have resulted from this, as I think, more satisfactory course, had it been adopted. I sincerely trust that your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Chairman of this Committee which sat upstairs, for this reason: there is no doubt that all motorists, no matter how fast they drive, when they arrive at a town where there are tramways have to pass through narrow streets, and pedestrians when they get out of these tramcars have to get into the roadway in order to pass safely along the particular path which pedestrians use. I know this place in Newcastle very well. The trouble has arisen from the fact that there is a very narrow street in which pedestrians get off on the near side. When the car move on it blinds the motorist and, if he wants to rush through, he is very likely to catch a pedestrian.
Your Lordships as a rule support your Committees that sit upstairs. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the Chairman of the Committee, has quoted Glasgow, where this rule is in force. This Amend-

877
ment proposes the deletion of a whole clause and, if you omit a whole clause in a Bill that has been considered for so long and after the hearing of so much evidence, a Bill, moreover, which applies to such an important town as Newcastle, you are taking a grave step. The noble Lord mentioned that there would have been plenty of time on the Second Reading to give notice of the intention to object to this clause. I do not know what the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees will have to say about the matter, but I strongly support Lord Redesdale's contention. I am not going to repeat the arguments that he so ably put before you, but if Glasgow has this provision I do not sec why Newcastle should not have it, too. It will not be a precedent to aply to every big town in the Kingdom. Why should it? People are being killed at that place, and I have a personal recollection of it because I was myself as nearly as possible caught in that narrow street.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I had not proposed to deal at any length with the merits of this clause but in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, the Chairman of the Committee, I must go into them a little more fully than I had intended. He gave us a review of the evidence, but it seems to me that this review is open to one or two criticisms. First of all, among the people whom he put forward as having been called in favour of this clause, the first and second were a racing motorist and a member of a racing authority at Brooklands. It seems to me that racing motorists are not, perhaps, the best people to give evidence about ordinary traffic on ordinary roads. The majority of them know very little about it and pay very little regard to it. When they travel on ordinary roads they travel at an early hour in the morning, but they spend most of their time as motorists racing round tracks. It would have been better to hear the view of some ordinary paterfamilias who goes about his business by car like the rest of us.
The noble Lord gave us some figures from Glasgow from which he invited us to draw the conclusion that a similar clause in Glasgow had been particularly useful. He said that the number of motor cars had increased fourfold, while the number of accidents apparently re-
878
mained stationary. That makes many assumptions which I think are open to observation. First of all, it does not follow in the least that the accidents that occur in Glasgow are due to motor cars that happen to be registered in that City. The chances are that they are not registered there. In the next place it appears that the number of accidents must depend very much more upon the number of tramcars, the number of stopping places and the number of coveys, go to speak, of passengers who have been exposed to danger than upon the number of motor cars, and if the number of tramcars has remained stationary—and the noble Lord said nothing to show that it had not—I do not see why the number of accidents should not remain stationary, no matter how many more motor cars there were, because not more than one motor car would be likely to run into a covey at the same place. I think that the argument was a little fallacious.
The noble Lord asked us to look at the clause itself, and I should be very glad indeed if your Lordships would do so. The clause says:—
"When any tramcar is standing at a tramway stopping place in the City of which the position is shown by a notice sign or other indication—"
It will be seen that the clause applies only where there is a sign, and one must hope that the motorist will be able to see that sign. The clause goes on to say that, when these conditions are satisfied,
"the driver of any vehicle who intends to pass on the left or near side of such tramcar shall draw up before arriving at such stopping place, and shall not pass such tramcar until the carriageway on the left or near side is clear of passengers entering or leaving the same."
That seems to me to be infinitely more difficult to interpret than the simple provision of Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, 1903.
In the first place, let it be noted that this will not, as the noble Lord seemed to suggest, apply to every pedestrian. It applies only to passengers entering or leaving the tramcar. It will not apply if a motorist sees a pedestrian crossing from one side of the street to the other, but only to those who pass from the kerb to the tramcar and vice versâ. In the second place, how is the motorist to know exactly at what moment the roadway is clear? Your Lordships, or those of you who drive in streets where there

879
are tramcars, know very well that it sometimes happens that there will be a rush of five or six passengers from the car and then, after an interval, some belated passenger will come out and embark upon a separate excursion to wards the kerb. If the motorist observes that the street is clear, as is provided under this clause, and then a belated passenger appears, it will be extraordinarily difficult to decide if the clause could be enforced.
What is this clause intended to hit? It is aimed at a perfectly legitimate object of deprecation—a thing which I am sure all of your Lordships wish to see stopped—the careless, reckless and inconsiderate behaviour of a driver who, seeing passengers get off a tramcar and go towards the kerb, pushes his way through them as if they were a flock of sheep, quite regardless of their safety or comfort, and takes his chance. But there can be no doubt as to the principle to be followed in such a case. If that is the conduct complained of, surely it is exactly the conduct covered in Section 1, the offence of driving in a manner dangerous to the public. I am sure that no magistrate would have any hesitation in convicting if evidence were given of that sort of thing. The noble Lord who was Chairman of the Committee said that convictions were difficult to obtain unless somebody had actually been injured or killed. Let me remind your Lordships of a somewhat notorious village called Buckden, on the Great North Road, where hundreds of motorists were convicted of driving to the common danger simply because they had passed through the empty village street at twenty-five miles an hour when there was nobody in the street at all. They never had any difficulty in getting convictions under Section 1 in that village.
LORD REDESDALE: May I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? I laid particular stress upon the fact that the difficulty was in dealing with this particular place. It is not concerned with villages in other parts of the country. The difficulty is to apply the existing law in cases where pedestrians alighting from tramcars are injured.
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid that it is due to my own denseness, but I do not quite follow the distinction that the noble
880
Lord wishes me to draw. If you drive dangerously it seems to me that it is merely a question of evidence whether you can be convicted or not. It ought to be a question of whether the fact has been proved. So much for the merits of the clause. I was really not particularly anxious to dwell upon its merits. Whether some provision of this kind, if it were established, would be useful or not, I am not prepared to say. I entirely agree that passengers alighting from tramcars are entitled to be protected. I would just point out, in passing, that your Lordships are probably acquainted with a very large tramway shelter near Blackfriars Bridge, where thousands of passengers are taken up by trams and have to cross a most complicated and dangerous stream of traffic in order to get there. It is not thought necessary to hold up that traffic every time a passenger is crossing.
But my objection to this clause goes further than that. It is an objection which the noble Lord, the Chairman of the Committee, did attempt to meet to some exent. It is an objection to legislating piecemeal on what ought to be a matter of general legislation. We have heard that we are going to have a Roads Bill introduced soon. We have heard that for three years, but it will come soon, and if this is a proper subject for legislation then it is a proper subject for general legislation. There is no reason why tramcar users in Newcastle should be protected more than those in Kingston. I go through Kingston three times a week, but I do not think that any difficulty is found in conducting the traffic there under the auspices of the Metropolitan Police, and, as I have said, my objection is to legislating piecemeal. I think I am almost as great a purist on matters of Committee procedure as is the Lord Chairman, whose advice I am always prepared to follow, and naturally as a lawyer I prefer the experience of a tribunal which has heard all the witnesses rather than the uninformed prejudices of members of this House, in these matters; but there are cases and matters of principle in which your Lordships can intervene, and really I rose to say that my objection is based on the question of principle, that I think legislation on this subject should be general and not piecemeal.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, you often have to complain in deciding these matters of a paucity of counsellors. In this case we may congratulate ourselves upon having a multitude of counsellors, and our difficulty is in deciding between them. On the one hand we have the promoters, who are one of the most important corporations in the country, who, realising their responsibility, ask for this clause. They are not the first promoters who have asked for it, although they are the first to persuade a tribunal of this House to pass this clause. The promoters are supported in this debate by your Lordships' Committee, which was presided over by Lord Redesdale, and I am glad of this opportunity to thank him for the great deal of work which he does in the Committee Room upstairs, most industriously and conscientiously. I hope we may continue to have his assistance in future Sessions as in the present and the past.
On the other side we have my two noble friends who have spoken, who, of course, are keen traffic men with worldwide knowledge of the traffic question. We have two very strong Government Reports, by the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport, recommending that this clause should not be allowed. The Ministry of Transport is supported by a Departmental Committee, and we have previous decisions of Parliament inimical to this clause. I may mention, of course, the Glasgow precedent. The Glasgow by-law was allowed by the Scottish Office fourteen or fifteen years ago tinder the general powers of a clause. I need hardly remind your Lordships, however, that without one nation being unkind to another I am not exaggerating when I say that in English legislation Scottish precedents are no more regarded than English precedents are regarded in Scottish legislation. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite, who has unrivalled knowledge of both English and Scottish legislation, will support me in saying that that rule is inevitably followed in all Private Bill legislation.
But it has been claimed in the course of the debate, and I want to emphasise the fact, that we are not merely deciding a Newcastle question. Lord Mayo, with
882
his knowledge of Newcastle, thinks these are powers which can be given to Newcastle without being a precedent for being granted anywhere else. I could not take that view. If they were granted in Newcastle I think we should have to grant them elsewhere. My objection to the clause can really be summed up in one sentence: I think the rule of the road must be uniform all over the country. I hesitate to delay your Lordships, but it is only a question of reading three or four paragraphs, and I think I must read the whole of the Report of the Home Office on this clause. To my regret only one paragraph of it is quoted in the memorandum circulated by my noble friend, but it is so important, and at the same time so succinct in its objections to the clause, and it expresses my views so clearly, that I think I ought to read it.
It refers to Clause 99, as it was originally numbered. It is as follows:—
"The Secretary of State understands that this clause is based on a by-law now in force in Glasgow which was made under the Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1912, and came into operation in May, 1915.
"The Secretary of State feels that there is considerable objection to allowing a provision of this nature for a particular locality. If such variations of the general law are allowed for different localities, a good deal of confusion will result, and drivers of motor vehicles passing from one part of the country to another may unwittingly find themselves criminal offenders against a local law. Drivers who attempt to push through crowds in the road can already be dealt with under Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, which makes it an offence to drive to the danger of the public, and the Secretary of State suggests that no further provision is required.
"The Secretary of State has consulted the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, as the authority controlling the traffic in the streets of London, as to the probable effect of such a provision in the streets of a large town. In the opinion of the Commissioner the provision is likely to be impracticable in streets with a large amount of traffic and to give rise to more accidents than it will avoid. Amongst the objections the Secretary of State may mention in particular the following:—
"(1) At busy stopping places where there is a frequent service of tramcars a literal enforcement of the provision would result in great obstruction of the traffic.
"(2) There would be a strong tendency for vehicles to attempt to pass tramcars on the off or right side—an admittedly dangerous proceeding.

883
"(3) There might be considerable temptation to vehicles to race a tramcar to a stopping place in order not to be made to pull up and wait while it took up or set down passengers.
"(4) Drivers of vehicles cannot always tell when tramcars intend to pull up at stopping places where the cars only stop by request, as drivers of tramcars are not able to indicate with their hand when they are going to do so.
"The Secretary of State recommends that the clause should not be allowed. Similar proposals were withdrawn from the Liverpool, Burnley and Preston Bills of 1921, and disallowed in the Manchester Bill of 1924."
The Ministry of Transport say that they are aware of this Report and that they support it. These Reports are made to Parliament under the Standing Orders of this House. We order these Reports to be made, and they are not made as instructions to Committees, as the noble Lord behind me suggested might be mistakenly thought by some people.
The noble and learned Lord opposite drew attention to the wording of the clause, and I will not take up time by supplementing what he said. I have done my best to understand the clause, but I cannot understand it. A vehicle which intends to pass on the left may be five miles off, but any vehicle, the driver of which intends to pass on the left, must instantly stop. It is, however, not on the technical drafting side that I object to the clause. I object to it for the reasons I have stated, that I believe it to be unsound from the general point of view. I am extremely reluctant, as the noble and learned Lord said I would be, not to support the decision of any of your Lordships' Committees, but I think I should remind you that exactly the same clause was asked for in 1924 in the Manchester Bill. I think the clause was almost in the same words. The same Government Reports were made against it and very similar evidence was called against it. Lord Clarendon went into the clause at great length. I have, of course, had to refresh my memory, and I have re-read in the last few hours all the evidence given before the Committee over which Lord Clarendon presided and all the evidence given before the Committee of my noble friend Lord Redesdale. With reluctance I find that I am unable to support Lord Redesdale. I shall sup-
884
port the decision of Lord Clarendon, given two years ago, and therefore if my noble friend Lord Montagu proceeds to a Division I, for one, shall vote with him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name with regard to this Bill.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 29th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, before you consent to the Motion made by my noble friend the Lord Chairman I think you ought to be acquainted with the action of the Swindon Corporation during the General Strike. The Bill now under discussion contains, among other clauses, fifteen clauses dealing with the supply of electricity. During the Strike the Swindon Corporation in my opinion abused the powers which they have under the various Electricity Acts.
I will read a statement which appeared in the North Wilts Herald, which is a local paper issued in Swindon:
"But the morrow, Wednesday, brought a far greater menace than the withdrawal of union labour. The Swindon Central Strike Committee, it appears, demanded the Corporation to deprive Newspaper House of electricity for power purposes, and the Swindon Corporation did the perfectly incredible thing, it acquiesced.
"Claiming that right of entry to premises which is a condition of supplying electricity, Corporation workers, bearing with them an order signed by the Borough Electrical Engineer, entered the premises and took out the main power fuses."
As a matter of fact the newspaper proceeded to purchase an engine, and in a day or two was able to issue again. But the Swindon Corporation took advantage of the power that it had to supply electricity to go in and stop a newspaper from publishing. Only a day or two ago I read that the Walthamstow Corporation did something of a similar kind and that they had applied to be incorporated, and that the Privy Council, on account of their action, refused to incorporate them.

885
I do not think that your Lordships ought to suspend the Sessional Order, which is what you are now asked to do, in order that the Swindon Corporation, who did what I venture to think every one of your Lordships will consider to be an extremely wrong thing, should be enabled to get their Bill through, which they could not do unless this particular favour was shown to them. I think that the Swindon Corporation ought to learn that they had no right to abuse the power which had been granted to them, and that some step should be taken to read them a lesson.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, my noble friend was good enough, just before the House met, to mention to me that he desired to say to your Lordships what he has just said, and of course he is entirely within his rights in taking the course that he has taken. At the same time, I hope that the promoters may be able to satisfy him in the course of time that possibly the penalty with which he threatens them is one that might be mitigated if they can find him in a merciful mood, and I am sure that your Lordships would desire that they should be given the opportunity of making that effort. I will, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate. I think that is the best course in the circumstances.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: My Lords, my noble friend only told me as I came into the House about his intention to raise this matter. There is, of course, this difference between the position of Swindon and that of Walthamstow. Walthamstow was asking for a very great favour, which was very rightly refused. The provisions of the Swindon Bill—I forget them for the moment—may be of such a character that, if they are postponed or refused, you may inflict greater penalties on the innocent than you do on the guilty.
On Question, Motion to adjourn the debate agreed to.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peel, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given in relation to this Bill.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 29th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and Bill read 2a accordingly.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION (STREETS, BUILDINGS AND SEWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Sections 8 and 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Corporation streets, buildings, and sewers; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 11) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ILFRA COMBE) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TELEPHONE CHARGES.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to draw attention to the obstacles put in way of telephone extensions in rural districts by making unreasonable charges for connecting houses with rural exchanges, in excess of the cost of making such connections: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, to a very large extent telephone extensions in rural districts are blocked and hindered by the excessive charges to which I refer in my Question. There might be some excuse for such charges if the telephone system of the country was run at a loss, but I understand that, instead of a loss, there was at the end of the last half-year to March 31 a surplus on the telephone system of a quarter of a million. Therefore, I hope that no excuse of that sort will be advanced by the noble Earl who represents the Post Office in your Lordships' House. What is the present position regarding telephone exchanges in rural districts? It is laid down in the Regulations that within a mile and a half of an exchange or measuring point the annual charge is £ 5 a year. That is a fixed charge, in addition to which, of course, there is a large revenue arising from the fact that you have for all practical purposes in rural areas to pay 2d, or 3d, or even more, every time you make a call on the telephone.
Another matter I have to complain of much more strongly is that for every furlong beyond the one and a half miles from the local exchange £ 1 per annum is charged; that is to say, that you have to pay, in addition to the £ 5, £ 8 a year for every mile beyond the one and a half miles allowed. There might be some reason for that additional charge though it seems to be a very considerable sum. This is a very big question and the noble Earl to whom I have given a certain amount of information will correct me if I am wrong. I asked him whether it is not the case that, as I had been credibly informed, in large towns like Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, a person who lives even as much as half a mile or a
888
mile beyond the one and a half miles allowed is not charged anything in respect of the extra distance. I shall be glad to learn whether that is so or not.
Another grievance from which persons in rural districts suffer has been brought to my knowledge. It is that, although telephone poles and wires may be actually passing the house to which you wish to have the telephone extended, you are charged exactly the same as if there were no poles or wires within a distance of a mile and a half. May I quote from what was said by a correspondent last month in the Star newspaper regarding a case in which the wires were actually carried into the house, but the occupiers were without a telephone because the rental alone would come to nearly £ 30 a year. The line was lying idle because no arrangement could be come to with the Post Office. An ordinary business firm, it was said, would soon have come to a satisfactory and paying compromise. But the Post Office proceeds on the hard and fast rule that if you are beyond the mile and a half limit you must pay, as I have already said, at the rate of £ 1 a year for every furlong of extra distance. No consideration is given at all to the fact that poles and wires pass close to the house of the person who wishes to have the telephone installed and that, consequently, very little extra cost is involved in connecting the telephone.
May I be permitted to mention a case from my own district in Somerset? A Mr. Popham lives in a house which is about a quarter to half a mile from that of his tenant. Both are connected by a private line, and Mr. Popham's house, Hunstrete House, is also connected with the Post Office telephone at Temple Cloud, which is in the Bristol district. Mr. Popham was refused a connection with Timsbury because it is in the Bath district. He offered the use of his own posts to the Post Office, but the offer was refused as they did not come up to their requirements. His tenant is to be connected with Timsbury, and owing to the cost of construction the agreement has to be for a term of five years at a rental of £ 16 10 s. Suitable posts could be erected on Mr. Popham's route which would shorten the distance to a quarter of a mile instead of the one and a half miles proposed by the General Post Office. I have

889
given that information to the noble Earl who represents the Post Office in your Lordships' House and there may be some explanation of the circumstances; but to the ordinary man it seems very unreasonable indeed that a person should be put to all this extra cost for no apparent reason except that the Post Office says that the telephone would be in the Bristol district in one instance and in the Bath district in the other.
The Central Landowners' Union, which, as your Lordships are aware, is a body of great importance and to which, indeed, many of your Lordships belong and some are members of its Council, unanimously resolved at a council meeting within the last few days to support my Motion on the ground of a complaint received from a member, Mr. S. F. Bartlett, of Brackley. Mr. Bartlett informed the council that he proposes to share a line with three other farmers, each paying £ 10 a year or a total of £ 40 a year. Should one or more of the four cease to subscribe the others are responsible for the £ 40 for three years. The Brackley exchange is only four miles from Mr. Bartlett, who is the farthest off of the four farmers, and the wires are only about 500 yards from his house. His other alternative is to have a private line to his nearest exchange, which is at Syresham, two and a-half miles from him, at a rental of £ 14 a year. These farmers are asked to pay £ 40 a year for three years and if any of them fall out for any reason the others will be responsible for the payment of that amount for that period of time. It seems very unreasonable that an ordinary tenant farmer should have to do that or in the alternative have a private line. The proposed line is what is known as a party line, and, as your Lordships know, that is very inconvenient in an agricultural district if any of the parties fall out, because it is possible for them to learn from it what is being said, or the prices that may be arranged, and what not. Yet all those restrictions are to be laid upon these people. The sum of £ 40 is additional, of course, to any revenue which would be derived by the Post Office from the calls which would be made.
I have received a great many letters from private individuals complaining of the cost to which they have been put in connection with telephones. Among them
890
I have a letter from the Vicar of King's Bromley, Burton-on-Trent, who says:—
"I feel sure that the following facts may be of service to you: I am about one and a half miles from the exchange and I am charged as follows— Rental per annum, for a party line, £ 9 10 s.; additional for all night service, £1; additional for extension bell, 6s.; total, £ 10 16 s"
May I refer also to information given to me as the result of some rather interesting advertisements inserted in The Times by the Telephone Development Association, and which I daresay your Lordships have seen. They draw my attention to a Report made by a Select Committee on Telephones of the House of Commons in 1922, which was presided over by a distinguished member of the House of Commons. What did that Select Committee say in their recommendations in 1922? Put shortly, they said the setting aside of £ 200,000 annually for extra depreciation should be discontinued and ordinary depreciation should be revised: the result would be a saving of £ 270,000 in 1922–23. Probably it would be a great deal more now. No doubt the noble Lord is acquainted with this Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Telephones and this has been brought to his notice. Perhaps he may be able to tell us that that recommendation has been carried out.
Further, the Select Committee goes on to recommend that salaries and overhead charges for new construction should be charged to capital and not to revenue, saving £ 400,000 a year. I think your Lordships will agree that the recommendation of the Committee is a reasonable one and should be carried out. The telephones are a trading concern. They were taken over from the National Telephone Company and ought to be conducted on ordinary business lines. It is not right to charge to revenue what really is capital expenditure. The Committee report that these two recommendations together would probably save at least eight per cent of the existing charges. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the difference between this country and America in this matter. In England we have had £ 70,000,000 of capital expenditure on telephones serving 60,000 subscribers, while in America they have a capital expenditure of £ 700,000,000 on telephones serving 400,000

891
persons. It is interesting to note that in the City of New York there are actually more telephones than there are in the whole of Great Britain.
I should like to touch upon the employment aspect of the matter, because that is of great importance in these days. The extension of the telephones would offer a great deal of employment. Every million pounds invested gives employment, it, is calculated, to 6,500 persons. Such an expenditure would mean something like 12,000 persons using the exchanges and would produce a net revenue of £ 16,000 a year. That shows that the expenditure would not be unremunerative. I do not want for a moment to blame the Post Office in this matter. I am perfectly certain that the Postmaster-General is most anxious to do everything he can for us in agricultural districts, whether we are landlords or farmers or trades people. There is no doubt that in ordinary business in these days the use of the telephone is of very great importance. I cannot help thinking that, the real difficulty is the Treasury. We are very much obliged to the Postmaster-General for the assistance he has given to agriculturists by introducing the cash-on-delivery system. Not only is it very useful to agriculturists, but it is also very useful to people living in rural districts. I hope the noble Lord will represent this grievance to the Postmaster-General and that the Postmaster-General may be inclined to approach the First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister, on this subject.
I am emboldened to think that it might not be without success because agriculturists and those who live in rural districts appreciate very much the way in which the Prime Minister has shown a desire to assist us in many directions. The other night the Prime Minister said that a great deal could be done by giving facilities to agriculturists in rural districts and that the Government were anxious to do this. I venture to say to the Government that this is one of the cases in which the Prime Minister might be able to give this assistance. I have a Motion on the Paper for Papers and I hope the noble Lord will be inclined to assent to that Motion. I desire a Return showing the income derived from the Telephone Service, the interest received
892
from capital expenditure, the capital expenditure in towns and the capital expenditure in rural areas. I beg to move.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I have no doubt many of your Lordships have had more experience than I have had of the sides of the telephone question that affect both the consumer and the Government, as distributor, but I have had some experience of both. I was very much interested in the telephone question when I was at the Board of Agriculture where we made efforts to extend telephone facilities to farmers in this country. I have also had experience of telephones in other countries and the Colonies. I have always been immensely impressed by the extraordinary difference in the amount of use made of the telephones in almost every other country in the world as compared with this country and the amount of use that made of telephones by farmers and planters in the Colonies as compared with farmers in this country. I know that telephone systems in Switzerland and other countries are installed in a more cheap and rough-and-ready fashion than we venture to instal them in this country and that may account for the cheapness; yet, on the whole, the facilities are supplied to customers very much more cheaply elsewhere than they are in this country.
The fact is, as the noble Lord has said, that the Treasury have for very many years been in considerable difficulty in regard to extending the telephone system. The system under which telephones are now run in this country is one which is subject to very strict and rather onerous financial limitations. But in this country, on the part of the Treasury and I may say of the Civil Service generally, for very many years there was a permanent hostility to the telephone. For many years in the Colonial Office we had no telephone at all because it was thought to be an American invention. During many years that I was at the Colonial Office there was a telephone in one obscure cupboard on the first floor. At any time that any member of the staff was rung up he had to be sent for in his office and had to go down to this obscure cupboard to speak on the telephone. I think the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was the first statesman at the Colonial Office who succeeded in abstracting from the Treasury a desk

893
telephone for his private secretary and afterwards desk telephones for his assistant secretaries. That was the temper in which our official regulators always regarded the telephone.
I do not want to press that argument too much, because I know that at the present time the Post Office are very much more liberal than they used to be and their servants in the country are very courteous and desirous of giving what facilities the Department can give. But they continually tell us: "We are governed by the Regulations" Of course, in a huge business like this, you have to be governed more by general Regulations, possibly, than they have to be in the smaller Colonies with which I have had to do. There we could deal with particular cases on their merits, whereas here you have to be governed by Regulations.
I should like to give your Lordships one instance of the way in which the Post Office throws away money. When I was Secretary of State for India I said that I must have a telephone in my private residence and the telephone was put on at the same time in the village for two gentlemen who were put on a joint telephone. The Post Office men laid the telephone past my house, took it over my land and fixed it. They then took the line down the village and next brought it back again to a number of my neighbours. Then they charged me £ 16 a year and my neighbours £ 13 a year because the wires had to be taken round a corner and to be brought back again. The reason was that my neighbours came within the three miles limit whereas I was three and a half miles away. My two neighbours had a joint telephone for about £ 6 10 s, and I had a joint telephone with the India Office for about £ 8 2s, 6d. a year each.
When I relinquished office as Secretary of State for the Colonies I did not wish to keep on the double telephone, and asked that it should be taken off. While they were willing to do so, they pointed out that the contract enabled them to bind me. I said: "I will willingly go on paying £ 8 2s, 6d, a year, although my neighbours are only paying £ 6 10 s, if you will accept it. You have the wires laid, and it does not cost any more to maintain a line for me than for the other two." But they said they
894
could not do it because of Regulations, and they returned the £ 8 2s, 6d, simply because I could not get another farmer to go in with me. That seems to me to be acting too strictly according to Regulations and instructions.
It may have been reasonable to take the extension in the way they did as being nearer, but surely consideration might have been given to me when I was bearing a higher share of the initial cost of the extension. And surely it was not good business to turn away an adequate rental,£ 8 2s, 6d a year, which would amply pay the cost of my telephone apart from the weekly fee, simply because I could not get another man to come in and share with me. Such an amount of red-tape, I am quite sure, is costing the nation a good deal of revenue which might otherwise be brought in. I know the difficulty, having been responsible for telephone administration, but I do say that there is a great deal of waste of opportunity in this country and a great. loss to farmers from not having facilities for telephones. A more sympathetic attitude possibly on the part of the Treasury and greater power of discretion on the part of officials in the Post Office might improve the situation very considerably. I beg to support the noble Lord's Motion.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, have to thank my noble friend Lord Strachie for his courtesy in giving me particulars of the Question which he proposed to ask this afternoon. We all know how whole-heartedly the noble Lord supports the cause of farmers and of agriculture not only in his own country but in the country generally. It is possible that my answers may not altogether satisfy him, that I may not be able to go quite as far as he wishes in the information that I can give him, but he may be satisfied that the Post Office have always in mind the interests of agriculture and their great object is to make the Telephone and Postal Services in rural areas as cheap as possible.
The noble Lord, in his Question, speaks of unreasonable charges for connecting houses with rural exchanges in excess of the cost of making such connections. That is really not quite the case. The fact is that the service is provided in rural districts at rentals which do not cover the cost of providing and maintain-

895
ing the service. There is no fee charged for the initial installation; the cost is recovered by means of the annual rental. I have full particulars of the scheme to which the noble Lord referred— the rural exchanges 1922 scheme— but as he has already given your Lordships particulars of it I need not go into it further. My information, I am afraid, is rather against the Post Office. It is that where a minimum of eight subscribers can he obtained the rate is £ 2 per quarter or £ 8 per year, and not, as I think the noble Lord said, £ 5.
LORD STRACHIE: £10 in the case of four subscribers.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: That is the party-line system. I am speaking of the rural exchanges system started in July, 1922, under which exchanges in rural districts were opened provided a minimum of eight subscribers could he obtained at the rate of £ 8 per annum. If fifteen or more were forthcoming the ordinary tariff rental was reduced to £ 5 10 s, per annum. That was within a radius of one and a half miles from the exchange. In cases over a mile and a half from the exchange the rate for the extra mileage is, as he said, £1 a furlong per annum. I may say that under that scheme since its inception nearly 900 small rural exchanges have been opened, serving some 14,000 subscribers. The capital expenditure involved has been approximately £ 21,090,000 sterling. As I have already said the rates charged are insufficient to cover the cost of installation and maintenance, and the average loss on each exchange amounts to £ 50 per annum, or over £ 3 10 s, per subscriber. That is on the rural exchanges.
The other system to which the noble Lord referred is called the rural party-line service. That is a line for which farmers can join at a rental of £ 4 per annum, the conditions being that there must be at least two subscribers for each mile of circuit beyond a radius of half a mile. We admit that subscribers have the disadvantage of not obtaining the same privacy in talking, but the service is provided at a cheaper cost. One line is common to all the subscribers, and the line forks out opposite their different houses. The Post Office has had inquiries made in the district and county of which the noble Lord has special knowledge and
896
in the constituency which he represented with distinction for so many years, and he may be interested to know the number of exchanges and subscribers in that district. In the Bristol district there are 9 new rural exchanges serving 141 subscribers, and in Somersetshire, outside the Bristol district, there are 13 rural exchanges serving 304 subscribers. The number of rural party-lines in the Bristol district is 59, serving 457 subscribers, and in the remainder of Somersetshire the number is 24, serving 237 subscribers.
The noble Lord has mentioned this afternoon the case of Mr. Popham. I think the grievance is that Mr. Popham at Hunstrete House, Pensford, Bristol, and his tenant at Hunstrete Cottage have a private line between the two but that the Post Office cannot link up Mr. Popham's tenant through his house with the exchange at Temple Cloud.
LORD STRACHIE: Because, they say, it is a different district.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The answer to that is that when Mr. Popham had his telephone put in there was no exchange at Timsbury and Mr. Popham was put on to the nearest exchange at Temple Cloud. There is no information that Mr. Popham has ever tried to be connected with Timsbury. He remained connected with Temple Cloud and for certain necessary reasons his tenant had to be connected with the other exchange at Timsbury. The point is that if the tenant had applied for a telephone at the same time as Mr. Popham had his telephone installed there would have been no difficulty in his being put on to the same line to Temple Cloud. There was then plenty of room. The line is a big line, which includes a trunk line for part of the distance and carries fifty-eight wires. The reason for not being able to put the tenant on it is that the line is now full and there is no room. There are certain poles which the Post Office do not consider suitable, and if the tenant were put into the same exchange as the landlord it would really cost more money because a new line would have to be made.
With regard to the question of the party-line exchange, the condition is that there must be two subscribers for each mile beyond the half-mile radius. The noble Lord referred to a case of four

897
farmers who would have to contract to pay £ 10 a year for five years to make up the £ 40. I think the exchange would be nearly five miles beyond the half-mile radius, and accordingly that extra charge has to be made. The noble Lord referred to an existing pole route within 500 yards of Mr. Bartlett's house, but the Post Office maintain that this makes no difference and that they must charge on the average of the cost all through the country. Otherwise the situation might be that you might have two people living side by side and paying entirely different rentals. It is found that the fairest system is to distribute the cost over the whole of the country and charge the average cost for each rental. The noble Lord also asked a question with regard to mileage in big towns. I understand that the conditions are absolutely identical in rural and urban areas and that extra mileage is charged at the rate of £ 1 per furlong per annum for any rental over one and a half miles from the exchange.
London is exceptional in that in the Metropolis the question hardly arises. There are a few cases on the extreme frange where extra mileage is calculated, but as the population grows new exchanges will be provided and these will probably disappear. The noble Lord was good enough to inform me that he intended to ask a question about interest charges in regard to the estimates of rental required for an exchange in a rural area. He did not raise that point, bat he may be interested to know that in respect of subscribers' lines and apparatus and the apparatus at the exchange the interest on this capital expenditure is at present being charged at 4¾ per cent. Interest on the capital expenditure in connection with the junction circuit to connect the exchange to the existing telephone system, which is often a very considerable item, is also reckoned at 4¾ per cent., but this charge is set against the income derived from calls which, in addition, is intended to cover the cost of operating. I may say with regard to the actual rentals in rural and urban areas that, since these are based on the average costs throughout the country and not on the actual cost in the particular area in question, this materially favours subscribers in rural areas where costs are above the average. I think that. I have replied to all the questions that the noble Lord asked. In regard to the
898
observations of the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, I do not suppose that he wants any further inquiries to be made on the point, that he raised, and I am afraid that I cannot give him any information.
LORD OLIVIER: I did not wish any further inquiries. I raised the point simply to illustrate the fact that money is turned away.
THE EARL of LUCAN: As regards the question that was asked me concerning the Telephone Development Committee, I did not know of any new question that had come before that Committee, but I will make inquiries. I think that I have shown that the Post Office carry on their work to the best of their ability. As the noble Lord said, they are rationed like other Departments, and, naturally, expenditure has to be very much curtailed, but I am certain that their great object is to make the Telephone Services as cheap and as easy as possible in rural areas. I shall riot fail to bring my noble friend's representations to the notice of the Postmaster-General, and I can assure him that they will receive the most careful consideration.
LORD STRACHIE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the information he has given to me, but he did not say whether he was willing to give the Return that I asked for. Perhaps he may not be able to give the answer for a moment and will allow me to communicate with him.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Perhaps the noble Lord would not mind asking me later.
LORD STRACHIE: I think the only question the noble Earl did not reply to was that which I asked with regard to capital expenditure. It was said that they set aside £ 200,000 annually for extra depreciation and it was recommended that that should be reconsidered. He did not tell me whether that recommendation had been accepted. Further it was said that unless discontinued the ordinary depreciation should be reduced. Of course it is no doubt very proper that depreciation should be taken into account, but the Select Committee said that a great saving on the charges could be effected if that were not done.

899
It is clear from what the noble Earl said that what we are suffering from at the present moment is the nationalisation of the service, because when we had the National Telephone Company we had quite as good a service and at much less cost. That is shown, I think, also by the fact that at the present moment the municipality of Hull has its own telephone service, which is worked by the Corporation under a licence from the Postmaster-General, and they report a profit of £ 11,400 a year after paying royalties to the Government. That shows that private enterprise is evidently much better than Government enterprise. It is an object lesson showing what would be the effect of further nationalisation of general services in this country. I hope the Government will take note of that.
The noble Earl did not answer my question whether it is not very unfair that a telephone user should have to pay for expenditure on the erection of poles and wires when those poles and wires are actually in existence close to his house. That is because of the red tape which exists. No distinction is made by reason of the fact that a man has already poles and wires erected just outside his house. He has to pay the same as a man has to pay where the wires and poles have to he brought a long distance to his house. I thoroughly appreciate the courtesy of all the officials with whom I have had to deal in this matter of telephones. I am not complaining for one moment in regard to them, but I am complaining of the red tape with which the Service is bound up, and of the way in which the Treasury prevent the extension of the telephones, to the great disadvantage of the rural districts. I hope the noble Earl will represent this to the Postmaster-General and get the Postmaster-General to represent to the Treasury that this money, which is the surplus on the Telephone Service, might very well be applied to giving greater facilities in rural districts.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think I did reply about the poles being near to a man's dwelling. I said that the charges were always based one average costs and did not give any advantage to anybody who had the luck of having poles and
900
wires already close by. It is found to be more advantageous to everybody to average the cost throughout the country.
LORD STRACHIE: That is not business.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DOMINIONS AND TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can now give further information as to the nature of the obligations which Treaties impose on the Dominions; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have given notice to the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, who represents the Dominions in this House, of the points that I desire to raise this afternoon. I believe myself that no questions at the present moment are of more importance, as regards the Dominions, than those which have been raised in regard to the obligations which are placed upon the Dominions by Treaties at the present time. There is no doubt that in all the Dominions, and more particularly in Canada and South Africa, and in Ireland as well, this question has become one of the first importance and has given rise to more local discussion and consideration than any other.
I am bound to say that in my opinion this attitude is well justified. It is not intended to be antagonistic to this country, but there are questions, as I think I should point out to your Lordships, which ought to be considered now to prevent further agitation going on. The difficulty is this, if I might summarise it first of all. The difficulty is that Treaty obligations which may involve war— I merely give Locarno as an illustration, and it is with reference to Locarno that a great deal of this discussion has arisen — will have the result of making the Dominions into belligerents, whether they desire it or not, and mere municipal regulations— if I may use the expression— will not interfere with what is now governed by the rules of international law.
I should like in the first instance, as I have told the noble Earl, to ask him whether he concurs in a statement of the law, which I have endeavoured to make more than once but which I will take at the

901
present time from a statement issued from the Colonial Office when Mr. Winston Churchill was at the head of that Office, during the Coalition period. I take his statement because I believe it to be absolutely accurate. It certainly is in accord with my view of international law, and it is the reason why, at the present time, much discussion, not always of an entirely friendly character, has arisen in our great Dominions. This is what he stated:—
"When the King declares war all subjects of the British Empire and all the Dominions of the Crown are from that moment at war. Other parts (i.e., other parts than England) of the Empire are brought into the war by the act of the declaration of war, and the enemy may attack them".
Of course, that is a very serious position as regards the Dominions. We want, I believe— at least I am sure the Party to which I am attached want— a full unity and loyalty. They want the two combined for all parts of the Empire, but they consider that this unity and loyalty is not to be brought about by what I may call coercion, and still less by pressure of Protection or Tariff Reform, but should be brought about by giving fair consideration to the wishes of the Dominions, thus giving them the maximum of freedom in all matters of this kind.
During the War we were extremely indebted— we cannot exaggerate the amount of our indebtedness—to the unity and loyalty of our Empire. No one will question that for a moment, but when the War was over, and perhaps partially as an effect of the great services rendered during the War, they were given almost an independent position. They were signatories, as part of the Empire, of the Treaty of Versailles, and, also as part of the Empire, they were given an independent position in the League of Nations at Geneva. At Geneva they had as much weight, technically, as the Home Government itself. They are in the position of independent bodies entitled to vote independently, but —at any rate that was my experience at Geneva—we all managed to work together, and it is my cordial desire that that should always be so.
Let us see what was said by the then Prime Minister in 1921, at the first Imperial Conference after the War. He said:—
902
"The British Dominions have now been accepted fully into the comity of nations by the whole world. They are signatories of the Treaty of Versailles and of all the other Treaties of Peace; they are members of the Assembly of the League of Nations, and their representatives have already attended meetings of the League; in other words, they have achieved full national status, and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignities and the responsibilities of the British Commonwealth"
I desire to express most cordially my agreement with that statement, made almost on the morrow of the War, and no doubt under the influence of the great services which they rendered during the War.
The Prime Minister further expressed, in somewhat epigrammatic language, the same idea in these words:—
"Whereas in past time Downing Street controlled the Empire, to-day the Empire is in charge of Downing Street"
Perhaps that is carrying matters a little far. I do not wish to exaggerate, but the point is that on the one hand the Dominions become subject to all the dangers and obligations of belligerent powers if war is declared by this country, as it might be in the enforcement of any of our Treaties, whereas, on the other hand, they are told that they possess, and they are now claiming, the position of independent persons in the sense that they are equal partners who have achieved full national status. The problem which I want to discuss is how, in the interests of the whole Empire and with a full consideration of the claims of the Dominions themselves, we can reconcile these two apparently inconsistent positions. We cannot reconcile them as a matter of municipal law; it must be a matter of international understanding, and that is fully appreciated by the Dominions themselves. I shall be obliged to give one or two illustrative extracts of the view which they take upon this matter.
There was a further Imperial Conference in 1923, and so important was this matter— and it is undoubtedly a matter of fundamental importance for the future of this country and our Empire— that a very special Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the Foreign Secretary. That Committee was under the guidance— I know one must not mention names in this connection—of

903
a legal adviser of the Foreign Office to whom I am sure the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Cecil of Chelwood) and everyone who has had to do League work feels that this country is deeply indebted.
What was the Report at that Conference which sat in 1923?—and I think it was the last Imperial Conference there has been. It was said:—
"The principles governing the relations of the various parts of the Empire in connection with the negotiation, signature and ratification of Treaties seemed to the Conference to be of the greatest importance"
I am sure the noble Earl will not have any difference of opinion upon that. It was added:—
"Accordingly it was arranged that the subject should be fully examined by a Committee of which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was Chairman"
I think that at that time the Secretary of State was the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. I have selected two recommendations out of a most careful Report which that Committee made. One of the recommendations is this —
"Before negotiations are opened with the intention of concluding a Treaty, steps should he taken to ensure that any of the other Governments of the Empire likely to he interested are informed, so that, if any such Government considers that its interests would be affected, it may have an opportunity of expressing its views, or, when its interests are intimately involved, of participating in the negotiations"
I presume that there has been no change of outlook or policy as regards that very important statement.
There are reasons why I desire Locarno to be successful, but that is not the immediate point. What has raised the discussion is that as regards the Locarno Treaty, although it has been laid down that they ought to be parties to the negotiations—which, of course, also implied the possibility of effective intervention and of effective discussion—I have asked once or twice, and have never yet found out, whether any effective communication, in the sense of negotiation with the hope of coming to a common purpose, took place. So far as I know, no negotiations were ever initiated. I know that the noble Earl has more than once said that, whatever the negotiations may be, they are at the present time what I may call secret. I do not believe in that; I believe it is a great mistake if difficulties of this kind are not frankly
904
opened and frankly discussed in public; but I should be surprised, having regard to one or two quotations which I shall have to give, if the noble Earl is able to say that negotiations were carried on for the purpose of coming to a common determination, and that Locarno was postponed or relegated to the future because these negotiations have not so far borne any fruit.
I will only read one other passage out of the same Report, and here again it is most important, if we are to preserve the unity and loyalty of the Empire, that these matters should be observed:—
"Steps should be taken to ensure that those Governments of the Empire whose representatives are not participating in the negotiations should, during their progress, be kept informed with regard to any points arising in which they may be interested"
If the principle is maintained which was laid down by the Colonial Office, and which is certainly in accord with the principles of international law—nobody, I believe, questions it—it is almost impossible to imagine any negotiations of this kind which may result in war or peace in which the Dominions are not interested. I should like to know, so far as the noble Earl can give me the information, to what extent that second Resolution was observed in the negotiations. I cannot say it led up to the Treaty of Locarno, because the Treaty is not yet fully complied with, but to the proposed Treaty of Locarno.
The three Dominions to which I wish to call attention and in which considerable discussion has arisen upon these matters are Canada, South Africa and, to a considerable extent, Ireland. Taking Canada first of all, I told the noble Earl that I intended calling attention to a recent very important discussion in the Canadian Parliament regarding the objection of Canadian statesmen and of Canada to come under this international obligation without full opportunity of consultation and negotiation. That was the subject matter of the discussion, and as part of the view which they very strongly expressed they hoped that some means might be found—and I entirely agree with them—by international communications by which the liability of a Dominion to become a belligerent in the circumstances I have mentioned might be mitigated or altered. In connection

905
with this movement—and it is a movement which has to be considered—all Parties came the other day to a unanimous resolution; that is to say, there was no division in the Canadian Parliament. It was before the present conditions arose in Canada, to which I have no wish to refer at all. It was when Mr. Mackenzie King was Prime Minister and: Mr. Meighen was Leader of the Opposition.
The Canadian House of Commons gave its unanimous support, irrespective of Party, to the Motion of the Prime Minister. Mr. Mackenzie King, providing that before the ratification or acceptance of military or economic Treaties or Agreements by the Canadian Government the approval of the Canadian Parliament must be secured. In other words, although they were not objecting, they said in the course of the debate in terms, that they were not prepared so far to approve of it, they were all agreed that they must have an opportunity for discussion and must ascertain the views of the Canadian Parliament. There was a long debate which occupied, I think, an entire day and there, was very strong comment on withholding from the Canadian Parliament, the negotiations regarding the Locarno Treaty. All Parties in Canada desired that those negotiations should be published and the reason why they were not published was the objection of this country. I am not now discussing whether that objection is sound or not, but I am calling attention to the extremely legitimate attitude of the Canadian Parliament that they should not be bound to all the obligations of belligerents under Treaties made by this country without an opportunity for full discussion and consideration.
I have one statement here which I should like to quote because, although it is in accordance really with other statements, I told the noble Earl it was the statement to which I desired to call his attention. I do not want to go through the whole Report which consists of a very large number of pages. It is the declaration of Mr. Forke, who is the Leader of the Progressives: that is to say, he is the Leader of neither of the two big Parties. He declared that the people of the Dominion would have the interests of the British Empire best at heart by looking after their own country, attending to their own affairs, and always looking
906
across the Atlantic with feelings of affection and appreciation. That is what we all desire should continue to the maximum extent. And he added:—
"If the time ever comes when danger threatens the old land I am certain that the sons of Canada would be willing to sacrifice themselves as in the days gone by."
This is admirable, and I have no doubt that if they are not interfered with, if they are allowed the freedom which they can justly claim in matters of this kind, there will be no interference with their making the sacrifices which they have made in days gone by.
May I be allowed to say something further upon that subject as I see the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, in his place I The noble Earl made a very important statement upon this subject when, in 1924, the noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Fallodon, raised the question of disarmament. In the course of a debate, which I dare say the noble Earl will remember because a good deal of discussion took place in reference to what was called the Treaty of Mutual Guarantees, the noble Earl pointed out (and I entirely agree with him) that the great force for peace in the world was the maintenance of the unity and loyalty of the British Empire. That we must maintain, in my view, by giving full play to the opinions the Dominions have expressed, not depending in any sense upon what I may call coercion but upon loyalty and common feeling and the knowledge that when the time comes they will sacrifice themselves again as in the days gone by.
In regard to South Africa I think one is obliged to say that unless the matter with which I am dealing is settled the attitude is likely to become less friendly than one would wish it to be. General Hertzog declared that after the Treaty of Versailles the Dominions had been compromised by creating the doctrine of "group unity," but, that this doctrine had utterly failed in practice; and to show that it had utterly failed in practice, he pointed to the illustration of Locarno. It has always seemed to me to be extraordinary that the Party in this country —I do not want to make this a Party question—which has always protested most strongly its desire for the unity and loyalty of the Empire should have disregarded on this vital occasion what it

907
has always put forward as one of its most important requirements. General Hertzog also said that at Locarno the Dominions had not been properly represented—as far as I know they were not represented at Locarno at all—and the British Government had gone its own way without consulting them. That is exactly the way, of course, to cause friction and trouble. He said further that this meant the rejection of the "group unity" idea (that is the idea to which I have already referred), and brought the Dominions back to a sound basis by returning to the Versailles Treaty and the claim of the international independence thereby accorded them.
If they want international independence and their entrance into the comity of nations, as stated at the Imperial Conferences in 1921 and in 1923, I should like to ask the noble Earl this question: Is it not of the greatest importance that this measure of independence should be allowed them; that we should not take an attitude which, undoubtedly, may raise friction and trouble, but should do all we could to maintain the unity and loyalty of our Empire and to meet the wishes of these two great Dominions of Canada and South Africa?
A similar movement has been set on foot in Ireland and other parts. I do not want to go too far. I want to say that the position in Ireland is very special and not that it is analogous to the position either in Canada or South Africa. There is a special provision in the Treaty which created the Dominion of Southern Ireland that the Government of the Irish Free State shall accord to His Majesty's Imperial Forces in time of war or strained relations with a foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require. It was reasonable enough, I presume, that in the case of Ireland, so nearly on one of our frontiers, a provision of that kind should be made, but I must add this. Their special obligations, which are heavier than in the case of any other Colony, make them yet more anxious that they should not be put in the position of belligerents without a full opportunity of explaining their views and of notifying in what position they stand, not the least in disloyalty but from a claim to hold the position which in the case of
908
the other Dominions was won by the Treaty of Versailles and in their case at a later date.
I hope I have sufficiently explained what the real vital importance of this matter is. It cannot stand over indefinitely; it is a matter which must be grappled with. I hope it is grappled with in accordance with the views the Dominions themselves have expressed. I believe that in that way unity and loyalty can be found combined and that, if a time of trouble comes, if we recognise the justice of their claims now, they will always stand up for the old country, giving services of such inestimable value as they did in the Great War. I do not want necessarily to move for Papers, because the noble Earl may perhaps have some technical objection to it, but I make the Motion in case I should wish to ask the noble Earl anything at a subsequent stage. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE EABL OF CLABENDON): My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy in having told me privately exactly what were the points that he desired to raise in the debate that he has initiated on this Question in your Lordships' House this afternoon. May I at the outset answer his question with regard to Papers? I am afraid there are no Papers which we can lay. The only Papers which we can lay are the published Resolutions of Imperial Conferences on the matters which he has raised.
LORD PARMOOR: I am quite content if it stands at that.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I think your Lordships have listened with a great deal of interest to the issues which have been raised by the noble and teamed Lord this afternoon. I feel that he would not desire me to reply, except in general terms, and he would expect me to refrain from anything in the nature of what may be described as a categorical reply. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will not think that I wish in any way to be discourteous to him. That is very far from my intention or desire, and I can assure him that on all the issues that he has raised this afternoon there is absolutely

909
no indifference on the part of His Majesty's Government. On the contrary, the Government recognise and realise the importance of all the issues which he has raised, affecting as they do every part of the British Empire. I am inclined to think, however, that the noble and learned Lord will agree that at this moment no dogmatic pronouncement can be made on behalf of His Majesty's Government (one of the Governments concerned), especially in view of the fact that at no very distant date all these important issues will be discussed at the Imperial Conference which is to take place here in October of this year.
One of the questions which the noble and learned Lord raised in his speech was that of the, Treaty of Locarno. That, as I think he is aware, will be one of the subjects which will be discussed at the Imperial Conference. During the course of his speech the noble and learned Lord asked me if I could give him any information with regard to any communications which had passed between this Government and the Governments of the Dominions in respect of the Treaty of Locarno. He will recollect that I answered a question of this kind some time ago and informed him that the Dominions had been kept fully informed of all the steps and negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Locarno The noble and learned Lord also referred to the debate which took place in the Canadian House of Commons on June 21 of this year. I do not know whether he was more fortunate than we were in the Dominions Office, but we only received the Official Report within the last forty-eight hours and I am sure the noble and learned Lord will recognise that there has not been sufficient time, either on my part or on the part of the Dominions Office itself, to consider that Official Report in anything like detail, but I will attempt this afternoon to give, if I can, a brief indication of what we think the object of the Canadian Government was in bringing the Motion before their Parliament.
Mr. Mackenzie King, in introducing that Resolution, indicated that it fell into two parts. The first part asked for the formal approval of Parliament of the Resolutions regarding the negotiation and the signature and the ratification of
910
Treaties accepted by the Imperial Conference of 1923 (the last Imperial Conference), and the reason that Mr. Mackenzie King gave for bringing forward that part of the Resolution was that it was desirable that Canadian Ministers, when they were over here for the Imperial Conference, should be able to state that their Parliament had approved the Resolutions that had been adopted at the previous Imperial Conference. With regard to the second part, it was explained that that was to the effect that before Ministers in Canada advised the ratification of any Treaties or 'Conventions affecting Canada, or the acceptance of any Treaties, Conventions or Agreements which would involve military or economic sanction by Parliament, those should have beforehand received the sanction or approval of the Canadian Parliament itself.
The Resolution of the Imperial Conference provided that the existing practice should be followed with regard to the ratification of Treaties. The noble and learned Lord is probably aware that the existing practice was defined to be that ratification of Treaties imposing obligations on one part of the Empire is effected at the instance of the Government of that part; and that ratification imposing obligations on more than one part of the Empire is effected after consultation between the Governments of those parts of the Empire concerned. Now, Mr. Mackenzie King explained that the object of the Canadian Government, in bringing forward in the Canadian House of Commons that part of the Motion to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, was that in the case of Canada it would help to avoid embarrassments and dissensions and would make for the greater unity of the Empire in so far as the future was concerned, if the general practice were adopted of important Treaties involving military obligations being submitted for approval by the Canadian Parliament in the first instance, preceding any advice that the Canadian Government might give which would be favourable to ratification. There was one question which I do not think the noble and learned Lord put to me in the speech which he made—a question directed to the employment of Dominion troops in the event of war. I do not think he put that question.
LORD PARMOOK: I did put it because I read what had been issued from the Colonial Office, that in the event of war a Dominion of necessity becomes a belligerent.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That is a question to which I am afraid I cannot venture to give the noble and learned Lord an answer. In our view that is a domestic question which the Government of the Dominion must decide for itself.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want any misunderstanding. According to the view which I read from the Colonial Office—which I believe is quite correct—it is not a domestic question; it is an international question. That is one of the difficulties.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I am afraid I cannot give the noble and learned Lord any further answer on that point. I have gone very carefully into the question with the office, and that is the answer that I am authorised to make in respect of that particular point.
With regard to the speeches which were made in the Union of South Africa by General Hertzog, the Prime Minister, and1 to the discussions which have taken place in the Irish Free State as to the equal status of the Dominions, and the stress which was laid on the necessity for making some pronouncement on this point to foreign nations, let me make this observation: The principle of equal status is one to which His Majesty's Government attach the greatest possible importance. That principle is contained, as the noble and learned Lord no doubt is aware, in Resolution IX of the Imperial Conference of 1917 and has been reaffirmed on more than one occasion. In that Resolution the principle involved the recognition of the right to a voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations and a provision for effective arrangements for continuous consultation in1 matters of Imperial concern to all in the Empire.
His Majesty's Government are no less anxious than the Labour Government, of which the noble and learned Lord was a member, to assert, and to assert fully and strongly, the importance which they attach to this principle. If all these principles are adhered to, and detailed arrangements are made for the applica-
912
tion of them in any case that may arise, the Governments of the Empire will surely, as a result of this concerted discussion, be able not only to deal with ill the problems that may arise either now or in the future, but also with such issues as the noble Lord has raised in the course of this debate.
Before I sit down there is just one more point that I should like to make-The noble and learned Lord laid a great deal of emphasis upon the technical and logical side of the relations between the various parts of the Empire. I venture to think there is another point—another much more important point—which should not be overlooked, and that is the human aspect, or, if I may so put it, the moral aspect.
LORD PARMOOR: That is the point I made.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That aspect surely—and I am glad the noble and learned Lord agrees—will be paramount if we should have to deal with any future crisis. In such a crisis surely the strength of the British Empire will depend, not so much upon the observance of forms or the maintenance of constitutional principles as in the belief of all its nations and races in the righteousness and justice of the cause which they are called upon to uphold.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg most heartily to thank the noble Earl for the answer he has given me. I am the last person, as I tried to express in my speech, to seek to raise controversy about this extraordinarily vital and important question of Imperial unity and loyalty. May I say this—I thought I had made it quite clear—that in my view this unity and loyalty depend on what the noble Earl called the human principle and not on mere technical matters. What I also desire to make clear—I am not quite sure that I understand his opinion upon this point, his opinion being, of course, that of His Majesty's Government—is that the complaint which is now being made is that this very attitude, which he called the human attitude, is not, in fact, being observed as between the Dominions and the Mother Country to the extent to which he and I would desire it to be carried. I stated that the reason for that was that, although certain pro-

913
visions and regulations had been laid down, particularly at the Imperial Conference, it was the view in these debates to which I have referred that in practice they had not always been observed.
However, I do not want in any sense to raise controversial matters. I believe that all political Parties in this country have the same desire—though they may pursue the goal by somewhat different means—and I heartily thank the noble Earl for the answer he has given me. Having regard to what he has said, I will ask the permission of the House to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, on that Motion perhaps I may be allowed to address a few words to your Lordships. From a communication which was received yesterday from the Government by the Mining Association and from the action which was taken by the Government last night in giving notice to your Lordships that they did not propose to expedite the passage of this Bill, the Mining Association have inferred that the action which was taken by the Government in this House last night was due to an offer which had been' made by the Yorkshire Mining Association in connection with the ratios which had been offered the men on the passage of this Bill. The Government have admitted that there has been no agreement or understanding that certain ratios would necessarily be offered after the breakdown of negotiations, but it is quite clear that on April 30, as the result of pressure by the Government, the mine owners of Great Britain did agree to offer term? which included uniform ratios in connection with the divisibility of the proceeds in the industry between the men engaged in the industry and themselves, the proportions being 87 and 13.
It appears that the Prime Minister, when the Bill was introduced in another place, was under the
914
impression that in any offers which would be made on the passage of this Bill the same uniform ratios would be offered to the men in the various districts, and in these circumstances the Yorkshire Mining Association desire to come into line with the offers made in the other districts on the question of ratios. A letter has been sent to the Prime Minister this afternoon signed by Mr. Crawshaw, the Chairman of the West Yorkshire Coal Owners' Association, and by Mr. W. Benton Jones, on behalf of the South Yorkshire Coal Owners' Association, and has, I believe, appeared in this evening's public Press, but, since some of your Lordships may not have seen it, perhaps I might read that communication. It is as follows: —
"The Right Honourable STANLEY BALDWIN, M.P.
"SIR,
"Referring to your communication of the 5th instant to the Secretary of the Mining Association of Great Britain, we desire to intimate to you that the Yorkshire coal owners, in formulating the offer of wages made to their workmen on July 5, did so in the full belief that they were perfectly free to make that offer in the form most suited to the peculiarities of their own district.
"They learn, however, that in communicating to the House of Commons the action which the coal owners would take in the event of the statutory bar to an eight-hour day being removed you were under the impression that there would be no change in the ratio of proceeds to wages from that in operation prior to the stoppage.
"Accordingly we wish to inform you that, although the Yorkshire opal owners still feel very strongly that a variation in that ratio is amply justified by the circumstances of the industry in their own district, they are nevertheless prepared to come into line with the offers made in other districts on the question of ratios.
"Yours faithfully,
C. B. CRAWSHAW.
W. BENTON JONES.
(On behalf of the West and South Yorkshire Coal Owners.)"
These gentlemen have asked me to add one or two words in connection with this matter in your Lordships1' House this afternoon.
The reason for the suggested alteration of ratios in Yorkshire is to be found in the fact that there is a difference in the cost of wages per ton in the different coal mining districts and that a uniform

915
ratio of profits per ton would obviously also vary. Perhaps I can illustrate this point by giving a simple example. If we take the basis of the minimum of 20 per. cent., you will find that, owing to these variations in the cost of wages per ton, in South Wales an added profit of 3˙4d. would be conceded to the South Wales colliery field over and above that particular point where the offer would touch the minimum rate to be secured by Yorkshire. In order to secure an equivalent profit—not, be it noted, a greater profit—at that particular point, Yorkshire suggested an alteration of their ratio to that of 85 to 15 rather than maintain the ratio of 87 to 13 which has been offered in the other districts.
This question of ratios and their variations is not a new matter. It was placed in evidence before the Royal Commission and, if any of your Lordships would care to look at the Report, you will find on page 151 these words referring to suggestions made by witnesses for the Mining Association:—
"Their most definite suggestion was that the ratio in which net proceeds are divided between capital and labour ought to differ according to the extent to which coal-cutting machinery is used and the part played by capital in production thereby increased … There is no reason^ why properly constituted national authorities of employers and workpeople, surveying the different districts, should not agree to make it."
That is, a differentiation of ratios—
"It would be perfectly possible for a central authority to fix one ratio of division for Scotland and another for Lancashire and Cheshire."
It will be seen, therefore, that these variations in ratios were contemplated in the Report of the Royal Commission.
It is generally assumed by those who talk about the South Yorkshire coalfield that it is a coalfield of recent development, but I may inform your Lordships that over 35 per cent, of the- collieries in South Yorkshire are fifty years old, over 55 per cent, are twenty-five years old, and there are only 11 per cent, that have arisen in the last twenty-five years. Those proportions include the 15 per cent, of the output of coal from the Markham collieries, which are not in the Mining Association in Yorkshire. Therefore, there is a very great quantity of coal in Yorkshire which is derived from older collieries, and is not in the newer field
916
which is being developed to the east and south-east of Doncaster. It ought to be remembered that whilst 33 per cent, of the output of South Yorkshire was formerly sent for export purposes, in recent years a large proportion of that trade has disappeared and other districts have received a greater proportion of the diminished amount of export of coal in this country, at the expense of Yorkshire. Therefore Yorkshire coal owners feel themselves in rather a difficult position, but regard themselves as one of the exporting districts, with the North of England, Scotland and South Wales.
There is only one other point which I think ought to be made in connection with the Yorkshire coal owners, and it is the very great expense required now, and the very large amount of capital which will be needed, to develop the new area in the east and south-east corner of the South Yorkshire coalfield. Everyone has been advocating the closing of uneconomic collieries, and the development of economic ones. If capital is to be attracted to the development of this area in South Yorkshire it must be obvious that the amount of profit which is to be secured should not be assessed at a few coppers per ton, but should really be of a substantial character. Where a colliery is to be developed which only requires a few thousand pounds in order to sink to one of the upper seams, it is a very different problem from sinking a shaft, 24 to 26 feet in diameter, over half a mile to the deep coal seams which are in this area. None of these collieries can be developed at any rate under a million pounds, with a view of securing the coal, and it is necessary that they should be equipped with the most modern machinery with which to raise the coal from that great depth. It requires, of course, a huge capital in order to deal with the millions of tons of coal which must be extracted from these mines if they are to be run economically, and it is therefore essential that there should be substantial profits if capital is to be attracted into this area and invested in what is known to us as a wasting asset.
For these reasons the coal owners of Yorkshire felt compelled to work on a different ratio than that suggested by others. Whilst making the concession on behalf of their shareholders, to meet what appeared to be the impression con-

917
veyed to the Prime Minister, yet they do feel that they were fully justified in the course that they took when they named those terms on July 5 to the men whom they hope shortly to employ in the coalfields.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, the House has heard with great interest the speech which my noble friend Lord Gainford has just made, and I do not think the House will expect me to enter into any discussion on the technical matters which he put before the House, or on the considerations which he urged upon us in justification of the attitude which the Yorkshire coal owners had taken up. It is sufficient for me to say that the
918
Government received this letter with great satisfaction and they desire to express their acknowledgment of it, both of its tone and temper. They feel that the Yorkshire owners have been well advised, as the noble Lord put it, to fall into line with the course adopted by other owners, and, that having occurred, the Government see no reason for asking this House to delay further the passage of this Bill. They will therefore, if your Lordships pass the Committee stage to-night, put down the Third Reading for to-morrow.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.