Lords Sitting of 18 July 1927

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
POOR LAW BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREENOCK BURGH EXTENSION, &c., BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORA- TION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SUTTON COLDFIELD EXTEN- SION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move for a Return of the grants made by the Empire Marketing Board out of the £1,000,000 annual grant, as the Command Paper No. 2898 does not clearly set out the expenditure of that Board. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put this Motion on the Paper, some fortnight or more ago, no kind of note or indication of the proceedings of the Board had yet been circulated, but owing to absence of the Under-Secretary for Dominion Affairs, who represents the Colonial Office in this House, it had to be put off. I regret that to-day the noble Lord is ill and unable to be present. On the other hand, I understand that Lord Bledisloe, who represents the Ministry of Agriculture, is here and he is just as well fitted to give an answer as would be the noble Lord. Although it is true that what they call a "Note on the work of the Board" has been circulated, that, as I say in my Motion, is not very clear. Why do I say that? Because in this Note, which does not profess to be a regular Return, it is stated that:—
"Expenditure in the financial year 1926, brought to account at 31st of March, 1927, amounted to about £103,000, of which some £67,000, was in connection with publicity and £22,000 in connection with research grants."
I must say I have tried to study this very complicated Paper but I cannot make the figures correspond.
I have had an expert to make out the figures for me, but we have to consider the ordinary public who read that statement. I make out that the Empire Marketing Board gives grants for the Colonies of £99,258; to England and Scotland, £100,328; and to research work, £97,650. That is a total of £297,236. That total is very different from £100,000. I am only raising that matter to show how difficult it is for the ordinary person to understand this Paper, and I think I am justified in asking that some clearer statement may be made. I cannot help thinking that it is rather an extraordinary state of things that the British taxpayer should have to provide large sums of money when he does not know how it is being spent. I notice that The Times says:
"Why should British taxpayers find £500,000 a year in these difficult times for
584
expenditure which actually prejudices the British producer and over which he has no direct control."
That is exactly what I hear wherever I go in ordinary agricultural places. The ordinary farmer is suffering from depression. Noble Lords in this House have told me that they expect to have hundreds, if not thousands, of acres thrown on their hands owing to the depressed state of agriculture. The Times says that the first answer is that it is a "debt of honour," and the second answer that "the British producer cannot be prejudicially affected." I must say those are most startling statements.
No doubt noble Lords and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry have read a statement made by that very prominent member of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Robbins, who, referring to the manifesto of the Prime Minister at one of the many General Elections in the last few years, stated that it
"proclaimed the determination of the Unionist Party 'to safeguard the employment and standard of living of our people in any efficient industry in which they are imperilled by unfair foreign competition by the principle of the Safeguarding of Industries Act or by analogous measures.'"
I have read that in order to show what was the origin of the Empire Marketing Board. Undoubtedly its origin was that at a General Election the Prime Minister said that he had gone to the country to ask it to return him to power in order that he might apply Protection all round, and to safeguard the interests of agriculture just as much as the interests of the manufacturer. We agriculturists when we buy have in many cases to pay a great deal more owing to the Safeguarding of Industries Act. On the other hand, we get no advantage in any other direction. For what we sell there is no preference, no protection.
What happened at that General Election? The Prime Minister proposed Protection all round. I have always said as a strong Free Trader that if you ever have Protection you must have it all round, because it is not fair to protect the manufacturer and not the farmer. I am absolutely opposed to both. I am for Free Trade, an open market and no Protection for anybody. The country rejected both those proposals because the Prime Minister had stated that at the same time he was going to give

585
Preference to the Colonies. And yet The Times says it is a question of honour, a pledge. But surely it was just as much a pledge to the agriculturist of this country as it was to the Colonies. If the electors turned down Protection for this country surely they turned it down for the Colonies. Why should the Prime Minister think in one case that he ought to carry out his pledge and in the other he should not carry it out? That seems to me an extraordinary thing. The Prime Minister then said that he was going to give a million to make up for the Preference not being given to the Colonies. I am glad to think that the Council of Agriculture raised this question, and said that it was grossly unfair that £1,000,000 should be given to the Colonies to under-sell the farmer at home. A kind of concession was then made, and, instead of the whole £1,000,000 being given to the Colonies, half of it was to be given for the benefit of agriculture in this country. But still, all the same, there remains that half-million, which the British taxpayer and the British farmer have to pay for the benefit of Colonial goods, which come to this country and undersell us in our markets. The question is how is this £500,000 spent? I am glad to think that a good deal of it is spent in research and investigation, both in the Colonies and in this country. I have not one word to say against our doing everything we can to assist the farmer by investigation and research, whether in this country or in the Colonies. On the other hand, it does seem to me that it is hardly fair to tax our farmers for the benefit of the people in the Colonies.
I was very much interested this morning in visiting the Advertising Exhibition, where I had the opportunity of hearing the Secretary of State for the Colonies perform the opening ceremony. As far as I could gather from his speech, he did not say one word about the £500,000 that was being expended in this country. I was surprised to see that the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary were absent from that great show. No doubt there were very good reasons. But still I should have thought that in a matter of this sort, when English farmers were interested in these developments, and when the Empire Marketing Board are showing British
586
goods, as well as Colonial goods, there was something to be said on behalf of British agriculture. But it was even worse than that, because when I went round and looked at the great pavilion which the Empire Marketing Board have set up at the expense of the British taxpayer I was very much surprised to find that in that pavilion, in a most prominent position in the exhibition, there was a large display advertising goods coming from abroad—foreign salmon and liqueurs, goods from Monte Video, and American tinned goods.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The advertisement was of the containers, and not of their contents.
LORD STRACHIE: They were advertising the goods, and certainly I myself saw containers marked as coming from France, which were certainly full of fruit. They were not empty. But still, supposing they were empty, I do not see how the noble Lord can defend the practice of advertising at the expense of the taxpayers of this country and to the detriment of the British farmer, produce which comes from abroad. I am surprised that the noble Lord should say it is only an advertisement to show how those goods can be packed. I notice that the Empire Marketing Board have long advertised in The Times and other newspapers. I have one of those advertisements in my hand, running to twenty-eight lines. I shall not quote the whole of it, but it asks the public to buy
"Empire fruit end Empire meat from half across the world—they reach you sweet and fresh."
It goes on to say:—
"The Empire Marketing Board is helping to make cold storage better still, helping, that is, to add to your supplies of Empire fruits and meat, and to lower their prices."
It ends up by exhorting the British public in large capital letters to "Buy Empire produce" and then in smaller letters appear the words "from Home and overseas"—the only line in which "Home" appears.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Will the noble Lord say what is the date of that particular advertisement?
LORD STRACHIE: I think it appeared early this month, but I will send the noble Lord a copy of it. I have another

587
advertisement in regard to India. This states:—
"Think how the prosperity of our own great textile industries, our iron and steel and machinery and engineering works depend on the prosperity of your fellow-citizens in India."
I take no objection to that. It goes on to say:—
"It is by buying from India and from the whole Empire—butter and fruit from Australia, apples and cheese from Canada, mutton and lamb from New Zealand, wine and tobacco from South Africa—that we enrich our friends and our friends enrich us."
We see these advertisements in all places advertising Colonial food products. There is, for instance, one which says "Buy cheese from Canada." I would ask the noble Lord, is it necessary to advertise cheese from Canada? Surely we have quite enough cheese in this country. Our Cheddar cheese is being undersold by Colonial competition. I have not the slightest objection to Colonial cheese coming in, but what I do object to is that the money of the taxpayer and the farmer of this country should be used to urge the people of this country to buy Canadian cheese. It is not as if Canadian cheese was not coming in increasing quantities into this country. The last available figures that I have show an increase of over 5,000 tons in the amount of Canadian cheese coming into this country.
Subsidies are granted by Colonial Governments and those subsidies are simply used to enable the Colonial producer to undersell British produce. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that in Australia and other Colonies subsidies are actually given for the export of products which compete with the products of this country. I believe in New Zealand a subsidy of 5s. per case is given for each case of apples exported, and we are constantly being told by the apple producers in this country that the low price which they are able to get for their apples is due to this competition. I have not the slightest objection to fair competition, but I do not call it fair competition when bounties are given by Dominion Governments and this country is then asked to pay for advertisements asking the people here to buy those products which compete with our own homegrown produce.
588
At Liverpool the Empire Marketing Board has set up a branch mainly for advertising and assisting the sale of Canadian apples in this country. If the noble Lord has not heard of that perhaps he will enquire. I am in favour of the people of this country buying the maximum amount of goods from our Colonies and Dominions as long as those goods do not compete unfairly with our own. If you wish to give the Dominions an advantage I do not think it should be done at the expense of the British taxpayer. I noticed in The Times the other day that it was stated that before the War the amount of sugar coming into this country from the Dominions was 2¼ million cwt. and that now there is actually 7½ million cwt. coming in, while the increase in the amount of tobacco coming in is even more surprising. Before the War there was only 1,250,000 lbs. coming into this country from the Dominions while at the present time the amount is 14 million lbs. I do not wish to do anything that would hamper the Colonies in sending goods to this country, but speaking for the agriculturists of this country, irrespective of Party, I say that it is not fair that the British taxpayer and farmer should have to assist in paying for advertisements of Colonial products which compete with the produce of the farmer in this country when agriculture in Great Britain is in such a bad state as it is said to be in. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return of the grants made by the Empire Marketing Board out of the £1,000,000 annual grant.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, unfortunately my noble friend Lord Lovat, who represents the Dominions' Office in this House, is, as the noble Lord has already mentioned, somewhat seriously indisposed and at very short notice I have been asked to reply to the noble Lord. I would ask the House kindly to grant me some indulgence because the figures that the noble Lord has asked for have only been furnished to me officially at the very last moment. At the same time, as my noble friend Lord Strachie has pointed out, I

589
cannot claim to be wholly ignorant of the administration of the Empire Marketing Board because I am myself a member of it. The noble Lord has not by any means confined himself to his Motion upon the Paper. He moves for a Return of the grants made by the Empire Marketing Board out of the £1,000,000 annual grant as the Command Paper No. 2,898 does not clearly set out the expenditure of that Board. The noble Lord has embarked upon the whole difficult subject of the extent to which we are justified in encouraging the advertising and also the consumption of overseas Empire food products which may possibly come into competition with the relatively small amount which can be raised in this country for the requirements of our large population. The noble Lord asks why the British taxpayer should find £1,000,000 to boom overseas produce and he threw some ridicule on the suggestion made, I believe, in The Times newspaper, that that was a debt of honour. It was a debt of honour and it was a debt of honour entered into, not before but after—
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord misinterprets me. I said if it was a debt of honour to the Colonies it would be equally a debt of honour to the farmers of this country.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Lord is in rather too great a hurry. I was about to say it is a debt of honour contracted after the country had turned down preferential treatment for Dominion produce, and it was in consequence of an undertaking given by the Imperial Conference—not the last Imperial Conference but the Imperial Conference held in 1923—that this debt of honour was undertaken in lieu of preference treatment for such products and also as a quid pro quo for preferences which were being given to ourselves by various parts of our Empire. I may say in passing that it is a relatively small proportion of food products that we can raise on our own soil to meet the requirements of our home consumers. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the Empire Marketing Board and by the Government that the British public are asked, and expected, so far as possible to give the first preference to produce raised on our own soil, and where that is not forthcoming or does not suffice that
590
they will select overseas Empire produce before they have recourse to the produce of foreign countries. If the large exports of merchandise and manufactured goods which pass from this country to other countries, and especially those that pass to our overseas Dominions, can be paid for by Empire produce so much the better. That is exactly what we are asking shall take place as far as possible.
The noble Lord referred to a certain advertisement in The Times and I particularly asked what was the date of that advertisement because he seemed to assume that that advertisement represented the whole case as presented by the Empire Marketing Board.
LORD STRACHIE: I have it now. It was July 8.
LORD BLEDISLOE: If the noble Lord had taken the trouble to refer to similar advertisements issued at other times he would have discovered that there are plenty of advertisements appearing from time to time that help the marketing of British agricultural produce in preference to similar produce coming from any other part of the world. For instance, there have been during the last few months three Press advertisements of British dairy produce. There has been quite recently—within the last fortnight—an advertisement of home-grown vegetables, and there is another advertisement relating to British cheese which is about to appear in the Press and probably will appear in the course of the next week. Most of the noble Lord's speech was directed towards the inadequacy of the contribution out of this Fund towards the advertising of home raised produce. In answer to that I should like to remind the noble Lord that the Empire Marketing Board has only recently come into effective operation and is only actually expending a part of a large fund which has been placed at its disposal. But during the last few months it has been decided that no less than £40,000 a year shall be ear-marked for five years and shall be placed in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture in order to advertise and promote the sale of home-raised agricultural produce.
LORD PARMOOR: Out of what sum is that?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am coming to the actual expenditure if the noble Lord

591
will kindly wait. This sum is being expended in various ways. First of all, there are the research grants to which the noble Lord has referred, which are being made to various research institutes in this country for the benefit not merely of this country but also of our overseas Dominions and Colonies. Apart from that expenditure, which does benefit our own agricultural community, money is being applied in carrying out investigations into methods of marketing and in issuing reports which I think are publicly known as Orange Books, relating to almost every description of agricultural produce which can be raised and marketed with advantage from our own soil. To give the noble Lord an illustration of the utility of this work, I may say that over 30,000 copies of these Orange Books have already been sold in this country. No fewer than 900 copies were actually sold at the Royal Agricultural Show at Newport last week, and 2,500 copies have been sold at various demonstrations of the marketing of British produce at other shows which have been held this year. The shows at which these demonstrations, all subsidised by the Empire Marketing Board, have taken place are the Bath and West of England Show, which the noble Lord himself attended at Bath, the Royal Cornwall Show at Truro, the Show at Spalding, that at Oxford, that at Ipswich, and last, but not least, the Royal Agricultural Show last week at Newport. Similar exhibitions and demonstrations are going to be held at Darlington and at the Royal Welsh Show at Swansea. Quite a considerable amount of money, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, is in fact being spent in publicity in relation to home-grown produce.
To go back to the noble Lord's Question, the expenditure of the Empire Marketing Board, as no doubt noble Lords are aware, falls under two main headings—first, research; secondly, publicity. The grants approved by the Board and the Secretary of State under the first heading are set out in detail in the Note to which the noble Lord has referred, which has been issued as Command Paper No. 2,898. The total expenditure involved in these schemes, some of which is capital and some
592
spread over periods of years, amounts to £415,000. Just to explain what I mean by saying some of it is capital and some is spread over periods of years, the noble Lord will see, if he looks at the Appendix, such items as Animal Breeding at Cambridge, under which head he will find £5,000 allocated as capital and £400 has been promised for five years for carrying on the work. So also with the National Institute for Research in Dairying. £1,600 has been earmarked for two years and may be renewed at the end of that period. Of that amount of £415,000 the actual disbursements—I think this answers the noble Lord opposite—to the end of last month amounted approximately to £50,000, of which £22,500 was capital expenditure. That is on research only.
The other main heading is that of Publicity. The actual disbursements under this head up to the end of last month amounted to £135,790, of which £33,025 was capital. The main items in this total—they are not s-t out in detail in the Appendix, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, will permit me to mention them—are; Press advertising, £56,338; poster campaign, £42,181; exhibitions, £25,782; Imperial Institute cinema, £5,950, and what are called shopping weeks, £4,800. In addition to these two main headings of expenditure, the secretarial expenses of the Board up to the end of last month amounted to £16,430. As regards the proposed further return of grants made by the Empire Marketing Board, having regard to the research grants already set out in the Command Paper to which I have referred, and to the fact that the appropriation account will appear in due course, the Government do not consider it necessary at present to lay any further Papers. Perhaps I ought to have added that the expenditure, under the head of the. Empire Marketing Grant, will be accounted for in detail to the Controller and Auditor-General. The appropriation account of this grant will appear about November next, and will be supported by a copy of the Empire Marketing Fund deposit account, into which the grant is paid. So much in answer to the noble Lord's Question as it appears upon the Paper.
The noble Lord has this morning, I understand, paid a visit to the Advertising

593
Exhibition at Olympia, and as a result I gather that he has two complaints to make. The first concerns certain exhibits which appear, I am told, on the right-hand side of the Empire Marketing Board's exhibit, which I believe is divided into two parts. On that side there appears what is intended to be an exhibit of containers, and about 10 per cent. of those containers—it is quite true that they contain a certain amount of produce—are in fact of foreign origin. They are shown as samples, which may or may not be worthy of imitation, bearing in mind that certain countries—notably the French—do undoubtedly present their produce better packed and in more attractive containers than we in this country. Some of the containers to which the noble Lord refers are French containers, and very attractive they are But I want to say quite frankly that, if there is any substantial objection to these containers, with or without produce inside them, appearing on this stand, we are quite ready to withdraw them at once. But I think it is only fair to say that we do require some education in the attractive and suitable presentment of our produce in proper containers, and this appears to us to be a sufficient justification for a small number of foreign containers appearing on this particular stand, although some 90 per cent. of the containers are of British and overseas Empire origin.
I turn to the noble Lord's other point. I am not quite sure if the noble Lord has effectively voiced his complaint, but I understand it to be—and I am bound to say that it is a well-founded one—that there was considerable delay in getting the stand ready—
LORD STRACHIE: I did not refer to it.
LORD BLEDISLOE: If the noble Lord did not refer to it, I am going to refer to it, because I understand that this complaint will undoubtedly appear in the Press, and I understood that it was a subject upon which the noble Lord was most likely to exercise his rhetoric in this House. Undoubtedly there was delay in arranging and setting up the left half of this very large stand, which is among the largest in the exhibition at Olympia. I have to express deep regret that, owing to the organising committee of this exhibition under-estimating the time that
594
it would take fully to arrange and equip this particular exhibit—the hall having only been taken for nine days when a longer period would have been justified—the exhibit was, I believe, still being arranged up to midnight on Sunday. I think it was suggested that when it was ready for the public to see this morning it was in a disorganised condition, but that is not the fact. The fact is that it is a very fine exhibit, and the public are able to see it, as we believe, effectively shown. All those who choose to visit the exhibition cannot, I think, fail to feel proud of this splendid display of Empire produce, including British produce, which appears so well staged at Olympia. I mention this only because I venture to hope that nothing that may be said in this House may lead the public generally to suppose that this exhibit is not a very fine one and well worthy of a visit of inspection. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the House, and if I have not effectively answered the noble Lord opposite I would remind him that, as I said, I had only a moment's notice to take the place of my noble friend Lord Lovat. If the noble Lord is not satisfied, I shall be pleased to see that he has an effective answer at a later date.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think we are very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, for bringing this matter before the House. I am bound to say that I do not think that the noble Lord opposite has even attempted to answer the main allegation put forward by the noble Lord. I may remind him that when we had a discussion on agriculture in this House not long ago I myself raised the point, and he then asked me not to press for any further answer because the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, had put down his Question, which was coming forward on a subsequent day. What is the complaint? I am not going into matters of detail that have already been thoroughly put before your Lordships by Lord Strachie. The complaint is that, at a very difficult time in the history of agriculture in this country, our taxpayers, including the farmers, are called upon to give a protection against themselves by advertising, through the Empire Marketing Board, competing goods. That is a very hard measure indeed. There is not the

595
slightest doubt that the greatest difficulty that at present confronts the farmers of this country is the want of marketing facilities. The noble Lord is quite aware of that. If this money is to be expended—I am not now dealing with particular sums—in improving marketing facilities, I say without any hesitation that it ought to have gone to the assistance of our own farmers and not to that of their competitors.
I do not want to find any fault with schemes to further Imperial trade, but it is not right that Imperial or any other trade should have these artificial subsidies—for that is what it comes to—which tell to the disadvantage of our own farmers and our own agricultural interests. I am sure that neither the noble Lord nor any one else can dispute what I say, and, in regard to marketing facilities, one of the most important needs is that of adequate advertisement. I am not discussing what particular proportion of the sums that have been mentioned as being expended on publicity will inure to the benefit of British farmers. The question is why we should provide money to give this publicity to our competitors, who, as the noble Lord has pointed out, have subsidies from their own Governments at the present time. And this is done by the Government which professes to have agricultural interests at heart! There can be no answer to this. It is not a question of proportions, although a very large amount of this money is, in fact, entirely devoted to advertising competitive producers. But that is not the point. The point is why, at a time when our own industry is being starved, as some people say for the want of proper marketing facilities, should the taxpayer of this country have to provide money for the competitive producer? Personally I cannot find any answer.
Take the case of fruit, to which the noble Lord referred. We have all seen these fruit advertisements. I will give you two illustrations on the question of fruit. I know a neighbour of mine who planted a very large amount of orchard, 40 or 50 acres, about twenty years ago. It was very costly and there has been no return, although it means a great deal to keep an orchard going from year to year. He has never been able to obtain
596
a return in money in excess of his expenditure because of the costliness of marketing facilities and the want of proper marketing facilities. In the year in which he did best he told me he only lost about £5. That is to say, getting his fruit to market cost him about £5 more than what he obtained when it got there. That is the problem. Only the other day I was looking at an orchard and remarked that it had not been well kept up. The owner said that he sent to a Department—I think it was the Ministry of Agriculture—and asked them what he should do to it. The answer of their representative was: "Do nothing. If you like to see the blossom in your garden well and good. Under the present conditions, and with the amount that is going to be spent in advertising your competitive producers, do not spend a farthing on it. It will all go waste."
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Lord does not suggest that that opinion was expressed by a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture?
LORD PARMOOR: I said I was not sure it was the Ministry of Agriculture. It was a representative of the Research Department of (it may have been) one of the Universities. It was the recommendation made by a researchist sent down by a Research Department at the request of a grower who had a great desire to manage his orchard in a proper manner. "Impossible," was the answer, "you may like to see the blossom, but any expenditure beyond that under present conditions would be sheer waste." Again, why should cheese be advertised? Like the noble Lord, I am a Free Trader and a tremendous opponent of Protection to our farmers, although one may say it is very difficult to find any other method of getting them prosperity. In those circumstances, what answer has the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, given to what is the real complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie? Not only is there no protection but you are giving a subsidy of a very important amount from the taxes of this country, to which our farmers contribute their proportionate amount, in order to promote artificially a competition which is already subsidised by the producing country. That appears to me unthinkable unless you take the view, which some people do, that all the

597
land of this country should be let go to waste and that we should only regard the industrial side of our life. To my mind that would be the most fatal mistake any country could make. Why should you conduce to it when you profess, as part of your policy, to be the farmer's friends?
The mischief is that you have dangled Protection, which is found to be impossible. You have promised these debts of honour—although I do not understand why the undertakings of the imperial Conference should be called debts of honour when they cannot be more than suggestions—to our Colonies and their answer, speaking from considerable experience with them, is not gratitude. They think how foolish you are to, think that they are going to be hound by the present conditions. They say they will free themselves from the necessity of our manufacturing produce in the course of time and to-day a very large number of them do not ask for that sort of treatment. In their political life there it is, I believe, popular. It would be very popular if we could say here that Australia was going to have a system of advertising English apples, which would give us a market, although under non-artificial conditions we would have no chance at all. I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, who is very interested in these matters, would be only too glad to be able to make a statement of that kind before his agricultural friends. It would not be a sound statement, but it would be a very popular one. This is not a matter of mere figures but of fundamental principle. I think it is fundamentally wrong to spend any of our taxpayers' money in advertising competitive produce, whether from our Imperial Dominions or elsewhere, as against our farmers' produce.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I would like to add one word in reply to what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord. I quite agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, that we ought to do nothing which is inimical to the interests of British agriculture, but we have of course to consider the interests of British agriculture and the interests of British trade. We have also to consider the interests of our Dominions.
598
I take British agriculture and British trade first. I am not a doctrinaire Free Trader like the two noble Lords. We believe that it is a distinct benefit to this country to receive the preferences which our Dominions give us. They are extremely valuable to the trade of this country, but it is not unnatural that the Dominions should expect some reciprocal advantage from this country if they give preferences. That was apparent to the representatives of the then Government Who formed part of the Imperial Conference in 1923 and, in return for the preferences which were granted by the Dominions and which were extremely valuable, certain preferences were promised by the British Government.
It was, however, found impossible to implement that pledge for the reasons which have been stated. The General Election decided against those preferences. It then became incumbent upon us to find some other method of reciprocal treatment in return for these very valuable preferences which the Dominions gave us. I have nothing to say, of course, if the noble Lords opposite do not value the preferences that the Dominions gave us. That is simply a broad difference of opinion between us. I believe the manufacturing community of this country agree with the Government that those preferences are very valuable. It was incumbent upon us to find some reciprocal arrangement and this Empire Marketing Board was the arrangement hit upon with a view to making good what was omitted in consequence of the General Election which followed the Imperial Conference of 1923.
That was the situation and undoubtedly there was a very reasonable feeling, which was eloquently voiced in the speech with which the noble Lord opposite opened the debate this afternoon, on the part of the British agricultural community, that they ought not to be left out if there was to be this Empire Marketing Fund for the benefit of Empire trade. They made a strong and convincing case, and consequently British agriculture was joined with the other Empire interests and the Empire Marketing Fund was consequently to be devoted not merely to research and advertising in respect of Empire produce, but of British produce also; and I think really the presence of my noble friend,

599
the Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, upon the Empire Marketing Board, was because that very complaint was made. He represents British agriculture on the Board, and that appears to be a very reasonable arrangement. You have the Empire Marketing Fund for the sake of the Empire, but you do not allow British agriculture to be left out in the cold. You put a representative on the Board and see that everybody is treated fairly under the arrangement. That is broadly the policy which the Government have pursued, and I think it is a reasonable policy.
I would suggest to noble Lords opposite that although we must do our very utmost, as I have already said, for British agriculture and British trade, we must also consider the interests of the Dominions. No one who has been to the Dominions, as I have had the honour of going, can fail to be conscious that it is vital to keep up the solidarity of our interests with the Dominions. They cannot be ignored, and ought not to be ignored, and every point that we can stretch in their favour ought to be stretched, so long as we do not injure British trade. Of course the people who ought to suffer, if I may say so, and the people whom we intend to suffer, are the foreign traders—the importers from foreign countries. We wish them to suffer, not per se, not because be dislike them, but because we think the produce of our own Dominions and of our own country ought to be preferred before them. That is our policy.
Let me take an example given by the noble Lord, who mentioned the case of fruit. He seemed to forget that fruit produced in Australia and South Africa is produced at a totally different time of year to fruit produced here. He forgets the difference of latitude. The result is that there ought to be no real competition between Empire fruit, so far as it is produced in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and fruit grown in this country. If I remember aright that was the point urged upon me when I was in Australia at about this time last year. That is just an example of how, by a little adjustment, you can give a preference and help Dominion produce without injuring in any respect the produce of our own country. I would like noble Lords
600
opposite to approach this subject in this spirit—namely, that of doing our utmost for the Dominions so long as we do not injure the produce of this country. If they will approach the subject in that way I think they will come to the conclusion that there is justification for the policy which we have pursued.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in the discussion, nor should I do so but for the appeal which has been made to us that we should have regard to the question of preference, and attach more importance to it. I would like to put to the noble Marquess two questions. At the present moment all British goods going into Canada are subject to an average rate of 18 per cent. Goods from all other countries pay an average rate of 15 per cent. Does he call that preference to the goods of this country? The other point is with regard to the Advertising Exhibition which is going on at the present moment. He appealed to us that we should have regard to the produce which the self-governing Dominions send over. Ts it too much to ask that they, in their turn, will allow advertisements of British goods to go into their country at something less than the crushing tariff which Canada proposes to put upon advertisements of British goods? If he will be good enough to put that point to the Department of Overseas Trade if it is to be, and before it is, abolished. I shall be very much obliged.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I cannot say that I am satisfied with the refusal of the noble Lord to give a return, because I do not think he has made it very clear to the average person how the money is spent; but I should like to refer to what the Leader of the House said, to the effect that we ought to encourage Colonial goods, without injuring ourselves. Of course I agree with him, but the whole of the gravamen of my complaint was that we are doing exactly the opposite. I do not think the noble Marquess will deny that at the present moment British agriculture is in a serious condition and that this is not the moment when we should spend one penny in getting competition from abroad.
I was surprised at the reference of the noble Marquess to fruit. He did not refer to Canada. Take the case of apples. The Empire Marketing Board is spending

601
money on an office in Liverpool to enable Canadian apples to be sold in this country. I happen to be a large grower of apples, and I am constantly being told to put my apples on the market at once, because if I do not I shall have Canadian apples rushing in and bringing the prices down. This applies also in the case of apples from Australia and New Zealand. I have good storage, and I could keep ripples for six months or more, but I cannot keep them because in that case I should get Australian and New Zealand apples, which are advertised all over the country, coining into competition with my own. I say that it is not fair that money should be spent on advertising at the cost of the British taxpayer, to enable these apples to come in and compete with home produce. How on earth the noble Marquess can say that it does not injure the home trade to advertise the goods of your competitors I cannot conceive. I am entirely dissatisfied with the reply, and must press my Motion.
On Question, Motion negatived.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS.
LORD MILDMAY OF FLETE LORD MILDMAY OF FLETE rose to call attention to the position in relation to the pollution of rivers; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on February 15 last there was received by the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, on behalf of the Prime Minister, a very representative deputation, which approached him with a view to impressing upon the Government the necessity of dealing with the growing menace of river pollution. Their case, which was set forth in their memorandum, in effect urged what had been proposed over and over again by many Royal Commissions and Committees for fifty years past. They asked that a central authority should be established to control inland waters, and that local river boards should be created in support of that central authority. They also urged the necessity for scientific research, designed to solve the innumerable problems attendant on the abatement of pollution. The deputation was organised by a joint committee of the British Waterworks Association and the Salmon and Trout Association, but the two associations were supported by many other bodies, including the National
602
Association of Fishery Boards, the Association of Medical Officers of Health, the Federation of British Industries, and the Federation of British Anglers, which represents a very large body of working-class fishermen who seek recreation in inland waters. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Pure Rivers Society also sent representatives.
The deputation was the culmination of a movement which was started in June, 1921, by a conference which was held at Fishmongers' Hall on the initiative of the Salmon and Trout Association. As a consequence of that conference a deputation was received by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in October of the same year, the deputation being accompanied by representatives of the Federation of British Industries. As an outcome of that deputation there was established what has since become known as the Standing Committee on River Pollution of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of that Departmental Committee I have been a member ever since its establishment, very nearly six years ago. Membership of that Committee, as set up by the Government, includes representatives of fishery boards of England and Wales, owners and occupiers of salmon and trout waters, representatives of working men anglers' associations, representatives of the Federation of British Industries and of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. If evidence were required of the self-sacrificing zeal of the members of that Committee it would suffice to point out that the Committee is purely voluntary, that it has held continuous meetings for nearly six years past, and that all the expenses of attending those committee meetings in London have been discharged by the members themselves, without any help from the Government, although some of them, especially the members of anglers' associations coming from a distance, can ill afford to do so.
The Committee held their first meeting in December, 1921, under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, who spoke to us of the services we could render (I quote his words):—
"by collecting evidence of the damage due to pollution, and by preparing for further

603
and more advanced legislation by organised intelligence work."
He went on:—
"I think the Committee will be a valuable instrument in spreading information throughout the country and in stirring up popular feeling in favour of clean rivers."
The Committee have endeavoured so to act. At the same time they have tried by such means as are at their disposal to abate pollution by enlisting the co-operation of the polluters.
The Federation of British Industries being represented upon our Committee, we have always acted upon the assumption that those who control great industries will welcome such assistance as we can give them to purify their effluents. I am glad to say that our subsequent experience has fully justified that assumption, and that our relations with all the great industrial concerns with which we have been brought into contact have been most amicable. We have tried to act as advisers and friends, rather than as policemen. We have throughout adopted what I think is the reasonable view, that an improvement in the conditions of our rivers must be brought about without injury to the important industrial interests involved. We have thought that we might achieve this by making known in each locality the actual state of affairs, and to this end, with the assistance of the technical advisers of the Ministry and of local sub-committees, with the assistance also of local sanitary authorities, we have carried out a survey of a number of rivers, and have amassed much information about their condition and about the sources of pollution.
But—and here is the "snag"—neither our Committee nor the Ministry have any executive power to give effect to the conclusions resulting from the information which we have already acquired. Fishery boards have powers under the Act of 1923 to prosecute those guilty of harmful pollution, but the case against individual polluters is often very hard to prove, and action cannot be taken until the mischief has been done. Fishery boards as a rule can ill afford the expenses of prosecution. Moreover, our Committee think that prosecution is the wrong method. We have looked to helpful and friendly co-operation with industry as the best means of bringing about a better state of affairs. Further, many polluters have not been in a position to abate pollution,
604
through ignorance of the means of effective treatment. So I press the point—advise and help before you prosecute.
But the point in this connection which I specially wish to make is that in any case the whole burden of protecting our rivers from impurities should not be thrown upon the shoulders of those concerned with fisheries. It is not only the well-being of our fisheries which is at issue; the question is a far greater one than that, and has a more far-reaching importance. It is no exaggeration to say that every member of the community, whether he has fishery interests or not, should be deeply concerned about the purity of our rivers, which is of supreme importance in respect of domestic water supplies, in respect of water power, in respect of agriculture, and in respect of local amenities. Water authorities are beginning to realise that the available underground supplies of water are nearing exhaustion, and that they will be obliged in the not distant future to take water supplies from the rivers themselves. Pure water in these rivers, therefore, is absolutely necessary. Perhaps it may be said that those who employ water power, at any rate, need not fear pollution, but even to some of them it is a matter of considerable importance, as, for instance, when an electric power company finds its turbines and tubes choked with the slime of pollution.
Of course, the agricultural interest is vitally affected. Farmers require clean water as drinking supplies for their cattle, and for domestic and dairy purposes. Many cases can be adduced where, as a result of pollution, streams flowing through farms are actually poisonous to cattle, or are so offensive that the cattle will not drink the water. Not by any means the least important consideration is that of local amenities. Both the physical and mental health of the communities established in proximity to our great towns would be vastly improved if the rivers which we have allowed to be converted into sewers were available, not only for angling but for other means of enjoyment, such as bathing and boating. In such a case there would be added to the surroundings such beauty as is inseparable from a pure and healthy stream, but which is incompatible with a dirty drain. But it is not only the great rivers of our country that I have in mind.

605
There is many a small river, even in lovely Devonshire, which in time of summer drought stinks at various points. Many such rivers—I know that well myself—are treated as a dumping ground for all the filth of the district, and it seems to be forgotten that these streams are a national asset and a national possession. It is a national affair, because they belong to the people.
This memorandum (which I have here) that was presented to the Earl of Balfour by the deputation, shows how the problems of pollution have constantly engaged the attention of Royal Commissions, of Select and Departmental Committees, of scientific bodies and of other institutions for more than half a century, and how all have agreed that some form of central authority is absolutely necessary in view of the lack of co-ordination which exists amongst those bodies that have control of rivers—lack of co-ordination which has resulted in confusion and indifference. Cognisant of the need for economy, we of the Committee have refrained from urging the adoption of any procedure which may entail heavy expenditure, and we have expressly declared that we do not contemplate the establishment of a new Government Department. But there has been insistence upon two points: first, that some kind of central authority is essential, and that in order to ensure smooth working in such central authority, it must have a national rather than a Departmental basis. I am not sure "national" is exactly the right word. What I mean is that, as more than one Ministry will be affected, it should be a non-Departmental Committee under an independent Chairman, since it will have to co-ordinate the views of several Ministries and Departments. As a necessary complement of such a central body a general institution of river or watershed boards, of which there are a few already, was recommended. Under this system a single authority would have care of each river from the source to the mouth. Finally the co-ordination and extension of research work for the remedial treatment of effluents was suggested.
In answering the deputation last February, the Lord President of the Council very rightly dwelt upon the necessity for research work and he warned us—I quote
606
his own words—that "speedy results could not be expected from scientific research." To some of that deputation he gave the impression that in his opinion much more research work was necessary before any remedial measures could be framed—an impression which was deepened by the silence of the Government, during the past five months and the absence of any constructive suggestions from them. Let me hasten to say that I did not myself derive the same impression from his words and I hope he will be able to dispel that misapprehension to-day. It suffices me to say that we of the Permanent Departmental Pollutions Committee feel strongly that our research work, so admirably carried on for a long time past by scientific experts, has reached such a stage that the time has come for an effort to apply the results locally and to assist with co-operative advice great and small manufacturing concerns to purify their effluents. Continuous research work will always be necessary. New problems are always arising, for instance, in connection with the new sugar beet industry and with coke oven effluents.
But our Pollutions Committee and the Department have urged that we want something more than research. Members of our Committee hold most strongly that we cannot do much more good in present circumstances, and we feel that continued attendance at the meetings of the Committee will be unjustifiable unless the Government take some action in the direction suggested. The noble Earl (the Earl of Balfour) must not look upon this as a threat. It is not a threat; it is merely the honest expression of an opinion as to what our sense of duty requires of us. Let it not be forgotten that the evil is growing. It is common knowledge that comparatively small quantities of tar acids, tar bases, in a stream are fatal to fish life and entirely destroy fish foods. Local authorities have been appealed to to use some less harmful material than tar in proximity to our streams. Some local authorities have responded; others have failed to respond, and it should be possible to insist on their doing so. I should weary your Lordships if I enlarged upon the importance of the salmon and inland

607
fisheries of Great Britain and I am not going to do so. I will only remark that it is often forgotten that the salmon rivers of Great Britain are potentially the most valuable in Europe. That fact is often lost sight of because so many of them are ruined, or practically ruined. To put it shortly, much pollution can be stopped which is the result merely of thoughtless stupidity and ignorance. We cannot wait until perfect means of dealing with all effluents have been discovered when, by the application of means less perfect, pollution can be abated and its growth prevented. What astonishingly good work has been done in this sense by the Teme Basin Committee through the public spirit shown by local authorities in the district of Birmingham. No less effectively has the purity of rivers been ensured by the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board at no excessive cost even in an industrial district.
I would, in conclusion, say that the success achieved in these two cases has led us to believe that through a central authority, backed by adequate local administration, much can be done with the knowledge already gained by research to mitigate pollution and to arrest its development. I owe an apology to your Lordships for having detained you at such length. I must admit that I am an enthusiast where the preservation of the natural beauties of our countryside are concerned. These are being attacked from all quarters. We all know of the benefit which is derived from the great arterial roads radiating from London. But now we are threatened with a criss-cross of great and unlovely motor roads, or rather motor racing tracks, which are to leave no remote or intimately beautiful corner of rural England untouched. The peaceful beauties of rural England, incomparable throughout the world, are, I believe, in real danger and this before the somnolent Englishman is awake to the fact. Apathy must have, and will deserve, fatal consequences. I beg to move.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, my noble friend need have no doubts about either the sympathy of the
608
Government as a whole or of the President of the Council, who appears, for some reason which I am quite unable to understand, to be regarded as lukewarm in the case which he has so eloquently expounded. We are entirely in agreement with him that the pollution of rivers is a great evil. We are entirely in agreement with him that it is an evil which is increasing. Population is growing and with population, inevitably, the difficulties of sewage. The habits of the people are altering and they are altering in a manner which, very admirable in itself, inflicts a greater and greater strain upon the water supplies of the country. The pollution from manufacturing sources is augmented at the same time. The level of the underground water, as he rightly observed, is diminishing, though I hope—in fact I am sure—there is no immediate danger of a water famine in this country. It would be cruel indeed to reflect that we should have to go through such a June and July as we have experienced in the last few weeks, and yet be in want of water.
I entirely agree with him that the fishing industry, both from the point of view of the economic supply of valuable food and from the enjoyment it gives to a very large section of the population, is a real national interest. As for the beauty of rural England, of which he so admirably spoke, there is not one of your Lordships, I am sure, who would not feel with him that that has already suffered terribly under the growth of manufactures which have nothing to do with the water supply, nothing to do with pollution, but have to do with the emission of masses of unconsumed carbon which make whole districts that were once the glory of the country gloomy regions under a perpetual pall of smoke. We are all agreed as to the magnitude of the evil. We are all anxious to diminish it. The question is, how is that to be done?
There are only two possible means, so far as I am aware, by which this embarrassing problem may be attacked, and both of those means not only may be used but must be used. One is increased efficiency of administration and the other is increased knowledge. My noble friend thinks there is a great deal to be done in the way of increased efficiency of administration.

609
It is on that that he principally relies, as I understand it, for the diminution of this national evil. I am very far indeed from suggesting that improved administration is not possible, and, if possible, is not eminently desirable, and the Government propose to do all they can to further that method of attack. How is it to be done? You may legislate, you may increase the severity of your laws against pollution, you may fill the Statute Book with provisions inflicting penalties upon those who pollute. But on that line you will always come across this difficulty, as my noble friend would be the first to agree, that you may have to choose between destroying your manufactures and maintaining the purity of your rivers.
In many cases it is quite impossible to give a decision in favour of the purity of rivers and against the continuance of manufactures. It is on the manufactures that the population live. Our business is, if we can, to make their life as desirable as proper surroundings and cleanly surroundings may make it, but it would be folly if, in our endeavour to make those surroundings as cleanly as we desire, we destroyed the very means by which the population live. I am quite aware that I am not contradicting my noble friend. He would agree, I believe, with that particular proposition. At all events every authority from the Ministry of Health downwards does often, and must often, come into collision in carrying out the laws preserving the purity of rivers with the dilemma of which I speak, and in deciding which horn of that dilemma is to be chosen they are constantly compelled to refrain from enforcing the extreme penalties of the law recognising that to do so might, or might not, be a method of securing the purity of the rivers, but would undoubtedly be a method of securing the ruin of what are at present prosperous and populous communities.
That is one of the difficulties which has to be met and has to be faced. Lip-service is given; it was given—though not merely lip-service—by my noble friend. He admitted that you have to consider the cost of production in dealing with this question, that in many cases no method of purification is possible, and that in other cases it may be possible but is too costly to adopt.
610
How can you deal with that merely by bringing into operation new laws, by adding to your Statute Book, by piling penalty on penalty? You cannot do it that way. The only possible way of dealing with that situation is to find some scientific method by which you will be able to get over the difficulty which is presented, not by the weakness of your laws, but by the difficulty of dealing with the lags of nature. Your laws you can leave, and do leave, and have to leave in many cases, unused to compel the polluter of rivers to abstain from pollution. You cannot do it. That is because you have not learned enough to master the laws of nature, and if you do not master the laws of nature it matters very little what laws you put upon your Statute Book.
I shall deal more with that in a moment, but I entirely agree with my noble friend that probably, indeed certainly, more co-operation is required, that what we have learned from river boards' administration shows that it is well worth considering whether that system may not be extended with advantage and that possibly fresh legislation, or the amendment of existing legislation, should be considered and, may be, adopted. We also agree that the body which is to deal with that should not be a. Departmental body but that it should be an inter-Departmental body. It cannot be an executive body, as some of my noble friend's supporters would desire. That would mean a new Government Department with executive powers, with a Minister responsible to Parliament and answering for the Department in Parliament. I do not think anybody who considers all that such a scheme would involve, would for a moment desire that in addition to the Ministry of Health and the Fisheries Board You should have a super-Minister managing and responsible for another Department putting into effect the laws which exist and perhaps enforcing new laws. But we do think that there should be an Advisory Committee, representing the Ministry of Health and the fishery boards, and not only do we think so but we have already decided upon the Chairman of that Committee, Sir Horace Monro, a gentleman well known to many noble Lords, and they will set to work to deal in an advisory capacity with new legislation, with setting up

611
new river boards, with inducing responsible local bodies to co-operate with each other and with carrying out all those admirable objects on which my noble friend has dilated and which can, we think, be better dealt with by such an Advisory Committee, representing all the Departments concerned, than by any other method that has been suggested.
Before leaving this point I would add a word of caution. Do not let it be supposed that nothing is being done, or has been done, to diminish the curse of polluted rivers. The worst of all the sources of pollution—not, alas! the only one—is sewage, and I am informed that in the financial year that ended on March 31 last loans were sanctioned by the Minister of Health of no less than £2,500,000, not for dealing with sewage as a whole, but for diminishing the sources of pollution. Authority was given. I believe, for loans amounting to £5,000,000 to deal with sewage, and one half of that sum has been devoted to the purpose of preventing sewage from further polluting the rivers of this country. It is therefore evident that much is being done with our present means of knowledge, though they are, alas! very inadequate. There is one point on which—though I speak with diffidence on the matter—I think my noble friend somewhat exaggerated the evils of the present condition of things. I refer to the effect of our tarred roads upon the fish in the streams. What he said was perfectly true with regard to tar made from coal, but I understand that Trinidad tar does not contain the noxious substances which have such disastrous effects upon fish life, and I confess that I think that a local authority has no excuse for using, in the making and upkeep of our roads, any form of tar that is injurious to fish life when it is in a position to obtain tar Which has none of those noxious properties.
I think that the very fact that we in the last year spent or borrowed for the purification of rivers £2,500,000, and that we are still suffering from all the evils which my noble friend so eloquently described, forces us to the inevitable conclusion that the greatest of all our present needs is further knowledge. I hope and I believe that our knowledge of how to deal with the greatest of all the
612
evils—namely, sewage—is increasing. There was a Royal Commission which, before the War, made a very large number of Reports and made special mention of a method of dealing with sewage, called by the somewhat unattractive name of activated sludge, which they were of opinion is of great promise. It has been largely cultivated in the Birmingham area, of which my noble friend spoke with quite correct appreciation, and it has been tried elsewhere. There still remains much to be done in bringing that process, and perhaps other processes dealing with sewage, to the point of success, but my noble friend will be glad to hear that, on the Committee dealing with the scientific and research side of this problem which the Department for which I am responsible are setting up, the gentleman who was at the head of the admirable work done in the Birmingham district is going to take a place.
The difficulty, however, though sewage is the greatest cause of our ills, is far from being confined to sewage. We are apt to advocate with enthusiasm a particular operation, looking only at the good side of it, forgetting that almost all these advances have a dark side or a less good side as well as the side that excites our particular enthusiasm. This is specially true of some of the manufacturing effluents which cause so much ill to our waters. For example, my noble friend said quite justly that pollution was a great curse to the farmers and that the streams going through their fields were so noxious that the cattle could not drink from them. There is a class of reformers who, with universal approval, so far as I know, say that nothing can be better both for the general health and for the interests of agriculture than the promotion of the milk and cheese industry. But milk and cheese are great offenders in the matter of pollution, and the farmers who produce milk and make cheese are themselves among the industrialists who, in the course of their trade and through no fault of their own, are polluting the very rivers that flow through some of the most beautiful parts of our country. I have little doubt that that is an evil with which, before any great lapse of time, we can effectually deal. I hope so and believe so. But it requires scientific investigation. The method of dealing with it is not satisfactorily settled. It must be investigated and nothing could

613
show more clearly how difficult it is in a progressive manufacturing country like our own to carry out any great industrial development without adding to, or making more difficult, the very problem with which my noble friend desires to deal.
Take another case. We have had debates in this House and in the other House in which the speakers have treated low temperature carbonisation as one of the cures for the coal mining industry, which presents to us at this moment some of the greatest and most difficult problems of an industrial kind. They ask what progress is being made and whether low temperature carbonisation is going to be a success on a large scale. They ask if it is coming to the rescue of our coal industry. I greatly hope that it is, but I have to tell the House at the same time that, if it does, it will present a problem of pollution of an extremely difficult kind. High temperature carbonisation, one of the by-products of which is ammonia, produces an ammonia which at present prices barely pays for its extraction. There have been methods of producing synthetic ammonia which run the ammonia, which is the natural product of high temperature carbonisation, very hard. So that on the great gas industry of the country and the high temperature carbonisation industry of the country the production of ammonia will, I am afraid, soon lay a considerable burden. But with low temperature carbonisation, the ammonia which is one of the natural byproducts of low temperature carbonisation, is in so dilute a form that by universal consent it cannot pay for its extraction by any process at present known to industry. How are you going to deal with that problem? You have there the dilemma of which I have spoken in a very plain and simple form. If you want, as we all want, to see low temperature carbonisation made a paying concern, you will have a new problem of a specially difficult kind in connection with pollution.
Take the coke ovens actually in use now. The Tees used to be not only a most beautiful river, but a river in which the salmon fisheries were of the most valuable kind. Those fisheries have, I understand, been completely destroyed by the effluents of the coke ovens. How are you going to deal with that? We lament the present condition of our steel
614
industry. Our steel industry largely depends upon our coke industry. If you increase the price of coke, you injure one of the greatest and one of the most depressed of our basic industries. How is that dilemma to be dealt with by the co-ordination of local authorities, or by the creation of river boards, or by any other of the excellent but inadequate specifics mentioned by my noble friend? I will take another case. We have had to-day, since the House met, a debate in which the lamentable position of British agriculture was one of the incidental arguments used with great effect by the speakers on both sides of the House. One of the methods by which the Government have desired to improve the condition of British agriculture, as well as to supply the population of this country with one of the necessities of modern life, has been the beet sugar industry. Immense public subventions have been made to that industry. It is still in an infant state. Everybody desires to see it expand, but the effluents of the beet industry are extremely poisonous and nobody has yet, so far as I am aware, found a method of adequately dealing with them.
If it does not weary your Lordships, will take a third case. Of all the great industrial developments of recent years which owe their existence to British invention and British skill, the artificial silk industry is by far the most important. There is no other, so far as I am aware, which deserves that description and which compares with it. The effluents of the artificial silk industry are extremely noxious. How are you going to deal with them? Are they going to be dealt with by having an increased co-operation between local authorities? By river boards? Local authorities and river boards are required; they may help in the application of any discovery which may be made on the subject. But the discovery has to be made and the best machinery for making the discovery is not, on the whole, through these local authorities, who do most valuable work, no doubt, in many cases but whose officials, able as they are, have to carry on their heavy and urgent duties day by day and, broadly speaking, cannot be expected to carry on the kind of research which is obviously required in dealing with a situation of that sort.

615
Is it wise to underrate the work which has to be done outside administration and outside legislation? The Departments concerned have devised a method of improving administration. They have devised a method by which advice can be given on legislative improvement but I repeat, although perhaps it is regarded as a method of showing indifference to the cause, that you must have something more than that and that something more than that can only be supplied by the work of some such organisation as my Department has already set up, and to which I have already referred, for carrying on this work of research. I can give the names of the gentlemen who are on this Committee, and I am sure they will receive universal approval. They have been selected in consultation with the other Departments of the State who have to deal with this subject, and they contain the names of men of science, who have devoted great attention to this subject. If they cannot help us solve the difficulties, or many of the difficulties, to which I have referred, I do not know where we are to look.
The gentlemen in question are: Sir Robert Robertson, K.B.E., F.R.S., Professor V. H. Blackman, F.R.S., Professor F. G. Donnan, C.B.E., F.R.S., Sir Alexander Houston, K.B.E., C.V.O., Mr. H. C. Whitehead, M.I.C.E., and Dr. G. C. Bourne, F.R.S. I think it is the last named gentleman, or Mr. Whitehead, of whom I spoke just now as having done such admirable work in connection with the Birmingham scheme of dealing with sewage. To these gentlemen, as assessors, are added, Mr. H. G. Maurice, C.B., Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr. W. L. Calderwood, F.R.S.E., Fishery Board for Scotland, Mr. D. Ronald, M.I.C.E., F.R.S.E., Scottish Board of Health, and Mr. R. J. Simpson, O.B.E., Ministry of Health. I ought to say that the Director is Dr. H. T. Calvert, M.B.E., who is, I suppose, the highest authority on this kind of investigation that we possess.
That Water Pollution Research Board is actually at work. It has held meetings. It is conducting its investigations. It will have to co-ordinate and collect a vast mass of information, now scattered over the world; but do not let there be any delusion that we alone are troubled with these problems. It is true that we
616
are troubled with them more than any other country because we are the most crowded country, our rivers are small rivers, and our population is growing. Therefore, we feel the evil more acutely than our neighbours. But research is going on in Germany and America, and I know it is going on in Holland, and no doubt in other countries. In our own country research in a scattered way is largely going on, but all this mass of information requires to be collected and co-ordinated before the best use can be made of it. Before we can effectively add to it the Board must know not only what it is but must take steps—and they will take steps—to see that all the information which is of value is distributed to the authorities who are responsible for the purity of our streams.
Of course, the collection of information is not all that has to be done. It is knowledge which must be added to as well as co-ordinated, and unquestionably this Committee, working in co-operation with all the local authorities—in co-operation, as it must, and will, with every scientific authority in the Kingdom upon this subject—may, and I am sure will, do much to help in the practical solution of this pressing problem. The last thing that the Government think of doing is to belittle the need for a great effort, but we feel emphatically that merely to what is called strengthen your legislation, which means, as a rule, increasing your penalties and multiplying your prosecutions, is not the way of salvation. They feel that while closer co-operation and better organisation of your local authorities may do much it cannot do everything.
I have doubly failed in my intentions if I have not persuaded those who have done me the honour of listening to me how difficult are the actual industrial and scientific problems before us; if I have not been able to show your Lordships that those problems are, from the nature of our civilisation, increasing problems—increasing partly because the sewage question must grow with a growing population and also because the manufacturing problems must also grow with the growth and progress of our manufactures. Most of these great industrial movements carry with them inevitable evils and inevitable difficulties.

617
It was science and invention which gave us the inventions. It must be science and invention to which we must look for dealing with the collateral evils which those inventions have produced. I believe and hope that that far-reaching scheme of reform which I have endeavoured to outline to your Lordships, including, as it does, methods of obtaining improved legislation where improved legislation is required, including, as it does, machinery for inducing a closer co-operation with your local authorities, and new organisations where new organisations are required, and including, as it does, the best machinery we can devise for dealing scientifically with scientific problems, may do something to mitigate an evil which every one of us must deplore.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I desire in the first instance to thank Lord Mildmay for having initiated what I hope may be a helpful debate. I also want to thank the noble Earl who last addressed the House for the step forward which he has indicated the Government are prepared to take in connection with a matter of vital importance, not merely to fish but to the whole health of the community.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: And have begun to take.
LORD GAINFORD: And have begun to take. I have no authority, as I had when I addressed the noble Earl on February 15 last, to speak on behalf of the fishery boards of this country, of the water boards, and all the medical officers, and other local authorities who are interested in the health of the community. On that occasion we made representations to him in regard to something more being done by the Govern-men, than has hitherto been done. Like Lord Mildmay I have had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee for six years, and of doing our utmost to try to bring all the authorities into one co-ordinated body, to work together in order to cleanse and purify the rivers and estuaries of this country. We have succeeded in doing a good deal but we have come to the end of our tether, and on February 15 we asked
618
certain definite things from the Government. I want to point out where the Government are not quite meeting us in the views which we then expressed on behalf of all these bodies, which met together and put forward the points upon which they had agreed. What we asked for was the appointment of a permanent Central Committee of five representatives of Government Departments and one or two representatives of boards, which would have power to co-ordinate the varying interests with the object of preventing or reducing the pollution of our rivers and estuaries. To some extent our request has been already met by the Advisory Committee which has been established, but the noble Earl has not satisfied me in regard to the powers which this body will possess.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: There are two bodies created. There is a body which represents the two Departments concerned. That deals with administration, with all the things which are out side scientific research. There is another body entirely devoted to scientific research, which, of course, will co-operate and communicate with, and receive advice from the first Committee, but which is entirely different, under a different Department, and with an entirely different personnel.
LORD GAINFORD: I am glad the noble Earl made that explanation. But it does not quite meet my point, because what the noble Earl seems to have set before himself is a problem of a scientific character.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Not a bit. There are two problems. I am very sorry to interrupt, and am very much ashamed that my own exposition was so obscure. I said there was an administrative problem—that is number one. To deal with that we have appointed a Committee representing the Departments concerned. There is a scientific problem—number two; for that we have appointed a Committee representing the only Department of the Government which has to deal with science. They will co-operate, but they must not be confused; on the contrary, they must be sharply distinguished.
LORD GAINFORD: I am glad the noble Earl has made it quite clear that there

619
is an administrative department which is going to be set up as well as the scientific one. But it is the practical question rather than the scientific one on which I want to speak. Those of us who have sat upon this Committee representing fishery boards, the Federation of British Industries, and other organisations, feel that science has reached a position which will enable practical steps to be taken to a much greater extent than they have been taken hitherto. But, as the noble Earl knows, we have been met by what I may call inter-Departmental jealousy. You have the Ministry of Health, which is anxious to secure what I may term pure water to any amount for the community. You have another Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, which is anxious to help the beet industry, and for that purpose is prepared to pollute water. You have great interests, such as water boards, which want on every occasion to take out a certain amount of water from the rivers independently of the interests of the fish in them. You have the Fisheries Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries anxious that in a period of drought there should be sufficient water flowing down the rivers to maintain fish alive. In this way we have found that different departments even in one Government office take up different interests, and that it is absolutely essential that there should be a Central Committee set up, with an independent Chairman, such as the man who has distinguished himself at the Local Government Board, and who, we hope, will now take an independent view, not a purely departmental view. That is all to the good.
But where I think there is a great danger is in practical steps not being taken which can be taken at the present time. The noble Earl said we had to choose between destroying a manufacture or securing the purity of a river. Speaking generally, I do not think that is true. It may be true in some cases that the alternative may be between purifying a river or stopping an industry, but science has already reached a position which enables most industries to find a cheap method by which the effluents which now go into our rivers can be converted into non-poisonous effluents. Take, for instance, the West Riding of Yorkshire. The improvement in the rivers
620
flowing into the Ouse has been extraordinary in the last few years, and what has that been due to? It has been due to the action taken by district councils in the area of the watershed of the Ouse.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Are all your rivers pure?
LORD GAINFORD: They are not all pure, and I will explain why. In the area concerned there are fifty rural districts. Of that number twenty-nine do not allow any poisonous effluents from any works to enter rivers. The result in those areas has been an extraordinary improvement in the purity of the rivers flowing through those districts. But there are sixteen areas which allow poisonous effluents to go into those rivers, and there are four which appear to be not very much concerned, and which give conditional permission. Action has been taken by the twenty-nine authorities of a very severe kind, and they have prosecuted anybody who poisoned the rivers. That has not stopped the industries, because where an action of that kind is taken time is always given to an industry to remedy the defects and to treat the effluents in the most practical way. I am quite sure a great deal can be done. What I take exception to is that we have hitherto been studying too much the scientific side, although I do not underrate its value, and I want it to be continued, and all the research money we can spend wisely on this work ought to be spent. What I do say is that there is a great deal of poisonous matter going into our rivers which ought not to go in, and when the noble Earl said that sewage was the worst evil he said what was perfectly true.
The Ministry of Health insists upon this sewage going into our rivers borne by gravity; at the same time it expects pure water to be provided. There is and has been a pressure exerted in many cases to deal with sewage disposal so that the sewage shall not go into our rivers. I will take the case of the river with which I am conversant as Chairman of the Fishery Board and as one who has served on municipal and county bodies in the district. I know that the town of Darlington on the river Tees has spent over £100,000 in keeping its sewage out of the river. The result is

621
that part of the river adjacent to that large manufacturing town on the banks of the Tees is pure, while a little lower down you have towns like Stockton, Thornaby and Middlesbrough that do not attend to their sewage in the same way that Darlington does. At the present time 250 miles of main sewers from the town of Middlesbrough discharge direct into the Tees and destroy the fish life. It seems to me that a body ought to have power, not of course to call upon corporations to spend enormous sums of money in order to alter their sewage disposal system, but to prevent any further extension of water-borne sewage and gradually to reduce that which already exists. In that way I think a solution of this problem can be found. The country does not realise the importance of the purity of our rivers, or there would be a much greater outcry about the filth that is allowed to go into the rivers of this country.
Let me take another case from the river Tees, to which the noble Earl alluded. It is perfectly true that in 1923 160,000 lbs. of salmon and trout were caught at the estuary by the nets. These were migratory salmon and trout wanting to go up the river. Last year instead of 160,000 lbs. the quantity taken was 7,700 lbs. The noble Earl said that diminution was due entirely to the acids connected with coke oven plants, but last year, during the strike, there were no acids going into the river from those plants, because there were no coke ovens at work. Yet the poison was proved to be going on, not through the tar acids but through the sewage. It is the sewage just as much as the tar acids that has prevented the Tees from again becoming and maintaining itself as a pure river suitable for the production of fish life. The noble Earl alluded to the fact that £2,500,000 had been borrowed last year in order to diminish sewage. That is another indication that something is being done by some authorities, but it is not nearly enough. The very fact that that is being done does indicate that much more might be done in the same direction.
My only criticism to-day is that these Committees do not represent any outside authority interested in the work. I am not saying the individuals on those
622
bodies are not competent to deal with the subject. I do not understand exactly what their powers will be, although I am quite sure we shall have their good will. Nor do I know whether the Standing Advisory Committee which was established in 1921 is to continue its operations and to advise the Government and these Committees. I feel, however, that a step forward has been taken, and so far as I am able to speak on behalf of fishery boards, I hope the step that the Government has taken will produce good results. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that it is advisable that the Committees should keep very closely in touch with industrialists as well as with the various authorities—water boards and others. There is a disposition, created by the Advisory Committee that has been sitting for the last six years, to secure co-operation between industrialists and the fishery boards, and what we on that Committee feel is that, although a great deal has been done, we are not getting full use of such powers as exist. What is required by those who now pollute the rivers is not only scientific research work, but practical men to go round and tell them what are the steps that they ought to take in order to treat the effluents which go into the rivers and estuaries. If something practical of that character could be undertaken by the Government officials working in co-operation with these Committees a great deal could be done to improve the purity of our rivers.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am a disciple of the gentle art and I am sure every man in this country who uses either a net or a rod will be very grateful to Lord Mildmay of Flete for calling attention to the pollution of rivers. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, stated that we are to have an Advisory Committee presided over by Sir Horace Monro. I am sure that statement will please every man in the country who catches fish with a net or a rod. Besides that, the noble Earl held out great hope with regard to the pollution of rivers in this country, because he told us that expert scientists were to deal with the question of pollution by effluents seat into the rivers by manufacturers and others. My noble friend Lord Mildmay of Flete mentioned the Salmon and Trout Association. I am one of the oldest

623
members of that Association. My only reason for stating that is that a great deal of research is being carried out by that body. I agree with Lord Mildmay of Flete that it is much better to advise and help before you prosecute. There is now hope that the rivers of this country will at all events be dealt with. I agree that the increasing population makes it more and more difficult to deal with this question of pollution, but there are means of dealing with it. The noble Lord who spoke last referred to the Tees and Darlington. I often pass through Darlington on my way to and from Scotland and I agree with him that this is a matter which can be dealt with in a certain way. But in regard to one of the other places he mentioned—Middlesbrough—that presents a different proposition altogether. I desire to thank the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for giving such hope to all those who make fishing an industry and get from it a great deal of money. There is more money to be made out of it when rivers get purer and means are taken to deal with this horrible state of affairs which exists in some parts of the country.
LORD MILDMAY OF FLETE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for the attention he has given to the matter and I am most sincerely grateful to him. In his opening remarks he denounced coercive measures. I must have used very obscure language if I did not make it clear that I am as opposed as he is to coercion. I agree also that we must not injure industry. But there is so much pollution which could be stopped. It is the result sometimes of stupidity, but more generally of ignorance. The technical experts at the Ministry say: "We do not have sufficient opportunity of getting into close touch with the great manufacturing concerns and of enabling them to profit by the information we could place at their disposal." I welcome the establishment of a central authority, especially as it is to be presided over by Sir Horace Monro. It all comes to a question of what powers will be enjoyed by the new so-called Advisory Board, what will be the nature of its activities, and what initiative will be allowed to it. I renew my thanks to
624
the noble Earl, the President of the Council, and I will not press my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not think it will be necessary for me to go into details of the history of the Land Tax Commissioners, which is both long and complicated. I think it will suffice to say that this Bill is necessitated by the fact that there is a shortage of land tax commissioners in certain parts of the country. Formerly, a Bill such as this was brought in once in every Parliament, but this is the first Bill that has been introduced since 1906. The reason for that is that in that year a large number of people were appointed to be land tax commissioners, and they have sufficed up to the present time. If there is any point that any of your Lordships think should be made clearer I will endeavour to explain it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MIDWIVES AND MATERNITY HOMES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, the Bill now before the House for Second Reading was in a private Member's hands in another place. It was in charge of the Member for Kincardine and West Aberdeen, Mr. Barclay Harvey, but His Majesty's Government have given it their full assent as it now stands and it has been agreed that in the House of Lords it should be treated as a Government Bill. In Scotland we justly take pride in our public health legislation which, from modest though effective beginnings, has developed into its present form, complete in many respects, but with faults and limitations that are recognised only in

625
course of time, and it is with certain of these so far as they affect maternity services in Scotland that the present Bill is concerned.
The principles of the Bill have the support of the Scottish Departmental Committee on Puerperal Morbidity and Mortality presided over by Lord Salvesen, and of the Central Midwives Board for Scotland and many of the local supervising authorities under the Midwives (Scotland) Act. During last year an Act was passed, applicable only to England and Wales, embodying similar principles. There are at present two Acts in operation in Scotland which are concerned with the service of midwifery. The Midwives (Scotland) Act of 1915 provides for the registration of midwives and their supervision by local authorities under the guidance of the Central Midwives Board for Scotland. It requires midwives to summon medical assistance in cases of emergency and provides that the expense shall be met by the local authority in necessitous cases. The Notification of Births (Extension) Act of 1915 provides for the notification of births in all areas and empowers local authorities to make arrangements for the care of expectant and nursing mothers, and of children under five years of age.
Schemes of maternity service and child welfare are now in operation in most populous areas in Scotland providing for 92 per cent. of the population. While the infant mortality rate is steadily decreasing there has been no similar decrease in maternal mortality. The maternal death rate for the year 1926 was 6·4 per 1,000 births, and the average rate for the previous 12 years has been 6·2 per 1,000 births. On the annual birth rate of about 100,000 this represents an aggregate of over 600 maternal deaths per annum. The maternal death rate in Scotland compares unfavourably with many other countries, and it is in the belief that it can be reduced that the Bill has been brought before your Lordships. The primary aim of the Bill is therefore the reduction of maternal morbidity and mortality in Scotland, and it is proposed to achieve this aim by tightening up and amending the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915, and by providing for the registration and regulation of maternity homes. The alterations in the Midwives Act consist in, firstly, an endeavour to remove
626
the possibility except in genuine emergency of midwifery being undertaken by an unqualified person; secondly, in enabling midwives more readily to call in medical assistance in a case of abnormality or complication; and thirdly, in providing that in any area in which a maternity service and child welfare scheme is not in operation the local authority shall at the patient's request make available the services of a midwife or medical practitioner. Any other points I can explain at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MONEYLENDERS 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 Darling.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licences to be taken out by moneylenders]:
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert:—
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, moneylenders' excise licences shall be in such form as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may direct, and shall be granted on payment of the appropriate duty by any officer of Customs and Excise authorised by the Commissioners to grant them, and regulations made by the said Commissioners may make provision as to the procedure to be followed in making application for moneylenders' excise licences:
"Provided that"
The noble Lord said: I have several Amendments on the Paper, all of which are in the nature of drafting Amendments and make absolutely no alteration to the purport and intention of the Bill. The first Amendment which I have to move

627
is to insert at the beginning of subsection (2) the words printed on the Paper. The object of that is to make it clear that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are the proper authority to which to apply for licences.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (2), before "be liable," to insert "be guilty of a contravention of the provisions of this Act and shall for each offence." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment, and I do not think it needs explaining.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, after ("shall") insert ("be guilty of a contravention of the provisions of this Act and shall for each offence").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH: The next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at the beginning insert ("Provided that").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Certificate required for grant of moneylender's excise licence.
(2) Certificates under this section (in this Act referred to as "certificates") shall be granted by the petty sessional court having jurisdiction in the petty sessional division in which the moneylender's business is to be carried on.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "so, however, that within any part of the metropolitan police district for which a police court is established, a certificate shall not be granted except by a police magistrate." The noble Lord said: This Amendment covers the point concerning police magistrates and county justices, and it provides that in all cases, as in the case of pawnbrokers, applications for a certificate should be made to a police magistrate.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Suspension and forfeiture of certificate, etc.
3.—(1) Where any person, being the holder of a certificate, is convicted of any offence under this Act or under the Moneylenders Acts, 1900 and 1911, the court—
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved in subsection (1) to leave out "the Moneylenders Acts, 1900 and 1911," and to insert "section two or four of the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892, or the Moneylenders Act, 1900." The noble Lord said: This is not exactly a drafting Amendment, but it is a clarifying Amendment and brings the Bill into relation to the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892, which makes it an offence to solicit an infant to make an affidavit.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, leave out ("the Moneylenders Acts, 1900 and 1911") and insert ("section two or four of the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892, or the Moneylenders Act, 1900").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Prohibition of moneylending circulars, etc.
5.—(1) No person shall knowingly send or deliver or cause to be sent or delivered to any person except in response to his written request any circular or other document advertising the name, address or telephone number of a moneylender, or containing an invitation—

(a) to borrow money from a moneylender;

(b) to enter into any transaction involving the borrowing of money from a moneylender;

(c) to apply to any place with a view to obtaining information or advice as to borrowing any money from a moneylender.

Any advertisement, circular, business letter or other similar document sent under this section shall show, where any interest proposed is expressed in terms of a rate, the rate per cent. per annum of interest to be charged.
(3) No moneylender or any person on his behalf shall employ any agent or canvasser for the purpose of inviting any person to borrow money or to enter into any transaction involving the borrowing of money from a moneylender, and no person shall act as such agent or canvasser, or demand or

629
receive directly or indirectly any sum by way of commission or otherwise for introducing or undertaking to introduce to a moneylender any person desiring to borrow money.
(5) Where it is shown that a moneylending transaction was brought about by a contravention of any of the provisions of this section the transaction shall notwithstanding that the moneylender was duly licensed under this Act be void, unless the moneylender proves that the contravention occurred without his consent or connivance.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved to leave out all words in subsection (1) after paragraph (c). The noble and learned Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment, intended to carry out what was resolved in the House of Commons during the passage of the Bill but was not expressed with the clearness that is advisable in an Act of Parliament. That is why it is proposed to leave out these words and to substitute others by an Amendment that I shall move in a moment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 12 to 16.—(Lord Darling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEhad given Notice to move, in subsection (3), after "sum," to insert "or inducement." The noble Viscount said: My noble and learned friend Lord Darling thinks the word "inducement" too vague, and he has suggested that I should substitute the words "other valuable consideration." This covers my point, and I beg to move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, after ("sum") insert ("or other valuable consideration".(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DARLING: My next Amendment, after subsection (3), is consequential upon that which your Lordships accepted a moment or two ago.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, at end insert—
("(4) Where any document issued or published by or on behalf of a moneylender purports to indicate the terms of interest upon which ho is willing to make loans or any particular loan, the document, shall either express the interest proposed to be charged in terms of a rate per cent. per annum or show the rate per cent. per annum represented by the interest proposed to be charged as calculated in accordance with the
630
provisions of the First Schedule to this Act.")—(Lord Darling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved, in subsection (5), to substitute "illegal" for "void." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is absolutely necessary to carry out the intention of those who passed this Bill through the House of Commons. The distinction between an agreement that is void and an agreement that is illegal is familiar to lawyers and it has consequences which are very well known to those who administer justice in the Courts. I think I can assure your Lordships that this Amendment is necessary if the intention of the Bill is to be carried out.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, leave out ("void") and insert ("illegal.") (Lord Darling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Form of moneylender's contracts.
6.—(1) No contract for the repayment of money lent by a moneylender after the commencement of this Act shall be enforceable unless a note or memorandum in writing of the contract be made and signed personally by every party to be charged, and unless a copy thereof be delivered or sent to the borrower within seven days of the making of the contract.
(2) The note or memorandum aforesaid shall contain all the terms of the contract and in particular shall show the date on which the loan is made, the amount of the principal of the loan, and where the interest, charged on the loan is expressed in terms of a rate, the rate per cent. per annum of interest charged.
(3) No contract for the repayment of money lent by a moneylender after the commencement of this Act, whereby the interest charged on the loan is not expressed in terms of a rate, shall be enforceable unless, before the note or memorandum of the contract was signed as aforesaid, the moneylender had delivered to the borrower a statement in writing signed by the moneylender showing the rate per cent. per annum represented by the interest charged as calculated in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "seven" and insert "three." The right rev. Prelate, said: I am asking your Lordships to substitute three days for seven as the period to elapse between the signing of the note or memorandum

631
and the sending of a copy of the contract. Seven days seems to be an unnecessarily long time and to make frauds much more possible. You are dealing with two classes of people. The first includes persons who are not only extremely capable business men but are sometimes extremely unscrupulous. The second class consists of those who are often very unbusinesslike and may do extremely foolish things. You have to make your measure not only "knave-proof" but, what is very much more difficult, "fool-proof." When once a memorandum has been signed it is easy for it to be lost, or possibly to be altered, in the seven days before the so-called copy is sent. Accordingly I suggest that the period be shortened from seven days to three.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("seven") and insert ("three").—(The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)
LORD DARLING: I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment, as I think it will be unnecessary if your Lordships agree to the Amendment which stands next upon the Paper in my name and which covers this point. The Bill provides that the note must be signed before the money is lent, and accordingly it does not seem necessary that the Amendment proposed by the right rev. Prelate should be made. The borrower is bound to sign the note or memorandum before the money is lent, and it does not much matter whether he gets the copy of it within seven days or not.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I hope that the right rev. Prelate may consent to withdraw his Amendment. This matter was discussed in another place, and the promoters of the Bill agreed to accept the word "seven" instead of the word "four." If this Amendment were sent back to another place, it might occasion delay. The whole matter was thoroughly discussed there.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved to leave out Clause 6 and insert the following new clause:—
".—(1) No contract for the repayment by a borrower of money lent to him or to any agent on his behalf by a moneylender
632
after the commencement of this Act or for the payment by him of interest on money so lent and no security given by the borrower or by any such agent as aforesaid in respect of any such contract shall be enforceable, unless a note or memorandum in writing of the contract be made and signed personally by the borrower, and unless a copy thereof be delivered or sent to the borrower within seven days of the making of the contract; and no such contract or security shall be enforceable if it is proved that the note or memorandum aforesaid was not signed by the borrower before the money was lent or before the security was given as the case may be.
(2) The note or memorandum aforesaid shall contain all the terms of the contract, and in particular shall show the date on which the loan is made, the amount of the principal of the loan, and either the interest charged on the loan expressed in terms of a rate per cent. per annum, or the rate per cent. per annum represented by the interest charged as calculated in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is really a matter of drafting. It is desired to cover three points that were raised in another place. The clause makes its purpose perfectly clear, and provides, as I have just told your Lordships, that the note or memorandum must be signed before the money is lent. To the word "borrower" are added the words "any agent on his behalf," which make it clear that the protection afforded to guarantors in these matters is not dealt with in this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 20 to 42, leave out Clause 6 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Darling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Prohibition of compound interest and provision as to defaults]:
LORD DARLING: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause, which I beg to move for the reasons that I have given to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("void") and insert ("illegal").—(Lord Darling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Prohibition of charge for preliminary expenses]:
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, leave out ("void") and insert ("illegal").—(Lord Darling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Limitation of time for proceedings in respect of money lent.
13.—(1) No proceedings shall lie for the recovery by a moneylender of any money lent by him after the commencement of this Act or of any interest in respect thereof, or for the enforcement of any agreement made or security taken after the commencement of this Act in respect of any loan made by him, unless the proceedings are commenced before the expiration of twelve months from the date on which the cause of action accrued:
Provided that—
(c) the failure to commence proceedings within the period above specified shall not be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings if the failure was occasioned by absence of the debtor from the United Kingdom, or other reasonable cause.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to omit paragraph (c) of subsection 1 and insert:—
"(c) If at the date on which the cause of action accrues or on which any such acknowledgment and undertaking as aforesaid is given by the debtor, the person entitled to take the proceedings is non compos mentis, the time limited by the foregoing provisions of this section for the commencement of proceedings shall not begin to run until that person ceases to be non compos mentis or dies, whichever first occurs; and
(d) If at the date on which the cause of action accrues or on which any such acknowledgement and undertaking as aforesaid is given by the debtor, the debtor is beyond the seas, the time limited by the foregoing provisions of this section for the commencement of proceedings shall not begin to run until he returns front beyond the seas, so, however, that section eleven of the Mercantile Law Amendment. Act, 1856 (which relates to the limitation of actions against joint debtors where some are beyond seas) shall have effect as if this section were included among the enactments therein referred to as fixing a period of limitation."
The noble Lord said: The object of these two subsections is to bring the clause into line with the other Statutes of Limitation.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, lines 4 to 11, leave out paragraph (c) and insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Special provisions as to pawnbroker's loans]:
Amendment moved—
Page 14, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("five, eleven and twelve") and insert ("six, twelve and thirteen").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:—
Notice and information to be given on assignment of moneylenders' agreements, &c.
".—(1) Where any debt in respect of money lent by a moneylender whether before or after the commencement of this Act or in respect of interest on any such debt or the benefit of any agreement made or security taken in respect of any such debt or interest is assigned to any assignee, the assignor (whether he is the moneylender by whom the money was lent or any person to whom the debt has been previously assigned) shall, before the assignment is made—

(a) give to the assignee notice in writing that the debt, agreement or security is affected by the operation of this Act; and

(b) supply to the assignee all information necessary to enable him to comply with the provisions of this Act relating to the obligation to supply information as to the state of loans and copies of documents relating thereto,

and any person acting in contravention of any of the provisions of this section shall be liable to indemnify any other person who is prejudiced by the contravention, and shall also be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall in respect of each offence be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
(2) In this section the expression 'assigned' means assigned by any assignment inter vivos other than an assignment by operation of law, and the expressions 'assignor' and 'assignee' have corresponding meanings."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is to substitute the words which appear upon the Paper and it is necessary that they should be read together with those which appear in the next Amendment. The effect of the two will be this. They relate to the assigning by moneylenders of the contracts made between the borrowers and themselves. The first clause

635
would provide that any moneylender or subsequent assignee should give notice that the debt or contract assigned is affected by this Act. Otherwise the person who takes the contract may find himself the possessor of something he did not want with some burden upon if. The first part of the second clause provides, with regard to moneylending transactions, that all assignees shall be in the same position as the moneylenders themselves. The proviso to the second clause is practically a re-enactment of Section 1 of the Moneylenders Act of 1911. It ensures that, if in spite of the above Amendments there are any bona fide assignees without notice, they shall be protected as distinct from other classes of assignees.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 30, after Clause 15 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Darling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Saving for right of bona fide holders for value.
16. Section one of the Moneylenders Act, 1911 (which relates to the rights of bona fide holders for value under contracts with moneylenders), shall have effect as though references therein to section two of the Moneylenders Act, 1900, and to defects due to the operation of that section, included references to this Act and to defects due to the operation thereof.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, lines 31 to 37, leave out Clause 16 and insert the following new clause:—
Application of Act as respects assignees.
(".—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the provisions of this Act shall continue to apply as respects any debt to a moneylender in respect of money lent by him after the commencement of this Act or in respect of interest on money so lent or of the benefit of any agreement made or security taken in respect of any such debt or interest, notwithstanding that the debt or the benefit of the agreement or security may have been assigned to any assignee, and, except where the context otherwise requires, references in this Act to a moneylender shall accordingly be construed as including any such assignee as aforesaid:
Provided that—

(a) notwithstanding anything in this Act—

(i) any agreement with, or security taken by, a moneylender in respect of money lent by him after the commencement of this Act shall
636
be valid in favour of any bona fide assignee or holder for value without notice of any defect due to the operation of this Act and of any person deriving title under him; and

(ii) any payment or transfer of money or property made bona fide by any person, whether acting in a fiduciary capacity or otherwise, on the faith of the validity of any such agreement or security, without notice of any such defect shall, in favour of that person, be as valid as it would have been if the agreement or security had been valid: and

(iii) the provisions of this Act limiting the time for proceedings in respect of money lent shall not apply to any proceedings in respect of any such agreement or security commenced by a bona fide assignee or holder for value without notice that the agreement or security was affected by the operation of this Act, or by any person deriving title under him,

but in every such case the moneylender shall be liable to indemnify the borrower or any other person who is prejudiced by virtue of this section, and nothing in this proviso shall render valid an agreement or security in favour of, or apply to proceedings commenced by an assignee or holder for value who is himself a moneylender; and

(b) for the purposes of this Act and of the Moneylenders Act, 1900, the provisions of section one hundred and ninety-nine, of the Law of Property Act, 1925, shall apply as if the expression "purchaser" included a person making any such payment or transfer as aforesaid.

2. Nothing in this section shall render valid for any purpose, any agreement, security, or other transaction which would, apart from the provisions of this Act, have been void or unenforceable.")— (Lord Darling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Short title, citation, construction, repeal, extent and commencement]:
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 15, leave out ("Acts, 1900 and 1911,") and insert ("Act, 1900").
Page 18, lines 20 to 22, leave out from the beginning of line 20 to ("and") in line 22, and insert ("shall be construed as references to that Act as amended by this Act, and this Act shall be construed as one with that Act").
Page 18, line 29, at end, insert:
("Provided that Section one of the Moneylenders Act, 1911, shall continue in force as respects any agreement with or

637
security taken by a moneylender before the commencement of this Act, or any payment or transfer of money or property made, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, on the faith of the validity of any such agreement or security.")
Page 18, line 32, at end, insert—
("Provided that—

(a) subject to the provisions of any regulations or rules made under this Act, licences and certificates may be granted to moneylenders at any time after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven; and

(b) Orders in Council may be made under the provisions of this Act relating to courts to which proceedings on moneylenders' transactions are to be taken at any time after the passing of this Act,

so, however, that no such licence or Order in Council shall come into force until the commencement of this Act.
Nothing in the foregoing proviso shall be construed to limit, or otherwise affect the provisions of Section thirty-seven of the Interpretation Act, 1889.")—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 10, column 3, leave out ("Section two") and insert ("the whole Act").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MEDICAL AND DENTISTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Lovat, I am asked to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I am afraid that owing to the shortness of time, I have been unable to make myself familiar with the contents of the Bill, but I gather it will prove non-contentious and, if there is any point any of your Lordships
638
would like to raise, I think your Lordships would find it more convenient to raise it in Committee. In order to explain the Bill to your Lordships perhaps I had better give your Lordships the information as it was given to me.
As a result of the establishment of the Irish Free State and of the legislation consequent thereon, medical students of Universities in the Irish Free State graduating after December 6, 1922, ceased to be entitled to registration as of right by the General Medical Council (that is, they ceased to be entitled to practice in this country) and the General Medical Council ceased to have any authority over the medical profession and any control over medical education in the Irish Free State. This state of affairs was regarded by the authorities both in the Irish Free State and in this country as undesirable; and at the request of the Irish Free State Government negotiations were begun in 1923 with a view to the restoration, as far as was consistent with the altered status of the Irish Free State, of the position existing prior to the establishment of the Irish tree State. Meanwhile the, General Medical Council agreed to continue to enter medical graduates from the Irish Free State on the register pending the passage of such legislation as it might eventually be decided to introduce. But all such registrations since December 6, 1922, have no legal validity, and one of the objects of the present Bill is to validate them.
The negotiations referred to have for various reasons been prolonged; but they have at length resulted in the Agreement which appears as Part I of the Schedule to the Bill. Sir Donald Macalister, the President of the General Medical Council, has taken a prominent part in all the negotiations and the Agreement has the concurrence and support of the Council. It will also be observed that the Agreement has been signed by Sir Richard Dawson Bates, Minister of Home Affairs, on behalf of Northern Ireland. Briefly, the Agreement provides for the creation of a Medical Council in the Irish Free State who will establish an Irish Free State Register (to which all medical practitioners registered in this country and Northern Ireland will be admissible as of right) and will have complete control of that Register and of the profession in the Irish Free. State. On the other hand, the General Medical Council will

639
continue to admit to the United Kingdom Register all persons who, prior to the establishment of the Irish Free State, would have been admissible thereto in respect of qualifications obtained in the Irish Free State; and for the purpose of keeping the United Kingdom register and controlling the examinations giving the right of admission thereto, the Council will retain in the Irish Free State all the powers formerly possessed by them. Certain alterations in the Irish representation on the Council consequential upon the establishment of the Irish Free State are made by Article 2 of the Agreement.
On the completion of the medical negotiations, discussions were opened regarding the dental profession, in which an almost precisely similar state of affairs had arisen. Sir Francis Acland, Chairman of the Dental Board of the United Kingdom, took part in the discussions and no difficulty was found in reaching an Agreement very similar to the Medical Agreement. This Agreement will be found in Part II of the Schedule. Both Agreements require legislation both in the Irish Free State Parliament and here. An Act confirming the Medical Agreement has already been passed in the Irish Free State and has received Royal Assent, and it is very desirable that the Agreement should be brought into force as soon as possible by the passage of this Bill. The Irish Free State Bill to confirm the Dental Agreement has not yet been passed into law, but it is anticipated that it will be reintroduced and passed into law at an early date. The Irish Free State legislation, in addition to confirming the Agreements, has to provide for the establishment of the new medical and dental authorities in the Irish Free State; it is therefore much longer and more complicated than ours and for this reason has been divided into two Bills. There is no necessity for a similar division in the legislation on this side.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, this is a short Bill with two operative clauses, and its object is merely to regularise a position already in existence. I rejoice to think that the present Government is proceeding to set straight a situation which had arisen long before it came into power, and to legalise Regulations made by its predecessors. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 are to alter a situation which exists under the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act, 1859. Under that Act reservists used to get 2d. a day in addition to their pay after completing three years service on mobilisation. Obviously that was disadvantageous in many ways and created anomalies, and it was arranged by Regulations in 1921 that men joining the Reserve should be paid a bounty on mobilisation. The effect of this Bill will be that this additional payment after three years will be abolished, and the reservist will receive in lieu thereof a lump sum not exceeding £5 when called up. It also extends the £5 bounty to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, who did not get the additional 2d. a day given to other parts of the reserve.
Under subsection (3) of Clause 1 the time during which reservists may be called up for training is extended from 28 days to 92 days. This has already been in existence for a number of years, and I believe in regard to some parts of the Reserve has been in existence since 1905. It is not proposed to extend the training now being given, and I understand that no objection is being raised by men belonging to the Reserve. The intention is merely to legalise the present practice. In point of fact when spread over five years enrolment the average time comes to less than 28 days a year, although it has been more than 28 days in a particular year.
As regards Clause 2, this arises owing to the Naval Reserve Act of 1900. There are two classes of the Royal Fleet Reserve, composed entirely of men who have been in the Regular part of the Navy—Class A, or those who are receiving a pension, and Class B, those who are not. Under that Act men who joined the Service before 1901 were allowed to join Class A of the Reserve voluntarily. Those who joined after that date were compelled to do so as part of the terms

641
of service, in order to draw pension. Since that date some men who receive disability pensions have been allowed to join Class A of the Reserve voluntarily, although as part of the law that was—I will not say illegal, but not provided for in the Act of 1906. Now, it is proposed also that enrolment in Class A shall be voluntary for all pensioners, and this clause is to legalise the position. The reason for it is that with a reduced Fleet we find a smaller reserve of this class is required, and therefore it is no longer necessary to make it compulsory for men to join the Reserve in order
642
to draw pension. I do not know that there is anything further to tell the House, but if any questions are asked I will do my best to answer them. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.