Lords Sitting of 30 April 1929

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BRIDGES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, and with one Amendment disagreed to, for which disagreement the Commons assigned a Reason.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (KNEBWORTH WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Knebworth Water, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHEPPEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm

229
a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Sheppey Water, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND ROSS WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bristol Water and Ross Water, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a.
CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WINDERMERE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WINCHESTER WATER AND GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LEAMINGTON AND WARWICK TRACTION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SUTTON DISTRICT WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CHATHAM AND SHEERNESS STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think I need give the House very few words of explanation. A year ago it was decided that this Stipendiary Magistrate's Court should lapse by common consent of all parties concerned. The announcement of the intention was made public a year ago, and no remonstrance of any kind has been received from any-

231
body. Normally difficulty might have arisen by reason of the fact that there was existing a Stipendiary Magistrate, but that gentleman has intimated his willingness to retire at the end of next month, thereby rendering it possible to bring the Court to an end and to make that reform and economy. Unfortunately, this particular Stipendiary Magistrate's jurisdiction extended into two petty sessional divisions, the petty sessional division of North Aylesford and that of Sittingbourne. The result is that some difficulty arises upon the determining of his jurisdiction with regard to matters which are pending in his Court or with regard to which he has made orders at the time of the Court coming to an end, and with regard to the records of the Court. In order to meet these difficulties, this legislation is necessary.
So far as I know, this is the only instance in which a Stipendiary Magistrate's Court embraces part of two petty sessional divisions. There would be no difficulty with regard to future cases, but provision has to be made for dealing with the present situation. In Clause 1 the Bill enacts the necessary provisions set out at length in the Schedule, and Clause 2 gives power for an order to be made to correct any insufficiency or defect which may arise. It provides for this in the same way that was thought desirable by your Lordships in the recent enactment by this House of the Local Government Bill. Any such Order will cease to have effect if within three months an Affirmative Resolution has not been passed in both Houses of Parliament approving this Order. I venture to think that this is a Bill which will not require very long consideration or give rise to any difficulty, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said. It is necessary in this case to have the regulations to which he has referred. I do not think there is any undue power given by the regulations and this Bill will enable everything to be put in order.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL RATES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary to trouble you at any great length with an explanation of this Bill. It gives effect to the proposals made by the Government to ante-date the exemption of agricultural land and agricultural buildings from rates from October 1 to April 1. The cost of this will amount to about £2,100,000. The gist of the Bill is contained in Clause 1 (1) which completely exempts agricultural hereditaments from rates as from April 1. No one will ever have to pay any rates again on agricultural land or agricultural buildings. The rest of the Bill provides the necessary machinery for carrying this into effect. In order to explain that I think I should recall to the memory of your Lordships the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.
Under that Act a special list has to be prepared in each rating area of agricultural lands and buildings and of industrial hereditaments, such as would be affected by the Local Government Act. That list is prepared by the rating authority, which is the county district, and it is then submitted to the Revenue officer. If a property is included in that draft list and it is an agricultural property, it will be exempted from the payment of rates during the half-year; that is to say, that inclusion in the draft list is primâ facie evidence of the qualification of the property for exemption. But this draft list requires approval by the assessment committee and then, of course, there are appeals to Quarter Sessions and ultimate liability to pay rates will be determined by the list which is finally settled on October 1, subject of course to any possible decision on an outstanding objection. I think in most cases the draft list will be confirmed and the provisional right to exemption which has been obtained by inclusion therein will also be confirmed, but there may be a few cases which are not confirmed. In those circumstances the rates will have to be paid and arrears of rates will also have to be paid.
That, I think, makes clear the machinery by which the derating of agriculture will be accelerated. It shows, of course, that the income of the local

233
authority will be decreased, and that will upset the estimate for the next half-year, so steps must be taken to meet the deficit caused by an acceleration of the Treasury grant to rating authorities. Clause 2 provides the machinery for that. These grants will be provided out of the Rating Relief Suspense Account and will consist of a sum equal to the amount of the difference between the sum receivable from the rates and the sum which would have been receivable if the Bill had not been passed: that is to say, the exact sum which they lose owing to rates not being paid. Of course, as rates are due before October 1, local authorities, and especially rural authorities, will be anxious that a sufficient sum may be forthcoming from Treasury grants to make up the loss sustained by exemption from rating. I cannot say exactly what proportion of the grant will be paid by any particular day, but I can give the assurance that local authorities will not be allowed to suffer financially because of this Bill. Provided the necessary particulars are furnished by the authority promptly and there is no unnecessary delay in furnishing them, advances will be made from time to time sufficient to enable them to meet their current liabilities.
There is one other small matter to which, I think, I ought to call the attention of your Lordships. Between April 1 and October I agricultural land or buildings may be diverted to some other purpose. A man may, for example, have land which he is using for farming, on which he has cattle, and he may turn it into a deer park. If he has rattle on the land it will be agricultural land and exempt, but if it is a deer park it will not be exempt. Or he may have a barn which is used for agricultural purposes and he may turn it into a garage or a dwelling house or something of that kind. Conversely, of course, a man may take land which is under deer and turn it into a farm or pasture land, or he may take a garage and turn it into a barn. In such cases, of course, the list on October 1 would obviously not be conclusive evidence of the character of the hereditament throughout the whole of the half-year. It may have been agricultural part of the time and non-agricultural part of the time. You must have machinery to decide this point, and Clause 1 (4) of the Bill provides for settling such questions by certifi-
234
cates issued by the assessment committee. The other clauses are, I think, purely machinery clauses or explanatory clauses and I think I need not trouble your Lordships with any explanation of them.
LORD PARMOOR: What is Clause 3?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is a provision by which the drafts which would be paid to authorities to meet current liabilities are to be taken as rates and not as grants for the purpose of calculating rates or precepts or apportionments which are to be calculated and founded on rates. Thus the calculation of the liability of two different districts for a common rate must not be subject to a deduction of the relief given by this Bill because that relief will be given to the rating authority and not to the spending authority; and therefore for these calculations the Bill provides that the relief should be treated as non-existent. The noble Lord knows that under the old agricultural exemption Acts money was paid to the spending authority—to the county council or the guardians, as the case might be. It will be paid to the rating authority, both under this Bill and under the Local Government Act, so that provision has to be made in the Bill to make it explicit that the new method differs from the former method. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for giving me an explanation of Clause 3, which I certainly read without appreciating the distinction which he quite properly draws between the spending and the rating authorities. I see that the clause is needed, and I think that it will carry out the purpose for which it is designed. Before I say a, word or two about the general purpose of the Bill, I should like to refer to Clause 2. There has been a good deal of financial discussion and argument as to whether the Rating Relief Suspense Account is sufficient to make provision for the future charges that may be made upon it. I do not want to go into that question to-day. It is a matter that has been raised and about which financial experts hold differing opinions. Have any special steps

235
been taken to ascertain that this anticipatory grant can be paid without affecting the security of the Suspense Account as regards grants in the future? The noble Earl has told me that the amount will be a little more than £2,000,000. I think I am right in that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, £2,100,000.
LORD PARMOOR: What I want to know is whether calculations have been made as to the effect of this arrangement upon the Suspense Account and upon the meeting of grants in the future up to the time stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me say one word as to the general proposals of the Bill. This is not an occasion, as perhaps some of your Lordships will be glad to hear, on which I intend to raise again the general rating question. I do not think that my arguments have been answered, but that must stand over as a matter of opinion There is one word of caution that I should like to say. This Bill is to anticipate the grant for the complete exemption from rates of agricultural hereditaments—that is, in the main, of agricultural land and farm premises, but not of farm houses. I should like at this last opportunity, to make one protest. I think that the exemption of agricultural lands, which have undoubtedly received large benefits from rating expenditure and will undoubtedly receive benefits in the future, is a wrong principle. Looking at it widely, it is owing to this expenditure that large portions of agricultural property have acquired a building value, and I think that to exempt a large class of property which undoubtedly has benefited and will benefit by rating expenditure is altogether a reactionary and wrong method of dealing with any question of rating reform.
We know that in some instances the amount that is withdrawn from the resources of the local authority is very large. It was pointed out that in some cases of existing local authorities in Scotland it was as much as 60 per cent.; but whatever the amount may be—for that is a matter of degree—can it be said, in the first instance, that agricultural land has not received and will not receive a considerable benefit from rating expenditure? If that be so, ought not the owners of that land to pay a
236
proportion of the amount which other ratepayers pay, at least on the basis of benefits received? I know that the general principle that I have often contended for, that only beneficial local expenditure should be included in the rates, has not been followed. That was, of course, the reform proposed by the Royal Commission of 1901. But, quite apart from that point, so far as there is beneficial expenditure and so far as agricultural land has been affected by it, I can see no principle whatever under which the owners of that land ought to be exempted from payment for what is really benefit received.
I pass to two other questions. This Bill is spoken of as if it were to benefit agriculture, and so, in a certain indirect sense, it will. If rents are reduced to the tenants, that is a benefit to agriculture. But rates are not raised upon industry. Rates have the same effect as rent and, as a matter of fact, rent and rates are placed in the same category and have to be paid by the tenant of agricultural land. On the other hand, the agricultural owner will not, I admit, get the entire benefit at once. If the occupying owner, of whom we have heard a good deal, sells his property to-morrow, and the rates on that property in the past have been £50 or £100, the fee simple value of the property to him would be that sum, whatever it may be, multiplied on the basis of from 20 to 35 years. Everyone who has the smallest knowledge of compensation knows that the amount either paid by a purchaser to a landowner or paid to a landowner under ordinary compensation principles is based on the net income, and that the net income is always ascertained by deducting the amount under which he is liable under the head of payment of rates. I do not want to use a harsh term, but this will be very much like a gift to him of a large property to which he is not entitled at present.
There is one other matter to which I want to call attention. As I have pointed out, so far as unemployment is concerned this exemption from rating can make no substantial difference. I do not know whether the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture is present. I find that the number of persons employed in agricultural labour has lately decreased by the substantial figure of

237
some 30,000. That is the latest return that I have seen. That has resulted, particularly in the poorer districts, from the conversion of arable into grass farming. On one occasion I gave your Lordships statistics, into which I do not want to enter again, but I recall a case within my own knowledge where nine labourers were employed upon an arable farm and, when that farm had been turned into a grass farm, only three men were employed. This Bill will not induce a change back from grass to arable, and cannot have the slightest effect upon unemployment. That is a very serious matter and has not, in my opinion, been adequately considered or dealt with. If a sum of this kind had been distributed under different conditions it might have had some effect, but here you give it to those who want it and to those who do not want it, to the poor land and to the rich land alike.
As was pointed out, occupation land is sometimes now let at a rental of £10 an acre, with the result that so small a benefit is given that it means only a few pence per acre, which cannot by any possibility induce a reaction back from grass to arable farming. I do not intend to re-argue a question which has already been argued here. We shall not, of course, oppose this Bill by dividing against it, because we realise that it is only an anticipation of a principle which, unfortunately as I think, your Lordships have already adopted.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend, before he replies, one question of which I have given him private notice. The Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association are concerned about Clause 2 of the Bill which relates to grants to rating authorities out of the Bating Belief Suspense Account. The noble Earl undoubtedly said that money was going to be paid and he recognised the difficulties of the local authorities, but I would ask the noble Earl if he cannot go a little further and give an assurance to the local rating authorities that some 80 or 90 per cent. of the money will be paid very shortly, say within a month's time from now. Otherwise, if the authorities are only going to be paid a small proportion, say in the middle of July, and then a little more in August, and some more in September, I know of my own knowledge that many local authorities will be put
238
into great difficulty. In some cases they have already overdrawn owing to the enormous expenditure which they have incurred lately with regard to Poor Law, owing to the coal strike and other causes, and therefore this is a time when they can least afford to overdraw. If they cannot overdraw they will have to raise an extra rate, which is very undesirable, and therefore I would ask the noble Earl to give us an assurance that a large proportion of the money will be paid over by, say, June 1.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I will not take up your time for more than a very few moments while I endeavour to answer the various questions which have been put to me. In regard to the arguments which were used by the noble and learned Lord opposite against the principle of the exemption of agricultural land and buildings from rates, I would remind your Lordships that this Bill really does not touch upon that principle. The principle was settled in the Local Government Act, which has now been accepted by Parliament and is on the Statute Book. We had lengthy and very interesting and illuminating discussions thereon, and very interesting speeches from noble Lords on the Bench opposite. This Bill merely accelerates the date when the clause providing for the exemption of agricultural land and buildings comes into operation under the Act of 1929, from October 1 next, when it would have come into effect, to April 1 last. Therefore the principle is not affected by this Bill. Then the noble and learned Lord asked me whether calculations had been made to see whether the Rating Relief Suspense Account would have sufficient money in it to bear this extra cost. Examinations have been made and there is, I think, no doubt whatever that the financial status of the Bating Relief Suspense Account is able to stand the extra charge upon it of £2,100,000.
Next I come to the question asked by Lord Strachie. It is true that he gave me private notice of his question, and I ventured to make a few observations upon it in introducing the Bill. I said that I could not say exactly what proportion would be paid, but I gave an assurance that local authorities would not be allowed to suffer financially by reason of the Bill, and that provided their needs

239
are stated in sufficient time advances will be made to enable them to cover their liabilities. I think it would be undesirable to say what particular percentage will be paid by a particular day, but if local authorities understand that they will not be put in financial difficulty by the operation of the Bill I think that really is as far as I can go at the present time. I am afraid that if I gave actual figures and dates something might happen to postpone the payment for a day or two, and then it might be said that we were not carrying out our obligations. I hope, however, that the assurance that I have given will satisfy them and my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I would like, with your Lordships' permission, to take this opportunity of making a reply to some of the questions which were asked me in the Second Reading debate a week ago. Your Lordships will remember that on that occasion questions were asked me by noble Lords opposite, and by some of my noble friends behind me, and I must confess that although I could perhaps have given a short answer, I was not prepared to do what I think is more respectful to the House, give a full answer to those questions. Therefore, Lord Londonderry, who replied in the debate, gave an undertaking on my behalf that I would answer those questions to-day. Since then I have observed that Amendments have been put down by Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon and by a noble Lord opposite, and I will deal with those questions when the House is in Committee. The Amendment put down by Lord Arnold no doubt covers the point raised on Second Beading by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading.
There remain two questions, one by Lord Olivier and the other by my noble friend Lord Jessel. Lord Olivier stated that Clause 10 carried on the old Post Office restrictions as to the amount which a person may deposit and the number
240
of accounts he may have. With all due respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he quite understood the clause, although I allow that the wording is a little difficult. What the clause does is to remove all restrictions but one which now exist on the number of accounts which a depositor may open. At this moment a depositor may have only one account in the Post Office, or one account in a trustee savings bank; he cannot have an account in each. Under the Bill he will be able to open as many accounts as he likes in the Post Office, and at the same time, and in addition, as many as he likes in any one trustee savings bank. The solitary restriction, which we retain for administrative reasons, is that he may not open an account in more than one trustee savings bank, and I do not think there is any great reason for us to take off this restriction, since there is no demand, we think, that a man should be able to open an account in a trustee savings bank, say, in Liverpool and another in Norwich.
I pass now to the point raised by Lord Jessel. He said that he knew the danger of jeopardising the Bill at this moment, but he hoped that the Government would undertake to set up another Committee to enquire whether anything could be done in the direction urged on the other side—namely, of increasing the interest on these deposits. I really think the noble Lord will see that it is very late in the life of this Parliament to give an undertaking of that kind. The Government want to, get this Bill through. They think it is a good Bill, the banks want it, and, as I have said, in the present state of the life of this Parliament the Government cannot give any such undertaking as is asked for. I hope I have answered the questions which were put to me, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Power to undertake business calculated to encourage thrift.
9.—(1) It shall be lawful for the trustees of a trustee savings bank, with the consent of the Commissioners given after consultation with the Inspection Committee and the Association and subject to such conditions as the Commissioners after such consultation as aforesaid may impose either generally or in the case of any particular bank, to undertake any business which is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, of a nature ancillary to the purposes of the bank and calculated to encourage thrift and within the financial capacity of the bank.
(2) Any expenses properly incurred by a bank in carrying on any such business shall be deemed part of the necessary expenses of the bank within the meaning of section two of the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "undertake" and to insert "subsidiary operations for the purposes of rendering such customary banking services to their depositors as would encourage deposits or of assisting in the formation of independent savings schemes." The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading I called your Lordships' attention to a phrase in this clause which I considered was too vague for an Act of Parliament. The clause says:—
"It shall be lawful for the trustees of a trustee savings bank…to undertake any business which is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, of a nature ancillary to the purposes of the bank…."
I also suggested that when you take that phrase in conjunction with the last phrase of the subsection, which provides that the business must be "within the financial capacity of the bank," it looks as if very important business were contemplated. That is not the case, because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when explaining the matter in Standing Committee in another place, stated that the object of this clause was merely to allow these banks to render those small services to their clients which are customary among other banks, that is to say, to undertake the custody of their securities, and matters of that sort, and to assist in the formation of savings schemes.
I have endeavoured in my Amendment to put those views into the clause, instead of the vague words which are there at present. Your Lordships may not agree
242
with my wording, but I hope that at all events noble and learned Lords will sympathise with me in my endeavour to put the intention of Parliament into precise and intelligible English. I think your Lordships have some cause of complaint that the clause is so vague, because if it is impossible to know the meaning of a clause, we cannot criticise it, and if your Lordships had known that the clause meant that banks should, among other things, take the custody of their customers' securities, some of you might have wished to ask why a law was necessary to enable trustees of trustee savings banks to do that when they already hold over £32,000,000 of their customers' securities. However, I dare say there is a very good reason for it; but Bills ought to come before this House in an intelligible form.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 6, line 19, leave out from ("undertake") to end of subsection (1), and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The objection raised by my noble friend is apparently to the drafting of the clause, not to its principle. The noble Lord is afraid that it suggests powers which are much beyond those which are intended. It is true—I have often remarked it myself before I held a position of responsibility—that the language is a little forbidding, but that arises from the care with which the clause has been drafted in order to keep the powers within narrow limits. The Savings Banks Acts, extending over a very long period, laid down the things which a savings bank may do fairly precisely; it is ultra vires for savings banks to undertake types of business which are not covered by the regulating Statutes, and it would not be competent for the National Debt Commissioners to pass expenditure on any such business. At the same time, small developments are desirable, and we therefore seek the necessary powers. It is not, however, the intention to allow savings banks to embark on what may be termed general banking business; therefore the clause says that the banks can only undertake business "of a nature ancillary to the purposes of the bank and calculated to encourage thrift."
These words, I submit with due respect, are really very much narrower

243
than Lord Hunsdon's words, which are:—
"subsidiary operations for the purpose of rendering such customary banking services to their depositors as would encourage deposits…."
Apparently the noble Lord's proposals would allow the savings banks to embark upon almost anything that a joint stock bank does. That is neither the purpose nor the desire of the trustee savings banks. The clause, as inserted in the Bill, has received most careful consideration with a view to confining its scope to the minor business which we have in mind. It is not intended for big developments, on which it would clearly be proper that we should seek the authority of Parliament. The trustee banks are well aware what is the scope of the clause, and are under no misapprehension. On the other hand, the Amendment goes much beyond our intentions, and is much too wide. In the circumstances, I fear that we cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will not press it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I confess that when Lord Hunsdon raised this question on the last occasion I thought there would be something more in the point than appears now from the Amendment. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord who has just spoken for the Government has said—that the language used in the Amendment would carry much further the operations which could be undertaken by a savings bank, and also I think, than the noble Lord intends. All that the clause does is to give the power to do certain things, limiting the trustees by well known language, and I must say I infinitely prefer the Government's language to that of the noble Lord. I am quite sure that if we adopted the language of the Amendment it would carry the scheme of savings banks much further than was ever intended.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: I am glad to hear that Lord Templemore in his private capacity agrees with my general opinion as to the unintelligibility of Acts of Parliament. I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, after Clause 10, to insert as a new clause:—
Provisions as to interest.
".—(1) Section two of the Savings Bank Act, 1920, shall have effect as though for the words 'two pounds fifteen shillings per centum per annum and not exceeding two pounds seventeen shillings and sixpence' there were substituted the words 'three pounds five shillings per centum per annum and not exceeding three pounds seven shillings and sixpence' and section five of the National Debt (Supplemental) Act, 1888, shall have effect as though for the words 'two pounds ten shillings' there were substituted the words 'three pounds.'
(2) Section seven of the Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1861, shall have effect as though for the words ' two pounds ten shillings ' there were substituted the words 'three pounds'."
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause which has been put down following on the debate which took place last week on the Second Reading about the deposit rate in savings banks. The rate is at present 2½ per cent., and there is a very strong view that that is too low. The arguments which I put forward last week received very welcome support from the noble and learned Marquess on my right (Lord Reading) and from two noble Lords opposite, and I was very much hoping that, in view of the almost unanimous opinion, except on the part of the Treasury, that 2½, per cent. is in these days too low, the Government were going to give way. I am rather afraid from what the noble Lord said on the Motion to go into Committee that that is not so. Seeing that the rate which is obtainable on gilt-edged securities is now 4½ to 4¾ per cent., and seeing that the rate paid by the Government itself on War Savings Certificates is, taking everything into account, in the region of 5 per cent., it does appear that this rate of 2½ per cent.—which was fixed, as a matter of fact, in 1861, when the conditions were totally different, and has never been altered—ought now to be reviewed and changed.
The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, last week put forward as some reason for not making a change that there were alternative methods of investment open, but not the same methods. If he had in mind Savings Certificates, which probably he had, they are really not the same thing as the Post Office Savings Bank. Many of the accounts, for instance, in the Post Office Savings Bank were begun by children

245
with a distinctly smaller sum than is necessary to buy one. Savings Certificate. Then it is a more difficult matter to withdraw money in the case of a Savings Certificate. In the case of the Post Office Savings. Bank, any amount can be paid in, however small, and any amount can be taken out, with notice. Therefore I contend that the point which was made last week is not in itself a good point. Indeed, as my noble and learned friend behind me said then, it can be argued that it is a point against the 2½ per cent. rate, because if the Government pay double that amount on the Savings Certificate, that is an additional reason for not adhering to the very low rate of interest in the case of the savings banks.
One of the arguments of the Government, as I understand it, is that even if the rate were raised to 3 per cent.—and that is all I am asking; it is not a very great change—it would not attract much new money. They do not know that. Even if it did not attract much new money, the point is that it is not a right thing because of that to go on paying too low a rate on existing deposits. In my view, and without using too strong language on a financial matter, it really is not a just thing at present to pay only 2½ per cent. Whether it will attract new money or not, and it might do, it might even mean theoretically (I do not say that it would) a saving to the Government; because if 3 per cent. can be got upon Post Office Savings Bank deposits it might induce persons, instead of going in for Savings Certificates on which the Government have to pay something in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent., to put their money into the Post Office Savings Bank. Then you would gain by the change, if you do the right thing and make the rate at all events permissive up to 3 per cent.
Another point which was made by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading—and there is a great deal in it—was that large numbers of people have no knowledge really of how to go about putting money into any other bank or channel except the Post Office Savings Bank. That is all they know. These people are, no doubt, very ignorant; as I say, many of them are children. In country places they ought, perhaps, to know the other channels which are available, but the fact is that they do not know, and I think it might easily be
246
suggested that they are not receiving fair treatment, and almost that some advantage is being taken of their ignorance. If they had better knowledge and had a real channel through which they could do the same thing and get a higher rate of interest they would, no doubt, avail themselves of it. But because of its simplicity and because of their inexperience, the Post Office Savings Bank offers them practically the only channel.
Another argument which could be used against the maintenance of this very low rate of interest is that in the case of some of them—I do not say that this applies to all—this very low rate may be an inducement to go in for risky investments and to put their money into something which it is not wise for them to invest in. I have asked the noble Lord to be good enough when he comes to reply to tell me what is the profit or the surplus which the Government are making out of the present low rate of interest. I think that it must he very considerable. The Financial Secretary admitted that it was so, and I think we ought to know how much has been made by the Exchequer out of this present state of things, this low rate of interest of 2½ per cent. I believe it is a very considerable amount and if the public get to know what it is I think they will feel that some change ought to be made. I have already had several communications about this matter, and from very important quarters. People are interested in it because I suppose, although it might seem a very minute thing, this particular point that we are discussing affects some hundreds of thousands of people.
I want to be quite candid. I have looked into the matter further since I spoke last week, and in its present form I do not think my Amendment would do precisely what I seek to do and that is to make the rate permissibly 3 per cent. We are all very busy in these days, and I accepted what was said about it in another place. Since then, I have looked for myself and I think that some slight change will be necessary to make my Amendment mean that the rate in the Post Office Savings Bank could be raised to 3 per cent., but need not necessarily be 3 per cent. for all time. It would not be compulsory. It would probably be necessary therefore to insert some such words as "or such lower rate as the

247
Lords Commissioners of the Treasury may from time to time determine." That would be very easy to do if the Government would accept the principle. I wanted to make it clear that I was rather led away by what had been said by other persons on this matter.
It is quite conceivable that monetary conditions will remain for a very long time such that this 2½ per cent. will, as I have said, really create injustice. There seems no prospect at all (and you can tell that from the rate of issue of Corporation loans and so on) of money going back within the lifetime at any rate of your Lordships to anything like the low rates of pre-War days. It may conceivably go down to 4 per cent. in the course of the next ten years, though I very much doubt it. I take such opinions as I can in these matters. A great many persons who are much more qualified to judge than I am also take the view that it is very unlikely, except perhaps as a temporary dip, that monetary conditions will alter. Even if money went to 4 per cent., I do not think the 3 per cent. I suggest would be a very high rate to pay to these depositors. It is no argument to say that the Government used to make a slight loss in pre-War days and that if they now make a profit justice is done on the whole. That is not a sustainable position because you are not dealing with the same people. Even if there were a loss, it would be very small and it would also be in a good cause. That is my opinion. There need not be any loss, and I ask that it should be made permissible for the rate to be 3 per cent.
It could be easily done, and it could easily be altered if necessary. But there is no probability that it would have to be altered for a great many years to come. I think it is unfortunate that opportunity has not been taken of putting this permissive power into the Bill; even if it were never used it would be as well to have it. It might be used or ought to be used as time goes on, if monetary conditions remain anything like they are at present. I hope that the noble Lord opposite in his reply will not refer to the findings of the Montagu Committee. The Montagu Committee, which dealt with this matter, sat some twelve years ago now. They expected,
248
as everybody else did, that after the War money would go back very much to pre-War rates. That has not happened. Therefore the findings of that Committee are not really in point at all. In all the circumstances I should be very disappointed if the Government do not accept this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, page 7, line 26, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Arnold.)
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: May I venture to make one or two comments on the speech of the noble Lord? This very important question, which is supported by the noble Marquess, is well worthy of consideration by the Government. There are one or two points which the noble Lord has not mentioned and which I am sure that he will agree are important in this consideration. In the first place, I do not know how many years the noble Lord's memory will carry him back, but I very well remember that after the crisis of 1890 money at call was practically unlendable and, moreover, that you could not buy Consols to pay you 21½ per cent. Therefore, as depositors get, by law I suppose, a fixed deposit rate of 2½ per cent., it is manifest that at that time the savings banks must have been losing money during the whole period. When the turn of the tide came, they had to make it up again.
But that is nothing like the most important thing. The most important thing, to my mind is this. As the noble Lord perfectly well knows, a rise in the value of money, the rate of interest, connotes a fall in capital values. Therefore, if the savings banks are making money now, as no doubt they are, much of that money must be required to make up for the very heavy fall in their assets. I agree with the noble Lord that the object of these banks is to encourage thrift and that therefore one does not want to be too pedantic in the matter of banking principles: but the proper banking principle is first of all to make up your assets to the value of your deposits, and then to form a reserve against some further fall. At the same time it might be possible, if one saw the account, which I have not done but should like to do before forming an opinion, to make some small extra payment to the deposi-

249
tors, and yet with the balance to fill the gap which has been made by the fall in their assets.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I much regret that the Government, so far as I can judge, do not see fit to fall in with the suggestion that has been made to accept the Amendment, particularly with the alteration spoken of by my noble friend Lord Arnold. We are discussing, it is true, a small matter, but it is one of importance. It strikes me that it is not right to allow only 2½ per cent. to the class of persons who deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank, trustee savings banks and such like institutions, when at the present time the Bank Rate is 5½ per cent. I can see no possible objection to accepting an Amendment which merely gives liberty to raise the rate of interest to 3 per cent. To deny what is proposed in the Amendment is approaching to injustice and even meanness on the part of all of us who are responsible for legislation. What reason can there be for denying what the Amendment proposes to domestic servants and persons of that class who have no knowledge of how to invest or how to get a higher rate of interest? What can be the reason? Is it that there is a profit made on the present arrangement? I gather from what was said on the last occasion that there is a profit. Really the Government ought not to be making a profit to the extent they are doing and pay only 2½ per cent. on this money.
I have thought much about this matter since it was raised on the last occasion, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Arnold for having raised it. The question has often occurred to me: Here is money deposited at 2½ per cent.—why is it? I thought there was some reason for it, but I did not understand what it could be. I have now examined it a little more closely. Apparently the matter dates back to a time when the Bank Rate was very much smaller than it is now. The noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, referred to a later period when money was at 2¼ per cent., or even lower, but surely that does not touch the point we are now on, because the Government already gives 2½ per cent. That is the rate of interest which was imposed because it was thought it was a safe rate. What we wanted to avoid was the placing upon the Government of an obligation to pay a rate of
250
interest which would result in a loss to the community, and consequently the rate was fixed at a low level. When it was so fixed it was a perfectly safe rate, but now the rate of interest has increased so much that it is absolutely unjustifiable to pay a rate of only 2½ per cent. particularly to a class of persons who have not the least notion how to get a proper reward for the money which they advance.
It is no use saying there are special investments, because these people do not know of the special investments. It is quite true that if we are speaking among ourselves we understand that. I assume there is no single member of your Lordships' House who deposits in a savings bank at 2½ per cent. I hope for the sake of the financial acumen of this House no one would suspect that of us. I might say just the same of the House of Commons. Yet here are we, legislators in this House and in the House of Commons, insisting that these unfortunate people, who have not the same knowledge and experience as ourselves, shall contribute, without their knowing it, an amount which gives the Government a good profit. Apparently the Government are going to object even to make the rate of 3 per cent. permissive, because that is all that is asked by the Amendment. I understand the reason why my noble friend is merely asking that it should be permissive. It is, of course, that in time to come the general rate of interest may fall and, consequently if the. Government were compelled to pay 3 per cent. when the general rate of interest was only 2½ per cent. the country would lose; but the Amendment only proposes that the interest should be 3 per cent. if, and when, the Commissioners think it is desirable. Unless there is some reason which at present I am quite unable to understand we ought, in this instance, dealing as we are with a class of persons who perhaps find it difficult to put forward their own case, to do what is asked in the Amendment. It is a very modest Amendment, and I should be very surprised if, should it go to the other House, any objection was raised to it there. I understand there was a debate on the matter in the other place, but I cannot conceive the position was understood.
I only want to add this. The noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, spoke of the effect

251
it might have on capital values. I did not really quite know what my noble friend was seeking to prove. What would be the effect on the capital value of the securities in this country? What is going to be the fall in War Loan or in any securities of that kind if these institutions, which at the very utmost have deposits of £81,000,000, are allowed to pay, with the permission of the Commissioners, a rate of interest of 3 per cent.? Does my noble friend really think that is going to have such an effect on the capital value of the securities which any of us should consider? I would beg your Lordships to take into consideration this case merely from the point of view of justice. I discard all question of capital values and questions of that character. As far as I am concerned I withdraw nothing I have said on that subject, but I want to base my case on the merits. I beg your Lordships to say that you will, now that you have the opportunity, put right something which is an obvious injustice, something which I cannot help saying is rather mean on the part of Governments—I am not speaking of any particular Government; all have taken the same attitude. I would ask you to remedy this injustice when you have the opportunity by giving permission to raise the rate of interest by one half per cent.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I can assure the noble Marquess opposite that many of your Lordships are perfectly familiar with an investment that gives 2½ per cent. I sincerely hope that the Government will resist this highly contentious Amendment. According to my information this Bill represents an agreed measure to carry through certain minor reforms and is not intended to be a contentious measure. I cannot believe that after the discussions which took place with the Treasury this Amendment can possibly be entertained. It is not as if the wage-earning classes had not other facilities for placing their money in perfectly safe investments and also in the ordinary joint stock banks; while it is obvious that this Amendment would involve the taxpayer in additional taxation without reason or justification.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: The last words which fell from the noble Viscount induce me to put a simple question. Is it within the competence of this House
252
to impose an additional charge upon the Exchequer? The difference between 2½ per cent. and 3 per cent. will have to be paid by somebody. I presume the noble Marquess himself does not propose to meet it. It will have to be paid by the national Exchequer. Is it not contrary to the principles of the noble Marquess himself that this House should impose a charge upon the Exchequer?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: As this question has been put by the noble Viscount, I would say that I do not disagree with the suggestion which he has made, but it is no reason for refusing to discuss the Amendment. The other House, if it pleases, can object to it as a breach of Privilege, but there is no reason why we should not pass it. Your Lordships are familiar with cases when we have again and again imposed charges. It does not dispose of the argument, but only places us in the difficulty that we are not able, if it is objected to by the other House, to enforce any such proposal.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I will not enter into the question of Privilege which has been raised by my noble friend on the Cross Benches. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, of one thing—that if I can give him satisfaction in nothing else in the reply which I am going to make, I will in one matter, and that is that I will not refer in any way to the Montagu Commission. I understand that the main grounds on which it is urged that the rate should be increased are that it would be an act of justice and that it would encourage thrift and attract additional money to these savings institutions, which is what this Bill seeks to do and what I think we all want to do. It is an arguable question how far saving is influenced by the rate of interest, but as regards the small investor it is probable that all who have enquired into the matter will agree that his first needs are those which are amply met by these banks—namely, the absolute safety of his savings and immediate accessibility to them in case of necessity. I must say, in spite of the words addressed to us by the noble Marquess that we should not consider such matters, that if the rate of interest were to be increased as proposed it would involve a large additional charge on existing savings banks deposits and it is not considered to be likely that it

253
would attract any appreciable amount of new savings.
I think there is on the part of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and on the part of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, rather a tendency to look at the 2½ per cent. only and forget all about the other facilities offered to the small investor. The trustee banks themselves have their special investment departments in which depositors who have £50 in the ordinary department may make deposits subject to notice, and on these special investments depositors receive in most cases now 4 per cent. I think sometimes it is a little more. I think it is forgotten that in the present Bill we seek to help trustee banks to develop these departments even further under Clause 6 by waiving the rule that these banks before forming a special department must have £200,000 or more in deposits. Moreover, there are the National Savings Certificates which are cashable at all times. They are on continual sale and can be purchased by very small instalments if desired. After the first year or two they yield a rate of interest in excess of that proposed in the Amendment. Including accrued interest, there are nearly £500,000,000 of certificates outstanding; yet, despite this competition, deposits in the savings banks are well maintained. Through all the savings banks the small depositor can purchase other Government securities under a very simple procedure. I am informed that £235,000,000 of stocks have been bought in this way.
I pass to the question asked by the noble Lord opposite as to how much the Treasury receives from savings banks. I will give him what I hope he will consider, if not a satisfactory at all events a very full answer. As regards the Post Office Savings Bank the surplus of interest remaining after paying depositors and expenses for the year ended December 31, 1927, was £3,734,000. Of this amount, 20 per cent. goes to reserve to provide against depreciation of securities and 80 per cent. goes to the Exchequer as miscellaneous revenue. The Exchequer received £2,987,000. For trustee banks the surplus was £917,000 of which one-half went to make good depreciation and one-half (that is £458,000) to the Exchequer. These
254
figures may seem very large, but on the other hand it must not be forgotten that as regards trustee savings banks the taxpayer at different dates has paid over £5,500,000 towards capital deficiencies and in addition has made good deficiencies of income in twenty-seven years out of the thirty-three years from 1876 to 1908 inclusive. As regards the Post Office Savings Bank there were repeated income deficiencies from 1896 to 1910. The country has not actually paid up money for a capital deficiency, but there is a deficiency of some £30,000,000 for which the taxpayer is responsible. I think the point is that the 2½ per cent. is guaranteed in good years and bad and that the taxpayer has very often in the past had to put his hand in his pocket.
LORD ARNOLD: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment in order to get this perfectly clear? Is this £30,000,000 of which he speaks due to depreciation of investments?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My noble friend is good enough to inform me that it is due to depreciation of investments. I think I have shown that the small investor has very wide Government facilities for investment open to him. The different types carry different rates of interest and it is open to the investor to choose that which suits him best. There is really, I think, little ground for saying that the Amendment, if it were carried, would encourage thrift or even that it would attract additional money to the State. If it were necessary to make any alteration in the present facilities, the most scientific course would seem to be to develop the Post Office on the lines of the trustee banks, giving to all depositors who have a fixed sum at 2½ per cent. in the ordinary department a higher rate on additional sums deposited at notice. While in view of the very wide facilities which are now offered by the State, there is no strong case for any change—unless there is evidence that additional facilities would contribute to thrift—that solution would avoid many of the objections which can be raised against the flat rate increase proposed in the Amendment. I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment and I hope that, in view of the full explanation I have given, it will not be pressed.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Lord has given us a very interesting speech, and I am much obliged to him for dealing with the matter so fully and, if I may say so, so fairly. He certainly has given us some very astonishing figures, which I think will mean that the present rate of 2½ per cent. will not be allowed to continue very much longer. The profit is very much larger than has been supposed. We arrive at the astonishing position that, in the year ending December 31, 1927, the Post Office Savings Bank alone had a profit of £3,734,000—that is to say, that sum was made out of these very small investors. It is true that 20 per cent. of this was for depreciation of investments, but 80 per cent., or £2,937,000, actually went to the relief of taxation. That is a very extraordinary state of things, and I think that when the public learns of it the agitation that, has already begun regarding this matter will grow so rapidly that something will have to be done. We also find a profit of £917,000 on trustee savings.
It is true that the noble Lord, in his endeavour to remove the impression which those figures were bound to create, went into past history and told us of the times when money used to be lost. He did not tell us how much was actually lost in this way to the State through paying more interest than it could really afford to pay. It would be very interesting to know with what term of years he was dealing and how much the actual sum amounted to. He refers to a sum of £30,000,000, representing depreciation of investments, but he was really, if I may be allowed to say so, mixing up two totally different things. When the Post Office Savings Bank began, it was never intended that these small depositors should bear the cost of such depreciation. A figure of £30,000,000 may sound impressive, but it is not really very impressive when you look into the total sums involved and the period over which it would have to be spread.
I do not know that there is very much more to be said now, except to express profound disappointment. The figures which the noble Lord gave regarding Savings Certificates are certainly, if I may say so, very misleading. I know that he did not intend them to be misleading, but it is well known that a considerable proportion of Savings Certificates are not held by poor people but by Super-Tax
256
payers—no doubt many of your Lordships hold them—because they are not subject to Income Tax or Super-Tax. That is a perfectly legitimate and proper thing, but it is one reason why the total amount stands as high as it does to-day. With regard to that which the noble Viscount upon the Cross Benches said about the nature of my Amendment, it happens that I have just been looking through the debate in another place on the Amendments of your Lordships' House to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. Nearly every Amendment was a Privilege Amendment, but there was no trouble about it. There is really nothing in that point as a matter of practical difficulty.
I should like to make quite clear what it is that I am asking your Lordships to vote upon. I am not sufficiently versed in the rules of your Lordships in Committee to know whether I could add words to my Amendment, but I should like to do so. After the second subsection of my proposed new clause I should like to add the words: "provided that the Treasury give their consent." I think those words are quite sufficient, and they make the provision permissive. If it is said that there will have to be consequential changes in subsection (1), those changes could be made later. That is only a drafting matter. The words at any rate make it clear that the Amendment is permissive and that it is not compulsory upon the Treasury. It is quite conceivable that money might range from 5 per cent. to 7 per cent. in the next quarter of a century, or even higher. Surely this is a very modest permissive power to give. I think there is a very strong case for allowing even 3½ per cent., which is what most banks allow to their small depositors. It is an extremely moderate request that I make. I beg to move my Amendment in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, insert as a new clause:—
Provisions as to interest.
".—(1) Section two of the Savings Bank Act, 1920, shall have effect as though for the words 'two pounds fifteen shillings per centum per annum and not exceeding two pounds seventeen shillings and sixpence' there were substituted the words 'three pounds five shillings per centum per annum and not exceeding three pounds seven shillings and sixpence' and section five of

257
the National Debt (Supplemental) Act, 1888, shall have effect as though for the words 'two pounds ten shillings' there were substituted the words 'three pounds.'
(2) Section seven of the Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1861, shall have effect as though for the words 'two pounds ten shillings' there were substituted the words
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PHARMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this very short Bill, which consists of one clause only, in a suitably short speech. The object of the Bill is to enable the Pharmaceutical Societies of Northern Ireland and of Great Britain to have reciprocity and to register each other's members. The two societies are anxious that this Bill should be passed. The
'three pounds,' provided that the Treasury give their consent."—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Whether the said new clause shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 16; Not-Contents. 44.

CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Arnold, L.

Parmoor, L.

Buckmaster, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Buxton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Darling, L.

Strachie, L.

Russell, E.

Hemphill, L.

Thomson, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Ystwyth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stradbroke, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Erskine, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Faringdon, L.

Bathurst, E.

Falmouth, V.

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

Cranbrook, E.

Hood, V.

Greenway, L.

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

Novar, V.

Hampton, L.

Peel, V.

Hanworth, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Iveagh, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Worcester, L. Bp.

Kylsant, L.

Morton, E.

Lawrence, L.

Onslow, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, I.

St. Levan, L.

Plymouth, E.

Davidson of Lambeth, L.

Templemore, L.

Selborne, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Wharton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Northern Ireland Legislature have empowered their society to extend their hospitality to members of the British society, but the British society has no power at present to extend a reciprocal hospitality, and therefore this Bill has been introduced to give power to the British society to register duly qualified members of the Northern Ireland society and to give reciprocal advantages. The Northern Ireland society does suffer certain hardship from the fact that the Colonies, although they are able to recognise members of that society, still are not anxious to do so until the Northern Ireland society has been recognised by Parliament and the society here.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGE OF MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, you will remember that this Bill was referred by this House to a Select Committee, who have been diligently through its provisions and made a Report, with the terms of which it is unnecessary to trouble your Lordships. I think I need read only one paragraph. They say:—
"It may be difficult to prove that, in Great Britain, the disparity between the legal age of marriage and the facts of national life impedes the progress of morality. But there is evidence that it does impair the influence of Great Britain in co-operating in the work of the League of Nations for the protection and welfare of children and young people, and docs prejudice the nation's effort to grapple with the social problems arising from the early age at which marriages are contracted in India.
On these grounds the Committee are unanimously of opinion that a revision of the law in respect of the minimum age of marriage is necessary, and that the law should be brought into closer conformity with the moral and social development of the nation, and should register the progress already made."
I believe that that expresses in language the elegance of which I think we must owe to the Chairman, Lord Ernle, the view which your Lordships expressed unhesitatingly when you approved the Second Reading of the Bill. Therefore I have no further comment to make before I ask your Lordships once more to resolve yourselves into a Committee on this Bill, after which I will call your Lordships' attention to two trifling Amendments which are proposed.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the fortunes of this Bill have not been so sinister as my noble and learned friend at one time was afraid they would be. The Bill has been before a Select Committee. It has received very careful consideration by that Select Committee and it has emerged from that ordeal successfully. Although personally I was not the author of the Motion to refer it to a Select Committee, yet I cannot regret that that course was taken. I think the fact that this very difficult subject has been before a Select Committee, and a strong Select Committee, and has been carefully considered by it and approved in the main by it, con-
260
stitutes a great claim upon the attention of Parliament and of public opinion which it would not otherwise possess, and has placed it in a far more satisfactory position than if that inquiry had not taken place.
As far as the Government are concerned we always favoured the Bill, and we are anxious to see it passed into law, but I have two observations to make upon it. The first is that it is quite impossible at this stage of the Session, with the conclusion of the Session and of the Parliament immediately impending, to pass the Bill unless it is done by general consent. The Bill will no doubt pass without great difficulty through your Lordships' House, but it has also to pass through another place, and, speaking on behalf of the Government, I can give no assurance of its final passage into law this Session except by general consent. It is quite obvious that if there was anything like a strong opposition to the Bill, there is no time left for its proper discussion and for its passing into law. That is one observation I have to make, and I earnestly hope that noble Lords belonging to different Parties may use what influence they possess in another place to make it possible for this Bill to be secured.
The other observation is that, although the Government have no objection whatever to the insertion of the Amendments in substance which have been proposed by the Select Committee, yet in form—and it is merely a matter of form, not a matter of substance—there are changes in the wording which, in the view of the Home Office, Parliament would be well advised to make in substitution of the actual drafts as they stand, coming from the Select Committee. That cannot be done to-night, because there has been no opportunity of giving notice. Therefore, the Government will not resist the insertion of the Amendments from the Select Committee when they are put from the Chair, but we hope that your Lordships will allow us to put the same points, differently drafted, before the House on Report—there is no change in substance—and in that case to-morrow I hope you will consent upon Report to substitute those other words. As far as this House is concerned, speaking for the Government, there will be no desire except to see the Bill pass rapidly into law.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, as I was responsible for moving that this Bill should go to a Select Committee, if it had come back from that Select Committee absolutely untouched I should have felt it my duty to apologise to your Lordships and to my noble and learned friend opposite for having taken the course which I did. But it has come back from the Select Committee, as I think, vastly improved, and in a shape in which it may very properly be placed upon the Statute Book—of course, with those verbal alterations which the noble Marquess suggests. My noble and learned friend said it was only necessary to read from the Report of the Committee—which he detected, by the elegance of the language used, was drawn by my noble friend beside me (Lord Ernle)—one passage, which he proceeded to read. But I think I must trouble your Lordships by reading another. The Committee have put in two Amendments, one to safeguard the girl against an injustice which might very likely happen to her where there was a child born of the marriage, the other to protect from a criminal prosecution the boy who had married the girl in circumstances in which such a criminal prosecution would be entirely wrong. I cannot think how it was that my noble friend opposite did not see these points and himself secure their insertion in the Bill.
The passage that I would read from the Report, couched in the same elegant language as appealed to my noble and learned friend, is this:—
"For the reasons which have been given in some detail, the Committee have come to the unanimous conclusion that the principle adopted in the Bill is right, that the minimum age for marriage should be raised, and that all marriages, where one or both of the parties is under that age, should be ab initio void. But they consider that if the Bill passes into law in its present form "—
that is, the form in which my noble and learned friend introduced it—
'a grave injustice may be done in cases whore a genuine mistake has been made as to age, and they have therefore amended the Bill accordingly."
I am surprised that my noble and learned friend did not think of that himself. He is so humane, he has introduced so much legislation into this House for the protection of the desolate and oppressed, he has done so much for such defenceless
262
creatures as the lapwing that I am surprised that it did not occur to him that here were people quite as defenceless as lapwings, who cannot even fly, and who would suffer if this Bill were passed into law in the shape in which he introduced it. A member of your Lordships' House wrote:
"In the Spring the wanton lapwing gets himself another crest."
My ambition will be satisfied if I have been able to add one feather to the panache of my noble and learned friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The usual question now is that the Amendments made in the Select, Committee be agreed to, but I understand that Lord Buckmaster wants to refer to them.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved that the Amendments made in the Select Committee be agreed to. The noble and learned Lord said: I only wanted to call attention to what these Amendments are, and to explain that I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that it might be possible to render these Amendments more effective if they were couched in other words. If the noble Marquess thinks right on behalf of the Government to put down these Amendments in another form between now and to-morrow I shall be quite willing to accept them. In order that you should know what they are, I will just refer to them. The first is perfectly simple. If a man is charged with having had unlawful connection with a girl under the age of sixteen, it is to be a defence if it can be shown that he married her reasonably believing that she was sixteen when he married her. If the marriage were declared void under this Bill he might have been defenceless. It is not likely to occur often, but if a man had been a party to such a marriage he would otherwise have been liable to heavy penalties if he had unwittingly mistaken the age. The Amendment is reasonable. Another thing which seems to be equally reasonable is that if a marriage is declared void under this Bill, if would be possible for the woman to apply for maintenance for a child that has been born of the marriage, which

263
would then become an illegitimate child, within twelve months of the marriage being declared void. I beg to move that both these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments made in the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PAROCHIAL REGISTERS AND RECORDS MEASURE.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, it is my duty to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parochial Registers and Records Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. It is not likely that the duty which I am about to perform would have fallen to me had we known that we should have with us this evening, returned to us in full health and vigour, the most rev. Primate himself. In his anticipated absence it fell to me to undertake the task because it happens that for some time past I have been engaged on the Commission of the Church Assembly which examined this question of parish registers and documents and prepared this Measure. The Measure has had a very prosperous passage through the various stages prescribed for Measures of the Church Assembly. There was no dissentient voice in the Assembly. The Ecclesiastical Committee, over which the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, presides, and which, as you know, scrutinises each Measure in respect of its possible interference with the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects, not only failed to detect any such possibility, but went so far as to say that, in addition to its ecclesiastical advantages, it was actually expedient in the public interest that its object should be attained. I do not think that has ever happened to any Measure of the Church Assembly yet and we must make sure that the Assembly does not feel too proud.
264
Last night in another place the Measure was approved, as far as I know, almost without discussion. Therefore, it is conceivable that your Lordships would forgive me at this late hour if I were to take it at that and say no more about the matter. But I have the feeling that this would not be quite respectful and, therefore, I will tell your Lordships what it is that the Measure deals with. Its purpose is to protect certain ancient and historic documents and records, which are of two classes. I will take first the records which have come down from generation to generation in the parishes of England—church-wardens' account books, minute books of parish vestries, tithe-maps, manor rolls, charters of land, briefs and what not. Some of these have passed by recent legislation into other control. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Hanworth, the Master of the Rolls, whose help and interest in this Measure I desire very gladly to acknowledge, can now deal with much that was hitherto in the care of the parishes concerning the tenure of land, and a section of this Measure is careful to recognise his Lordship's powers in that respect. The same is the case regarding the various tithe documents which belong now to the central authority on tithes—namely, Queen Anne's Bounty. But there remain a number of very precious historical documents in the keeping of the parishes, and hitherto no ecclesiastical authority and no civil authority, so far as I know, has had full legal rights to supervise the parishes in respect of the care of these documents; so that in the past—it is no use making any bones about it—there have been losses and misplacements, and even actual destruction.
I pass to the registers of baptisms, marriages and deaths, which have at the back of them a long legislative history dating from the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The "short and simple annals" of "the rude forefathers of the hamlet" are enshrined in these volumes. There are instances—alas, too many—of the total disappearance of a member of a series here and another there in times past. It is a dead loss where it has happened and is irreparable. The wonder is that the losses have been so few, for it is legal to keep the prescribed safe, which the ancients called a "sure coffer," in the

265
vestry of the Church or in the parson's house, and there are not a few cases where in defiance of legislation much better protection for them has been found in the strong room of the lord of the manor or in the cellar of a bank. It has even been whispered that lords of the manor have liked registers so much that they have refused to give them up.
There are two theories held as to what it is best to do. On one side it is held that all this historical matter should be collected in some central place or at least in a limited number of central places, in order that the documents might be adequately cared for and suitably housed for the purposes of study. On the other side, you will find that this Measure is inspired by a belief that the parishes of England have a natural inherited right to retain the sources of their local history and their local genealogy, if only they will prove themselves trustworthy custodians of their particular treasures. It is only where they fail in this that a modified scheme of centralisation of these documents is to be brought into action.
Briefly, what is actually done is this. For the first time in their long story both registers and records are brought directly under the supervision of the Bishop. It is strange that the registers were not so brought when they were first ordained, but so it is. If either by personal inspection or through official information the Bishop is satisfied that due care is taken of the registers and that they are suitably rebound when they need it, then all is well The parish retains them as hitherto. In the other cases, the few where protective action is needed, he may establish a central repository in his diocese and order the removal of the imperilled books, to be kept in the diocesan repository, of course with due provision for their being consulted or even reproduced by responsible persons. Even so, your Lordships will find in the Measure a locus penitentiae; for the incumbent or the parochial church council who have been negligent may easily be succeeded at no great interval by more provident people, and if the Bishop is satisfied to this effect, the Measure allows him to permit the return of the volumes to the parish. I have to ask your Lordships to deal with the real hazard of registers getting into
266
wrong hands—say through the sale of a man's effects after his death. This Measure makes them incapable of assignment whether for value or otherwise. That ought to have been done long ago. The purpose of this Measure is to ask your Lordships to assent to it to-day.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parochial Registers and Records Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Worcester.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am very thankful that the Bishop of Worcester has been able himself to propose this Resolution to your Lordships, for he has piloted this Measure, which is in many parts of a technical and difficult character, with great skill through the Church Assembly, and he is himself a well-known master of ancient documents. I should like, however, to take this opportunity of commending the Measure to your Lordships. After the full manner in which the right rev. Prelate has introduced and explained it, nothing is necessary from me but the fewest possible sentences in, commending this Resolution to your Lordships. The Measure in some respects completes the increasing care which has been given in recent years to the ancient parish churches of our country not only as centres of worship for the people but as centres of their life and history. The care of the fabric of the old buildings has advanced in the last fifty years in a most remarkable way, and, indeed, now far exceeds the power of most of the small villages to do all that they would wish. The care of the furniture of our churches is, I venture to say, something which would have been undreamt of some years ago, and both the fabric and furniture of our churches are largely under the expert advice and supervision of the advisory committees which now exist in almost every diocese.
But there is another sphere of the life of our old English parishes besides the fabric and the furniture of the parish churches, and that is the records which are kept within them. They may be partly the registers of which the Bishop has been speaking, but they may also be such things as the churchwardens'

267
accounts or the minutes of old vestry meetings, which, when I have myself inspected them, have almost in every case revealed points of the greatest possible interest in the social as well as the religious life of the parish. It is only right that similar care should be bestowed upon the records as is being bestowed upon the fabric and furniture of our churches. It has been explained that hitherto the Bishop, as the responsible guardian of these ancient churches, has had no power as regards the control and preservation of these documents. This Measure gives the necessary powers, which are only to be exercised in cases where, after careful inquiry, he is satisfied that the records are being negligently kept. Even when he has ordered their removal to a place of greater safety they can be returned to the parish when there is sufficient proof given that they would be cared for in the future. I can hardly conceive the compulsory powers of this Measure ever being brought into being, and I think the mere passing of the Measure will be itself an incentive to the ministers, churchwardens and councils of all the churches to feel something like the same pride in their records as they are increasingly showing in the fabric and furniture of their churches.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, as this Measure touches matters akin to those I have myself to deal with, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a word in support of it. It is true that under Clause 5 the old manorial documents, which are specially placed in the charge and superintendence of the Master of the Rolls, are excluded, still the matters dealt with by the Bill are matters in which I personally take a deep and continued interest. I confess I wish it were possible to amend this Measure. It is not, and, therefore, we must accept what we have. But with regard to Clause 3, which provides for the deposit of parochial registers and parochial records in a diocesan record office if, and when, such a diocesan office is established, I am sorry to think that in subsection (2) the words which are selected are so narrow. The words are:—
"any deeds or documents of value as historical records or as evidence of legal rights."
I wish the right rev. Prelate had communicated with me in reference to
268
those words, because we have found it necessary for the purpose of the rules under which we act to have wider words—" also of genealogical or antiquarian use or interest." Further we have had to add to those recently by a new rule the word "scientific." As the Bishops, as the guardians of the diocesan record offices, will probably have to interpret what is meant by "historical," perhaps they may give a wide and generous interpretation to it, and if they do I for my part, will be very glad that they have found such generosity possible.
The other observation that occurs to me is that I should have wished to give the right rev. Prelate who has to consider the diocesan record office fewer definite directions as to what is a proper office, because it seems to me quite unnecessary to tell a Bishop, or indeed anybody else, that if you are looking out for a place which is to be safe and to offer security for documents you must choose some building that provides adequate security against damage by fire or damp. I cannot help thinking that most persons, whether Bishops or not, would have regard to that feature; but, by putting in these words, it appears to me they have rather narrowed the duties to be performed in reference to selecting the place. However, it is not possible to amend the clause. It would be much better to give a general discretion as to the place to be chosen, relying upon the good sense of any person who has to find a diocesan record office that he will choose a suitable place where there is no danger of fire or damp or injury by vermin or anything else. I should have preferred wider words. However, all that I rose to do was to say that I recognise that this Measure is a contribution towards the safeguarding of a number of valuable records, and, as far as it goes, I wish also to commend it to your Lordships.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I think I am the only member of the Ecclesiastical Committee present this evening, and I only rise to say—and I am sure I may speak for the House and the Committee over which I had at one time the honour to preside—what a gratification it is to me to have heard those excellent speeches from the Episcopal Bench and especially from the most rev. Primate, whom we are so glad to see again in this House. I feel sure that

269
the conclusion that we came to in the Committee was a desirable one; it has met with the approval of those who are most interested in the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE LAITY MEASURE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Representation of the Laity Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I also have to apologise for having put down these Measures now that the most rev. Primate is; here him self. I was only asked to do so when it was thought that he could not be here. As they are in my name I presume it is my duty to make the necessary Motions. The first of the Measures standing in my name dealt; with the representation of the laity in diocesan conferences, ruri-decanal conferences and parochial church councils. The present rules for the representation of the laity are part of the constitution of the National Assembly of the Church of England which is to be found in the Schedule of the Enabling Act. These rules have been in operation for nine years and on the whole they have worked extremely well; but naturally experience has shown various matters and directions in which they can be improved. Three years ago the subject was taken up by the Church Assembly, and a strong Committee was appointed to go into these rules minutely, to examine them with great care and to make representations to the Church Assembly for their amendment. The result is this Measure, which passed the Church Assembly at its last session.
Your Lordships will see in the full explanation given by the Legislative Committee to the Ecclesiastical Committee that no fundamental changes are proposed in this Measure. The rules have been thoroughly overhauled and rearranged and in many cases redrafted, numerous minor alterations have been made for the purpose of greater convenience or the sake of greater clearness, but nothing has been done to alter the general scope and plan of the original rules. The rules are necessarily very
270
elaborate and cannot be summarised shortly. The list is given in the Schedule which is before your Lordships and if any noble Lord wishes to ask a question I will do my best to answer it, but as the matter is extremely technical I think your Lordships will be content to take the finding of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which certifies that the Measure does not appear to affect prejudicially the right of His Majesty's subjects and considers that it is expedient that it should become law. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Representation of the Laity Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (Amendment) Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the next Measure that I have to present to your Lordships is called the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (Amendment) Measure. The principal Measure was passed in 1923 and I claim that it was a great reform. Before that time, while every incumbent was liable for the dilapidations to his vicarage or rectory or parsonage, the method of dealing with these dilapidations and the finance of the dilapidations was wholly unorganised and unsystematised. The result was that some incumbents neglected their obligations, others found themselves suddenly confronted with a great liability which they could not meet, or in the case of an incumbent dying and his liability falling upon an estate which could not hear it, the incoming incumbent had to make the deficiency good. This matter was dealt with in the principal Measure in 1923 and the reform has worked well.
I will quote from the explanations which are in your Lordships' hands, which state that since the principal

271
Measure came into force a diocesan dilapidations board has been constituted in every English diocese and the buildings of nearly three-quarters of the benefices have been brought under its provisions. I venture to suggest that in six years that is a very important and quick piece of work. The object of the present Measure is to make various amendments to the principal Measure which practical experience has shown to be necessary or desirable. Most of these amendments deal with matters of administrative detail and are the outcome of suggestions made either by Queen Anne's Bounty or by the Diocesan Dilapidations Board. Those of your Lordships who are interested can see clause by clause a complete explanation of what the amendments are, but I warn your Lordships that they are very technical and I do not propose to take up your time by reading these fairly full explanations. So far as I know, the Measure is quite uncontroversial, and it is approved and recommended by the Ecclesiastical Committee. Therefore I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (Amendment) Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY MEASURE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Westminster Abbey Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the last Measure which I have to present is the Westminster Abbey Measure. This Measure only concerns Westminster Abbey and its Dean and Chapter. From the comments and explanations which are in your Lordships' hands you will see that the object of the Measure is to provide for the reapportionment of the annual income of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster which has already been dealt with by a previous Act of Parliament—the Westminster Abbey Act, 1888. A scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
272
sioners thereunder was ratified by Order in Council of the same year. All the property of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster was transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in consideration of an annual money payment of £20,000. This £20,000 was apportioned by the scheme of 1888 in certain ways, and it is proposed now to take power to vary that apportionment.
If your Lordships approve of this Measure and it becomes law, then it will be possible to bring in new schemes for the apportionment of this £20,000. Every scheme so brought in must be submitted to His Majesty the King as Visitor of the Abbey for approval, and it must afterwards be confirmed by an Order in Council. So there is very elaborate procedure beginning with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and ending with the Privy Council. Instead of the apportionment being stereotyped as it is now it can be varied from time to time in the manner I have described. The particular reason why reapportionment is desired is that the apportionment of 1888 has become exceedingly inconvenient. Owing to the great fall in the value of money, the great increase of rates and taxes and the incessant demands of hospitality, the amounts available for the stipends of the Dean and Canons are insufficient, although I would remind your Lordships that one canonry is in suspense. It is proposed by this Measure to end that suspense and abolish it altogether. Further, owing to the much greater demand for beautiful and elaborate services and the increase in the scale of wages payable, the amount available for the maintenance of the services and other expenses is also insufficient.
While in all those respects the money at the disposal of the Dean and Chapter has become insufficient, in one respect their resources have been very greatly increased. The late Dean of Westminster, Bishop Ryle, who was well known to your Lordships, formerly as a member of this House and afterwards as Dean, with the assistance of The Times made an appeal to the public for a very large sum for the upkeep and maintenance of the fabric of Westminster Abbey. In response they received, I believe, no less than £180,000, which has been invested and brings in about £9,000 a year, I think, which is devoted entirely to the upkeep of the fabric. This sum is at

273
present found sufficient, and therefore there is no need for the comparatively small sum which was apportioned to the upkeep of the fabric in the apportionment of the £20,000 already referred to. It is proposed if this Measure passes—and, as the Ecclesiastical Committee point out, there has been no concealment of the intention—to move for a scheme which will enable at any rate part of the old fabric fund to be reapportioned for the uses which I have suggested and which have become urgent. This Measure has been very carefully considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee. They say that it does not prejudicially affect the rights of His Majesty's subjects and they are of opinion that it should become law. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Westminster Abbey Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the noble Earl, in moving this Resolution, talked about the reapportionment and variation of these funds, which is really a euphemism for diversion, because the Ecclesiastical Commissioners allowed, out of the £20,000 that was mentioned, £3,250 to the fabric fund. This Measure is founded on a report which is extremely candid—so candid that I propose to read a passage from it. Paragraph 4 says:—
"In recent years a new fund has boon collected by the late Dean Ryle with the assistance of The Times newspaper, for the repair of the fabric and for that purpose only. This fund produces an income of about £9,000 a year.
It appears, therefore, that at present a total sum of £12,250 per annum is thus available for the repair of the fabric, and that so large a sum may not in fact be required for this purpose. It is therefore desired that some portion of the old fabric fund, created by the scheme of 1888, should be available to meet deficiencies in the stipends of the Dean and Canons and the general expenses of the Abbey."
As time goes on and the weather eats more into the fabric, more money will be required. Your Lordships must remember that there are tremendous upheavals going on all over London which may seriously affect the Abbey, so that the rights of His Majesty's subjects may be very prejudicially affected by the diver-
274
sion of this sum of money. We are not told whether this money is to be taken year by year for the payment of canons or for other purposes, even if the £12,250 were required in any year to be used for the fabric and for the fabric only. Accordingly I ask your Lordships not to accept this Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need not tell your Lordships that I do not rise to address the House in the usual capacity in which I appear, I am afraid too frequently, at this box, but I have the honour to be, in common with my noble friend who is sitting on the Bench opposite (Lord Muir Mackenzie) an office-holder of the City of Westminster, and in that capacity I have been made familiar with this Measure for some weeks is past. I venture to hope that my noble friend who has just addressed us will not persist in his opposition to the Measure. There is, I believe, no question that the fabric of Westminster Abbey will be adequately looked after by the money which is now in the hands of the Dean by reason of the fund which was collected under the late Dean and which is now known as Dean Ryle's Fund. A very large sum was then collected and the money is sufficient, as we are informed, to maintain the Abbey. In this criticism my noble friend, if I may venture to say so, has really left out of account the great need that exists to supplement the income devoted to the expenditure to which my noble friend Lord Selborne has referred.
It is, indeed, extremely difficult in these days for the Church of England to meet the expenses which its ministers are obliged to incur. As we know, the case of the parochial clergy is in a degree a pitiable one, but even among what are called the higher clergy the difficulty is felt, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, with the obligations that are thrown upon them, are really very underpaid. They have to maintain, of course, a certain dignity and a certain hospitality, and above all they have to live in London. These high ministers in the Church of England are not men of no importance. They are picked men, just as the Bench of Bishops are picked men. They are the best that the Church of England can produce, and that they should not be adequately paid, that they should not even

275
be paid more than is really grossly insufficient is a standing shame on the country. That is the case.
Then the Dean, having thought the matter out very carefully and having taken counsel with others, comes to the Church Assembly and says: "We find that we have enough money for the fabric and there is this tremendous need to pay the Dean and Chapter enough, and also for certain other purposes of the great Abbey of Westminster, and we ask the Assembly to enable us to divert"—I do not shrink from the noble Viscount's word—"to divert part of the sum which would otherwise go to the fabric for this purpose." It seems to me a reasonable request. The Assembly, having considered it, have agreed, and now they come to your Lordships' House and the House of Commons asking that their decision shall be confirmed. I must say that, when one thinks of the enormous significance of Westminster Abbey, its position not only of national but of worldwide importance, we should be able to pay the Dean and Chapter sufficient to live upon. It would be impossible to appoint a Dean of Westminster unless he had private funds. That is a standing shame. I hope that my noble friend will not persist in his resistance to this Measure.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, after the appeal which my noble friend has just made I shall not think of persisting, but I would suggest that a better way to pay these clergy higher salaries is also by public subscription, instead of by diversion.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like, though only for a moment, to commend this Resolution, because I am specially interested in this Measure, not only as Chairman of the Assembly but also as Chairman of the very laborious Commission which the Assembly appointed some years ago to investigate the circumstances of all the cathedrals and collegiate churches in England. I happen to be Chairman of that Commission, and also Chairman of the Sub-Commission which investigated with the greatest possible scrutiny and care the circumstances of Westminster Abbey, and I am almost glad that Lord Bertie of Thame raised this point, because I think it enables those who care for the Abbey to
276
meet it in the way in which the noble Marquess has done. I should like it to be understood most clearly that the last thing which by this Measure it is desired to do is to divert money needed for the fabric towards meeting the expenses of the maintenance of the Abbey and the stipends of its officials. All that is desired is to vary the scheme of l888 by a Measure having the force of a Statute—it is necessary to do that, the scheme of 1888 being confirmed by Statute—so as to enable the Abbey to meet the new circumstances which have arisen since 1888.
The first of those circumstances is that the claim for the fabric has been met in another way. It is, I venture to think, the very first principle of those who care for our cathedrals that the first charge should be for the upkeep of the fabric of the Abbey, and that nothing should be allowed to interfere with that; but there is now what is bound to be quite sufficient provision not only from year to year, but also in the way of what is not needed for one year being carried over to another year to meet special emergencies. I think your Lordships may therefore take it for granted that the needs of the fabric are fully met by that fund. As to danger to the stone, I think a better way of securing the fabric of the Abbey against destruction would be for your Lordships to pay particular attention to the erection of the proposed electric power station at Battersea, which is more likely to make demands upon the public purse, not only for the maintenance of the fabric of the Abbey but also of the Houses of Parliament, than any other cause.
The second reason has been the fall in the value of money, the increase in rates, and the increased expenses which have to be met not only by the Dean and Canons but by the whole staff, and the wages of the lesser ministers, if I may so describe them, who take part in the services. All that is asked is that the arrangements made in 1888 should now be varied by schemes approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, so as to enable money fixed definitely in 1888 for the fabric to be used as occasion arises for those other purposes. The Sub-Commission of which I have spoken most heartily endorse the argument enforced by the difficulty of the Dean and Canons to meet the expenses incidental to their

277
positions, and the same need of further help which arises in regard to all those who take part in the maintenance and services of one of the greatest centres of our national life.
LORD DAVIDSON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, it would seem almost indecorous for me to say a word after the speech of the most rev. Primate, but I think that in what has been said about the Measure too much emphasis has been laid upon the power which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and others will have to allocate money towards the stipends of the Dean and Canons. It is necessary to bear in mind that they will also have power to enable things to be carried out in the Abbey in the way in which public opinion now demands that they should be done, with great dignity and solemnity and fitness and wider acceptability to the people at large. They ought to be, and if this Measure passes will be, in a position to get a scheme prepared which shall allow them to spend adequately on those great services which are looked for not only for London alone, or for Westminster alone, or for this country alone, but for our Dominions overseas as well, and provide for the great work which, contrasting the dignity of 1929 with that of 1388, now devolves and will increasingly devolve upon the Abbey and those who
278
minister in it. Therefore I am particularly anxious that it should be understood that in passing schemes for modfication of schemes which exist, we have in mind not only the paying of adequate stipends but also the carrying on of the great work which the Abbey does for the nation and the Church.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite mentioned that there is a constitutional point in the case of this Measure, I should like to inform the House that the point was very particularly and carefully considered in the Ecclesiastical Committee, and that that Committee had no difficulty in arriving at a unanimous conclusion in the sense which they have described in their Report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House I beg to give notice that I shall to-morrow move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX, which enables several stages of a Bill to be taken on the same day, for the remainder of the Session.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.