Lords Sitting of 10 July 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COAL MINES BILL.
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments insisted upon by the Lords agreed to, with Amendments, and certain other Amendments disagreed to, for which disagreement the Commons assigned a Reason.
LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

STOKE-ON-TRENT EXTENSION BILL.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name with respect to the Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill, that the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That, no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 24th of June next," be dispensed with. In view of the Motion for the rejection of the Bill at this stage, which I understand Lord Dartmouth intends to move, I feel it necessary to call your Lordships' attention to the enormous volume of literature which has been circulated amongst your Lordships showing how complex this matter is. The unanimous decision of a Committee of the House of Commons entitles the Bill to a Second Reading and consideration by a Lords Committee. If this Bill should be rejected on the motion of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, it will be the first time, as far as I can find out, that a Bill has ever been rejected after it has been unanimously accepted by a Committee in the House of Commons.
This is not a case where anybody can state the principles in a few sentences. The principles and the facts are so closely allied that the facts must be ascertained before the principles can be recognised and then decided. Any of
368
your Lordships who vote against the Second Reading of this Bill will be giving a vote without a full knowledge of the facts of the case. We are asked to make ourselves a jury to decide this case upon ex-parte statements and not upon evidence—a thing which no member of your Lordships' House would dream of doing in a Court of Law. A great deal has been made of the poll, but a tribunal should be told of the methods employed to get that poll. This can only be done before a Committee. The point which the opponents make with regard to the saving of costs is a false one. Both sides have prepared their proofs and the witnesses' proofs. The actual expenses of the hearing will only be a comparatively small additional amount. Moreover, if the matter is shelved now, it is bound to be revived until the case has been decided on its merits, thus wasting the money which has already been spent. If noble Lords who oppose the Bill are so positive that it is a bad Bill, then they need not be apprehensive as to what its fate may be before a Lords Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 24th June next," be dispensed with.—(Lord Auckland.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I desire to say a few words on this Motion. There is no one in this House who is less willing to offer a slavish obedience to a rule. Rules are for the convenience of the House and if occasion requires they must be set aside. But surely before they are set aside some good ground should be offered to the House why a recognised practice approved by the House should be disregarded. I listened—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying with some difficulty—I listened carefully to what the noble Lord who moved this Motion said, and I have not heard a single word of reason as to why this House should go back on its rules and suspend them. Of course, it is perfectly true that the Bill that lies behind this rule is a very highly controversial one upon which there will be, no doubt, very acute debate, but before we get there we have to see why it is that this Bill should come into this House at all. We have decided that no Bill should come

369
in after June 24 except for special reasons, and I do say that on every occasion when the rule is to be set aside a special reason should be assigned. Up to this moment I have heard none. I sincerely hope that those who are in favour of this Motion will show why it is that we should disregard rules which we have devised for our own proceedings.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention to this point, because it is a very important point not only in the case of this Bill but in assisting your Lordships in the discharge of your public duties. Perhaps I am to blame for not mentioning to your Lordships on some earlier occasion the reason why we find ourselves in this position as regards this particular Bill. The rule, of course, is made in order to try to secure that contentious matters shall be got through your Lordships' House and your Lordships' Committee at a reasonable time of the year. I am, as representing your Lordships in this matter, the first person who is applied to when any question arises of suspending this Sessional Order, and I need not say that my first question to the promoters always is: "Will your Bill be opposed in the House of Lords?"—including, of course, the House of Lords Committee. My next questions always are "Why is the Bill late? Are the promoters to blame?" It is obvious to your Lordships that this Bill will be opposed both in the House and in Committee, if it reaches Committee, but I am satisfied in this case that the promoters are not responsible for the delay that has occurred. Therefore, I think it would be a pity if your Lordships penalised them in this case for what is not their fault.
Now that I am on the subject of this Bill, perhaps I ought to explain that the promoters have communicated with the House of Commons authorities, with those who advise the House of Commons in these matters. It seems impossible that there should be a long enough interval between now and the day in July or August when your Lordships adjourn to deal with the Bill, and I understand that, if a Message is sent by your Lordships suggesting that the Committee stage of this Bill should be held over until the autumn, the House of Commons
370
will be advised to agree to that suggestion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and the Order suspended accordingly.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Auckland.)
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH,THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH, who had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read a second time this day three months, said: My Lords, it has been hinted to the House that I am taking an unusual course in moving this Amendment. I have been in your Lordships' House for forty years, and I have been in Parliament for fifty-two consecutive years, so I am perfectly aware that I am taking an unusual course; but I hope that I shall be able to prove that all the circumstances of the case are so unusual as to justify me in the request that I am making. We are told that this Bill had nineteen days in the House of Commons Committee. That is quite true, but it will be perfectly easy to prove to your Lordships that the decision was entirely contrary to the weight of evidence. If I had time I should like to prove this to you. At any rate we are satisfied that, when that decision was given, everybody was surprised, especially the promoters. Nobody was more surprised than the promoters themselves.
I do not propose to go into detail, but to confine myself entirely to principles. Noble Lords who have had experience of county council work know well that for a considerable tune county councils were put in a very awkward position by hungry county boroughs. At one time we were almost in the same position as the Israelites under Pharaoh, who, when their tale of bricks was maintained, were deprived of straw to make the bricks with. That is exactly the position we find ourselves in on the county councils, with the result that there have been several endeavours to put this question of the taking of parts of the country by county boroughs on to a regular and understood footing.
As I have said, the circumstances of this case are very unusual. The promoters, who had a large slice of the county—some 900 acres—in 1922, have not yet digested that. Why should they come

371
down now and ask for so much more, when they have not dealt with the part that they have already received? That is an unusual thing to do. There is another rather unusual matter. I have had some personal experience of sitting on Committees in this House and the other House. I find, on reading the literature that has been referred to, that the Chairman of this Committee laid great stress on the fact that the Committee were unanimous. He repeats it over and over again. He repeats it so often that we begin to have a slight suspicion whether the Committee really were as unanimous as is made out. At any rate, this has nothing to do with it. I am going to base my arguments, not on the unanimity or lack of unanimity of the Committee, but on the justice of the case.
What is it that this Bill proposes to do? It proposes to swallow one of our urban district councils, Wolstanton, and it also proposes to swallow Newcastle-under-Lyme, one of the most ancient boroughs in the country. Wolstanton gives us, just the evidence of what we had all hoped to see as the result of the Local Government Act, 1888. It provides an excellent illustration of the manner in which the work of urban district councils ought to be carried on. Newcastle-under-Lyme has one of the finest histories in the country. It had its first Charter in the reign of Henry II, so long ago as 1117. It had another Charter in the reign of Edward I, another in the reign of Elizabeth, another in the reign of Charles II, and another in the reign of James II. These are to be scrapped and swallowed up by a new borough. Newcastle has sent members to Parliament, I understand, since 1336. Perhaps the one fly in the ointment of Newcastle, from the Party point of view, is the political complexion of the members it has sent. This Bill has done something which nothing else in the whole world could have done: it has welded together in one harmonious whole all Wolstanton and all Newcastle. All classes and all Parties—Labour, Liberal, Unionist and Tory—are all joined together with the firm determination to stand shoulder to shoulder and prevent, if they possibly can, this glaring injustice.
One of the principles that has been laid down over and over again is that the wishes of the population should
372
count. I think the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill rather questioned the manner in which the votes wore obtained. We hear a good deal to-day about the referendum. Here was a referendum, a postcard referendum, sent out to the ratepayers, and the interest taken in the measure was so great that nearly 90 per cent. of replies were received, and of those 90 per cent. 97 per cent. were opposed to the Bill. Yet in spite of what has been said over and over again, we are asked now, against the almost unanimous wish of the population, to swallow them up. I maintain that the wish of the population is a thing that ought to count, and that where you have a strong feeling against being swallowed up by another body the opinion of the people ought to carry the greatest weight.
Where has Newcastle failed? Why should it lose its great history? Why should it lose all that it has had for so long? because let us remember that, with an experience of independent life of over 700 years, to-day it sets an example of local government at its best. Where did it fail? Has it failed in education? No! Newcastle has been the recognised education centre in North Staffordshire for two centuries. It has, I believe, an educational system that will compare not only with anything in the county but with almost anything in the country. If you want any evidence as to the failure or not of Newcastle, you have only to refer to the Preamble of the Bill, and in that you will find our justification, for while they are proposing to hand over to Stoke the educational system in Newcastle, they at the same time reserve it to the county by giving them 60 per cent. of the managing body.
Has Newcastle failed in building? Again we can refer to the evidence of the Preamble, because there it is admitted that the housing scheme of New-caste is very much preferable to and much finer than that of Stoke; and they trust that now they are throwing Newcastle into Stoke, Stoke will not materially deteriorate the methods of Newcastle in the building line. I do not think there can be better evidence than that when it comes to the question of swallowing up the ancient Borough of Newcastle. After all that it has done for education in the county and for local government, to swallow it up in another

373
body in which it has no interest, and with which it has no connection of any kind, cannot be justified.
Then we are inclined to ask, why is it that they have passed this Bill? Here, again, the Chairman of the Committee takes another rather unusual course, and he gives his reasons. I would like to read to your Lordships what his reasons are. He said:—
"In view of the magnitude and importance of this Bill, the Committee desire to add that in their view factors of exceptional character are present in this case, such as the incidence of the cost of Poor Law administration under the Local Government Act, 1929, in consequence of which they have been obliged to picture the probable state of affairs in this combined area ten or fifteen years hence …"
I am sure that the promoters of the Bill never had any idea of ten or fifteen years hence, and that seems to me to have been an endeavour to give justification for an entirely unjustified act. Of course we who are not very regular attendants in this House find a little difficulty in understanding these measures which are from time to time introduced, but I always thought that one of the objects of the Local Government Act, 1929, was to "break up the Poor Law," and to secure so far as possible that assistance where required should be given not as Poor Law relief but as public assistance. The Unemployment Insurance Act of 1930 will tend to increase the number of persons who will be entitled to receive unemployment relief and thus automatically reduce the scope of Poor Law relief. Having regard to these considerations it is clear that when the county have had time to organise their area, which they hope to do in the course of three or four years, Poor Law relief should, to a very great extent, disappear, or be limited largely to looking after aged and infirm persons.
I do not know whether I am right in that view, but if I am then there is no possible reason whatever for anticipating ten or fifteen years hence, unless it is that the Chairman of the Committee was under the impression that there would be still a Labour Government ten or fifteen years hence, and was therefore prepared for the worst. That is the sole and only reason given for this great injustice—the ignoring of the municipal charter, the ignoring of the wishes of the people, and the swallowing up of these two great well run areas, and putting them in one
374
where the management is certainly not to be compared with the management of the areas to be swallowed up. There is a great deal more that I should like to say, but one gets a little confused with the large amount of literature which has to be considered, and I will therefore content myself with moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. I would ask, in the interests of economy, which we are always preaching and never practising, that this Bill should be thrown out. I ask you to do so in the interests, of county government, because if this Bill is made a precedent there will be no hope for county councils in the future. I ask you to reject this Bill in the interests of local government, in the interests of Staffordshire, in the interests of Newcastle, and in the interests of Wolstanton. I might even go as far as to ask you to throw out the Bill in the interests of Stoke-on-Trent, because I am sure that if Stoke-on-Trent succeeds in swallowing Newcastle it will find, to use an Americanism, that it has bitten off a good deal more than it can chew. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day three months").—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think perhaps I might assist your Lordships by recalling very briefly the recommendations which were contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in regard to the extension of county boroughs. This question of the extension of county boroughs was a very controversial one some years ago, and the Royal Commission, which was appointed to go into it, made certain recommendations. Those recommendations were, I think, generally acceptable to local authorities, because all classes of local authorities were represented on the Commission, and the parts of the recommendations which necessitated legislation were embodied in a Bill which passed through Parliament practically without opposition, showing, I think, that about these particular recommendations there was no great controversy. I thought, therefore, that it might perhaps be useful briefly to summarise them.
In the first place, it was felt in the Report of the Commission that the test

375
should be left to the discretion of Parliament. It was not thought possible to recommend any more precise definition of the test than that which is contained in Section 54 of the Act of 1888, and that is whether the extension was or was not desirable. Therefore the criterion whether a proposal for an extension is desirable or not desirable must mean whether it is in the interests of all the persons concerned. That is to say, as a general rule; but of course we have to consider cases like the present one, where the interests of the various local authorities in the proposal are divergent. When that is the case the question must be settled upon an equitable and judicial balance. The advantages for the extension must be weighed on the one hand against the advantages against it on the other, and the same with the disadvantages: the disadvantages of an extension against the disadvantages of no extension. And so, when all the facts relevant to the proposal have been taken into consideration, in the end it must be the cumulative effect of the advantages and disadvantages which will influence Parliament in giving its decision.
In the opinion of the Royal Commission there were certain considerations which come into nearly all these proposals, but, the circumstances of every extension being different, greater or less weight will attach to the different considerations in different cases. First of all in importance, in the opinion of the Royal Commission, generally if not invariably, one would expect to put the wishes of the inhabitants of the area proposed to be added. Now, the first necessity is to be sure that those wishes have been fairly and accurately ascertained. It was not thought by the Royal Commission that the expression of opinion of the inhabitants of the proposed added area, whichever way it might go, need necessarily be absolutely conclusive, whether it was for or against the proposal. But the Royal Commission thought that the wishes of the inhabitants of the area proposed to be added were so important, and the weight to be attached to them so great that they ought not to be overruled, unless it could be shown that there were considerations of public importance more
376
weighty than the decisive wishes of the inhabitants.
The next point, and one which is very nearly connected with that of the wishes of the inhabitants, is that of community of interest. The Royal Commission did not think it was possible to lay down any hard and fast rule in regard to community of interest, and the only satisfactory way of deciding on that point was to leave it to Parliament to decide on the merits. Then comes the question of sewerage and other sanitary services; and arguments relating to the provision of such services tending to show that extension is desirable have great weight if they prove that there would be a substantial improvement in sanitary administration suited to the requirements of the proposed added area. Especially would this be the case if it could be shown that it would not be reasonable to expect to attain such improvement by other means than by extension of the county borough area.
Then I come to public education, and the decision on that matter, according to the Royal Commission, would seem to be whether the county borough council could make better provision for the added area than is possible by other means, or has been available in the past. Arguments as to trading services have perhaps less weight than those I have already mentioned unless the promoters can show circumstances of a very special kind; and similarly arguments as to town planning would hardly affect the case. So, in deciding for or against an extension, the Royal Commission thought that Parliament would be guided largely by the wishes of the inhabitants, and by the question whether or not the essential services of the area would be materially improved by such extension; also by the fact that such improvements could not be attained by other means. I have ventured very briefly (for they were contained in a lengthy document) to summarise as best I could the recommendations of the Royal Commission, as I thought perhaps that might be a way of assisting your Lordships in arriving at a decision.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I have no local and no personal connection with any of the areas that are involved in this dispute. I know nothing about

377
the controversy beyond the material which has been given to me equally, I imagine, with every member of your Lordships' House; and I desire to make that statement in order that your Lordships may feel that, whatever my opinion may be, it is at least wholly uninfluenced by anything excepting what I regard as the indisputable facts of the matter. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has rendered considerable service to your Lordships in pointing out what it was that the Royal Commission recommended as the matters that ought to be held chiefly in regard when you are determining that one area should be included in another. And the first and the most obvious of all is the wishes of the people—not merely of the people who are going to take and swallow, but of the people who are going to be consumed, the people of the areas which are going to be annexed. To disregard such wishes would be in my opinion to disregard one of the fundamental principles of liberty. Why should an independent body, with its own independent local life, with its own old and dear traditions, be forcibly absorbed against its will in another place, with which it has no personal and no historic connection whatever? it was for that reason, I imagine, that the Royal Commission in their wisdom emphasised as one of the things for consideration the question of the wishes of the people concerned.
Do let us for one moment recall the figures that the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, gave, because I think they are startling. They sent out notices to all the people on the register, and of the people on the register in Newcastle there were 86.98 per cent. who polled, nearly 87 per cent. of the total electorate, and in Wolstanton, the other place, 88.55 per cent. When you allow for sickness, for indifference, for all the causes that, render the number of those who poll at an election a long way below the number on the register, I think your Lordships will agree that those are most striking and startling figures. But the figures that ensued are more startling still. Of that percentage, 97.84 of Newcastle and 96.8 of Wolstanton voted against this provision. I say that it is impossible to imagine any condition in which you could get a more coherent, and a more emphatic and authoritative repudiation of the proposal than that
378
contained in these figures. Therefore, it is plain that if this Bill is to be accepted the wishes of the people in those districts are not only going to be set aside but wholly and, I should add, insolently ignored. They might just as well never have been enquired into. You might just as well never have asked them what they thought. Yon might just as well have said: "We do not care what you think now or hereafter; you are going to be absorbed." That is the first thing that struck me when I read these papers, and I am bound to say that it struck me very forcibly.
The next thing I looked for was the reason why these people were going to be absorbed. Of course, it is possible, in the first place, that two boroughs like these might be wholly misconducting their affairs. They might have run heavily into debt. They might not merely be old, as certainly Newcastle is; they might have decayed, and it might be desirable that there should be some new life brought into them. As soon as I examined the figures in regard to that I found that there is an extremely active, vigorous and healthy life in these places. I find that their education is of such a standard that it is admitted that, even after they are taken away from their own individual life, they are still entitled to retain an enormous percentage on the education committee. I find that not only have they to an extraordinary extent exercised their powers in regard to housing, but that by every means by which you can test local activity honestly pursued these places have justified their existence.
Then why is that existence to be destroyed? I look a little further and I think I begin so see. As far as I can understand the papers that I have—and I know nothing beyond what these papers tell me—the Newcastle debt is £6 2s. per head while the Stoke debt is £10 19s. per head. Is it not possible that that may he one of the reasons, and that there may be a desire to distribute an indebtedness in which Newcastle and Wolstanton have never had the faintest voice, which they have never been able to control and have never been responsible for incurring—that now it has been incurred there is a wish to spread it over a larger area that it may be less heavy on Stoke? That seems to me to be one of the reasons, and it looks to

379
me very much as if, for some astonishing cause, that was one of the reasons which actuated bile Committee in another place.
I trust your Lordships will not think that I have only looked at one side of this matter. I have read with infinite care the document that has been sent out by the promoters in support of their Bill, and I find that this is the reason why it is said that all the other considerations are to be ignored, every one of which tells in favour of these two boroughs. It is that, having regard to the incidence of the costs of Poor Law administration and the re-organisation of Poor Law administration, in consequence of which the Committee have been obliged to picture the probable state of affairs in this combined area ten or fifteen years hence under existing tendencies—existing tendencies which I sincerely hope will not continue—of local government conditions, they have no hesitation in coining to the conclusion that the wishes of these places should be overridden.
That is really where it lies. The truth of the matter is that Stoke-on-Trent has cast envious eyes upon these two independent, reasonably prosperous and well-conducted places. They want to bring them into their one vast area and say that it is necessary in the interests of a big central administration. I have always doubted the value of this central administration if it is going to destroy local spirit. I do not believe it is any good at all. What it can give in exchange for what it takes away is not worth possessing. I know, having read these papers, that if I were an inhabitant of Newcastle I should do everything in my power to prevent my being absorbed into a place to which I owed no duty, which I felt had no tradition and which would prevent my feeling that I was a number of a small corporation in which I had just pride.
The next thing is this. Your Lordships will notice that this proposal contemplates a state of affairs ten or fifteen years hence. If it is going to happen ten or fifteen years hence I would suggest that they had better come again in ten or fifteen years time. Your Lordships must remember that this is not the first time that they have come, as it is. They came in 1919, I believe, and then they
380
were defeated. They are coming again now, so that they snow the road, and if in ten or fifteen years time this thing is at all necessary they can travel it once more. At the moment I say that these facts are facts which do not justify the Bill.
I do not desire to keep your Lordships longer, but there are one or two other matters which I think need attention. The first, of course, and the obvious one is the suggestion: "You had better read the Bill a second time. Everything you say can be urged again before the Select Committee." If there were disputable facts that had again to be elicited, if there were matters upon which evidence could be called that is not contained in these documents I have referred to, I should admit at once the overwhelming weight of that suggestion. I trust I am not unreasonable in these matters. I think that we had just now a very good cause for refusing to suspend the Sessional Order. I am sure that the noble Earl the Lord Chairman will appreciate that I did not challenge a Division on the second occasion owing entirely to his intervention and suggestion that it might not be fair. I am not unreasonable in these matters, but I can see no earthly cause why the facts which are before your Lordships now should be disregarded by you and that you should say: "Let somebody else do it." Why shelve the responsibility? It seems to me that we are asked to consider it now and I beg your Lordships to consider it now. Unless there be some much stronger reasons offered than those that I have seen in any of these documents I shall certainly support the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, if he goes to a Division now, in asking your Lordships not to crush the life out of little places that have done no harm whatever except to have the misfortune to find themselves on the borders of a greedy corporation.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I am strengthened in doing so by some remarks that fell from the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, who told us all about a long and righteous political life of over 59 years during which he had never sinned politically. To-day, for some unexplained reason, he wants to change all that and go against the established

381
practice of your Lordships' House. We then heard a remarkable speech—and when I say remarkable I mean able—as we should naturally expect, from Lord Buckmaster. But Lord Buckmaster appealed entirely, I think, to our hearts and sentiments and very little to our heads. I certainly was very much carried away by his speech, and I am not at all sure, if this matter comes up again later and if it goes to a Committee, that I shall not be swayed by a great many of his arguments.
What I want to say now is this. Why should we go against the established practice of Parliament, which is to let a Bill that has been an unopposed Bill in another place come up here and be given a Second Reading and be considered on its merits? I, like Lord Buckmaster, know nothing about the merits of the case, but I know something about my own responsibility with regard to it, and I am not prepared to stand here today and vote upon a measure which I have had no chance of studying and to which obviously there are two sides. The fact that there are two sides is all in favour of giving a Second Reading to the Bill. The opposition to this Bill wish to defeat the measure right away without any proper consideration by your Lordships. Quite apart from any personal interest which I might take in the matter, I feel that it would be a mistake that a proposition of this magnitude—because it is a big thing, aid a great deal of money has been spent upon it—should be turned down without any further consideration. It is not one of those matters which can be discussed in detail by your Lordships' House this afternoon, or with equity on an occasion of this kind. Considerable injustice may be done to the promoters, who at least are entitled to have the matter examined critically from every aspect by the impartial tribunal which your Lordships' House always sets up and whose findings are always respected, though they are not always liked.
To throw out this Bill to-day would mean that your Lordships have done so without having examined it, and in consequence we might have to shoulder the responsibility not only of doing injustice to the larger body, the promoters, but also of having been carried away by
382
sentiment for the grievances of the smaller bodies, either fancied or real. Personally, I strongly advocate that the promoters should be given a run for their money, and then to use a Scottisism, "Let the de'il take the hindmost." The responsibility would not then rest upon us. Lord Buckmaster wants us to take the responsibility to-day when we should not take it. I am perfectly prepared to take responsibility when I have heard both sides.
I would point out that we have in Stoke-on-Trent an existing City of over 21,000 acres with a population of 280,000 people, and a rateable value of £1,213,000 as against an area of 8,000 acres, with a population of 56,000, and a rateable value of £200,000. Now these areas are absolutely contiguous, and amalgamation is bound to result in economy of services and increased efficiency in, I think, every respect, and it will not affect, I believe, those who are carrying out the public work in those places now. Lord Buckmaster tore my heart very much when he spoke about the rights of minorities. I hope when the time comes in other respects, when we have other Bills before us, he will also remember the rights of certain minorities in this country and speak for them then. A still further point, and one which weighs very strongly with me, is the difficulty that the authority of Stoke-upon-Trent has in improving its own housing conditions for working classes on account of subsidies and so on unless they are able to obtain control of more land in the neighbourhood of Wolstanton. Another point is that of health. The whole of this area, including the City of Stoke-upon-Trent, is obviously one area for the purposes under review.
I can quite understand the County Council objecting to the inclusion of a valuable part of their area. I am a county councillor myself, and know that county councils are bound to oppose these Bills in order to retain their own locus. So far as Wolstanton and Newcastle-under-Lyme are concerned, they cannot very well object to the principle of amalgamation when we find that they themselves are petitioning the County Council to assist them in swallowing the parishes of Clayton and Keele and the County Council is quite prepared to support them in that. So far as the parishes of Clayton and Keele are concerned it makes

383
very little difference except that they will be swallowed up by a fish with a larger interior capacity, while Newcastle-under-Lyme and Wolstanton are in the disagreeable position of having to admit that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. One quite understands the dislike of the smaller body to being incorporated with the bigger one, and if you take a referendum on the subject the people concerned naturally always do object, because it is the way of the world. But if they take the larger view they will realise, I hope, that they will be able to get greater services from those who will be responsible in the future if this amalgamation goes through.
The opposition relies for your Lordships' support upon the fact that 97 per cent. of the population in the area concerned voted for their independence, and for remaining with the county. I should like to see the terms of reference in the referendum. I want to remind noble Lords that they were asked if they wished to be amalgamated, not necessarily with any body, but if they wanted to be amalgamated or to retain their independence. It was not suggested to them that if they were not amalgamated with Stoke-on-Trent they would be amalgamated with each other. If that had been the case I am told they would probably have preferred to have been amalgamated with Stoke-on-Trent. There was exactly the same opposition to this Bill in another place. The Committee sat for nineteen days. It started with being hostile, but in the end unanimously came to the conclusion that the amalgamation should take place. That is what we are told the facts are.
In these circumstances, whether your Lordships eventually agree or disagree, I think it would be wrong not to have the matter thoroughly investigated by giving the Bill a Second Reading and referring it to a Select Committee, thus ensuring a fair decision by which we can all stand, for if the arguments of the opposition are sound nobody will recognise that quicker than a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. While the noble Earl who opposes the Second Reading is fully entitled to voice his reasons against the measure, I hope he will at least content himself with the public protest he has
384
made to-day, and will allow a Second Reading to be given to this Bill so that it can be thoroughly discussed on its merits at a later stage.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what has been said by my noble friend, the noble Duke opposite, more especially as regards procedure. My noble friend Lord Dartmouth, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said the case was unusual. I agree it is unusual, and it is difficult, I think, for that reason. I do not remember a case in which there has seemed to me to have been such a strong case on both sides as there is in the case of the Bill before us this afternoon, and the fact that there is so much to be said on both sides makes it the more difficult for me to ask myself whether I can decide it this afternoon.
These cases of extension have been greatly assisted, I think, by the Report of the Commission of my noble friend Lord Onslow, and in trying to think of any extension cases on their merits in the atmosphere created by that Commission I ask myself, as a rule, two or three simple questions. First of all: Does the area desire it? I think all the proof, the suggestion of proof, is to the contrary in this case. I then ask myself: Is the smaller area badly governed and is it necessary for the public advantage, therefore, to amalgamate it with a more efficient neighbour? I think that there can be no doubt whatever that Newcastle is efficiently governed, and one of the first things I learned in local government, if I may say so in the presence of the noble Lord, is that Staffordshire is efficiently governed. Then there is a third question: Is there any public case making expansion of the larger area desirable? Or, in the exact words of the Royal Commission, "Are there considerations of public advantage which, in the opinion of the proper authorities, are more weighty and of greater importance than the objections of the inhabitants?" That question has been considered in another place by a Committee which sat for nineteen days and the answer is in the affirmative.
I find it very difficult to disagree with that answer on the facts which are before

385
us this afternoon, able as are these memoranda on both sides which have been circulated. I therefore feel that I should like further guidance and further inquiry by a Committee of your Lordships' House. I hope it is not too late to appeal to my noble friend not to divide. But if he does divide I shall vote for the Second Reading, having clearly in my mind that when I vote for the Second Reading I am not expressing any opinion that the case for the promoters is better than the case for the opposition, or vice versa. shall vote with the feeling that I want more guidance on this matter, and believe that a Committee of your Lordships' House is the most efficient tribunal to discuss anything in the world, but above all a case like this involving the weighing of evidence between two parties, both of whom are in a very powerful position and thoroughly able to put their case efficiently before your Lordships.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I had the honour to serve on the Royal Commission to which the noble. Earl, Lord Onslow, referred and of which he was Chairman. To my mind the argument is even stronger than the statement made by my noble friend. To my mind it is perfectly clear that no great area should be taken out of a county against the wishes of the inhabitants unless there are very exceptional circumstances indeed. I have not heard from the noble Duke or from anyone else what are the exceptional circumstances in this case. I cannot blame the noble Duke, because he told us that he had not examined the Bill and knew nothing about it. Naturally he would not be interested in an English Bill. He is not a member of any English county council, as far as know, and he does not know how strong are the feelings in this country of members of county councils.
I would venture to tell him that I have come here on behalf of the County Councils Association, the Parliamentary Committee of which has asked me as Chairman to tell your Lordships that they are unanimously opposed to this raid of Stoke on the County of Stafford in the interests of the people of Stoke as against the interests of the people of Staffordshire. The Royal Commission recommended that unless there was any real reason for overriding the
386
wishes of those living in a county, they ought not to be put into a borough. We have had no such reason given us. The decision of the House of Commons Committee, it seems to me, was given in a very halting way and I cannot help thinking that the Chairman of the Committee felt that there were very strong objections to Stoke absorbing Newcastle-under-Lyme and Wolstanton. He referred to the question of education, which I am sure your Lordships will consider very important indeed. As regards secondary education the Committee evidently thought that Stoke was unfit to deal with the matter and they reserved the right to Newcastle to have 60 per cent. of the members of that committee so that Stoke would be always in a minority. That was rather a strong admission that Stoke is not exactly the right body to absorb Newcastle.
The Chairman of the Committee also stated that he hoped the housing scheme in Newcastle would go on because the Newcastle scheme was so admirable. It does seem rather extraordinary that you should take away from Newcastle the power of housing its own people when it was said by the Chairman of the Commons Committee that the work was so admirably done that he hoped it would go on. Of course, if Newcastle is merged in Stoke those powers would be taken away when Newcastle was absorbed into this great county borough. The only reason advanced was that stated by Lord Buckmaster, that in fifteen years' time there might be difficulties as regards Poor Law administration and, therefore, that amalgamation was desirable. Apparently those are the only grounds why these two places should be absorbed into Stoke. I very much doubt if it is desirable.
As regards debt, Stoke has a debt of £11 a head as against a debt of £6 odd in Newcastle, and it rather seems as if they are in difficulties and want in future Poor Law administration to be able to increase the rates of Newcastle for the benefit of their own area. As regards what has happened in the past in the House of Commons, I would refer to what has been said by Chairmen of other Committees. In the Bradford case, the Committee said:—
"No place should be taken in without the consent of the majority of the inhabitants unless it can be shown that the existing authority has failed in its duty."

387
No attempt was made by the noble Duke—
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The noble Lord has used my name several times. May I say that I did not wish to go into the merits of the case to-day but, rather to give reasons why we should not break the established practice of the House and send this Bill to a Committee?
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Duke wants to know why. I am going to give reasons why we should not cause the wasting of a large sum of money by the County of Stafford and the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the urban district of Wolstanton. There was a nineteen days hearing in the House of Commons. Why should you now put upon the ratepayers the cost of perhaps another nineteen days inquiry in this House, which might all come to nothing?—because I rather gather from what has been said that unless there is a very strong case made out for Stoke-on-Trent it is very doubtful if this Bill will pass Third Reading. May I return to previous decisions which have been given? In the case of Liverpool and Bootle we had this decision:—
"The Committee consider that they should be guided by the principle that large self-governing areas should not be amalgamated without mutual consent, except upon one or both of two definite grounds: first, that the administration of the area proposed to be annexed is proved to be unsatisfactory; second, that the separate municipal existence of either area is opposed to the interests of the community at large."
We have had no statement here, and I doubt if any noble Lord would get up and say, that administration has been unsatisfactory in the particular areas which Stoke want to take in.
Again, it is not a small area that is to be taken into Stoke. It is an area of 8,000 acres with a population of 56,000. That means taking in a large agricultural area. It has been stated by the noble Duke that one reason why we should allow this amalgamation is that Newcastle and Wolstanton have already asked the County Council that they may be amalgamated into one borough. But does he think that is a reason why they should be put into Stoke? Here we have an area with 56,000 inhabitants which in itself would make a very large borough if all the districts were combined, and I am
388
wondering whether Stoke was afraid that in time the area which they seek to absorb might itself form a county borough. They may think that there would be a certain disadvantage in having another county borough adjoining them.
Apart from that point, it is obvious that this large area, with a population of 56,000, might readily become a municipal borough, and it would be a body admirably equipped to deal with housing, Poor Law and sanitary matters, and to do all that was necessary. It is rather ridiculous that such an area should be added to the City of Stoke. The argument has been very properly used—I remember this point coming before the Royal Commission—that in some cases small urban districts cannot properly deal with water, sanitation and general public utility works on account of the small rateable value of the areas. Sometimes they cannot even get a loan to carry out such work. I quite agree, but that does not apply in this case. Here you have a large self-contained area with a population of 56,000, which Stoke wants to get hold of, probably, as my noble friend Lord Buckmaster suggested, because they hope thereby to reduce their debt, in which in the future they may possibly have a heavy increase.
I would like to remind your Lordships that in 1919 the Ministry of Health held a very lengthy and full inquiry into the proposed absorption of these very areas, and rejected it. I wonder if the circumstances have really altered. We have been told that the Ministry of Health is anxious for this amalgamation. You may say that the condition of things is different and that we had a different Government in 1919. It may be that the present Government have a changed attitude and do not agree with the decision of their predecessors and of the Ministry of Health. We know that much has altered under the present Government in a way which many of us do not entirely approve. But I once more implore your Lordships to remember that this is a very serious matter for the ratepayers of the district. If they have to fight this Bill once more before your Lordships' Committee, it means a very serious charge upon the local rates. All who live in the country know very well that an increase of rates is a serious matter.

389
Part of this increase will fall upon a large agricultural area. This Bill seems to me to be entirely unnecessary. I am certain that the whole of the county councils in this country will be unanimous in saying that the right course for your Lordships to adopt is to reject this attempt by a county borough to seize a large area entirely against the wishes of those who live in that area.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I hope that in this case we shall accept the advice given us, as the result of great experience, by the Lord Chairman. We are not now considering whether this proposal ought to be accepted or not. I do not want to go into the merits of either side of the case. The merits of a case of this kind can only be judged by the evidence given before the deciding body, whatever it may be. But surely, in exercising our proper duties in a matter of this kind where there is obviously a difference of opinion between two parties, we ought not to prevent the case being heard in the ordinary course before a Select Committee upstairs. I think this is very important when you consider that it has already been considered in a quasi-judicial spirit, after many days of inquiry, by a Committee in another place. I deprecate altogether the consideration of the merits of either side of the case. Everyone who has experience of these cases knows that they depend upon what is desirable in the public interest in each particular case. I think, therefore, that we might now allow this matter in the ordinary course to go to the Committee, where all the questions that have been raised can be determined after relevant evidence has been heard.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I hope that you will not accept the advice that has just been given you. I am confident that your Lordships are now in possession of all the relevant undisputed facts, which show that, as a matter of principle, this Bill ought not to be read a second time. I agree that, as a general rule, where there are relevant facts in dispute which can only be settled by evidence taken in Committee upstairs, your Lordships will read a Bill a second time and entrust the examination of those facts to the Committee. In this case I submit that there are no relevant
390
facts in dispute, and the facts that are undisputed will show that, as a matter of principle, your Lordships ought to reject this Bill.
We all, of course, attach immense weight to the opinion expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore. His opinion seems to be in favour of rejecting this Bill, if I read it aright, because he puts several questions and gives the answers. He asked in the first place whether the area proposed to be annexed approves. His reply is—and again I think it is unquestionable—that the areas proposed to be annexed, by a preponderating majority in a poll fairly taken—no one has suggested the contrary—strongly object to this annexation. Then the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, asked: Is the smaller area which it is proposed to annex badly governed? As he very truly said, the evidence is entirely the other way on the admitted facts. The Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which has been in existence for 750 years and which the new Corporation of Stoke, which is, I think, about twenty years old, seeks to swallow up, has been and is admirably governed. It is up-to-date in every respect, in housing, education, and in all the requirements of modern municipal life. I have not heard a word from my noble friend Lord Auckland or from the noble Duke who spoke in support of this Bill to suggest that the Borough of Newcastle is not admirably governed in all respects. Let me add that in some respects it is governed a great deal better than Stoke.
In the matter of education—to take that as a test and, I think, not an unimportant one—Newcastle, with its 25,000 inhabitants, has three secondary schools and Stoke, with its 250,000 inhabitants, has only four. So great is the shortage of provision for secondary education that they have to pay £4,000 a year to Newcastle for the education in secondary schools of their own children, whom they cannot educate in Stoke. As regards housing, Newcastle has spent something like £600,000 in providing houses for the working classes, and Stoke has done nothing comparable in any respect. Accordingly I answer the second question, as indeed the noble Earl answered it, by saying that the smaller area is admirably governed, and

391
from that point of view there cannot be the slightest suggestion that it ought to be handed over.
The only other question which, I gather, appears at all material to the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, is whether there is any question of public advantage in this Bill. There is certainly no public advantage to the Borough of Newcastle. They know their own business, and 97 per cent. or 98 per cent., on an immense poll, have decided that they do not want the Bill. I have read with great care the statement put forward by the promoters of the Bill, in which they urge that there are some reasons why the Bill should not be passed. I can see that there may be some reasons in the interests of Stoke alone why the Bill should he passed, but that surely is not a reason for allowing Stoke to swallow up a well governed municipality like Newcastle. Indeed, Lord Buck-master, with every word of whose admirable speech I agree, pointed out that there may be some not very good reasons why Stoke should desire to swallow up Newcastle, when he pointed out that the debt per head of the population of Newcastle was £6 2s., and that of Stoke £11 per head. Neither the noble Duke nor Lord Auckland advanced any reasons of public advantage why the Bill should be passed. They hinted vaguely that there were some, but I think their arguments would have carried much more weight if they had shown what public advantages there would be in passing the Bill.
There is only one other question, I venture to suggest, which is worth consideration at all, and that is whether we are going to depart from what I agree is the usual practice of reading the Bill a second time and sending it to a Committee. That is almost the whole point of the argument of the noble Duke, and I think almost the only argument of Lord Parmoor, and certainly it was the main ground of the advice given by Lord Donoughmore. I grant that that is the usual practice, but where there are no facts really in dispute—no relevant facts—and where it is a question of principle, and it is inadvisable to read this Bill, I think your Lordships are not only entitled but are almost hound to throw it out, bearing in mind the enormous expense of sending it upstairs. I fully grant that if
392
sending the Bill upstairs were only to cost £200 or £300, or some such trifling sum, your Lordships might say it is a trifling matter, the lawyers will be pleased, and some other people will be pleased at the expenditure, so let the Bill go upstairs. In this case, however, I am informed that the proceedings in the House of Commons cost something like £50,000, and proceedings in this House, considering the nature of the opposition, would undoubtedly be prolonged and would probably cost another £50,000 or £60,000 That is the best information which I am able to get, and I really ask your Lordships—this is my last word—is it right or reasonable, when so strong a case has been made for the rejection of the Bill by those who know all the facts, to put this small borough to an expense of £50,000 for the purpose of pleasing this large Corporation of Stoke?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I will only trouble the House for a moment, but the noble Lord who has just sat down unconsciously made the strongest speech for sending the Bill to a Committee. The noble Lord based himself most vehemently, as his first argument, on the fact that all relevant facts were known and that no relevant facts were in dispute. As an illustration of that he mentioned that the debt of Stoke per head was £11, and of Newcastle £6 2s. I have been supplied by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill with a statement which shows that not only Lord Danesfort but Lord Buckmaster also was entirely in error. If Lord Auckland is correct in his statement the debt of Stoke instead of being £11 per head is £16, and that of Newcastle instead of being £6 2s. per head is £21 per head. Therefore the whole basis of the noble and learned Lord's contention, that all the relevant facts are known, falls to the ground.
LORD DANESFORT: It is a matter of some importance. It is perfectly true that the debt of Newcastle, exclusive of housing, is only £6 2s. That fact has been furnished to me, and I stick to it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The difference is proportionately the same.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: But the difference is the other way round, and the unfortunate doubt and difficulty as to the facts constitute the strongest

393
argument for sending the Bill to a Committee. I could not possibly be drawn into an argument with regard to the merits of the Bill. I am aware of the high authority of Lord Dartmouth, and I know how strongly the noble and learned Lord impresses the House, but I want to put this point to the House. The Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons on January 28. Five months elapsed during which all this evidence was brought out, and the Committee were unanimous. On June 26 the Bill was read a third time. Not one single word was said by any member of the House of Commons in opposition to the Bill. None of these highly contentious and in some respects highly coloured arguments were used, and I for one, more strongly than a great many of your Lordships, would assert the right of this House to consider any of the matters which come between us and
the House of Commons. There is reciprocity in that, and I never remember a case—I doubt if the noble Lord who guides us in this matter can recollect a case—in which a Bill not challenged in the House of Commons has been refused to be sent to a Committee. Nobody regrets more than I do, or resents more than I do, the enormous expense which takes place before Committees, but your Lordships, by refusing to send the Bill to a Committee, while you may save one party additional expense, at the same time are condemning the other to bear the loss of the whole £50,000, while feeling that their interests have not been fairly considered by your Lordships' House.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) [Teller.]

Daryngton, L.

Denman, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Yarborough, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Ernle, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Elibank, V.

Erskine, L.

Salisbury, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Hailsham, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Ancaster, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Gainford, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Denbigh, E.

Mersey, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Iddlesleigh, E.

Ullswater, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Kylsant, L.

Lucan, E.

Addington, L.

Marks, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Alvingham, L.

Phillimore, L.

Midleton, E.

Amulree, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Plymouth. E.

Auckland, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

Russell, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sempill, L.

Sinclair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Wellington, D.

Brentford, V.

Dulverton, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Camden, M.

Churchill, V.

Forester, L.

Exeter, M.

Hood, V.

Hanworth, L.

Hawke, L.

Bathurst, E.

Abinger, L.

Heneage, L.

Bradford, E.

Armstrong, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Dartmouth, E. [Teller.]

Askwith, L.

Jessel, L.

Effingham, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Latymer, L.

Harewood, E.

Barnard, L.

Lawrence, L.

Harrowby, E.

Belper, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Lichfield, E.

Berwick, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Lindsay, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

O'Hagan, L.

Liverpool, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Remnant, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cawley, L.

St. Levan, L.

Morton, E.

Charnwood, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Peel, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Stafford, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Cranworth, L.

Stanmore, L.

Strafford, E.

Danesfort, L.

Strachie, L.

Westmeath, E.

Deramore, L.

Templemore, L.

Wicklow, E.

Desborough, L.

Treowen, L

Digby, L.

Wharton, L.

Wraxall, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to; Bill to be read 2ª this day three months accordingly.

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ARGYLL TRUST ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RIVER LEE (FLOOD RELIEF, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]

  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (QUAY EXTENSION, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, with reference to these two Bills, I move that Standing Order No. 143 be dispensed with in connection with them in order to expedite their progress to another place.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 3ª.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to Bills read 3ª accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before public business begins I think it Would be convenient if I were to say that we have now made arrangements for taking the Coal Mines Bill as the first Order on Tuesday and after that the Second Reading of the Housing Bill. I shall have to move that the relevant Standing Order be suspended because if it were not suspended I assume that the Housing Bill would come first. I understand it is for the general convenience that the consideration of the Amendments to the Coal Mine Bill should be taken first, and I give that notice to your Lordships. Notice of the suspension of the Standing Order will be given in the ordinary way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, so far as we are concerned, I need not say that we shall place no difficulty at all in the way of that arrangement of business. I do not know whether it was by inadvertence, but the noble and learned Lord did not tell us at what time he proposes that your Lordships should meet on Tuesday.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought I said at a quarter before four. I am told that there is no judicial business and that will give us a little further time.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made on the twenty-fifth day of March last "That no Provisional Order Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 24th day of June next," be dispensed with regarding the Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last "'That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 24th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2ª accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORECAMBE AND HEYSHAM) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and Passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EAST DEAN AND UNITED DISTRICTS JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CARDIFF, STOKE-ON-TRENT AND WORTHING) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HENDON RURAL) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (KIDDERMINSTER AND LLANELLY) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GOOLE AND OLDHAM) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Position of appellant pending determination of appeal]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): Your Lordships will recollect that we gave an undertaking that when the Committee stage came we would consider any suggestions made by the Government of Northern Ireland. Most, of the Amendments on the Paper are merely drafting. With regard to Clause 13 in a number of sentences these words appear: "the appellant who is in custody." The Parliament of Northern Ireland desires that the word "detained" should be put in so that the
398
sentence should read "who is detained in custody." There is no possible objection to this, and I beg to move the drafting Amendments to Clause 13.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 11, after ("not") insert ("detained")
Page 10, line 14, after ("if") insert ("detained")
Page 10, line 24, after ("is") insert ("detained")
Page 10, line 25, after ("not") insert ("detained")
Page 10, line 29, after ("when") insert ("detained").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As the Lord Chancellor has said that these are drafting Amendments, perhaps your Lordships will take them together.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to,
Clause 14:
Duties of registrar with respect to notices of appeal, &c.
14.—(1) The Registrar shall take all necessary steps for obtaining a hearing under this Act of any appeals or applications to the Court, notice of which is given to him under this Act, and shall obtain and lay before the Court in proper form all documents, exhibits, and other things relating to the proceedings in the Court before which the appellant was tried which appear necessary for the proper determination of the appeal or application for leave to appeal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the last four words "for leave to appeal." The noble and learned Lord said: There is a small drafting Amendment in subsection (1) of this clause. The words "for leave to appeal" do not appear in either the English Act or the Scottish Act. They are not necessary and they might lead to confusion. I beg to move, therefore, that they be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("for leave to appeal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Prerogative of mercy]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause—
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section nineteen of this Act, the powers

399
conferred on the Minister by this section may, at any time after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, be exercised in the case of a person sentenced on or before that date in like manner as if he had been sentenced after that date."
The noble and learned Lord said: This the only Amendment which is not in the nature of drafting. By Clause 17 the Minister is enabled to refer a matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal. When the Scottish Act was introduced a similar subsection was put in. By an amendment to the Scottish Act in the year 1927 it was provided that:—
"Notwithstanding anything contained in Section nineteen of the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926, the power conferred on the Secretary of State by Section sixteen of that Act to refer a case, or any point rising therein, to the High Court of Justiciary shall he exerciseable in the case of a person convicted on or before the thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, in like manner as if he had been convicted after that date."
This Act is not coming into force in Ireland until March, 1931, but the Minister desires to have the power to refer cases in which sentences have been imposed before March 31. There cannot be any possible objection to this. The Amendment simply follows the words of the Scottish Act, which they Wish to have put into this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29 at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18, agreed to.
Clause 19:
Application.
19.—(1) This Act shall apply in the case of all persons tried and convicted on indictment, who are sentenced after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, but shall not affect the rights as respects appeal of any person sentenced on or before that date.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after the first "shall," to insert "save as otherwise expressly provided." The noble and learned Lord said: There will have to be a small consequential Amendment in this clause having regard to what your Lordships have been good enough to do for the Parliament of Northern Ireland in
400
Clause 17. After the words "This Act shall" it ought to run "save as otherwise expressly provided." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, after ("shall") insert, ("save as otherwise expressly provided,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Interpretation.
20. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Sentence" includes any order of the court of trial made on conviction with reference to the person convicted or his wife or children, and any recommendation of that court as to the making of a deportation order in the case of a person convicted, and the power of the Court to pass a sentence includes a power to make any such order or recommendation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end, to insert "which could lawfully have been made by the court of trial." The noble and learned Lord said: If your Lordships will look at the clause you will see that it says:—
"'Sentence' includes any order of the court of trial made on conviction with reference to the person convicted or his wife or children, and any recommendation of that court as to the making of a deportation order in the case of a person convicted, and the power of the Court to pass a sentence includes a power to make any such order or recommendation."
There is a very small technical point here. In fact an order for deportation is not made by any court. The court recommends an order for deportation but in fact the order is technically made by the Home Office. Therefore it is necessary after "recommendation" to insert the words "which could lawfully have been made by the court of trial." I beg to move that those words be added to the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 5, at end insert ("which could lawfully have been made by the court of trial").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

AIR TRANSPORT (SUBSIDY AGREEMENTS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
A FIXED EASTER.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any steps to secure a fixed date for Easter under the powers provided by the Easter Act, 1928. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have taken an interest in this subject for many years, and since putting this Question on the Notice Paper I have received a somewhat lengthy letter from the Home Office asking me to postpone it, at all events for the present. As I understand that negotiations are now proceeding under the ægis of the Government with other Powers, that the Government are anxious to secure agreement on this matter so that the Act can be put into operation, that the subject is also coming before a Committee of the League of Nations at an early date, and that the present juncture is not, for many reasons, a Convenient time for instituting a debate upon it in your Lordships' House, I will, with your Lordships' permission, postpone my Question indefinitely.

EXPORT CREDITS.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask whether His Majesty's Government has extended credit for the sale of Cuban sugar to the Russian Soviet Government, and, if so, what is the amount and value; also whether the provisions of the export credits scheme include benefit for foreign produce as against British Colonial, and, if not, why did His Majesty's Government not insist upon British-grown sugar being used in this instance; and to move for Papers.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I desire to inform the House at the outset that I have no intention of calling for Papers. My first duty must be to thank
402
Lord Ponsonby for his courtesy in refraining from dealing with this subject before to-day. Like many other people I was astonished to read in the Press that not only had a firm of brokers accepted a contract in New York to supply 50,000 tons of Cuban sugar to the Soviet Government, but that last month the same firm sold 130,000 tons of sugar, valued at about £1,000,000, to Russia, this sugar having been refined in England and a nine months' credit having been given under the British export credits scheme. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I make no reflection either upon the brokers or upon the refiners or upon the merchants who have carried out this deal. It is rather the other way, for they have seen a good opportunity of doing legitimate business and have seized it. I may also congratulate them on its future success without being numbered amongst the false prophets, for the deal is bound to be successful whether the contractors are paid by Russia or whether they are not, because the British Government have underwritten the due and just payment.
The last portion of my Question may seem to show that I do not appreciate why Colonial sugar was not used in this instance. This, however, is not the case, for I fully realise that British-grown sugar enjoys a subsidy and Colonial sugar a preference, and that the obvious answer of the Government to me will be that there is nothing to prevent British sugar being used for Russian business if the sellers are prepared to forego a subsidy or a preference of 3s. 9d. per cwt. Obviously a rate of duty of this amount must have the effect of making the articles benefiting from it unavailable for other destinations than the country guaranteeing it; so that is not going to be one of my points. I am also the last person in the world to wish personally to attack the Export Credits Department, who are always courteous, and always trying to be helpful.
What I am trying to get at is this. Why is there all this effort to give nine months' credit to Russia which does not need it? And why, on the other hand, does His Majesty's Government make such a difficulty in giving credit or assistance to the British Colonies to save the sugar industry which is their very existence? Let us look at this Russian

403
deal first of all from a purely business point of view. In the first place consider the risk. Very obviously the risk was one that neither a financial house nor a bank could undertake, otherwise the Government credit would not have been required. Credit, we are told, has also been arranged in New York for what I may call the American end of the stick, for £50,000. Not only does the smallness of this sum make me feel pretty certain that this is not an American Government credit, but also at the moment, I understand, the United States are refusing to take even timber from Russia that is now on the high seas in British ships because they allege that it has been cut under conditions which are akin to slavery. So I assume that the credit was through the ordinary channels.
If this is the case in America why could not the same thing be done here, where there are no difficulties being put by His Majesty's Government in the way of trading with Russia, slavery or no slavery? Why was it necessary to give credit, thereby making our own Government responsible for any default? So far as this country is concerned Russia is a defaulting nation, and the defaulters are not a group of Russian firms but the Russian Government. As Lord Brentford pointed out the other day, the Russian Government have a trade balance with us of £20,000,000 a year, and it seems inexplicable that they should be given further credit instead of being asked to pay for the goods. From the business point of view Lord Ponsonby, when he was challenged the other day, stated that Russia's defalcation had nothing to do with the case, because that matter was under examination, or words to that effect, and, therefore, should be put on one side when arranging the new credit, or in other words loan to the Soviet Government, because it is a loan.
It is rather a curious argument. Can you imagine any bank with a large frozen loan being anxious or willing to give fresh credit to any individual or firm unless this fresh credit was going to lead to recouping the business and unless there was an understanding that any profits made would go towards paying off that frozen loan? So, in the first place, I want to ask whether any arrangement
404
has been reached or any bargain made with Russia respecting the money which she undoubtedly owes us? And has Russia undertaken that after the competent authority has settled what the claims against Russia due to us really are, the debt will be promptly paid? There was an opportunity for bargaining and I want to know why that was not taken.
Then I want again to point out to your Lordships that Russia is a single unit and responsible only to herself. Therefore, there are no means of coercing Russia as one could coerce a Russian firm. She has already defaulted with impunity, and if she does so again there is nothing to stop her doing so, as she is not only judge and jury but the prisoner and the State as well. Even if we were on the most friendly terms in the world with Russia and even if she had always paid up honourably, we should still always have at the back of our minds the political situation. It seems to me absurd that there are greater difficulties in arranging credits for certain other friendly Continental countries, who at least can be brought to book if they default, than in arranging credits with Russia, with which country diplomatic relations might be broken off at any moment. No doubt the time will come when we shall have more friendly relations with Russia. No doubt the time will come when Russia will recognise that her present propaganda is contrary to the ethics of civilisation, and possibly the time will come when she will have paid up her debts. But in the meantime we have no earnest of these things.
In the export credits scheme Russia was definitely excepted and the Government have removed the ban and are obviously at the back of this new policy, which I think they will not deny. I would like to ask whether the Government have considered the risk in the case of diplomatic relations being broken off, even temporarily, with a nation with which we are on very doubtful terms of friendship. Instead of the risk being taken by a firm in the ordinary way, His Majesty's Government have guaranteed the gamble, and if the gamblers lose, the people of this country will have to pay. I hold most strongly that in the circumstances our Government should not go into highly speculative business of this sort—a business which is not likely to

405
lead to any very great result if we are to judge by the best period of trade with Russia when we were on friendly terms. We may well be excused if we are led to conclude that the Overseas Trade Bill is simply being used as a cloak at the public expense to assist trade with Russia in a manner which would not be tolerated by more open methods such as a State loan.
The other point I would like to make shortly is: Was the risk worth the candle? If it had been a question of selling manufactured goods such as cotton I could have understood it, because the great bulk of the work would have been performed within the British Isles and thus materially have relieved unemployment, and the raw material would have represented but a small part of the total value. But in this case, if the reports are correct, we learn that the British firm sold 130,000 tons of Cuban sugar valued at £1,000,000 to Russia on British Government credit—or so we read. That is to say that the sugar was apparently bought much below its cost of production. It came from Cuba and the cost of refining it, could not have been more than £150,000 or something of that sort. It may be that it was not so much, but I am putting it high. Assuming these figures to be roughly correct, am I to understand that British export credit was given up to 60 or 70 per cent. on the sum of £1,000,000—that is the total sum—or was it on the sum of £150,000, which is the British sum?
If it was given on £1,000,000 it is a scandal that this Government should give credit to help Cuba to off-load its bounty-fed sugar, thus helping the Cuban situation against the British Colonial situation, other than the small difference made by the depletion of world stocks, which is a gain to a certain extent. If the credit was given on the sum of £150,000, the smaller sum, the refining sum, the matter was not really worth bothering about, and could easily have been arranged without Government credit. I therefore ask if the credit was given on the whole amount or only on the British part of it. Perhaps the excuse may be made that Cuban sugar when it comes to England becomes ipso facto British. That may be the excuse of the noble Lord. But surely
406
this matter depends rather on the amount of work put into it in Britain. I am sure that the noble Lord, who once was the distinguished member for a Scottish constituency and a leading light in the Young Scots Society, if I remember aright, some years ago, does not contend that if he had at that time worn a kilt it would have made him ipso facto a Scotsman. I cannot see why selling Cuban sugar here should necessarily make it British.
Let us contrast this deal with the treatment served out to our own Colonies, whose sugar business is now hopelessly involved and whose plantations are gradually petering out as they come to the end of their ratoons and are reducing the amount of cane that they are planting. Lord Passfield, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, told us the other day that when he heard that there was an impending crisis in the Nest Indies, he laughed and said: "Another sugar crisis! The West Indies have weathered former crises and I hope they are not going to come to an end now." The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, is also credited with having said to a very influential deputation which went to see him on the subject, that he was very sorry he could do nothing with regard to the sugar business in the West Indies, but he could assure his audience that if this crisis did end in finishing the industry the Labour Government would see what it could do for those thrown out of employment. I see the Labour Party is getting a little thin on the Benches opposite.
LORD MARKS: Go on with your reading.
THE DUKE of ATHOLL: I shall have the courtesy to wait for the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who is quite capable of taking charge. But it is not what Lord Passfield has said. It is the general attitude of the Government, which is more anxious to trade with Russia than to preserve the existence of the Colonies. Much less a sum than that which they have risked losing in Russia would have been money spent more profitably if it had been spent at this time in safeguarding the existence of the West Indies and Mauritius. But the present Government look upon the British Colonies, so far as I

407
can make out, as an incubus, and upon Russia as an asset of our Empire. I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who no doubt has the figures, if he will let us know the amount of export credit given in the case of Russia, for which country export credit was not intended, since the present Government assumed office, and the amount given for all other countries combined, excluding the British Empire, which perhaps might be given separately if export credits are available for that purpose. I do not suppose they are.
In conclusion, there are two points that I should like to make shortly. May I ask His Majesty's Government if they have made certain that this sugar will not be or has not been sold ahead by the Soviet Government to another country? It is rather an important question. I would like to know if they have made any inquiry on that point, and if they have ascertained or bargained that it is for the direct use of the Russian people only. If not, it is quite possible that the Russian Government, with its nine months' credit, will off-load this sugar in exchange for the equivalent in cash, or something else, from another country. In any case, there is nothing to prevent this being done and I should not be one hit astonished, if the noble Lord were to make inquiry, if he found that some arrangement of that sort had been made. Finally, may I point out that in 1911 in the days of the Tsar, the then Liberal Government declared that unless Russia were allowed to export 300,000 tons of bounty-fed sugar westward, the British Government would withdraw from the-Brussels Convention. Now, in the days of Communism, when Russia has reached the happy state that certain members of the present Government are so anxious to imitate in this country, they are not only unable to export sugar, but they actually have to import it. I think this gesture of friendship with Russia has been but a sorry advertisement of the Government's acumen, either from a political or from a business point of view. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to allay our fears in regard to what is, after all, more a matter of business than anything else. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies may I say a few words in support of the remarks of the
408
noble Duke? Last week we had a debate on this subject in the course of which I raised this question, but, as the noble Duke has said, it was decided that direct debate upon this matter should be reserved until to-day. I also raised the general principle of these export credits. Are we to understand that the Government propose in the future not to apply export credit guarantees to British goods only, but that foreign goods, like this Cuban sugar, may be imported into this country and re-exported to Russia under the guarantee system? On that occasion, I ventured to say, this House was not given a satisfactory reply. The noble Lord read out an extract from certain regulations which, so far as my memory serves roe, merely stated that Colonial and foreign produce might be dealt with under these regulations. He gave no satisfactory answer as to what constituted Colonial produce or foreign produce.
I hope that in his reply to my noble friend's Question to-day, the noble Lord will be able to elaborate a little more clearly and precisely what is actually meant by that regulation. I also hope that he will be able to assure the House that in future, perhaps as a result of that debate and of the debate to-day, the Export Credits Department will take note of the necessity of dealing only with British goods, or at any rate with goods which have the very largest possible amount of British workmanship in them. That is the only point that I wish to make in this debate. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, because a Royal Commission is coming on, and with these few words I beg leave to support the remarks made by my noble friend.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Duke for having put his Question so very concisely and briefly and for having excused me from having to answer the latter part of the Question. I will endeavour to be equally brief, and also to avoid the many side issues that necessarily arise when the question of Russia comes before the House. To begin with, I think that both the noble Duke and the noble Viscount are rather under a misapprehension as to the Government's position in this matter. In so far as they object to the Government having lifted the ban against Russia, that, of course, is a subject of dispute, but in so

409
far as they are objecting to certain processes of commerce, to certain credits being granted to certain firms in certain cases, they are criticising the Advisory Committee. It is the Advisory Committee through whom all these transactions pass. It is the Advisory Committee who take into account all the necessary circumstances before they pass any one of these schemes, and they require to be satisfied that there is not any great risk which would involve them in considerable loss before they pass a scheme. It is therefore on their responsibility that these particular transactions with regard to sugar, or any other transactions with any other countries, are passed and allowed.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I do not want to interrupt unduly, but I should like to ask whether it is the Government or the Advisory Committee that removed the ban on trading with Russia.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I quite understand that point. The noble Duke said that he disapproved of the removal of the ban. The removal of the ban in August last was the Government's decision, but these particular transactions, with regard to sugar or any other commodity, are entirely in the hands of the Advisory Committee.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is not a fact that there are certain regulations by which the Advisory Committee must be guided, and to that extent at least the Government are responsible for their action?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Yes, the whole procedure is governed by the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920–1929.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: And certain regulations passed under them?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There may be certain regulations under them, but at any rate the Government, qua Government, do not act in this matter at all. They do not examine the applications or transactions. These all come under the Advisory Committee. Another point on which I think both the noble Duke and the noble Viscount are under a misapprehension is that the export credits guarantee scheme was concluded for guaranteeing the payment of bills in connection with export to
410
various countries, and the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920–1929, provide for the granting of guarantees in connection with the export from this country of goods wholly or partly produced in the United Kingdom. The emphasis is not on the producer, whether he be Colonial, foreign or British, but on the exporter. The credit is given to the exporter and, in the case of sugar from Cuba, the sugar comes in here, a duty is paid on it and it goes through a process of refinement of which both the noble Duke and the noble Viscount, in his speech in the last debate, underestimated the value—it amounts, not to 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the value, but to something over 30 per cent. That is to the advantage of the British exporter and manufacturer, who gets credit under the scheme and is able to employ a considerable number of people, which is of advantage to the trade of the country.
Then the noble Duke asked if we were taking into account that there is great risk in having any dealings with Russia at all. Here we come across the difficulty which arises in these debates of mixing up these narrow commercial transactions with individual firms and the larger question of Russian State Debts and the claims of property-holders and bondholders. I can only repeat once more that there is no connection between the two, that the political repudiation of their Debt is a matter for consideration by this Government and the schemes that have been before us in 1924, and again to-day, are the subject of negotiations between the Foreign Secretary and the Soviet Government. Those proceedings are in an entirely different category to these isolated commercial transactions. It was, I think, Lord Brentford who said on the last occasion that he did not consider that political considerations interfered with our trade with Russia.
It is rather difficult to say to what extent it would, but I have been asked more than once what would be the result of breaking off our relations with Russia—should we not be saddled with these further debts? I do not think that that would be the case. I am rather inclined to agree with Lord Brentford in this connection. I do not, think it would make the slightest difference in these isolated

411
commercial transactions, and in not one case has there been a bad debt so far as Russia is concerned. Therefore the Advisory Committee no doubt are inclined to consider it good business, and they are prepared to pass applications made for credits connected with Russia. The noble Duke asked for some figures—to what was the face value of contracts issued in respect of Russia and other countries? The guarantee is given on the face value of the whole contract.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: It is given on the whole million; that is, on the Cuban sugar before it came as well as the refining?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The refining is not such a small proportion of the value as the noble Duke seems to think. I think it comes to a good 30 per cent., and I do not make myself responsible for the figures which the noble Duke gave. It obviously would be inadvisable and improper for me to enter into details with regard to any contract undertaken, but with regard to general figures I may tell him that from August 1 last, when the scheme was extended to Russia, up to the end of June, the figures in regard to Russia are £2,26,000, and other countries £4,210,000, making a total of;£6,476,000.
The noble Duke was rather inclined to be, I think, unnecessarily sarcastic with regard to our attitude towards Russia in comparison with our attitude towards our own Colonies. I do not think his remarks were really justified. In this whole scheme the desire of the Government has been to improve trade. It has considerably improved trade by enabling exporters and business people in this country to carry on trade more expeditiously. There is no doubt that Russia requires an increasing amount of the manufactured articles which we can supply, and we have every reason to believe that this scheme is likely to prove of great value in the way of encouraging commerce and reducing unemployment. We are as mindful as the noble Duke of the plight of our Colonies with regard to sugar. It has been constantly before this Government, and it is having the very close attention of the Government to see how their plight can be relieved. I do not think it is in the least necessary to accuse His Majesty's Government of any callousness in that direction, simply
412
because they happen to be taking a line rather more active in the direction of improving our trade relations with Russia.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to myself and to the speech which I made last week. Will he forgive me if I say that he has still not got the point which I tried to put to him then? I was responsible for the working of this scheme for same time, and I quite understand the ordinary commercial practice that when I, as a merchant, export to a merchant firm in Russia or in any other country, the question before the Advisory Committee is as to the stability of that foreign firm and the likelihood of that firm, Russian or German or other firm, to meet its bills when due. That is a question for the Advisory Committee, the members of which as business men are better able to form a judgment as to whether any particular merchant firm in Russia, or any other country, is able to meet its obligations, than are His Majesty's Government. It seems to me, however, that the noble Lord has not quite faced the position that in regard to Russia the Soviet Government itself is the importer.
The Soviet Government itself is the sole agent for foreign trade, and therefore what the Advisory Committee have to consider is a question which His Majesty's Government can consider much better. It is not a question of the stability of, or likelihood of payment by, the importing firm. It is a question of the credit simply and solely of the Russian Government. The bills guaranteed under this scheme are bills given by the Russian Government to meet obligations for payment for particular sugar or other commodity. What is the good of referring to any Advisory Committee of business men in the world the single question: Are the Russian Government likely to implement their bills when they become due or are they likely for political or other reasons to repudiate them? That is a matter for His Majesty's Government. They alone can give a sound decision. It is a political, a Governmental decision as to whether the Government of Russia are likely to meet their obligations or not. It is not quite right that the noble Lord should shelter himself on this question of Russian trade behind the Advisory Committee, because

413
that Committee are not in a position half as good as the Government themselves to know whether the Russian Government are likely to fulfil their obligations.
In regard to that I think the noble Duke was quite right. It is a question which must depend upon the political situation, whether the Russian Government are likely to pay their bills at due date or not. The noble Lord said that the previous conduct of the Russian Government with regard to old obligations was not in question. That may be so, but on the other 'hand if you are dealing with debtors who have in the past, and even quite recently—there is the Lena Goldfield, case—failed in their obligations, then I ask the Government whether they are justified in lending the British taxpayers' money to Russia, not in order to finance the bills of English firms here, but in order to guarantee the bills of the acceptor, the Russian Government? While I approve entirely of the export credits system where there are commercial reasons and not political reasons, where the political reason is the dominant factor then the Government must themselves take the full responsibility. If that is agreed then the noble Lord must tell us that His Majesty's Government are quite satisfied that the Russian Government will in all circumstances, even if diplomatic relations are again broken oft, fulfil their obligations in this respect, so that the English taxpayer may not be put to any loss in regard to them.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House I may reply to the specific question put. The answer is that His Majesty's Government, in coming to the decision they did in August last, dealt with the political problem and got it out of the way for the Advisory Committee. By making that decision they made, so to speak, a declaration that they considered that Russia would meet her obligations with regard to all these commercial transactions, and so far in a year there has been no reason to regret having made that decision.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Then you take full responsibility?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: By making that decision in August last the Government accept the responsibility.
414
When the noble Viscount refers to things like the Lena Goldfields concession, those refer really to the pre-Revolution obligations, and they are another matter.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, there is one point that I do want to press, and this is the only opportunity. The noble Lord has told us that in the particular case in question 30 per cent. of the whole amount provides work for British industry. What I want to ask the noble Lord is whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to issue an instruction to the Advisory Committee for the future that what they mean by goods "partly produced" is that at least 75 per cent. of the workmanship of such goods to be guaranteed shall be British workmanship? If the noble Lord can give an affirmative reply to that I am sure it will give great satisfaction all over the country.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think your Lordships will realise that I am not in a position to make a statement, or accept a statement, of that kind.
VISCOUNT EMBANK: Will His Majesty's Government consider it?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I shall be very glad to communicate the noble Viscount's opinions to the Government.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Mental Treatment,

Railways (Valuation for Rating),

Third Parties (Rights against Insurers),

British North America,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Slough),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Aylesbury, Chesham and Guildford),

415

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hexham),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Chippenham and Grimsby),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Brentford and Chiswick and Ramsgate),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bognor Regis and Chepping Wycombe),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cranbrook District Water and Sevenoaks Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hendon Rural),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kidderminster and Llanelly),

Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Board of Education Scheme (Devon, Crediton Exhibition Foundation) Confirmation,

Burnley Corporation,

Reading Corporation,

Lochaber Water Power,

Lancaster Corporation,

Liverpool Corporation (General Powers),

416

London Midland and Scottish Railway (No. 1),

Nottingham Corporation,

Epsom Rural District Council,

Guildford Rural District Council,

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation (Works),

Royal Exchange Assurance,

Leeds Corporation,

West Bromwich Corporation,

Darlington Corporation,

Rochdale Corporation (General Powers),

London County Council (Money),

Fife Electric Power,

Wednesbury Corporation,

Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles),

Sidmouth Electricity,

Brighton and Hove Gas,

Clacton-on-Sea Pier,

Llanelly District Traction.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.