Lords Sitting of 29 June 1926

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SECRETARIES OF STATE BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.

SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BILL. [H.L.]
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the better protection of the public in relation to the sale of food, including agricultural and horticultural products, and to move that it be now react a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LONDON ELECTRIC AND METROPOLI- TAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COM- PANIES BILL.
Read 2a.
PONTEFRACT CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
BARNET DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.

COAL MINES BILL.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to mention what is familiarly known as the Eight Hours Bill—the Coal Mines Bill. I understand that, in all probability, the Bill will be

615
read a second time this evening in the House of Commons and will pass through all its stages before the end of the week. In that event His Majesty's Government would be very anxious that the Bill should be put upon the Statute Book with the least possible delay and, therefore, that it should be taken in your Lordship's House almost immediately. I hope that I might venture to ask your Lordships to read it a first time either on Thursday night or on Friday and to take the Second Beading on Monday next. I trust that will be convenient to your Lordships.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
NORTH BERWICK BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
EDINBURGH CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ASHTON- UNDER-LYNE EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EALING EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
STATE OF EMERGENCY.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to read the following Message from the King:—
  "The continued cessation of work in coal mines on the 28th day of June, 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
  616
  deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act, and dated the 28th day of June, 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 MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in reference to the gracious Message which I have read I beg to move 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."
  Because of the effluxion of time it is necessary to renew the operation which we have already carried out.
  Moved, 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.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it is my duty to move the Second Reading of a Bill which I know is of great interest to many of your Lordships, but, as the main provisions of the Bill have already been explained two years ago and the Bill is substantially the same. I do not propose to weary your Lordships on this occasion by occupying much of your time. The short history of the Bill is that it is based on recommendations of the Departmental Committee for the Protection of Wild Birds, which reported in the year 1919. One of the recommendations of that Committee was that the Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland should appoint,

617
respectively, Wild Birds Advisory Committees and that these Committees should advise their Departments on all matters relating to the protection of wild birds. In pursuance of this recommendation Advisory Committees were appointed both for England and Scotland. The Chairman of the Committee for England was Viscount Grey of Fallodon and I very much regret that the noble Viscount is unable to be present here to-day owing to duties elsewhere. Not only do I miss him personally and his support of this Bill, but I should like to pay a tribute to the great work which he has done in preserving rare and most interesting wild birds in this country. I think it is due to his work on this Committee that this Bill in its present state is now placed before your Lordships. The Chairman of the Scottish committee is Mr. H. D. Gladstone, who has also taken a very great deal of interest in this subject and worked very hard for the common end.
I only propose to touch very briefly on a few of the main provisions of the Bill. It is obvious that the ground has already been very closely covered, not only by the Departmental Committee but also by these two Advisory Committees, one for England and one for Scotland, who have had several interviews with all those who are interested, either commercially or otherwise, in the protection and, I may say, the destruction of birds. This Bill is the result of their joint efforts. The Bill is not in any way political, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. Viscount Grey introduced a Bill in 1923 of very much the same character as this measure, and there was a Bill introduced into the House of Commons last year, but it was not successful in getting very far. This Bill is very much the same as that introduced by Viscount Grey of Fallodon. It has been redrafted, but there are no great changes in policy. The Bill is no new scheme for the protection of wild birds. its main object is to simplify the law relating to the matter, to repeal and consolidate existing laws and to make the enforcement of the existing law more easy and sure than it is at the present time.
If your Lordships will look at the end of the Bill you will see that no fewer than nine Acts, passed since 1880, are now
618
to be repealed and this Bill will take the place of those nine Acts. In times gone by a great many local orders have been introduced by local authorities. These local orders are very long, containing the names of an enormous number of birds. They are very difficult to understand and, that being the case, they are very seldom enforced. The main alteration in this Bill is the formation of three categories of birds. That is something new in the law relating to birds. The first category consists of those birds which are very rare and which it is considered advisable in the interest of bird lovers and of lovers of nature should be protected as far as possible in this country. These species of birds nest in this country and under the first category, if this Bill passes into law, they will be absolutely protected both in the nesting season and at all other times. The second category is one in which appear those birds which are British breeding birds but are not very common and are considered to be in need of full protection during the breeding season. The first category protects birds all the time, the second protects birds during the breeding season.
All other birds—and these are not specified—appear in the third category and to a certain extent have to take their chance. These birds do receive protection during the nesting season from the general public, but they are rather common birds and the owner or occupier of land will have the power, if they increase to too great an extent or are injurious to crops, of keeping them down. It is not intended in this Bill to make bird's-nesting in general a criminal offence. It is considered impossible to do so. Powers are given to the police, but it is not proposed, although a great deal is put upon the police, to send them running after every boy or girl who takes thrushes' eggs on his or her way to school. The birds at the present time are not divided into categories and this is a very great alteration. It is hoped by the framers of this Bill that it will not only make the law relating to birds much more comprehensible than at the present time but very much easier to enforce.
Another new provision in the Bill is the extension of the close time from July 1 to August 11. The Departmental Committee took a great deal of evidence

619
on this matter and they came to the conclusion that it was advisable on the whole to have one extended close time instead of different close times for different species. Various county councils have had different close times, but in future there will be one close time, which is to be extended to August 11.
I do not think that I need go into more than one or two of the objections to the present law which will be removed by the provisions of this Bill. One of them relates to bird sanctuaries. At present the sanctuaries are absolutely protected, the good and bad species being on the same footing. One of them is at the Fame Islands, where the general protection has destroyed their value as a sanctuary because equal protection is given to good and bad, the bad being represented in these island by cormorants and black-backed gulls. Under this Bill it will be possible in particular sanctuaries to make such exceptions that the good may be separated from the bad. The Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland are empowered to make certain alterations in consultation with their Committees if any particular species gets too numerous or is suspected, with good cause, of doing harm.
Under the present law there is no power to seize a bird of which a person is suspected of being in unlawful possession. Therefore, the suspected delinquent goes away with the bird and then, when he is brought to trial, produces a different bird altogether, and it is very difficult to prove what bird he had at the time when he was arrested. That difficulty is removed by this Bill. There is also reference to taxidermists and others who are found in possession of protected birds. Under the present law it has to be proved that they are unlawfully in possession of those birds. Under this Bill the gentleman suspected has to prove that he is in rightful possession of the bird, skin, nest or egg. There is also power to grant licences for the taking of protected birds or eggs in the furtherance of scientific objects.
There is another new provision in this Bill about which I ought to say a word. It is a provision, about which no doubt we shall hear something in Committee, which forbids the use of mechanically propelled boats or aircraft for the purpose of shooting or destroying birds.
620
On Sundays there is absolute protection of birds. At present there is a sort of local option in this matter; in some areas birds are protected on Sundays and in others they are not. Bird catchers who catch birds and sell them are required to produce a police certificate. A further change in the law is to the effect that imported birds—and I think this is an important point—are not to be liberated without the leave of the Home Secretary. Many countries have suffered a great deal from the amateur importation of different species. Enthusiastic Scotsmen unfortunately introduced thistles into Australia because they could not get on without them. Others introduced into Tasmania an apparently harmless plant, the sweetbriar, which has grown to such an extraordinary extent that there are now vast thickets of sweetbriar and nobody knows how to extirpate them. Watercress also, which seems harmless enough, was introduced into New Zealand, where it has blocked the rivers and caused large swamps.
You have all heard of rabbits in Australia. These rabbits in new circumstances develop new propensities. There are tens of thousands of miles of wire in Australia which are patrolled by rabbit patrols and still the rabbits increase and spread all over the Continent. They have also developed large nails which enable them to climb these fences, which is a thing they cannot do in this country. They also climb trees to eat the leaves in times of drought. That has been one of the results of introducing rabbits into Australia. Various attempts were made to extirpate them, both by natural means and by spreading diseases. Among them was the introduction of 22,000 stoats and ferrets, but the stoats and ferrets very soon got tired of rabbit and began to eat all the small birds. Then they introduced foxes, and the foxes, too, got tired of rabbits and went to lamb and were as great a nuisance as the rabbits. Coming down to birds, we all know that there are sparrows in Australia and in the United States. Sparrows were introduced into Australia and there was a fine of £2 for killing a sparrow or taking a sparrow's egg. Now there are sparrow clubs all over the country and still the sparrows get the best of it. Sparrows were introduced into New England, have spread to Texas and do damage every

621
year to the extent of 5,000,000 dollars. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that imported birds should not be liberated without leave of the Secretary of State.
There are special provisions also for the protection of the lapwing. I have no doubt that in Committee we shall hear more of the lapwing, both as regards the bird itself and in reference to its eggs. Under this Bill taxidermists will have to keep a register in respect of the two categories of birds. Increased penalties are provided and special provision is made to facilitate the prosecution of offenders and give the police powers of arrest. I think your Lordships will probably agree that there is a universal opinion that the time has now come when there should be a simpler law to protect our rare birds, and although when we come to the Committee stage, and particularly when we come to consider the categories, there will probably be a great difference of opinion, especially among those who know most about birds, I think that the discussion of those differences may well be, left to that stage. I hope that your Lordships will agree regarding the need for a Bill to consolidate the existing law and to make it more comprehensive, and accordingly I trust that you will be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise on behalf of various bird societies to say that they support this Bill. It is most important in the interests of the preservation of song birds, birds of beauty and birds which do good to the farmer, that we should have some protection for them. As the noble Lord has said, the law is in a chaotic state at the moment and this Bill does much to remove its present drawbacks. It is thought by many that the matter can be left to itself and that this may be in some respects an anti-democratic measure. But it is nothing of the sort. Nobody rejoices in the songs of birds more than our great democracy, and the establishment of sanctuaries in various parts of the country has been a great joy to every class in the community and has distinctly helped to resuscitate certain
622
species of birds which otherwise would have become extinct. I rise to say, on behalf of these societies, that we welcome the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not rise to take any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill as regards the preservation of rare birds. I think that I am as anxious as any one that proper provision should be made for their protection. But there are two points upon which I should like to ask questions of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading. He says that in the main this is a Consolidation Bill. I find on the last page of the Bill that a number of enactments are repealed which I understand the noble Lord says include all enactments at the present time dealing with this matter. I think it is very desirable that we should retain the proper procedure as regards Consolidation Bills. Ordinarily, Consolidation Bills are referred to a Joint Consolidation Committee, which is generally, I think, under the Chairmanship of my noble, friend Lord Muir Mackenzie. That Committee of both Houses is appointed in order to ensure that when you have consolidation it really is consolidation as distinct from new proposals or new provisions in an Act of Parliament. I think that the only way in which you can guarantee the accuracy of Consolidation Bills is to preserve the principle of a Joint Consolidation Committee.
My second point is this. The Bill is not, of course, a Bill for the protection of rare birds only. What is called the third category includes all birds not comprised in either of the other categories. For instance, it includes the sparrow, and the noble Lord said that every year five million dollars worth of damage had been done by the introduction of the sparrow into America. It also includes those farmers' pests, rooks and pigeons. I have had several representations from this point of view. Although, no doubt, the rights of owners and occupiers are safeguarded, yet the general effect of the Bill in including birds of this kind will be very largely to increase their number and the risk of damage. That representation has come particularly from the smaller farmers, who suffer most from the depredations of birds, and I would

623
like to know whether the Ministry of Agriculture is satisfied with the protection given. I have heard great complaints that the protection given will not be adequate, and I should like to know whether the Ministry of Agriculture has been consulted upon a matter of such great importance.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Yes, the Ministry has been consulted and also the National Farmers' Union.
LORD PARMOOR: I am glad to hear that, as I have had constant representations that the provision is not adequate. I also want to know what is to be done with regard to consolidation.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I sincerely hope and believe that this Bill will receive your unanimous approval. I am in rather a difficult position because I am so ardent a friend of birds that I am very anxious indeed to extend the provisions for their protection which this Bill contains. I would like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions upon it. In the first place there is a most salutary provision which prevents a person from taking birds alive for sale excepting under a certificate. I want to know why a certificate is to be granted at all. What justification is there for taking a wild bird and putting it in a cage? It is one of the most inhuman things that can possibly be done. I hope the noble Lord will see what he can do to modify that provision and if it is passed I hope sincerely we may all be spared the shame and pain of seeing a lark beating against the sides of a twelve-inch cage wings which were meant for the sky.
Then I would like to ask upon what principle this First Schedule has been prepared. I differ entirely from the noble Lord who has just spoken as to the necessity of protecting rare birds only. It is not rare birds but all birds that should be protected, unless their existence is a harm to agriculture. Take one or two birds of singular beauty and of immense value and not harmful to agriculture. Take the tomtit, the long-tailed tit, and, in fact, all the tits. They are not only of great beauty, but spend all their time eating insects which are prejudicial to the trees. Then there is the tree-creeper which spends its time running up the bark of trees and pick-
624
ing out the insects. There is the golden-crested wren and the ordinary wren. They have never done any harm to anybody and nobody can say that the golden-crested wren is not rare. It is a bird that is sufficiently optimistic to sing through every month of the year and I do not know any other bird that does that. In these days, when pessimism seems to increase, it appears to me a pity to decrease our optimists. There are many other birds I might mention and I should really like to know why they are to be exposed to attack.
Then, I specially want to mention the lapwing. It is a horrible thing that this bird, one of our most beautiful and most beneficial, should be sacrificed in thousands every year, not for food but to gratify the palates of epicures in London. I should like to see the sale of plovers' eggs absolutely restricted and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to see his way to afford greater protection than is given at present. In many districts the lapwing is getting very scarce; where they used to be the constant companions of people who are fond of the country they are new very hard to find. I do not want to debate the matter further now, but, possibly, in Committee, I shall be able to ask questions about this and other birds in which I am interested. In the meantime I trust that the noble Lord opposite will consider further whether such birds should not have the full protection which the Bill affords.
LORD DESBOROUGH: With regard to the questions asked me by Lord Parmoor, I should like to consult with him upon the matter of consolidation. This Bill, as I understand, just repeals nine Acts. It is not in any way legislation by reference.
LORD PARMOOR: The benefit of consolidation is that you get rid of references.
LORD DESBOROUGH: At all events I would like to consult the noble Lord with regard to this matter. As to the questions of Lord Buckmaster, I do not know that you could absolutely abolish caged birds altogether. I understand that canaries are a great consolation to maiden ladies.
LORD BUCKMASTER: They are not taken wild.
LORD DESBOROUGH: A little while ago I had the honour of introducing a Bill dealing with caged birds, and it contained regulations with regard to birds in captivity. One regulation was that they were to have a cage of sufficient width, height and depth to be able to stretch their wings freely. That Bill passed into law, and although perhaps it is not sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord, it does, I hope, give protection to these birds. With regard to the lapwing, or plover, I have no doubt that we shall have discussion on that bird at a later stage. The Government have an open mind on that matter. The National Farmers' Union, both here and in Scotland, are anxious to protect plovers' eggs altogether. The Departmental Committee went into the matter carefully and did not see their way to go as far as that. I shall take the opinion of your Lordships' House, when we come to that point in Committee, as to what should be done with both the plover and its enemies.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble Lord reply to my question about the tom-tit?
LORD DESBOROUGH: The tom-tit is protected during the nesting season—it is not one of those rare birds which are specially protected at all times. Of course, there are plenty of tom-tits, and I do not think your Lordships' House or another place would pass a clause which put all birds into the first category. It is for that reason that we have got three categories—the first of birds which are absolutely protected, the second of birds which are partially protected, and the third of birds which are imperfectly protected.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, as you are aware, this Bill is intended to carry into effect the recommendations of a Committee appointed by Mr. Trevelyan, a member of the late Cabinet, and by the late Government,
626
whose work, after the late Government went out of office, was continued without a break. The Bill therefore itself depends for all its importance and all its significance upon the Report which it is intended to carry into effect. That follows very accurately and very properly, I think, numerous precedents set with regard to other Universities, and indeed with regard to the University of London itself. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any reference to the Bill, but I think that you would like to know some of the general considerations which have made it, in the opinion of successive Governments belonging to different Parties, a matter of urgent necessity to carry out some broad reforms in connection with the great University to which the Bill refers.
The University of London stands by itself, I think, among all the Universities of the world. There is nothing, as far as I am aware, quite like it. It differs in many fundamental respects from any other University whose constitution I, at all events, have had the opportunity of studying, and some of the difficulties inevitably arise from the fact that it has had a past which has made it the very remarkable body with which we now have to deal. It is not, as some of our English and Scottish Universities go, an old University, and it began with the institution of two separate colleges, both, indeed, having the common end of improving University education, but founded originally upon very different principles, and with very different views. They were, indeed, in their inception, rivals. The first to be brought into being was University College, but very soon afterwards King's College was established, which, in the opinion of its founders, carried out certain educational objects with which University College did not concern itself. It was found impossible to join those organically into a single University until a bond of union was found in the common examination system. That is, of course, quite a novel form of giving unity to a University, and it developed in the case of London into the remarkable system of external students—that is, of students who have, speaking broadly, no important relation with the University from which they expect their degree and to which they have

627
matriculated, except that which is provided by the examination which all students are expected to pass.
That system, so far as the external students are concerned, leaves out a great deal that most of us think very valuable in University life. It leaves out, on the whole, any relation between the University as a teaching body and the University as an examining body, and it leaves out all those imponderable benefits which those of us who are fortunate enough to have had a University training know are some of the most important things which a University can give us. Evidently the external student can hardly obtain those, but we are clearly of opinion that, although the external system is one which nobody would recommend as the general practice in Universities, it does fulfil a purpose which no other system can fulfil, and the Commission and the Government in introducing this Bill are earnestly desirous that nothing should be done which could in the smallest degree imperil the efficiency of this examination system. In my opinion it is quite undeniable that an external student does not get, and cannot get, all the advantages which a full University training gives to those who are fortunate enough to obtain it, but there are many people who cannot obtain it, and it is most desirable in our opinion that we should retain effectively and in full efficiency a system which, although it does not give everything which a University is capable of giving, does give a great deal, sets a standard of learning, gives a stimulus to study, and does bring together as graduates of a single University men of different residence and different training, men whose years of learning have perhaps beeen passed far from the Mother Country, and who can in this way obtain some of the most important advantages which a modern University can give.
I mention this as one of the respects in which London University differs most profoundly from other Universities. But it is not the only thing. London University started with the two more or less rival colleges, University College and King's College, which are now incorporated into the University; but round them, as it were crystallised round that centre, are no less than thirty-six other bodies, making thirty-
628
eight in all, if my memory serves me, of other organised teaching institutions of the most varied character and carrying out an extraordinary multiplicity of objects. Let me remind your Lordships of some of them. The two central colleges, of course, give a full University education and cover the whole ground commonly described as University education. The other colleges also in some cases give a full University training; in other cases they confine themselves to one special branch of learning. There are medical schools, engineering schools and science schools. There are post-graduate schools devoted to research. Some of these bodies might almost be described as very superior secondary schools, so great is the variety of these constituent elements in the University.
But that really is not all. They differ not only in their objects but, in their size. Some of these colleges, devoted to special branches of knowledge and not attempting to cover the whole ground of general University education, are very important from their numbers, their high standing, the extraordinary variety of their professoriate and from their power of contributing, not indeed to the general culture of the people, but to some of the most vital and important parts of the education with which every great community now must, at the most serious peril to itself, see that it is well provided. There are great medical schools. There is the great School of Science and Technology known as the Imperial College. There is the London School of Economics. I will not enumerate them all; I will only remind your Lordships again that the variety of institutions, large and small, general in their objects and particular in their objects, with which any Bill touching upon the London University has to deal has no parallel, so far as I am aware, in this country or perhaps in any other.
There is one special kind of college on which I think I must say one word—the colleges giving a general education and giving that general education in connection with some religious denomination. There is, as noble Lords are aware, a famous school of theology in connection with King's College. There is a Wesleyan College and there are other colleges of the same kind. Their peculiarity is that

629
they desire connection with the London University in so far as their secular University matters are concerned; but, quite naturally and properly, they do not want any interference with that which marks them off as being devoted to the interests of one particular religious denomination. That adds a further and not unimportant complication to the general problems which have to be dealt with by legislation and which, in a preliminary sense, have been considered by the Departmental Committee on whose findings legislation is to be based.
How is this heterogeneous body of autonomous or semi-autonomous institutions governed at the present moment? It is governed by a Senate which, with all its merits and great as is the distinction of the gentlemen who compose it, requires, as the Committee think and as we think, reformation in more than one particular. In the first place, the Senate is required by Statute to be an executive body. It is far too big to be an executive body in the full sense and cover all the things that have to be done in a University so large and so complex as that which I have very roughly endeavoured to describe to your Lordships. It is almost certainly condemned—I will not say to impotence because that would be using language too strong for the occasion; but, drawn as it is from many heterogeneous sources and numerous as it is, its difficulties in acting efficiently and quickly have been the despair of many of its members and have inflicted great difficulties at all events upon those who desire to see the University of London develop with all the strength and all the efficiency of which its admirable materials are most certainly capable.
The Senate of the University of London is too big. It is also composed in some respects of the wrong elements. It contains at present representatives of certain professional bodies of great distinction, great influence and great importance, but which have no connection really with University training. There is no reason why they should have members upon the Senate. They augment its numbers, but they can hardly be said to increase its efficiency. I feel confident that the Committee which reported and whose Report we are considering were well justified in saying that these
630
extraneous elements should be excluded from the Senate, and that in their place should be put certain representatives of University interests which are now, most unfortunately, excluded. The Committee think, for example, and surely the Committee are right in so thinking, that the institutions of which, in fact, the University is composed should be represented as institutions in the Senate, which is the representative of the graduates and others who have had their education at the University. I cannot think that is a doubtful point. It is clear to me that that is right. The teaching body is represented in the Senate as it is; but the places where they teach, the organised institutions of which they are members and through which all their utility comes, have no representation upon the Senate, and it is proposed, as I think most rightly, that they should obtain it.
The result of that change will be to diminish the size of the Senate from fifty-six to forty-eight, I think it is. So far it is not only a reform in the character of the constituents of the Senate, but it is an improvement as regards numbers. I think we shall all admit that the criticism that I have passed upon the number, fifty-six, for an executive body applies almost as much to the new body which it is proposed to create, although that contains forty-eight instead of fifty-six. Forty-eight is an impossible body to carry out executive functions, but the Senate, under existing legislation, though it is itself of the utmost importance, is not empowered to give to the Committee any executive functions at all. They can only be advisory bodies, so that you have important advisory bodies advising the Senate, and some of those advisory bodies, unless I have misread the Report, are themselves advised by other boards. In managing a great University you must have something more than good advice. You must have some management machinery for putting that advice into execution. You must have some-machinery which is capable of doing more than deal with debatable issues. You must have bodies of manageable size to carry out immensely complicated work so that the immensely complicated institution that I have spoken of to your Lordships may be properly governed.
I do not know if it is necessary that I should describe in any detail, or even

631
describe at all, the Standing Committees to which it is proposed to give executive functions, or the possibility of executive functions, but I must mention one which is new. The old ones I need not deal with. There is an Academic Committee, an External Committee—I mean a committee dealing with the interests of the external students—and there is an Extension Committee. The Committee proposed, in addition to this, to have a committee dealing with the separate units of which the University is composed—the separate colleges of the infinitely varied kind and importance of which I have attempted to give some account. That will be another committee and, again, it will advise. But it will not only advise: it can have given to it what it could not have given to it under existing legislation, the executive powers which it is so absolutely necessary that these committees should possess.
There is one other great gap in the committees, the most important gap of all, the gap in any University machinery for distributing money grants that are given by Government, by the London County Council, and which come from other sources. The machinery for dealing with these grants is incredibly unsatisfactory. Any man to whom you referred the matter without his having had an opportunity of previous study would say that if the Government, for example—they are the largest contributors and I take them as an illustration—are to give public funds to the University and the University itself is made up of an immense number of subsidiary autonomous institutions, the distributing authority should be the University. Under the existing system it has been found impossible to make the University the distributing body and it is not the distributing body. The University Grants Committee and the London County Council have got to go over all the thirty-eight institutions making up the University and to consider from the result of their own inquiries and on their own authority how the grant which is nominally given to the University is to be distributed among the elements of which the University itself is composed. That is a wholly indefensible system.
There may be some who are ready to say that it has worked well. Having regard to the admirable character of the bodies who have attempted this
632
tremendous task of distribution, I do not pretend to say that I think it has worked ill, but the distributing bodies themselves vehemently object to having this responsibility thrown upon them. And why should it be thrown upon them? One of the greatest objects that every lover of University education has in view, when he desires support from the Government of the day, is that academic freedom should be maintained, although public money is expended in supporting the University itself. You want to combine the full freedom of University teaching, which is the glory of every University worthy of the name, with well-deserved assistance from the State. But how can you possibly do that if you turn the State not only into a contributor to the University in the form of a block grant, but also into a judge which is to consider all the separate merits of the various elements out of which the University is loosely built and to distribute according to its own discretion and good will the public money amongst them? That is a most improper system, I think, to impose upon the University.
That most competent body, the University Grants Committee, have thrown upon them duties which they carry out to the best of their ability and, if I may say so, carry out with admirable discretion, but they object strongly to having thrown upon them a responsibility which obviously belongs to the University itself, but which they cannot give to the University so long as the University has no better organ for its distribution than the Senate. The result of it all is that the Committee find themselves obliged to advise a new and most important element in the governing constitution of the University. They propose that there shall be established a University Council which shall be supreme in matters of finance, which shall have power to distribute the block grant that, without doubt, the University Grants Committee will continue to give them, without having to appeal to the Senate or to any other body for any modification or recommendation in connection with their proposals.
Do not let your Lordships suppose that in this novel Council the Senate has been forgotten. On the contrary, the Senate is in a bare majority, practically. I do not think therefore the Senate has any

633
reason to complain. You have substituted for the present governing system a system in which the University—and the Senate is the greatest body in the University—have absolute control. It is for them to take the responsibility of dividing the grants which the Commission may give them among the various competitors and I believe in that way you will produce a feeling of unity in the University which its present constitution makes quite impossible. I do not see how, without these new divisions recommended by the Committee appointed by Mr. Trevelyan, without some provisions of that kind, you are going to enable the University to deal with a situation which at present is simply un-dealt with. The University simply leaves to the University Grants Committee the whole weight of responsibility of carrying out a function which it is their business, and their business alone, to deal with, but with which, in the existing imperfection of the machinery at their disposal, they find it impossible to deal.
The general result, therefore, is that the Statutory Commission which this Bill proposes to set up will be instructed on broad lines to follow the Report of the Committee in carrying out the reforms of the Senate which I have described, both as regards exclusion and inclusion. It will carry out the almost incalculably advantageous reform of giving executive powers, or will have the opportunity of giving executive powers, to the various committees of the Senate and it will add to these, committees for the first time an authentic and authorised representation of the subordinate collegiate bodies in their corporate capacity. Above all, it will institute this University Council which will have power, which will have money, which will be of manageable numbers, which will represent all the interests which ought to be represented, which will leave a sufficient majority to the representatives of the Senate to make it certain that if the Senate is unanimous, practically unanimous, upon any course, that course will be adopted by the University Council.
I have deliberately left out a great many of the subsidiary recommendations. I have deliberately tried to turn your Lordships' attention to the broad issues which are at stake, and I think that if
634
these broad issues are considered in the spirit in which I have endeavoured to advocate them, you will admit that the changes proposed constitute a great reform. I am aware, of course—I cannot be otherwise than aware—that changes so important as these cannot be proposed without raising alarm in certain quarters. I hope and believe that these alarms are totally unfounded. I have very ill expressed the views of the Government and the views of the Departmental Committee if I have not made it clear that we want to proceed upon the ancient lines. We want to make, I agree, great changes; we want to make no revolutions. We do not wish to destroy more than is absolutely necessary. We do not even wish to modify more than is absolutely necessary the autonomy of the various constituent elements of which the University is made up. We do want them to work altogether in far closer co-ordination than has been possible with the best will in the world under the machinery which legislation has so far provided, but the idea that we wish gratuitously to interfere with their appointments, with their organisation, with their objects—in particular, with any religious objects which particular institutions may have been founded to promote—that idea may well be dismissed from everybody's mind.
The external student, I think, gains in dignity from the changes that are proposed. He certainly does not lose in power. Those, therefore, who note with jealousy any suggestion that external students are, as it were, a blot upon the University system are labouring under a complete misapprehension. We feel, the Committee felt, the Government feel and I believe your Lordships will feel, that this great reform can be carried out and should be carried out without endangering any legitimate interests, without interfering in any way with the historical development of the University by trying forcibly to make the London University conform to the ordinary idea or practices of Universities very differently situated. Our view is that we must build on the old foundations, that we must preserve the great interests with which the University has concerned itself, that we must not attempt to run it into a uniform mould, and that we must deal sympathetically and justly with all the very

635
different interests which the Senate represents. I feel certain that if that is done no member of the University will look back on the legislation we propose with any feeling of regret, but that when the machinery is in working order, when it is all brought into harmony with the day-to-day work of this immense institution, they will say that the Committee and the Legislature which acted upon the Committee's Report have indeed succeeded in preserving all the valuable peculiarities of the University of London and, whilst preserving those peculiarities, have done an immense work in giving it unity and, with unity, efficiency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not think it is an exaggeration to call it a scandal that this great question has not come before Parliament earlier. That is not a matter of reproach to this Government, nor yet to the last Government, nor to the Government before. It is due to a more deeply seated cause. This remarkable University question has the good fortune to-day to be the subject of a Bill embodying a definite proposition. To me it is a source of very great satisfaction that it should have reached that stage and been so definitely put forward, because there has stood in the way—and this more than anything else—an extraordinary division of opinion among men, men of eminence, men of learning, men of energy, as to the best means to get over the unfortunate situation in which the Metropolis of the Empire was placed. Here is the greatest City in the world without a properly organised teaching University. It is extraordinary that it should be so, and in no other country would it have been tolerated. But it is not so had as it looks. Although we have had no University, we have had growing up the most remarkable congeries of colleges and collegiate institutions that probably the world has ever seen in so small a centre. There are not only the two great University Colleges, University College and King's College, but there are other institutions more modern, such as the Imperial College of Science and Technology which stands as high as anything in the world.
Why is it that with this wealth of colleges growing up in the area of London the
636
proper organisation has not come earlier? The noble Earl will remember that when he and I were in the House of Commons there was a Bill which I think I drew up and pressed though he gave time for it and fathered it. It became the London University Act, 1898. It was a thoroughly second-rate Bill because it took only the most tentative of first steps towards bringing about the establishment of a teaching University in London. There were these admirable colleges, not as large as they are to-day but very large, which trained admirable students, who had to go up for external examinations by an examining body, which is all that the London University, in substance, was. There was no power to examine them and give them degrees based on their record or on the work that they had done under the eye of their teachers. The Bill sought to remedy that position and it met with scorn in the House of Commons. The member for the University moved its rejection. A large number of other eminent people opposed it, and in the end only the conviction of the House of Commons that it went the right way ultimately carried it through Parliament.
Then there was a Commission to draw Statutes to carry it out, over which the late Lord Rayleigh presided, and finally, about the year 1900, a so-called teaching University was in existence. Teaching was one side of its activities and examining another. The noble Earl has spoken very kindly and gently about the external side of the University, and I am not going to depart from his good example, but I wish emphatically to put it on record that a student trained under a distinguished professor, who guides him not only to examinations but in his reading, and in his work in the laboratory with personal counsel, a student who has gone through three or more years of that kind of teaching, is in a very different position from a student who is crammed up for an external examination, perhaps with the aid of one of these professional schools of crammers which have become so very efficient for everything of the kind. The external student is on the up-grade in the educational estimation of the present time, and it was found that in the University of London the conflict between the outlook of the external and internal students was too great to leave alone.

637
In 1909 the Government of the day appointed a Royal Commission, over which I had the honour to preside. Its Report has been so much abused since that I should be doing the noble Earl a, very ill service if I stood here to-day as its strong supporter. That Report, miscalled the Haldane Report and abused under that name, was drawn up by men the weight of whose names at least might carry the thing beyond anything that could tarn on personal considerations. Among my colleagues were the late Lord Milner, the late Sir Robert Morant, Sic William McCormick, who, I rejoice to think, is still alive and has done splendid work for University education not only in London but all over the country, Sir Robert, Romer, Mrs. Creighton and others. We reported unanimously. Why was that Report so ill-received? It was not because of what we did or proposed to do to the external students. We were compelled, for the same reasons as the noble Earl, to leave them severely alone. They were too powerful, they were everywhere—country doctors brought up under the examination system, teachers who had the trade mark of an external degree of some kind from the University and had used it everywhere. The University was helping this business by conducting its examinations in remote parts of the Empire—in Ceylon, in New Zealand and all over the world—so that it had a very powerful body of people to back it up. We looked at the external side and gave it the means to look after itself. What we concentrated on was the student with whom record was more important than examination and who made an attempt to stand for that which an undergraduate stands for in Oxford, Cambridge and other Universities where the student works under his teacher.
That Royal Commission took four years to report and then reported unanimously. What was the pith and substance of its Report? The very thing of which the noble Earl has told us—a smaller Senate. The Senate, then as now, had fifty-six members, and it was a hopeless body with every kind of divided counsel in it and impotent to get through the business. We suggested quite a small Senate, not nominated by partisan influence, but chosen by the Crown and by other bodies, and we proposed to give the University a great court in which it could hold its parliament and, as it were, blow itself off.
638
That proposal has been passed by, perhaps wisely, in the present Report. I never cared for it. The present Report originated, as the noble Earl has told us, in a Departmental Committee appointed by the last Government, of which my noble friend Lord Ernle was at first Chairman, though afterwards ill-health compelled him to relinquish that rather difficult position, and he was succeeded by Mr. Hilton Young. Now we have a Report the substance of which, as the noble Earl has told us, is not a small Senate—that, is waving the red flag in the face of the wild bull—but a small financial council which will manage the business of the University under the Senate, which will counsel the Senate, persuade the Senate and lead the Senate into paths in which the Senate should go—at least, we hope so. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that a small body of that kind is essential, and I also agree with the principle recommended in the Report of delegating executive control throughout the teaching arrangements.
For the rest, the Bill assumes a form which is now very familiar. It takes the Report, it schedules it to the Bill, and says that Commissioners are to be appointed for the purpose of giving effect to the principles of the Report, with such modifications as circumstances may lead them to think desirable. I think that is the only way in which the matter could have been dealt with. I congratulate the Government on having tackled a very awkward and thorny question, and I am delighted to think that there is now a prospect of carrying the matter through. When it goes through it will still take a good deal of time to work things out, but at least you will have got this element of difference between the University of London as it stands to-day and the University of London as it will stand. You will have a central mind to which the colleges can contribute, and a mind which can direct and put together the types of study which are there in the University.
Things have changed very much almost within the last few months. The external side of London University drew its students from outside, from colleges which could give no degrees and whose students came up and took the external examination. The new University of Reading was a handsome contributor in that way. The noble Earl will remember

639
other enterprises in which we joined of establishing the new Universities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol and other places. I think we added among us, including the new Irish Universities, ten teaching Universities. These have all taken from those who formerly came up to the external side of the University of London and by the forces of gravitation, or whatever are their equivalent in these days, the internal side of London University is becoming more and more important. Now this common mind will at once set to work to see that this great University area of London represents a real University area, that there is no overlapping, and that there is more adequate provision of laboratories and other things than exists at the present time. The noble Earl has explained to us the purport of the Bill very clearly. I entirely agree with his diagnosis of the situation, and my great hope is that the Bill will become law as quickly as possible.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced the Bill, in accordance with what we should have expected from him with his ripe experience and wisdom, dealt with simply the large principles which the Bill contains and did not, as he told us, go into details which may properly be the subject of discussion in Committee. But there is one point on which I want to say something, because it does not seem to me to be quite a detail. It concerns the principle of the Bill and affects more than one part of it. I yield to no one in my recognition of the importance of London University to the educational life of England as we stand to-day, but I want to call attention to the importance in that University of the theological faculty, and not only what that is doing, but is capable of doing, and likely to do, in the coming years.
What I am rather anxious about is the virtual absence from the Report itself of any practical reference to the problems raised with regard to the theological schools in the University and the complete absence of such reference from the actual Bill before us. The theological schools now affiliated or belonging to the London University are five in number—two attached to the Church of England and three to other religious
640
bodies, and all of them in active operation, with in some cases the prospect of very greatly increased activity in the coming years. It is of real importance that care should be taken to see that these theological schools do not suffer detriment in any way from the legislation which is now impending. That the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is friendly to that element in University life needs no word from me or any one who knows what his actions have been. I do not mistrust him for one moment, but when we turn from what he expresses to the actual measure itself, or to the Report upon which it is based, we find some marked facts.
One is that the theological part of the University has no representation, under the new measure, on the Senate, and further, that the rules laid down under which the schools of the University are to be admitted or continued seem to require that they shall be very greatly modified if they are to be made applicable to the theological schools. The modifications are not suggested, but any one will see that some modification is absolutely necessary. The Commissioners have some power under the Bill, as drawn, not merely to give effect to the Report of the Committee but to modify it where they see that modification is necessary, but we have no evidence before us that can be relied upon that they will effect such modifications. The argument, I have no doubt, is that you must trust the Senate, that the Senate will have power to act with consideration for all the schools which are affiliated to the University, and therefore for the theological schools along with the others. The answer, no doubt, is that there are to be modifications of the rules to make them applicable to those schools and that the Senate may be trusted to do that.
I am prepared to trust the Senate. In ordinary circumstances I have not the slightest doubt that the thing will be fairly dealt with, but I should like to see the gravity of the situation really recognised. When I heard the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, refer to the theological side I waited with interest to hear what changes were thought to be necessary to safeguard those interests. As things stand the theological schools have some representation, though it is not very marked, upon the Senate, because King's College, which has its theological side, has

641
two members on the body. It is proposed that the college should have one representative only if the Report is carried out, and there is no reason to suppose that the theological side rather than any other will be represented on the Senate.
Much more marked than that, however, is the way in which the schools of the University are described in the rules governing the admission or re-admission of an institution as a school of the University. The first is that the University is satisfied with the constitution of the governing body of the institution and with the Statutes under which it is governed. I do not know that that would require any modification; but then we come to the next:
"That the institution recognises the right of the Council of the University to negotiate on the institution's behalf with public grant-giving bodies, and to receive and allocate the grants available for University education in London."
There are no grants; we get no Government grants for that. The theological colleges are not supported out of public funds at all, but are supported by private contributions; therefore that phrase is inapplicable.
But the next rule goes on to say:
"That the institution undertakes not to issue a public appeal for money without first obtaining the consent of the Council of the University."
The theological colleges receive no money from the Government, and unless the Council of the University consents they could not make an appeal to other people to give it. I do not suppose for a moment that that would be allowed to remain as an obstacle—a modification would be made to meet the requirements; but it ought to be made in some way or other perfectly clear to us from the first that it is intended that the theological side shall be free to act in the way in which it must act if it is to carry on its work at all, and that the Senate and Council of the University would support it in so doing. The last rule reads:
"That the institution relinquishes to the University the appointment of such of its principal teacher; as the Senate may determine."
I think I understood the noble Earl to say with regard to that, that he recognised it was obvious that the theological college or school could not relegate to the Senate of the University the appoint-
642
ment of its theological teachers, nor would the authorities of the University desire that it should do so.
All that I want to point out is that it seems to me that when we come to a later stage we shall be anxious to know whether it is not possible to safeguard rather more definitely the interests of the theological department of London University as a, whole, as constituted by its five separate schools, and that some care should be taken to show that their interests are properly remembered and safeguarded. Admirable men—and there is one lady—are named under the Bill as Commissioners to go into that matter. No one of them has special qualifications peculiarly suited for making him the arbiter or adviser with regard to the theological department, but that no doubt is due, I imagine, to the view entertained that in appointing those men it was not desirable that any one of them should seem to be too limited in the range of his knowledge or his experience, so as to make him a representative of, I will not say some partisan body, but of sonic small section only. That, no doubt, is the reason, but none the less we who are interested in the theological side see very clearly that we shall want, if our interests are to be properly secured for the future, some further assurance than we have already obtained with regard to that matter.
It may easily be said, and no doubt will be said in some quarters: "Your theological schools are not asking for money, and therefore we do not see any real reason why, because you still live in London and make use of London University for some of your work, you should ask for any special recognition or special status with respect to the University and its life. You are outsiders in one sense, because you are not the recipients of grants; you might be outsiders in other senses by standing aside from the secular side of the teaching." A thing that I am more anxious to advocate than anything else with regard to the theological teaching in our Universities is that the two things should be not sundered, that the theological teaching should be linked together in the most marked way with the general educational life of the highest branch of education in the country. We hear criticisms often—I will not say they are fair—about the danger that our theological colleges

643
may be isolating from other people men who are going to exercise the calling of the ministry, to the great disadvantage of the men themselves and possibly of the University with which they may be associated, and possibly also of the public at large. I believe entirely in the amalgamation and working together of the theological and what we may call the secular side of the training of men, either in connection with the Universities or outside Universities, who are going to exercise the calling of the ministry, and I dread anything which might seem to put those men a little apart from the trend and drift of the highest University education by provisions which may now be coming into force.
I know such is not the intention of the noble Earl who introduced this Bill. I cannot believe that it is in the least the intention of the Report as a whole, as it is now worded, or that the Commissioners who have been appointed are men who would do it; but I think we want to be satisfied that there is something a little more marked as to the status, the position and the welcome that is given to the theological side of University life at a moment when, for reasons which I could easily give, it is likely to become more and more important as the years go on, and more and more to call for a linking in the fullest way with the highest educational life of this University or of the country.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I approach the proposals embodied in this Bill from two points of view: in the first place, from the point of view of University College, no inconsiderable or unimportant part of the University, and of which I have been Chairman for the past five years; in the second place, from the point of view of one who has had to work a Statutory Commission and the machinery of a Statutory Commission for the past three years. From both these points of view I wish most cordially to support the provisions of this Bill. I shall not dwell upon the controversies which have been alluded to by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading and by my noble friend behind me. Those controversies have always been with London University, and it is because we all recognise that the position is intolerable at the present moment that we who form the constituent parts of the. University are prepared to
644
give up some of the privileges which we possess at the present moment and welcome this attempt to reform the University of London.
When the Departmental Committee reported, we, in University College, at once took their Report into consideration. We considered it very carefully, not only in the College Committee but also in our academic body, the Professorial Board. The general position of these two bodies was that they wished to give a general blessing to the proposals of this Bill. I do not suggest for one moment that these two bodies were not critical of certain proposals contained in the Departmental Committee's Report, but what we felt was that the machinery of a Statutory Commission offered a solution of the present unsatisfactory position in the University of London, and, as to those matters to which we took exception, the proper stage at which to raise our objections would be when the Statutory Commission began to sit and began to make Statutes; we could then raise the various points of criticism which we had to make against the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
The noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, emphasised to your Lordships the position of that important body which is recommended to be set up in the Report of the Departmental Committee—namely, the University Council. That is an entirely new conception, and it is round this new creation of a University Council that the controversy is going to rage. No doubt the noble Earl is familiar with the Minority Report of the Departmental Committee and it is on the relations between the Senate and this new University Council that the main criticism and the main opposition will be based. In explaining the position of the University Council and the real necessity for such a body, the noble Earl informed your Lordships that grants of public money have to be made at present through the University Grants Committee and the London County Council. But he did not bring to your notice, and naturally so, the amount of money that is really involved each year in these grants from outside bodies to the University of London. On page 19 of the Report the Committee give the total sums that were contributed both by the Treasury, through the University Grants Committee, and

645
the London County Council, in the year 1924–25. They amounted to £377,695 from the Treasury and £78,366 from the London County Council. I may say that, roughly speaking, the revenue of my own college for the year is somewhere about £172,006 and at least half of that comes from grants by outside bodies—the Treasury and the London County Council.
Having had to approach these bodies—the University Grants Committee and the London County Council—on behalf of University College, I should naturally regret the change from the old state of things, because when one went to the University Grants Committee or the London County Council one found they were bodies who were experts in their subject, who criticised our educational proposals, who watched with very great care how the various departments were progressing, who pointed out some of our mistakes and said: "Do you not think this is hardly worth keeping going?" or "Do you not think that requires a little more money?" From that point of view, the selfish point of view of one who is Chairman of University College, I shall regret that very liberal education which one received from having these meetings with the University Grants Committee and the London County Council. But when we considered this question in the meetings of our College we came to the conclusion that the present position was quite indefensible. We felt that, though we regretted having to forego these firsthand dealings with these authorities, we could not resist the proposals, because the true principle was that the grants should be made to the University itself. And when we read the recommendations of the Departmental Committee we felt that we could have confidence in the University Council which is proposed by the Departmental Committee. We felt also that it was essential that these outside authorities—the London County Council and the University Grants Committee—should have complete confidence in the University body which would advise upon and distribute these grants.
May I read one passage from the Report of the London County Council on this very subject last year? It puts the matter bluntly, I might say even rudely, but it shows how strongly these outside bodies feel on the subject. The Council resolved on July 7, 1925:—
646
"That, in the best interests of the University and of the Council, the financial arrangements between them should provide that the total grant fixed by the Council in aid of University education in London should be given as a block grant to the Senate, but that, while the constitution and powers Of the Senate remain as at present, the Council does not feel it possible to adopt this arrangement."
Could anything be more emphatic than that declaration of policy on the part of the London County Council, that so long as the Senate is constituted as it is at present it will have nothing to do with the suggested scheme of financial help?
The Departmental Committee strongly recommend a point which was enforced in the speech of the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of the Bill—that the present Senate is too large for any such work as is suggested. It is said, on page 26 of the Report:—
"We may say at once that we do not regard a large assembly, such as the Senate must inevitably be, as suitable to negotiate with public grant-giving authorities on behalf of the University and its colleges."
The Minority Report of the Departmental Committee suggests that this is whittling away the position of the Senate as the authoritative body and says that there will be difficulties and disputes in future between the Senate and the new University Council. I think the Report of the Departmental Committee makes it clear that the Senate's position is to be supreme in matters educational and that it is only on the financial side that the University Council will come in. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system by which these two bodies can work in co-operation and in harmony.
In this connection I have had to try to arrange at Oxford a system by which the Hebdomadal Council, the Chest and the General Board of Faculties should be able to carry on their proceedings in cooperation and in harmony, and to arrange machinery by which in cases of dispute a deadlock could be removed and the will of one or the other should prevail. There was no difficulty about it by means of the machinery of the Statutory Commission. We kept in the closest touch with all these bodies when we were devising the scheme and through their friendly co-operation we were able to surmount those difficulties. I feel confident that by means of this machinery of

647
a Statutory Commission similar difficulties in connection with the University of London will be overcome if the University bodies, whether the University itself or the colleges, are determined to give goodwill and help. In regard to the machinery of the Statutory Commission, the general words are that the Statutory Commission shall make Statutes in general accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. That follows the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Act of 1923. And then it says "with such modifications as may seem expedient." We interpreted the words "in general accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee" as meaning that the Statutory Commission was to observe the basic principles which had been laid down, whether by a Royal Commission, as in our case, or a Departmental Committee, as in this; but that within those basic principles it was able to make modifications.
The most rev. Primate mentioned just now a difficulty which weighed especially with him in connection with the theological faculties. It is not my business to make suggestions, but may I respectfully suggest to him that if he refers to what happened in connection with the Universities Act of 1923 he will see that certain bodies at Oxford and Cambridge who had recent trusts, some of them religious trusts, obtained certain protection. I do not suggest that his position is on all fours with that, but, at all events, it would be quite possible if the Government think that the case of the theological colleges needs, and ought to have, a protection, to insert some clause which would give that protection to them as was given in the case of Hertford College and other colleges that had recent trusts. Apart from that there is, of course, the protection which he could always get through the. Statutory Commission when they come to make their Statutes. They would, within the general principles of the Bill, be able to give him ample protection. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships even this short time, and I wish cordially to support the Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to detain you very long. I am only anxious to direct your Lordships' attention to one single point in this Bill and to rein-
648
force, if I can, what has been already said by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I wish to voice the uneasiness that is felt by those who are interested in the theological colleges which are associated with the University in regard to this Bill. This is a Bill upon which we should all wish to see a general agreement. I think we owe our thanks to the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, for the most conciliatory manner in which he introduced this measure. But there are theological colleges, including New College at Hampstead, which is Congregationalist; Regent's Park College, which is Baptist; and the Wesleyan College at Richmond, as well as King's College and St. John's Hall, Highgate, which are concerned.
Your Lordships will notice that under the Bill the Statutes are to be made by the Commissioners named in the Bill and they must be made upon the basis of the Report. Whatever the Commissioners may think to be the proper course to take, however much they may think that a Statute should not be made in a particular sense, they must do it if it is so directed in this Report of the Departmental Committee. If your Lordships will turn to page 56 of the Departmental Committee's Report, which has already been referred to by the most rev. Primate, your Lordships will see that under paragraph 10 (b) the Council of the University is to negotiate with public grant-giving bodies. Imagine that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or even the General Assembly of the Church of England, or some of those general assemblies which govern the various denominations that I have mentioned, wish to give donations, it seems to me quite unnecessary that they should enter into negotiations with the Council of the University and that they should not be allowed to engage directly with the governing body of the theological college concerned.
Again, there are existing trusts for theological colleges and there are these denominational bodies to which I have already referred. These are to be forced, according to the scheme of the Departmental Committee, to consult, or rather to negotiate, with the Council of the University and not with the governing body of the theological college concerned. The most rev. Primate has already referred

649
to the condition that they are not even to issue a public request for money without the sanction of the Council of the University. But, most important of all, the institution relinquishes to the University the appointment of such of its principal teachers as the Senate may determine. It is quite obvious that it will be very difficult indeed for any theological college to accept a condition of that kind and to hand over to another body, on which there is no guarantee of sympathy, the appointment of its principal teachers. It will be agreed that that, at any rate, is a very strong request to make to these theological colleges.
The safeguards which exist do not seem to me to be entirely satisfactory. I may be told that the consent which is necessary under Clause 4 of the Bill will be sufficient and also that it would be perfectly obvious that the Senate would do nothing which would be disagreeable to the council of the theological college. But I should like safeguards a little more substantial than those and I do not think it is an unreasonable request to make. The most rev. Primate suggested that there should be upon this Commission somebody who would represent the experience of the theological colleges. Whether that would be sufficient or not entirely to meet the case I am not prepared to say, but there is, as your Lordships may know, a considerable amount of protest on the part of the Senate and of Convocation against some of the provisions of this Departmental Commission. Apart from those provisions, to which I do not desire to refer, I do wish once more to urge upon His Majesty's Government the importance of making this, as far as possible, an agreed Bill, and giving time between now and Committee stage to allow such negotiations to take place as will permit of the uneasiness to which I have referred being removed and the measure being passed practically as an agreed Bill.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, we have had some very interesting speeches, but I think the only serious criticism of the Bill has come from the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl who has just sat down. As far as I remember, the other speakers were, on the whole, strongly in favour of the measure which I have had the honour to introduce. The noble Earl and the most
650
rev. Primate, however, are afraid that the Bill touches the theological colleges or endangers in sonic respects their position. I am entirely in favour of considering that matter in detail when we come to Committee, but I ought at this stage to say that I believe the fears that have been expressed are really quite groundless. The general policy of the Legislature with regard to the University of London is embodied in a Schedule to the London University Act of 1898, and that provides that no religious tests shall be adopted or imposed and no applicant for a University appointment shall be at any disadvantage on the ground of religious principles. That represents the policy and the last thing the Government desire to do is in any way to modify to their disadvantage the position of the theological colleges.
I cannot help thinking that both the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl who has just spoken are under sonic misconception as to the effect of the Bill. The Bill does not really touch any of the matters of which they are afraid. The noble Earl, for example, called the attention of your Lordships to the last paragraph on page 56 of the Report which requires that a new college of the University must relinquish to the Senate the appointment of such of its principal teachers as the Senate may determine. It is quite certain that nobody desires with regard to the new denominational colleges that they shall ask the Senate to do what the Senate cannot do, which is to deal with a theological problem. That is as regards the future. That is an observation which touches colleges which are new—religious colleges or denominational colleges which the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl suggest might be brought into existence. I am quite ready to consider that problem in Committee, but I think what was most exercising the noble Earl and the most rev. Primate was whether this clause would effect the interests of existing colleges.
It would not affect them and it cannot affect the interest of existing colleges. If the most rev. Primate will look at the first sentence of the paragraph headed, "Schools of the University" he will see that (d), like (a), (b) and (c), refers to the conditions governing the admission or readmission of institutions

651
to the University. A school which is already a school of the University, which does not ask for admission and does not require readmission, cannot be touched under paragraph 10 on page 56. Therefore, so far as existing interests are concerned, I am quite unable to see how the least peril threatens any of the institutions on whose behalf the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl have spoken. If it be thought necessary we might, when we come to the Committee stage, consider the possibility of new theological schools coming into existence and examine whether they are not also protected. I think they are. I believe they are protected, for example, by such sentences as those read out from the Schedule of the University of London Act, 1898. It is quite certain, if anything in this world is certain, that the last thing the University of London as constituted or reconstituted desires to do in the present or in the future is to interfere with the theological side of any subsidiary institution. That is entirely outside its whole method of dealing with things.
Somebody ignorant of the facts might say: "Well, cannot those who have a prejudice on these subjects instinctively use their power of giving or withholding money to the detriment of some of these theological colleges?" But the theological colleges ask for no money. The question of public money does not come in. There is no threat that I can see that can be held out to existing colleges or to any college that may come into existence in the future. It seems to me they are not in the smallest degree threatened by anything in this Bill. The noble Earl and the most rev. Primate may disagree with me on the drafting question, but at all events I hope they will be content with the statement in principle that the last thing we desire and the last thing I am sure this Bill will, in any sense, accomplish is to threaten institutions which within the University have, I believe, done admirable work in the past, are doing admirable work in the present and, as the most rev. Primate suggested in his speech, are on the eve of carrying out an even greater and more important work than that on which they have been engaged.
I think I need not say any more, except, perhaps, on one point. The most rev. Primate expressed his strong opinion
652
that the teaching of those who are to take part in the religious ministry would be far better carried on in institutions not entirely devoted to theological purposes. He expressed that view strongly and as far as I am concerned—of course I do not speak in such a matter for the Government—I most heartily endorse it. I believe it is the very essence of the healthy education of those who have to deal with religious questions of the day, and I should be most unhappy if I thought anything done or suggested by the present Government should tend to destroy a system which in itself I think incomparably better than the narrower view of theological education which prevails, I have to admit, in very high quarters. So far as my opinion is of any value in such a discussion, I am unreservedly on the side of the most rev. Primate.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Obligation to furnish statutory statements.
1.—(1) It shall be the duty of every person who sells for use as a fertiliser of the soil or as food for cattle or poultry any article included in the first column of the First or Second Schedule to this Act, whatever may be the name under which the article is sold, to give the purchaser on or before delivery, or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter, a statement in writing (hereinafter referred to as a statutory statement) in such form (if any) as may be, prescribed, containing the following particulars:—
(c) where the article, if a feeding stuff, contains any ingredient included in the Third Schedule to this Act, or any ingredient not so included which is worthless for feeding purposes, the name of such ingredient:
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection 1 (c), to leave out "or any ingredient not so included which is worthless for feeding purposes." The noble Lord said: As regards this first Amendment we think that on the whole it is desirable to omit these words. Nearly all feeding stuffs contain some substance which might be regarded as worthless if separated from other ingredients and considered by itself. Moreover, all these worthless ingredients are supposed to be contained in the Third Schedule to the Bill and if they are not so contained they can be added hereafter by Regulation.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("Act") to ("the") in line 2.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Implied warranties]:
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2), to omit the words "or any ingredient not so included which is worthless for feeding purposes." The noble Lord said: This is a similar Amendment to the one which has just been agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("Act") to the end of subsection (2).—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Consignments ex ship quay]:
LORD BLEDISLOE: The Amendment to this clause is merely a drafting Amendment to conform with other similar clauses in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, after ("inspector") insert ("in the prescribed manner").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Sales in small quantities.
6. Where an article is sold for use as a fertiliser of the soil or as food for cattle or poultry in small quantities from a parcel which purports to be labelled in manner hereinbefore provided, and from an analysis
654
of a sample thereof taken by an inspector in the prescribed manner on the premises on which the parcel is kept it appears that the particulars stated on the label are false to the prejudice of the purchaser, or do not include any particulars which are required by this Act to be contained in a statutory statement, the seller shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, before "seller," to insert "owner or." The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the taking of samples by official samplers, and it is clear that a sample may be taken by an inspector without actually purchasing it. Hence it is desirable to introduce the word "owner" before seller.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, after ("the") insert ("owner or").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Deleterious ingredients in feeding stuffs.
7.—(1) Any person who sells or offers or exposes for sale for use as food for cattle or poultry any article which contains any ingredient deleterious to cattle or poultry, or has in his possession, packed and prepared, for sale for such use any such article, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, immediately before the proviso in subsection (1), to insert:—
"unless he proves

"(a) that he did not know, and could not with reasonable care have known, that the article contained a deleterious ingredient; and

"(b) where he obtained the article from some other person, that on demand by or on behalf of the prosecutor he gave all the information in his power with respect to the person from whom he obtained it, and as to the statutory statement given to him, and as to any mark applied to the article when he obtained it."

The noble Lord said: This is a more important matter. These words are proposed to be inserted in order to prevent a vendor who is morally free from any blame being convicted on a criminal charge. I may mention that this Bill will not prevent his being successfully sued in a civil action, should a civil action lie. I do not think that I need explain these words further. They appear in a similar connection in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Powers of entry and sampling]:
LORD BLEDISLOE: A drafting Amendment to This clause appears in my name upon the Paper, but I propose to move it in a different form, with your Lordships' permission, on the Report stage. I think we can find a simpler form of words.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Provisions as to analysis of samples.
13.—(1) Where a sample has been taken by an inspector or official sampler in the prescribed manner he shall divide it into three parts and cause each part to be marked, sealed and fastened up and he shall send two of the parts to the agricultural analyst together with a signed statement that the sample was taken in the prescribed manner, and the third part he shall send to the owner or seller:
Provided that if the inspector does not know the name and address of the owner or seller it shall be sufficient if he delivers or offers such third part as aforesaid to the occupier or person in charge of the premises upon which the sample was taken.
(6) Where a sample taken in the prescribed manner has been analysed by the agricultural analyst, he shall furnish to the person who submitted the sample for analysis and, where that person is not the purchaser, also to the purchaser and in every case to the owner or seller of the article a copy of his certificate of analysis:
Provided that if the agricultural analyst does not know the name and address of the owner or seller, he shall send a copy of his certificate intended for the owner or seller to the person who submitted the sample, who shall forward it to the owner or seller.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "shall" ["the third part he shall send"] to insert "deliver or." The noble Lord: This clause lays down provisions as to the analysis of samples of feeding stuffs and fertilisers and this Amendment contemplates the case where the owner or seller is present when the sample is taken. It is obvious that in that case it will be quite sufficient to deliver the
656
third sample, which he is entitled to have independently, instead of sending it to him.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, after ("shall") insert ("deliver or").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert "as may be prescribed." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment, but I ought to explain that it is important that a person who may be prosecuted shall be given promptly the third part of the sample, which is sent to him, of course, for his protection.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, after ("seller") insert ("as may be prescribed").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to omit the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The omission of this proviso is consequential upon the last Amendment. The Amendment which immediately follows is also consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 8
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("a copy of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in the proviso to subsection (6), to leave out "a copy of." The noble Lord said: We feel that it is important in such a case as this, where criminal proceedings may result, that the actual certificate should be sent and not merely a copy of the certificate from an agricultural analyst.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, leave out ("a copy of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Financial provisions relating to the councils of county and county boroughs.
17.—(1) The council of any county or county borough may contribute towards the expenses incurred by any agricultural body or association in causing samples to be taken for analysis by the agricultural analyst.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "taken,' to insert" by an official sampler in the prescribed manner." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to secure that, where an agricultural body or association, with the help of public money, causes an analysis to be made, such analysis shall be made in the same manner as is prescribed by the Bill. Otherwise there may be a considerable waste of public money owing to improper or irregular analyses directed by an agricultural organisation.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, after ("taken") insert ("by an official sampler in the prescribed manner").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Safeguards to traders.
(2) A person shall not be liable to conviction under this Act for applying a false mark to an article or making a false entry in his register or for failure to state the presence in a feeding stuff of an ingredient included in the Third Schedule to this Act or any worthless ingredient if he proves—

(a) that having taken all reasonable precautions against, committing an offence against this Act he had not at the time of committing the alleged offence reason to suspect the correctness of the mark or entry; and

(b) where he obtained the article from seine other person, that on demand by or on behalf of the prosecutor he gave all the information in his power with respect to the person from whom be obtained it and as to the statutory statement given to him, and as to any mark applied to the article when he obtained it.

LORD BLEDISLOE: My first two Amendments to this clause are consequential upon the first Amendment to which your Lordships agreed.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("or worthless"),
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("or any worthless ingredient").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after "entry" to insert "or the presence of
658
such ingredients as aforesaid as the case may be." The noble Lord said: This Amendment becomes necessary in order to make this particular line of defence applicable to the failure to state the presence in foodstuffs of a worthless ingredient, as provided by the Third Schedule. As a matter of fact three offences are constituted under Clause 2 in regard to which we deem it desirable that a person should have this opportunity of proving that there is no moral turpitude on his part. We have already referred to two of them but we inadvertently omitted the third and this Amendment is intended to bring it in. For the purpose of greater grammatical accuracy I move it in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, after ("entry") insert ("or the presence of such ingredient as aforesaid as the case may be").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My other Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 26, leave out ("or worthless").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Regulations.
(3) All regulations made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House of Parliament, within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the regulations are laid before them, presents an address to His Majesty praying that the regulations or any part of them may be annulled, His Majesty may annul the regulations without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move, in subsection (3), to leave out "His Majesty may annul the regulations" and to insert "they shall henceforth be void, but." The noble Lord said: The Parliamentary Secretary having intimated that he accepts my Amendment I need only say that it is intended to give

659
your Lordships a similar protection to that provided in all other Agricultural Bills.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I quite agree that this form of the clause gives Parliament greater control, and I am entirely in sympathy with it. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor reminds me that the word "henceforth" ought to read "thenceforth."
LORD STRACHIE: I will move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 31, leave out ("His Majesty may annul the regulations") and insert ("they shall thenceforth be void, but").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation]:
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have a purely drafting Amendment to this clause which is intended to contemplate the case where a mark is put upon the goods instead of an actual description being furnished with them.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 34, after ("stating") insert ("or indicating").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lovat.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, before Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:—
"Account of Expenditure.
"Expenditure by the Forestry Commissioners shall be included in the accounts of the Ministry of Agriculture as submitted to Parliament."
660
The noble Earl said: I move this clause for the dual purpose of adjusting what is at the present moment the anomalous position of the Forestry Commission and at the same time in the hope of helping the future development of forestry in this country. At the present moment, if it is desired in another place to ask any Question with regard to the work of the Forestry Commission any member of the House of Commons who happens to be a member of the Commission is called upon or asked to answer the Question. The money that is spent by the Forestry Commission is, of course, Government money, but there appears to be at the present moment no sort of Government responsibility for the answers that are given to members in the House of Commons. It is extremely difficult to raise debates on the work of the Forestry Commission, and here I may say that I am not questioning whether their work is satisfactory or is unsatisfactory.
The first point is a constitutional point. It is really this, that the manner of running an industry, as forestry is, by a national Commission is really somewhat of an experimental departure for this country, and it therefore seems to some of us that it is extremely important that, in this new departure, the exact balance between, on the one hand, too much Parliamentary interference in the running of a technical matter, and, on the other hand, sufficient public control, should be adjusted. The second reason for my moving this Amendment is my desire to help in the future development of forestry. It should be easier to raise direct Questions—directed, that is, to the entity responsible for providing the money—on this vital subject, and we believe that by bringing this Commission into connection with a Department, and therefore under the necessity of having a direct Departmental Vote, we are going to help the development of forestry and increase its importance.
The Amendment asks that expenditure by the Forestry Commissioners should be included in the accounts of the Ministry of Agriculture as submitted to Parliament. There are some of us who believe that forestry is a sufficiently important department in this country to deserve a Ministry of its own. However, there is another school which says, I think on the whole rightly, that it is impossible really

661
to separate forestry from agriculture. Progressive and expert opinion that deals with this question is, I believe, coming more and more to the realisation that the best way of developing forestry is by the system known as forestry holdings; that is, by the establishment of small holdings which shall provide work for those who are normally, or at certain seasonal times, engaged in forestry. If that is so it is, I think, impossible to separate these two subjects, and for that reason I move my Amendment as it appears on the Paper.
Finally, I would like, if I may, to appeal to the noble Lord opposite, who I know has the cause of forestry so much at heart. The Bill has received a certain amount of opposition in another place from colleagues of mine, and perhaps I may make it clear to him that they are in no way opposed to the Bill itself, or to the work that he is trying so earnestly to carry out. They feel, however, and I feel, that this constitutional question should, and must, be settled at this opportunity, because this Bill does deal with the constitution of this Commission. This is not a Party question, but at the same time I feel that the noble Lord, by accepting this Amendment, has a great opportunity of stopping this question from becoming a Party one. Until this question is settled there is going to be most determined opposition to the work of the Forestry Commission. This is an opportunity of removing what I might call a running sore, and I would appeal to the noble Lord to accept this Amendment and thereby help us to go forward all together, working for the same cause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, at end insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in the first place I should like to say how much the Forestry Commission owes to all Parties, and not least by any means to the Labour Party, for the assistance it has received in carrying on forestry work. In saying this, however, I am afraid that the noble Earl cannot expect me to accept his Amendment as it stands. In the first place, it is not included in the Preamble of the Bill; in the second place we should have serious differences
662
in another place should we deal with the privileged question as to how the accounts should be presented in the House of Commons. I am, however, very glad that the noble Earl has raised the question of the relations of the Forestry Commission with other Departments, because it gives me an opportunity of stating what I believe to be the attitude of the Government upon the subject.
May I say straightaway that the question is one which those who have been associated with forestry have envisaged from the very start? When the 1917 Committee sat, on which the Liberal, Conservative, and Labour Parties were represented, it was one of the matters which caused them most serious thought, and on which ultimately they reported unanimously. This matter was also raised in the Cabinet after that Committee had reported, and an examination of the matter was made by people no less distinguished than the late noble Marquess, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, the late Lord Milner and Mr. George Barnes. I am not sure whether Lord Ernle was or was not a member of that Committee. The decision was arrived at that it was most important to keep forestry clear of Party politics, not to have an official head in either House of Parliament, that the money voted for forestry should be voted in the first instance in the form of a block grant so as to ensure funds for a consecutive policy and that to preserve Parliamentary control such a block grant should be drawn on by an annual Vote.
If, to use the noble Earl's own words, we are brought into some connection with the Department of Agriculture, that position will automatically cease. May I point out to the noble Earl that it is not only a question of bringing forestry into touch with one Department of Agriculture; you will have to bring it into touch with both the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, with the result that we in the Forestry Commission will have to report to two separate Departments, and our Parliamentary Vote, instead of being divided into, say, twelve Parliamentary heads, will have to be divided into twenty-four Parliamentary heads, so that the whole of our system of preparing Estimates

663
will be enormously complicated, and eventually it must end in the division of the Forestry Commission into two halves, one for Scotland and one for England. May I explain how this is absolutely unworkable, and how both the 1917 Committee and the Cabinet Committee which sat upon their Report were persuaded on examination that it was unworkable?
Let me give three examples—there are many others which I could give. Between a third and a fourth of the Forestry Commission's money is spent every year in the acquisition of land. At the present moment, being a single Department, we can acquire land in England, or in Scotland, or in Wales as opportunity arises. For the first five years of our work, quite contrary to what was the opinion of those who had studied the question before, it was found that better land was more cheaply acquired in England than in Scotland. Economic and sentimental conditions led to this. If we had had two Departments the Scottish Department would certainly have insisted on a considerable quantity of our land being bought in Scotland, and we should have lost the turn of the market. Now a change has taken place, and in the last six months we have acquired more land in Scotland than in England. That may continue, or it may not. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that if forestry had been divided into two departments, with a hard line between the two countries, there would have been much greater difficulty in getting the best bargains which were going.
If that is true of the administration it is even more true of the personnel. I happen to be at the moment sitting on a Committee at the Colonial Office, and there our main difficulty in recruiting the best agricultural officers is that many of the non-self-governing Colony services are so small that good men will not go into them. We have been sitting for a year and a half, and we are in process of making recommendations to get over this and other difficulties. Surely it would be retrograde and foolish to divide this service into two halves. If you have a single forestry service you recruit better men, because there are more chances of promotion and bigger salaries at the top.
664
Thirdly—and I think this is the most important point—there is the question of research. We have got very little money to spend altogether. We have a definite job set out for us, and we allot such money as we can spare from the more visible work of planting trees to the work of prosecuting research. Running your research from one centre you are able to allot to an individual University or group of workers anywhere certain problems which you ask them to solve. In the same way with applied research or experiment, you have got the whole of your nursery research, the whole of the research into plant growth, the whole of the question of sample plots, of which we have several hundreds running all over the country; we are able to organise all those from one centre and to co-ordinate research so that the ground is covered without overlapping. If this work were divided into two parts, under the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the English Ministry of Agriculture, with the best intentions in the world it would be very hard to co-ordinate the effort.
I think I have said enough to show that it would be a great mistake to put the Forestry Commission into a subordinate position to these two Boards of Agriculture. The noble Earl said something about that being the way that thought was tending in other countries. I absolutely deny that. I have only just come from a World Forestry Conference, and I can assure the noble Earl that I was often congratulated that England had started by keeping its Forestry Commission separate from the Ministry of Agriculture, because one and all of the older countries said: "We are always having our money taken away from the long-distance demands of forestry to the short-distance demands of agriculture." That is only reasonable. If you have money voted under a Department which shows its results from year to year how can you expect the head of that Department to allow money to be spent in another Sub-Department which cannot show its results for twenty, thirty or more years? I think those arguments are fundamental, and they are the reasons which induced the Committee of 1917 and the Cabinet in 1918 to decide that the Forestry Commission was not to be subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture.

665
There is another point. If it is not subordinated to the Ministry of Agriculture the only other Department to which it could be subordinated is the Treasury. But we have the very greatest care taken of us by the Treasury to-day. As you will see by the Act of 1919, all payments out of and into the Forestry Fund, and all other matters relating to the Fund and monies standing to their credit must be made and regulated "in such mariner as the Treasury may by Minute laid before Parliament direct." I can assure your Lordships that in the Forestry Commission one cannot employ a clerk or buy an Acre of land unless it is inside the regulations laid down by Treasury. This control by the Treasury is a very real one and not the loose general control indicated by the Estimates Committee Report of 1926.
So much for the question of this Amendment. The noble Earl then raised the matter of Questions in the other House and said that no responsible Minister, but only a Forestry Commissioner, answered Questions in the other House. That is a matter for the Government to decide. If the Government wishes to do so it can authorise the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to answer Questions, without putting anything in the Bill itself. There is nothing in the Act of 1919 which provides that Questions in another place shall be answered by any particular person. All it says is that one member of the Forestry Commission shall be a member of the House of Commons. As your Lordships are aware, the Prime Minister has already dealt with this subject in an answer to a Question in another place. He said, in effect, that while he did not propose to express an opinion one way or the other as to the advisability of having answers given by members of the Government, he thought the matter had best be raised at a time when the review of the forestry position as a whole would take place. That must be in not less than one year from now.
Might I point out to the noble Earl that the Forestry block grant has only a ten years' life, seven and a half of which have already expired. It will be necessary next year to ascertain the views of Par-
666
liament as to what is to be done, so that the purchase of land, the purchase of seed and other necessary measures can be considered in preparation for the next ten years programme. That will afford an opportunity of coming to a decision upon this particular point, unless it is thought necessary to do so beforehand. I shall be only too delighted if Questions are answered and Bills brought forward by one of the noble Lords sitting below me and I believe that my colleague in another place would be equally glad. But it must be remembered that the experiment in connection with the Forestry Commission is being carried out on a ten years' basis, and it is questionable whether it would not be better to finish the period of ten years without alteration. One point I should like to make in this connection—namely, that if the Cabinet decides to answer Questions by a responsible Minister either in your Lordships' House or in another place, this should not be regarded as a step to subordinate the Forestry Commission to another Department. It is of primary importance that the Forestry Commission should be outside Party politics and should have its own block grant voted for a definite period so that it may lay out its plans and carry them into practice. In forestry it is necessary to take long views; the period of preparation for planting operations extends over not less than four years. Your Lordships will recollect that for a very short period our work was interfered with by the Geddes Committee of Inquiry; during that period forestry had a set-back which lasted two years and I calculate that £100,000 was wasted without the least good being done. I am satisfied, speaking with seven years' experience of the work, that any change in control would lead to a corresponding waste of public money.
I hope that the noble Earl will do his best to influence his colleagues to give this Bill an easy passage in another place. The Bill is conceived in the first place in the labour interest. We have fulfilled our promise of bringing on to the Commission a Labour member. We welcome his presence and he is a most valuable member. But we had to accept the resignation of one of our members, Sir John Stirling Maxwell, who has done

667
more work in investigating the problems connected with growing timber at high elevations on peat land than any one in Europe. We accepted his resignation on the definite understanding that he should return to us at the earliest opportunity and at the request of the Prime Minister he acts in an honorary position on our Commission.
The second half of the Bill deals with the question of by-laws. The main object of these by-laws is to control the visits of the public in the earlier stages of forestry and in the latter stages to give the people the freest access to what is after all their own property. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl will either be able to curb the anxiety of his Party to have their Questions answered by a responsible Minister or that representations will be made to His Majesty's Government that such Questions shall be answered in the way he desires. I can assure him that as far as I am concerned I shall most willingly acquiesce in the decision arrived at by His Majesty's Government on the subject.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Lord very much for his sympathetic reply to my proposal. He has shown that certain difficulties exist regarding the division of the forestry service into two separate services, though how far it is going to be really necessary to subordinate it, or, as in some ways we feel, promote it to be part of the two Boards of Agriculture, remains to me very doubtful. But in so far as he has shown it to be undesirable, I cannot help feeling that he has proved conclusively the value of the suggestion I threw out—that the solution of this difficulty lay ultimately in the establishment of a special Ministry for forestry, so important do we consider this particular industry. However, the chief point was the question of Parliamentary control, and I gather that while the noble Lord is not prepared to adopt the suggestion made in the Amendment, he is prepared in some ways to use his influence in obtaining a satisfactory settlement of the difficulty that exists. If that is so, I will withdraw my Amendment in the hope that by the time the Report Stage is reached some sort of settlement will have been arrived at. I should warn the noble Lord that unless
668
he can go a very considerable way towards meeting the point, it will not be possible to guarantee quite such an easy passage in another place as I know the Bill will obtain here at the hands of your Lordships.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the noble Earl has just said. He has rather intimated that he hoped to bring the matter up again on the Report Stage in this House. I suggest to him that is really undesirable. It is a matter on which a question of privilege will be raised at once and it is far better, having heard what was said by the noble Lord behind me, that the noble Earl should leave the matter to be discussed by the noble Lord with members of the Government and should not endeavour to raise the matter again in this House.
EARL DE LA WARR: Is it the suggestion of the noble Viscount that it should not be raised in another place?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That it should not be raised again here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported without amendment.

PASSMORE EDWARDS (TILBURY) COTTAGE HOSPITAL CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ALLHALLOWS AND MARWOOD (HON ITON) CHARITIES SCHEME CON FIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ROBERT EARL OF LEICESTER'S HOS PITAL CHARITIES SCHEME CON FIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
BRIGHTON (LONDON ROAD) CONGRE GATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, this Bill deals with a small matter but one of sonic importance. The object of the Bill is to correct—and I think it is stated pretty clearly on the back of the Bill—an error which got into last year's Criminal Justice Bill, the effect of which was to lake away the power from justices that they have at the present time of dismissing a case on payment of costs. For some reason or other this mistake occurred. I may say that this Bill passed through all its stages in another place in five minutes. The position now is this. Last year's Act comes into force on July 1 this year with this flaw in it and I will ask your Lordships to be allowed to move to suspend our Standing Orders so that this Bin may be passed through all its stages to-morrow in time for the Royal Assent, otherwise there will be an interval between the passing of this Bill and the new Bill coining into force, and in that interval magistrates may very often break the law without meaning to do so by doing what they have been accustomed to do heretofore. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, it is perfectly obvious that this Bill ought to be passed and that it ought to be passed in the summary manner recommended by the noble Lord opposite. Whether the necessity for the Bill ought ever to have arisen is another question.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the
670
Select Committee on House of Lords Offices.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. LIBRARY SUB-COMMITTEE.
The Library Sub-Committee was reappointed, consisting of the following Lords:—Earl of Ilchester, Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford), Lord Colebrooke, Lord Ernle and Lord Darling, with Lord Hylton, who took the place of the late Lord Stuart of Wortley.
2. SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was re-appointed, consisting of the following Lords:— Marquess of Lincolnshire, Lord Muir Mackenzie and Lord Lambourne, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
3. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Lord Great Chamberlain, as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment. Department, made a satisfactory report from the Sub-Committee.
The Committee authorised the sending of a circular letter to Peers asking for contributions, similar to that sent last year.
4. COMMITTEE ROOMS.
The Committee approved of a proposal submitted by the Chairman of Committees for constructing a doorway to communicate directly with the new Committee rooms in the house formerly occupied by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
5. ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS IN THE HOUSE.
The Committee approved of a proposal submitted by the Chairman of Committees to extend the use of the acoustic instruments to the boxes occupied by Black Rod, Officer of the House, and Private Secretaries.
6. HOUSEKEEPER—INSURANCE.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a sum of £7 16 s. 9d. to the Ministry of Health, in respect of payments for contributions under the National Health Insurance Acts for the Housekeeper from the 3rd of January, 1922, to the 3rd of January, 1926, in order to regularise her position and enable her to receive the old age pension, if necessary, at sixty-five years of age.
7. REVISION OF RETIRING ALLOWANCE OF PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER.
The Committee sanctioned the revised allowance of £322 9s. 4d. which had been paid to a Principal Doorkeeper who retired on the 12th of February, 1926; the alteration in the allowance was in accordance with the Civil Service practice.
8. PAYMENT OF WAGES DURING SICKNESS.
The Committee gave their formal sanction to the practice which had been pursued for many years as respects payment of wages

671
during sickness. The practice is as follows:—

(1) That weekly wage-earners appointed before the 6th August, Ins, receive sick pay benefits in accordance with the scale sanctioned by the Offices Committee in 1897, that is to say, full pay (including bonus) during sickness for a period not exceeding four weeks in any one year (1st January to 31st December) and three-fourths of the pay for a further similar period, provided that such latter pay be not allowed unless there appears a reasonable prospect of the person returning to work.

(2) That weekly wage-earners appointed after 6th August, 1913, receive the sick pay benefits to which they are entitled under the National Health Insurance Act, with the following small modification which has in practice always been made, namely, that these persons for the first three days of sickness, during which no benefits are payable under the insurance Acts, receive wage inclusive of bonus.

9. GRATUITY TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A COAL PORTER (DECEASED).
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity, under the Superannuation Act,
672
1887, as amended by the Act of 1914, to the representative of a Coal Porter (E. Grimsey), who recently died after thirty-one years and four months service. The gratuity amounts to £86 16 s., being at the rate of one week's pay plus 75 per cent. of bonus for each year of service.
The Committee also sanctioned the payment of the Coal Porter's second month of sick leave at full pay owing to exceptional circumstances.
10. ESTIMATE.
The Estimate for the House of Lords Offices for the year ending March, 1927, was laid before the Committee by the Clerk of the Parliaments and approved.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move, That the first Report from the Select Committee of your Lordships' Offices Committee he now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.