Lords Sitting of 27 July 1926

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

PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to amend the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª;—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª; and to be printed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3ª, and passed.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, after Clause 49, to insert the following new clause:—
For protection of consumers.
".The Corporation shall be liable for all damage or loss that may be sustained by a consumer with whom an agreement to supply current is in force, arising from the Corporation having failed or neglected, without reasonable excuse, or having unlawfully refused to supply current to the consumer. The Corporation shall further be liable in any such case to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds per day for each day daring which the default continues, and such penalty shall be surcharged on the members of the Corporation jointly and severally."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this new clause in consequence of what happened during the General Strike.
218
The Swindon Corporation—as I believe other Corporations did—cut off the supply of electricity from the local newspaper. An electrical engineer and some assistants arrived with authority from the Electricity Committee of the Corporation, removed the fuses and prevented the local newspaper from publishing. The local newspaper, after two or three days, did succeed in publishing by buying an engine and running their machinery with that engine. The Corporation also cut off the supply from the local laundry and from, I think, the tobacco factory in Swindon, and one or two other factories. This was done by order of the strikers. The Corporation wrote to me and also saw me after I had put down this clause. They stated that the Electricity Committee did this without the knowledge of the Corporation as a whole and that as soon as they were able to find men to replace the strikers they reinstated the power.
The representative of the newspaper, however, in a letter written to me since then gives a rather different version. He says that the Corporation were incorrect in informing me that "as soon as men could be found to take the place of strikers the supplies which had been cut off were restored." According to this letter, the supplies were reinstated because Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, who was then acting for the Government, informed the Corporation that unless they reinstated the supplies the Government would send naval ratings and do it for them. The writer further tells me—I am reading from the letter—that only one worker in the electricity works went on strike. He further says this—
"Many members of the Electricity and Tramways Committee were already themselves on strike as affecting their occupations; as such they were interested in closing down other industries that all work might be brought to a standstill; at least one member of the Committee was also a prominent member of the central strike committee."
I should say that in this particular Bill there are fifteen clauses dealing with electricity and the Corporation inform me that they propose to spend £300,000 of the ratepayers' money upon extending the electricity plant and works.
Your Lordships will agree with me that if corporations, whose members are elected by all classes of society and who are bound in these democratic days to have trade union members upon them,

219
are to be allowed without any penalty, because it is to the interest of some members of the corporation, to stop newspapers publishing and to prevent other people working when there is a general strike, the whole machinery of domestic life can be brought to a standstill. Therefore I propose to put in a clause which will enable the consumer to be recompensed for the injury done him. That, I am informed by my noble friend the Lord Chairman, is more or less the law as it stands at present, but I want to go a bit further and provide that the people who bring about this state of things should themselves be penalised. Therefore I put at the end of the clause a provision that members of the Corporation doing this shall be jointly and severally liable for a penalty of £50 a day as long as the default continues. As long as the Corporation can say to them selves that it is the unfortunate ratepayer who pays they will very likely do this sort of thing whenever they are threatened by strong trade unions. But if they have to put their hands into their own pockets it may be that they will think twice before they do it.
I understand that my noble friend the Lord Chairman is going to say that this is a clause with which he does not disagree in principle, but that it is a clause which ought to be put into a General Bill and not in a particular Bill promoted by a single corporation. Of course, my idea is to make this a general clause. I do not wish to confine it to Swindon. I have only put it down now because the fact that the Swindon Corporation has a Bill at the moment dealing with electricity gives me the opportunity to bring forward the clause. I understand that my noble friend the Lord Chairman is going to suggest that a clause of this sort should be put into the Electricity (Supply) Bill which is now before the House of Commons. That is all very well. As an argument I do not quite see how you can controvert it.
But, as a matter of fact, how do we know, if this clause is withdrawn now, that the Government will do that? If I could get an undertaking—I see some prominent members of the Government here—that on the Electricity (Supply) Bill they will deal with this question and deal with it, I do not say exactly in these words but in the same spirit, and impose
220
a penalty upon people who do not do their duty, I should then accede with pleasure to the request of the Lord Chairman and withdraw the Amendment, but only on that understanding. If it is put now into this Bill it is perfectly certain—at any rate, it is very nearly certain—that it will become a model clause and be put in all other Bills. But unless I get a distinct understanding from the Government that they will bring in a similar clause when the Electricity (Supply) Bill is considered, then other Bills will be dealt with and nothing done. Before I withdraw the Amendment I hope that either my noble friend the Lord Chairman or myself will be able to get an assurance from the Government that something will be done.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 30, after Clause 49, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I desire wholeheartedly to thank my noble friend for meeting me as he has done as regards the procedure in connection with this proposal, which from an early date he informed your Lordships he desired to have discussed. I think his mind worked favourably in the direction of moving an instruction to the Committee, but I appealed to him to let that stage go through—without prejudice, of course, to his right to discuss the matter on Third Reading—and in that way the matter comes before your Lordships to-day. I am very grateful to him for allowing that course to be pursued.
This is a difficult case to understand. I heard, of course, what my noble friend said on the previous occasion; I have listened carefully to what he has said this afternoon; I have interviewed the representatives of the Corporation; and I have seen a certain amount of correspondence that has been placed before me—correspondence that took place at the time. Your Lordships will remember that these proceedings took place during the General Strike when everything was not recorded everywhere quite as accurately as our usual habit is. It is very difficult quite to classify in one's mind the order of events, or even what the events were. My noble friend has

221
referred to discussions that took place between certain representatives of the. Corporation—because the Corporation were not a happy family over this matter and they did not all agree as to what was desirable to be done. My noble friend has referred to Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, who was one of the officials on the Government side in this part of England at the time, and perhaps it may be convenient if I read an extract from a letter which has been supplied to me by the promoters from Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen to the representative of the Corporation.
It throws, I think, a little further light upon the facts as they occurred and for that reason is valuable to us in coming to a conclusion upon the matter. This is what he said in a letter to the Town Clerk:—
"What actually happened was as follows, to the best of my memory:—"
this is as regards his part in the pro ceedings—
"On May 5 Lord Winterton, the Civil Commissioner for the S. Midland District, asked me if I would go to Swindon as his representative, as the condition of affairs there was serious. He particularly mentioned that the Electricity Committee of the Corporation had cut off the power from the local newspaper and other firms and asked me to take any steps I could to get it restored.
"On arriving at Swindon on the 6th, I immediately interviewed the Mayor and yourself. We discussed the special difficulties at Swindon which arose from the fact that the G.W.B. employed the great majority of the men in the town anti that they were all on strike. Among the strikers were members of the Corporation and Electricity Committee"—
I lay stress on that fact—
"including the Chairman of the latter."
The Chairman therefore was himself on strike.
"The Mayor said that if the power were restored he feared that all the workers at the power station, or the majority of them, would come out and the town would be plunged into darkness, and that volunteers capable of manning the station could not be obtained in Swindon, to which I replied that I might be able to get them outside.
"The next day I received a letter from you to the effect that if I could get competent volunteers from outside the Mayor and Corporation would at once restore the power and I accordingly set to work to procure the same.
"By the following Monday—10th—I was able to bring down fourteen men, chiefly naval pensioners from Portsmouth, who were
222
lodged by the Corporation in the town. The order was given to restore the power, whereupon a few, but not, so many as had been expected, of the power station men went on strike, and so far as I remember five (riot one only, as stated in the Report by Lord Banbury) of the volunteers were drafted into the station and worked with the men who had not struck. This is really all I know of the proceedings, but I regarded the solution as a very satisfactory one at the time."
The particular reason why I wanted to read this extract was this. Having interviewed the parties and done my best to understand what occurred it was evident, as it will be evident to your Lordships from this letter, that the Corporation were not a very happy family at the time but that certain members of the Corporation did their best to deal with the situation as it faced them and to perform their public duty as soon as they could. That being so, I suggest that it is a case in which we might be lenient with them rather than severe in reviewing what happened in the past. My noble friend, I know, is never obstinate as regards the form of a clause when he proposes one. I would point out, however, that this clause is one of general application. It is not confined to what might happen in future strikes only and that seems to me to be, perhaps, rather severe in its attitude towards the Corporation with the clause as proposed in these words. But I do not want to stress that point too much. What I do want to point out is that at the moment there is an alternative. There are penalties on those who are charged with the duty of providing electricity. The law has already taken cognisance of the possibility of difficulty and has made provision, and I think I ought very briefly to remind your Lordships of that provision.
Section 30 of the Schedule of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, enacts that—
"Whenever the undertakers make default in supplying energy to any owner or occupier of premises to whom they may be and are required to supply energy under the Special Order they shall be liable in respect of each default to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for each day on which the default occurrs."
That is not an empty threat. I have before me an extract from the Evening Standard of one day last week, reporting a case which occurred in

223
Walthamstow and this is the wording of the newspaper report:—
"For cutting off electric current and depriving a works of power during the General Strike, Walthamstow Urban District Council were at Stratford to-day fined 20 s. for each day from May 6 to May 12 inclusive, and ordered to pay 25 guineas costs. They were summoned by five firms, but only one case was taken, and the other summonses were withdrawn."
I only mention this to show that our lawgivers have not been oblivious to the dangers on this point and I suggest to my noble friend that although the penalty here is far less than he considers adequate—because 40 s. a day would take a long time before it equalled the £50 which is in his mind—still I think we may be satisfied that the public are safeguarded under this section.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, there is a £50 penalty.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes, there is a £50 penalty later on. But more than this, my noble friend has referred to the fact that I was going to appeal to him to let this matter be dealt with by general legislation. Here again, we have a legal precedent to which my attention has only been called this afternoon. Although it goes further than the Act of 1899, it does not refer to electricity. It refers to gas and water. I think it is an argument in his favour—in favour of doing something—but I think it is also an argument in my favour, in favour of doing that something by general legislation. It is the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, which enacts that
"Where a person employed by a municipal authority …. who have …. assumed the duty of supplying …. gas or water, wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service …. he shall …. be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour."
My noble friend, I think, would have rejoiced had he known of these exact words before. But I suggest to him that, if circumstances have now so much altered that what was thought necessary in 1875 as regards gas and water should now be extended to electricity, the matter is one that might very rightly be considered by the proper authorities. For that reason I would remind my
224
noble friend that there is an Electricity (Supply) Bill before Parliament. I do not know whether that would be the proper place in which to enact such a clause as this, if it was thought desirable to extend it to electricity, but I suggest to him that that would be a better method than doing it in one Private Bill, applied to one authority. For that reason, I would appeal to him not to press this Amendment now, but I would join with him in appealing to the Government to consider whether they could rightly include the treatment of this matter in the Bill which is now before Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I might mention that the Section of the Act of 1875, to which the Lord Chairman referred, has been extended by a later Statute to electricity.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the important thing which has been brought out in the Lord Chairman's speech and in what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is that this subject matter is one that Parliament has always dealt with generally and not as regards particular corporations. It is obviously very undesirable when a Private Bill comes up to put in a penalty for an offence which ought to be an offence applying to every corporation and not to a particular corporation, and make it the law of the land that there should be one law in Swindon and quite another for the rest of the country. But what the Lord Chairman and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack have said make it plain that the Act of 1875 is, in principle at all events, regarded as applying to electricity as well as to gas and water. If that is so, it is obvious that our proper course is to consider the question in relation to that state of the law.
If the penalties under the Act of 1875 are too weak, which I see no reason to suppose, and if the statement of the law made from the Woolsack is correct then, on the Electricity (Supply) Bill or some other suitable measure, we can consider it, and that is the proper course to take. It is obviously a departure from every rule which we have laid down for ourselves to create a special offence in regard to one corporation, the Corporation

225
of Swindon, while not extending it to the rest of the country, and I, for one, should regard it as very deplorable if we inserted in a Private Bill an alteration of the criminal law which ought to be an alteration for the whole country if it is to be introduced at all. Therefore, I think the advice which the Lord Chairman has given to the House is wise advice, and, speaking for myself, I shall support it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I had hoped that the Government would have said something about this matter. I agree that legislation of this sort ought to be general. I do not think there can be any question about it. But unless one makes a beginning it is very difficult to get anything done. It was because there happened to be in this particular Bill clauses dealing with electricity that I proposed to move this Amendment and not because I wanted to make any attack upon Swindon or to differentiate its position from that of any of her corporation. If the Government would give me some little hope that on the Electricity (Supply) Bill a clause of this kind would be introduced I would certainly agree to the course proposed by the Lord Chairman. I could bring in a clause of my own in regard to the Electricity (Supply) Bill; but if I take that course, am I to be met with the whole force of the Government denouncing it? If that is so, it would be better for me to do something now. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Peel would be kind enough to say a word on the subject.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I cannot speak with very great authority on this subject because I have not heard anything more about it than has been said by noble Lords who have spoken. I am, of course, familiar with the contents of the Electricity (Supply) Bill. That Bill deals, of course, with electricity in bulk supply, the setting up of gridirons for the distribution of electricity all over the country and so on, and I should have thought, speaking offhand, that such an Amendment would probably be out of order. But if it pleases my noble friend I will certainly say, though I can make no definite promise, that the point will be considered.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am in a rather awkward position
226
because I did not know whether it would or would not be out of order; but might I venture to hope for the support of the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, if I withdrew my Amendment? If he would agree to support me I would withdraw the clause. Am I to take it that silence gives consent? In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given, that Standing Order No. 143 be considered and dispensed with in respect of this Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3ª I do so in the genera] interest of expediting public business as we are nearing the end of our present sittings. Perhaps I may explain to your Lordships the procedure I would ask you to agree to follow if you permit the Standing Order to be suspended and take the Third Reading to-day. I would move the Third Reading and I would suggest that we might then take the discussion on the Amendment of which my noble friend Lord Strachie has given Notice When that has been disposed of—either agreed to, disagreed to, or withdrawn—this position arises. Since the Bill was in Committee I have received a communication from the Ministry of Transport with reference to another clause in the Bill altogether, and I have suggested to the promoters a small Amendment which they are quite ready to make in the Bill. But I would not like to take that Amendment now without notice. Therefore, after your Lordships have disposed of my noble friend's Amendment I would ask your Lordships, in accordance with precedent, to adjourn the proceedings until to-morrow so as to enable the Amendment on the other point to be properly drafted, put in proper form and printed. The Bill would then be sent back to the Commons. Now, however, I make my first Motion with reference to the suspension of Standing Order No. 143. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered and dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3ª.—(The Earl of Donough-more.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and Bill read 3ª accordingly.
Clause 103:
By-laws as to inspection of meat.
"(4) With a view to facilitating the carrying into effect of any by-laws made in pursuance of this section the Corporation may enter any slaughter-house which is situate outside the city but within a circle having a radius of ten miles from the Council House for the purpose of inspecting any carcase or any part thereof intended for sale or consumption in the city: Provided that before entering any slaughterhouse outside the city the Corporation shall make reasonable endeavours to arrange for such inspection to be made jointly with the local authority of the area in which the slaughter-house proposed to be inspected is situate and in the event of such inspection not being made in the presence of an officer of such local authority the Corporation shall make a report in writing to such local authority stating the reasons for making the inspection and the result thereof."
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to omit the proviso in subsection (4) and insert: "with the consent of the local authority concerned subject to the right of the corporation to appeal to the Ministry of Health for such power of inspection." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this Bill has been slightly altered since I placed my Amendment on the Paper I desire to alter the form of my Amendment and have given due notice to the Lord Chancellor. The Amendment as I wish to move it reads as follows:
"Clause 103, page 70, line 13, omit from 'city' to the end of the subsection and insert 'with the consent of the local authority concerned subject to the right of the corporation to appeal to the Ministry of Health for such power of inspection."
The local authorities of Somerset and other local authorities for whom I am speaking object to the City of Bristol taking power to go into their areas and inspect their slaughter-houses without any consent whatsoever on their part. I may say that I am not moving this Amendment out of any sense of hostility to the Corporation of Bristol, and I should be the last person to do that because
228
my relations with Bristol have always been most friendly, that being my market-town. I do it on principles which I think will appeal to your Lordships who live in agricultural districts and know what strong objections are taken by local authorities to the invasion of their territory by other local authorities in the exercise of various powers.
What does this clause mean? It means that on its own initiative the Bristol Corporation is endeavouring to take power to inspect within ten miles of the centre of the City of Bristol any slaughterhouse without the leave of the local authority concerned. All I am asking your Lordships to do in this particular case is to say, as I have put it in my Amendment, that they must ask for the consent of the local authority and if that consent is not given there shall be a right of appeal to the Ministry of Health. I am the last person to wish that there should be any obstacle put in the way of seeing that slaughter-houses are conducted in the best possible manner, whether in town or in country. If the Bristol Corporation can show that the local authority are not doing their duty then they will have this appeal to the Ministry of Health. It is rather a serious matter, as this Bill proposes, to say that the local authorities have so neglected their duties and do not have proper inspection that it is necessary for a City like Bristol to have their own inspectors of slaughter-houses in order to see that the slaughter-houses are carried on under proper conditions. It seems to me that is not a wholly desirable thing to have. If the local authorities are not carrying out their duties then they ought to be forced to do so by the Ministry of Health.
It was said by the Lord Chairman, in regard to the Swindon Amendment—and the remark applies equally in this case—that you ought not to have merely Private Bill legislation. If it is desirable and right that great Cities like Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool should have the right to go over the adjoining counties and exercise their powers there, then it ought to be done as a result of a General Act applying to all and not by a Private Act. Up till now there have only been two other cases in which such powers have been given, and

229
in those cases the power was not given for quite such a large area as in this case. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that when the matter came before the Local Legislation Committee of the House of Commons the Ministry of Health made a very strong statement to that Committee. In regard to the particular powers of inspection they said:
"Before the Committee grant powers extending outside the city they will no doubt require clear evidence that they are essential for the proper enforcement of the by-laws."
That is a very strong statement indeed. I read this Report carefully. It was furnished to me by a gentleman sitting upon that Committee who was strongly opposed to these powers and there was not one word said afterwards by Bristol showing that they had any just cause of suspicion that the Somerset local authorities and other local authorities concerned in this particular instance were not carrying out their duties. They did not make any objections: they did not bring form and any cases.
It seems to me that it is quite clear they were not able to substantiate any grievances at all. Therefore I am surprised that the Committee gave these powers which now appear in the Bill. I am glad to think that Mr. Percy Hurd, Conservative member for one of the Divisions of Wiltshire—which is not concerned with this particular case—did very strongly oppose these powers being given to the City of Bristol. As I have already stated, no neglect has been shown on the part of the local authorities in carrying out their powers over slaughter-houses. I also would like to suggest that on genera] principles it is very undesirable to have this raid upon the powers of local authorities. In this particular case the power extends a long way into Gloucestershire and Somerset-shire, because the area is ten miles. But if ten miles, why should it not be twenty miles or thirty miles? I therefore oppose it on general grounds, because, if it is agreed to, we shall have other big towns coming and saying that they ought to have this power of inspection extended throughout the length and breadth of other counties adjoining those in which they are situated. They would say: "The sanitary authorities in Somerset and Gloucestershire are not inspecting
230
dairies in a proper way and we ought to have a power of inspecting them." That would be an interference with local authorities, and I cannot see in anything that has been said during the discussion on this Bill that Bristol has any grievance at all.
This principle of a raid upon the powers of county local authorities is one that we have had to fight more than once. In the House of Commons we have had to fight the great towns coming into our counties and wanting to take away the powers from the local authorities in the counties, saying: "We want general powers of inspection to interfere with you because you are not carrying out your duties." If that kind of thing is to be extended it means an end to all local self-government so far as the counties are concerned. Not for one moment would I oppose anything that is in the interests of public health. We ought to see that local authorities carry out their ditties. The Ministry of Health ought to see that they carry out their duties and I ask that power should be given to the Ministry of Health, on appeal, to force local authorities who are not doing their duty to do what they ought to do. I hope your Lordships will not, by a Private Bill, allow this raid to be made on local authorities by a great City like Bristol. It would create a precedent that would be followed in other areas and I submit it is very undesirable.
Amendment moved—
Clause 103, page 70, line 13, leave out from ("city") to end of the subsection and insert "with the consent of the local Authority concerned subject to the right of the corporation to appeal to the Ministry of Health for such power of inspection."—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of the Ministry of Health I ant sorry to have to inform my noble friend Lord Strachie that the Notice given was not really sufficient to enable them to come to a considered opinion on this point which, as the noble Lord said, raises several important questions of principle. On behalf of the Ministry, therefore, the Government do not propose to divide against the noble Lord's Amendment, but they do reserve the right to offer opposition to the noble Lord's suggestions when his Amendment reaches another place.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, may I say a few words in regard to what my noble friend has just said relative to the attitude of the Government and also in regard to the attitude of my noble friend opposite? I desire to thank him, as I thanked Lord Banbury just now, for abstaining from moving an instruction, and allowing the more usual procedure to be followed by moving an Amendment on Third Reading. I am much obliged, also, to my noble friend behind me (Viscount Gage) for intimating that the Government will offer no objection to this Amendment now, reserving, of course, their full rights when the Amendment made by your Lordships is considered in another place. I am getting a little anxious on the general point that we are discussing this afternoon, and I should be glad to see a settlement that might be satisfactory to all parties, if such could be reached.
My noble friend opposite has quoted the Report of the Ministry of Health on the original clause. This is a clause that has been asked for in a number of cases and it has been granted, I see, in three. These extraterritorial powers, if I may use the phrase, have been granted to Torquay, Hastings and Wakefield, but in those cases within the radius of six miles from the town halls. This Bill asks for ten miles from the town hall. It has been urged upon me that ten miles from the town hall of Bristol is not really more outside Bristol than six miles from the town halls in those other cases. I am not going to bring thunder bolts on my head by suggesting whether I agree with the estimate or not, but, if six miles why not ten miles, and if ten miles why not twenty miles? If the principle is right that the Corporation can say: "Meat slaughtered in a certain place and sold in our city should be inspected by us," we cannot say nay to its widest extension. It would be quite reasonable then, I think, for Bristol to say: "Some of our meat is slaughtered in London; we should have power to inspect slaughter-houses in London." What would the London County Council and the great municipalities say to that?
Take a case nearer home. Supposing Bradford said they ate meat slaughtered in Leeds, would Leeds allow them to send their inspectors to inspect Leeds slaughter-houses? I do not think so. At
232
any rate, we should have some lively Parliamentary proceedings. There is a grievance. Some of these great municipalities say that slaughter-houses are established just outside their borders to avoid the very stringent regulations which are in force within their borders. It is obvious that that is something which ought to be checked. Your Lordships will see that this matter cannot be left to drift on, passing in one Private Bill after another and discussions taking place whether the area should be so many miles or so many more miles. We want a general principle established. I hesitate to use the phrase, but I am Home Ruler enough to agree in principle with my noble friend opposite. I do not want to see the authority of local authorities undermined by inspectors coming in from elsewhere, although probably in many places it can be shown that it is in the public interest they should do so. A system must be devised by which the matter will work smoothly in the interest of all the parties concerned and, therefore, I am grateful to the Government for allowing this matter to go forward. We are towards the end of this part of the Session and we are saving time by letting this matter go to the House of Commons where it can be discussed. Anything further that is necessary can be added to the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, which, I am glad to believe, will now be agreed to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I beg to move that the further proceedings on this Bill be adjourned until to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

STATE OF EMERGENCY.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOITR): My Lords, I desire to read the following Message from the King:—
  "The continued cessation of work in coal mines on the 26th day of July, 1926, having constituted in the opinion of His Majesty a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation

  233
  made in pursuance of the said Act, and dated the 26th day of July, 1926, to declare that a state of emergency exists."
  I beg to move that the gracious Message be now considered.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I move, my Lords, in reference to the gracious Message which I have read, this Resolution:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His most gracious Message communicating to this House His Majesty's declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920."
  Moved, That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His most gracious Message communicating to this House His Majesty's declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

DUNSTABLE GAS ORDER, 1926.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 23rd of June last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HASLEMERE AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1926.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION GAS ORDER, 1926.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 29th of June last be a pproved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prohibition of muirburn at certain times.
1. It shall not be lawful to make muirburn or set fire to any heath or muir except before the sixteenth day of April or after the thirtieth day of September in any year: Provided that it shall be lawful for the proprietor of any lands, and for the tenant with the written authority of the proprietor or of his factor or commissioner to make muirburn or burn the heath thereon at any time during the period from the sixteenth day to the thirtieth day of April or, in the case of land in deer forests more than fifteen hundred feet above sea level, to the fifteenth day of May in any year; and provided further that, where the proprietor of any such lands or his factor or commissioner lute refused or has failed within seven days after written application has been made to him by the tenant of any such lands to give such written authority, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Board) may, on the application of such tenant, if they are satisfied that owing to the situation or altitude of such lands or for any other reason which they may consider sufficient it is expedient to do so by order authorise the tenant to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands or any portion of them during the whole or part of the period last mentioned in the year to which the order relates.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND)THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND) moved to leave out all words after "Provided that" and to insert:—

"(a) It shall be lawful for the proprietor of any lands, or for the tenant with the written authority of the proprietor or of his factor or commissioner, to make muirburn or burn the heath thereon at any time during the period from the sixteenth day to the thirtieth day of April, both days inclusive; and

(b) Where the proprietor of any lands or his factor or commissioner has refused or has failed within seven days after written application for such authority has beer made to him by the tenant of such lands, being a tenant who is entitled under the provisions of his lease or by virtue of an order

235
made in pursuance of the immediately succeeding section of this Act to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands, the tenant may, after giving to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner written notice of his intention to do so, make application to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Board) and the Board may on such application, if they are satisfied that it is expedient to do so, by order authorise the tenant to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands during, the whole or part of the period last mentioned in the year to which the order relates, in accordance with the conditions contained in the lease or in the order under the immediately succeeding section as the case may be.

(2) In the case of a deer forest more than fifteen hundred feet above sea level, the foregoing subsection shall have effect as if the fifteenth day of May were substituted for the thirtieth day of April."
The noble Duke said: This Amendment is mainly drafting, designed to make the clause more easily understood. It makes it clear, first, that an Order by the Board authorising a tenant to burn during the period subsequent to the expiry of the ordinary time for burning on April 16 cannot be granted where the tenant has no right to burn at all, either under his lease or under an Order made under Clause 2 of the Bill, and secondly, that the burning during the extended period must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of the lease or the Clause 2 Order, as the case may be. The Amendment also provides that the tenant, before applying for an Order, must give his landlord notice of his intention to do so. I should like to call attention to the fact that all the other Amendments to be moved on Clause 1 will fall if this Amendment is passed. These other Amendments can, however, be moved as Amend meats to my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("that") to the end of the clause and insert the said paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and the said subsection (2).—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I should like to say one word, and that is to thank the noble Duke and the Government for re-drafting this clause. I drew attention on the Second Reading to certain defects, but I think the clause is now perfectly clear to everyone, where formerly it was ambiguous and likely to lead to disputes.
On Question, Amendment to omit all words in the clause after "Provided that" agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question now is that the words on the Paper proposed by the noble Duke be there inserted.
THE EARL OF STAIR THE EARL OF STAIR moved to substitute "twenty-fifth day of April," for "thirtieth day of April," in paragraph (a) of the proposed Amendment. The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I have placed on the Paper is to leave out the word "thirty" in order to insert "twenty-five." I do not know to what extent this alteration affects people in the North and East of Scotland, but so far as South-west Scotland is concerned I think it is extremely material. The whole of the moors in the South-west of Scotland are only now making some slight attempt to recover from the complete destruction caused by D.O.R.A. during the War. I think that practically the whole of the moors in the South-west were burnt absolutely bare, and moors which used to produce substantial bags now produce absolutely nothing. On my own property, where we used to kill anything from 2,000 to 3,000 brace of grouse, we have not killed more than 500 brace since the War, and properties which I have let in the past for sums up to £1,000 a year are to-day absolutely unlettable. Only those lands which have been let on long leases have remained let at all.
I was examining property yesterday which is just beginning to recover. Some heather is coming and there are some grouse. I do not wish to stress this so much on the point of the reduction in the number of grouse alone, but none of these moors carry a single sheep more than they did before the War. In many cases I think the death rate, if anything, is greater than before the War. The land is no good either for grouse or sheep in winter where the heather has been destroyed, and thousands of acres which used to produce quite passable feeding in the winter are now going steadily back to bracken. If these extensions go on to the extent contemplated by the Bill, of unlimited and uncontrolled burning by people who have only got a half interest in the land they farm, it is going to become exceedingly injurious to the rateable value of the whole district. Land

237
cannot be let for game purposes, and ceases to have any rateable value. Yet our rates are going up, and it is absolutely essential that we should not lose one of our most valuable assets. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 6 of the proposed paragraph (a), leave out ("thirtieth") and insert ("twenty-fifth").—(The Earl of Stair.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I think your Lordships will agree that the Board of Agriculture would never give permission for such laud as Lord Stair mentions to be burnt at all if it should not be burned. It will, no doubt, be argued quite fairly that the Departmental Committee recommended April 25 as the end of the extended period in the case of high and wet moorland. The date in the Bill, however—namely, April 30—is, I believe, a better compromise among all the different opinions expressed on this matter. Under the clause as amended by my Amendment it will not be possible to burn after April 15 against the will of the proprietor unless the tenant is permitted to burn in the terms of his lease or by an Order under Clause 2, which is granted by the Board of Agriculture only after very careful examination of the ground in question. A strong desire was expressed by a large section of members in another place that the time should be extended even to May 15 or May 30, but this was resisted by the Scottish Office and April 30 was agreed to as a general compromise. It seemed to meet the views of all parties as being the most convenient date.
I should like to assure both the mover of this Amendment and the Duke of Buccleuch that it is not the intention of the Board of Agriculture in any way to encourage late burning. Where an application is made for permission to burn late the Board will require to be satisfied that the applicant has not neglected reasonable opportunities of burning within the normal period and that an extension is really necessary. They will also carefully consider what period of extension should be allowed. In many cases the Board of Agriculture would not give permission to burn as late as April 30. It is only on very exceptional occasions that they would feel obliged to give that permission, in cases where it has not been possible to
238
burn owing to bad weather or some other cause. I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am very disappointed with the answer of the Government. The noble Duke admitted that his proposal is entirely contrary to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee. That. Committee had the whole of the evidence before them and heard a lot of experienced people, and they were strongly of opinion, as anybody will see who will look at their Report, that buntings should not in any circumstances continue on the sheep farms after April 25. My noble friend talks of a compromise between various people, some of whom wanted to burn up to the end of May. Anybody who wanted to burn up to the end of May would surely want to destroy the whole value of a large number of sheep farms in the South of Scotland, and probably in the North as well.
This is not merely a question of game. My noble friend behind me mentioned that aspect of the matter, but he also referred to the feeding of sheep. With this very late burning, when the ground is very dry, it often takes years before anything grows, and, as my noble friend stated, the ground is often rendered perfectly useless. I think it is recognised by every knowledgable sheep farmer that the heather plant is one of the most valuable plants on sheep farms and that it requires a great deal of care and cultivation to ensure a proper supply of food. I agree that people vary in their views as to how often it should be burnt and so on, but, generally speaking, I think that every experienced man who really knows anything about it would be opposed to this very late turning.
There is another very serious objection—and this recalls the great harm that was done under D.O.R.A. The ordinary lambing in the South of Scotland begins about April 15. During the lambing the hill shepherds have a terribly hard time; they get hardly any sleep at all and are tremendously busy; but they are the only people who can do this burning. They might be able to light a fire then, but they could not look after it and see where it went. I maintain that the Government are making a great mistake in this

239
matter. I admit that in certain cases there may be some advantages in the extension of time, but I am strongly convinced that they will be greatly overbalanced by the disadvantages of late burning. I am bound to admit, however, that, if the Board of Agriculture act as the noble Duke says that they will and are very careful this removes a good deal of the objection. I should, however, like your Lordships to realise that you are giving the Department power to inflict considerable damage, and whether that damage will be caused or not depends upon whether that power is wisely exercised.
LORD LAMINGTON: The noble Duke who has just spoken has spoken of confidence in the Board of Agriculture, but the Board of Agriculture are not a permanent body. They are permanent in organisation but not in personnel, and we have no safeguard for the future that they will not be extremely anxious to carry out the Bill in its most severe form. I think the argument adduced by the noble Earl who has put down this Amendment is a very strong one. The noble Duke did not point out that the interests of the landlord are permanent, while those of the tenant are merely transitory, and that enormous damage could be done to a hill farm by extensive burning. It is most important in winter, if there is a snowstorm, that there should be plenty of old heather for the sheep to feed upon. A man with a temporary interest does not pay much attention to that. You probably do not get a severe snowstorm once in twenty years, and his interest is to make as much profit as he can immediately
by the burning of heather. I hope that this Amendment may be accepted by the Government.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I have already said that I am afraid that the Amendment cannot be accepted. The question has been gone into and, with regard to low ground, I feel quite sure that great discrimination will be exercised by the Board of Agriculture in considering the position of the ground and deciding whether heather should be burnt or not. I am quite certain that they would not give the same permission in regard to low ground as in regard to high ground. This is a matter which must be left to the Board.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I think I must press my Amendment, for the date is already a compromise of the most serious nature, particularly in the South and West. If we do get a dry time then the ground becomes so dry that in a very short time considerable damage is caused, not only to the heather but to the peat below it; and once a fire has taken hold of the peat is goes on for weeks, no rain will put it out and the destruction is permanent. I may add that in Wigtonshire I have frequently known nests containing six and eight eggs on April 10. As a rule we wait until April 10, but if we can allow another week it is quite enough.
On Question, Whether the word "thirtieth" shall stand part of the Amendment?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

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

Onslow, E.

Sutherland, D.

Russell, E.

Ernle, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller]

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Latymer, L.

Allendale, V.

Merthyr, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Olivier, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Haldane, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Shandon, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Peel, V.

Stanmore, L.

De La Warr, E.

Templemore, L.

Denbigh, E.

Arnold, L.

Thomson, L.

Eldon, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Treowen, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Bute, M.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Morton, E.

Ancaster, E.

Halsbury, E.

Askwith, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lamington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Darling, L.

Lawrence, L.

Rowallan, L.

de Mauley, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Sempill, L.

Erskine, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Strachie, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Howard of Glossop, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the proposed Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in the proposed paragraph (b), to leave out "seven" ["seven days after written application"] and insert "fourteen". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is that the factor or the owner should have a little longer period of notice from the tenant that he going to make application for an extension of time to burn. It seems to me seven days is a very short period to allow. Suppose the tenant wrote to the factor of an estate, stating that he wished to have an extension of time to burn. The factor very probably would like to communicate with the owner and consult with him as to whether the application was reasonable, whether it should be allowed or not. I think seven days is a very short period to allow the factor and the landlord to consult together and to decide whether they should allow this extra time for burning or whether they should write to the Board—which I understand they are entitled to do—to oppose the Board giving an extension. If the period is extended to fourteen days, which I understand was the period in the Bill as originally drafted, it would be more equitable for the owner. It may, of course, be argued that this period would be so long that the time would have gone during which heather might be bullied, but generally it happens that the time when the ground has dried up is during the month of March. If March is a wet month it would probably be known that it would be difficult to burn heather during the first fortnight of April. Therefore if the tenant found that March was very wet he would have plenty of time in that month to write to the factor or the owner, giving notice of his intention to apply for an extended time to burn. I think, therefore, my Amendment is quite reasonable, and I hope the noble Duke will see his way to restore the Bill as originally drafted.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 3 of the proposed paragraph (b), leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I am afraid the Government cannot see their way to agree to this Amendment, because after all an extension of the period for burning will in general be sanctioned only where the weather has prevented adequate burning during the normal period. That cannot be known until near the expiry of the normal period, and if the proprietor got fourteen days in which to consider whether he would consent or not the provision empowering the Board to make an Order would be practically useless. I think, on the whole, that seven days is ample for the purpose. After all, the proprietor gets seven days notice in writing. The tenant then writes to the Board on the seventh day, and the Board have to consider the matter carefully before giving the power. This would give the proprietor extra time, in addition to the seven days, before the Board actually granted the power. Another thing that your Lordships must remember is that if the procedure is made too lengthy the tenants will be apt to put in applications at a very early date, and that, I think, would be highly undesirable, because it would be very difficult for the Board to deal with applications at an early date, before they knew what sort of season it was going to be and what the weather was going to be like. I am afraid the Government cannot agree to this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in paragraph (b) of the Amendment, after "satisfied," to insert "after considering any representations made by the proprietor." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. The intention is only to make quite certain that

243
the owner has fair treatment, and that any representation he wishes to make has been properly considered by the Board. I understand it is a provision that is put in most Bills of this character.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 15 of the proposed paragraph (b), after ("satisfied") insert the said words.—(Lord Lamington.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: The Government cannot agree to this Amendment. Under the clause, as amended by the first Amendment on the Paper, the tenant before applying for an Order must give the proprietor notice of his intention to do so. The proprietor can then make representations to the Board, which in the ordinary course would be considered by the Board. In any case a time limit would have to be fixed within which such representations would require to be lodged, if this Amendment were agreed to. It would, I think, be unfortunate to complicate the clause by the addition of such a provision when it is totally unnecessary.
LORD LAMINGTON: I should like to know why it is totally unnecessary and what objection there can possibly be to the insertion of these words. If they are unnecessary, they are very harmless.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: The reason why they are unnecessary is that the proprietor, when receiving notice of their intention, will make representations to the Board, which in the ordinary course will be considered by the Board. The words would complicate the clause very considerably, and cause a good deal of re-drafting.
LORD LAMINGTON: Could some legal luminary give us a little light on this point, and tell us why the words are objectionable? They seem very ordinary precautionary words to insert. I am told that they are usual in Bills of this character.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF KINTOREhad on the Paper an Amendment to insert at the end of the clause:
"Any such Order may specify the lands on which and shall prescribe the conditions subject to which muirburn may be made or
244
the heath may be burnt and a copy of the Order shall be sent to the proprietor or his factor or agent."
The noble Earl said: It is a little difficult to draft Amendments before you have seen the clause as amended by the noble Duke. His Amendment certainly has improved the clause enormously, but perhaps there are one or two points which might yet be added to it. I should like to vary the Notice on the Amendment Paper, and to move at the end of paragraph (b) of the noble Duke's Amendment, to add:
"A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner."
I can only express a pious hope, from what I know of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, that their action in so doing may be somewhat speedier than it sometimes is.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Paragraph (b) of the proposed Amendment, at end insert ("A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner").—(The Earl of Kintore.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: We are very glad indeed to accept the Amendment.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Regulation of muirburn by Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
2.—(1) Where the tenant of any lands is precluded by the terms of his lease or otherwise from making muirburn or burning the heath thereon in such manner or to such extent as to him seems necessary or expedient, he may, after giving to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner two weeks notice of his intention to do so, make application to the Board for an order regulating muirburn on such lands.
(2) On any application under the foregoing subsection if the Board, after such inquiry as they think fit and after considering any representations by the parties interested which may be lodged with the Board within a period fixed by them (including any representations as to the manner in which and the extent to which muirburn or the burning of the heath has been or is being carried out by the proprietor) are satisfied that it is expedient to do so, the

245
Board may make an order regulating muirburn or the burning of the heath on such lands. Any such order may specify the lands on which, and shall prescribe the conditions subject to which, muirburn may be made or the heath may be burnt in any year during the currency of the lease: Provided always that such order shall not authorise any muirburn or burning of the heath at any time when such burning by the tenant would be in contravention of section one of this Act. In making any such order the Board shall have regard to the interests of the proprietor, of the tenant, and of any other person whom they may deem to have an interest. When any such order shall hove been made the tenant shall be entitled to make muirburn or burn the heath in accordance therewith, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the terms of the lease or tenancy.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (1), after "lands," to insert "who has been in occupation thereof not less than the preceding four years." The noble Lord said: A tenant who may have just signed his lease for fourteen years then goes, or threatens to go, to the Board of Agriculture and ask for permission to burn heather as specified in the Bill. That is, he is able to get a third party to come in and improve the terms and conditions of his lease. That seems manifestly unfair, and it is the object of my Amendment to secure that at least for a period of four years he should not be able to obtain these more favourable terms. It is only a very minor instance of the iniquity of breaking contracts which have been freely entered into. I trust that English as well as Scottish landlords will recognise that there is a very big principle here. It is breaking into freedom of contract. I would ask noble Lords opposite of the Liberal Party also to consoler this. They should support the general principle that two men are perfectly able to enter into a fair bargain.
The Amendment would inflict no hardship on the tenant. He ought to know the exact condition of the ground of which he is going to acquire the tenancy, and he signs the lease accordingly. The only reason for opposition to this Amendment that I can imagine is this. It was mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill that its object was to improve the food production of the country. That is one of the most specious cries of the day If this Bill were passed I do not think it would
246
secure £500 of additional value in the feeding stock to the country. If the Government want to conserve food why do they not stop all the waste of food that goes on in London day after day? I believe more food is wasted in London hotels and restaurants every night than will be saved by passing a Bill of this character. Therefore I do not believe in this Bill as a Bill for safeguarding the food production of the country. That is mere nonsense.
The Bill is really a political measure and not an economic measure at all, and I earnestly hope that those of your Lordships who hold the views I have expressed regarding this expected increase in the food supply will support my Amendment. I move it not so much because of my objection to this particular Bill as on the broad principles that I have mentioned. The operation of the Bill will not affect me very much personally. I have not a very large extent or ground and I take care to farm most of it myself. It may be that some of your Lordships think that the sheep farms will be hard hit, but I should say that no branch of agriculture has been more prosperous in Scotland during the last twelve years than sheep farming. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("lands") insert ("who has been in occupation thereof not less than the preceding four years").—(Lord Lamington)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment referred to the question of increasing the food supply in Scotland. I do not pretend to be an expert on this question, but in this Bill we are following to a certain extent the Report of the Duke of Buccleuch's Departmental Committee. Although in some respects we am proposing not to follow it exactly, there is no doubt that the Committee in general reported definitely that by a reform of the system of heather burning, the broad lines of which we are following in this Bill, an increase of food and wool in Scotland would certainly be facilitated. I do not know whether I am exaggerating it, but that is how I read the Report of that very valuable Committee, which consisted of the greatest experts that could be got together and which heard the very best evidence that could be

247
brought before it. It is really that, and that alone, that we are following to a certain extent in this Bill.
I am afraid His Majesty's Government cannot agree to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, although it is understood to be designed to meet the case where a tenant signs a lease which precludes him from doing the burning and soon afterwards goes to the Board with a view to getting rid of the stipulation to which he has just agreed. If a lease containing such a stipulation had been recently completed, that is a matter which the Board would be bound to take into consideration in determining the case. But if they were satisfied that burning was not being adequately carried out, they ought not to be precluded from exercising their powers merely because the tenant has recently made such an agreement. The main question the Board have to consider on any such application is whether, having regard to the interests of all concerned, adequate burning is, in point of fact, being done.
The clause as it stands contains adequate safeguards for the interests of the landlord and I believe that this Amendment would not be an improvement upon it. After all, if the landlord did adequate burning, and did it himself under the lease, the tenant would never get power from the Board of Agriculture to do any burning at all. Therefore, taking everything into consideration and having regard also to the fact that the Amendment would take away very materially from the operation of the Bill and cut away a great deal of the ground the Bill is meant to cover, I think your Lordships will see that it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept it as it stands.
LORD LAMINGTON: I regret the answer of the noble Duke. He said that the Amendment if accepted would take away the operation of the Bill to a great extent. I am willing to try to meet him part of the way by reducing the term from four years to three I might even go to two; but I think there ought to be a limit to the time. Even if a tenant did not get the acquiescence of the Board he might put his landlord in a difficult position, and the landlord ought not to be exposed to the possibility of such treatment. As I say, I should be content to reduce the term of years from
248
four to three, or even two, if the noble Duke would accept my Amendment. If he will not accept it I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships to go to a Division upon the question.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: His Majesty's Government really cannot accept an Amendment of that kind because, as I explained, if a lease containing such a stipulation has been recently completed the Board of Agriculture are bound to take that fact into consideration, and the Board must be left with a discretion in order properly to exercise the powers conferred by the Bill in regard to these points.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I hope the noble Duke will reconsider the answer he has given. I wish to support the Amendment on totally different grounds from those on which it was moved. Apart altogether from the question of freedom of contract, no farmer in Scotland can know what a particular piece of hill land in Scotland is like until he has lived on it for two or three years, and he will not know very much about it, until he has lived upon it for a dozen years. No two pieces of land will grow heather or grass or anything else at the same rate or recover as quickly after fire. You may have a piece of land and get a crop of a certain amount from it in the same year if you burn it properly, whereas on another piece of land within a few hundred acres you might burn and get nothing that year. A tenant coming from land of a totally different type might easily be led to think that his farm was either over-burnt or under burnt and be unable to judge until he had been there a few years. I trust, therefore, that the noble Duke will change his mind about this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not like to intervene in a Scottish debate, but the principle enunciated by the noble Duke has filled me with dismay. I have been brought up to believe that the sanctity of contract was a vital principle of the Conservative Party. The noble Duke says now that this Bill is going to break contracts, but that they will not be broken if a Minister or a Department says they shall not be broken. What has a Minister or a Department to do with that? Why should they be set up to

249
judge as to whether or not a contract should be maintained or broken? The right principle is that a contract made between two grown men, neither of whom is in a lunatic asylum, is a contract which ought to be binding and that has been the principle of the Conservative Party from time immemorial.
You must not do evil that good may come, even if the breaking of a contract will aid the food supply of the country, though on that I do not venture to do more than express an opinion. I do not believe it. I do not believe that these nostrums that are going to add to the food supply of the country are worth anything at all. But leaving that entirely out of question, you must not break a contract simply because you think that somebody will get some benefit out of it, and that is a vital principle. This may be only a small alteration, but once a precedent of this sort is set up it may be followed. It is proposed in the Mining Industry Bill to break contracts, and if once we begin to do that we shall never know where we are going to stop. I hope my noble friend will go to a Division and that we shall beat the Government upon the point.
LORD SEMPILL:. It seems to me that this Bill is a departure from the law of Scotland in regard to leasing. Our leases in Scotland are made as a rule with a break in them. That is not the case in England, where many leases are made annually. The break in Scottish leases is purposely made so that the landlord or tenant may have an opportunity of reviewing any of the provisions. The whole object of this Bill is to cast this principle upon one side and to enable the tenant to secure different to ms from those in the lease he originally signed. If your Lordships go to a Division I shall support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I have an Amendment on the Paper to omit Clause 2. The object of the Amendment is, of course, to maintain existing leases and existing agreements between tenant and landlord. Lord Lamington's Amendment lays down the law and says that the contract may not be broken immediately; for four years the contract must stand, but after that, if the tenant has contract ed for more than four years.
250
then, after four years, he may go to the Board and try to get out of the contract. That is the effect of Lord Lamington's Amendment. He says that for four years the contract shall not be broken, but after four years then the contract may be broken. I have an Amendment down which says that two people who have entered into a contract should keep to their contract. I do not think I can support Lord Lamington's Amendment saying that a contract, can be broken after four years. The matter raises a far bigger point than the more breaking of a contract to burn heather. It is a very common thing throughout Scotland, when a farmer takes a farm, to have a clause put in the agreement referring to heather burning and, in addition, there is also a clause in regard to the number of the sheep stock. When the noble Duke gets up and says this Bill will add greatly to the amount of mutton—
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I stated that the Committee said that.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: But the noble Duke takes the same view, I understand, as His Majesty's Government take, that this Bill will add largely to the amount of mutton which will be produced in Scotland. The noble Duke probably knows a great deal better than I do that in the case of a large number of sheep farms in Scotland there is a term in the lease stating that the number of sheep to be kept on the farms is strictly limited. I know plenty of cases of that kind. It is done, no doubt, for a good reason. The landlord is protecting his own interests and protecting his land. As a general rule it is not a good thing to overstock farms, because it generally ends in great mortality among the sheep. If a farm is covered with innumerable sheep for a year or two, not only does that kill all the heather, but it probably does not do the farm as a whole much good from any point of view. Therefore, in a large number of leases in Scotland, the number of sheep that can be placed on a farm is strictly limited. In addition there is the question of the valuation of sheep stock. I am sorry to have to introduce these matters, but the whole question of breaking contracts has been brought in and I only bring forward these matters because it seems to me

251
that this Bill goes a good deal further ban the mere question of heather burning.
One of the reasons for putting in this restrictive clause as to the number of sheep that can be maintained on a farm is this. In a large number of eases, when the tenant leaves his farm the landlord is bound to take over the sheep at what is railed the acclimatization value. Acclimatization value invariably means that the landlord has probably to take over the sheep at one-third more than they are worth. The market value of the sheep on a farm may be, for instance, £4,000 and the valuers come in and almost always the landlord has to give £6,000 for sheep stock whose market value is not more than £4,000. I think this largely arises because it is said that if you brought in a new flock of sheep they would not be so healthy and also owing to the fact that, before the days of wire fences, if you brought new stock into the hills, they would be all over the place. You are proposing to break that clause in agreements. How, in a large number of farms, can the number of sheep be increased without breaking this special clause in the lease that limits the number of sheep that can be kept on a farm?
The noble Duke says that if this Bill is not passed in its present form, and if the existing leases are exempted, the scope of the Bill will thereby be greatly reduced. Undoubtedly that will be so. Those tenants who have a yearly agreement or who have already had permission to burn the heather on their moors, can apply for the extra extension and can do what they like. Where there is an existing lease and the landlord and tenant have come to agreements that the land shall be managed and the farm farmed in a certain way, I do think there is absolutely no excuse for interfering with them by means of this Bill and saying that existing contracts shall be
overridden. My opinion is that this Bill will produce very little more food and that it will cause a very considerable amount of friction between landlord and tenant. When an agreement has been reached, not between one rich man and a poor man or in face of great competition, but in a number of cases between men of substance and considerable wealth, who knew quite well what they were doing when they entered into the agreement, there is no justification or excuse for interfering with that agreement by this Bill. When two parties enter into an agreement with their eyes open there is not a shadow of excuse for interfering with that agreement in this way.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I should like to be allowed to say one word in regard to this before we go to a Division. The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, seems to think that the Board of Agriculture are going to do all they can to damage the farms. Some people may think that, but I can assure them they are quite wrong. The earnest wish and endeavour of the Board is to improve the value of the farms and they are not going to damage the farms by reducing the number of sheep stock upon them. On the contrary, their desire is to issue Orders which will have the effect of producing the largest amount of mutton. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, said that he would divide against the Bill on principle, but I would remind him that if he is against the Bill on principle he had an opportunity of dividing against it when the Second Reading was taken.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am so afraid of voting against the Government.
On Question, Whether the said words be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents,23; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Bute, M.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lawrence, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Merthyr, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

de Mauley, L.

Montagu of Beaulien, L.

Erskine, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Sempill, L.[Teller.]

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Askwith, L.

Latymer, L.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Eldon, E.

Cawley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Desborough, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Onslow, E.

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

Stanhope, E.

Sutherland, D.

Ernle, L.

Allendale, V.

Gage, L.(V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Haldane, V.

Olivier, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more)

Parmoor, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Sandhurst, L.

Peel, V.

Shandon, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Stanmore, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Arnold, L.

Templemore, L.

De La Warr, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Thomson, L.

Treowen, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, on behalf of Viscount Novar, in subsection (1), after "notice" to insert "in writing." The noble Duke said: I think it is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("notice") insert ("in writing").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINEhad on the Paper an Amendment to move, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "Act," to insert: "A copy of the Order shall be sent to the proprietor or his factor or agent." The noble Earl said: I understand that my Amendment will be agreeable to the Government in a rather different form than that in which it appears an the Paver—namely, "A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, after ("Act") insert ("A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "interest," to insert "and (b) the protection of woodlands and plantations." The noble Duke said: I understand that this Amendment is agreed to. It is designed to meet Lord Lovat's representation regarding possible danger to areas under afforestation.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, after ("interest") insert ("and (b) the protection of woodlands and plantations").—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
THE EARL OF KINTORE THE EARL OF KINTORE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:—
"In the event of the tenant contravening the Order or failing to comply with any of the conditions thereof the Board shall have power to rescind the Order."
The noble Earl said: I hope that this Amendment is likely to be accepted by the Government. It is obvious that the proprietor ought to have some remedy in case of the tenant contravening the Order, and the proposal that I have to make is that it shall be in the power of the Board, on representations being made to them, to withdraw the Order. Of course, they have power to make the Order under the Bill, but I can find no power to withdraw it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, after ("tenancy") insert ("In the event of the tenant contravening the Order or failing to comply with any of the conditions thereof the Board shall have power to rescind the Order").—(The Earl of Kintore.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I agree.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 2, as amended, stand part.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: I have already said what I have to say on the question of doing away with existing contracts and I shall now formally move the omission of Clause 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out Clause 2.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I think that this Amendment must be resisted. The clause is the main provision of the

255
Bill, and without it the Bill would not be worth while. The Amendment, therefore, is not very consistent with the decision to give the Bill a Second Reading. The power conferred on the Board is amply safeguarded, and will not be exercised where the proprietor is himself carrying out adequate burning. The recommendation of the Departmental Committee for schemes by agricultural committees to be put in force failing agreement by the Board, could not of course receive effect after the disappearance of agricultural committees. This clause takes its place, and the Government cannot agree to the proposed Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If I may be permitted one word in answer, the noble Duke has said that the Board of Agriculture in Scotland will not put this into operation if there is adequate burning by the landlord. My only answer is that I think most landlords in Scotland are just as good judges whether moors are adequately burnt as any official of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. I also wish to add that on the Second Reading, when I raised doubts as to the people likely to go and inspect these hill farms, and see whether more heather was to be burned, the noble Duke assured us that not only would officials of the Board be employed for the purpose but other people would be employed who, I understood, would be excellent men. I only wish to ask the noble Duke if he includes among these men prominent members of the Farmers' Union in Scotland, who, I believe, are chiefly responsible for this Bill. If he would assure me that most of these people who will be sent round to investigate will be owners of moorland in Scotland who know something about
the matter and are not, perhaps, entirely prejudiced, I think that I should have some faith in the proposal, but, when he tells us that Orders will not be made without adequate reason, I confess that I am alarmed. I am still of opinion that the owner himself would be just as good a judge of how the moor ought to be burnt as any official of the Board of Agriculture, and I confess that I am very much frightened that some of these outside people will be leading members of the Farmers' Union in Scotland, who, as I say, are said to be chiefly responsible for this Bill.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: Let me take this opportunity of assuring the noble Earl that whoever is sent round to investigate will, of course, be completely unbiased. The Board would never select these men from one Party or another, or as representing one side or another. They will be obtained from a completely unprejudiced source and will be men who have no interest in farming or in any particular trade.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I should like very much to know what sort of men the noble Duke indicates. Either a man knows what he is talking about or he does not, and, if he knows, he is certainly prejudiced.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: He would not be interested in that particular case. He would not be in any way biased.
On Question, Whether the Clause, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Ernle, L.

Faringdon, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Allendale, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Latymer, L.

Sutherland, D.

Haldane, V.

Lawrence, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)

Merthyr, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

O'Hagan, L.

Peel, V.

Olivier, L.

Parmoor, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Arnold, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Cawley, L.

Shandon, L.

De La Warr, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Stanmore, L.

Eldon, E.

Darling, L.

Templemore, L.

Halsbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Thomson, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

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

Treowen, L.

Onslow, E.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bute, M.

de Mauley, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Erskine, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) [Teller.]

Ancaster, E. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Morton, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lamington, L.

Sempill, L.

Churchill, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Strachie, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Banbury of Southam, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 2, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL had given Notice to move, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:—
Regulation of muirburn on common grazings.
".The making of muirburn or the setting fire to any heath or muir on any grazings held in common under the Landholders Acts shall continue to be regulated by the Land Court and the provisions of sections one and two of this Act in so far as they relate to applications to the Board of Agriculture shall not apply."
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I was asked to move this Amendment on behalf of ray noble friend the Duke of Atholl, but if the Government prefer the Amendment to Clause 5 that stands in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, my noble friend does not wish to press it.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: The Land Court, no doubt, make regulations affecting muirburn on common grazings, but they have no power to extend the ordinary period, and there is no reason why such extension should not apply to common grazings. Nor ought the provisions of Clause 2 to be excluded from common grazings. The Land Court, however, are of opinion that the matters dealt with in these two clauses should be in the hands of the same authority in the case of all land, and an Amendment accordingly stands in my name on Clause 5 to make clear what otherwise would be doubtful—namely, that Clauses 1 and 2 apply to common grazing. The Land Court prefer that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland should deal with it. The Land Court themselves, as your Lordships know, have no local officers moving about for inspection purposes. Therefore they are very anxious that this Amendment should not be pressed.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the Amendment is not moved?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not move the Amendment.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Construction, short title and extent.
5.—(1) In this Act the expression "tenant" means a tenant for agricultural or pastoral purposes.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, 1926, and shall extend to Scotland only.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert
"and in the case of a common grazing includes the committee appointed under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, and the expression 'lease' in relation to such common grazing includes regulations made or approved by the Land Court under the said Acts."
The noble Duke said: This Amendment, as I have already indicated, is to make it clear that Clauses 1 and 2 apply to common grazing.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INCREASE OF PENALTIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE IN THE CHAIR.]
Clause 1:
Power of court to substitute penal servitude for consecutive terms of imprisonment.
1.—(1) Where a person is convicted on indictment of two or more offences to which

259
this Act applies in respect of which he is liable to be sentenced to terms of imprisonment amounting in the aggregate to a period of not less than three years, the court may, Instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, sentence him to penal servitude for any term not exceeding the aggregate period for which he might have been sentenced to imprisonment, so, however, that no sentence of penal servitude imposed under this section shall be for a term exceeding seven years.
(2) This Act applies to all indictable offences not otherwise punishable by penal servitude except blasphemous or seditious libel and other offences of blasphemy or sedition, unlawful or riotous assembly, offences under any enactment relating to corrupt and illegal practices at elections, and offences of inciting or attempting or conspiring to commit any such offence as aforesaid.
(3) In the application of subsection (1) of this section to Scotland the expression "the Court" shall mean the High Court of Justiciary, and the power to award penal servitude conferred by that subsection shall be exerciseable in the case of a person remitted to the said High Court for sentence under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1887 and 1921, as well as in the case of a person convicted before the said High Court.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert the following proviso at the end of subsection (1):—
"Provided that if, on an appeal by a person sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect of two or more offences with which he was charged on separate indictments, it appears to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the appellant, though not properly convicted on some indictment, has been properly convicted on some other indictment, the Court shall have the like powers as if the appellant had been convicted of the offences on different counts or parts of the same indictment; but where an appellant convicted of two or more offences, whether on one or more indictments, has been sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect of two or more offences and his conviction of any such offence is quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court shall not affirm any sentence passed at the trial or pass any sentence in substitution there for which is more severe than would have been warranted by law if the appellant had been acquitted at the trial of any charge in respect of which his conviction is quashed."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is practically a consequential Amendment if the Bill is passed. It is of a technical character, and its object is to make certain changes in the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I do not know that I need go into it in detail as I understand my noble friend opposite agrees.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD PARMOOR: I understand that this applies to the Criminal Appeal Court?
LORD DESBOROUGH: To the Criminal Appeal Court entirely.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: As I understand the Amendment it is merely to insert a safeguard that the present provisions regarding the Criminal Appeal Court will apply with equal force to sentences passed under this Bill as they do at present to sentences passed under the ordinary procedure. In these circumstances I accept and welcome this Amendment, although I am not quite sure that under the wording of the Criminal Court of Appeal Act it is absolutely necessary. But whether it is necessary or not, it is manifestly better that it should be made clear that persons who are sentenced under the provisions of the present Bill will be under no disability with regard to appeal but will be in the same position as persons sentenced under the present law.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or riotous" and, after "assembly," to insert "rout or riot" The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really a verbal Amendment. I think it is quite clear when one looks at the Bill that the framers of subsection (2) had in mind certain definite matters, but unfortunately I think they fell into inaccurate wording. The subsection as drafted contains the words "unlawful or riotous assembly." There is no such offence, as far as I know, in this country as riotous assembly. There is unlawful assembly, that is to say, an assembly of persons assembled for an unlawful purpose. There is rout, that is, when, having gathered in an unlawful assembly, people have got to the point that they have begun to carry out their common purpose, which purpose is unlawful. Finally you get riot, where that purpose is being carried out by force or violence. It is quite obvious that subsection (2) was meant to take in these particular forms of offence and the Amendment I am moving is merely

261
to put that intention into accurate legal language. It will then read, "unlawful assembly, rout or riot."
I have carefully considered the words of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack on the question of leaving out subsection (2) altogether, and if I may say so respectfully I entirely agree with what he said. Speaking personally I can see no sort of foundation, either in logic or in sense, for retaining the subsection, but others do not think as I do and there are many people who attach great importance to this subsection. What I feel is that if we attempted to leave out subsection (2) altogether undoubtedly there would be considerable diversity of opinion and it would become a controversial matter in another place. Considering the late period of the Session and the fact that this is still a Private Member's Bill, although backed by the neutrality of the Government—which is said to be benevolent—there is a possibility that if we begin to get into any controversy there may be a grave danger of the Bill not passing at all. For that reason I am perfectly prepared to sacrifice my sense of logic to my sense of what should be done, and consequently I move this Amendment, Hi order to get more accurate language instead of moving the Amendment suggested by the noble Viscount on the Wool sack—namely, that the subsection should be omitted altogether.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("or riotous") and after ("assembly") insert ("rout or riot")—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: In reply to what my noble friend has said about the attitude of the Government, I would say that the Government is more than neutral; it is benevolently neutral. This Bill passed through another place on the Motion of a private member and it comes to your Lordships' House also as a Private Member's Bill. It is quite unnecessary for the Government to take it up, especially as the Session is so very congested. With regard to this particular Amendment the Home Office not only considers it a necessary Amendment, but if the noble Earl had not moved it I should have thought it my duty to weary your Lordships by talking about it myself. I entirely agree with my noble friend in his definition of unlawful assembly, rout and riot and as the
262
Government are in sympathy with the Amendment I need not say more.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert at the end of the clause the following new paragraph:—
(b) A reference to the Court of Criminal Appeal shall be construed as a reference to the High Court of Justiciary in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act. 1926.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which I moved previously. It simply makes the Bill apply to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 11 at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Desborough.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Short title and extent.
2.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Act, 1926.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Criminal Justice (increase of Penalties)" and to insert "Penal Servitude." The noble Earl said: In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that the title was extremely unfortunate, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack agreed with me. This Amendment speaks for itself. It has this advantage over the original title, that instead of being a mis-description it is a description of what the Bill actually deals with.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("Criminal Justice (increase of Penalties)") and insert ("Penal Servitude")—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: In the view of the Home Office this is a very great improvement, and the words much more accurately describe the Bill. The Bill confers on Courts the power of passing a sentence of penal servitude in cases where they have now the power to impose consecutive sentences of imprisonment but not penal servitude. It does not increase the length of sentence.

TITLE.
An Act to increase and extend the powers of the court to inflict punishment in the case of certain crimes.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to leave out "punishment" and to insert "penal servitude in lieu of imprisonment." The noble Earl said: This Amendment follows from the last Amendment made.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, leave out ("punishment") and insert ("penal servitude in lieu of imprisonment").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Report of Amendments read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, in moving that the Report be now received may I recall that at an earlier stage of the Bill a question was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. His suggestion was that when a man has been convicted of giving short weight under this Bill a notice of the conviction should be put up in front of his shop for fourteen days. That was supported, I think, by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor) and the noble Lord behind him, and I promised that I would bring the matter to the notice of the Home Office. I used some arguments against the proposal, but I find that the views of the Home Office against it are much stronger than were my own. They say it would be contrary to the general principles on which the Criminal Law is administered in this country, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will be satisfied with that statement.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 4 [Provisions applicable to the sale of certain articles of common consumption]:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add the following new subsection:
"(5) This section shall not apply in the case of any article which is proved to have been sold for export or to be intended to be so sold."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that a good deal of export business is done by metric weight or measure, and it would not be advisable, or perhaps even possible, to apply the provisions of this clause to that export trade. I therefore move this Amendment to exempt these articles from the operation of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 2, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 6:
Provisions applicable to the sale of bread.
6.—(1) A person shall not sell or offer for sale any bread otherwise than by net weight.
(2) A person shall not sell or have in his possession for sale or delivery under a contract of sale any loaf of bread unless its net weight is one pound or an integral number of pounds:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to loaves supplied under contract where the contract provides for the supply for consumption on the premises of the purchaser of not less than half a hundredweight of bread at a time, and for the weighing of the bread on delivery.
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to fancy bread or to loaves not exceeding twelve ounces in weight.
(4) Every person selling bread by retail, or having in his possession any bread for the purpose of sale by retail, shall provide and keep in some conspicuous part of his shop or premises, a correct weighing instrument of a pattern suitable for weighing bread, and shall, if so required by the purchaser, or by an inspector of weights and measures, weigh the bread in the presence of the person so requiring, or, if the person so requiring is such an inspector as aforesaid, shall permit the inspector to weigh the bread.
(5) Every person carrying bread for sale or delivery to a purchaser shall, if so required by an inspector of weights and measures permit the inspector to weigh the bread.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:
"Provided that in Scotland the foregoing provisions shall apply to pan loaves, French loaves, and loaves of a similar character, with this modification, that any such loaf of the net weight of one-and-three-quarter

265
pounds may be sold or delivered for sale if the weight is clearly marked either by an impression made in baking or on any printed band or wrapper surrounding or containing the loaf."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was brought up in order to meet the requirements of the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, about pan bread. This Amendment, in conjunction with an Amendment to be made in Clause 14, effects the object of the noble Earl by allowing the sale of pan bread in loaves of 1 lb. 12 ozs., provided that there is an appropriate indication of its weight, either on the pan itself or on the wrapper round the bread. I think this will enable the bakers to continue with their present system, and at the same time it will enable housewives to be quite sure they get the proper weight of 1 lb. 12 oz.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 3, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he has met this point. As he says, the Amendment does meet the situation by bringing pan bread within the principle of the Bill, although not making it liable to the full 2 lbs. weight. It will thus secure for the population of Scotland the assurance that they get full value for their money by weight and it will also secure the point which the bakers made that they should not be compelled to renew their plant in order to make the bread of a greater weight.
Clause 11:
Powers of inspection and entry.
(2) Where any person has in his possession for sale or delivery on sale any pre-packed article of food of any kind which is required by or under this Act to be sold by weight or measure, or in respect of which any representation of weight or measure is made, he shall, if so requested by an inspector of weights and measures, weigh or measure such article in the inspector's presence or permit the inspector to neigh or measure it, and, if necessary for this purpose, shall break open, or allow the inspector to break open, any wrapper or container in which such article is packed, and shall also if so requested by the inspector sell the article to him.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (2), after "or" ["or in respect of
266
which"] to insert "any article of food." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment gives over any articles of food, for instance, butcher's meat, the same powers to the inspectors as they already possess in the Bill as regards pre-packed articles.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, after the second ("or") insert ("ally article of food").—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 14:
Interpretation.
(4) In the application of this Act to Scotland, references to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for references to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the expression "fancy bread" shall not include a pan loaf, French loaf, or any loaf of a similar character, and the expression "information" shall mean petition or complaint.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (4), to omit the words "the expression 'fancy bread' shall not include a pan loaf, French loaf, or any loaf of a similar character." The noble Viscount said: This is merely consequential on the Amendment already accepted in Clause 6.
Amendment moved—
Clause 14, page 9, line 15, leave out from ("Fisheries") to ("and") in line 17—(Viscount Peel.)

HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE (SALES ON COMMISSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as you are aware, this Bill is designed to put a stop to various undesirable practices which occur at public auctions as the result of persons conspiring together to offer less than the value of goods entered for sale. The Order referring the Bill to a Committee of the Whole

267
House having been discharged, I am moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The reason for that step is that I have received representations which I could not possibly disregard that that is the proper course to take with a Bill of this character, and I have had a great many letters from people who would be anxious to give evidence were such a Committee appointed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee—(Lord Darling.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for accepting the suggestion that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. It is an important Bill; it alters the law in an important respect and creates a new criminal offence. I think it is most desirable that the points that have been raised and others that may be raised should be referred to a Select Committee before the Bill is dealt with by the House. I will venture to send my noble and learned friend a note on the Bill, in order to put him in possession of the points which have occurred to me, but I need not trouble the House with those points.
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL.
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed.
HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
FINANCE BILL.
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª(according to Order): Privilege Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL AFFAIRS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on matters of foreign policy and any matters affecting the Empire; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I regret that the Motion I desire to make has been unfortunately delayed—I make no complaint of it—until rather a late hour. The best I can do is to make as short as possible the points on which I am seeking information from the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who I understand is to reply on behalf of the Government. I have sent him a list of the topics which I desire to raise so that there shall be no question of his not knowing what the particular points are, and I hope to receive from him such information as he is able to give me on these different heads.
The first point to which I wish to call attention is the question of Germany. I did not put these matters in this order upon the paper which I gave to the noble Earl, but I shall mention them in what I regard as the order of their importance and in that order I seek to raise them. I think there is no point upon which there is more general agreement in public opinion in this country than the desire that, without friction or conditions, Germany should become a Member of the League of Nations at the September Assembly and a permanent Member of the Council. The question I am asking to-day, however, is not a League Question but purely one of foreign policy. The difficulty, as I think I may put it, has arisen in this way. On Wednesday last the Foreign Secretary was asked a Question in another place which has given rise to what I might call serious dissatisfaction and comment in Germany itself. I will read the actual terms of the supplementary Question which was put to him in order that there may be no doubt as to the actual wards he used. I shall also call attention subsequently to what was said by Mr. Locker-Lampson.
The Question put to the Foreign Secretary was this:—
"May I take it that the condition of disarmament"—
disarmament, of course, is a prior factor to entry into the League—
"in Germany is entirely satisfactory?"

269
To that the answer of the Foreign Secretary was:
"No, Sir; I am sorry to say, no."
Surely no answer could be less calculated at the present juncture to ensure the smooth entry of Germany into the League this autumn. The natural effect of such an answer made by the Foreign Secretary at the present time was to create what has been designated by a well-informed correspondent as a thoroughly bad impression in Berlin. I have not seen the actual Despatch, but according to the report of the Despatch from the German Foreign Office, the German Foreign Office has said that the British Foreign Secretary ought to be aware that the disarming of Germany was actually carried out long ago, only a few details remaining to be settled.
Let me summarise the actual facts regarding the question of the disarmament of Germany. In January of this year the Foreign Secretary stated that the disarming of Germany had progressed satisfactorily. In March of this year the Commission of the League of Nations, of which the Foreign Secretary I think was the Chairman, reported, on the basis of a communication received from the Ambassadors' Conference—the body which deals with this question of disarraament—that the disarmament of Germany had been carried out in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles in a manner which was entirely satisfactory. The importance of that is that the whole movement for the successful admission of Germany into the League depended on the Report of the Commission in regard to the question of disarmament in Germany and that Commission, under the Chairmanship of the Foreign Secretary, reported that this was entirely satisfactory. Of course, if the question is raised, or sought to be raised at this time, that the obligations of Germany in regard to disarmament in any respect have not been entirely and satisfactorily carried out, that is inviting difficulty and objection when the question comes forward early next September as to the entry of Germany into the League with a permanent place on the Council.
Last night, in another place, Mr. Locker-Lampson gave an explanation which is reported under the head of "German disarmament." I think I ought to read it, because it is so
270
important. I will point out that after I have read it in what respect it appears to be unsatisfactory, is the hope that I may get a full and satisfactory answer in your Lord ships' House this afternoon. It is a matter which ought to be cleared up once for all, and cleared up now before any dissatisfaction grows or increases in. Germany and Berlin. This was the answer:
"it was the hope of His Majesty's Government last November that the exchange of Notes which took place between the Ambassadors' Conference and the German Government at that time (and which were published in Command Pager No. 2527) would lead to the rapid conclusion of all the disarmament questions that were still outstanding."
Your Lordships will notice that that answer refers to an earlier date—that is, November of last year—than either of the dates that I have referred to in January of this year or when the Commission reported at Geneva. It was said at those dates that, the disarmament of Germany was entirely satisfactory. This is an important matter to clear up.
The statement that I am making is not a complaint of what was said last November; it is a complaint of what was stated on subsequent occasions, partly in January and partly at Geneva, which are obviously the important times in a matter of this sort. Last night Mr. Locker-Lampson also said:
"It is consequently a matter of disappointment that there are still a certain number of points—mostly, I am happy to say, of a minor nature—which are not yet settled."
Expressions of this kind on behalf of the Foreign Office create disquiet, not so much in this country as abroad, and it is their effect abroad that is important. There may be some small points outstanding—I do not know as to that—but I understand, and have understood, that all relevant matters which were necessary to be settled before Germany was in a position to claim admission to the League had been satisfactorily settled. It was so stated on the occasion of the last meeting of the Council of the League at Geneva. Of course, this is a Foreign Office point, but I am sure the noble Viscount will corroborate what I said that on that occasion the Commission (which is always appointed for a new country

271
that is admitted into the League of Nations) reported that on this question of disarmament all had been satisfactorily settled in Germany.
Mr. Locker-Lampson further said:
"While for this reason my right hon. friend [the Foreign Secretary] expressed the view … on July 21 that the position was not entirely satisfactory, he does not desire it to be concluded that His Majesty's Government regard the situation with any disquiet."
I suggest that that explanation is extremely unsatisfactory, having regard to the difficulties which may be raised—I am sure I hope they will not be raised—in connection with the entry of Germany into the League and into the Council at the September meeting. I hope it will be stated in clear language, so that it may be understood in this country and in all foreign countries which are interested in this matter, that there is no departure so far as the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary are concerned from the attitude taken up by him at Geneva, that this disarmament had been completely and satisfactorily carried out, so that in every respect Germany was entitled to claim to be a Member of the League. As I stated just now, it is not a question of creating disquiet in this country but—what is always so much more important in foreign matters: I hope I speak with due consideration of that importance—of the effect, for instance, in this case, in Germany,, of a statement of that kind.
There is one point that I should like to mention in reference to this which the noble Viscount (Lord Cecil of Chel-wood), I dare say, would know even more fully than the noble Earl (Lord Balfour), although one is cognisant that no one in this country has had greater experience, particularly in initiating affairs at Geneva, than the noble Earl. When I was last at Geneva, in 1924, the question arose of superseding the International Commissions in Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria, and making provision for supervision by the League itself, which is, of course, the supervision contained in the Covenant of the League. On that occasion, after certain discussion, it was arranged that the scheme for supervision by the League should be so drawn as to apply to Germany as well as to Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary. It was considered that
272
a body so constituted—and the suggestions came from the Naval, Military and Air Commissions—should be competent also to deal adequately with the question of disarmament in Germany, and, on any more general basis of disarmament under Article 8 of the Covenant, would be a body which would supervise matters on behalf of the League of Nations.
I want to be as short as I can, having regard to the time, in asking the representative of His Majesty's Government in this House whether there is the slightest ground for suggesting that in any respect Germany is in default as regards its obligations of disarmament so as in any way to affect its claim for entry into the League of Nations. I am certain there is no matter on which public opinion is more unanimous in this country—quite irrespective of political Party matters, which ought not to intervene in foreign questions—than the desire that the Locarno conditions should be carried out and that, without conditions and without extraneous considerations, Germany should become a Member of the League and a permanent Member of the Council.
The next point I want to ask about is China, and I will be as brief as possible. First of all, let me state shortly what the information is that has come to me, and I should like to know what the opinion of His Majesty's Government is upon it. No doubt a large portion of the information which I have obtained has come from missionaries, but the importance of that fact is that no other body of men can appreciate more fully than they can the principal trend of opinion in China. It is a very difficult matter. Their view, as I have seen it expressed by men of competence, who have spent their lives in China as missionaries, is that there is a national self-consciousness arising in China which was not present before, and that that must be taken into consideration in regard to policy between this country and China. In order to follow that out, and to concentrate matters as shortly as I can, I would ask the Government whether in their view there is a difference in the conditions and problems which have arisen between this country and Peking and between this country and Canton, and I will explain exactly what I mean.
First of all, with regard to Peking, there is a very large headline in The Times correspondence from Peking, dated July 23. It, is headed "The Chaos in China: Need for Action by the Powers." That correspondent wrote from Peking, and so far as Peking is concerned he stated the view—I do not know what is the view of His Majesty's Government—that
"The procedure which has been followed by the diplomatic body in China since the Washington Conference of conducting the affairs of the various foreign countries by means of joint action has so conspicuously failed to help the people of China or even the individual Governments adhering to the Washington Treaty, that the time has come for it to be changed for a more effective and less cumbersome co-operative method if the cataclysm now menacing China and threatening to involve the foreigners living here in ruin is to be stayed."
That comes from Peking, and what I went to ask is whether that is an accurate statement, in the view of His Majesty's Government.
There is another question which I must ask. The same correspondent suggests, as I understand, that there should be military co-operative action by America, Great Britain, Japan and, possibly, France. That is a very serious suggestion indeed. I do not know whether it has been brought to the attention of His Majesty's Government. It is suggested that there should be this military interference on this ground—the words are somewhat familiar—"the liberation of the suffering Chinese people from the oppressions of their ruthless self-appointed saviours" is necessary for their own future and for the prestige of the countries which I have mentioned. There are two definite matters of very great importance. It is very difficult in this country, I agree, to obtain the precise facts of matters of this kind, but if the facts are any way in the direction which I have indicated I should certainly be glad to hear that there has not been this failure which has been suggested, and still more that there is no probability of aggressive military action upon the plea which I have read out, that the Chinese are not to be left under their own self-appointed rulers, who are criticised in such words as I have indicated.
When we come to Canton, which in my view is to be regarded as a separate centre, the conditions appear to be far
274
more favourable. The first question which I wish to ask is this: What is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the suggestion of a large Shanghai Provincial State, with its centre at Canton?—because that is the movement which is being made from Canton at the present moment and it may be—it is a matter on which I cannot, of course, speak with any certainty—that a solution of some of our Chinese troubles is to be found in this direction.
There are two points which have been lately discussed between Canton and British Representatives. One is as regards, an international neutral inquiry into the conditions which brought about what has been called—I do not like to use the word massacre—the killing of certain Chinese at Shameen in 1925. The answer which I understand has been made is that the matter took place so long ago that no real inquiry can be made at the present time, and that it would be unwise to re-open old sores of that character. That may be perfectly true, and I give no opinion, but I ask His Majesty's Government whether that is their view. I further understand, on this matter whether there should be this further inquiry or not—I am reading from the words of correspondence which has been published—that "the Canton delegates pressed for a reference of this proposal to the British Government, and the British delegation agreed." Has there been agreement that this question of an inquiry into the difficulties at Shameen in 1925 should be referred to the British Government? If so, can His Majesty's Government give us any information as to the policy which they intend to adopt?
At the same time, there is a friendly indication that a certain sum, I think £1,250,000, is to be found and expended under a British engineer and British accountant, on further railway accommodation in the Canton district., and it is intimated that if that can be done it would be another way in which a friendly result could be obtained. Therefore the second question I wish to ask is whether this further proposal has been brought to the notice of the British Government, and, if so, what is the view that they take of it? I think I have made it clear that I wish for information as regards what we know to be these difficult conditions in China. It is of the utmost importance for trade, and for other

275
reasons, that there should be friendly relationship between this country and China, and there seems to be a prospect at any rate of such relations between Canton and Hong Kong, although the prospects are less favourable in the Peking district. I do not want to suggest difficulties, but I want to know what is the view of His Majesty's Government, and what they think is the right solution.
The next question that I am afraid I must touch upon—and I shall do so as shortly as. I can—is that of Iraq, which again is a question of foreign policy and does not arise at Geneva. I want to put my meaning at the outset in order that my remarks may be concentrated. The policy that was originally adopted towards Iraq and which was continued by the Labour Government was to regard Iraq as a mandated territory and to say that it was the duty of the Mandatory—in this case Great Britain—to educate the country for self-government and independence as early as conditions would allow. The last time that this matter was discussed in this House I remember that speeches were made by Viscount Grey of Fallodon and by the late Marquess Curzon of Kedleston.
This was in 1924, when Lord Corey or Fallodon used these words—
"We went to Iraq during the War for purely strategic reasons. I was a member of the Government which went there, and I know it was done for purely strategic reasons."
Lord Curzon, in the same debate, went much further. He said—and I am reading his words—
"I was the only man who opposed going to Baghdad at all …."
and he added that he had never desired to map out that part of the world as an arena for British rule or empire in the future. He further stated that the Treaty of 1924 was a measure for diminishing our responsibility and handing it over, and for creating an Arab State. I think that this was an absolutely right statement of what the policy should be.
That policy was carried a good deal further at Geneva when I was there as representative of the Labour Government in September, 1924. I may add that Lord Curzon stated further that he was mainly responsible for the Treaty
276
which he had made superseding a long period of occupation in Iraq and reducing it to the position of a mandated territory, in which the Mandate was to be in operation for not more than four years and might be in operation for a much less period. It is a very important question indeed whether in our treatment of Iraq we start on the principle of allowing Iraq to be self-sufficing and independent—or whether we have in mind its becoming a more or less permanent part of our Imperial Possessions. I say without hesitation that there is reason to suppose that the idea of extending the principle of an Imperial Possession, as against a Mandate, to Iraq is not an idea which the Government or the Colonial Secretary regard unfavourably at the present moment. The Mandate has been extended, as we know, for a period of 20 or 25 years with the possibility of breaking it at different times. I do not put so much weight on the terms, which were settled when I was at Geneva in order to make sure that no one could say that we had undertaken responsibility beyond that time, but what I think is of the utmost importance is this question: Do we intend to stop there altogether or do we intend the relationship between a mandated country and a mandatory Powers? I will not stop, at this time of the evening, to quote the terms of the Covenant, which, of course, are well known both to the noble Earl and to the noble Viscount opposite.
Upon this point, however, I should like to call attention to one figure. The total expenditure provided in the Estimate, which came to me in the form of a White Panes a day or two ago, for Palestine and Iraq—they were not separated—was £4,444,000, of which the cost of the Imperial garrisons in Iraq and Palestine amounted to no less a sum than £3,455,500. I am not saying that this may not be necessary, although in the present movement for economy all these matters have to be very seriously considered, but. I do want an assurance on that point, for what has been done there may lead to a risk of its being said hereafter that we undertook the responsibility on the footing that Iraq was to be regarded as Part of our Imperial Possessions and that the relationship was not merely temporary, with the intention that, as a mandatory Power, we might educate her in the conditions

277
of independence and to prepare herself to join the League of Nations. Perhaps the noble Earl, when answering me, will bear in mind that one would wish to know, having regard to the history of this matter, whether the principle laid down by Lord Curzon as a principle of the Conservative Government when he was Foreign Secretary is the same principle as is still being preserved in the relationship between Iraq and this country.
The next point of which I gave notice to the noble Earl and on which I wish to ask his opinion—I am sorry that there are so many points, but I shall be as short as I can—concerns Egypt. I do not assume that there has been any change in our relationship with the Sudan. I recollect that, when I represented the Foreign Office in this House when the Labour Government was in power, great satisfaction was expressed with the view that I put forward for the Foreign Office that we did not intend in any way to leave our obligations in the Sudan, but that we intended to maintain our position there in order to carry out all the obligations that we had undertaken. I assume, for the purpose of the present discussion, that in this respect, at any rate, there has been no difference whatever.
My real point in regard to Egypt is this. When Lord Milner's Report was not adopted, which, in the view of Lord Grey of Fallodon, was equivalent to overthrowing the system of Lord Cromer, the alternative was that, subject to four specified points—namely, the Sudan, imperial communications, foreign policy and the treatment of foreigners—Egypt was to be, as regards her internal affairs, a self-governing country. Is that principle being carried out at the present time? One knows, of course, what passed some time ago as regards Zaghlul Pasha, and I need not go into that, but I want to know if the internal government of Egypt is really in the hands of the Egyptian people, as was solemly promised to them at the time when the arrangement was made, and these four excepted matters were taken out of their control. I raise no question on that at all. On the contrary I appreciate that as regards those four points it was necessary to make an exception. But, within that exception, is Egypt at the present day being treated as a self-governing country in the sense that she is allowed to elect her own
278
Government through her own Parliamentary system in order that her real wishes and desires may be represented?
My last point I can put, I think, very shortly. I included in my Question not only foreign policy but Empire policy. I did not include that in order to raise a general discussion on such a world-wide topic. I put it down for the reason that I wanted, in the first place, to ask His Majesty's Government whether the arrangement for the holding of the Imperial Conference at the beginning of October is likely to hold good. One knows that since that date was fixed certain obvious difficulties have arisen, particularly in Canada, which may necessitate an alteration or postponement. I want to know if His Majesty's Government can give us information whether, at any rate at the present time, that date still holds. It was to be October 5. Secondly, I want to ask one or two questions as regards the programme The programme was indicated—I have not-the reference, but the noble Earl will know—by the Prime Minister in another place, but indicated in the most general language. What I want to ask is whether it is intended to discuss under the head of foreign policy the serious questions which have been raised as to the position of the various Dominions in the event of this country unfortunately becoming a belligerent Power.
I have been told more than once that matters of this kind may be discussed. But the matter is one or urgency. Nothing is more important for the whole progress and peace of the world and the maintenance of the Empire than the conditions which I have often heard the noble Earl so eloquently describe, conditions of a common loyalty and a common freedom. I want to urge this: the greater the freedom, the greater the loyalty. If you want to get a certainty of the support of our Dominions in the freest and most generous spirit on all occasions when the Mother Country is seeking their support, I think you can only find it by granting a maximum of freedom—I will not call it independence, that is a rather different word, but a maximum of freedom in these questions which have been so much discussed lately both in the South African Union and in Canada.
There is only one other point and I have finished. It is this. A great deal has been heard of the continuity of foreign policy. Of course, the continuity of obligations, particularly Treaty obligations, is an essential element in civilised life, but if you want a more general continuity in political outlook you can only obtain it by opportunities for free discussion and consideration. One of the difficulties of Parliamentary methods, which we have overcome in this country more than elsewhere, is that whatever the desire for continuity may be the conditions are determined by the opinion of the country expressed on the occasion of any particular question. There are two ideals underlying most of the foreign policy of this country. There is the ideal of force and the ideal of conciliation. I need hardly say—I have expressed it so often—that ray view, and the view of those with whom I act, is entirely for conciliation or, if conciliation fails, arbitration applicable to all kinds of international dispute. That was the policy which during the period of office of the Labour Government we did our best to forward in every direction.
But there are other elements and other ideals. There is a notion that you can obtain by force, and ought to obtain by force, what perhaps you cannot obtain by negotiation and arbitration. I think the answer to that is that what you so obtain is of little or no value. You cannot regard what has been obtained by force as a settled matter. In every respect you ought to carry out the principle of arbitration as a means of settling in a peaceful manner all international disputes. I am using the words which we find in the Treaty of Locarno as between Germany and France. I cannot imagine any more critical conditions for settlement than the relationships of France and Germany. If those nations can settle the matter by "peaceful means"—those are the words used in the Treaty of Locarno—surely we ought to strive in every direction for the principle of arbitration and conciliation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, my noble friend has asked me to say a few words upon the first point raised by the noble Lord's
280
Question—namely, the disarmament of Germany. As I understand it, the question which has caused some anxiety to the noble Lord is whether there is any such failure by Germany to carry out her obligations to disarm as would make it possible to suggest that she is not fulfilling conditions necessary for entry into the League of Nations.
LORD PARMOOR: I ought perhaps to add—of course, with reference to what the Foreign Secretary said.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I recall to the noble Lord the procedure which has to be followed upon an application by a State to enter the League of Nations? A State has to fulfil certain conditions which are set out in Article I of the Covenant. Perhaps I had better read the actual words: The State must have shown
"its sincere intention to observe its international obligations, and shall accept such regulations as may be prescribed by the League in regard to its military, naval and air forces and armaments."
No question regarding naval, military and air force armaments arises in regard to Germany, because her obligations were laid down in the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore the only thing that had to be inquired into, and inquired into in accordance with the ordinary routine, was whether there was a sincere intention to observe her international obligations.
In order to inquire into that, according to an ordinary practice, a small Sub-Commission was appointed, in this case presided over by my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary, which inquired into that and the other conditions necessary. When it came to this particular question the Commission, I understand, had before it a Report from the Ambassadors' Conference that they knew of no reason to suppose that there was anything which would induce them to doubt that Germany had a sincere intention (quoting, I believe, the actual words of the Article) to observe its international' obligations. There is nothing, as far as I know, that has occurred since then to throw any doubt upon that finding of the Ambassadors' Conference. Therefore the decision of the Sub-Commission, which was that Germany had fulfilled all the conditions necessary for membership of the League of Nations, stands and is

281
in no way impugned or altered by anything that has occurred, or anything that has been said since that time.
As to the statement made by my right hon. friend in another place, I really have nothing to add to the explanation given by the Under-Secretary—namely, that, though it be true that there are some matters which are still outstanding—and we regret that there should be any matters outstanding—they are not of a nature which causes the Government any anxiety in reference to the fulfilment of the obligations of Germany.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I need not say I am grateful to my noble friend for having taken that part of the task of replying to the noble Lord on his shoulders, for he is far more competent to deal with it than I am. I will endeavour now, at this not very convenient hour, to touch on some of the subjects, or all the subjects, which the noble Lord brought to my notice. He will recognise that the courteous intimation that the sent me that he proposed to say something about China, about Iraq, and about Egypt by no means gave me notice of the kind of question in detail which he was going to raise. I make no complaint of that, but my reply may be less adequate than it would have been had a full notice, in the House of Commons sense of the word, been given of the questions, as I might then have given him more satisfaction than I shall be able to do as things now actually stand.
He began by quoting the opinion of missionaries in China to the effect that their observation showed them that there was a great awakening of national self-consciousness in the 400,000,000 population of that great Empire. All the information that I have received is of a similar tenour. I think that a world movement—perhaps a world movement in excess—in favour of nationalism has affected all nations, and it has not affected China much less than other nations. It is true, undoubtedly, that in addition to the age-long dislike of foreign practices and foreign manners, which has been a factor of rather powerful character in China's social life, there is this growth of what can be more accurately called a national self-consciousness. But when the noble Lord goes on to ask me
282
whether that national self-consciousness is going to be met on the part of Western nations by a kind of military alliance for the purpose of coercing China, I can assure him that I am not aware that, any nations have entertained so fantastic a notion. So far as His Majesty's Government, at all events, are concerned, we desire to interfere as little as possible in the internal affairs of China. China must work out her own salvation. She is now, as everybody knows, going through a period of extreme difficulty, and the difficulties that she is undergoing from her own internal point of view are necessarily reflected in difficulties which we, the other nations of the world in commercial and diplomatic intercourse with her, feel on our side.
What is going on in China? There is nothing there, as far as we can see, which deserves to be called a Central Government in the Western use of that term. Peking has no authority over large parts of the country, it has little authority over the remainder, and I have heard persons well qualified to speak on the subject say it has frequently happened in recent years and months that the power and authority of the Central Government does not extend beyond the walls of the capital. In the capital are nominally concentrated officials whose title would indicate that they have authority recognised over the whole of the rest of the country, and it is with them that we have to deal in the main. It is with them that our diplomatic relations take place, and it inevitably throws difficulty, embarrassment and confusion into the relations between China and external Powers that unfortunately the authority of the Central Government with which those external Powers have to deal is really in some respects wholly negligible in connection with Chinese affairs.
If you ask, since the Central Government of China is at present so lamentably weak who is it who exercises authority in that country, I can only answer to that what everybody knows to be the fact, that there are military authorities, responsible only to themselves and their armies, who, with varying fortunes, deal with the situation each in his own district. It is from our point of view not only a very abnormal and singular state of things, but it is one which produces great suffering in China itself, and great embarrassments

283
in the relations between China and outside Powers. But it is not for us to put an end to that state of things. We are not going to raise armies to traverse the length and breadth of China, and force the 400,000,000 of the Chinese population into any Western mould. They must work out their own salvation. In doing so they appear to me to be making many mistakes, and it is unfortunately true that their mistakes react upon us. But—I now speak merely for the Government, and not for other nations than our own—what we desire most earnestly, most sincerely is to co-operate with China, to help China where we legitimately can, to recognise that we and the Chinese, so far as commerce and economic affairs are concerned, have common interests and, as regards the organisation of their own country, our hope is that there will be no difficulty in their managing their own internal affairs.
Of course, I know only too well that there are difficulties in connection with the Maritime Customs and other points connected with Treaty rights which certainly require modification and reform, and perhaps even the oldest of us may live to see that they are removed. There is a great movement in that direction and with that movement wherever it can be legitimately taken we sympathise. But in connection with all these commercial and judicial affairs, it is quite impossible for us simply to say that all the international structure which has been built up in the last eighty years is to be summarily removed and conditions are to be brought into being as if that history had never existed. That, of course, the noble Lord would be the last to ask. All he can ask, and I am sure all he does ask, is that if there is any action which this country may assume we should certainly desire the good of China and the good will of China, and the good of China and the good will of China are both objects most earnestly desired by His Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord asked me about the relations between Canton and Peking. As the noble Lord is well aware, there is a strong movement in China which many good observers say is going to end in some kind of federal system between the Provinces. I do not know whether
284
that will be for the good of China or the evil of China, and it is not for me to pronounce an opinion. But that there are currents of opinion running in that direction I think is probably indubitable. China has had this strong provincial feeling developed in her long history. It has never ended in the breaking up of China and I have no reason to believe that China is more likely to be broken up in consequence of her present unhappy condition of chronic civil war than she has been in many other critical and difficult periods of her history.
In the meanwhile, it is impossible to deny that nothing can be more embarrassing in connection with the external relations of China than this unhappy combination of an entirely powerless Central Government and a series of generals each dealing with his own district in his own way, each engaged in intrigues and contests with the other, each having aims which may change from day to day and which at all events it is not my business to fathom or to estimate. Nothing can be more difficult than a situation in which that powerlessness of the Central Government and those powers of these provincial military generals constitute the complex and confused entity with which foreign diplomacy has to deal. We must all hope that these conditions will ameliorate, but I cannot honestly say, as far as I am concerned, that the conditions seems to me to be in a process of rapid improvement. The noble Lord asked me some questions regarding the Canton incident and the present Canton negotiations, but I am sure he will take it from me that it is not very desirable that I should enter on this occasion into that subject, which is in a state of transition and on which I certainly should not care to give any definite opinion.
In reference to Iraq, the noble Lord asked me what the intentions of the Government were with regard to the future relations between that country and ourselves. I do not think there has been any change in substance. We desire to see Iraq become an independent State. It is an independent State at this moment, but we desire it gradually to develop into a condition in which it requires assistance from no one and leans on no one. I do not know how soon that condition will be attained, but it is not yet attained in the opinion of the League

285
of Nations, as the noble Lord knows, and, somewhat reluctantly, it is clear that we must carry on the process of assisting, supporting and advising the Government of Iraq for some years to come. I am afraid Lord Curzon's estimate of four years, to which I think the noble Lord referred, is too short; but the noble Lord may rest assured that our desire is to see Iraq developed as soon as possible into a condition in which she is wholly independent of us, and entirely able to support herself against foreign aggression or internal disorder.
Then he asked me whether Egypt was a self-governing country. I should say certainly and beyond question Egypt is a self-governing country. There are four most important reservations, to which the noble Lord himself made reference, and so long as those reservations exist, so long as those problems are unsettled, of course inevitably problems may come up in which we should be obliged to exercise an authority and take a part which are not precisely those which we should adopt with a country which was in the full sense of the word independent. I mean independent apart from those four problems. But putting those four problems on one side we have to regard, and do regard, Egypt as an independent country. I do not know that anything more can be said upon that subject, and I hope that what I have said, which I think is the substantial truth, is also the formal truth as regards international law. I think substantially it is.
Another point on which the noble Lord questioned me was that of the Imperial Conference, and he asked me about the dates. I understand that the Prime Minister is to make a statement in the very near future and I need not anticipate that. I have little doubt myself that for the convenience of the Dominions the date will have to be deferred to after October 5, but I leave the Prime Minister to say exactly what the last arrangements are that we have arrived at in conjunction with the Dominions.
The noble Lord ended by raising the point of the relations in which the Dominions stood to us in case of difficulty and asked me whether that question will come up. It will certainly come up if any of the Dominions desire it, I and think there can be little doubt that the
286
subject will be touched upon. Perhaps I had better say no more on the subject. My own personal view is that the relations are those necessarily of equality. None of us conceive that of these conglomeration of free States one is above the other. One may have more responsibility than another, one may be in more dangers than another, one may be closer to the centre of international complications than another, but all are on an equality. That is the very essence, as I understand it, of the British Empire. As to exactly what that equality involves, as to exactly what degree of responsibility each has for the other, on that I personally think very little is gained by refining, discussing or defining. I should say that a: far as this country is concerned we are bound to go to war to defend any part of this Empire which is in danger. Personally I think: the duties of all the other members of the Empire to us are not less than our duties to them, but, as to the particular conditions under which that great duty is to be exercised, I do not believe anything is gained by inventing hard cases before hand.
Our plain duty is to defend the Empire of which we are so important a part. That duty, I hope and believe, we shall always carry out and it is also our duty—I am sure I speak for the Government in this respect—to bring them into our councils as far as that is possible. There are what I might almost call mechanical difficulties in certain kinds of consultation—difficulties of time and space which no scientific discoveries will wholly enable us to eliminate. Time and space inevitably come into these considerations, but we desire to give them the fullest information as to the motives which animate our policy. We desire to bring them with us on every possible occasion. We desire that the unbreakable bond which unites us together shall carry with it that mutual confidence, that constant interchange of ideas, that harmony of ideas and ends which, after all, are the great basis and strength of the Empire. As to how far and in what way these general maxims—perhaps you might call them platitudes—will be dealt with by the various elements of the Empire when they meet togther towards the end of October I am unable to say, but I confidently hope and

287
believe that the political instincts, identical in character, identical in aim, which spring from the fact that we have all been brought up under common traditions and with common political instincts, will carry us through all the difficulties of discussion and, when the occasion arises, through all the perils and perplexities of action.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, my only regret is that the House is not better filled to have heard the extremely interesting speech and information which the noble Earl has given to us. I am sure he will acquit me of responsibility for the difficulties which put off this discussion till an unfortunately late time. The only other observation I should like to make is
288
this. Those who act with me on this side of the House have the same desire of Imperial unity as the noble Earl has himself expressed. Exactly how that can best be obtained is, of course, a matter for discussion and consideration, but the ideal and the object are the same—Imperial unity of these self-governing Commonwealths, all on the basis of equality and all with a common loyalty one towards another. I am sure the Party with which I am connected will co-operate fully in any considered policy on those lines. I again thank the noble Earl. It is too late to add more now.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.