Lords Sitting of 23 July 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD HOWARD OF PENRITH.
The Right Honourable Sir Esme William Howard, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., C.V.O., having been created Baron Howard of Penrith, of Gowbarrow in the County of Cumberland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
ISLE OF MAN CUSTOMS (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons: read 1ª; and to be printed.
ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to ask the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, if he has any communication to make to your Lordships with respect to business.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I hope that most of the order of business in your Lordships' House has now been settled until Thursday of next week, and we hope to be able to adjourn on that day. I am told that the arrangements in another place may be sufficiently advanced to allow a general adjournment on that day. There is a great deal of work to be done, and I am told that it will be for the convenience of the House if we meet at eleven o'clock on Friday morning. I have communicated with the Whip of the Opposition and with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, and I understand that this will suit noble Lords. The first business on Friday will have to be the Report stage of the Housing (No. 2) Bill. I hope that a good deal will have been settled in regard to that Bill and I do not
720
think it will take much time. I find that it is now put down for to-morrow, but for certain reasons that is not convenient, and accordingly it will be taken on Friday.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Do I understand that we are going to take the Housing (No. 2) Bill as the first Order on Friday?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? It was only on this day last week that the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, said that he would not allow any Government business to precede any Notices of Motions already on the Order Paper. A week has elapsed and we find only this morning that a long list of business, including the very important consideration of an Amendment to the Coal Mines Bill, is put down before all other Notices. Although the rules and regulations of the House are very flexible, it seems to me all the more important, when a declaration has been made, and approved by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, that the Resolution suspending Standing Order No. XXI should be dispensed with in the case of those Notices of Motions already on the Paper. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can explain this flagrant disregard of the pledge given and allowed to remain for a whole week without any notice of the intention to alter the arrangement.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am sure that I can answer the question which the noble Lord has asked me. We have taken every care to carry out the undertaking, but there are two matters which are urgent, particularly the Coal Mines Bill, which is not likely to take a long time, and the Invergordon Water Supply Bill, which is purely formal. I do not think these will interfere in any way with the noble Lord's Motions. There must be a little latitude when we come to this period of the Session, but I have been very careful not to interfere in any material way with what I said the other day.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not given us a very clear explanation of the flagrant

721
disregard of the pledge given to the noble Marquess below me. It may be said that these things do not matter, and personally I do not object very much, but I think your Lordships ought to recognise that, when a pledge of this kind is given, it should be adhered to.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it has been adhered to. I do not want to carry it further.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH MOLTON RURAL) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (DONCASTER, ST. IVES (CORNWALL) AND SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHTON) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ACCRINGTON, BOGNOR REGIS AND NEWTON ABBOT) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GREAT TORRINGTON, MINEHEAD AND TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BOARD) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOLKESTONE WATER) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (UXBRIDGE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
INVERGORDON WATER SUPPLY BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment to the Amendment last made by the Lords.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment be now considered.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 20, line 32, at end insert:
("Provided that, if an application, by agreement between representative organisations of the owners of and the workers employed in or about the coal mines in any district, is made to the Board of Trade in that behalf, the Board of Trade shall make an order, which shall become effective forthwith, that the substitution of the words 'half an hour' for the words 'one hour' in Section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall not apply as respects any mine in such district at which the daily hours below ground on an average taken over the twelve weekdays in any fortnight do not exceed the daily hours permissible under Section one of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1919, by more than the extension of half an hour made under Section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1926, and this section;
"At any mine where an extension of time is in any week made under the said Section three, the workmen, by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen, may, notwithstanding anything in the Coal Mines Act, 1908, as amended by any subsequent enactment, begin their period of work on the Saturday of that week before twenty-four hours have elapsed since the beginning

723
of their last period of work, so long as at least eight hours have elapsed since the termination thereof.")
The Commons propose to amend the above Amendment as follows:—
Line 4, after ("behalf,") insert ("with the approval of the Mining Association of Great Britain and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain")
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had given Notice to move, That the Commons Amendment be agreed to with the following Amendment: To add at end "the purpose of which approval is to secure that the application is according to the unfettered decision of the representatives of the workers aforesaid." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, it is necessary for me once more to call your attention to what is known as the spread-over provision, which was introduced into the Coal Mines Bill, as your Lordships will remember, by this House. That Amendment has come back to us from the Commons with an Amendment, and I am about to move, with your Lordships' leave, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, but with a further Amendment.
It is, of course, very satisfactory indeed that the principle of the spread-over has now been agreed to—I was going to say unanimously, but at any rate almost unanimously—by both Houses of Parliament. That is a matter which has to be recorded with a great sense of relief as well as of satisfaction in your Lordships' House. That principle is assured, but though the principle is assured the provision has been returned to your Lordships' House with a limiting Amendment, and it is my duty to ask your Lordships to examine for a moment what is the effect and object of that limitation. I will not hesitate to say that I think the proviso as your Lordships sent it to another place was correct, and, as I venture to think, should have been accepted. I regret the Amendment which has been introduced because of the vagueness of its character. Perhaps you will allow me to examine it for a moment.
In another place the President of the Board of Trade dwelt upon the voluntary character of the provision as your Lordships agreed to it. That was perfectly correct. Not only is it of a voluntary character, evidently, on the face of it, but those of us who took part in advo-
724
cating it here dwelt upon its permissive character. The President of the Board of Trade apparently was not satisfied that its complete voluntary character was secured in the terms as we drew them. He welcomed the voluntary character, he dwelt upon it himself, and he said, "I think we can build on that ground a perfectly clear request." The request, of course, takes the form of the Amendment of the Commons which is now submitted to your Lordships. I want to dwell upon the fact that we are all agreed —all Parties and both Houses—as to the essentiality of the voluntary character of this arrangement. I say not only both Houses but all parties, because I observed a communication in The Times a few days ago from the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation, in the course of which these words occur:—
"In view of the fact that the Marquess of Salisbury stated definitely that the adoption of the spread-over clause was intended to be absolutely permissive, we are prepared to test the genuineness of that statement by reluctantly accepting the Government Amendment."
So the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation founded their assent to the Government Amendment upon their persuasion that the spread-over system ought to be of a voluntary character.
Of course, that was directly in keeping with the line of argument taken by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when this matter was last before us for consideration. He said that some people cannot protect themselves, and he spoke of the obvious difficulty of people who run the risk of starvation in being free agents in any agreement. So that the argument on all sides is that this ought to be a purely voluntary bargain of the workers. There must be, to use a phrase which I ventured to use before, "no duress." The workers must be free to arrive at. this arrangement if they think fit, and it is for that reason, and so far as I know from their publicly expressed statements the only reason, why the Government have amended the last provision and inserted the necessity of the approval of the Miners' Federation—and of course of the Mining Association. The Miners' Federation is the essential part of the clause.
There must be no duress, I agree. But does duress necessarily only come from one side? It may be quite true—I do

725
not want to say anything in the least bit otherwise than conciliatory—it may be quite true that the owners have in the past used their power to put the miners under duress; but have not the trade unions also used that power? Has not the Miners' Federation at any rate been charged, rightly or wrongly, with exactly the same charge? I do not think the Government seem to have reflected upon that point. When they inserted the words in another place, that this spread-over system is only to take place with the approval of the Miners' Federation, they did not reflect that many critics would at once say: "Well, but that places the whole system at the mercy of the Miners' Federation." It is evident that that charge can be made.
I want to speak, as I have always spoken, of the great trade unions of this country with profound respect. Please do not imagine that in so speaking I am only desiring to do lip-service to the trade unions. I do not believe that it would be possible to carry on industry and industrial relations in these times without the assistance of the trade unions. I agree that collective bargaining would be impossible without them. I do not want to say one word in the least derogatory of the trade union system. No doubt regrettable acts have been committed by the trade unions. That possibly may be said of all human organisations. Very regrettable acts have been done by them, but, broadly, the system is not to be attacked in my humble judgment. Therefore I want to speak of them with profound respect.
How are they going to deal with the spread-over provision if it is left with the Commons addition, and without anything further? All that is said is that the spread-over arrangement is not to take place in any particular district except with the approval of the Miners' Federation. No direction is given to them as to what they are to consider, what they are to take into account, what is to weigh with them. It is not said, for example, that for some political ends of which they may approve they should not put a stop to every single suggestion of a spread-over. No indication is given to them. And I would ask, is it fair to the trade unions themselves, to the Miners' Federation, to leave them without any indication from Parliament as to what
726
considerations are to govern them in coming to their conclusion that the particular agreement for spread-over come to in a district is, or is not, to be sanctioned by them? It appears to me clear that Parliament ought to give some direction, some indication of what is intended.
And, of course, when I put the question the answer is obvious. They are entrusted with this power by the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade, by the suggestion of Mr. Cook in his interview and according to the quotation which I have made from the Executive Committee, in order to prevent anything like duress being applied to the worker. That is what they are given this power for, and for nothing else. We do not want to give them this power, the House of Commons does not want to give them this power, nobody wants to give them this power, except to prevent the workers being deprived of that freedom of judgment which they ought to possess. We want to be absolutely fair. Certainly, protect them from duress from the owners, but also protect them from duress from the trade unions too. And surely there is nothing the least insulting in what I am saying. I need not tell your Lordships I am doing my utmost to use nothing but language of the most conciliatory kind. It might well be that, without directions from Parliament, the Miners' Federation might be ready to use this power for other motives besides avoiding duress. That would not be fair; it would not be fair to the men; it would not even be fair to the Miners' Federation. It appears to me to be evident that we ought to accompany this absolutely unfettered power which, if we follow the suggestion of the House of Commons, we are entrusting to them, by a direction from Parliament that it is only to be exercised in order to prevent duress. Surely nothing could be more reasonable?
That is the character of the Amendment which I now submit to your consideration. I ask your Lordships to say, in the hope that Parliament will accept these words, that the purpose of the approval or disapproval is "to secure that the application is according to the unfettered decision of the representatives of the workers." So far as the instruction and intention of Parliament are concerned, that confines the use of this

727
power of approval or disapproval to the subject of duress and duress alone. I am sure your Lordships will see that in putting down these words I am only strictly following the line which I ventured to urge upon your Lordships when this subject was last under consideration. The workers are entitled to be free from duress applied to them by the Miners' Federation. I make an appeal to the Government. Why should they not accept an Amendment of that kind? I make an appeal through the Government to the House of Commons. Why should they not accept an Amendment of that kind? It is eminently fair, eminently reasonable. And I make an appeal even to the Miners' Federation. Let them come forward and say that they are perfectly willing to carry out the spirit of the resolution of their own Executive Committee which I read to your Lordships just now.
As to the drafting of the Amendment, that of course is always open, as the drafting of any Amendment is, to criticism, but I would just like to say this in respect to it. I have not been at pains to write down an Amendment which is invulnerable from the point of view of legal construction, and for this reason. I am not suggesting that this matter ought to be susceptible of interpretation in a Court of Law. I want an honourable understanding that these men shall be free from duress. All I request from your Lordships is to give an indication, an instruction to these important bodies, as to how they are to interpret the provision which Parliament is constructing. I am sure that some critics will say—I do not say so, but some critics will say: "Supposing you put these words in, and supposing, notwithstanding them, the Miners' Federation ignore them, and use their power to disapprove of a spread-over agreement on other grounds than duress: what remedy have you got? What is your sanction?" Let us put the case. The sanction lies in the power of Parliament. Of course, Parliament is always supreme. I do not mean anything so general as that.
But I would remind your Lordships that this subject must necessarily come before Parliament again next July. If in the meantime (I am only putting the case) it should appear that the Miners'
728
Federation were so ill-advised as to ignore the wishes of Parliament, to flout the plain meaning of the clause as it would run if your Lordships inserted my Amendment, then it would be for Parliament to deal with it when it comes before Parliament again next July. You could not have a sanction more complete, more powerful and more certain of its opportunity than the fact that this matter comes under the consideration of Parliament next July. People may say, of course, that there might be no legislation next July. I sweep that aside. I think that nothing is more absolutely certain, and I do not believe that a single noble Lord sitting in any part of the House will deny that it is absolutely certain that this subject must come under legislative consideration again before next July. Therefore, if we lay down in plain language, as I seek to lay it down, that the Miners' Federation is only to use this power in order to prevent duress, I venture to say that they ought to be trusted to carry out that direction of Parliament; but that if we must take into consideration the possibility of their failing to be loyal to Parliament, then the matter must come before Parliament again within a few months and Parliament may take the obvious remedy which lies in its hands.
It is for those reasons, therefore that I have come to the conclusion that this Amendment is defensible from every point of view, and I earnestly hope that your Lordships will accept it. Let us, if we can, carry through this Bill in its last stages in an atmosphere of agreement. Above all, let us be ready, on whatever side of the House we sit and whatever political opinions we profess, to help these miners, to help the men who ask for our protection and to save them from duress, whether it come from one side or from the other. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, with the addition of the words "the purpose of which approval is to secure that the application is according to the unfettered decision of the representatives of the workers aforesaid."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have but little to say. We have placed arguments before you which you have

729
rejected and have made appeals to you to which you have not responded. It would be a waste of public time to repeat those arguments and disrespectful to your Lordships to renew our appeals. We have now gone to the limit of conciliation and compromise. We have agreed to the permissive spread-over. Now the noble Marquess wants something more. I wonder why. For what purpose is this unusual provision to be inserted? Cannot you trust the Mining Association of Great Britain, or cannot you trust the Miners Federation of Great Britain? What is the use if this battle is over to have this random firing? During these difficult and dangerous debates I hope no provocative words have escaped any speaker on this side of the House. We have had no desire to use provocative words. Harsh attempts to terminate fixed ideas are seldom successful.
I cannot help thinking that there is a fact which will make a decisive issue and end to this question this afternoon. Yet I do not believe there is a single one of your Lordships who would desire to found an argument on that fact. What is that fact which will be final, although I hope not, here this afternoon? The final fact is this, that on occasions like the present you upon that side of tae House number aver two hundred, we on this side of the House number under twenty. The odds are too great against us. But I no longer stand here as the spokesman of a Minority Government. We have behind us on this question a united House of Commons. If this Amendment is persisted in—I hope it will not be—we cannot give our consent to it. The matter will have to go back to the House of Commons, and on this question it is for the House of Commons to decide.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, as the Amendment which was adopted by your Lordships was mine, I should like for a few moments to say how I regard the Amendment which has been attached to it in another place. I recognise that the Bill has been considerably improved by your Lordships and made much more workable than it was when it came into your Lordships' House I think our gratitude ought to be expressed chiefly to the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, who has shown in these debates an understanding of the situation and of the difficulties which indicates, perhaps, that he has grasped the troubles
730
connected with the industry to a greater extent than even any speaker in another place.
We have endeavoured in passing these Amendments to look at the matter from a purely disinterested point of view. The welfare of the miner has always been present in our minds, together with the good of the industry and the well being of the nation in pressing the spread-over. Whilst we have recognised that the men are fully justified in their aspirations for shorter hours and higher wages, yet the condition of trade to-day is such that it will be impossible to carry on the industry in many of the districts unless the spread-over operates for the benefit of the miners as well as the industry and the general community. To-day the trade is more depressed than ever it was before. Prices have fallen from 2s. to 3s. a ton for unscreened coal in connection with our export markets, the quantities raised have been diminishing steadily during the last six, months, and costs have been increasing. As a result, the small profits averaging in the collieries have entirely disappeared this year. The trade is now in a most depressed condition.
In those circumstances those of us who know something about the industry desire that the men should have a free and unfettered right, if they so desire, to continue their present hours under the spread-over system. Therefore we resent the introduction of an Amendment which is going to give to an executive body, the Miners' Federation, by a bare majority, the power of refusal of that spread-over. The Miners' Executive, most of whom I know personally, have, for a very long time past, and throughout the period that this Bill has been before Parliament, expressed themselves quite clearly and definitely as opposed to the spread-over and have stated that they would resist it to the utmost of their power. Even their secretary, addressing a meeting at 3rIorpeth last Saturday, made quite clear what he thought about your Lordships' House and your action to secure the spread-over. He made it quite clear also that what the Miners' Executive desire is a power inserted in the Bill which will enable them to exercise a veto against the spread-over in the event of its being adopted in any district. In those circumstances I can

731
only express the hope that the Miners' Executive may veer from the course which they have hitherto adopted in connection with the spread-over, and that in the event of a district accepting a spread-over, and making application to the Board of Trade, the Miners' Executive, as well as the Mining Association, will not interfere with the freedom and liberty which, I believe, ought to be given to the owners and men in their districts to manage their own affairs.
There is another point which I would like to mention, and it is this. Hitherto, in Acts of Parliament, so far as I am aware, no powers have been given to bodies of this kind which have no corporate existence. This is the first time such a power has been given to these two bodies. The Mining Association did not ask for it, but the Executive of the Miners' Federation did. The Executive of the Miners' Federation are the only recognised trade union in the mining community. At the same time they do not represent even the majority of the men who are employed by the colliery owners throughout the country. They have not got behind them even a majority in membership of those employed, but, so far as the voice of the miners can be exercised, I recognise that the Executive of the Miners' Federation do speak on behalf of the miners.
The point I want to make is this. In the Bill, in the clause setting up a National Industrial Board, it is provided that the President of the Board of Trade shall nominate seventeen persons upon that Board, but he does it after consultation with representatives of the Mining Association and of the Miners' Federation. No power of appointment is given in that clause. This Amendment of the Commons is a new provision which gives for the first time actual power to a body which may be here to-day and gone to-morrow. I should have much preferred that the House of Commons, in its wisdom, should have retained that power, created for the President of the Board of Trade, to consult, rather than give the absolute veto to the Miners' Federation which is proposed in the Amendment coming from another place. As to the noble Marquess's Amendment I am prepared to accept it, because I hope that the spirit which will be shown by both the miners' representatives and by the employers will be in
732
harmony with the wishes of the two Houses, that the spread-over shall have a fair chance, and that there shall not be duress on the one side or the other.
Both owners and men realise to a large extent the difficult situation in which we are. We want to work together amicably. We can work together amicably in the districts, and we ask Parliament to allow us to do so in order to secure the benefit which the spread-over is intended to give us. There are many other things which occur to me that I would like to say on this occasion, but I feel that we are now accepting the principle of a spread-over, which is important, and it is satisfactory to me, at any rate, to feel that the spread-over has been accepted unanimously by the House of Commons. I only trust the miners will fall in with the spirit in which it has been passed by the House of Commons, and, if we have to accept the Amendment which comes to us from another place, I can only trust that amicable relations will not be interfered with by the passage of this Bill.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that. I say a few words at the concluding stage of this Bill. The last time I spoke I was subjected to such an entirely unexpected and severe attack from the noble Earl who leads the Liberal hosts, an attack of such a personal character, that I do not know whether I may not draw upon myself again the lightning of his Olympian wrath. Still, I feel that in a matter of such great importance one must say what one thinks, and I regret that I cannot agree with the noble Marquess who has moved his Amendment. I cannot agree either with the line of reasoning he was following or with the line of tactics he is pursuing. We have achieved by persistent persuasion—and the Government, I may say, have persisted in this—a very great and important concession from the Miners' Federation. They have agreed to the principle of a spread-over, which only a short time ago they were entirely opposed to in principle. Speaking as one who has had a very large experience—and I hope I shall not be accused again of blowing my own trumpet—of negotiations with trade unions, and as one who has had the privilege of working in very close communion for a long time with the

733
representatives of organised labour, I know perfectly well how difficult it is for them, and how great a sacrifice they feel it to be, to go back on a position they have taken up. In the noble Marquess's speech there was not one word of recognition of this very great fact.
It is a very great fact. These men, after all, are not autocrats. They are elected representatives of the miners. They are dependent on the good will of their constituents for their office. They have to maintain a difficult position of discipline among an unruly lot of people. It is far more difficult for them to go back upon any line they have taken up than it is for the average politician in this or the other House to do so. Now they have done so for the sake of peace, and I should have thought that on a question of broad policy we should have generously recognised that, fact, that your Lordships' House should have said: "We have won the main point for which we set out." We have reached an agreement on this point, and recognising the difficulties of the men who have achieved this result in the ranks of the Miners' Executive, we ought to have encouraged them and to have said: "Well, we are not going to throw any further difficulties in their way." That, I should have thought, was the right and broad line to take. It is certainly the line which I and other industrial leaders would take in handling the situation with the Miners' Federation. Psychology is more important in these matters than arguments or the drafting of Amendments.
As soon as this Bill is passed, we have to enter—and I think the noble Lord who spoke last will confirm this—into a series of wage negotiations of a prolonged and delicate character in every district. The noble Marquess does not seem to realise that the people with whom we have to enter into negotiations are the district members of the Miners' Federation who make the Executive. They are the people we have to deal with, and every man in the coal trade knows it. Having to deal with these people, surely we want to deal with them in a spirit of friendliness and comradeship. Wanting to do that, we want to create an atmosphere of good will. The atmosphere of good will is here this afternoon. Why should we destroy it by this
734
Amendment? What is to be gained by it? The House of Commons unanimously accepted the proposal before them. We know they will not accept this Amendment. This Bill will come back here once more, and then what, will happen? We are none of us prepared to take the responsibility of destroying it. The one advantage we have this afternoon is a generous gesture. So much for policy.
Let me say a few words on the merits of this Amendment. Let me read it. It begins—
"Provided that if an application, by agreement between representative organisations of the owners of and the workers—
that is to say representative organisations of the workers—
"employed in or about the coal mines in any district, is made to the Board of Trade"—
that means the representative district agents of the Miners' Federation. They are the people with whom the agreement will be made in nearly every case. That being so, what is to happen? The Miners' Federation representatives having agreed with the owners in the district to make an application, that application goes to the Board of Trade. It is then open to the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation to give their approval or not. In the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess it is proposed to set out that this approval is to be given "to secure that the application is according to the unfettered decision of the representative of the workers aforesaid." That is to say, the Miners' Federation Executive is to have these powers for the purpose of securing that the application is according to the unfettered decision of their own representatives. I cannot see myself how you are carrying this thing any further. Representatives, say of South Wales, will go to the Miners' Federation, and then the Miners' Federation — their colleagues — will solemnly try to discover whether their decision is unfettered. The speech of the noble Marquess is based on the idea, not that we were dealing with the representatives of organised labour, but with individual groups of workmen at collieries. But we are not doing that. We are not even in a position to deal with pit committees. We are really dealing in practice in this matter with the Federation agents themselves.

735
I would like to deal with one point as to how this is likely to work out, although it is very difficult to make any kind of prophecy. I would say, however, as some reply to the speech made by the noble Lord who spoke last, that I have had a communication made to me, which unfortunately I am not at liberty to disclose, but I can say that it comes from a highly responsible official of the Miners' Federation. Dealing with this matter he pointed out to me that the vast majority of the districts of the Federation are working eight hours. In his opinion in most of those districts the spread-over clause will be asked for, and if they get a majority of the Miners' Federation to vote in favour of it they will get the spread-over. He pointed out a thing of which I was not aware, that on the Miners' Federation itself as it is constituted, three districts—North and South Wales and Scotland—have a majority of votes. If they insist on the spread-over they can carry it, and the Miners' Federation practically will be shattered. That surely is a very strong position.
I have said in this House, and I do not hesitate to repeat, that I believe the majority of the miners in those areas and their representatives would prefer the spread-over system. If I am right I am ready to leave it to them to affirm their position. If I am right I am prepared to let them fight their battle in the Executive of the Miners' Federation, and I am certain that if they wish for it and insist they will win. You cannot hold up the Executive of the Miners' Federation as a group of Tsars and autocrats who can march roughshod over the wishes of the miners of this country. The noble Marquess divided the world into two camps, with the miners and their district representatives in one and in the other the Miners' Federation Executive who had absolute, autocratic powers over them. That is not a true picture. Anyone who knows the working of the organisation knows that that is not the case. Therefore it seems to me that this Amendment would do nothing, would give no protection to anyone. It would merely be a complication. It would be either superfluous or else a sort of general phrase, and lawyers always tell us that general phrases are dangerous because nobody knows how to interpret them.
736
That being so, would it not be much wiser not to insert these words? I would make a strong appeal to the noble Marquess to let us have peace on the Bill this afternoon, to withdraw his Amendment, which after all is not vital, to let us retain the credit of meeting a generous gesture with an equally generous gesture, and to let the troubled coalfields, where they have been trying now for months to start important negotiations, to let this troubled industry, which has been working for months to get its finances straight but has been paralysed while this political ball was being tossed from one House to another, get into calm waters and carry on its work and negotiations.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I hope the noble Marquess will not be carried away by the eloquence of the noble Lord who has just spoken. Nobody denies the high authority of the noble Lord in industrial matters, but I am bound to tell your Lordships, as my name was originally on the Paper with that of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, as the mover of this Amendment, that I have had a number of communications entirely differing from the view taken by the noble Lord who has just sat down of the Amendment which the House of Commons has made in the Amendment which your Lordships made. What is the reason of that? The noble Lord specks largely for South Wales—probably the most powerful district and one which it would be difficult for the Miners' Federation to fight if they should happen to differ. But there are other districts, which look to this Amendment as the, main advantage which they are going to get from the Bill now before your Lordships' House.
We have heard a great deal—something from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor—of the political aspect of this question as between the two Houses. We have heard from the noble Lord a suggestion that an agreement with the House of Commons at this stage will be a message of peace. What; I ask your Lordships to recollect is this. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, told us that the elements which are affected by this Bill have become worse since the Bill was introduced. Trade is worse, the position of the coal industry is worse and the price to be obtained abroad is less.

737
Everybody knows that, whether the provisions of this Bill are right or wrong, it can only have the effect of raising to some extent the price of coal. Amalgamations may in the end reduce it, but the point that I put to your Lordships, and which has been put to me by correspondents, is that there is only one provision in the Bill which tends at this moment to improve the condition of the industry by reducing the cost of production, and that is the spread-over Amendment which is now under discussion.
If your Lordships will think of it, if and where the twelfth day is not utilised and there is a waste of time, of men walking both ways, of three quarters of an hour or an hour, one way out of their own time and one way out of the time of production, you will see at once that there is this single point in the Bill which will cause the reduction of prices and an improvement of the industry. It is for that reason that I think that we must see with great reluctance the power to block in any district placed in the hands of the Miners' Federation, who have from the first pronounced themselves hostile to this particular provision. If we adopt the proposal of the noble Marquess, we are adopting the very least that Parliament can do. It does not affect the law, and there can be no appeal to the law under the words of the noble Marquess, but it does very properly affect the position in regard to Parliament in the event—for the Bill is a short-lived one—that a provision must be enacted again in one form or another within a very few months.
How do we stand? If we adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess, we shall get something which may be regarded as the shadow of the spread-over without its substance, but we shall get a clear statement that Parliament does not expect these great associations to interfere unless to protect the liberty of those who are contracting parties; and if that be once agreed, I venture to say that nobody will ever again endeavour to prevent the spread-over forming part of a Parliamentary enactment, and we shall have the very strongest grounds for considering whether an unofficial body, as distinct from the Board of Trade, can be entrusted in the future with such powers as are given under the Bill. I
738
can only say that, unless the noble Marquess persists in this Amendment, we shall be disappointing many persons who have put faith in the action of your Lordships' House, not because it is on the side of the mine owners or because it is hostile to the mine workers, but simply because it is the one bright spot, in regard to the immediate prospects of the industry, which will be the result of all these many months of consideration in Parliament. I therefore venture to hope that the noble Marquess will take the sense of the House on his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to make one or two observations, not on the procedure indicated in the needlessly minatory speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but on the practical working of this Amendment. Both Houses are agreed that, before any spread-over can be put into operation, the opinion of the miners concerned shall be taken. Accordingly Parliament has already sanctioned the veto by the miners. The House of Commons has now extended that veto, and has said that it will not be sufficient for the miners in a particular district to ask for the spread-over, but that it will be necessary for the Miners' Federation, which is a grouping of the local societies of miners, to approve of that approval.
What is going to happen? Supposing a district, it does not matter which, decides in favour of the spread-over, we may be sure, in the first instance, that the case against the spread-over has been adequately stated locally and that, in spite of this, the spread-over is voted for. We assume likewise that the owners in that district have asked the miners to agree to the spread-over for very good reasons. They may say that, without the spread-over, their industry will be damaged and disorganised and that they will either have to ask the miners to take a reduction of wages or they will have to close down seams, or possibly pits. We assume—whether it will happen or not I have not an idea—that both the coal owners and the miners employed in any district have asked for a spread-over, and then it goes to the Miners' Federation.
I do not know if my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition thinks that in those conditions the Miners' Federation

739
are going to refuse. How dare the Miners' Federation refuse in those conditions, when, on the one hand, their own constituents have asked for the spread-over and, on the other hand, the owners, those responsible for the industry, have solemnly announced that without the spread-over the chaos in the industry is going to be still further increased? The result of such a refusal, as the Miners' Federation must themselves well know, would be to produce still further difficulty and confusion in the district, a needless disregard of a properly expressed desire and probably at the same time a crisis in the relations between the Miners' Federation and the local society, and secession within a fortnight, or perhaps within a week. In those conditions I really see no cause to be afraid of the suggestion that has reached us from the House of Commons, and I hope that the noble Marquess, upon reconsideration, will consent to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I do not think that anyone, certainly not I, could add any forcible arguments to those which we have just heard from the noble Earl, but I should like, as one not interested in the collieries in any shape or form, to say a word or two upon what I apprehend would be the effect of this Amendment if it were carried. I consider that it would effect absolutely nothing at all. Suppose the matter came into a Court of Law. We must, suppose, if we pass a Statute, that we anticipate that it may come into a Court of Law, and that the words that we put into it are carefully drawn because they may have to receive judicial interpretation. If it is not supposed that it is ever going to be construed authoritatively, what is the good of putting this Amendment into the Statute?
First we have the words which we and the House of Commons are agreed upon, which enact that there shall be what is called a spread-over. That is done. According to this Amendment it is also to be stated that the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation shall agree upon what is going to be done, or, more accurately, that either one of them by itself can veto what is proposed to be done by the Board of Trade. Those are the enacting parts of this provision.
740
What are the words which it is proposed to add? They are these: "the purpose of which approval"—that is, by the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation—" is to secure that the application is according to the unfettered decision of the representatives of the workers aforesaid." I presume that those words mean, though they do not say, the representatives in the district which has voted for the spread-over. The Amendment does not say that. It says "the representatives of the workers aforesaid," and if one looks at the clause one sees at once that these representatives may just as well be the members of the Executive of the Miners' Federation as anybody else. I think that was pointed out by Lord Melchett, and it is perfectly true that if it came to be a question before a Court of Law who are the representatives, the Court would say it is the very people—the Executive of the Federation are the "representatives of the workers aforesaid."
Is there any enacting quality about this Amendment? There is none at all. It says that the purpose is to secure that the application is according to an unfettered decision. Let us suppose that a district has voted unanimously in favour of the spread-over, and the Federation go against it and say: "You shall not have it." The Federation are not bound to say any more. They are not bound to give any reasons. You say in the Amendment that the purpose is to secure the unfettered decision of the representatives. How is this going to be secured? They are not bound to say a word. They need not put before the public or before a Court of Law, or anybody else, what are their reasons. Those reasons may remain locked absolutely in their own brains, and there is no means of getting them out. Then, I ask, what is the use of these words? Here we are engaged—the Lord Chancellor has told us so in what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, called minatory language—in about the last opportunity we shall have of discussing this matter. Suppose we do put in these words. They mean nothing at all. Lord Midleton said there are those who think that there is some question between the shadow and the substance. This Amendment, if it is not a shadow and nothing else—
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I do not want to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but the shadow I intended was the principle which we laid down, and the substance would fall to the Miners' Federation if it were able to veto it on every occasion.
LORD DARLING: I think that the noble Earl confuses the substance with the shadow. I can imagine nothing substantial which would be secured by this Amendment. If the substance is there it is there, and if it is not there this Amendment would not supply it. When I heard the noble Earl mention the word shadow in the midst of a serious debate like this, there came into my mind the words of Mr. Burke when he was candidate for Bristol, and his opponent died:—

"What shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue."
To my mind it is incredible that anyone should persist in an Amendment which may result in prolonging a quarrel between the two Houses upon a question whether that which at most is a mere aspiration should be put into what may become an Act of Parliament. I hope your Lordships will excuse me for troubling you on a subject which does not concern me, except that I am anxious, as I am sure all your Lordships are, for the reputation of this House, and that we should not waste it by appearing to insist upon matters which are really of no substantial importance.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, not having previously intervened in these debates, although I have listened with great interest, I have found myself supporting sometimes the majority on Amendments proposed in the course of the debates, but at this stage I would venture to ask your Lordships to consider carefully the position. The spread-over Amendment was introduced and carried by your Lordships. It has now been accepted by the House of Commons, and I do not wish to travel over the ground covered by the previous speaker, but I think your Lordships would do well to note and acknowledge the attitude taken by the Commons on the representation made by your Lordships in the Amendment sent to the Commons. It has been accepted, and I venture to think that at the time there was great doubt in the minds of most of your Lordships as to whether it ever would be accepted.
742
The Commons, in their desire to obtain this Bill and give effect to its provisions and to set the coal industry in operation again, have accepted the Amendment, and now I am not quite clear—I regret I have not had an opportunity of considering it carefully—as to the position which will ensue if your Lordships were to accept this further Amendment and send the Bill back to the House of Commons. The position I understand then would be, if the House of Commons refused to accept it, as we are told at any rate by the Government that it would, that the Bill would be lost, and there would be an end to all the controversy—that the Bill would not come back to your Lordships. Whether that is so or not—I do not assert it with conviction, because I have not had an opportunity, as I have said, of considering it—your Lordships having had an opportunity of receiving the assent of the Commons to this very important spread-over Amendment—because the noble Marquess has said, and other speakers have reiterated, that it was as important an Amendment as any introduced into the Bill—and the Amendment having been accepted, are we really in this House, in the position in which we stand, with the enormous majority that there is of one Party in this House, to take the attitude of saying to the Commons, notwithstanding all that they have done, notwithstanding the arguments put to your Lordships by two noble Lords who thoroughly understand the coal industry, and who were speaking against the Amendment, that we will press on this Amendment, and refuse to accept what the Commons have done?
One position will inevitably result—namely, that the Commons, or at any rate a large portion of the House of Commons, will think that your Lordships are setting yourselves deliberately to work to provoke a contest between the two Houses. I am quite sure that is not in your Lordships' minds. But is there not a danger of it? Are there not many of your Lordships sitting here at this moment who realise that there is, and that that may be exactly the situation created? It will have the effect of creating the suspicion that you wish to force upon them a position in which, after all, the country would have to determine this question between the Lords and the Commons at a time when we

743
have questions of real and grave moment before us, when all who take part in the affairs of the country ought to be devoting their minds to other matters and striving to help the country out of the position in which it is.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I had not meant to intervene at this stage, but I should like to say one word. The matter that we are discussing now is the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess. If the question had been whether we were going to accept the Commons Amendment I could see that a lot might have been said. Had the noble Marquess moved to reject that altogether, I might have seen that there was plenty of argument for him. But in this particular case we are dealing with an Amendment which he himself has said is not intended to have any effect in a Court of Law, or to have any real effect of any kind, and which, as far as I can make out, can only in those circumstances have been moved to make the thing look prettier. If the House of Commons do not desire to have it, I cannot see why your Lordships should press it. In these circumstances I associate myself entirely with my noble and learned friend Lord Darling in saying that, having considered this Amendment, it does not seem to me to make the faintest difference one way or the other. I frankly agree with the noble and learned Marquess who has just spoken. I have not the least idea whether or not the House of Commons will reject it, but at the present time I have not the faintest reason to suppose that they care one way or the other if it is accepted. But if the Government do not want it, I cannot see that there is the slightest obligation on your Lordships to pass it and I should hope that it will not be pressed.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I feel very strongly how keenly the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has it at heart that the unfettered decision of the representatives of the workmen should be safeguarded. But at the same time I cannot myself agree with this Amendment, and I prefer the opinion upon it from an industrial point of view of the noble Lord who sits beside me (Lord Melchett). When I read it this morning I was sorry the noble Marquess had put it down, and the wish came to my mind that he would have
744
the courage to withdraw it. It seems to me, to put it quite plainly, to be both futile and unnecessary.
As to its futility he himself has pointed out, and other speakers too, that it could not be enforced in any Court of Law. The President of the Board of Trade could not come in, no coal owner, no representative of the miner, no consumer, nor any unrecognised union could call in question whether the Miners' Federation had exercised an unfettered judgment in refusing the spread-over for a district, or whether the district had exercised an unfettered judgment in coming to some conclusion which they would have to bring up before the Miners' Federation. And he himself said he was to a considerable extent moved by the importance of Parliament recognising that this principle was to be brought into the consideration of the question. The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, said practically the same thing. But the unfortunate thing is that there is not the least chance of Parliament recognising it. If this Amendment goes back to the House of Commons they will refuse, and the House of Lords will probably have to give way and be in a worse position than before.
Then I would say a few words about the Amendment being unnecessary. I too have had some experience of the coal industry in all parts of the country, both with employers and representatives of the miners, and I say very emphatically, from quite a different point of view from that of my noble friend beside me, that I do not think that this Amendment will be acceptable or satisfactory to any of the chief representatives of the miners, but that, after the gesture that they themselves have made, it will be looked upon merely as a harassing move by this House which will prevent the unanimous opinion of Parliament being registered, and will prevent their looking at it in a calmer way than they would if they thought they were being dictated to. As most of your Lordships are aware, they are men of a rather obstinate character, and, like many Englishmen, they object to any coercion or dictation. They will look upon this as coercion and dictation, and I think that, as the opinion has already been expressed in Parliament and it is well known that there is this strong feeling about the unfettered decision of

745
the representatives of the miners, it would be much more graceful, much more satisfactory, and, if I may say so, much more statesmanlike that it should be left as it is for their consideration during the seven months in which this Bill will be in being. Any gross breach of the provision can be brought up quite as well without these unnecessary words being put in.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I recognise very fully the authority of the noble Lords who have addressed you on the subject. Especially do I recognise the authority of the noble and learned Marquess who sits above the gangway (Lord Reading), who always speaks with great deliberation and great moderation; and most notably of all I recognise the authority of my noble friend who has just sat down. He has, I suppose, more knowledge of industrial conditions and of the difficulties of industrial strife than any other member of your Lordships' House. Though I have said so much, I think I ought to say that I think the noble and learned Marquess was under a misapprehension if he thought this was a sort of ultimatum to the House of Commons which they must accept or lose the Bill. I know how very confusing these relations between the two Houses are, and though I stand below the noble Marquess in almost every other respect, I have rather more experience of your Lordships' House than he has. I can assure him that there will be no reason at all why the House of Commons should kill the Bill, even if they do not agree with this Amendment; indeed I will recall to your Lordships that I did not address you at all in the language of an ultimatum, nor would that have been reasonable in the circumstances. On the contrary, I finished my few observations with an appeal to the Government, and indeed to the House of Commons, in the hope that they would accept this Amendment, which I thought would make the intentions of Parliament clear.
But I am bound to recognise one circumstance—that the House of Commons is not likely to accept that view unless they are persuaded that it is advanced by a very large majority of your Lordships' House. After the speeches that we have listened to, I am bound to admit that I do not think there would be a very
746
large majority in your Lordships' House in favour of this Amendment and, therefore, I can no longer entertain any hope that the House of Commons would accept it. I regret that very much. It is undoubtedly true, as the noble and learned Marquess and others have said, that the most important thing in connection with this subject has been already secured. That the spread-over Amendment is accepted by the House of Commons and by the Government is, as I have already said, a matter of very great importance, and the only question in my mind and the only question I think in the minds of any of your Lordships is whether the spread-over provision would be allowed to have its proper operation.
I recognise the spirit in which several noble Lords have said that we must trust the Federation, and that this matter can only be carried through satisfactorily in a spirit of good will. I hope I have said nothing in my former observations which would be inconsistent with that spirit of good will. In those circumstances, my Lords, as I am satisfied that, after what has been said in your Lordships' House, the House of Commons would not accept the Amendment, I do not propose to press it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES: TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR SYSTEM.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON, who had given Notice to ask whether it would not be for the public convenience were the twenty-four-hour system introduced into the working of the postal and telegraph services; and to move for Papers, said: My Lords, I would ask the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for one moment. When I protested against the breach of the undertaking he gave just a week ago, he said there would be a delay of only a very few minutes before my Motion was reached. As a matter of fact an hour and a half has elapsed. In regard to the Motion I have placed on the Paper, when

747
I brought forward a similar Motion last year with respect to the time-tables of the railway companies in the kingdom, it was resisted on the plea that the railway companies were unwilling to take the initiative themselves and that there was not sufficient public interest displayed to warrant them making the change. For long years I have thought that the change from the present system to the twenty-four-hour system was a desirable one to make. Last year a letter signed by the Astronomer Royal and other persons eminent in science appeared in The Times advocating the change. Following upon that letter the Government were approached with the result that I have just mentioned. And the Government themselves were unwilling to approach the railway companies.
However, this year I am asking the Government to make a change in a matter over which they have full control. After all, it is a very trifling change. I believe I am correct in saying that all cablegrams and foreign telegrams have the time noted upon them according to the twenty-four-hour system, and all I am suggesting is that this system should be extended to our internal telegraph service and the postal service. It would be a great convenience sometimes to discover when a letter was posted in this country and at what hour. It is true that the indication marks are often illegible, but there is no reason why the stamping should not become more efficient or why it should not be based on the system that I advocate. I might say that this change was advocated forty years ago by the Astronomer Royal, and that nine years ago a Committee appointed by the Home Office approved of the change for official and public purposes. It will be remembered also that the Navy, the Army and the Air Service have adopted the system. At the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, they work entirely under it, and of course it pertains on the Continent, I fancy throughout.
The trifling objection has been made, and was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, last year, that people say they would not understand what the twenty-four-hour clock meant. I do not think they do full credit to their brains. I do not think that any member of your Lordships' House or anybody else who goes on the Continent will find difficulty
748
under the system in arranging appointments for any social gathering or entertainment, and I do not see why there should be any difficulty in this country. I am not proposing an artificial system. On the contrary, I am proposing a return to a primitive and simple system of dividing the day into twenty-four hours instead of dividing it into two halves which have no real meaning whatsoever. In my opinion this change is bound to come very shortly, and I should like the noble Earl who, I understand, is going to reply to my Question to have the credit of making the change during his term of office.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend has again raised this Question, which is a very simple one. This is a simple reform which ought to commend itself to every sensible person, and I hope that my noble friend will persist in it until he becomes, if I may say so, an intolerable nuisance, because one has to arrive at that condition before one can get anything effected. The last time that the Question was discussed in your Lordships' House, last year, there was a long correspondence in the newspapers on the subject, and the arguments against adopting this proposal really sank to the lowest depths of fatuity. They were of two kinds. The first argument was the difficulty of calculation; in other words, after spending hundreds of millions on education in this country it is deliberately asserted, and it comes to this, that people cannot count beyond twelve. I have even encountered this objection amongst members of your Lordships' House. All I can say is that if a noble Lord or anybody else finds great difficulty in reading the announcement that this House will meet, say, at 16 p.m. instead of 4 p.m., or finds difficulty in accepting an engagement asking him to dine at 20 p.m., that does not approach for a single moment the difficulty which confronts anybody who attempts to study the figures with regard to cross-country railway journeys in this country. That is a far more difficult problem which confronts us every day than the problems suggested by objectors to this proposal. I am sure that I shall have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who sits upon the Cross Benches, in regard to the simplification of railway time-tables.

749
The other argument, and the only other argument that was adduced against the change—I think it must have emanated from fanatical Free Traders—is that it would be a really scandalous thing if we in this country imitated the example of other civilised countries. The cry was, "For Heaven's sake let us remain as we are. God keep England as it is, because if we follow the example of other civilised nations we shall inevitably be demoralised and possibly ruined." I hope that we shall not hear these futile and ignoble arguments from the Front Bench opposite. In fact, I feel certain we shall not, because, fortunately, the Government reply is going to be delivered, I understand, by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is, if I may say so, an extremely sensible person. Last year it was suggested that the railways should be the first to undertake this very necessary innovation, and it was suggested by the noble Lord who represented the Post Office at that time—I think it was my noble friend Lord Londonderry—that the railways ought to be the first to take this question up. The managers of the big railway companies appear to be persons of very modest character, because they said they would not undertake any reform of this nature until they were perfectly certain that the public wanted it, and until the public intimated their desire for it they were not going to move.
I would like to ask, how are you going to get the opinion of the public upon a question of this kind? You can get the opinion of the so-called public upon the selection of players for a test match, you can get their opinions upon what horses are likely to be placed in a big race, but even then you can only obtain these opinions in consequence of the solicitations of the various baits and inducements that are placed before them by those two patriotic noblemen who control the majority of the newspapers in this country. I do not think it is the least use waiting for an opinion of that kind to proceed from the public. It really is no use waiting for the public, speaking generally, to express a sensible opinion upon a question of this kind. Somebody has to set an example, and, as my noble friend has suggested, it is obviously the Post Office that should be the Department which should take some action in the matter.
750
What I suggest to the noble Earl who is to reply is that, like every other reform, this reform should proceed gradually. What I suggest is that if he is alarmed at the magnitude of the proposition, he should begin in a piece-meal way by employing the system for telegrams only, and, if that modest experiment proves to be successful, then it will only be a question of time before the principle is adopted gradually not only by the Post Office but by the railways and by all the Government Departments. After all, we are not even proposing anything new. The principle was adopted during the War, and I never heard anybody find any fault with it. It is a principle which prevails in every civilised country except our own, and in our Dominions, and it does really seem ludicrous that we should be deterred by the ridiculous arguments which have been produced hitherto from adopting a sensible course like everybody else.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, after the challenge addressed to me by my noble friend Lord Newton, I cannot refrain from saving a word or two on this subject. I believe that the general idea of the railways, whenever they are asked to do anything, is to put forward one stock excuse, and say: "It is no use doing that; we must wait until we get everything perfect." What they say is: "We cannot possibly introduce the twenty-four-hour day until we have the four-week month and the thirteen-month year."
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL VISCOUNT CHURCHILL indicated dissent.
LORD MONKSWELL: At any rate, if the Great Western Railway Company is guiltless of that, I have heard it put forward on behalf of the railways, and certainly I am accustomed to that kind of argument. I do not want to mention names, but at railway company meetings I understand that that argument frequently makes its appearance—that it is not the slightest use doing anything until there is a plan by which everything can be made perfect. I hope the railway companies will be content to make progress rather more slowly, and to do one thing at a time. I really do not see why they should not do the same as all the French railway companies do, and I think all the railways on the Continent do. May I say that recent occur-

751
rences have led me to have considerable hopes of what the Great Western Railway are doing, and that I suggest the noble Viscount, Lord Churchill, could be a pioneer in this matter?
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, the noble Lord who asked this question put it in a delicate and gentle way, but he was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, whose very violent observations about fatuity rather alarmed me. I thought it was a pity that after he had been so violent about the extreme stupidity of people who could not understand this system, he himself should have referred to 20 p.m., which is in itself a contradiction of the system. But I was a little relieved afterwards when he suggested that the remarks were not intended to be applied to me. I can assure him that, although I am no doubt what he would call a fanatical Free Trader, I should not think of resisting this innovation on the ground that it would introduce French morals into this country, which he appeared to think was a possible suggestion. The noble Lord spoke about the opinion of the public. The opinion of the public is, of course, ascertained as a rule by their giving voice to it in some way or other, by writing letters to the newspapers, by Questions in another place, by pressure on Members of Parliament, and both noble Lords, I think, will have to admit that the public taken as a whole have not shown any burning desire for this change.
LORD NEWTON: None whatever.
EARL RUSSELL: Therefore I do not know why he should expect a natural Conservative like myself to adopt these revolutionary proposals which come from the other side. There are in this country, I suppose you may say, two great institutions in which time and timekeeping is rather of the essence of the matter. One is the railways and the other is the Post Office. The railways had this suggested to them some time ago. The noble Viscount, who has been invited by Lord Monkswell to start it on his railway, did not seem enthusiastic, and the railway companies on that occasion said the same thing, that they did not think there was any demand by the public for it. I agree that the system is not at all difficult to learn, and that
752
it has, personally, many conveniences. The noble Lord who asked the Question was good enough to say that if the reform were made I might get the credit for it, but he is mistaken, because my Office has nothing to do with the Post Office, and in this matter I have only to express their opinions. I can get the discredit for expressing those opinions badly, but the credit for anything achieved must go elsewhere.
I think noble Lords would probably admit that if this change is to be made those two great time-keeping bodies ought really to make it together, and that it would be inconvenient for one to make it without the other. If the change were made, I have no doubt the public might get used to it in a comparatively short time; but it involves, in the case of the Post Office, and I dare say in the case of the railways, too, a certain initial expense, and there seems to be no reason to incur that expense when there is really no public demand for it. I would remind both noble Lords that no matter how much you make these scientific changes, the public do not always take too kindly to them. For instance, in France years and years after kilograms had been adopted, the French people in the country habitually spoke about pounds, and I very much doubt whether even the noble Lord, Lord Newton, would not ask his friends to luncheon with him at 2 o'clock instead of 14.0 hours in future even if the change were made, although of course his friends would all be able to understand What he meant.
But the feeling in the Post Office is that there would be a certain amount of confusion and that that confusion would be increased if the Post Office were the only place in this country to adopt the change. Therefore, they do not, I am sorry to say, see their way to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, made the further suggestion that it might be tried on telegrams, where it, would not very much matter. I am not sure how far that would carry it. After all, a comparatively small section of the public use telegrams. A very large number of people never see telegrams from one year's end to another, but I suppose he feels that is would educate members of your Lordships' House and other people who he said suffer from the fatuity of being unable to understand it. I will put the sug-

753
gestion before the Postmaster-General, but I am afraid I must say that he should not build too much hope upon that.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed with the answer given by the noble Earl. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, remarked, I thought there might be a reasonable chance of pressing on the Post Office the desirability of this change. The noble Earl said that the public did not take kindly to any scientific change, but the present system is not a scientific system. It is very arbitrary, and really the ordinary simple system is the division into twenty-four hours. I think after the reply which has been given I cannot press the matter further, but I do think the noble Earl might press upon the Post Office at least the point made by my noble friend that the change might be made in regard to internal telegrams. After all, they now have foreign telegrams stamped with the time on the twenty-four-hour system and therefore it should not add very much to the expenses even of our poor country to extend the system to internal telegrams. The same, I think, might be said in regard to the stamping of letters. However, I will not press the matter and I 'beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE IMAM OF THE YEMEN.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON asked His Majesty's Government whether any advance has been made in making a treaty with the Imam of the Yemen, and if not, what further steps it is proposed to take to arrive at an understanding; and moved for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to refer again to a matter with which for several years I have troubled your Lordships' House as regards our position in the Aden Protectorate. There are two points to which, as I have notified the noble Lord opposite, I particularly want to draw attention. I want first to ask whether the trade routes from the Yemen to Aden are at present open, and I would also like to know what is the present condition of the trade of Aden. I should like further to know what are the present relations of the Imam of the Yemen with other foreign countries.
I am told that a certain number of Russians have settled in Hodeida and also in Sana, the capital. They have been there, I understand, for some time. I do not know whether the noble Lord has had his attention called to a statement made in the French newspaper Le Matin. In the last week in May there was an article by M. Bessedowsky on Soviet efforts in the Far East. That gentleman said that the Soviet Government had sent an envoy to Sana in the hope of stirring up the Yemen to make war against us, but the Imam declined to embark upon such an enterprise. He did sign a commercial treaty, but this was kept secret for fear of causing an outcry in Britain. It was published, however, by the indiscretion of the editor of a Soviet paper and in consequence he was sent for five years into exile. According to this M. Bessedowsky several thousands of dollars have been spent on propaganda in that part of Arabia. I am not prepared myself to substantiate this statement as accurate, but it appeared in Le Matin.
Although it is stated that Russians have established themselves at Hodeida and Sana, no Britisher, as I understand, is allowed at present to be there. I am not sure whether Britishers are even allowed to go into the Yemen, but certainly they are not allowed to settle as these Russians are said to have done. I understand that so far as there are any relations with the Yemen they are rather more satisfactory than a year ago. In another place a Question was asked on July 9 as to our relations with the Imam. Dr. Shiels, who replied to the Question put by Mr. Malone, did not give much information, but he did say—
"…the countries which have already recognised the Imam are Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union. The delay in concluding a treaty between this country and the Imam is due to his reluctance to give an adequate assurance against his encroachment on districts under the protection of His Majesty's Government."
I should like to know whether any document can be produced showing the terms in which his refusal to give an adequate assurance was couched. I do not know whether the noble Lord is prepared to give me any information on that, point. I have never heard anything about that.
I have expressed my view in this House before now, that whilst I should not derogate at all from the position of the boundary that has been established since 1904 or 1905, still there are perhaps some very minor adjustments which might be made which would perhaps meet the Imam's views. This Question may appear a trivial matter to those who are not thoroughly acquainted with that part of the world, and I may say that I am no champion of the Imam. On the contrary, for three or four years I was the only person who moved in the matter of trying to get him to withdraw his forces from our Protectorate on which he had so unwarrantably encroached. I was always opposed to his desire to bring protected tribes under his jurisdiction. Therefore it must not be thought that I have any particularly tender feeling towards him. But I do want to see justice given to him. I am sure it is in the interests of all parties that we should come to a friendly understanding if possible. I understand that he is most anxious to arrive at some understanding.
I will not use the word "treaty," though of course a treaty might be very desirable, because I do not wish it to be thought that we want to make a treaty giving away anything of our position. What I want is that we should try to meet what we may consider to be his prejudices. One fundamental difficulty, of course, is his wish to have some recognition of what he terms his historic rights. I should have thought it was quite within the ingenuity of my noble and learned friend opposite, and of the Colonial Office, to devise some terms which would not in the least degree impair our authority at Aden or our Protectorate. The historic rights which the Imam claims he dates back about 1,000 years. Could we not admit that 1,000 years ago he had jurisdiction, but point out to him that in succeeding centuries Egypt ruled the Yemen, and then Turkey, and that for at least 200 years the Imam has had nothing to do with Aden? Could not something be done on those lines to meet his views?
What I feel is that every opportunity should be taken to satisfy Moslem feeling at the present time. We know what difficult questions there are in different parts of the Near East and Middle East
756
in regard to our attitude towards Mahomedanism, and though the Yemen may seem a very far away corner and very unimportant, it must not be forgotten that the echoes reverberate very speedily throughout Arabia and the Near East. I do consider that respect ought to be shown to the Imam's feelings and that, notwithstanding what has happened in the past, he should not be harshly or rudely treated. Therefore I think we can, perhaps, put our official pride on one side and be more lenient in our attitude towards him.
One point that I have made repeatedly in your Lordships' House is that he should be invited to send a representative or emissary to this country to try to negotiate. I think his son was sent to Rome when he made a treaty with the Italian Government. Why should we not pursue the same course and invite him? If he refuses, no harm is done. The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, who was once connected with the Colonial Office, supported this view only last year, and he knows a great deal about this question. I think my noble friend Lord Stanhope took the same view. After all, the Imam rules in the portion of Arabia which is the most fertile and has the bravest soldiers. At the same time it is very isolated, and therefore, perhaps, he may be regarded as having an exaggerated view of his own importance. I quite admit that he may, and that he is so isolated that he can hardly realise his position or compare his country with other countries in the world. That is all the more reason for treating him gently.
To ask one who regards himself as an important and historic Sovereign to treat with Aden, however distinguished our representative there may be, is as if we had some discussion with Germany and the German Government said that we must negotiate with the Commander of Heligoland. That would be something like the same principle. To judge from all the information that I can get—and I get a good deal of information to that effect from various quarters—it certainly might go a long way towards meeting his views and coming to some friendly agreement with him, if not actually a treaty, if we took the course that I suggest. I hope, therefore, that, having once again troubled your Lordships' House, I may

757
obtain a more favourable reply than I have hitherto obtained from His Majesty's Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASEFIELD): My Lords, with the spirit of the noble Lord's speech I find myself in entire agreement, but, after all, this is a question of the manner in which the negotiations with this potentate have to be carried on, and I can assure your Lordships that the matter is not quite so simple and so formal as the noble Lord made out. As a matter of fact, our relations with the Imam at present are exceedingly friendly, everything is going on all right and we are hoping that the present détente may lead in due time to a very real entente, which may very well take the form of a treaty. It does not at present seem to be any use hurrying the proceedings. The noble Lord knows very well that with Oriental peoples hurry is not a good practice. As things are at present, we are going on very nicely. We have made it quite clear to the Imam that His Majesty's Government fully and completely recognise his independence and have every desire to be on friendly relations.
The difficulty is that all the communications from the Imam indicate a reluctance to express in any form an acknowledgment of the position of His Majesty's Government at the Settlement of Aden and in the Protectorate of Aden. We cannot afford to enter into a treaty or anything of that kind except upon the condition that the rights and jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government over all the people of Aden and the independence of the Chiefs of the Protectorate of Aden are recognised by the Imam. We recognise to the fullest extent his independent sovereignty over his own territory, and it really is necessary that he should recognise the sovereignty of His Majesty's Government over Aden. It may be that his claims are a thousand years old, and so on, but when we find this reluctance to give that recognition—a reluctance which, I venture to think, we understand at the Colonial Office—it is necessary that we should proceed slowly before entering into a treaty, until a disposition has been shown by the Imam to make that recognition.
With regard to the place at which negotiations should be carried on, I do
758
not feel that there is any reason to object to the suggestion that, at the proper time and in the propel manner, if it is found that the Imam attaches any importance to it, he should be invited to send an emissary to London; but that would be in order to conclude a treaty. At the present, time we cannot find that the Imam has any desire to conclude a treaty under the only condition on which His Majesty's Government could conclude a treaty—namely, that there should be a bilateral recognition of each other's sovereign rights. It is for this that we are waiting. The noble Lord asked me whether it was true that the Imam had refused to give an adequate assurance on that point. I should say that he has not refused, but his last letter was couched in terms which avoided giving that assurance and which indicated a deliberate avoidance.
It is that position which it is so difficult to meet. We cannot go on negotiating so long as there is avoidance of that point. It is not, I think, a question of little adjustments of the boundary. That, of course, as the noble Lord said, ought to be considered in a spirit of reasonableness and give and take, if necessary. That is not a question which is at all between us. The question between us is the apparently deliberate avoidance by the Imam of any recognition of the right of His Majesty's Government to be at Aden at all, or of the protection which the Government must necessarily exercise over the whole of the territory which we claim as a British Protectorate. So long as the Imam appears to be unwilling to give that recognition. I am afraid the détente must continue. Possibly we can turn it, by good feeling and good relations, into an entente, but we cannot possibly get to the point of a treaty-for some little time.
With regard to the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, I am advised that the roads are open, and while I should not like to guarantee that all the roads at all times are as safe as Piccadilly, still, in the phraseology of the East, the roads are open and intercourse is going on. I am asked about the state of the trade of Aden. Your Lordships will know, of course, that Aden, like other ports, is suffering from the world depression in trade, and this

759
has affected goods in transit from all parts. Generally speaking, trade at Aden cannot be said to be good at the present time. The trade with the Yemen is, of course, only a very small part of the trade of which we are talking. Then the noble Lord asks what are the present relations of the Yemen with foreign countries. Italy, Soviet Russia and Germany have recognised the Imam, and treaties between the Yemen and Italy and Soviet Russia are merely, as I understand it, expressions of good feeling one towards another, and of willingness to enter into trade relations, including a recognition in most cases of the sovereignty of the Imam. No question arises of course in those cases of recognising the sovereignty of the other party. In our case, I am advised, we should have to insist upon it, and that constitutes the difficulty; but, as a matter of fact, those treaties do not take the respective Governments very far.
It is true we are aware that there is a tiny colony of Russians settled there, and there has been a persistent attempt on the part of Soviet Russia to create trade between Soviet Russia and the Yemen. I can quite believe that a quite perceptible amount of money has been spent by the Soviet Government in that operation. Our information is that trading attempts have been particularly unsuccessful, and amount to very little at all, except that in Oriental countries everybody is willing to receive presents, and there has been a good deal of money spent by the Soviet Government in attempting to open up trade by that ingenious but not always very profitable procedure. As regards propaganda, I think I can assure the noble Lord that there has apparently been no sign of it, and we do not believe that even the Soviet Government would expect to get any return from propaganda in the Yemen. The money has been spent to foster trade, which is a quite legitimate desire, and all I can say is that it does not appear to have been very successful.
I think the noble Lord put his finger upon the difficulty when he said that the Imam was anxious to have his historic rights recognised. That is the difficulty, because the historic rights of the Imam connote, if they do not denote, sovereignty over the Moslems, perhaps in all Arabia, and at all events over the
760
Moslems in our Aden Settlement. I do not propose to enter into a discussion upon sovereign rights, because at the present day we cannot entertain any question of doubt as to the sovereignty of His Majesty in our territory. That is the difficulty. If the noble Lord will let us go on, I can assure him that every attempt is being made by the Colonial Office, and by the very experienced and competent Resident at Aden, not only to secure the best relations with the Imam but to go further towards a very definite treaty as soon as it can possibly be effected. But I must ask your Lordships to take up the attitude that in matters of that kind you must trust the Executive Government. We want to attain the end which the noble Lord desires, and we think we are getting on to it, but the particular way in which negotiations must take place, and the particular time at which every step is taken, must, I am afraid, be left to the Executive Government. I can only assure the noble Lord that he may be quite certain that we are doing our very utmost to arrive at the end which he, together with ourselves, has in view.
I have had to speak carefully. We do not want to publish any Papers at the present time, because the publication would rather harden matters than enable us to go on. I ask the noble Lord to trust me when I say that it would be injurious to the end which he, and we, have in view, if we had to put down in black and white, and publish to the world, the various letters which have passed. We do not want to keep the Imam to what he has said. We want to leave it open to him to take up an attitude which would be more in accordance with the common desire to get a friendly treaty, and for that reason I ask the noble Lord not to press for Papers. I can assure him we are doing our very best to arrive at the end which he has in view.
LORD LAMINGTON: Of course, after the appeal which the noble Lord has just made I should not press for Papers, though it is a long time since we had anything clear before the public in connection with this question. He said that all proceedings with the Imam were going on very nicely. I am very glad to hear it, and accept his assurance that the Government are doing their best to come to friendly terms with the Imam. I

761
do not press for the specific treaty, and therefore I cannot quite appreciate the argument of the noble Lord when he said that it would not do to invite the Imam to send a representative unless a treaty was clearly in view. I should have thought it would have enlightened that sovereign as to the importance of relations with the world outside the Yemen. The noble Lord will perhaps consider the matter. I was not quite sure whether I understood the noble Lord to say that all the troops or forces of the Imam had been withdrawn from occupancy of the tribal areas for which we are responsible. He seemed to imply that there were districts in which the Imam had his troops or forces, and it would be desirable to make that clear. I should, of course, deprecate any appearance of giving way in regard to our position at Aden.
LORD PASSFIELD: I believe that the districts which were occupied by the Imam's forces are no longer occupied by those forces, but I should like to avoid giving a definite answer as to whether, within the area width we claim as our Protectorate, there is any district which is at present more or less occupied by the Imam. Certainly the specific districts which were occupied two years ago have been vacated, and so far as I know no part of the actual Protectorate is actually occupied by the Imam's forces. At the same time I should not like to tell your Lordships that arrangements are quite satisfactory there on that point. I cannot say anything more precise on that point, except that a great deal has been done towards clearing up that difficulty. I am not prepared to say that everything is now cleared up.
LORD LAMINGTON: With the leave of the House, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, Viscount Hailsham has been called away, and he asked me to say that he will not be able to move his Motion to-night—[relating to "the Amendments to the Covenant of the League of Nations proposed by the Committee appointed to bring the provisions of the Covenant into harmony with the
762
Pact of Paris"]. It has therefore been postponed until Wednesday next. He desired me to make this statement, for the convenience of your Lordships interested in the matter.

ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE.
THE EARL OF HAREWOOD THE EARL OF HAREWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government if they have investigated the position of the Royal Veterinary College and what steps they are prepared to take to maintain it; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I would not have ventured to trespass upon your time on this the first occasion that I have done so, with so short an experience in your Lordships' House, but for the fact that the Royal Veterinary College, to the affairs of which I wish to call the attention of the Government, has reached a stage in its career where some action must be taken within the next few weeks if the Governors are to be prevented from taking the preliminary steps which will eventually lead to the closing of that College; that is to say, the refusal to accept new students. The troubles which have attacked that College come under two headings. The first one is that the expenditure exceeds the income of the College, and the second one, which is even more grave, is that the buildings are in an irreparable state of disrepair. The annual deficit is, indeed, a diminishing one, owing to the fact that the students' fees are increasing year by year, and to the even more interesting fact that the subscriptions from private persons throughout the country are bringing in a larger income also year by year—both of which facts show that the work of the College is appreciated by those to serve whom it exists.
The matter of the buildings, however, is one which can but get worse as time goes on, and with that in view the Governors of the College launched an appeal to the public in order to establish a building fund. That appeal was most ably and energetically backed, not only by the late Principal of the College, Professor Sir John McFadyean, but also by the present Principal, Professor Hobday, whose name, as your Lordships know, is one to conjure with wherever animal lovers exist. That appeal reached, I think I

763
may venture to say, every quarter from which a subscription might be expected towards the object for which the Veterinary College exists, whether it be the great breeder with his pedigree cattle, whether it be the small farmer with his score of acres of grass land, whether it be the sportsman with his dogs and with his horses, or whether it be the old lady with a cat beside her hearth. Every class to which I refer has made a generous subscription to the best of its ability to the fund which the Governors have raised. That fund has reached during the last three years the sum of approximately £30,000, a, sum which I think is by no means negligible, when we consider that the chief source from which we could expect to receive it is that of agriculture, which has been depressed for so long.
The Governors at the same time appealed for advice from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and during the time of the late Government a Departmental Committee was appointed, which reported on August 8 last year, that is to say, eleven and a half months ago. The recommendations of that Departmental Committee were, first and foremost, that the Governors should purchase the freehold of the land in Camden Town upon which the College buildings are built for a sum which they estimated at £20,000; secondly, that a sum of £280,000 should be expended upon that site in erecting new buildings; thirdly, that a sum of £25,000 should be expended on a site outside London, and not definitely selected, for the purpose of a research laboratory, which would be affiliated to the College; and fourthly, that the annual income of the College should be guaranteed at a sum not less than £21,000 a year. To that guarantee they attached the following sentence: "It would be unwise to embark on the erection of new buildings unless such additional income were in sight."
Those are the recommendations, which amount in their total to a sum of £325,000 in capital, and of £21,000 a year. The Report was, as I have said, in the hands of His Majesty's Ministers on August 8 last year, and during the last eleven and a half months it appears that a process of incubation has taken place, which has resulted in a letter, which I received by the courtesy of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, on my
764
return from Yorkshire last night, and upon which I have had very little opportunity to consult the other Governors of the College. I have, however, had the opportunity of seeing the Treasurer of the College and the Chairman of the Governors. The conclusions which have been arrived at by His Majesty's Government and which I hope I may say are not fixed and without hope of being reconsidered, start with a cancelling of the amount of £20,000, the purchase price of the freehold land in Camden Town, and continue to contemplate the building of a large and expensive building upon that site whilst the Governors are only in possession of it as a leasehold. This, I confess, is a matter of policy which I would not further criticise, because it may be sound. But for no reason which I can find out the cost of the buildings has been estimated by His Majesty's Government to be £250,000, instead of £280,000, which the Departmental Committee considered to be the absolute minimum for which adequate buildings could be produced. I should be very doubtful whether £250,000 would be sufficient for the purpose, but on that particular count I confess that I think the Governors would be willing—in fact I am certain that the Governors would be willing—to consider the offer of His Majesty's Government if, that is to say, we had any reasonable prospect of securing the £250,000 to build.
His Majesty's Government make the further offer that in respect of the £30,000 which we have in our possession as a building fund they will make us a present pound per pound, that is to say, a further £30,000. In addition, His Majesty's Government offer £70,000, without the condition of a pound per pound basis. This comes to a sum of £130,000. £130,000 therefore is the only money which the Governors can see their way to handle in the near future. A further offer is made by His Majesty's Government that if and when the sum collected by the Governors reaches a total of £200,000 (that is to say, when we have collected from private sources a further £70,000) His Majesty's Government will recommend that a further grant of £50,000 be made; that is to say, the Governors may then come again to Parliament and petition for the further sum of £50,000.
The whole gist of the question is dependent upon two points. Firstly, have

765
the Governors any prospect of raising the sum of £70,0000 from private sources which would entitle them to petition for the further £50,000, making a total of £250,000 which His Majesty's Government then hold out in prospect? From what I personally know and what I am sure your Lordships know much better than I do of the condition of agriculture at the present moment, I can barely think there is the slightest hope of getting that sum of £70,000. So sure do the Chairman of the Governors and the Treasurer of the College feel on this point that they have informed me this morning that, at the meeting of the Governors which takes place next week, they will recommend that the Governors refuse the offer of His Majesty's Government because there is no hope whatsoever of raising a sufficient sum to rebuild the College. The action which they will have to take immediately on this is to refuse to admit fresh students into the College. The actual closing of the College will take a period of something like four years, because the Governors feel that they are so far committed to the students who are in the College that it would not be fair to close the College before their course in veterinary instruction has been definitely completed.
The calamity which the closing of the Royal Veterinary College would be to agriculture is one which I do not like to picture. We are accustomed when we discuss the question of the prosperity of agriculture to talk very largely in terms of wheat; but I would remind your Lordships that there is another side to agricultural prosperity and that is the breeding and raising of stock Although this very important side of agricultural prosperity is one which is more difficult to kill by political action or inaction, still I cannot imagine any better way of killing the industry of breeding and raising stock than by the dissemination of disease amongst them, and I cannot imagine that any greater risk could be thrown before the farmers of this country of epidemics of disease than by a restriction in the supply of veterinary surgeons.
For those reasons I appeal to His Majesty's Government to reconsider the very limited amount of money which they can see their way at present to allot to the rebuilding of the Royal Veterinary
766
College, and I ask them whether they would not consider it in terms of an annual grant of money such as £80,000 or £90,000 a year for three years, instead of giving just the one lump sum down which, at present, they are prepared to contemplate. The rebuilding of the College will take at least three years if not four, I should imagine, and if His Majesty's Government could see their way to spread a rather larger sum over a term of years, I am perfectly certain that the Governors of the College would be able to reconsider the decision which, as I say, the Chairman of the Governors and the Treasurer are about to recommend them to take, to refuse to accept fresh students into the College from next month. I beg to ask the question which stands in my name on the Paper and to move for Papers.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, after the admirable speech of the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, I hardly think I need say very much upon the subject of the Veterinary College and veterinary science. I think the noble Earl put the appeal principally upon the tremendous losses inflicted upon the livestock and dairying industries by the spread of disease. But veterinary science appeals very strongly to the whole nation in other ways. Veterinary science is mixed up with the department of public health. It is mixed up with the progress of human pathology, for animal pathology and human pathology have gone hand in hand, as Pasteur and Koch have illustrated. Further than that, the Ministry of Agriculture without the Diseases of Animals Division, which is manned chiefly by students from the Royal Veterinary College would be obliged to cease to exist.
The Report to which the noble Earl called attention was issued as he told us, in 1929. The report that this document gives of the state of affairs at the Veterinary College is really deplorable. The buildings are in bad repair. They have come to that state of disrepair when they deteriorate rapidly. The accommodation for the students is most inadequate, and all the fittings and apparatus for veterinary research are not up to date or of real public utility. That Report does not stand alone. There was a report from the Colonial Veterinary Committee, which said: "We were dismayed at what we saw at the Veterinary College." And that is its

767
position, as everybody knows. It is literally a disgrace to this country that the Veterinary College should be allowed to pass into extinction. At Berlin the annual sum paid for veterinary science is £280,000. Here, I do not know whether the noble Earl knows the amount, I am afraid I do not but I expect it is under £20,000 a year; I am told it is £16,000 a year. That is all they get, and the work they do for it is, as I have said, of the utmost value not only to the owners of livestock and those who are engaged in the dairying industries, but in public health, in medical research and generally throughout the country.
There is one other thing I may mention. The Veterinary College has a chance of becoming affiliated as one of the schools of the University of London. That is a new departure which, I think, would be of inestimable value to both the teachers and the pupils in veterinary science and, therefore, to the nation at large. To be brought into contact with that great, growing and active University would break down the isolation in which the veterinary profession has hitherto been living, it would raise the standard of efficiency in scientific research, and it would give a new and much better status to the veterinary students when they passed out into the world as veterinary surgeons. Those advantages are at this moment at the disposal of the Veterinary College, subject to its finances being in a proper condition and its buildings in proper repair. There is the trouble. The University of London cannot be expected to accept a College as part of their body whose buildings are hopelessly inadequate and hopelessly in disrepair, and whose finances are practically insolvent.
When this question came before me as Minister of Agriculture some twelve years ago, I endeavoured, for the reasons I have given now for the University of London and for some other reasons, to persuade the College to go to Cambridge. I think that on that occasion—I do not know if the noble Earl happens to have the figures by him—the Government did make a generous offer. It was rejected. I am not sure whether the Governors were right or not, but they rejected it, and now, I think they certainly are right, because the University of London has become, since the alterations in its statutes, a body with which the
768
Veterinary College can be linked with the greatest possible advantage. On those grounds I desire to support the noble Earl's appeal to the Government on behalf of veterinary science. I agree in some respects that their offer is a good one, because they are giving not pound for pound but thirty shillings per pound—I think it works out at that. In all the circumstances, and having regard to the want of money in the industry to which the College administers, I appeal to the Government to make a more generous offer, one which will enable the Veterinary College to carry on and not gradually close its doors.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I think all of us who are interested in this subject, no matter how depressed we may have felt at some of the words which came from the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, will be very grateful to him for having raised a subject of such vital concern to the industry of agriculture as that of the existing state of the Royal Veterinary College. I could not help feeling perhaps just a little disappointed at the manner in which the noble Earl spoke of the offer of His Majesty's Government, and I do hope—I know he has this question very much at heart, and most certainly will not take any hasty action—that he will reconsider this question very seriously with his friends before they decide to take the action that he has suggested.
Let us for a moment, before discussing the actual offer, consider the history of this question. The noble Earl, Lord Harewood, has already to a certain extent discussed it, but I am sure your Lordships would not mind my covering some of the same ground, because it has a somewhat long and complicated history. I think it was in 1918 when the first discussion took place with the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, as Minister of Agriculture, and at that time, as he said, it was suggested the College might perhaps be taken to Cambridge. The sum that was then mentioned as being the appropriate as3istance to give to the College was round about £100,000, but no definite figure, I understand, was ever decided upon. That proposal fell through. Then, in 1926, the subject came up again, and the Government of that

769
day—the last Government—made an offer of £35,000 on the basis of pound per pound, and it was in response to that appeal, I think, that the first £20,000 was raised. That is now nearly four years ago. As the noble Earl has already said, that sum has risen by small amounts since then to £30,000.
The response to that appeal was obviously not sufficient to entitle the Governors to go on with re-building, and they considered then that the time had come—I think they decided this in agreement with His Majesty's Government—for a thorough revision of the whole policy in connection with the Royal Veterinary College, and a very strong Departmental Committee was appointed, with Sir Charles Martin as Chairman. The noble Earl has already told the House what the Committee reported. They reported in favour of rebuilding on completely new lines, and a reorganisation of the education facilities, and also in favour of a completely new constitution. His Majesty's Government had that Report last August. The offer that they then made to the Governors of the College was that they would give them pound for pound up to £100,000, but the Governors of the College felt—whether that was a reasonable offer or not—that they would not be able to collect sufficient money to make up the amount of £280,000, though our advisers said that £250,000 would probably be sufficient.
What now is the position of His Majesty's Government? The noble Earl says that he feels that their offer is quite insufficient to enable the Governors to carry on with their work, and that they will virtually have to close down the College. I take it that what the noble Earl would like would be that His Majesty's Government should come forward and say that they will take over the College completely, rebuild it at the expense of the State, and provide all the maintenance expenses, or virtually all the necessary maintenance expenses. I would suggest to your Lordships that that is an entirely new principle that the noble Earl has suggested as to the relations between the State and what amounts to a University Department. Hitherto the State has held to the policy that education of University rank should be aided by Government grants, but that the Government do not take the responsi-
770
bility for maintenance, which is primarily a matter for the governing body. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a principle with which the very much cherished autonomy of Universities is closely bound up. The Government cannot accept the view that entire responsibility for veterinary education alone should ultimately fall upon the State. Obviously such a view, if we once admitted it, could not be confined to a particular form of University education, or to some chosen institution, and it is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle of University autonomy.
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that such a view would be most resented in the academic world. Hitherto the rule has been that we have made annual grants to these institutions and that on capital expenditure we have been prepared to grant pound for pound. In certain cases we have granted more for research, but never on any occasion have we gone beyond pound for pound for educational work. In view of the special circumstances associated with this institution; in view of the state it is now in and the amount of money required for rebuilding it and reconstructing it; in view of the state of the agricultural industry and the comparative poverty of the veterinary profession, we have broken through that principle to the extent that the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, has already mentioned and we have gone up to an offer which amounts to 30 s. per pound raised. The noble Earl has already told your Lordships exactly how that offer works out, but perhaps I might repeat it in order that it should be quite clear.
Firstly, we give a grant of £30,000 on the old basis of pound for pound. The original offer was to give £100,000 on the pound for pound basis, but we have gone beyond that to the extent of giving £70,000 without asking the Governors to raise £70,000. That, as the noble Earl told you, gives them £130,000, to which the. Government is contributing £100,000. In addition to that the Government have said that if the Governors make up that sum of £130,000 to £200,000 they will put them in a position to complete the scheme by giving a further grant of £50,000 I do venture to suggest to your Lordships that that really is a most generous offer, and I would suggest to

771
the noble Earl and his friends that they would be very unwise to turn down such an offer in any light spirit. I feel that I ought not to use that phrase, because I know that they are so keen and so enthusiastic over this work that they certainly would not do so, but I certainly hope that they will very carefully reconsider I he question.
After all, it is now three or four years since an appeal was made. On that occasion there was no very clear policy before the Governors on which they could issue the appeal, and there was no very great encouragement at that moment from the Government, who had only offered a maximum grant of £35,000. I suggest to your Lordships that the situation has altered now. Four years have elapsed; there is a most generous offer from the Government which the Governors can put before their anticipated subscribers; and there is a most carefully thought out policy laid before us by the inter-Departmental Committee which reported last year. With that change of circumstance I would appeal to the noble Lord to consider making an attempt at this appeal for £70,000.
None of us want to see the Royal Veterinary College closed down. We all know the immense work it has done for the industry and the immense work we look to it to do for the industry in future. It is not our business to tell the Governors how to make their appeal. There are, however, certain large resources which, I will not say have not been tapped because the appeal last time was made with great energy, but which remained comparatively untapped. We all know the agricultural industry at present, at any rate in certain departments, is in a state of great depression, but even in the industry itself there are a large number of pedigree breeders who can be appealed to. You have the whole bunting world to appeal to and the whole racing world. You have got the "Tote" Board now, and they might even be appealed to.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Please do not give this list to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
EARL DE LA WARR: No, I do not want to get into trouble. Then you have the lovers of small animals in this country and that should be a very large field
772
to appeal to. I feel, as I have said before, that before the noble Earl says "Die" he should earnestly consider whether it is not possible to tap these sources of subscription. I can certainly assure the noble Earl not only in my own name but in the name of His Majesty's Government, that if he and his friends do make a decision to go ahead they will have all the assistance and all the encouragement that the Ministry of Agriculture and His Majesty's Government can give.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I cannot help feeling a little disappointed with the noble Earl opposite. I should have thought that having so recently moved into his present office, he would have felt this an opportunity for what is known as "solemnising the occasion"—and not in water. He has hardly passed round the loving cup to-day-—possibly cigarettes. The gist of this matter is not that £100,000 or £130,000 is not a very generous contribution from the Government. The gist of the matter is that the farming community and the community related to it have not the money they had in 1918. £30,000 to-day is more difficult to raise than £300,000 would have been in the farming community in 1918, and no one is better aware of that than the noble Earl. If we consider another Bill, he is prepared to go into questions of subsidies for the drainage of land running into millions. I venture to suggest to him, therefore, that some of the money that he has at his disposal could be more prudently dealt with by the addition of a not very large sum to the endowment of the Royal Veterinary College or to the capital sum required for building.
I am not authorised to speak for that College, but I am Chairman of the subcommittee of a Committee set up by the Government to deal with that humble animal, the pig. I am on the veterinary committee that deals with that subject and I have been urged to fire into the Government a Report saying that the one thing that the pig and pig-owners require is a great deal more veterinary research. It is not a hit of use my firing in that Report unless there are veterinary experts adequate to use the results of the research and to benefit by the discoveries. You must have the men, otherwise the know-

773
ledge is of no use. The noble Earl, Lord Harewood, has told us that we shall not have them; and this in an industry that has a turnover of something like £100,000,000 a year, or rather more. Surely the sums which the Government are asked for are, in relation to that industry, uncommonly small. I beg the noble Earl to consider again whether some of those millions that he is prepared to lavish on draining the Thames could not be more profitably spent in keeping the Veterinary College alive.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I should not have ventured to trouble your Lordships even for a few moments were it not that 1, in common, I doubt not, with many members of your Lordships' House have from time to time experienced the great services that are rendered by the Royal Veterinary College. I have sent horses to them which were supposed to be almost hopelessly injured, and in one case, at any rate, after a horse was treated by the Veterinary College it won two or three point-to-point races. The benefits conferred by the College upon the farming community and all those interested in stock-breeding and horse-breeding are well-known. We have heard great tributes paid to the College from the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, from Lord Ernie, who saw a great deal of its work while Minister of Agriculture, and from the noble Earl himself. If that is so, surely it would be lamentable if a great institution of this sort were to lapse for want of what is relatively an exceedingly small sum.
What do the Government propose to do? They propose to give £150,000 in all, if the Veterinary College will find £100,000, and they also propose to give a small contribution to the upkeep every year. The position is that the College cannot raise £100;000. They have done their best, but in the present condition of agriculture it is impossible. The Government say that they will not go beyond £150,000. If that is their ultimate limit, I am afraid we shall see the disaster of the closing down of this College. I should like, if I may, to reinforce the appeal that has been made by my noble friend who has just spoken and to ask the Government if they cannot use some of this money which is being lavished in millions on many undertakings which
774
many people think useless, rather than suffer the national misfortune of this College coming to an end. They are prepared to spend some hundreds of millions on making roads which are in many cases not only useless but dangerous, which are in no way of benefit to agriculture and are very dangerous to agricultural horses which pass along them. The construction of these roads in rural districts involves the farmers in paying higher rates than they would pay if the roads were not made.
Let me make an appeal to the noble Earl to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who we know is exceedingly easy of access and so reasonable that I am sure that, under the eloquence of the noble Earl, he will accede to any proposal of a reasonable character. Let the noble Earl say to him: "Will you kindly save a little money from this unnecessary expenditure, such as the drainage of land, on which millions may be spent without much good, and from making these useless racing tracks throughout the country?" An extra £100,000 would keep the College going. Since we are told by Lord Ernie that the sum spent in Berlin upon veterinary research, to help a veterinary institution, is no less than £280,000 a year, as compared with the very small sum of £66,000 which this Government gives for research, I am sure the noble Earl will be able to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer and persuade him to give a more liberal contribution to what is really a national necessity.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, may I add one word, as one of the Governors of the Royal Veterinary College? I think one small point has been somewhat overlooked, and it is one which, I think, should appeal to the Government and make them take a kinder view regarding the money that they are willing to offer to the College. I refer to the enormous field that is open to young men in our overseas Possessions. Any number of young men, if they have the advantage of the great knowledge of the Veterinary College, are sure, if they go abroad to be able to get on. You will find that more and more men will be wanted as soon as it has been found what a great advantage it is to have a good veterinary surgeon in the neighbourhood.

775
The local veterinary surgeon has improved enormously during the last few years, thanks, I think, to the College.
Another point is that the College wants a still better class of men. They ought to have University men who can join in research for the curing of disease, and in such complicated investigations as we have seen in the work done as the result of the Field distemper fund. You want a very high class of man to go into this research. There are any number of other kinds of diseases of animals into which researches are necessary. This is really not only a question of agriculture, but a national question. It is important that London should have its wellendowed Veterinary College from which to send our young men out all over the world. I hope the Government will consider that point when the question comes up again.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM: My Lords, may I confirm what the noble Lord who spoke last has said with regard to the class of young men that is wanted as veterinary surgeons? I have just come back from living in America for several years. A very large business is done with this country, not only in America but in several other countries, in pedigree dogs. The class of veterinary surgeon practising in America to-day is far superior to that which one finds as a rule in England, but a great many disorders come to America from England that they have not been able to cope with, and I think that, if you allow the Royal Veterinary College to pass out of existence, you will be doing very serious harm to the large class in England that supplies dogs and animals of that sort, which require an enormous amount of medical attention. In England this is becoming a bigger industry every day, and other countries look to us to provide proper veterinary work in connection with it. I think you will find that a great many well-trained Englishmen could go out to foreign countries and take up the veterinary profession with great success and be a great help to other countries. I hope the Government will see their way to help the College in every possible manner.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, a very interesting debate has taken place, and the noble Earl opposite has done
776
from his own point of view his best by suggesting that we should get money by taxing the breeders of small animals.
EARL DE LA WARR: By making an appeal to them.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I have bred in my time most small animals, from canaries to carthorses. I think an appeal might be made, but it would not be sufficient to find the money needed. I know the difficulty of this or any Government finding money for any purposes, but I am sure that if the noble Earl will report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the suggestions made on this side of the House, and particularly the remarks of the last two speakers as to the importance of veterinary education to those going out to the Colonies, something might be done. At the same time, I want to make an appeal to Lord Hare-wood that he and his fellow Governors should not hastily close down the College. It is true that they have not got out of the Government all that they want. Whoever does get all they want out of any Government? It would be a very remarkable thing if this particular College got all it hoped for or wanted out of this or any other Government.
EARL BATHURST: The reason that we have to settle so soon is that the new entry of students comes in October, and so we have to settle before October 1. If we do not settle, and the new entry comes forward, we shall have to keep the new lot for another four years.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I quite understand that that is a difficulty, but speaking as one interested in veterinary science and one who appreciates the necessity of efficient veterinary surgeons, I want to make an appeal. I am not saying that the Government have done all that they could, and I hope that the Government will reconsider the amount which they propose to give, but at the same time, while that reconsideration is going on, I want to suggest to my noble friends that it would be a very serious step indeed to bring this great work to a conclusion. I hope that they will take in the new entry in October, so that the supply of veterinary surgeons will not be stopped and that we and our Dominions may not in a few years time find that the supply has petered out. It

777
is not for me to suggest to the Governors of a great institution like this what they ought to do, but I make an appeal to them, considering the result of this debate, to realise that they have been supported by the House generally, and not be too quick in bringing an end to this important institution.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is only with your Lordships permission that I can say anything more, but I may perhaps be allowed to make this suggestion. It is impossible to have listened to the debate without being impressed by the feeling of the House. While I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope at all of any reconsideration of the offer which we have made, because we have already got the Treasury to break its principle (and noble Lords who have been in Governments will know what that means), if the noble Lord and his friends would come and have a conference with the Ministry on the details of the offer, and also have a discussion on the possibility of an appeal before taking any decision, we would be at his disposal at any time in the near future, before the Governors meet.
THE EARL OF HAREWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl opposite for the conciliatory manner in which he has treated the remarks that I have made, and which I hope he does not think were intended as an attack upon his particular Government, but purely in the interests of the College. In that regard he did suggest that we should appeal to the sportsmen of this country, and he mentioned the "Tote" Board, and racing people. I can only believe the noble Earl has not lived much in those circles if he thinks much profit is to be got out of the "Tote" Board, or racing people, at the present time. If he has looked at the prices fetched by yearlings, mares and other thoroughbred stock sold since last December, he will be surprised to see the difference between the prices now and those which
778
ruled two years ago. Money does not exist in these circles, and it is useless to pretend that we can get it out of them. I am afraid that the same remark applies to hunting circles. As to agricultural circles, it is useless to pretend that they are prosperous, and that is the reason why we are in the great difficulty which we have put before the Government. I will, however, see the Treasurer and the Chairman of the Governors before their next meeting, and I will attempt to persuade them to take in at any rate one further lot of young students, if I may hold out to them that the Government will see us through the absolute expense necessary for carrying on the course for the next year or two. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FALMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons amendments considered, and agreed to.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

DARTFORD AND PURFLEET (THAMES) TUNNEL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.