Lords Sitting of 30 June 1931

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MAURITIUS LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BETHLEM HOSPITAL (AMEND MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ACCRINGTON AND LEICESTER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS AND AGRI CULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOT LAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 8:
Amendment of provisions as to resumption, of holdings.
8.—(1) The occupation by a landlord, for the purpose of personally residing thereon, of a holding being his only landed estate, shall not be a reasonable purpose in respect of which the Land Court may authorise resumption by the landlord of a holding.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Viscount

433
said: My Lords, on the Committee stage the same Amendment was moved by myself, but after considerable discussion it was agreed that I should not proceed wits it, on the understanding that we might find some possible middle course of dealing with the situation created by this subsection. We have attempted to find that middle course with the Government and with the Department concerned, but have not been able to come to any satisfactory conclusion. It appears that if the subsection is left as it is acts of confiscation will be possible under it. It is only fair and just to landholders, if they have only one piece of land left, that they should be able to regain possession of it. The only way in which we can ensure that is by omitting this subsection from the Bill and leaving it as it has been in the past, to the discretion of the Land Court to allow or disallow resumption. I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (1).—(Viscount Elibank.)
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I never thought that there was any middle course possible under this clause for the reasons that I gave on the Second Reading of the Bill and also in Committee. I am very glad to fund that my noble friend has moved the omission of subsection (1). I need hardly remind your Lordships that it was not in the original Bill, and that the Minister representing the Scottish Office in Committee in another place gave the strongest reasons why it should not be in the Bill. I do not think I could improve upon those reasons myself. It is about the last right of the kind connect eel with small holdings that an owner is left with in Scotland. Therefore I warmly support the proposal of my noble friend.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, as the noble Viscount has told you, this Amendment was discused in Committee and it was hoped that it would be possible to come to some arrangement between the Committee stage and Report. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. This Amendment raises a question which was debated for some time in another place and was eventually rejected. Its object is to leave to the Land
434
Court an absolute discretion to hold occupation by the landlord for personal residence to be a reasonable purpose in respect of which the Land Court may authorise resumption; whereas the clause as it now stands contains a specific declaration against the reasonableness of such a purpose. In the opinion of the Secretary of State, who has given this matter most careful consideration, without such specific declaration the clause would not really effect its purpose, which is to prevent resumption by, for example, a person who has purchased the holding with a view to living on it only occasionally, possibly as a week-end residence—a person who has no serious intention of cultivating it. Since, therefore, it has not been possible to come to any agreement—indeed there appears to be no satisfactory compromise between these two points of view, which I think have been put very clearly before you by the noble Viscounts, Lord Elibank and Lord Novar—I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment on the Paper.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, in view of the reply of the noble Earl, I think that the only thing is to go to a Division on the Amendment. We refrained from doing so upon the last occasion in the endeavour to find this via media, but it has not been possible. Therefore I propose, if noble Lords will support me, to go to a Division upon it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Amendment of s. 11 of Act of 1911.
16. Section eleven of the Act of 1911 (which relates to obligations of new holders under Public Health Act) shall be amended by inserting after the words "have been erected on a holding" the words ''by a landholder or".
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out all words after "1911" and to insert:—
"shall apply to buildings or other premises erected on a holding by or for a landholder whether a new holder or not, and the said section shall have effect as if the word 'landholder' were substituted for the words 'new holder.'
Provided that, where any such buildings or premises were erected prior to the date when the rent payable at the commencement of this Act was fixed by the Land Court or agreed on by the parties, this section shall not operate to transfer from the landlord to the landholder any duty or liability until the arrival of the first term

435
after the commencement of this Act as from which the rent payable can be altered by agreement or by the Land Court."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 16 was inserted in Committee on the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, against the view of the Government. The clause amends Section 11 of the Act of 1911. That section enacts that, where holdings have been erected on a small holding by or for a new holder, liabilities under the Public Health Acts in respect of nuisances, etc., shall rest on the landholder so long as the landlord receives no rent for the buildings. Clause 16 extended the section to all landholders. Undoubtedly there is something to be said on both sides. While there is a great deal of justice in what has been done, if the clause is enacted without qualification, there are cases where it might operate unjustly. Where a landholder is paying a rent which has been fixed by the Land Court or has been settled by agreement, on the footing that the public health liability in question is on the landlord, it would be unfair to transfer that liability to the landholder, so long as he is required to pay the rent which has been fixed on a contrary basis. Therefore the Government propose this Amendment to the clause that was put down in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, leave out from ("1911") to end of clause and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I think it might serve to shorten discussion if I could extract from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill some explanation as to why the words at the end of the first paragraph of his Amendment "and the said section shall have effect as if the word 'landholder' were substituted for the words 'new holder'" have been inserted. I at any rate have a little difficulty in construing those words in this context. I should like in particular to know from the noble Earl whether these words will have the effect of relieving the new holders of any existing obligations by putting upon the landlord obligations at present resting on such new holders, which obligations could not be transferred or, as it were, re-transferred to the new holders until such time as the rent of the new holder again becomes open to revision.
EARL DE LA WARR.: My Lords, the noble Marquess kindly gave me warning of this question and I have looked into the matter. I can assure him it makes no alteration at all with regard to the situation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:—
Amendment of s. 32 of Act of 1911.
". Section thirty-two of the Act of 1911 shall be amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (11):—
'(12) It shall be competent to the tenant not later than two months prior to the expiry of the period of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act or of any subsequent period of tenancy and after giving written notice to the landlord to apply to the Land Court to be declared a landholder, and the Land Court shall so find and declare, unless the landlord shall lodge with the Land Court a written application to have it declared that the tenant and his statutory successors in the holding shall have the same rights in all respects to compensation for permanent improvements on renouncing the tenancy or being removed from the holding as if the tenant had been a landholder, and on such application by the landlord the Land Court shall find and declare accordingly.'"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment refers to Clause 14, which was struck out by your Lordships' House in Committee. That clause conferred upon the statutory small tenant the right to become a landholder, or in other words had the effect that any statutory small tenant would have all the advantages of a landholder. From the discussion that took place in another place it appeared that it was thought that in many cases where the statutory small tenant had not met the cost of more than half of the permanent improvement he would thereby be debarred from applying to become a landholder. This Amendment is of a conciliatory nature. We recognise that there are hardships in the case of the statutory small tenant who had not provided 50 per cent. of the cost of the improvements because he would be debarred from getting compensation, and therefore the object of this Amendment is that the small tenant shall have the same rights in all respect to compensation for permanent improvements on renouncing the tenancy or being removed from a holding, as if the tenant

437
had been a landholder. The tenant and his statutory successors are to be entitled to compensation for permanent improvements in the same way as the landholder. The effect of this new clause would be to remove those grievances which were mentioned in another place in regard to the statutory small tenants. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will recognise the spirit in which the Amendment is moved and will accept it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Lamington.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we certainly recognise that this clause as suggested now is an attempt to meet our point of view. The trouble is that while being a compromise it is a compromise put on top of another compromise. Already this matter has been discussed at some length in another place from two completely opposing points of view, and the clause dealing with this question in the Bill as introduced into your Lordships' House which was deleted in Committee represented a compromise between those points of view. The first part of this new clause deals, as the noble Lord has said, with the conversion of statutory small tenancies into landholders' holdings. On Report in another place a clause giving every statutory small tenant in existence when the Bill comes into operation the option to become a landholder was introduced by the Government on an undertaking that was given to the Liberal Party. The Government's clause was a compromise between compulsory conversion of statutory small tenants into landholders and no conversion at all, and it represented then the maximum of agreement that could be obtained on this admittedly difficult and controversial matter. For that reason, and not because we do not recognise the attempt of the noble Lord to meet us in this matter, I would ask him not to press his Amendment any further.
LORD LAMINGTON: Will the noble Earl suggest the reason again?
EARL DE LA WARR: I dealt with a number of reasons. The last reason I gave was that this matter was discussed at very great length in another place, that the Government's clause represented the maximum agreement that we were able to get, and that if we adopt the
438
suggested new clause it is likely to upset what little agreement it has been possible to arrive at. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will not press the matter.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am afraid I must press it. I do not think the noble. Earl has given any reply to my argument.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, the noble Earl described Clause 14 as a compromise. I am not aware what the compromise can have been, because in the clause you have the whole principle of transferring the statutory small holder into a landholder, and, consequently, making a very large change in the land tenure system of Scotland. Is it possible there are any grounds for that change? The main cause for making landholders or making crofters was that they had put up the larger part of their buildings. This applies to every statutory small holder whether he has put up any buildings or not, and the buildings which have been put up by the owner are by that clause transferred to him. I find it very difficult to reconcile the noble Earl's statement when he speaks of a compromise, because we have the whole principle of a transfer.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the principle to which I referred was the compromise between compulsory conversion of statutory small tenants and no facilities for conversion at all. We consider that the clause that was inserted in the Commons represents a compromise on those two points.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I should like to point out that Clause 14 which was taken out was not in the original Bill; therefore, His Majesty's Government cannot have placed any very great importance upon it. It was only under great pressure from some of their Liberal supporters—one or two in the House of Commons, I think—that this clause was ever put in, so it is not a compromise between the Government and this side of the House. It is a compromise, if it is a compromise at all—and I do not think compromise is a very good description—between certain other people who have nothing to do with the Government. The only case of unfairness shown is met by this Amendment, and I cannot quite understand why the Government are unable to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 32 of Act of 1911.
". The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph (4) of Section thirty-two of the Act of 1911, 'unless he himself shall have given written notice to the landlord that he is to terminate his tenancy.'"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I raised this point on a previous occasion.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Novar.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27:
Compensation in respect of temporary pasture.
27. Where the tenant of a holding claims compensation in respect of temporary pasture laid down in accordance with paragraph (27) of Part III of the First Schedule to this Act, and the laying down or the leaving at the termination of the tenancy of such pasture is in contravention of the provisions of the lease or of any agreement made by the tenant respecting the method of cropping the arable lands, the tenant shall be entitled to compensation notwithstanding any such contravention but in ascertaining the amount thereof the arbiter shall take into consideration any injury to or deterioration of the holding due to such contravention except in so far as the landlord shall have recovered damages in respect of such injury or deterioration.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, after the last "contravention," to insert "or any loss due to the holding being left in other than the rotation of cropping prescribed in the lease or customary in the district." The noble Lord said: My Lords, there was considerable debate on this clause in Committee and I think it was realised by the noble Earl that there was some ground for fearing that, under this clause, the incoming tenant might suffer considerable loss because he did not receive the land in any rotation suitable for working. I think the noble Earl recognised that but he believed that the words of his clause covered that point. I do not know whether he is still advised of that, but I am informed by legal advisers that the point is not covered. The only question, I suppose, is as to the form of words. There is nothing in this clause, of course, which prevents a tenant laying down his
440
land to grass and getting compensation, but an incoming tenant who is accustomed to feed stock in the winter and who may have stock of his own which he wishes to transfer to the new farm, will find he has no winter keep for that season. There really is a case where exceptional expenditure is incurred to bring the land back to the form of cultivation which the incoming tenant requires. For that reason I think your Lordships should be careful to see that he gets some reasonable payment to cover his expenditure.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, after ("contravention") insert ("or any loss due to the holding, being left in other than the rotation of cropping prescribed in the lease or customary in the district").—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I can only repeat my assurance to the noble Lord that the clause as drafted does cover all loss that may result from any alteration from the regular cropping. Is that the actual question which the noble Lord puts?
LORD CLINTON: Do the words of the clause cover the loss to an incoming tenant who has to bring that land back into a system of rotation?
EARL DE LA WARR: I am informed that it does, and that it also covers any loss that the landlord might have to face in being unable to let his holding for as much rent as he was previously receiving. Suppose the character of the holding has altered to such an extent that the landlord is not able to get the same rent for the holding on re-letting, then this clause amply covers him in regard to being able to obtain compensation for that loss of rent. The trouble is that in certain cases that have gone to the Courts tenants have not only failed to get compensation for temporary pasture that they have left behind In breach of their agreement, but have actually had to pay to the landlord a sum representing the estimated cost of restoring the holding to the original state, even though their action really has not deteriorated the value of the farm. Our clause is an attempt to meet that quite legitimate grievance without in any way lessening the right to compensation where the holding really has been deteriorated.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of the House,

441
but I should like to say that the noble Earl really has not appreciated my point. It is quite clear that under this clause the landlord himself can be compensated if there is a loss and it is clear that the outgoing tenant will get full compensation for all grass. That I admit. My point is that the incoming tenant who receives the land under grass and wants to get it under rotation will be put to additional cost in getting that done. It really is a hardship for the incoming tenant that that should be the case. I had hoped that the noble Earl would be able to say that the words of the clause covered that loss, but I do not know that he has done so. He said it covers some other loss.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am definitely informed that it does cover the point which the noble Lord raised. I give him that definite assurance, but if at a later stage he finds that I have been misinformed or mistaken he can put it down again on Third Reading. I am definitely informed that his point is covered.
LORD CLINTON: I feel bound to accept the noble Earl's assurance on that point, but although I accept it I should like to reserve the right to look into the matter again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31:
Amendment of s. 16 of principal Act.
31. Section sixteen of the principal Act, which deals with the procedure in arbitrations, shall be amended by the omission of the words "sheep stocks" in subsection (5) and by the addition of the following subsection:—
"(6) After the passing of this Act all valuations of sheep stocks tied to the ground and bound under a lease to be taken over from the outgoing tenant at the termination of a tenancy by the landlord or incoming tenant shall, unless the outgoing tenant and the landlord or incoming tenant otherwise agree, be made by an arbiter selected by the Department out of a panel of arbiters appointed specially for that purpose by the Lord President of the Court of Session after consultion with the Department."
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out Clause 31. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point which has already been discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill and I realise to the full that it is not customary to bring up on Report matters
442
that have already been decided in Committee. On the other hand, I think it has become apparent from the study of the debate which we had during Committee that there was one vital point concerning this Amendment which was not properly appreciated by any of us during that discussion. I think I can put the matter very briefly. In so far as a new lease is being made with regard to any land, it is purely optional on the landlord as to what conditions for valuation he has inserted in that lease, and therefore this clause cannot in any way affect new contracts, because the landlord is now at perfect liberty to make what arrangements he likes as to the conditions on which he lets his land. The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Breadalbane, in Committee dealt with existing contracts, and I would suggest to your Lordships that it is really very difficult for this House to undertake to put a line through existing contracts.
Leases have already been agreed to and land has already been let on a certain basis and with certain understandings, and we should be coming along and saying that we are going to alter the law with regard to these contracts that have already been made. That is the suggestion of the noble Earl's Amendment, as I think he made perfectly clear in his speech. Replying to some remarks of mine, he said:
"The noble Earl says it is quite open to the landlord to alter his lease. That may be so in future leases, because I think every Highland proprietor takes very good care he does not repeat this opportunity for extortion in new leases."
He admits that it does not refer to new leases—
"It is the old leases which have not come to an end that I am thinking of."
I think he admits, therefore, that to accept the insertion of the Amendment which he had inserted in Committee is to commit us definitely to legislating for the breach of existing contracts. It is for that reason—I do not think the point quite came out in our last discussion—that I would ask your Lordships to accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 31.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I think I might say a word on this

443
Amendment. I had an Amendment on the Paper in Committee of a rather similar nature to that of the noble Earl, Lord Breadalbane. His Amendment was moved first and I supported it. I am well aware of what the noble Earl has just told us—namely, that this question of taking over sheep stock on what they choose to call an acclimatisation value is certainly contracted for in the lease and usually, when land is let to a sheep farmer, probably for a fairly long period of years, it is contracted that at the end of that period the landowner, who is eventually liable, or the incoming tenant, in the case of the old tenant not continuing with the holding, takes over the sheep stock at a valuation. The Amendment was a very simple matter. I do not think it altered contracts to any extent whatsoever. All that it did was to say who is to be the person who is to say what is to be the value of this sheep stock.
The present custom, which has existed for many years, is that, when there is a change of tenancy and one of these tied sheep stocks is to be taken over, the outgoing tenant appoints his arbiter, and the landowner or the incoming tenant (if he is going to take over) appoints his arbiter. These two people put their heads together, and in nine eases out of ten do not agree as to what the value of the sheep stock is. Then an "oversman," who is to decide the value of the sheep stock failing agreement between the two parties, is appointed by the sheriff. This "oversman" having been appointed, the usual proceeding takes place. The person appearing for the incoming tenant puts the price of the sheep as low as he can, and the abiter for the outgoing tenant puts it as high as he can. The "oversman" appointed by the sheriff probably settles some intermediate price.
Accordingly the noble Earl, whom I supported on the last occasion, and I are still of opinion that on many occasions the price put upon the sheep by the "oversman" is not a fair price, even taking into consideration what they choose to call the acclimatisation value. We do not propose to alter contracts or to say in any way that the landowner or incoming tenant is not to take over the sheep stock at a valuation, or even at an acclimatisation value. Instead of
444
the "oversman," who is practically a judge, being appointed by the sheriff, we suggest practically that the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, which of late has been named in many of these Bills relating to agriculture to decide when there is a difference of opinion with regard to matters of arbitration between landlord and tenant—that the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction practically with the Lord President of the Court of Session, should have a panel of judges and should choose one of them to decide as to the value of the sheep stock.
I really do not know whether this is going to be better for the landlord and the incoming tenant than it was before. I rather supported the Amendment because I did not think that it was likely that we could be worse off than we were. I have no doubt that members of the Farmers' Union in Scotland, who very likely go about valuing, are afraid of any alteration in the appointment of this judge who is to decide in the matter, because they think that they will have less to do in these matters than in the past. It is a difficult point to put, because I do not want to make insinuations of gross unfairness against these men who have acted as judges in the past; but there are, of course, notorious cases where the cost of this sheep stock has been almost ridiculous, and the only argument has been that it is fair and just that these prices should be paid owing to the extreme loss that would he incurred if the tied sheep stock were sold off and a new lot of sheep brought from other districts on to the hill, where they would die like flies. All that was taken into consideration.
The noble Earl has said nothing to make me alter my opinion on this matter. What I feel about the question is that, with regard to the arbitration value of the sheep stock, we are assigning the same class of people, and not a very large number—the large sheep farmers in Scotland, one after the other—an anomalous position, with the result that at one time a man is a plaintiff, trying to see how much he can get for the sheep stock, the next week he is appointed to be an arbiter and, so to speak, counsel engaged to argue that the sheep stock is very valuable or the re-

445
verse, and on the third occasion he is called upon to act as a judge. I do not think it is very satisfactory for all parties concerned that you should ask the same person to be one day in the position of plaintiff, and another day in the position of counsel, or jury if you like, and on the third occasion to act as judge. Without breaking any contract whatsoever and indeed being rather ignorant of how the thing would actually work—because it may work against the interest of the landlord and the incoming tenant—we are only asking that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, among its other activities, should also find some men well acquainted with sheep stock and with the counties, to be placed on a panel and give their opinion on these matters. We think that we should get more regular judgments and possibly fairer judgments in that way.
I know that this question is always mixed up with a certain amount of prejudice. It is always urged, whenever there is any alteration of the system of valuation proposed, that the object is simply to make it easier for the landlords to turn their land into deer forests. I think the noble Lord who carried the Amendment in Committee said it had been hinted that on his estates at one period there were large clearances of sheep in order to turn the land into deer forests. I think he quoted in the course of his speech a statement to show that prices had been exceedingly high, so that in 1907 or 1908 his predecessor, who sold the sheep stock, lost £37,000. Roughly speaking you may say this, that if the sheep stock was worth £60,000, it was valued to his predecessor at £100,000, who, therefore, had to pay £100,000 for sheep stock worth £60,000. That seems a little unfair. I have also here this further information, which I think appeared in the Reports of the Deer Forests Commission. So far from the owner of that estate selling sheep stock in order to make deer forests, it was the very reverse. I believe what happened on that estate was that a large number of sheep farmers gave up their land, the farms could not be re-let, and the landlord could not find the £100,000 with which to pay the valuation. He was, therefore, forced to sell, and got £60,000 towards paying that off. I
446
believe that since then the sheep have been replaced, and from all that I hear there have been no very great losses upon the stock replaced.
I do not know whether, as I have said before, under the new proposal that the Minister of Agriculture is practically to appoint the judge, we shall be any better off than before, but I do think that there is a, very strong feeling in many parts of Scotland that some of these acclimatisation valuations of sheep stocks have been enormously inflated. The object of myself and of the noble Lord in supporting the Amendment in Committee was that some person should be taken as judge who was not in the clique of people actually engaged in the industry—someone who had not the same personal interest in keping values up to a very high level. Therefore, I very much hope that the Amendment will be opposed and the clause kept in the Bill.
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Earl has just so ably put forward. Lord De La Warr raised the point that it was not a question of the alteration of future leases but of the alteration of current leases. That is quite true. It is current leases which are referred to, but I do not suggest that the spirit in which they were made should be departed from one scrap. It is the abuse of current leases that we want to put right. It is this custom of inflated valuations which wants dealing with, because it has become a means of squeezing the landlord. I hesitate to characterise in colloquial language the opinion entertained of these sheep stock valuations. What is wanted is a fair valuation, one which is just both for landlord and tenant alike. One case which was quoted in the Scotsman as an argument in favour of the present system was that of a farmer in Skye who, on handing over his sheep stocks, lost £19,000. So it was said the present system sometimes acted against the tenant as well as against the landlord.
I would like to deal with that. It so happened that the farmer went in when sheep stocks were falling, and therefore bought at a very low price, and for his own protection and by his own free choice undertook to be refunded at a fixed price. This fixed price was paid him in full. There was no question of acclimatisa-

447
tion value at all. The best proof that a valuation is not a fair one is that the incoming tenant will not accept it, and if there is one man who should be willing to pay the highest theoretical price it is the incoming tenant. You have in him a man who has elected to go in for sheep farming, who finds his stock on the ground, acclimatised, and if the sheep stock is not worth the acclimatised value to him, to whom are they worth it? The answer is, nobody. I appeal to the Government to smooth away these anomalies and injustices between landlord and tenant. Surely, they have a duty to deal with what is well known to be a flagrant injustice in Scotland.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, with the point of the merits or de-merits of the question being brought up I particularly did not deal in my first speech. I think many of us were convinced by the noble Earl, Lord Breadalbane, that there was a great deal in what he was saying; but what I did bring up was this point—and with all deference to Lord Ancaster and the last speaker they have not dealt with it—that leases have been agreed upon and it is now proposed to come down with an Act of Parliament and alter the contracts in those leases. The noble Lord says it is not any alteration at all, it is merely having a different valuer. If it is not any real alteration at all, why is it that the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, feels so strongly about and why is it that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland feel so strongly about it?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not feel strongly about it. I only say we
should not be any worse off than we are now.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would the Government accept the principle for all future leases?
EARL DE LA WARR: Certainly, we do not have to put it in the Bill, because it is the case at the present moment that the landlord can let the land on whatever terms he likes. We are only discussing the position that is in existence now, and apparently it does make a very great difference. The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, says it is not a very important point. Then I want to know why he minds so much about it. It is apparently a very important and a very relevant point, and a point on which very strong feelings are entertained on both sides; and yet the noble Lord proposes that we should alter the existing position. I suggest that it would be most unconstitutional, apart from anything else, for us to encourage breach of contract, and for that reason I earnestly hope that your Lordships will consent to this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl is against the breaking of contracts. I was not aware that his Party held that view, and I would suggest that he impresses his Leader and that Leader's followers in another place with that idea.
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

Rutland, D.

Poulett, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Spencer, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Faringdon, L.

Burnham, V.

Jessel, L.

Airlie, E.

Churchill, V.

Kylsant, L.

Ancaster, E. [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Lamington, L.

Bathurst, E.

Falkland, V.

Lugard, L.

Brendalbane and Holland, E. [Teller.]

Hood, V.

Phillimore, L.

Novar, V.

Playfair, L.

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

Ullswater, V.

Rayleigh, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Annaly, L.

Sinclair, L.

Lindsay, E.

Auckland, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Wharton, L.

Midleton, E.

Chesham, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Minto, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Amulree, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Passfield, L.

Dickinson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Kirkley, L.

Sanderson, L.

Marks, L.

Snell, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 37:
Amendment of s. 49 of principal Act.
37. Subsection (1) of Section forty-nine of the principal Act (which deals with arbitration) shall be amended by the substitution in the definition of the expression "Manuring" of the words "twenty-three, twenty-five and twenty-six" for the words "twenty-five, twenty-six and twenty-seven."
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out Clause 37. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is taken in conjunction with certain Amendments following it, and is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 37.—(Earl De La Warr.)
First Schedule:

PART II.
Improvements in, respect of which Notice to Landlord is required.
(15) Making of embankments and sluices against floods.
(17) The provision of electrical equipment other than moveable fittings and appliances.
(18) The eradication of bracken, whins or gorse growing on a pastoral farm at the commencement of a tenancy.

PART III.
Improvements in respect of which Consent of or Notice to Landlord is not required.
(24) Application to land of purchased artificial or other purchased manure.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had on the Paper an Amendment in paragraph (15) (Part II), to leave out "Making" and to insert "Repairing or renewal." The noble Duke said: Are the Government going to accept this?
EARL DE LA WARR: We are prepared to insert your words, but we wish to keep in the word "Making."
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Duke and myself.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 27, leave out ("Making") and insert ("Repairing or renewal").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to limit the operations of the tenant to embankments which already exist where they are derelict or in a very bad state of repair. That is to say, if no embankment actually exists, even though it is desirable, the construction of an embankment would not be an improvement for compensation. We feel that it would be going too far to accept that Amendment because it is very unlikely that a tenant would propose to spend money on a large piece of work that was unnecessary. Undoubtedly, if this Amendment were inserted in the Bill, a number of quite small works which are new works would be taken out of its scope. What we propose is to meet the noble Duke to this extent. We asked him to leave in the word "Making" to meet this point of ours, but we would be quite willing to insert his words "Repairing or renewal."
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, it is perhaps worth pointing out that there is a misprint in the Amendment as it appears on the Paper. It ought to be line 27 and not line 25.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am afraid the suggestion of the noble Earl does not really meet the case. It still leaves in "Making." The argument against this paragraph is that there may be very large works and also, especially in river embankments, very great liabilities upon people, and in many cases which have not been foreseen big damage has been done. I was under the impression that the Government were going to accept this Amendment. It seems a very small one.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I wonder whether it would meet the noble Duke, if the word "Making" was put into Part I of the Schedule? It is merely a suggestion that I throw out without consultation.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Yes, that would do.
EARL DE LA WARR: Might I consider that before Third Reading?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Yes, that would meet it.
EARL DE LA WARR: With no commitment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to add to paragraph (17) "Provided that every reasonable precaution is taken to safeguard the property of the landlord." The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is an Amendment that was moved on the Committee stage and I do not know whether the noble Earl is now prepared to accept it or not. It is somewhat difficult to find the right words. The object is to prevent a lot of unnecessary work being done. I will not repeat myself, but there are several cases where work has had to be done. If the noble Earl will accept the words, the Scottish Office has it under consideration to meet the case. If he cannot accept these words, I would like an undertaking, if he would give it, that the Department of Agriculture in Scotland on Third Reading will lay down some rules, or something of the kind. The object is really to prevent a lot of unnecessary expense which will probably fall more on the tenant than on the landowner. It is absolutely essential, as your Lordships will recognise, that nothing should be done to buildings which will prevent insurance offices accepting them for insurance.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think I can certainly give the noble Duke an undertaking that the Department, whether it puts forward regulations or not, is going to take this matter into very serious account, because the prime consideration in any improvement of this kind must be to preserve the safety of the property. There is no objection to
452
the particular words that the noble Duke has proposed excepting the purely general one that it is always a pity to specify particular points in an Act of Parliament, because the inclination is to eliminate the consideration of others. For that reason I would ask the noble Duke not to press this Amendment, but the Department will certainly have regard to the point he has raised.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, after what the noble Earl has said I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had given Notice to move, in paragraph (18), to leave out "pastoral." The noble Duke said: My Lords, this was simply put in at the last stage but the noble Earl thought it was unnecessary.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for the suggestion. It certainly does make his Amendment better; but I do not want to commit the Government before considering the matter further.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): Amendment not moved?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Do you not want to put it?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes. I mean that with regard to the general matter of bracken the Government might express other views in another place. We certainly would prefer the paragraph without "pastoral."
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 32, leave out ("pastoral").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in Part III, to leave out paragraph (24). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the leaving out of Clause 37. It is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, leave out lines 9 and 10.—(Earl De La Warr.)
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in Part III, to insert the following paragraph:—
"(25) Application to land of purchased artificial or other purchased manure."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, after line 12, insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Dc La Warr.)
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Enactments Repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 10.

The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923.

In section twelve paragraph (b) of subsection (7). Subsection (1) of section fifteen. The First Schedule. Paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule.

EARL DE LA WARR,EARL DE LA WARR, moved, in the reference to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, to omit from the third column: "In Section 12, paragraph (b) of subsection (7)." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment and I beg to move.
Amendment; moved—
Page 16, column 3, leave out lines 18 and 19.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEIJOH: My Lords, might I ash the noble Earl whether he could give the Scottish Peers any indication when the Third Reading of the Bill will be taken?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think July 2 has been suggested, if that is convenient to your Lordships, but we will discuss it and advise the noble Duke.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, before moving the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, I think I might make a statement which would be for the convenience of the House. In the great difficulty of finding another day we put down the Third Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Bill for Friday next. The noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, and many other Peers think that
454
date is inconvenient. It was certainly put on the Paper as the only opportunity I could find, but I propose to put the appropriate Motion to suspend any Standing Orders which come in the way to ask that the Bill shall be taken in the first place on Tuesday next instead of Friday. I hope that will meet the convenience of noble Lords.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am afraid it is rather irregular that I should say anything, but by the leave of your Lordships may I say that I think it would be very inconvenient to take the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Bill on Friday. It is a very controversial matter and it would be very difficult for some of your Lordships to attend then. I realise that it is a very urgent measure because it has to be considered in another place and it is very important that the Convention should be ratified. I think, therefore, that in the difficult circumstances the course which the noble and learned Lord suggests will be the best that could be adopted. I thank him for making the suggestion.

BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Parmoor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. (42).]
Clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, do I understand that the noble and learned Lord has moved that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments? I thought the Motion that had been made was that this House should take into consideration the Commons Amendments. I did not understand Lord Parmoor to move that this House should agree with them.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have known on various occasions the Motion made in the form either of disagreeing or agreeing, but as the noble Lord, Lord Hanworth, seems to prefer the form that I should move that we agree with the Commons Amendments I will certainly do so. Your Lordships will recollect that there was a considerable discussion on this Bill when it was before your Lordships' House. It was first introduced here and not into the House of Commons, and I think I am right in stating that the objection to the form of the Bill as introduced here was that there was too great a risk in the power we proposed to give to the Trustees of the National Gallery or the British Museum to send either pictures or other works of art of which they are trustees abroad for exhibition in a foreign country. I do not want to say that there is no risk. That is not the argument, to my mind. There may be some risk; but I suggest, as found by the Royal Commission, that it is practically negative, and there are considerations on the other side which are overwhelming.
When this matter came up in the House of Commons Committee these Amendments of your Lordships were disagreed to, in one case by 19 votes to 2, and in another case by 15 votes to 4. The Bill, as it was introduced had, I think, the full support of Sir Austen Chamberlain and a very large number of Conservative members in the other place, and after it had been before the Committee it was passed without any Division on Third Reading, and no further proceedings were taken in the direction which is now indicated.
What is really the position? I will be as brief as possible, for we have discussed this matter fully before. The main point was what we called reciprocity in dealing with other countries. We had the advantage of the Flemish Exhibition, we had the advantage of the Italian Exhibition, we had the advantage of the Persian Exhibition, and next year or in 1933—I forget which year it is—arrangements have been made for a very large exhibition of various forms of French art. I suggested before, and I suggest again now, that there is no reason why we should not give reciprocity in a matter of this kind. There is no reason why we should not be as generous to other countries as other
456
countries are to us. The only two public institutions concerned in this country are the National Gallery and the British Museum, no difficulty having been found in any other case. Courtesy towards other countries is becoming increasingly important from what I may call the point of view of international life and international co-operation.
So far as the Trustees of the National Gallery are concerned they were originally divided. I believe they are now. The noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fare-ham, who is present, is Chairman of the Trustees of the National Gallery, and, unfortunately, I know that he is opposed to the proposal I am now making. Similarly, I think Lord Hanworth has not been converted from the position he took up in regard to the British Museum. There is only one other point to which I wish to refer, because this matter has been very fully discussed. In the Bill it is left to the discretion of the Trustees, and I cannot understand why trustees of the character of those of the National Gallery or the British Museum cannot be trusted in a matter of this sort to exercise their discretion. Of course, there are some pictures obviously that ought not to be lent, and some places to which pictures ought not to be sent, but all those are matters of organisation and administration, and do not touch the real principle. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that it is not only that the Trustees have discretion, but that they may mike regulations. There seems to be some question as to how far those regulations could extend. I state my opinion when I say they go quite as far as the prohibitory words which are now proposed to be introduced into the Act of Parliament, but whether that is so or not, i f you have trustees of the eminent character of these trustees, and if you leave the matter to their discretion, not in particular cases but under the form of regulation, I think it is very difficult to see that the risk involved is of any real weight as against the advantages of courtesy and co-operation of an international character which we desire to do all we can to encourage.
I need not emphasise again that this Bill was based on the Report of a Royal Commission, and I have not heard that all sides were not heard before that Commission. It is within the terms of the

457
Royal Commission Report that this form of regulation should be made, and I suggest to your Lordships that that is quite sufficient to deal with the whole matter. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily. We shall certainly have to oppose any alteration of the Amendments introduces: by the House of Commons, and if we are defeated upon that the Bill will, of course, have to go back to another place for further consideration. I therefore move that we agree with the first of the Amendments introduced in the House of Commons. That really raises the point.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name, which is that we disagree with the Commons Amendment to leave out lines 12 and 13. Your Lordships have been good enough to listen to me upon this point as a member of the Standing Committee of the British Museum, a Committee to whom is entrusted the work of looking after the British Museum. There are general meetings of the Trustees held on two occasions during the year. Members of the Government, including the Lord President himself, are members of that body, but it is the Standing Committee to whom is entrusted the executive work, and it is as their representative and charged by them with the duty of presenting their views to your Lordships, that I beg leave to address your Lordships' House this afternoon.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has made the speech which I expected he would make, because although we all deeply regret it he, unfortunately, was not present when the Bill was in Committee of your Lordships House, and when these two Amendments that have now been left out in another place were put in the Bill without any Division at all. I think after the speech of the noble and learned Lord, it would be convenient if I reminded your Lordships of the exact position, because I am not quite certain that it remains quite clear in Lord Parmoor's mind. The Report of the Royal Commission said that they thought it would be a good thing to have an Act enabling some of the great treasures of the British Museum and the National Gallery to be lent abroad—
458
subject to this, which is always omitted when any reference is made to the Royal Commission—
"under such precise and proper safeguards as may be determined by the authorities of each Institution."
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
LORD HANWORTH: Yes, but please will you listen a little further, because this is what you never quote:
"We do not think that the Act itself should attempt to define the class of objects which should be excluded from the purview of the Act, e.g., fragile objects, panel pictures, unique or type specimens "
and so on. That is what we have endeavoured to define. This is not an Amendment which is based upon any churlish disregard of the courtesy which has been paid to us by other nations. It is an endeavour to secure the views and to embody in the Bill views which require endorsement but which represent the best expert opinion in this country and I may say in the countries from which we have enjoyed the advantage of receiving pictures from abroad. As Lord Crawford told the House—and I can reinforce what he said because I have been in touch with expert opinion—not only experts in this country but experts in all countries are anxious that there should be this limitation, for the experience they have gained by sending their pictures overseas to this country has proved of such a nature that they do not wish a repetition of it in the future.
This Bill deals with the National Gallery and the British Museum. I am only qualified to speak with any knowledge of the British Museum. The British Museum is a wonderful storehouse of treasures, and it contains a great many of the objects which according to the Royal Commission ought to be excluded from the purview of the Act—fragile objects, panel pictures, unique or type specimens and the like. We have felt that it was very unfortunate to alter the terms on which they exercised their trust, for if pressure could be put through the Foreign Secretary and so transmitted to the Trustees they would be in a difficult position for resisting that pressure. The noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Fallodon, told your Lordships at his place at the Table that he felt it would be the duty of any Foreign Minister to transmit to the Trustees any request that might

459
be made, and speaking with all the experience and all the knowledge and all the force that he could command as an ex-Foreign Secretary, he advised your Lordships to accept these two Amendments which have been thrown out in another place.
The Second Reading of this Bill took place on December 16. It was adjourned after we had put our points and it adjourned after the Lord Chancellor had said this:
"I must say that I should like to have had the opportunity of putting my poor arguments and the good arguments of Lord Hanworth and the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, before the Government, and I should like to do so."
We thereupon adjourned it, and the matter then came before this House again on January 28. Finally we allowed the Second Reading of the Bill on terms which were expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Fallodon, in the following words:
"I certainly trust that in the national interest, in the interest of these great national collections, these words will be eventually inserted in the Bill; and, of course, we must reserve the right as Trustees, while agreeing to a. Second Reading of the Bill this afternoon, to oppose it at any future stage unless these words are definitely put in the text of the Bill."
Now the words he was speaking of are words which your Lordships will find in line 12 on page 1 of the Bill "being objects representative of British arts or crafts." Those words, as I told your Lordships, were chosen by the Standing Committee as imposing a limit upon the power of lending so that they should not be able to lend anything which was not of British art or craft. Of course, as your Lordships will see, it leaves open the possibility of some pictures of, say, the seventeenth or eighteenth century being sent abroad; and the words which were inserted and form line 13 "and produced subsequent to the year sixteen hundred" were words which were inserted in order to secure all those treasures which are of such a fragile nature and of such antiquity that they would be endangered even by a voyage to some neighbouring place like Paris. These words were inserted in the Committee stage and they were given a benevolent reception, in this House, I quite agree, by the representatives of the Government.
460
The matter then went to the House of Commons and there was a Second Reading debate. When the matter went before a Standing Committee I observe that a member of the House—the member for Stafford—who took a leading part in the Committee, obviously felt the importance, as the Royal Commission had before, of safeguarding these fragile and important antiques from any danger of being injured in transit. He expressed his view in this way:
"The Tate Gallery would not be affected"—
he was speaking, I think, in favour of the Amendment as to the limit of the year 1600—
"because we have nothing there before 1600, but the National Gallery would be affected by this limitation, and I say emphatically as a Trustee that I would be carried out of the board room kicking rather than vote for lending the Wilton Diptych overseas, for the very good reason that it is a most delicate panel and a unique object of British medieval art."
I should have thought some form of words to be inserted in this Bill, ought to be found, because it would be a sorry spectacle if any Trustee of the National Gallery had to be subjected to the treatment which he was prepared to suffer by way of resistance to any such loan.
Now, my Lords, when the matter went back to the House of Commons on Report it passed absolutely snub silentio. Not a single word was said on the Third Reading, and I confess I was a little surprised to think that no Trustee of the British Museum, no member of the Government—and there are many who are members of the General Committee—rose to put a point which had been accepted by your Lordships and which was undoubtedly deserving of consideration.
I am asking your Lordships to replace these words—
"any objects, being objects representative of British arts or crafts and produced subsequent to the year sixteen hundred."
International courtesy has been mentioned to us over and over again. There is no difficulty whatever in sending something suitable within the limits imposed by those words, if it is right and proper so to do. International courtesy does not demand that we should eliminate these two lines, but it is of great importance that we should be able to safeguard the position, and not throw

461
upon the Trustees; and the Trustees only, the burden of responsibility for a negative. I do not refer to some of the observations that were made in the House of Commons as to the Trustees being a body which ought to he swept away if they did not do their duty, and so on. I pay no attention to those remarks; but when I look round the board room of the Standing Committee I cannot help thinking that any country would be glad to have the same expert opinion as we have in those who fire chosen by election to be members of that Committee by reason of their great knowledge, their great standing and their great position in the realm of letters and of art.
In moving that these words be reinserted, I do not do so in any dog-in-the-manger spirit but, in consonance with the Report of the Commission and with the observations made in the House of Commons, it is necessary that the Trustees should have some safeguarding words. I should like to repeat an experience of my own which I ventured to tell your Lordships. When such requests are made to the Master of the Rolls in reference to the documents which he has in his charge, I have in my own experience known that those who have transmitted these requests to me have been reassured to know that, under the Statute, there is no power whatever to lend them. That is a completely convincing answer to the sort of pressure that is likely to be used from outside.
Finally, I should like to read the words of Viscount Grey of Fallodon, who much regrets that he is not present here tonight. He puts the whole argument in a few sentences, and so cogently and consistently that I venture to read, as I am authorised to do, his letter. He writes:
"I am very sorry that I cannot be in London when the Museums Overseas Loans Bill comes before the House of Lords this week. Could I have been present I should, as a Trustee of the British Museum, have urged that these Amendments should be reinserted in the Bill. Unless they are in the Bill, the Trustees of the British Museum will be placed in an invidious position, and their power to keep our great and invaluable national possessions unimpaired and available to the public in London will be weakened. Unless these limiting and safeguarding Amendments are in the Bill, not only the Trustees of the British Museum but our Foreign Office may be exposed to very undesirable pressure, to the great detriment of the national collections.
462
We all agree that there should be power to lend objects that are of British origin and that illustrate British art for exhibition overseas; this is the fair and proper response to the willingness of foreign countries to let their own national works of art be shown in London. But to go beyond this, as the Bill without amendment would do, is uncalled for, unnecessary and dangerous. I am sure that any Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who cares for our great national collections must be glad to have some shelter and protection from embarrassing pressure to lend overseas our most valuable treasures. But of this protection he, as well as the Trustees of the British Museum, would be deprived if the Overseas Loans Bill is made law without the Amendments which we have proposed."
I speak, as I say, on behalf of the British Museum and I speak as representing the Standing Committee, who feel that those treasures entrusted to them are imperilled if they are not safeguarded by the insertion of these words—words carefully chosen, and words which do not prevent a sufficient amount of international courtesy. May I remind the House of one more thing, and one only? Since this Bill was before the House, there has been a destructive fire at Munich. I think the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, would be able to give you a much better account of it than I can. I am informed, and I believe correctly, that in that fire were lost a great number of priceless treasures. Your Lordships will also have read only yesterday about the great fire at the French Colonial Exhibition at Vincennes, when the whole of the Netherlands Pavilion was destroyed by fire and something like £120,000 worth of treasures of various sorts were destroyed. It is stated that pictures and other treasures had been collected there. We prefer to safeguard such treasures under a control which eliminates any danger of fire, and we ask your Lordships once more to restore these lines to the Bill—lines not lightly chosen, and chosen on a ground on which I venture to suggest that we can confidently hope that your Lordships will see that there is use and purpose in them.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, my remarks will be very few, but I feel bound at once, as Chairman of the Standing Committee of the British Museum, to corroborate and enforce what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. I understand that there are those here

463
who will be able to speak on behalf of the National Gallery, and I have no wish to prevent their having full time to press their point in the interest of that other great collection of our national treasures. You will acquit us, I am sure, in the British Museum of any desire in this matter to be merely insular and selfish. We press upon your Lordships the retention of the Bill as it stood simply out of a full sense of the great responsibility which has been entrusted to us as trustees of treasures that are unique and of priceless value.
It has been said and urged by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, that we can trust in this matter the discretion of the Trustees. I wish to press upon your Lordships that it is precisely from that discretion that the Trustees ask to be delivered. We know that in the past there have been occasions of political or semi-political pressure being brought to bear in favour of sending abroad some of these national possessions. Such pressure may very likely be repeated in the future. In any case it is an exceedingly difficult and distasteful thing for the Trustees to appear to be lacking in courtesy and consideration to the representatives of art and science in other countries. And yet the position is always this: that if objects of art or antiquity are of little value, they will not be asked for; they will be asked for only because they have some special significance and importance.
At present the Trustees are in a position in which they are protected either from pressure or from the appearance of discourtesy. There is no doubt it is beyond their power to lend these objects of art overseas. We are quite willing to make the exception embodied in these two lines in the Bill that the present prohibition against sending abroad should not extend to objects of British art and draftsmanship. There e re many reasons for that which were fully stated on the last occasion when this matter was before the House. It is enough to say that I have some reason to think that so far as reciprocity is concerned, if there was reciprocity in this matter as regards the Flemish, Italian and French works of art sent to this country, it would be welcomed and regarded as sufficient.
464
But in the case of the British Museum there is great importance in the other line, line 13, "produced subsequent to the year sixteen hundred" be cause if it were permissible for us to send abroad all objects of British art and craftsmanship, we might be asked to send the Bedford Book of Hours and the Luttrell Psalter, and many of the earliest printed books and bindings that we have in this country.
Therefore we feel that it is of the utmost importance that the onus of refusing to send abroad such priceless illustrations of British art and craftsmanship should not be laid upon the Trustees. Still more are they anxious to be protected against being requested, or having pressure brought to bear upon them to allow, even more valuable objects, such as our unique collection of Greek and Roman antiquities, to be sent overseas. On the last occasion it was urged that the dangers connected with this matter were negligible. Since the last discussion we have been reminded that the dangers are not negligible, but most real, by the two fires which have occurred in Paris and Munich. All we ask is that those to whom are committed treasures which are part of our English life and heritage should be protected, and we trust that your Lordships will be willing to respect the unanimous desire of the Trustees of the British Museum and give them this protection which they ask.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite. I do not think he is fully conscious of the case that we have put forward in favour of the Amendment inserted in this House. Lord Parmoor said that in his opinion the risk in sending these things abroad was practically negligible.
LORD PARMOOR: I quoted from the Royal Commission.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then I deny entirely what the Royal Commission said. So far from the risks being negligible they are recognised by every responsible curator of works of art in Europe and overseas, and since we last discussed this matter in this House two disasters have occurred which I beg your Lordships to take note of, because they have a definite bearing upon the issues with which we have to deal to-day. My noble friend below the gangway men-

465
tioned them briefly. May I develop them a little? Two or three days ago the whole of the pavilion erected in the exhibition at Paris by the Dutch Government was destroyed by fire, and in that conflagration perished the most valuable ethnographic collection sent by the Netherlands Government and others in Holland—the history in short of the native races over whom Holland exercises control in the Middle East. Yet Lord Parmoor complacently says the risks are negligible.
Let me refer again to the other disaster mentioned by Lord Hanworth, the fire at Munich, two or three weeks ago. In that fire practically the whole collection of German modern works of art was destroyed. The result has been that, a special effort having been made in that exhibition to illustrate the life work of great German painters, the whole of those men's life work has disappeared. It is a terrible tragedy, and yet Lord Parmoor is pleased to say that the risk is negligible. Lord Parmoor must not laugh at it. To those who feel as I do it is a tragedy. Those who occupy the position which I do feel that it would be a dereliction of duty if we did not press your Lordships to remain firm.
It is not only a matter of these sensational risks, but of the ordinary, humdrum, detrition from which works of art suffer by being moved to and fro. Every time a frail panel picture is taken off the wall it is subjected to vibration, and by that amount its vitality is diminished. In the National Gallery so much attention and care are given to pictures that when it is necessary to clean the surface of a picture, or to dust the glass, the whole of the glass can be removed and the work done without removing the picture from the wall. That is the care which is devoted to the pictures in the National Gallery. Yet it is said: Send these things abroad; submit them to changes of temperature; submit them to every risk of vibration, to shaking, to packing and unpacking, and to carelessness in removal. Yet every time that a picture suffers even in the smallest degree, by having for instance to lay down a blister, something of the original authentic work goes. It is only a hundred or a hundred and fifty years since collectors and Governments have begun
466
to realise that these fragile monuments of past genius ought to be protected for all time. Our duty is not merely to look after these things for to-day, but for succeeding generations. I look forward to Vandykes lasting not for a thousand years but for two thousand years, and that will be so if we look after them as we think it is proper we should look after them, and not send them gadding about the world.
We are told that our attitude is churlish and undignified. Personally, I do not bother much about my dignity. Let me put this to Lord Parmoor. I would much rather be accused of doing something churlish than of doing something selfish, and we are doing something selfish in this sense, that for our enjoyment, for the pleasure and study of this generation—of ourselves in fact—we are risking the privilege of future generations, because, for our own enjoyment—and a great enjoyment it is—we are having these international exhibitions here there and everywhere, but at the risk, I say, of injuring these works of art, and thereby diminishing the patrimony of those who are to follow us.
Personally I am very doubtful of the benefit of these exhibitions. The reaction upon the attendance at our own national exhibitions is very marked. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has studied the figures. While an exhibition is going on attendance increases, for instance during the Italian Exhibition. For the first three months last year attendance at the National Gallery increased, but as soon as the Italian Exhibition was over the attendance at the National Gallery fell well below the corresponding period of the previous year. The point is therefore worth considering, not whether these exhibitions benefit relatively few of us, who enjoy them immensely, but whether they really have an educational value for the public as a whole.
Lord Parmoor said that reciprocity was needed. I am quite ready to concede that. We have all through been prepared to meet the view of the Royal Commission to this extent, that we are ready in this limited form to organise and to send abroad representative collections of British works of art in order that the British genius shall be fully appreciated abroad. That is as far as it is necessary

467
to go. That is as much as any responsible curator on the Continent has ever suggested asking. I therefore most earnestly press your Lordships to maintain your position, and in doing so you will have the growing support of thoughtful and responsible people, not only in this country, but in countries all over the world, who wish this danger to these exhibitions to be checked, because they, as well as we, realise how serious are the risks involved.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to say a brief word on this occasion as a Trustee of the National Gallery, and to endorse everything that has been said by previous speakers and by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who preceded me, and who has pointed out with great force the appalling refutation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor's, plea that the risk is negligible, by reason of the disasters which have occurred since we last discussed this matter. Those are disasters which have occurred within the last three weeks. Before that there was an almost monotonous series of disasters at foreign exhibitions. Apart from those, there is a case which I think has not been mentioned. We sent a representative exhibition of pictures to New Zealand last year, and the ship that was carrying them was wrecked, and every single picture in that collection was lost. These risks are so patent and so grave, that I cannot conceive how anyone who accepts the position of a Trustee of valuable national property can possibly, with any regard to his conscience, wantonly alter the law so as to increase these risks in the future. Is there to be no cessation to this feeding of the Moloch of dangerous exhibitions abroad? I do not want the Trustees to be put in the position of a member of another place, who said he would sooner be carried out kicking than accept the lending of a particular work of art. All I ask, and all that Lord Hanworth asks in his Amendment, is that the existing safeguards, which have proved so satisfactory in the past, should be reasonably maintained.
Too much play has been made, I think, with the accusation of churlishness, lack of courtesy, and so forth. Really, if I may suggest, this is not a case where we have to consider cutlet for cutlet, or "You scratch my picture and I'll scratch yours."
468
The issues are far too serious. It is undoubtedly the fact, as stated twice by the noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Fallodon, that the Foreign Office is itself exposed to pressure, which it is difficult to resist, and so it feels obliged to pass that pressure on to the various bodies concerned. At the present time it is no good the Foreign Office passing on the pressure either to the British Museum or the National Gallery because they are exempt under the law. But there is another institution, the Victoria and Albert Museum, which is not protected under the existing law, and I say with all due sense of responsibility that recently the hands of that body have been forced by Foreign Office pressure to lend objects which it was not considered desirable to lend. And so, if we go on, in time we may get a position where trustees will be appointed on political grounds in order to carry out the will of the Government of the day. I think it is most undesirable that we should go further. The most rev. Primate has stated the position correctly, that recently it has been intimated, semi-officially at any rate, by the Italian Government that they feel great anxiety that British art should be adequately represented at the forthcoming exhibition in Rome, and that they would be quite satisfied if an adequate representation of British art, and eighteenth century art in particular, was sent to that exhibition. They would regard it as a sufficient act of reciprocity. Then why should we be forced to go further?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, mentioned in support of his argument the views expressed by Sir Austen Chamberlain in another place, but may I call his attention to the fact that Sir Austen Chamberlain on that occasion said:
"I attach so great an importance to the provisions of the Bill, even as restricted in another place and as it now comes before us, that I should be most reluctant to lose that which is contained in the Bill in its present form, if unable to convince those in another place that they may safely go back on the opinion they first expressed."
And he added:
"I therefore attach enormous importance to obtaining even that restricted permission to lend abroad which is given by the Bill as it now stands."
I submit that in face of that your Lordships would incur the gravest kind of

469
responsibility if you failed to accept the view put forward by Lord Hanworth. I certainly hope, if the Government do not see their way to accept it, here and now, that we shall go to a Division.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there are two matters on which I would wish to reply, and particularly the matters mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford. I recognise, of course, not only his knowledge in these matters, but his care for works of art, especially for such as we have in the National Gallery and the British Museum. But what I want to call his attention to, in the first place, is that the point whether this question would be better safeguarded by regulation or by strict legislative enactment was the very matter which was discussed and upon which opinion was expressed in the Report of the Royal Commission. For this very reason, if. I may take it at the outset, his argument goes to this extent as regards our invaluable British school: "Let it take any risks, never mind whether all our great Constables, Turners and other pictures are burned or not. Let them be burned." If he really thinks the risk is such—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord threw that in my teeth on an earlier occasion. It requires very little pressure on his part to make me vote against the Bill altogether, if that is the way he receives a concession.
LORD PARMOOR: I appreciate that. That is not the view the noble Earl has expressed this afternoon. The view he has expressed this afternoon is not against the Bill altogether; in fact we are not here upon that question to-day. The view he has expressed this afternoon is that risks, which are very real and very serious if they are not properly guarded against, may be run by our great English school. It was that distinction of less care for the English school which certainly struck me in what the noble Earl said. Let us see what the Royal Commission said upon this point. I do not profess to be an authority upon these matters, as the noble Earl is, but we all love our pictures. What the Royal Commission said was this—and I will ask Lord Hanworth's attention to it—
"We do not think that the Act itself should attempt to define the class of objects
470
which should be excluded from the purview of the Act, e.g., fragile objects, panel pictures, unique or type specimens, as we think such definition can be accomplished better by regulations promulgated and, if need be, modified from time to time by the governing authorities."
Surely, it is rather a monstrous suggestion that in an Act of Parliament we are to put our pictures on one side and the pictures of foreign artists on another, on the ground that ours may be risked while we will take special care regarding the others. Surely, the proper view is that which is taken by the Royal Commission, to have proper care for all.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord refers to me, may I point out that there is considerable difference between a panel picture of great antiquity and a canvas of the eighteenth century?
LORD PARMOOR: Of course there is.
LORD HANWORTH: Will the noble and learned Lord also observe what the Royal Commission said as regards the safeguards?
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, these self-evident propositions, if I may say so, are present to everyone's mind I think. What you cannot do is to have these large margins—for instance, everything after a certain date and nothing before that date which, as a matter of fact, comes about the year 1600 I think. You cannot do that, I think, because the result might be that you might be stopped from lending pictures which might perfectly well be lent without any danger of their being pictures which ought to be reserved, whatever the difference might be. Of course there is a difference between a canvas picture and a panel picture. No one denies that. What does the Royal Commission say upon that? It says:
"The desirability of such loans under proper safeguards"—
you must have most distinct and settled safeguards—
"is especially apparent in the case of the British school of painting. We think that any necessary legislation should not be narrowly drawn so as to confine loans, therefore, to one category of objects."
The only category of objects which we would allow under this Bill if we disagree with the Commons Amendments, are our pictures by our own great artists. That is what appeals to me and what I cannot appreciate. Of course I do not believe

471
that the risks are so great. No doubt particular cases have occurred, but I should hope that in neither of those cases would careful trustees have sent away the works or art of which they are trustees without proper investigation and consideration.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, how could we refuse the applications of the French Government or the German Government?
LORD PARMOOR: Let us consider what the noble Earl says. Supposing we lost the whole collection of our British pictures, it would be a terrible calamity. But why should we limit the risk to the artists of our own school? There is no reason whatever—absolutely no reason whatever. So far as these particular calamities are concerned, I admit that they ought to make more strict regulations in regard to matters that ought to be dealt with by regulations. That is not throwing a discretion upon the particular Trustees for the time being, but they act under regulations which may be made to fit all the conditions of safety which ought to be regarded, and which can be altered from time to time. So far from differing in one respect from the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, I more than agree with him. But it seems to me that to lay down this rough and ready line, if I may use the expression, which it is attempted to lay down in an Act of Parliament itself without any guidance, is really to run into danger—and certainly you make no provision against it—as regards our English pictures.
I do not propose to go over all the matters again. I thought that was not necessary when I was addressing your Lordships, but I urge those who are fond of art in this House not to derogate from the importance of our own pictures,
and not to put the care which is necessary in their case below that which is necessary in any other case whatever the conditions may be. I will not take up the time of your Lordships longer as the matter has been very fully discussed. We shall have to support the Amendments introduced by the House of Commons, and, as I should have thought, on the ground that they are absolutely necessary if you are to take true and proper precautions regarding our own works from the National Gallery and the British Museum, whether they originate from artists of this country or not.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, as I was responsible for the original Amendment, I might say one word in regard to this matter. There is nothing sacrosanct, of course, about the date 1600, but it was taken as a more or less fair division between things that were really historic and unique and things that became more common. That is the reason for that. The noble and learned Lord asked why let the Constables and Gainsboroughs go and keep the others? The answer is a very simple one. There are dozens of Gainsboroughs and Constables, but there is only one Wilton Diptych. The third point to which he alluded was the regulations. The whole point is that if the export or the lending is to be governed by regulations, the regulations have to be made by the Trustees; and the Trustees at any time can he urged to vary the regulations which, I imagine, is what they would not wish to be asked to do. If it is laid down by Act of Parliament, then the Trustees cannot vary the regulations.
On Question, Whether the Motion hall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Amnlree, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Arnold, L.

Passfleld, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Dickinson, L.

Sanderson, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Snell, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Lansdowne, M.

Buxton, E.

Linlithgow, M.

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

Argyll, D.

Normanby, M.

Rutland, D.

Reading, M.

Ilchester, E.

Lucan, E.

Midleton, E.

Lee of Fareham, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Minto, E.

Mersev, V.

Jessel, L.

Peel, E.

Ullswator, V.

Lamington, L.

Plymouth, E.

Lugard, L.

Radnor, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Northbourne, L.

Spencer, E.

Phillimore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Annaly, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Strafford, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Auckland, L.

Sinlair, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Stonehaven, L.

Burnham, V.

Denman, L.

Templemore, L.

Churchill, V.

Faringdon, L.

Teynham, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Wharton, L.

Hood, V.

Hanworth, L. [Teller.]

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Wraxall, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert ("or to lend any such objects (being pictures) for display in the official house of a British Ambassador or Minister in a foreign country")
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have not heard of any opposition to this Amendment, and therefore I move that we agree with the Commons.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to say one or two words upon this Amendment. If I may humbly say so, it appears to be a rather fatuous suggestion. The proper decorations for our Embassies—I know a good many of them—are what might be called the loyal pictures, which decorate the dining rooms and drawing rooms very effectively. We do not want to lend bad pictures to our Embassies, and I should hesitate very much to send good pictures. One knows what Embassies are, and that they contain ordinary housemaids and ordinary footmen who know little about pictures. The Ambassador frequently changes and his goods are moved about. Possibly someone from the Office of Works occasionally visits the Embassy house, and then finds that a hole has been knocked in the face of a picture and is fastened with a bit of canvas at the back. Your Lordships know the state in which some of the pictures of foreign potentates are at present kept in some Embassies here.
The genesis of this particular Amendment is not unentertaining. It is, I understand, that there are four rather second-rate but decorative Poussins put
474
aways in the cellars of the National Gallery. Sir Rennell Rodd, for whow I have very great respect, who used to be Ambassador in Rome, long wished to have those Poussins hanging up in the Embassy at Rome, perhaps for the reason that the Roman nobility decorate their palaces with Poussins. Possibly he thought it would be a good way of developing an entente with Italy. On that analogy, if one wished to have an entente with the Vatican, one might send a picture of Archbishop Cranmer being burnt at the stake. The remarkable thing about it all is how one descends from the particular to the general. An Ambassador wants four old pictures hung up in his Embassy, and in consequence we are to give the Trustees of the National Gallery the power of sending our best Gainsboroughs to Addis Abeba or to La Paz, over the sands of Africa or the mountains of South America. Is it worth inserting this curious Amendment? There are forty Embassies and Legations, I believe, of the British Government abroad. Is it suggested that we are to be allowed to send pictures to all those places? I really think that before passing this Amendment your Lordships might consider it.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, line 22, leave out ("lending of the object for exhibition in places outside Great Britain") and insert ("exercise of those powers in respect of the object.")
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the last of the Commons Amendments.
Moved, That this 'House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, may I ask if the Lord Chancellor will be good enough to explain the legal significance of this change of words, which is not very apparent to a layman?
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to answer that question. I do not think that it goes further than a question of drafting. The Amendment is to leave out the words "lending of the object for exhibition in places outside Great Britain" and to insert the words "exercise of those powers in respect of the object." I should have thought that the drafting was certainly better and I do not think any objection can be raised to it. I do not think it is a matter of substance one way or another.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: Does it make any difference?
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, may I be allowed to say that as far as I can see it makes no difference whatever? It seems to me that if you exercise those powers you are lending, which is the object of the Bill. The exercise of the power of lending is lending. I got as far as that. Before, it was lending. Now it is the exercise of the power of lending. I think it is the same thing. I hope the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will not differ.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord, Lord Pass-field, takes a strong view on this and I propose to support the Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I must disclaim any knowledge or any authority on such a delicate point of drafting, but in this matter I shall follow my noble and learned Leader.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I say that the Bill as originally drafted only allowed these articles to be lent for public exhibition. We have now added to that the power to lend for display in the official house of a British Ambassador or Minister. If the subsection as it was originally drafted stood, it might have been said that the sending of the object for exhibition was something different from sending it to the Ambassador's house for display. Therefore it was thought better to
476
put in these words. I suspect that that is what is at the bottom of the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I confirm my noble and learned friend's suspicion?
A Committee appointed to prepare a Reason to be offered to the Commons for disagreeing to an Amendment, the Committee to meet forthwith.
Report from the Committee of the Reason to be offered to the Commons read and agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons returning the Bill with the Reason.

SENTENCE OF DEATH (EXPECTANT MOTHERS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SLAVERY.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON had given Notice to call attention to the question of slavery and to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the abolition of slave-owning, slave-trading and slave-raiding is an urgent international duty. That while this House fully appreciates the action hitherto taken by the League of Nations, it is of opinion that further steps of a definite nature appear to be required in order to bring about the extinction of slavery in all its forms.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall, in the circumstances, postpone this Motion until July 15, but I should like to say by way of explanation that when I and some of my friends who intended to take part in the debate came here we were under the impression or understanding that this day had been fixed because there would be no controversial Bill before my Motion. That has not happened. Quite clearly it is no use attempting to bring on a debate now and I beg leave to give notice of my intention to bring the matter forward on July 15.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right in what he says. He entered into communication with me and we endeavoured to keep the day free. I do not know how it was that other matters came in, and I regret it very

477
much. The day he now mentions is a Wednesday and so he will come first.
EARL BUXTON: I do not think I shall come first, but I thought Wednesday would probably be better than any other day. If in the circumstances the noble and learned Lord is prepared to give me another day I shall be obliged.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that is the best day because Bills cannot be put down to take precedence. There is only Lord Templetown's Motion with regard to the Basle Trading Company on the Paper.
EARL BUXTON: I think the Duke of Montrose has given Notice already for that day. Cannot the noble and learned Lord give me another day?
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to do all I can to reserve a place for the noble Earl. On the Paper which had in my possession there was only the one Motion.
EARL BUXTON: I will put it down provisionally for July 15, and perhaps we can talk it over in the meantime.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.