Lords Sitting of 3 December 1930

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

IMPROVEMENT OF LIVESTOCK (LICENSING OF BULLS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Loan MARLEY): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the improvement of livestock by regulating the keeping and importation of bulls; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS TO MEETINGS) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The principle of the Bill was decided by the Act of 1908, Since then 22 years have passed, the local authorities have been changed, the functions of many of them have been enlarged considerably, and the Act of 1908 contains some matters which it is desirable more clearly to define. Consequently this Bill is partly a codification and partly an extension Bill, so as to meet the requirements of the present day. It is a short Bill of seven clauses, of which two are taken up with the extension to Scotland, the repeal of the 1908 Act and the continued exclusion of Northern Ireland. Of the other clauses, three—Clauses 3, 4, and 5—are identical with clauses of the Act of 1908. It is, therefore, in Clauses 1 and 2 that the chief alterations are made by this Bill.
The Bill is very strongly supported by the Newspaper Society, which represents nearly one thousand morning, evening and weekly newspapers, and it has the endorsement of the Newspaper Proprietors'

423
Association, which represents the London daily and Sunday newspapers. Its principle was endorsed by a unanimous vote of the fourth Imperial Press Conference, which was held in London this year, at which the view was expressed that at meetings of public bodies administering public funds the Press should be allowed to be present. At that Conference a good deal was said about the repercussions felt throughout the whole of the Dominions and Colonies over any restriction of the privileges of the Press here.
I think the shortest way of dealing with this subject will be to take Clauses 1 and 2 and to point out the changes that are proposed. In Clause 1 it is proposed that the exclusion of the Press should be continued to be allowed where that is the decision of a two-thirds majority of members present. Under the existing Act a bare majority is sufficient, but in view of the importance of the Press it is considered that a substantial and definite majority ought really to be necessary when the matters involved are of such importance to the public funds. The second point is that such exclusion should occur at the time only when the business which is regarded as of a private character is being considered.
In Clause 2, paragraph (a) is exactly the same as in the Act of 1908. Paragraph (b) extends the admission of the Press to education committees and to joint education committees under the Education Act, 1921, and brings in that Act instead of the Education Act, 1902. It. also extends it a little further in other ways. Paragraphs (c) and (d) deal with public assistance committees or any other committees or the members of any other committees acting as public assistance committees under the Local Government Act, 1929. That Act transferred all the powers of the boards of guardians to the county councils or to borough councils. Under the 1908 Act boards of guardians must admit the Press, but there is no definite authority for the public assistance committees to have the Press admitted within their doors. These public assistance committees deal with an enormous amount of funds and they have most important matters of public interest to discuss. The power of exclusion would exist in cases where relief was being dealt with, and where it was important that a private
424
discussion should be allowed. I am informed that in those cases the Press never has reported the private circumstances of persons or the relief given, but it has dealt with questions of principle which arise in discussions affecting the public interest with regard to the administration of the Poor Law. Guardians committees are appointed by assistance committees and have almost similar power. They are also bodies which have to deal with such matters as visitation and inspection, and even management of Poor Law institutions, and their proceedings are of very grave importance to the country.
I may be allowed perhaps to quote a statement that was made by the Minister of Health in the last Government on the Second Reading of the Local Government Act, 1929. He said:—
"The public assistance committee is going to be an important body, because it will be seen that to it may be delegated any functions of the council, except the power of borrowing or levying a rate. There can be no doubt that this committee will rank among the most important appointed by the council."
As the amount of money that is disbursed is very large, it is, I think, of importance that the public should know how it is spent, and how the rates are dealt with. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted statistics issued by the Minister of Health when he was showing the expenditure on the Poor Law as regards the year 1926–7. He said that in that year—and it is more now—£50,000,000 were being spent, and practically the whole of it was borne by the local authorities; that is, by the ratepayers. The country is groaning under taxation at the present time. The rates have been increasing and increasing, and the importance of the public being able, through the Press, to keep an eye upon them is, I think, unquestionable and the principle ought to be given effect to.
Now, a great many county councils in England, Wales and Scotland—nearly 50 per cent. as far as has at present been calculated—do admit the Press. Some of the others do not admit the Press because there is not an express statutory authority, and they would be permitted to do so by the Bill. There are a few who do not desire to have the Press admitted. If the principle of the Act of 1908 is carried out, then extension to the public assist-

425
ante committees, which have really taken the place of boards of guardians, should be provided for. I am told that of these big committees in England, London, Cornwall, Cumberland, Devonshire, Durham, Essex, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, Northumberland, East Suffolk, the Isle of Wight and Worcestershire, all admit the Press to the public assistance committees. In Wales, Anglesey and Denbighshire, and in Scotland, Angus, Argyle, Bute, Dumbarton, Fife, Perth and Stirling follow the same course.
That being so I turn to paragraph (e), which remains exactly the same. Paragraph (f) brings in the assessment committee under Section 17 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, or Section 18 of the Local Government Act, 1929. Paragraph (g) brings in public authorities which spend money, to whose meetings there seems to be no reason why the Press should not be admitted. Paragraphs (h) and (i) are an attempt to deal with what may occur in future, so as not to bring in a succession of Acts whenever any measure is passed under which a public body is entitled to spend money, or if new committees with power to spend money are established by county councils. The rest of the clause deals with the case of a committee of a local authority which consists of the whole number of members of the authority. In such a case a meeting of the committee shall be deemed to be a meeting of the authority. That really is to deal with the case where a county council resolves itself into a committee of the whole body and the matter under discussion is brought up for report to the county council. Naturally, if they are the same people, they will say that any new points that ought to be discussed in public ought to have been brought up first in committee. In certain cases full authority is actually delegated to committees during the period when the county councils are not meeting. If, as in some cases, a county council meets only four times a year the evil of expenditure will have taken place already and the interest, in the matter will be practically out of date. It will be too late to do anything in the matter.
I see that my noble friend Lord Strachie desires that this Bill should be read a second time this day three months. I do not know whether he is objecting to the principle of the Bill, but it has
426
been in operation for twenty-two years. It passed through both Houses of Parliament in 1908 without a Division upon Second Reading. It was supported in the House of Commons by members of all Parties. I think an Amendment was brought forward by my noble friend Lord Banbury and it was accepted during the passage of the Bill. When the Bill came to your Lordships' House it was introduced by the present Lord Chairman of Committees, who accepted an Amendment which I think was moved by the late Lord Camperdown, and the Bill passed through your Lordships' House. Your Lordships did not divide upon the Second Reading.
I would add this important point of principle in the matter. The day has gone by when it was possible to instruct the electors of this country, few in number, either in borough or in county at the hustings. The day has gone by when everything that occurred in Parliament was not allowed to be reported. You have now a vast increase in the electorate, all craving for information, or anxious at least, the majority of them, to exercise a sense of responsibility in giving their votes. They are also people who are burdened with taxation. Surely, the only real method of getting at the electorate is by the Press, judicially using its powers. That is the only way by which you can teach the people of this country how they are governed, and it is almost the only way in which they can have any adequate control over the expenditure that goes on. I do not think I need keep your Lordships longer in explaining this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be, now read 2a.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD STRACHIE,LORD STRACHIE, who had given given Notice to move, That the Bill be read this day three months, said: My Lords, I rise on behalf of all the local authorities of England to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships have seen in The Times to-day a letter signed by the secretaries of the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, which includes all the great boroughs of the country, the Urban District Councils Association, and last but not least, the Rural District Councils Association. Therefore, I think, I may say that I am speaking on behalf of the whole of the

427
organised local government bodies in this country, who are most strongly opposed to this Bill. They do not oppose it because they object to the Press being present. They oppose it because they see no reason why the Act of 1908, passed in this House at the instance, I believe, of the Lord Chairman of Committees, which gave the right of admission to the Press, and no doubt very properly, should be extended. I very strongly support the idea of the Press having the right to be present at all meetings of local authorities, with the exception, of course, of those occasions when questions are discussed which it would be against the public interest to report.
There was a Bill introduced last Session into the House of Commons. It is rather curious that that Bill, which failed, I understand, to get a Second Reading because it had no support, applied only to the admission of the Press to meetings of the public assistance committee, on the ground that that committee took the place of the board of guardians to whose meetings the Press in the past had the right of admission, excepting where a resolution was agreed to by a board of guardians, or by any other local authority, by a bare majority, that it was undesirable that the Press should be present during the proceedings then taking place. As I say, that Bill applied to the public assistance committee, and gave an extension of the Act, of 1908 which did not apply to committees of local authorities.
The present Bill goes further. It applies not only to the public assistance committee but to every sub-committee, and, as far as I understand it, to all other committees of local authorities. If I misrepresent the noble Lord in any way I hope he will correct me, because I assure him that it was very difficult to hear in this quarter of the House what, no doubt, was a very interesting speech, and I may misrepresent something that he has said. It is very doubtful whether even the Bill of last Session was required, because the public assistance committee is not a body on its own like the board of guardians was; it is a body which those of your Lordships who are members of county councils will know very well has to report to the
428
county council and, therefore, its reports will become public and can be discussed.
This Bill goes a great deal further than the Bill of last Session, and applies to committees of the public assistance committee. I think any of your Lordships who may, like myself, have been members of boards of guardians, knew very well that often it is very undesirable that the business of these public assistance committees should be discussed in public. Very often delicate questions come up when a man is applying for relief, not only delicate for the man himself but also for the guardians, who have to enquire into the question and give their own private information regarding the merits of the case. It is undesirable that the Press should be present on such occasions. What has happened in practice has been that it has been said: "We will take the case in committee." Under this Bill, however, every small guardians committee in every case would have to pass a resolution that the application shall be taken in camera, and they would have to pass that resolution in every case by a majority of two-thirds before the Press could be excluded. If there were many cases of that sort—and there would be—it would mean the waste of a considerable amount of time for such a resolution to have to be moved and carried by a two-thirds majority in every single case. It would not be possible to pass a general resolution covering all cases.
There is another great innovation, and to my mind a very serious one indeed, and that is the Press would have the right of admission to assessment committees. They have never had that right, and, I think, very properly so. I have been a member of an assessment committee for a great many years. Under the Act of 1929 these assessment committees are very large bodies indeed, and have to deal with very important matters. It would be a very difficult thing indeed if we had to discuss the whole of our decisions in public, and if all the evidence given by the man applying for a reduction of his assessment, or by the people opposing it, had to be given with the Press present. In order to avoid having that done in public you might say it would be simple, if a two-thirds majority objected, to exclude the Press. But there again, in the case of every separate

429
assessment, there would have to be a separate resolution excluding the Press, and this would have to be passed by a majority of two-thirds. That would mean a great waste of time. I have often sat from eleven in the morning till five in the evening to hear appeals and it would be very hard on the members of these committees, who have a great deal of other business to do, if they were constantly having their business interrupted in order to pass these resolutions.
Speaking as a member of an assessment committee, I am certain we should often have to turn out the Press, because very delicate questions are asked of the man who is applying for a reduction of assessment, and members or the committee are asked to give their individual opinions upon their neighbours as to whether their assessments ought to be increased or decreased. I think it is a very wrong practice. The Press may next ask to be admitted to the hearing of appeals by the Income Tax Commissioners, and the noble Lord might again say it would be desirable. But those of us who are income Tax Commissioners know that a man might be asked to reveal minute details regarding his business. It would be bad enough to have the Press present when these details were given on an assessment appeal, but it would be even worse in the case of the hearing of an appeal by Income Tax Commissioners. There are various other committees and sub-committees to which this Bill would apply.
I did not hear the noble Lord say there were any instances—and I challenge him to give them if there are any—where a county council has refused to have the Press present, or any local authority of any great city or borough Which has refused. I believe, on the contrary, these county councils and other large councils are very anxious to have the Press present while their ordinary business is being discussed; but there are occasions when, in the public interest, it would be quite wrong that the Press should be present and when information should not be given to the public outside. It may be said: "Oh, but the ratepayers ought to know of these things." I only noticed one argument in the circular that has been issued to us saying why local authorities should admit the Press. That is a cir
430
cular issued by the Newspaper Society, and the only document, as far as I know, that has been circulated to noble Lords; certainly it is the only one that I have had the honour of receiving. The only argument in it in favour of the Bill is this, that ratepayers have a right to know how their affairs are being managed, and how their money is being spent, and that Press publicity is an indispensable link between the public and the council, including committees having executive powers. I have not the slightest disagreement with the circular, but I should like to know if the noble Lord can give me a single instance where any county council in the present day has refused to allow the Press to be present in order that the ratepayers may know what is going on.
I speak in the presence of a great many chairmen of county councils, and I do not think any of them would say that I am wrong in stating that all county councils are very glad to have the Press admitted to their deliberations. I do not know if I speak in the presence of any mayors of great municipalities, but I may say that there has been no case brought to my knowledge in which such municipalities have refused to admit the Press to their meeting. Supposing that the Press were refused admittance to a county council or to a great urban authority, would not the ratepayers take very good care to see that those men who excluded the Press should be called to account, and would not the local newspapers assist candidates in opposing men who prevented the Press gaining admittance to meetings? I think that is the only argument in the circular in favour of altering the law, and I think it is a childish one, for I do not think at the present moment any greater facilities are required in the public interest than are already available. I am desirous that the Press should have every opportunity of knowing what is going on, but I say that they have a remedy if the powers now existing are misapplied. I do not think there is any reason whatever for this Bill, and, on behalf of the great local authorities in the country, who feel strongly about it, I ask your Lordships to reject it. I appeal to noble Lords to say that these great local authorities ought to have the right of self-determination.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at end of the Motion insert ("this day three months.")—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I think the taxpayers of the country should be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Askwith for having brought in this Bill. I believe it will tend to curb excessive expenditure by local authorities. If your Lordships will look at the "whip" in favour of the rejection of the Bill you will see that Reason 5 states that it is understood that the Association of Municipal Corporations were also consulted by the Minister and they expressed disapproval of the Bill. That ought to put your Lordships on your guard at once, because these local authorities exercise an almost uncanny influence on successive Governments in their squander-mania, until they get a chance of doing something on the cheap against people who cannot defend themselves, as they did in the Slum Clearance Bill. My noble friend Lord Strachie referred to a letter in The Times this morning. That letter was signed by people who are interested parties, because they are themselves the spending people. I listened very carefully to my noble friend's speech advoc2ting the rejection of this Bill, but I saw no point that he raised which could not easily be met in Committee if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to differ from my noble friend who has just sat down, and to be obliged to support my noble friend Lord Strachie if he goes to a Division. As my noble friend Lord Askwith said, I took some part in the passing of the Bill of 1908. I listened attentively to the speech of my noble friend Lord Askwith, and I see no reason whatever for considering that the Bill of 1908 has not worked well and has not gone far enough. My noble friend who has just sat down says a;-great deal too much money is spent. With that I thoroughly agree. I have spent most of my life urging economy on my noble friends below me, on noble Lords opposite and on noble Lords below the gangway, with no result. But I must say that I do not think that admitting the Press to meetings of committees is at all likely
432
to result in economy. Since 1908, when the Press have been admitted there has been no sign of economy that I know of, and as far as I know there are very few newspapers at the present moment —perhaps with one exception, in which I am a shareholder—that advocate economy.
Just think for a moment what would happen if this Bill passed. In a committee it would require a member to get up and move a resolution that in the public interest the Press should be excluded. At the present moment, I regret to have to say, there is very little backbone in the country. Very few people have much moral courage and I feel quite certain that, supposing Mr. Jones felt that the Press ought not to be admitted, before he got up to move that resolution he would say to himself: "Well, this will be reported and I shall be pilloried in the Press because I have done this, and under the circumstances I think the best thing I can do is to keep quiet and say nothing." My experience in the House of Commons is that if we voted there by ballot instead of publicly, the votes recorded would be very different. I believe that if you pass this Bill the only result will be that you will prevent members of the county council from giving their votes according to conscience and will induce them to give votes according to what they think will be popular and approved of in the Press.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, the case for the Bill has been presented from the point of view of the Press. The argument of my noble friend who introduced the Bill was based on a Press requisition. My noble friend who moved the rejection of the Bill approached it from the point of view of the local authorities. I venture to submit to your Lordships that it is from the point of view of the local authorities and local administration that this Bill ought to be considered. I have known no case of the Press being excluded since 1881, which was before the days of these representative bodies, when in my country local government was conducted by Commissioners of Supply—of which in my case I automatically became one at the age of twenty-one—and a very good form of local government it was. But there was never any attempt to exclude the Press either from the meetings of the Commissioners or of their

433
committees. That was my experience of every kind of local authority, urban or county, until 1919, when I left the country for a time. In no case had the Press been excluded. I de not remember them at the committee for lunatic asylums in Fife and perhaps one or two others, but there was never any question of trying to exclude the Press.
I do not admit that the presence of the Press or the public tends to economy. I should have said the effect is the exact opposite, whether in the House of Commons or in the case of local authorities. I do not often find myself in the same Lobby as my noble friend who is opposing the Bill, but I propose to follow him on this occasion, and for this reason, that it is for the local authorities to decide for themselves whether the Press should be admitted or not. I think they should be allowed to decide for themselves in as tawny eases as possible. The fact is a local authority now-a-days has not the independence that it formerly had. It has not the power to stop waste, because the local authority has been dandled by Parliament in leading strings until it has lost its sense of independence. Why should not a local authority settle a matter of this kind for itself' Local authorities have been ruined by Parliamentary interference. The standard of their independence to-day is nothing like what it was, and although I am in favour of the Press having every reasonable access, there are conditions under which I can well conceive—some have been mentioned by my noble friend opposing the Bill—that the Press should Hot be admitted.
There is another consideration. In these days when expenses are paid for members of these local authorities, there are a certain number of members of a total authority who make a living out of it. Their desire is to have as prolonged discussions and debates as possible. You may have a certain number of people on a local authority who may make the proceedings interminably long and who will not only make the proceedings at any particular meeting interminably long, but will have an interminable number of meetings. Whether as Provost—in which office I served many years—or as Chairman of a county council. I should like to be able to put to the county
434
council or the local authority whether they desire to have the Press admitted or not.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, may I be permitted, as chairman of a county council, to detain your Lordships for a few moments while I support the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, in his Motion for the rejection of this Bill? I yield to no one in my admiration for the Press, for the fine work which the Press has done in the past and more particularly of late in pointing out the very serious burden under which this country is suffering owing to successive Governments, but especially to the legislative activities or in activities of His Majesty's present Government. But I should like to point out very clearly that I do not believe for a moment that there is any real desire for this Bill. We have heard of no grievances and of no real desire that the Press should have extended to them any greater privileges than they possess at the present time. It reminds me of the flapper vote. We were told that the flappers wanted votes. I do not believe that they wanted them in the least. They were given votes whether they wanted them or not. It seems to me there is very much the same ease for this Bill.
I do not believe people want. this Bill. I believe that, so far from the altered conditions of the Local Government Act, 1929, entitling the Press to more admissions, it rather restricts the Press because the local authorities have been reduced in number. For instance, at the present time all proceedings of committees are reported in the county council. When the county council meets at quarterly meetings, the reports are made to the county council and the Press are admitted in full force—they sit below me at every quarterly meeting—and they can report as they like. I do suggest, having had a very long experience of committee work in local government, that it would be a very serious thing if we were to admit the Press to the private discussions of local authorities. There are many things which we do not want to discuss in public.
I think that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, who said that in these days, when the rates are going up to such high figures, we should, by admitting the Press, help to keep the

435
rates down. I do not believe it for one instant. On the contrary, I think that the admission of the Press would make it very much more difficult for economical people on certain local authorities to express their opinions, and it would interfere with the freedom of discussion. The value of the Press is to sift and examine arguments when they have arrived at a mature stage, and not when people are discussing them privately among themselves. What does the Press ask? It asks for a resolution, requiring a two-thirds majority, to exclude it. At this moment I believe I am right in saving that it is only on special occasions that such exclusion takes place, as, for instance, when a local authority is going to decide whether or not it will adopt a permissive Act of Parliament. I cannot help asking why the Press should he thus favoured with a special resolution.
Another point that I should like to make—I do not think that it has been mentioned—is that of the disturbance which might be caused. Suppose the committee decided to exclude the Press representatives from the discussion of the first three items of the agenda, to admit them on the fourth and to exclude them again on the fifth. Think of all the scuffling, noise and inconvenience caused by the reporters coming in and going out. Local authorities already find their work sufficiently heavy without making it still more difficult. I am very grateful to the Press, and I hope that the Press will go on, in season and out of season, urging Parliament—which is responsible for most of our extravagance—and the local authorities to practise economy. It is only by the continuance of the campaign against extravagance that we can get people to realise what is before them. I have a further point to make which has been already touched upon. If we admit representatives of the Press to all our meetings, we are not going to do our best for the work of the local authorities. We shall be giving means of self advertisement to those who are probably the, least useful members of the council or committee. I find that the most garrulous are not generally those who desire to get on with the work. If people work all day at local government affairs, they do not want to waste more words than they can help. The garrulous people, generally speaking, are those who turn up at
odd
436
meetings, know nothing about the subject and seek to advertise themselves.
The last point that I would like to mention particularly concerns the local Press. Is the local Press going to find the means to employ only the highest class of reporter? Your Lordships spend your Sundays in reading your local papers, and you have probably found many speeches made by you or your friends inaccurately reported either in whole or in part. It is even more serious when remarks are taken out of their context and tacked on to something else, giving an entirely erroneous impression. Then comes the worst sin of all on the part of the Press—namely, what is called "boiling down." I quite admit that it requires a very skilful reporter to "boil down" speech. What happens when they proceed to paraphrase a speech so that you hardly recognise one remark in it as having been made by the speaker himself? I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I sincerely hope that your Lordships will agree with the Amendment that has been moved by my noble friend Lord Strachie, and will reject this Bill.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, may I add one word to the remarks of my noble friend behind me? I speak as one who has been for thirty years a member of a county council and was for nearly twenty years a member of the House of Commons. What struck me most particularly was that work that you get, through in about three hours in a county council will take from three to six weeks to get through the House of Commons. The reason is that, before the work comes before the county council, it has been thoroughly thrashed out by committees. Those committees sit in private and have a tremendous amount of detailed work to do. If you look at the list of committees enumerated in the second clause of this Bill, every one of them—education committee, public assistance committee, guardians committee, assessment committee and so on—is dealing with an enormous amount of very detailed work. The only way in which this work can be got through is for members to restrain their loquacity. My experience is that the loquacity of members of any public body varies directly with the amount of publicity that it receives. Accordingly,

437
in the interest of getting through the necessary work of local authorities, I support my noble friend in the Amendment that he has moved.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, there is one point that has not been mentioned, which I think I ought perhaps to put to my noble friend behind me, in regard to the position of watch committees. Your Lordships know that watch committees are appointed by a borough council under the Municipal Corporations Act and are the police authority for the borough. Probably you also know that all questions of disciplinary action in regard to the police are heard and decided upon by these watch committees. I think it would obviously be very undesirable indeed that the Press should be admitted as of right to these meetings. I do not want to take up the time of the House in regard to this matter, but obviously a policeman might appear before a watch committee on some minor question of misdemeanour and, if the whole thing were reported in the Press, even if he were adjudged not guilty, it would be very undesirable from the point of view of the police.
Further than that, having regard to the fact that the watch committees are themselves acting in this matter in a quasi-judicial capacity—being, by the by, elected judges—I think it would be very undesirable that their work while acting in that capacity should be the subject of report and criticism in the Press. I make these few observations because, having been responsible for some years for the control and administration of the police, I hope that, whatever be the result of this debate, my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will be at least prepared to say now whether he would be willing to accept an Amendment eliminating the meetings of a watch committee when dealing in their disciplinary capacity with police officers.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): Lords, both noble Lords opposite, one in moving the Second Reading and the other in opposing it, referred to the fact that I 'was in charge of the Bill which passed through your Lordships' House in 1908. That was one of my budding experiences, and I think it is the one stormy experience that I ever had in your Lordships' House, for, though it is quite
438
true, as the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, said, that the Bill passed through without a Division, it was strongly criticised by the predecessor of the noble Lord opposite. I think the late Lord Belper was at the time actually Chairman of the County Councils Association, if he was not ex-Chairman. The late Lord Camperdown moved the rejection, and only withdrew his opposition because the objections of the County Councils Association had been met and they were therefore willing that the Bill should pass in its present form. It is, of course, a very much restricted form, compared with the form it would take if this Bill received the Royal Assent. The noble Lord opposite mentioned that this Bill is at once codification and extension. Nobody would object to the codification, but I must point out that the original Act extends to less than two pages and this Bill to three and a half pages, so that primâ facie there is a good deal of extension.
I feel that the Act of 1908 did supply a then public want, and did represent a compromise between those two sides. I should be very unwilling to see that compromise torn up, unless there were distinct proof that it had failed, and I do not think that that allegation is made. On the other hand, take for instance the kind of extension that is made—a two-thirds majority instead of a bare majority. Why a two-thirds majority? Nobody would deny that your Lordships have a perfect right to clear the galleries by a majority. That is an ample safeguard. I do not remember in my experience that the question has ever been put, but the question is in your Lordships' hands.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: During the War it was done.
THE EARL OF DONOUCHMORE: Certainly, during the War it was done, and it could be done to-day by a majority. Surely what is safe to leave in the hands of a majority of this House, can safely be left in the hands of a majority of a local authority. Therefore I should be very reluctant, unless there were very strong evidence to show that the Act of 1908 had failed, or that an innovation was really necessary in supplying a public want, to vote in support of this

439
Bill. I hope that the law will be allowed to stay as it is until it is proved that it wants amending.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: Bill to be read a second time this day three months

PALESTINE: LAND PURCHASE CONTRACTS.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they consider it is in consonance with public policy that—

1, the acquirement of large tracts of land in Palestine on inalienable trusts by Jewish bodies should be allowed;

2, conditions should be allowed to be inserted in leases or tenancy agreements from such bodies preventing the lessees from employing any but Jewish labourers on the lands comprised in such leases or tenancy agreements.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask your indulgence while I make a very few observations in explanation, and possibly elaboration, of the Question I have put to the Government, and which now stands on the Paper in my name. I think all will agree that this problem in Palestine, coupled with the Mandate as it stands to-day, is becoming increasingly difficult and grave. I deplore it, though I confess I am not surprised at it. I have asked the Question whether it is in consonance with public policy that contracts should be inserted in Jewish land purchases, making all such land inalienable, and secondly, whether on this land so purchased no non-Jews should in any circumstances be employed. To my mind this is one of the most amazing provisions that I have ever seen inserted in a contract, and I will ask the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with his widening experience of that. great office, whether he can give to the House any instance similar in character and in stringency to this provision which has now been inserted in the Palestine agreements, operating in any other part of the British Empire. I might add this, because it may not be in the knowledge of noble Lords, that to make sure of this stringent condition being fully operative, there is a further clause which lays it down that a fine of ten Pales-
440
tinian pounds shall be the penalty for a first offence, and that in the case of a third offence the Jewish occupant of the land shall be evicted.
I would like also to remind your Lordships that this lease is very carefully stated or explained in Sir John Hope Simpson's Report, on page 53. The country is now fully informed, thanks to the most careful and searching Report of Sir Walter Shaw s Commission, and also to the Inquiry by Sir John Hope Simpson, of the condition of affairs after eight or nine years of the Mandatory system in Palestine. I would recommend noble Lords who may not have read either of those Reports to do so, and to become fully informed of the situation as it stands to-day, and to realise how potential it is of a grave condition, possibly in the immediate future. What does this proposal mean? What does this arrangement mean? Palestine, a very small country, about the size of Wales, mainly inhabited by Arabs, is already going through the process of becoming a series of Jewish sanctuaries, where the land for all time is to remain in the hands of the Jews and where those who occupy those sanctuaries can alone be Jews, employed as Jews. All Arabs therefore are excluded from this mainly Arab country. The land is by this process, becoming permanently annexed to the Zionists.
I would like to give your Lordships a quotation which will be found on page 54 of the Hope Simpson Report, because it has an interesting bearing upon the condition which forms the subject of my Question. The Report says:—
"The most lofty sentiments are ventilated at public meetings and in Zionist propaganda. At the time of the Zionist Congress in 1921 a resolution was passed which solemnly declared the desire of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people in relations of friendship and mutual respect, and, together with the Arab people, to develop the homeland common to both into a prosperous community which would ensure the growth of the peoples'."
This resolution is frequently quoted and has been well-advertised as showing that Zionism cherishes the highest possible sentiments towards the people of Palestine.
Then there is a very recent quotation on exactly the same lines from evidence before the Shaw Commission, given on

441
behalf of the General Federation of Jewish Labour. It says: —
"The Jewish labour movement considers the Arab population as an integral element in this country. It is not to be thought of that Jewish settlers should displace this population in order to establish themselves at its expense. This would not only be impossible, but from a political and economic standpoint would run counter to the moral conception lying at the root of the Zionist movement. Jewish immigrants who come to this country to live by their own labour regard the Arab working man as their compatriot and fellow-worker, whose needs are their own needs, and whose future is their future."
Your Lordships can see the marked contrast between these professions in public and the actions in private of the Jewish Agency, and I hope you will mark that. contrast in connection with anything that may take place in the future. I venture to say there is no practice that can be quoted, both in regard to land and labour, which is so arbitrary and so exclusive and has such an interfering effect on the people of the country as that which has been introduced into Palestine.
And, of course, it is a direct violation of the Covenant of the League of Nations. You have only to read Article 22 to see. It is in direct contravention and violation of the Palestine Mandate itself; because it is laid down so clearly that there can be no mistake, whatever legal quibble may be advanced as to the meaning of certain sentences, that in establishing a Zionist Home full safeguards to the civil and religious interests of the Arab and non-Jewish population are to be provided. After what I have read it cannot be advanced by anyone that there is any hope in this unhappy country of peace and good feeling between the two races that are now being thrown together. You have only to read through the Reports and also the White Paper—the fairest and most satisfactory summary of those two Reports and the best document in my judgment that His Majesty's Government have issued during their term of office; you have only to read those -Reports and you will see how absolutely opposed to the high sentiments I have quoted the methods now employed by the Zionists are.
But some people may think that this policy is only of yesterday. It is nothing of the sort. The conception dates from about ten years before the War. I should like to quote the following from
442
the diary of Mr. Herzl, a very prominent Zionist, under date June 12, 1904:—
"In taking over land we shall also bring prosperity to the country. Private owners oust be quietly dispossessed. The poor folk will go over to us. This work of expropriation, and the emigration of the poor must be carried out with the utmost care and consideration. Possessors of real estate will think they are cheating us, and will ask too high a price, but they will never be able to buy anything back."
So this policy of alienating land for all time within this small country was seriously contemplated in the Zionist movement as far back as 1901. When you associate that with the evidence before the Commission by Mr. Sacher and Mr. Jabotinsky, both very prominent and vigorous Zionists, you will see what their view is about future immigration into Palestine. In the course of their evidence am not sure whether both said it., certainly one did) the Commission were informed that they anticipated that immigration would take place at the rate of 30,000 a year until such time as there would be 1,500,000 Jews in Palestine. If that is to take place, what is going to happen, both during its process and still more at the time of its realisation, to the unfortunate native population, numbering about 700,000 Arabs and non-Jews?
You have to-day a very grave state of affairs in Palestine, and any one who reads either of these documents will see what an urgent one it is. You have Arabs, who, with their fathers before them, have been occupying land for generations, for all practical purposes expropriated. To-day they are landless and workless, and in many instances on the verge of penury. It is perfectly true that there have been monetary compensations to certain of them, but monetary compensation in Palestine to those simple fellaheen is a very different thing from alternative land. And in every case where Arabs have been displaced in order to make room for immigrant Jews there certainly ought to have been placed at their disposal alternative land. When we do these things in this country we do not begin to displace people, whether for sanitary purposes or whatever it may be, until we have found accommodation for those who have been displaced. And why should this sacred trust for civilisation, as it is called, be the one exception under the British Crown?
When you take these three things in combination—the endeavour and intention steadily to appropriate land for Jewish purposes, the number of those who are going to be accommodated, and the land that therefore must be found—and when you combine them with the subject of my Question as to whether it is public policy to make this land for all time exclusive to the Jews, and for all time to be used only for employment for the Jews, I am sure your Lordships will see what a very serious and dangerous path we have entered upon in this Mandate. Through this kind of thing we have already had three explosions—one in 1920, one in 1921, and a more serious one in 1929; and, unless effective measures are taken, I have not the slightest doubt that we shall hear of another before very long. The Arab is no different from any one else. If this kind of thing were done in any part of England, Wales or Scotland, I should not wonder what the result would be. What we mete out to our own country we should mete out to these countries which are committed to our charge and for which, and for the population of which, we are responsible.
Naturally I am saying no word against His Majesty's Government, because I think in this case at any rate that they have done better than any of their predecessors. They have produced a White Paper which is a really sound and fair-minded document. We have had too little fair-mindedness in this Zionist movement. It is one of the peculiarities of those connected with the Zionist policy that they seem to be incapable of recognising the requirements of the people in the country of Palestine. Had the Mandate been properly administered by the Mandatory Power during the past eight years, I do not hesitate to say that we should have had a very different class of Jew immigrated into Palestine. Many of the Jews that have been immigrated into Palestine, to the tune of 80,000, would be undesirable in any country, and why on earth, merely for the sake of building up this home, they should be allowed to go in I cannot understand. The reason, I take it (and this again I get from the Report), is that the duty of the Mandatory Power carefully to scrutinise the immigrants and see that their qualifications were economic rather than political,
444
was delegated to the Jewish Federation when, of course, it ought to have been held most strictly in the hands of the officials of the Government of Palestine.
I understand from the White Paper and from the speech made by Dr. Shiels, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I hope it will be repeated again by the noble Lord who is to answer my Question, that a new chapter is to be opened in regard to this Mandate, that proper scrutiny will be given and that much greater care will be taken that those who are allowed to be immigrated may only be immigrated in, consonance with the economic capacity of the country so that there shall not be these unfortunate people in a state which is fast becoming desperate. Finally, and this is my Question, I should like to hear, as I am sure your Lordships would like to hear from the Government, that at the earliest possible date they intend to take steps to make nugatory this inalienable provision of land and also this most stringent condition of Jewish labour. I beg to ask the Question of which I have given Notice.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, in listening to my noble friend's speech I confess I rather wondered whether he would have any word to say in support of the policy which was laid down in what is now known as the Balfour Declaration. I assume that he is by no means friendly to it however it may be interpreted. I do not desire to discuss to-day any of the subjects to which he referred, mainly for the reason that I understand that discussions are at present proceeding, which certainly I would not enter upon. I intervene simply because I cannot think that the statements he made fairly represent the position. My noble friend seems carried away by the Report of the Commission and the White Paper which has been issued by the Government, the latter being in his opinion the best document which has ever been issued by them. Evidently, it meets with his complete approval. But I do not think he would venture to assert that that is the general opinion.
There are only one or two observations which I wish to make at this moment, because the Government will reply to the noble Lord's Question. What my noble friend seems to forget entirely is the posi-

445
tion with regard to the Jews who come to Palestine by virtue of the Declaration which was made, which was accepted by this country in the Mandate, and for which, of course, this country is responsible. Let me state first that I have never been a member of the Zionist Association; I have never been a member of the Jewish Agency, or taken any active part in the work of Palestine. My interest in the main is as a citizen of this country and, I will add, as a member of the Jewish community. For that reason, of course, it is obvious that I should, perhaps, take more interest in the question than some who may look open it from a more detached point of view.
What are the complaints that my noble friend makes with regard to the two Questions that he asks? One is that the land is inalienable. So far as I know, that has existed ever since what was called the Jewish National Fund was instituted some twenty-eight years ago. No question has been raised about it. It was actually in existence as a form of lease or occupation agreement at the time that the Mandate was accepted, and no question has ever been raised with regard to it until the issue of the White Paper. I will not discuss the terms of it. It may he said that that does not condemn it. As far as I am aware—correct me if I am wrong—there is nothing in that which says it is objectionable. There is a reference, undoubtedly, but that is all.
Do let us understand the position in order to deal fairly with those who have instituted this form of lease or tenancy. The purpose of making the land inalienable is that the land, purchased with money which has been subscribed voluntarily from all parts of the world, should be retained so that it should be there for the purpose of colonisation by the Jewish people who immigrate there, and that it may serve as land on which the Jewish peasant will live, which he wil! cultivate, on which he will bring up his family, and which his family will work with him. That is the purpose of it, and I doubt very much whether anybody would assert that that is objectionable. These immigrants into the country go there for the express purpose of settling. The money that is found for them is not their own but is provided for them in order to enable them to settle. I should imagine that the first thing that had to be provided against was that when once
446
a settler was there he could let his land and let it, no doubt, to those who would employ cheap labour and he would live on the proceeds of the land without really cultivating it. That is the exact opposite of what is intended. I should have thought it would have been very bad indeed for the Palestine settlement if that could happen. What is provided now is that that should not happen. I submit to your Lordships that that is quite a wise policy.
The second objection raised by my noble friend is that there is a provision against employing other than Jewish labour. Surely, that must follow from the policy that I have indicated, and also, be it remembered, the Jewish population which comes there has to be supported. The money has to be found for it, and is found by the Jewish people throughout the world. There is no question of expropriation. I was rather astonished to hear my noble friend use the word. That word has a very definite meaning, and when he used it he compared it with expropriation in, this country, but expropriation has nothing whatever to do with this matter. This is land which is purchased, voluntarily sold by the Arab fur the sum which lie obtains for it, and then, naturally, having got his compensation, he can do what he likes with his money. I should be surprised to hear, if there is a voluntary sale of land, that it is incumbent upon any community to see that there is other land provided for the vendor, which he can again sell, and go on ad infinitum. I think my noble friend, when he did mention the Commission Report, might have referred in fairness to the fact that it dealt with this point. Although I do not profess to quote the exact words, it did definitely say that these Arabs who had been dispossessed had not been ungenerously dealt with and compensated by the Jewish purchasers of the land, and by those who are responsible for administering Palestine. On one point I think I do agree entirely with my noble friend.
LORD ISLINGTON: May I be allowed to contradict my noble friend? Unfortunately I have not got the Report with me, but in that Report are the actual conditions of lease. It is as clear as possible. I do not profess to have any knowledge of law but I do, I hope, understand my native language. It is as clear

447
as possible in those leases that the land, once bought by a Jewish Company, has for all time to remain in the possession of Jews. Whether it is a wrong expression to call that expropriation in an Arab country I will not attempt to try to argue.
THE MARQUESS or READING: I did not controvert a word of what my noble friend had said with regard to the inalienability of the land. On the contrary, I agree with him. My objection was to the word "expropriation," because it would convey to most people, I think, something evidently more than was intended by my noble friend. I was about to observe that I did agree with my noble friend in some of the observations that he made, although, I confess, they were only a few. It is essential that in Palestine the Jew and Arab should live in peace. That that is the policy which should be pursued, I do not suppose any one of your Lordships would controvert. Neither the one nor the other can really be happy unless there is peace amongst them, and the real difficulty at the moment, particularly after the occurrences which I will not characterise that occurred so recently, is to get them now to work together in peace as members of one community, although of two different nationalities. I agree that everything should be done in order that we may he able to bring that about.
The only reason I felt bound to intervene is that from the knowledge which I have acquired of these matters from reading the White Paper and these Reports, and from the interest that I have taken and do take in the whole subject, I do feel that my noble friend —I am perfectly sure quite unwittingly —was doing a great injustice to the Jewish community in many of the observations that lie made. I think, perhaps, that he will not be thanked by the Government for the statement that the White Paper was the best document that they have ever issued. I very much doubt whether there is any member of His Majesty's Government who would like to rise at this moment and say, at any rate, that it is a document that has given them the least trouble.
LORD ISLINGTON: It is not the fault of the Government.
THE MARQUESS of READING: All that I would now say is that I do hope, as the result of all the discussion that may be taking place with regard to the document, something will emerge which will enable the Jewish community to feel that in this country we are recognising an honourable obligation which we have undertaken, and which, let me say, leaders in Parliament of all three Parties have endorsed, and that in future there may not be discussion as to whether or not this Government, or any other Government, is receding from the obligations which it undertook with the League of Nations. I would commend that to His Majesty's Government. I am sure it is not necessary to say, and certainly I will not say, anything farther. I hope as a result of all that has taken place lately we shall have something like a settlement of the difficult questions involved, for there are difficult questions, and that there will be satisfaction to those who have settled there, relying upon the promises not only of the British people but also of the League of Nations, and resting upon what was said by Lord Balfour whose Declaration is always adverted to with satisfaction and with some pride, and for which he is honoured throughout the world.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the conditions and restrictions in favour of the Jews and against the non-Jewish population of Palestine to which my noble friend Lord Islington referred, are, so far as I know, entirely without precedent in any part either of this Empire or of our mandated territories. The noble Marquess with, if he will allow me to say so, that sweet reasonableness which always characterises his utterances, sought to justify those conditions by repeating, not verbatim but in substance, the arguments which were used in favour of these conditions by the General Federation of Jewish Labour, and which are referred to on pages 54 and 55 of the Report. I dc not say they are identical, but they were in substance the same. May I dram your Lordships' attention to Sir John Hope Simpson's comment upon the arguments put forward by the General Federation of Jewish Labour? He says on page 55:—

449
"All these arguments are thoroughly logical, and have a basis in fact. They are, however, irrelevant, in view of the provisions of Article 6 of the Mandate."
May I read to your Lordships Article 6 of the Mandate? In substance it carries out the Balfour Declaration to which the noble Marquess referred. Article 6 says:—
"The administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions."
Your Lordships will notice the words "ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced." The view of Sir John Simpson is that these arguments, which are used by the noble Marquess with such force and such plausibility, are contrary to the provisions of Article 6, and he goes on to say:—
"The principle of the persistent and deliberate boycott of Arab labour in the Zionist colonies is not only contrary to the provisions of that Article of the Mandate, but it is in addition a constant and increasing source of danger to the country."
It is not unimportant to see what is the authority which has imposed and seeks to enforce these conditions. The authority is the Jewish Agency in Palestine, with the assistance of its subordinate bodies known as the Jewish National Fund and the Palestine Foundation Fund. Your Lordships will remember that the Jewish Agency is a body which directs the affairs of i he Jewish National Home and which was formed for the express purpose of advising and cooperating with the administration of Palestine under the Mandate.
But, what is not so often realised is that behind, and in some cases above, this Jewish Agency in its policy of discrimination in favour of the Jews and against the Arabs, is the General Federation of Jewish Labour. If your Lordships will turn to page 126 of the Hope Simpson Report you will find how the General Federation describe themselves. They describe themselves in a memorandum which they presented to the Palestine Commission in these words:—
"The General Federation of Jewish Labour is the largest organised body within the Jewish population of Palestine. It numbers 27,000 members, men and women, and encompasses the whole range of the organised activities of the Jewish working class in town and country."
450
And then there is a long description of their activities. So your Lordships will see there are these two exceedingly powerful bodies operating for the purpose of enforcing what appear to me to be very unfair conditions and restrictions, and unless the Government are prepared to put some limits upon their activities the result will be not only a danger but, as I think, a grave injustice to the Arab population.
Let me just touch upon one other point which the noble and learned Marquess referred to and which has been already dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Islington—that land is inalienable. The noble and learned Marquess thinks that is reasonable. I venture to suggest that it is an entire innovation in the tenure of land in Palestine by private individuals or private companies. It is quite true that there is a very small area of land in Palestine—20,000 or 25,000 acres —held as the property of the Wakf, and the explanation is that that land is held under that tenure as dedicated to the Deity for religious or charitable purposes. That bears no analogy whatsoever to land held by the Jewish Agency for the purpose of favouring that particular race. In the case which is now under consideration, the land—I will not use the word expropriated because the noble and learned Marquess, if I may say so, does not like that term—is extra-territorialised. No Arab can ever buy or lease it. It is a sort of enclave in the land of Palestine which is for ever set aside, not by the Government but by some Jewish body, for the benefit of the Jews and the Jewish immigrants from which the native Arab is for ever excluded. The noble and learned Marquess said that has been going on some time; I think he said twenty years.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Twenty-eight years.
Loan DANESFORT: But the direct evils of it have never come prominently before the Arabs or the public until after the Mandate when, according to Zionist views, the whole object is to get as far as possible the land as a land of the Jews, and to either remove or largely diminish the Arab population of the country. So much for this inalienability which appears reasonable to the, noble and learned Marquess.

451
As regards the prohibition of Arab labour, I regard this as a deliberate boycott of Arab labour. We have seen that Sir John Hope Simpson says that it is a "constant and increasing source of danger to the country." Let it not be said—I do not know whether it will be said by the Government or by anybody else—that land held on those conditions is relatively small in extent or will be small in future. The fact is that this policy which we have been discussing is at the moment confined to the Jewish colonists, who hold, as I understand, about 67,000 acres or a little more of the cultivable land in Palestine. But the General Federation of Jewish Labour is seeking with very considerable success to extend that policy to the colonies of a body which has been now in existence some time and which is known as the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association. That Association holds something like 114,000 acres of the cultivable land of Palestine, and if the efforts of the General Federation of Jewish Labour are successful and this policy and these restrictive conditions are extended to those 114,000 acres, the matter will be even more serious than it is to-day.
I have only one or two more words to add. The noble Lord, Lord Islington, quoted from the Hope Simpson Report two passages, one from the Zionist Congress of 1921 and the other from the memorandum of the General Federation of Jewish Labour in 1929, expressing the most benevolent sympathy and desire to co-operate on the part of the Jews with those whom they call their fellow workers, the Arabs, the fellow workers whom they have boycotted from having any part or lot in labour on this Jewish land. May I add one short quotation from a very important person, Dr. Weizmann? Dr. Weizmann in conveying the text of a resolution of the Zionist organisation—I presume the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Islington—to the Government, wrote:—
"The Zionist Organisation has, at all times, been sincerely desirous of proceeding in harmonious co-operation with all sections of the people of Palestine. It has repeatedly made it clear, both in word and deed, that nothing is further from its purpose than to prejudice in the smallest degree the civil or religious rights, or the material interests of the non-Jewish population."
Having given utterance to that very excellent and admirable sentiment, they
452
proceed to buy land in as large amounts as they can upon the condition that no Arab must ever occupy it and no Arab labour be ever employed on that land. If that is carrying out what Dr. Weizmann wrote, or carrying out the sentiment already referred to, then, at any rate to me, language has very little meaning.
I entirely agree, if I may say so, with the closing words of the noble and learned Marquess. If Palestine is to progress, you must have, as he said, peace in Palestine. The Jews and the Arabs must work at peace with each other. But meantime so long as this policy in regard to land bought by Jewish organisations subsists, I urge His Majesty's Government to do something, by Ordinances or whatever the correct method may be, to stop this policy of grossly unfair discrimination between Jews and Arabs. It is contrary to Article 6 of the Mandate, it is entirely inconsistent with the declarations of the Jews themselves, which have been already quoted, and it is certain that, if it is allowed to be persisted in as it stands at present, it will lead to discontent, disorder and danger.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I hope you will excuse me if I say that I do not think it is desirable at this juncture to say anything on the larger aspects of the Question to which the noble Lord, Lord Islington, has drawn attention. I feel that I must go back to the particular inquiries which the noble Lord put to me, and I hope that he will not think me evasive if I say that the Questions cannot possibly be answered with a simple Yes or No. There are a great many inquiries of that kind which cannot be properly answered with a mere affirmative or negative. The inquiries relate to two subjects: (1), the acquisition of large tracts of land by corporate bodies and trusts prohibiting alienation, and (2), the insertion in leases or tenancy agreements of conditions prohibiting the lessees from employing any but Jewish labourers.
Let me point out, to begin with, that under the law of Palestine neither of those actions is unlawful, and the Government have made no proposals for any amendment of the law which would make them unlawful as such. Then I am asked whether either or both of these proceedings are in consonance with public

453
policy. I can only say that it seems to me to be a question of degree, and perhaps also of the manner in which the action is taken or the objects with which it is taken. Quite clearly it would be t, relevant consideration in a case where results are likely to be produced which would be in conflict with the mandatory obligation of the Government towards all sections of the population of Palestine. It must be remembered, however, that the holding of tracts of land on inalienable trusts has long been common in Palestine, and elsewhere where the trustees represent various religious communities. It is not only the Jews who have acquired land on leases forbidding alienation. There are also the Moslem bodies which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, and there are other demominations which have acquired land for various purposes. Further there are philanthropic objects, and so on, so that it is no new thing.
LORD DANESFORT: Might I ask the noble Lord what are these other religious denominations which hold inalienable land?
LORD PASSFIELD: I am sorry, but I am not able to recite them. They are religious denominations, some of which will occur to noble Lords, but I have not the particulars of any of their acquisitions. There are others, and the process is not peculiar to one religious denomination, thought I must admit that in all probability it would be found that Jewish acquisitions are larger in extent, and perhaps different in purpose, from most, perhaps all, of the others.
As to the insertion in leases or tenancy agreements of conditions specifying a large class of persons who shall or shall not be employed, it can hardly be suggested that such a contract is so far contrary to public policy that it ought, as such, to be generally prohibited by law. At least it would require a good deal of very definite evidence as to the harmful effects which were produced before we could propose to make any such conditions contrary to law. I am old enough to remember when conditions with regard to the persons who should be employed were very common in quite humble contracts made in this country: "No Irishman need apply," "No Catholic need apply." That used to be quite common in my youth. I am not commending it. I think it was a regrettable action, or, let us say, an un-
454
charitable action, and I am glad to say that in England those advertisements, at any rate, seem to have become less common. But I do not know that it was ever considered necessary or desirable to prohibit such discrimination by law.
It is all a question of degree and of the manner in which it is done and the extent to which it is done. The noble Lords, Lord Danesfort and Lord Islington, quite rightly referred to the Report of Sir John Hope Simpson for the suggestions of this experienced administrator as to some of the objections to the manner and degree in which these things have happened in Palestine. My own conclusion is, as I have said, that it is very largely a question of the manner in which these principles have been applied and the extent to which the practice is carried on. With regard to the wider considerations which the noble Lord has adduced in connection with this Question, and which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, and by the noble and learned Marquess, I can only say that they and all other relevant considerations will be duly borne in mind by His Majesty's Government in the complete execution of the Mandate, incorporating as it does the Balfour Declaration, and applicable as it is, not to the Jews alone, but to all sections of the population of Palestine. These matters will be duly borne in mind by the Government in the execution of the Mandate to which this country is irrevocably committed.

COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Close season for grey seals.
1.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, there shall be, both in England and in

455
Scotland, an annual close season for grey seals (halichœri; grypi) extending from the first day of October to the fifteenth day of December, both inclusive:
Provided that, in the case of England, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and, in the case of Scotland, a Secretary of State, may at any time by order direct, either generally or as respects any area described in the order, that, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provision—

(a) there shall be no close season during the twelve months next following the making of the order; or

(b) the next close season shall commence and end on such dates as may be specified in the order.

(2) Before any order is made under this section, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty-eight days during the session of Parliament and, if a Resolution disapproving the draft or any part thereof is passed by either House of Parliament before the expiration of that period, no further proceedings shall be taken on the draft, but if no such Resolution is passed, the Minister, or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State may at the expiration of the said period make an order in the terms of the draft, and an order so Trade shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Amendment to this clause is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("halichœri grypi") and insert ("that is to say, seals of the species known as halichœrus grypus.") (Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for moving this Amendment. I think it is the correct name. If it had been put in italics, I am told that it would be absolutely correct, but I Jo not know that it is necessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "time", to insert "after consultation with a committee of independent experts to be nominated in the case of England by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and in the case of Scotland by a Secretary of State." The noble Lord said: The reasons for this Amendment are these. I entirely agree that there will be, or sometimes may properly be, an order for no close season, or altering the close season in a particular area, because
456
the conditions differ in different localities; but I do say that that ought not to be done without previous consultation with experts. May I just give one or two illustrations why it is necessary? The breeding season varies in different places. In the Scilly Islands, I am informed, the breeding season begins in August.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No, in September.
LORD DANESFORT: My information is that in the Hebrides it begins in October, and in the Scilly Islands it begins earlier. Therefore, if that is right, the close season for the Scilly Islands should begin earlier. Again, in some localities there is an excess of grey seals, and it may be proper there that either there should be no close season at all, or that the close season should be restricted. On the other hand, in other localities, there are far too few grey seals, and no injury to fishing at all, and there the close season might be much longer. From that point of view I venture to think that the Minister should have the assistance of experts, such as I have suggested.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after ("time") insert ("after consultation with a committee of independent experts to he nominated in the ease of England by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and in the case of Scotland by a Secretary of State").—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My right hon. friend would rather that we did not insert this Amendment, because I think it is really rather hard to see what this independent expert committee would do that could not be done by those who are already employed by the Government, who are perfectly competent to carry on the work. It is unlikely, I think, that any order would he made under this clause unless complaints were received indicating that the number of seals had very largely increased, and that damage, therefore, was being done to the fisheries. If such complaints were received then the appropriate procedure would be to send one or two of our expert officials, who are in full touch with all the information on this subject, to the breeding ground, as indeed was done in 1927 or 1928, to make an approximate estimate of the grey seal population. The information which was obtained from the census of

457
two years ago showed that there were 5,000 grey seals in Scottish waters. I cannot tell your Lordships on what they based those estimates. I think the officials that we have already can do their work and, furthermore, if the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the noble Lord, is accepted, as we propose to accept it, I think really there will be ample opportunity for any one particularly interested in this subject to approach the Department and make representations. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not ask me to insert this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think the inspectors can be accused of being unfriendly to the grey seals, because at the time mentioned by the noble Earl I invited an inspector to come clown to the Scilly Islands. He did so, and went into the matter, and he said that the seals were not too numerous, and there was no necessity to do away with the close season, or to make any alteration. As the noble Earl gave an undertaking on the Second Reading that there will be a full inquiry, I think that is really all that is necessary. The official inspectors are fair and impartial, and do their work well.
LORD DANESFORT: After what is practically an undertaking that the Ministry will not make an order of this sort without consultation with experts, I perhaps ought to be satisfied. I think it would be a little better in most cases to put such a provision into the Bill, because the noble Earl may be succeeded by somebody who is not so broadminded, and who may think of making the orders without consulting experts. If it were in the Act of Parliament he would be kept in the right path. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Earl will consider between now and the Report stage whether it would not be better to put something of this sort in the Bill. All I want to do is to make it quite certain that experts will be consulted before orders are made. I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "twenty-eight" and insert "forty-eight."
EARL DE LA WARR: I accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("forty-eight").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Offences in relation on to grey seals during close season.
2.—(1) Every person who—

(a) during the close season knowingly and with intent kills, wounds or takes a grey seal; or

(b) being an owner of a boat uses, or permits any person to use, it for the purpose of killing, wounding or taking a grey seal during the close season; shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall on summary conviction be liable—

(i) in the case of offences under paragraph (a) of this section, to a fine not exceeding five pounds in respect of each such offence; and

(ii) in the case of offences under paragraph (b) of this section, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds in respect of each such offence.

EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, has on the Paper an Amendment to move in subsection (1) (b), after "owner," to insert "charterer or hirer." He has asked me to move this Amendment. I therefore beg to move it, and to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("owner") to insert ("charterer or hirer").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
".In the case of England the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and in the case of Scotland a Secretary of State, shall make regulations as to the best and most, humane mode of killing grey seals at times other than during the close season."
The noble Lord said: This is really an urgent question, because the evidence that I have collected and read is very strong to show that the existing methods of killing grey seals are exceedingly cruel. May I call the attention of my noble friend to two well-known authorities on the subject? The first is Major

459
Hesketh Pritchard, who wrote an important book called "Sports in Wildest Britain." It is an exceedingly interesting and well thought-out book, and the author says in the strongest terms that there is great cruelty in the mode of killing both adult seals and what they call the baby seals. That is not all. Mr. Seton Gordon, who has given great attention to the subject, wrote an article in the Empire Review for November, 1925, and it corroborates every word of what is said by Major Hesketh Pritchard. I have also personally interviewed a Mr. King, who has been resident in the Scilly Islands for a number of years, and who is very familiar with the mode of breeding seals and of killing seals.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I know him well.
LORD DANESFORT: I am glad to hear that. At any rate I had a long talk with him and he described in minute detail some of the great cruelties practised in killing these seals. He says that men, probably fishermen—I am not saying that fishermen are any worse than others, but if fish have been killed they would not be very friendly to the seals—go round with clubs and batter these unfortunate seals on the head. Unfortunately they do not always kill them immediately. It may take several blows to kill them, and Mr. King assures me that in some cases he has known it take as long as a quarter of an hour. I am sure the Government would not approve of that method of getting rid of the seals, and I hope the noble Earl will be prepared to introduce a clause into the Bill which will enable the Minister to prescribe a more humane mode of killing them. I believe the simplest way would be by shooting, but I leave that to the Minister, and I hope he will accept this clause or any amendment of it that he thinks better, in order to stop this very horrible form of cruelty.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Danesfort.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I should like to support this Amendment. I have heard exactly the same story about the clubbing of seals. No doubt anyone who goes and clubs an old bull seal must be a plucky individual, because that seal is a formidable monster. I do not think,
460
however, the practice has been followed for a good many years, but I have heard exactly the same story from Mr. King. If the seals are shot in a sportsmanlike fashion, which is the right way to keep them down, there is no cruelty at all. The fishermen, who used to club them, though I do not think they have done it for a good many years, had not got the rifles and other appliances, and therefore when there was a complaint of there being too many, they resorted to this means.
EARL DE LA WARR: I confess I have been impressed by what the noble Lords have said and I would like to meet them. The trouble is really that seals are so very widely distributed, and they are killed just by odd fishermen who come across them in some districts in Scotland. I think rewards are offered by fishery interests to fishermen for bringing in the seals. It would be very difficult to lay it down that every fisherman had to carry a rifle in case he came across a seal. On the other hand, I think we might meet the noble Lord to a certain extent. I was going to make this suggestion, that there is something to be said for giving the appropriate Minister power to include in any order, when the protection is to be removed and seals are going to be slaughtered in any numbers, provisions for the regulation or control of the killing of grey seals and their rookeries during the breeding season. We might well consider the possibility of putting down an Amendment for this purpose, I think, before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, but I am afraid that further than that I cannot go.
LORD LOVAT: Might I suggest, as being a person who comes from one of the counties where these seals exist, and perhaps as one of the few people in the House who has seen these seals, that it should be left to the local county council to deal with the matter? They know much more about it than your Lordships do, or than the Ministry do. Personally I would very much rather see grey seals killed with clubs than by an amateur firing a rifle at them. They have been killed with clubs for centuries, and when they are hit they are killed immediately. It is much the most practical way to leave it to the counts council. I do not move any Amendment, but I would suggest that to the Government.
LORD DANESEORT: I understand the noble Earl will produce on Report a clause which he hopes will meet the case. That being so, I beg to withdraw my Amendment. But may I express the hope that the clause will do something to prevent this undoubted cruelty, which has been going on quite recently. I hope the noble Earl will draw up his clause as strongly as he can.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid it will not entirely meet the noble Lord's point, but it will go some way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.

AGRICULTURE.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT asked his Majesty's Government when an announcement is to be made on the subject of the Government policy on "cereal farming" which is to implement the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and reaffirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries on the nth of November last in the House of Lords.
The noble Lord said; My Lords, I would like to point out that in asking this Question I do not ask what the Government policy is with regard to cereal farming, but when they are going to make an announcement. I admit at once that I have given very short Notice of this Question, but after all the matter has been before both Houses of Parliament for a very considerable time. The other day the noble Earl said that cereal growing in this country should be considered in the light of the conclusions of the Imperial Conference. Well, the conclusions of the Imperial Conference were not very great, and perhaps the Government statement of their policy may not amount to very much. I do not know that it is a necessary sequitur, but we should like to be reassured. The noble Earl also said that after the Imperial Conference His Majesty's Government would undertake whatever practicable steps could be devised to put cereal farming on an economic basis. A reasonable time has now gone by since the Imperial Conference, this matter must have had the Government's attention for a very long time, and I hope that they will now give me an answer as to whether we are going to be told at the end of this week,
462
the beginning of next week, or the week after. This is a critical time. The weather is open, ploughing has to be done, and if you are farming on a normal five or six years' rotation you cannot alter from one style of farming to another in a single year. It is essential that cereal farmers should cut their losses as quickly as possible, and it is for His Majesty's Government to give us the earliest notice of what their intentions are.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am afraid that for the moment it is impossible for me to say anything more than what was said the other day. His Majesty's Government realise to the full the urgency of this problem, and the matter is still under discussion. I hope that it will be possible very soon to give, the noble Lord and your Lordships' House the reply for which you are waiting.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I beg to give formal notice that I shall ask this Question again this day week.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHITLBREDE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to ancient monuments; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, I beg to present a Bill to authorise the trustees of the British. Museum and the trustees of the National Gallery to make loans of objects comprised in the collections of the museum and gallery respectively for exhibition overseas; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUCKIE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of the Burgh of Buckie in the County of Banff:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, there is no business on the Paper for
464
to-morrow. There was the Third Reading pro forma of a Bill which has already been discussed, but that will not now be taken to-morrow. So I move the adjournment of your Lordships' House, except for judicial business, until next Tuesday.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.