Lords Sitting of 20 July 1936

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Dartmouth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

HIS MAJESTY THE KING: MESSAGES FROM THE FRENCH AND ITALIAN SENATES.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that the Lord Chancellor has received from M. Jules Jeanneney, the President of the French Senate, a telegram of which the following is a translation:
"The French Senate has received in the greatest indignation the news of the danger with which His Majesty King Edward VIII was threatened yesterday. At this time, when your Sovereign is about to come to this country for the commemoration of the trials and glories which were shared in common by the two nations, the members of the Senate unanimously desire to convey to His Majesty an expression of their profound respect and to the British nation an assurance of their faithful friendship. I should be grateful if you would be good enough to
2
convey this message to the House of Lords."
The Lord Chancellor has also received a telegram from the Italian Charge D'Affaires containing a message from the Senatore Ferzoni, President of the Senate of the Kingdom of Italy, of which the following is a translation:
"The Senate of the Kingdom of Italy expresses through me its sentiments of profound execration for the criminal attempt against His Majesty King Edward VIII and its most sincere congratulations on the fact that the life of the august sovereign has been providentially preserved for the affection of his people."
The Lord Chancellor has sent suitable acknowledgments to these telegrams.
Ordered, That the Messages be entered on the Journals of the House.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (LONDON TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
AXBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:My Lords, before the commencement of business, may I be allowed to put a question to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House of which I have given private notice on a matter of procedure. I apologise to him for having given him such short notice, but I waited until this morning's post in order to see whether I should have any reply from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who has put down a Motion for next Thursday superseding a Motion of mine on the subject of the League of Nations put down for the following Wednesday, July 29. Although I had written to the noble Earl in the middle of last week and had telegraphed, reply paid, to him, he has made no acknowledgment or reply at all. I therefore find myself obliged to ask this Question of which I have informed him I had given notice to-day:
"To ask the Leader of the House whether there is any protection for a Peer who places a Motion on the Order Paper and at a subsequent date is superseded by another Peer placing on the Order Paper a Motion on the same subject but for an earlier date, thereby obliging the former to withdraw his Motion; and whether in the absence of any Standing Order governing such procedure and the inability of the Clerk of the Parliaments to refuse any Motion sent to him, it is not the usual practice of this House for Peers to extend sufficient courtesy to one another in order that by private correspondence and mutual accommodation, and having consulted the convenience of the Government, such confusion may be avoided."
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I have noticed myself, and my attention has also been drawn by several noble Lords to the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has recently given Notice of a Motion on the subject of the amendment of the Covenant of the League of Nations which stands in very close relationship to the Motion which has been on the
4
Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for some considerable time now, and for a date—Wednesday, July 29—the convenience of which to His Majesty's Government the noble Lord opposite was courteous enough to ascertain from me before appointing it. I understand, although of course a sudden emergency may necessitate a readily understandable departure from the practice, that it is the custom of your Lordships as far as practicable to avoid anticipating the debate on another noble Lord's Motion, particularly if it stands for discussion within a reasonable period of time. I have endeavoured, through the usual channels, to place myself in communication with Lord Mansfield, with the object of seeking his agreement to the postponement of his Motion until the date of the Motion originally proposed by the noble Lord opposite, but I regret to say that the noble Earl does not see his way—I understand that it would not be convenient for him to attend your Lordships' House on Wednesday, the 29th—to accept my proposal.
In all the circumstances therefore—and noble Lords will understand that Lord Mansfield has, I am sure quite unintentionally, placed me in a position of some difficulty, seeing that no plea of urgency can be put forward in the present instance to compel or to justify the forestalment of the long promised debate on Lord Ponsonby's Motion—I hope your Lordships will agree with the course which I propose we should take in relation to the Motion which is down for discussion on Thursday next. While we shall listen with interest, and I am sure with profit, to what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will have to urge in favour of the adoption of his Resolution, I should think that with your Lordships' permission the more convenient course would be to reserve the answer of His Majesty's Government until the following Wednesday, when the debate on Lord Ponsonby's Motion will afford an ample opportunity, under all the conditions that I have mentioned, for the general discussion of the subject. In this way I hope I shall be able to arrange not only to meet the convenience of Lord Mansfield, but also to satisfy the prior claim which I feel that Lord Ponsonby has established for the discussion of his Motion.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Leader of the House for his courteous reply.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
EPSOM AND WALTON DOWNS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEATHFIELD AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ESSEX) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORTH HERTS JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
BUCKINGHAM'S CHARITY (DUNSTABLE) SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FAR EASTERN PROBLEMS.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I have placed on the Notice Paper a Motion to call attention to the present position of affairs in Northern China, and to move for Papers. I admit that European affairs are absorbing enough and perhaps
6
may monopolise the attention of our Foreign Office, but with our world-wide interests our Government must now have a thousand eyes. Events in Northern China and in China generally, I submit to your Lordships, demand our constant and serious attention. I should like to refer first to a very important statement, reported in the China Review for July, 1936, by Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, the Economic Adviser to the Government. He there discusses among other subjects the great changes that are imminent in China. Large questions of railway financing are there being discussed, the question of the import of capital goods into China, so closely affecting, of course, our own trade, and further—I think a new development in Chinese matters—the great activity which the municipalities are showing with a view to the development of public utility schemes.
Of course, all these schemes must depend upon the rather changing fortunes of the Chinese currency and the general financial situation in China. They must depend, first of all and foremost, on the maintenance of order, and secondly, on the special situation that has arisen in North China. Sir Frederick Leith-Ross is impressed—as, indeed, are all of us—by the importance of the Customs revenue to the Chinese finances, though he admits that these difficulties can only be removed by a better understanding between Japan and China. However, on his second visit to Japan—and I lay stress rather on that second visit—he was assured that there was no desire in that country to interfere with the internal situation in China.
This, then, brings me to the situation that now exists in Eastern Hopei, which we used to know, of course, as the Province of Chihli. I need only refer in one or two words to the historical or previous situation, as it were, in the North of China and the attempt to set up the five Northern Provinces adjoining Manchuria and Inner Mongolia as an autonomous State independent of Nanking. As your Lordships know, this scheme failed, and arrangements were set up to establish the two Provinces of Hopei and Chahar with a political council appointed by Japan. Before this scheme was realised, however, the whole of the demilitarised zone set up in 1933 had been proclaimed an autonomous Anti-Communist

7
State under Japanese protection. It is here, as many of your Lordships are aware, that the smuggling takes place.
Up to the end of last year smuggling into China was not extensive and was controlled by the Chinese, but last September the Japanese asserted that the carrying of arms by the Chinese officials was contrary to the Tangku truce. The fact that they could no longer bear arms of course opened the floodgates, as it were, for goods coming in without paying the Customs duties, and within the last two months smuggling has gone on in that country on a scale that can hardly be called smuggling at all. Smuggling does import, surely, some degree of secrecy, but there is no secrecy about this smuggling at all; it is open, palpable, obvious to anybody in that country. For the three weeks ending on May 17 smuggled goods arrived at Tientsin comprising, among the heavier items, 448,000 kilograms of artificial silk yarn, 21,000,000 kilograms of white sugar and 243,000 gallons of kerosene oil. The duty lost in those three weeks is estimated at about $6,000,000, which would equal $100,000,000 a year, or one-third of the gross Customs revenue. I think your Lordships will agree that this is smuggling on a really noble and Imperial scale.
Again, smuggling is not confined to high-class expensive goods of small size, but is now extended to goods of low cost for almost every kind of business. The huge imports of kerosene oil are sufficient to destroy altogether the revenue from Customs on this head. There have been two consignments of armaments and munitions, and no doubt drug traffickers have taken the opportunity to pour their stuff into China. I need hardly say that a very large proportion of this illicit cargo arriving at Tientsin is of Japanese manufacture or origin, but this, of course, has not gone without protest. It is not very hard to foresee what must be the result on Chinese finances of smuggling on this scale. It must, I think, defeat the very object of the smuggling because the disturbance caused to Chinese trade is such that we can hardly imagine how China is ultimately going to pay for all these goods coming in on those terms, and when we remember not only the disturbance of trade but the extent to which Chinese loans are secured upon the Customs,
8
your Lordships will easily see the deplorable effect that this may have upon the whole Chinese system of government, and also on the currency system as well.
During the last ten weeks I understand that many appeals have been made by the British and American Ambassadors to the Japanese Government to stop the smuggling or allow the Chinese to stop it, but very little notice, or very little practical notice, has been taken of these representations. What I am going to submit to your Lordships is that this smuggling is really only one aspect of the general relations of Japan to China, and through China to the Western Powers. The whole Japanese problem, as it were, at the present time is based upon suspicion, economic pressure, and a general feeling of isolation from the rest of the world. In particular, I regret to say, or in some degree, Japan seems to be at loggerheads with us, and fears that our assertion of our great historic interests in China may prove detrimental to her own interests. At the same time there is a great deal of traditional pro-British feeling in Japan, and, as I hope to be able to show in the course of my speech, lately there have been many feelers thrown out by Japan in the direction of getting a general understanding between Japan and Great Britain. Is it not possible for the Government carefully to test the value of these feelers, to approach Japan quite frankly and find out precisely what she wants, and to reach, let us hope, an agreement which would not only deal with Japan but embrace Chinese rights and welfare, and go far to dispel the cloud of suspicion which hangs over the whole of the Far East?
May I try to put before your Lordships one or two points with respect to the Japanese point of view? Dr. Akagi, a leading modern historian of Japan, says that from the Meiji Restoration in 1868 equality and security have been the constant main principles of Japanese policy. She attained security, anyhow security for the time, by her victories over China in 1894–5, and over Russia in 1904–5. She attained equality by the Anglo-Japanese alliance, and I certainly would like to pay tribute to the immense value which for over twenty years that Anglo-Japanese Alliance had for the peace of the world in the Far East. Those points are on the credit side, but one has to make certain deductions on

9
the debit side. Your Lordships will remember that at Versailles the demand of Japan for racial equality was rejected by President Wilson. The American Immigration laws, of 1923, pointedly discriminating against Japan, have left a sore feeling in that country which has not yet been dispelled. I am not going in detail, of course, into the whole question of Manchuria, that very controversial subject, but I think we must remember that practically all the Japanese were absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their cause. They had not, perhaps, a sufficient historical sense, and they did not realise that what we and other countries have perhaps done in previous centuries was somehow or other inapplicable to the new century. If they had done so, perhaps they would not have acted in that spirit, but the point is that, rightly or wrongly, they have felt that the West has two standards of morality, one applicable to itself and the other applicable to Japan, and therefore marking out an inferior status. In addition to this, all these external troubles, fomented and heated by internal troubles, have bred much natural discontent.
It is impossible to review the situation of Japan without reference to the great influence of the Army. The position of the Army in Japan is of course rather peculiar. They have strong views on many subjects which the Armies in other countries would he ready to pass over. They viewed with great dislike and displeasure the growth of industrialism, the influence of capitalists on politics, the Diet's neglect of the bankrupt and overtaxed farmers, the spread of luxury, and the inroads of Western fashions. To the Army, a good Conservative influence, it seemed that the old spirit of Japan, was being undermined, corrupted and destroyed by these modern Western innovations, and it was to this feeling, as much as any, that the "Showa Restoration" movement, the aim of which is to destroy modern forms of government and reinstate the Emperor as the source and arbiter of all action, is largely due. I need not remind your Lordships of how the Army, dissatisfied with Baron Shidehara's conciliatory policy towards China, took command of Japanese policy in Manchuria and has really kept command over it ever since. There was one declaration by Japan of the greatest possible significance, and that
10
was its declaration in 1935 of a Monroe doctrine for China, which claimed to have the last word in China's transactions with the West. In other words, this was a claim to the Japanese overlordship in the whole of the Far East.
In the summer of 1935 General Hayashi, Minister for War, determined on a purge of the more politically minded officers. General Nagata, head of the Military Affairs Bureau, was entrusted with the duty of carrying out this purge. He was murdered in cold blood by Colonel Aizawa, who, after the murder, put forward the usual claim of murdering from patriotic motives. Colonel Aizawa's trial, which dragged on through the autumn and winter, largely contributed to that growing temper which exploded in the mutiny of February 26, when three of the most eminent statesmen were killed and others barely escaped. At that time there was a great risk that Japan might experience another Satsuma rebellion. Mr. Hirota was called on to form a new Government, but he was only able to do this so far as the Army was satisfied with his arrangements. In view of these facts, as I have given them in this short narrative, it looks as if the Army were really the final arbiter in every question of Japanese policy, and if that is so the difficulty of coming to an arrangement with Japan is obvious.
On the other hand, some very remark able events have occurred which put the position of the Army in rather a different light. May I call attention to the Emperor's reproof on May 4 at the opening of the Diet. His words were:
"We regret the incident which occurred in February. We expect our faithful subjects, Government and people, civil and military, to unite as one to advance the nations's wellbeing".
This statement, I believe, was un-parallelled in Japan and caused great emotion in the breasts of many of the Japanese Generals and naval men. This mutiny shook Japan to the depths. Even before the Emperor's speech several Generals had been retired for connection with the mutiny, and in the past three weeks seventeen officers have been executed and about 100 officers, n.c.o's. and civilians imprisoned, and—most remarkable of all—Colonel Aizawa, the murderer of General Nagata, has been executed. Patriotic assassinations have in the past been rather common in Japan, but very rarely have they been punished.

11
There is, further, in the last few years a good deal of evidence to show that the position of the Army is not so supreme as might be expected. In 1922, following the allied expedition to Siberia in support of Admiral Kolchak, the Japanese Army was anxious to seize Eastern Siberia and the Russian Maritime Provinces, but this was most unpopular in Japan, and the whole scheme was broken off in deference to popular clamour. There was another case, too, in 1928, when popular opinion seems to have won the day against the Army. At that time General Baron Tanaka was Premier, and a similar expedition into Shantung, in North-East China, had to be withdrawn in consequence of popular opposition.
Turning for a moment to the relations of Japan and Russia, for at least 140 years or so Russia has been the bugbear and great cause of anxiety to Japan. In recent years these feelings have been revived by the complete hold Russia has acquired over Outer Mongolia and Chinese Turkestan. As a result of this the Army has made great efforts to get control of Inner Mongolia and Northern China and form a buffer state between Russia and Manchukuo. I only ask the question as to whether on the Far East side Russia is really in an aggressive mood. One might suppose that she had enough difficulties, both internal and on the West, not to court war in the Far East, and it may be that in this respect the fears of the Japanese are as much hereditary as real. But one thing, I think, emerges quite clearly from this situation, that the aggressiveness of the Japanese Generals towards China is well calculated to drive China into the hands of Russia, and certainly not to separate China and Russia.
As regards the case of China during the last four years, most remarkable progress has been made in that country. There has been economic development, road and railway building, a commencement of agrarian reform and the reestablishment of the position of the peasantry. Undoubtedly if a little peace could be provided for that country the present Government would probably make good. But the fear of Japan keeps her in turmoil and doubt, and checks any development that she may desire to bring about. The main requirements of
12
Japan in China must—necessarily, because of her economic position—be markets and raw materials, and she could get these by friendly agreement. But the Chinese say with some justice that it is very difficult to make agreements with Japan because, owing to her military ambitions, they probably would not be final. So here again it is the feeling of distrust that blocks the way to an economic arrangement between China and Japan.
But it is remarkable, in the last few months even, that suggestions have come from Japan in the direction of a peaceful arrangement. I have one or two quotations. There is the statement on March 25 by Mr. Hirota, the Prime Minister, in which he reiterated his pledge that there would be no war while he was Foreign Minister and that that would hold good while he was Prime Minister. On March 5 there was a very remarkable statement made by Mr. Arita, the Japanese Foreign Minister. I quote one passsage:
" There is a number of questions in various parts of the world which affect our mutual interests and which await settlement in one way or another. If Great Britain and Japan, keeping their own friendship and their common responsibilities towards world peace in mind, give full consideration to each other's special needs, adjustment of their interests should not, I believe, prove too difficult."
I commend that to your Lordships as a very remarkable statement. A little earlier, on January 7—this is not from the Minister but from the Japanese Foreign Office spokesman—it was stated that
"Japan was ready to negotiate on all outstanding questions affecting her relations with the British Empire, but was unwilling to discuss the question of China alone."
And when the new Ambassador in London, Mr. Yoshida, arrived last May, there was a good deal of comment in the Japanese papers, and many of these influential papers stated that
"many influential Japanese dislike the present isolation of their country, and his (Mr. Yoshida's) efforts to revive former friendship with Britain have military as well as official and popular support."
To sum up very briefly what I conceive to be the position, although we may have read all these statements about a Monroe doctrine being laid down by Japan, Japan herself is not very happy in her

13
position of isolation. She has her own difficulties to meet. She has vast budgetary expenditure. This year the Budget amounted to 2,305,000,000 yen—I leave out the other figures—of which 705,000,000 yen must be met by borrowing; and her naval and military expenditure amounts to 1,058,000,000 yen against only 442,000,000 yen in 1930–31. Your Lordships will have seen recently the statement as to the £175,000,000 sterling that is to be expended by Japan on armaments in the next six years. The risk, of course, is that with this feeling of isolation and this intense desire for greater security, and with the sense that equality is denied her, she will be forced into further expenditure which, to a comparatively poor country, must be very severe. She sees further that Manchukuo and North China are really her life-line for markets and raw materials. She perhaps has some difficulty in seeing that the West is not inimical to her interests in China and that there is ample room for all in trade in China, if China could be relieved from the fear that Japan wants to swallow her up. The Japanese problem is, therefore, a very complicated one, made up not only of her economic situation but from the different feelings that have been aroused in her by the events of the last twenty years and the treatment she has received from the West.
The question is whether, in the strong position that we certainly had in Japan, much of which remains, we are not the people to tackle the problem. I do not think anybody else can. No one, of course, would suggest that the League of Nations should rake a hand, and the influence or effect of the Nine-Power Treaty is, I am afraid, sadly decaying. Unfortunately, the relations of Japan with the United States are not of the best, and it is really for us, if we can, to take the matter in hand. It is extremely significant too—referring again to Sir Frederick Leith-Ross—that he was not perhaps so warmly received in Tokyo when he called on his way to China nine months ago, but later, at his second visit, he found them, I understand, far more ready to discuss matters with him. It is said sometimes by those who are not very much in favour of agreement that it is quite hopeless; that the foreign policy of Japan is fixed; that she is determined, whatever happens, to establish herself as
14
a dominant Power in the Far East. But it is remarkable how outside ideas of the foreign policy of a country often represent a false picture of what that policy really is.
It is equally a matter of observation that it is very rarely that the foreign policy of a country is so direct and straightforward and unmoved as we suggest is the policy of the Japanese, and that the foreign policy of most countries is much more the resultant of a number of forces, many of which act with more or less intensity at different times. If, then, the situation is such, and if perhaps Japan is not so self-confident in her isolation as some may have thought, is there not a great opportunity for us now to accept and welcome those feelers that have been put forward by Japan in the last few months and to see if we can discuss with her, not one, but many questions into which we could enter into relation with her, not of course forgetting the Chinese problems as well? If that could be done, and if we could reach an understanding with Japan, which would of course be helpful to other countries besides ourselves and Japan, I do not think this Government could make a greater contribution to the peace of the world than to try and settle all these troubles and difficulties which, largely arising out of the historical situation, embarrass our relations with Japan. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I intervene for a moment or two only to say a word from the point of view of the Opposition. I think that your Lordships owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for introducing this very vital subject and giving us such a useful historical survey and valuable analysis of the present position. I say that with very real sincerity, because the moderation with which the noble Earl introduced the subject, and the wealth of accurate information that he has given to us, are of real value as a contribution to the solution of the great difficulties surrounding this trouble. In my opinion the time has come when it is not really possible to consider the Far East as a separate problem from the rest of the world. It has become very much more closely associated with the European situation, as I shall try to show in a moment, and therefore we

15
cannot consider it as a separate problem. And it is becoming less and less a separate problem as time goes on, as we get better means of communication, a more rapid exchange of accurate information, and a linking up of the various Powers, not only in Europe but throughout the world.
The Japanese Government are in a difficult position. They are, as the noble Earl pointed out, a militarist, semi-Fascist State, and they demand expansion, aggressive expansion, on the mainland, aggressive expansion in the Pacific. The excuse they usually give is, in the first place, that they demand an outlet for their population. But it is a fact that the Japanese have never succeeded in colonising any country. The few Japanese who have gone to Korea are comparatively insignificant; the number of Japanese who have gone to live in Manchukuo since September, 1931, apart from the actual Army of Occupation and those engaged with the Army, is quite negligible. The farming community whom it was hoped would establish Japanese settlement for agricultural production in Manchukuo have not in fact responded to the suggestion, because they do not like the type of agricultural production which would be necessary. They are not used to it; they are not accustomed to it.
There was an interesting suggestion that perhaps the production of the soya bean in Manchukuo, which is one of the great centres of its production, might receive a new lease of life by the discovery of Mr. Henry Ford that the soya bean could be used for the bodies of motor cars. It is a fact that the idea has been tried out by Mr. Ford. I understand that you take the soya bean and press out the oil, which is useful in connection with the propulsion of motor cars, and the remaining material can be pressed into motor car bodies giving a motor car body which is stronger than steel and much lighter. The result is you get that remarkable acceleration in American motor cars which is so noticeable a feature of their production. I believe that, according to the National City Bank of New York, this idea has passed the experimental stage, and that we now may have new Ford bean motor cars on the roads very shortly. That may bring a considerable addition to the prosperity
16
of Manchukuo, but it will not need more Japanese population, so that one of the Japanese claims in respect of an expansion of population is not a justifiable claim.
They also, of course, claim that they want food and raw materials for their people, but in this connection an interesting fact is pointed out in the last Report of the Department for Overseas Trade which has carried out very valuable studies in connection with both Japan and China. I think the last Report, speaking from memory, was published about September or October of last year. In that Report it is pointed out that Japan is an exporter of food on balance and is not an importer of food; that Japan actully grows more of the stable foods than she can consume; and that she is an exporter of rice and other food products. With regard to raw materials, it has been pointed out by a great many publicists that any nation in the world wanting raw materials can buy them almost anywhere, that most nations are engaged in destroying the raw materials which they cannot sell, and that they would be only too thankful to sell at a very low price any raw materials if only Japan would let them know what she wants. I do not think the raw materials claim really holds water. There is, of course, the question of markets, and in that case I think there is justification for the claim to control markets for the sale of products of a given country because of the unhappy circumstances throughout the world arising from the closing of markets. For this Great Britain must take some share of responsibility. Our Ottawa Agreements have in fact tended—and I think all recent economic reports would support this—to bring about a drop in foreign trade and have contributed greatly to the fall in prosperity of the world which is largely due to this attempt to maintain exclusive markets for the products of a given country.
The Japanese, then, were probably only justified in their expansionist demands on the question of markets. And here, of course, there is no doubt that the China market, as the noble Earl, I think, pointed out, is the most accessible market for Japanese products. In a way the Japanese have rather "missed the boat" in part of their expansionist policy. They made a mistake, if they really

17
wanted to extend by military means, in not attacking, if they wanted to attack, Siberia and the Eastern part of Russia in the Far East a good many years ago, because, from their point of view, it is most unfortunate that since then the Russians have become remarkably strong. They have developed a Far Eastern Army which probably has a strength of 300,000 and is so equipped and developed that it can continue to exist and function with the minimum of communication with the European part of Russia. There is also the fact that the Trans-Siberian Railway has now been practically doubled throughout its length, and a new railway has been constructed to the north of Lake Baikal which renders communication better. The fact is that the Russian Far Eastern Army to a very considerable extent can exist without communication with European Russia, and is exceptionally strong.
One of the interesting developments in this connection was the decision of the Soviet Government to reduce the taxes on all those engaged in production in the Far East territory; in the Maritime Provinces to abolish them altogether; and in the inland part of the Far East territory to reduce the taxes by half so as to encourage settlement and production, and to give the soldiers, when they have completed their period of service with the Red Army, free land in the Far East if they choose to settle down there. This has been very widely accepted, and the result is that the food production of the Far East as well as the construction of huge metallurgical works and light productivity is proceeding at a rate suggesting that the Far East must become almost economically and militarily independent. There is one further factor which must have made the Japanese General Staff, so to speak, sit up and take notice, and that is that the Russian Far Eastern Army has been equipped with new high-speed long-distance bombing planes. These have brought the Japanese centres of population within three or four hours of the Maritime Provinces. From a Russian point of view the Japanese are conveniently aggregated into large populous centres surrounding the factories and production centres of Japan, so that from the point of view of bombers they present an ideal target in which the maximum effect could certainly be obtained with the minimum of effort.
18
It is true, therefore, that if the Japanese intended to attack Russia, they have made a mistake in putting it off so long. Outer Mongolia has, fortunately, solved its problem temporarily by what. I venture to suggest, is a very good example to other countries. A statement was made by Stalin to an American journalist, that if the Japanese encroached upon Outer Mongolia the Russians would consider it as a reason for operating a defensive and offensive alliance with Outer Monogolia, so that the Japanese know beforehand what will happen if they advance into Outer Mongolia. It is a great thing to know beforehand what is to happen. It has often been said, with what truth I know not, that, had the nations participating in the 1914 Great War known beforehand what would be the action of Great Britain, that War might never have taken place. It is easy to say that after the event, and I do not know whether it is so, but I cannot help thinking that there is some advantage in the general proposition that it is better to state beforehand what one intends to do. Certainly the effect of such a statement beforehand in relation to the Far East has been to stabilise the position, to make much more clear what will happen, and to restrain Japanese aggressive tactics as far as Outer Mongolia is concerned.
The result has been that Japan has turned her eyes southwards, as the noble Earl pointed out, and has initiated the series of advances into North China which have caused so much concern to those who are watching the situation. I think we may say, further, that we have this new situation, that Russia, instead of being an aggressive force in the Far East, is to-day a great force for peace, not only on idealist lines, which I would not dream of suggesting to your Lordships as regard Russia, but on practical, common-sense lines, because Russia neither needs more territory nor more raw materials nor more markets. She has markets enough to keep her busy for the next fifty or hundred years among her own people, who are growing at the rate of something like three and a half millions or four millions a year. She has an inexhaustible supply of raw materials, probably the greatest supply in the world, and more territory than she can possibly populate, even at the rate of

19
growth of four million people a year. So I think we may really put Russia as a great force for peace in the Far East. It is quite natural, and I feel sure the noble Earl will not disagree when I say that if in fact Japanese aggression does continue the Chinese would rely on the friendship of Russia to resist aggression.
Another factor in this connection is that there have been some disturbing rumours during the past few years, going back certainly as far as December, 1933, when I had a disturbing statement from a very prominent member of your Lordships' House, that there was a very close understanding between Germany and Japan. We must therefore realise that the connection between the European situation and the Far East may be more close than we suspect, if there is in fact an understanding, not necessarily an understanding between the Governments, but an understanding between those dominating military forces, to which, as regards Japan, the noble Earl referred, and which are also suspected to be in control in Germany at the present moment. In the last number of the North China Daily News I came across an illustration of this in a very clever cartoon by the well-known cartoonist Sapajou, showing Russian officers at work and a telephone underneath connecting Tokyo and Berlin. I think that is a matter which must be watched. The recent agreement which has been come to between Germany and Austria has freed the German Government to act along the shores of the Baltic, which she already controls thanks to the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, and that gives her access through the Baltic States to the Russian frontier. That is something of which I think we should do well not to lose sight.
Finally, I want to say a word about British interests in China. The noble Earl drew attention to the enormous increase in smuggling. Smuggling is not a new factor, but as he pointed out it has grown enormously during the last few months. I remember talking to a prominent Chinese diplomatic representative here about a year ago. He told me of a ease in which the Chinese authorities discovered a smuggler. I forget what he was smuggling, but let us say it was $2,000 worth of goods. The Chinese Customs authorities confiscated what he was smuggling and imposed on him a fine
20
of $500. This was immediately followed by action on the part of the Japanese military authorities, and the Chinese were forced to return the goods they had confiscated, to repay the fine which they had imposed and to pay the smuggler a number of thousands of dollars in compensation for the disturbance of his trade. That is the sort of thing which makes impossible continuance of the control of the Customs which has so long resided in the hands of British-appointed officers. Our interests are affected because, as I think the noble Earl pointed out, the Customs form the security for British and other loans for the development of China. We therefore are vitally affected when we see the value of our investments going down.
There has grown up in China, especially among the British community, a feeling of helplessness in this matter. For instance, in Shanghai there is an expectation that the Japanese will assume control of the Shanghai Municipal Council at an early date. There seems to be among the British community a sort of readiness to accept this, and that I think is to be deplored when we are considering British interests in these matters. British trade, of course, has been going down enormously in the past few years. I notice in the reports of the Department of Overseas Trade that considerable blame is attached to the British traders themselves; it is said that they are not prepared to meet the requirements of the Chinese either as regards immediate delivery or as regards price. If that is so we cannot put all the blame on to the Japanese for unfair competition. Some blame for the drop in British trade must be placed in those circumstances on the shoulders of those representing British firms in Shanghai. What we want is a continuance of fair agreement in this matter, and I think the suggestion for solving this problem by some form of conference is of vital importance.
I do not rule out the possibility of utilising the League of Nations in this matter. I think it would be the greatest mistake, because the League of Nations and the policy of collective security has suffered a setback in the recent events in North Africa, for us to say that the whole thing is dead and done with. It is not. The right line surely is for us to

21
say that we have made a mistake, and we have had a failure, but having learned the lesson, we will attempt to strengthen in the future the forces making for peace which are still enshrined within the League. I think I shall perhaps receive a considerable amount of agreement among your Lordships, and in the country as well, if I suggest that the reason we failed in the attempt to apply sanctions in the Italo-Abyssinian difficulty was that so many members of the League had not a vital self-interest in what was going on. They were not vitally interested in North Africa. If we collected together the States Members of the League who are vitally interested in the maintenance of good relations and peace in each different area of the world we might do much more to maintain peace and good relations and remove the causes of war.
A regional pact within the framework of the League entered into by all those nations concerned in maintaining peace and good relations in the Far East would in that case be the line on which we should develop, and we should invite non-members of the League to participate in such a pact. We have two possibilities in this connection. There is the Nine-Power Conference, which now consists, I think, of thirteen or fourteen Powers or possibly more, because a considerable number have joined since it was started. That Conference is still in being and could be called together. There is another Conference available. I cannot remember the exact name of it, but the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, with his knowledge of these matters, will know the one I mean. I think it was called the Committee of Nineteen, which was formed while the Lytton Inquiry was going on at Geneva.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL STANHOPE): The Committee of Thirteen, I think it was.
LORD MARLEY: I have forgotten the exact number; we have so many Committees with such large variations in number that it is difficult to remember them. But at any rate the Committee was formed at the time the whole Lytton Report was being considered at Geneva, and I think that Committee was asked to keep an eye on what was going on and from time to time to report to the League and to make suggestions. I do
22
not know if this ever was done, but might it not be worth considering that that Committee should be reconstituted, called together, and asked to inquire into the position and into what steps are necessary to maintain peace and good relations in the Far East? I venture to think that the suggestion put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is a very valuable one, and I am certain that we are indebted to him for the contribution he has made to this difficult problem.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down expressed gratitude to my noble friend Lord Peel for his historical summary of the situation. I think I could, more especially for the benefit of the noble Lord opposite, produce an historical summary which shows that the case for the Japanese is infinitely stronger than people realise. We hear a great deal of complaint, and we are not the only people who complain, of Japanese penetration into China and damage to their commerce and other interests. But what reason have the Japanese to be grateful to Europe? The Japanese have been extremely badly treated by Europe for the last forty years. Let me recall to the noble Lord the circumstances in 1894 and 1895. The whole trouble arises from what took place in those years. The Japanese having, as a result of the war with China, obtained a footing on the mainland, three European Powers—Russia, France and Germany—united in order to force the Japanese to restore this territory to the Chinese, and then, with almost incredible cynicism, a year or two afterwards seized these places themselves. I forget what the French took, but the lion's share of course fell to Russia, who occupied the Liutung Peninsula, turned Port Arthur into one of the strongest fortresses in the world, and proceeded to settle down there permanently. The Japanese were forced to submit.
In 1902 the Anglo-Japanese Alliance took place. Then in 1904 and 1905, as a result of the Russian action, came the war with Russia, which was really a war of self-defence on the part of the Japanese, although it took the form of aggression. The result of that war was, as everybody knows, that the Japanese inherited the Russian possessions in Manchuria and established themselves there permanently. Then came

23
the Great War of 1914 and the Japanese, being allied to this country, entered the War on the Allies' side, took part in the campaign and took the district of Kiaochau. It is true that we also participated nominally in the conquest of this district, but we were actually little more than spectators. At the end of the War the Japanese were not allowed to keep this district but were made to hand it back to the Chinese. Then, in 1922, came the repudiation by us and the termination of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. I venture to say, and I am not ashamed to say it, that I believe this to have been one of the most fatuous actions we have perpetrated in recent years. The Japanese Alliance cost us nothing at all, not a man nor a ship; it secured our position in the Far East, and would have enabled us to exercise a moderating influence upon the Japanese themselves in case they showed too much of the spirit of aggression.
The consequences of the termination of the Treaty of Alliance were particularly unfortunate. We failed conspicuously to attain the object at which we were aiming. The Alliance was repudiated in order to obtain a better feeling with America. The political feeling between America and ourselves has not improved in the least; there has been no change at all. That, however, is not the only case in which the determination of the Treaty was unfortunate. It was also unfortunate because it hardened the Dominions in what I believe to be that extremely short-sighted policy of definitely excluding all Japanese from the immense tracts of the world which are in their possession. I believe that this is a short-sighted action on their part for which some day they will pay dearly.
On the whole, therefore, what have the Japanese to thank Europe for? Why should they feel any gratitude towards this country or any other? The Japanese, who were at one time our Allies, are now as a matter of fact, in certain quarters represented by noble Lords opposite, regarded literally as enemies. Things have gone so far, thanks to our ill-advised and unfortunate interference in trying to eject them from Manchuria a few years ago, that I should think that on the whole we are probably more disliked by the Japanese than by any other country. For my part I can only say
24
that I look upon this as a most unfortunate development, and I would even characterise it as something in the nature of a real disaster. We have turned a powerful nation, which was a nation really friendly to us, into a potential enemy, and there is nothing on earth to show on the other side as a result of our action.
I do not think I am using too strong language when I say that I look upon this as a disastrous development. Of course, when I say "a disastrous development" I am bound to admit that there is a certain amount to complain of. It must be admitted that the Japanese have infringed treaties; it must also be admitted that they have committed acts of aggression. But on the whole we are not absolutely guiltless in the matter. It is partly owing to the conduct of ourselves and other European nations that the Japanese have been driven into these acts of aggression. I would further point out that these acts of aggression on the part of Japan bear no resemblance to the aggression committed, for instance, by Italy in Abyssinia. In the case of the Italians in Abyssinia there was no question of protecting their own interests at all; it was a war of aggression. All the aggression by the Japanese has really been, although it may sound paradoxical, in the nature of self-defence. They have, as has been pointed out by my noble friend and, I think, by the noble Lord opposite, always regarded the possession or the control of what used to be called Manchuria as absolutely essential to their existence. I would maintain that the creation of what is called the puppet State of Manchukuo is really necessary for the safety of Japan. The creation of the State of Manchukuo has led inevitably to the Japanese control in Northern China. It is a natural development.
After all, what is the basic fact? The bed-rock fact is that the Nanking Government is incapable of governing Northern China. The events of the last year have shown it. If the Nanking Government is incapable of controlling this vast district, what are the alternatives? There are only two alternatives. It must pass either under the control of Soviet Russia or under the control of Japan. No doubt if the noble Lord opposite was able to decide the matter he would have no hesitation in saying that

25
it would be for the benefit of all concerned that Soviet Russia should play the controlling part. Personally, I take the opposite view—that if we had to choose it would be better not only for us but for the world in general that it should be under Japanese control. Whether you like the Japanese or not, whether you approve of the Japanese or not, the fact remains they are a civilising power and stand for stability and settled conditions. Nobody who has over been to the Far East, and seen what has been known as Manchuria, will think of denying that assertion.
Now I would like to ask this question: Is Northern China a question of vital importance as far as we as a nation are concerned? I am inclined to think not. I should think our commercial and economic interests in Northern China are very slight. Our interests, as everybody knows, are further south, and if a serious attempt were made by the Japanese to interfere with our trade in Middle or Southern China we should find friends who would support us in resisting them. But how do your Lordships propose, or how does anybody propose, however much he may dislike the Japanese, to arrest their present progress? How can it be done? If anybody asked me, I should say that I do not think it can be done, and if you put the question to His Majesty's Government I think they would reply not in those exact words but in the same sense. It seems to me to be one of those cases in which we ought to avoid any precipitate action at all. I am, as a rule, not in favour of delay, but I think it would be exceedingly rash if we made any decisive effort to stem violently Japanese penetration in Northern China at the moment. It seems to me a case in which we ought to exercise patience and negotiation. As Lord Peel has pointed out, opportunities have arisen and I sincerely hope they will be attended to. Therefore my advice to the Government, if I were in a position to give advice, and if I thought they would listen to it, would be to make use of a familiar suggestion to which we have been so long accustomed—to wait and see. That is the sort of advice which I should think is palatable to every Government, and which for once in a way is likely to be acted upon.
I have spoken for longer than I had intended, but there is just one minor
26
question to which I wish to allude, and it is with regard to the change of our diplomatic representative from Peking to Nangking. It is unavoidable, but it is a change which everybody must deplore, especially those who have had an opportunity of visiting Peking. The British Legation, or what used to be the Legation, and now the Embassy at Peking, is a place of great tradition and interest to all of us, but these changes, however unfortunate in certain cases, become a necessity. You have the same thing in Turkey, where our unfortunate diplomatists have to leave one of the most attractive cities in the world and go to Angora. Any one who contemplates the change from Peking to Nangking will regard it as very unfortunate and very expensive, but unfortunately it cannot be avoided. Here again, I would suggest that there is no occasion for hurry. Even using the utmost despatch it is not possible to effect the change in less than three years' time. What I suggest, and I expect the suggestion will be received favourably, is that there should be no question, so to speak, of scrapping the Peking Legation, but that it should continue as a kind of rival Embassy to the one at Nanking, and that there should be no needless acceleration about the transfer. In what is ironically called the "Changeless East" changes do occur much more rapidly than anywhere else, and some convulsion might occur with the result that Peking would regain its ancient splendour and become not again the capital of China but of a North China Kingdom.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, having lived five years in China, I also am grateful to the noble Earl for having brought forward this Motion. I would like to emphasise again the importance of the maintenance and improvement of normal trade in North China, the preservation of the Chinese Customs and revenue, and the continuance of those services and foreign loans in which Japan herself is also interested. I also wish to support the plea that we might meet the feelers which have been put out by Japan for co-operation and friendship with her. Further, I would also like to agree that there is really room for all in the Far East, and that the interests of Japan, China and ourselves do not conflict, but that in a

27
prosperous and united China all our interests lie—those both of the nations of the Far East and of the West. I believe it is in such co-operation and in the building up of the prosperity of China that Japan will find her true outlet, and she will also find that her true security will lie in the esteem and gratitude of her neighbours.
I think there are signs that both in China and Japan the rulers are becoming aware of the ultimate issues on which peace and prosperity depend. The patriotic movement in Japan has in it the seeds of an exemplary spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion. The New Life movement in China aims at the creation in the individual of a more responsible and constructive attitude towards the affairs of the State, and the position is, I think, treated in a fresher angle in a cable recently received from Dr. H. H. Kung, Minister of Finance in the Central Government of China:
"The world to-day is in a state of chaos, degeneracy and disintegration, because men are dominated by selfishness, jealousy and materialism. Only the inspiration and guidance of a higher will can change human nature and conciliate men and nations, so that there may be peace on earth and good will among men. The Oxford Group is a movement which transcends geographical divisions, racial distinctions, party differences and class conflicts. I believe the principles and discipline of the movement will help to bind the nations of the Far East and of the world together in a common moral and spiritual awakening, which is urgently needed to evolve a new and better social order."
I hope the Government will do all in their power to promote and facilitate cooperation between China and Japan and in the creation of such a better social order as will smooth away any differences and difficulties which may arise.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that once again this House has shown that we have experts who can deal with manifold subjects, and in this case with real knowledge of the situation in the Far East. The historical sketch with which my noble friend Lord Peel opened the debate was one that I certainly cannot hope to improve upon, and all that I wish to say to-day is that there are just one or two small points that I should like to add to that statement in order to make it quite clear to your Lordships. My noble friend remarked on the East Hopei Anti-Communist Council. May I remind your
28
Lordships of what happened before? After the armistice signed at Tangku on May 31, 1933, the Chinese Government were requested to withdraw all their troops south of the area between Tientsin and the Great Wall, which became the demilitarised zone. The next move was that negotiations were opened not only for the restoration of free communication between Manchukuo and North China, but also for the recognition of Manchukuo and the modification of the Chinese tariff in favour of Japanese trade. Of those three subjects only the first made any progress, and there have been very unsettled conditions in the northern area between Peking. Tientsin and the Great Wall.
The result was that in June, 1935, the military party of the Japanese in Manchukuo and North China presented demands for further control in North China and they supported that by a concentration of their troops at the Great Wall. Then they endeavoured to have set up what is an ostensible autonomy of the five Northern Provinces—in China, Hopei, Shansi, and Shantung, and in Mongolia Chahar and Suiyuan. That scheme failed to fructify, with the result that there was only established the Hopei-Chahar Political Council—established with the endorsement of the Central Government of China but which had Japanese advisers attached. The Chinese forces as a whole retired south of the Yellow River, which runs southwest through Shantung and then westwards through the north part of Honan. Then, contrary to the desires of the Hopei-Chahar Political Council, and in fact in direct opposition to it, the East Hopei Autonomous Anti-Communist Administration, to give it its long official title, was set up, and this Anti-Communist Administration was not only against the Hopei-Chahar Council but also opposed to the Central Government of China. Its importance is that it holds that very vital district of North China through which communications between China and Manchukuo pass, and also controls the seaboard from the Great Wall down to the river which runs down from Tientsin a little way inland.
It has been made extremely difficult for China to take much action in that part of the world because Japan has recently increased her garrison in North China under the provisions of the International

29
Boxer Protocol of 1901. That enables any Power signatory of the Protocol with an Embassy or Legation in Peking to have a garrison in that part of the world, but it is supposed to be limited to what is necessary for the protection of the Embassy and for the maintenance of communications between Peking and the coast. There is no actual limit to the forces which any signatory nation may employ for that purpose, and the Japanese have increased their forces very materially in that area. When my noble friend Lord Newton says that North China has to go under either Russia or Japan I am afraid I must entirely disagree with him, because, after all, what many of us who are friends both of China and of Japan would desire is that that part of China should remain under the Central Chinese Government. He told us that no one would deny that Japan stands for stability and settled conditions. Undoubtedly that is true in areas which are directly under Japanese control, but looking at the situation as it exists at the present moment in North China, when he suggests that that is under settled conditions or in a condition, in fact, which any friends of either China or Japan can really approve of, there I am afraid we must disagree with him.
As a matter of fact, the conditions there are so far from being settled that the increase of smuggling, not only in East Hopei itself but right down into China, is having an immense effect. Indeed, its effects, I have been told, are felt right down as far as the Yangtse. Vast masses of goods are pouring in, chiefly supplied by Japanese or Korean nationals, and the Chinese Customs Service have not been allowed to carry arms, with the result that there is no method of cheeking this smuggling. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Peel pointed out, it is hardly to be described as smuggling, because it has been given recognition by the East Hopei Administration, who now impose a tariff at a reduced level on these smuggled goods and keep the proceeds for their own purposes. I think everyone will agree that that is unfortunate, not only for China but for every country which does trade with China.
I entirely agree with what was said by Lord Peel and Lord Marley and I think
30
by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, too, that there is ample room for all countries to trade with China. May I remind your Lordships of a part of the statement that was issued by Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, who is now on his way home from China and who, we expect, will arrive in this country later this week? He said:
"I fully agree with the observations of the American Economic Mission, viz., that a vast change is coming over China, a modernisation that, as compared with ten or even five years ago, marks many centuries."
He goes on to say:
" I believe that this change will make China not a less but a more fruitful field for British enterprise—commercial, industrial and financial. Our principal interest here is to promote the peace, the prosperity and the trade of China, and in working for this, it seems to me we are working in the interests of all countries trading with China. The reconstruction of China is a vast task which will take years to accomplish and there is room for all to assist her in this task."
I think that is an expression of opinion with which those who know China and the Far East will cordially agree.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked if Russia was in an aggressive mood in the Far East, and in the noble Lord, Lord Marley's interesting speech, giving rather the Russian side of the situation, I think he probably had his answer, which was that Russia is not in an aggressive mood and is merely taking up a defensive position. As my noble friend knows, a great deal of the frontier all along Mongolia and Manchuria is very ill-defined except where it actually runs along the course of the three big rivers—the Aigun, the Amur, and the Ussuri. Whore these rivers run, the frontiers were defined, but proposals have been made between the U.S.S.R. and the Manchukuo Government to define their common frontiers, and I understand that the Outer Mongolian and the Manchurian Governments are also hoping to define the frontiers between them too. If that can be agreed upon, we hope that the incidents which have been occurring somewhat frequently of late, some of which have reached dangerous dimensions, may be prevented from recurring hereafter, and thereby that there may be eliminated one of the dangers that exist in those parts of the world.
My noble friend Lord Newton regretted the move of the British Embassy from

31
Peking. I am sure we all agree with him in that view but, as he said, it is undoubtedly necessary that we should get our Ambassador, or at any rate some of his staff, in a position in China more in touch with the Central Government. I can, however, relieve his apprehensions in one respect by saying that it is not proposed to give up the Embassy at Peking, but merely to have a second one at Nanking, and the Ambassador and his staff will operate between the two. We have important interests in North China—more important even than my noble friend realised—and it is necessary that our Ambassador should periodically live in that part of the world and continue to inhabit the historical and delightful residence there, though it is separate from some of the more important trading interests in China. I am not going to follow him into the history which he gave going back to the time prior to the Russo-Japanese War, because there is much other important business awaiting your Lordships' House; but when he regrets the Anglo-Japanese Alliance coming to an end, he must not forget the views of the British Dominions, which were very strong in that respect.
LORD NEWTON: I know, but they were all wrong.
EARL STANHOPE: That may be, but at any rate we prefer to act as one unit, as the British Empire, and not to force the views of the United Kingdom down the throats of others of His Majesty's subjects though they happen to live elsewhere; though as a matter of fact some of them live a good deal nearer to the Far East than we do. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand probably have a greater interest in the Pacific question than we can have ourselves. The noble Lord asked if North China was of vital importance to us. I cannot say that North China is of vital importance any more than any other part of the world, but of course we have a very considerable trade with China and also with Manchukuo, and in these hard times we cannot afford to give up British trade in any part of the world. Therefore, although it is not of vital interest, it represents a very considerable interest.
Most of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate have pressed on the Government the view that we should try
32
to come to some agreement with Japan. The view of His Majesty's Government has been strongly throughout that we should endeavour to continue, and indeed to improve, the friendship between this country and Japan, although perhaps we do not go so far as to suggest that we should come to an agreement with them, and for this reason. It would be difficult to come to an agreement with Japan which would really be in accord with our general policy in China—the Open Door and freedom of trade for everybody. The Japanese view appears to be, judging by their action in North China and elsewhere, that they have a sphere of influence, which, of course, is the opposite of the Open Door.
Our efforts to strengthen our friendship with Japan have not been improved by reason of incidents regarding trade in Manchukuo. There the Government of Manchukuo, which of course largely takes its orders from Japan, has closed its doors to our trade and has imposed a monopoly in regard to oil. Recently there has been an unfortunate incident in which a British Indian subject and his wife were taken prisoners in the South Manchurian railway zone, which is quite definitely under the control of the Japanese Government. They were maltreated in prison there and only released quite recently and handed over to His Majesty's Consul. Again, there have been incidents, as your Lordships are aware, in regard to the accusation made against the British Court which tried two British soldiers in Peking. I only mention these incidents to show that they do make the progress of friendship and agreement with Japan more difficult. I am not going to suggest for one moment that they are preventing us from going ahead with that desire, but I submit that, with the best will in the world, we cannot afford to have incidents of this kind if we really wish to improve our friendship and to see if we cannot come to arrangements which are mutually satisfactory not only to ourselves but to Japan and to China too.
The situation in China is one of great difficulty. She had these difficulties in regard to Customs which, as my noble friend pointed out, form the basis of the whole of her trade and credit with other countries. She has had great difficulties in regard to her exchange problem. In

33
passing, I would mention that some years ago, to my horror, I found I had to reply to a debate in your Lordships' House on bimetallism. I was informed that if only the price of silver went up in China all would be well with the rest of the world. Exactly the opposite happened. Following my brief, I said I thought it might be disastrous, and events have proved that my brief was right, because when the price of silver went up in China the export trade of China went down, and China was unable to buy imports from other countries. That situation has now improved. Sir Frederick Leith-Ross shows in his Report that really the Chinese Government have done remarkably well in controlling the exchange, and that through the very difficult times, in part caused, first, by the purchase of silver by the United States and then by their refusal to buy any more, China has nevertheless been able to keep her exchange at a fair level. But whether we live in the Far East or in the West our interest surely is that there should be a strong, stable Government in China, so that the Chinese in all parts of that vast country shall be able to trade and purchase goods and obtain capital. If we can manage to obtain the support of Japan and the United States and other countries in assisting China in that effort, then I believe it would be not only to the benefit of this country but of China, and perhaps most of all to the benefit of Japan, whose trade with that country is so vast.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, suggested that the policy of His Majesty's Government should be one of "Wait and see". No, that is not our policy. In these strenuous days it is impossible for any Government merely to sit still and wait and see. But we are endeavouring to carry out his other recommendation to exercise patience and endeavour to follow negotiations. There is not the slightest intention on our part—I think he, perhaps, almost suggested it—to take forcible action or anything of that kind in the Far East. We are out, through negotiation and friendly settlement, to endeavour to assist China in her real difficulties, to establish a stable Government, and in so doing to improve the trade of the world.
I do not think I have anything further to say except that Lord Marley, I think,
34
suggested there was some readiness on the part of the Shanghai Municipal Council to take it for granted that Japan would necessarily come into control of that Municipality. Our information is that while the Municipal Council would welcome some further Japanese participation, it does not intend to fall under the control of Japan, whose interests are less than those of several other countries. In regard to the suggestion for a conference, and preferably a League Conference, may I remind the noble Lord that Japan, unfortunately, is no longer a member of the League, and anything that is put forward on behalf of the League perhaps gets a much less favourable hearing from Japan than if the League is not brought into it.
LORD MARLEY: May I venture to remind the noble Earl that I did suggest that both Japan and the United States, neither of whom is a member of the League, might be invited to participate in such a conference?
EARL STANHOPE: But that would probably have to come as an invitation from outside the League rather than from inside the League, and such an invitation, I suggest, would be more likely to be welcome by both those countries. At this moment we have hardly reached the position of coming to a conference. We are still endeavouring to see how we can get further agreement, and I am sure the noble Lord opposite will agree, that nothing is more fatal than to call a conference when you have not done a great deal of preparatory work and satisfied yourself that there is more than a reasonable chance of arriving at a satisfactory solution. A conference which fails is worse than no conference at all. Subject to that, I think I can agree generally with everything that the noble Lord opposite has said. I am quite certain of this, that all Parties in your Lordships' House will be agreed that, in the interest of this country, the policy which we should pursue, and which, indeed, is being pursued, is that of friendship with Japan, and that we should endeavour to assist China in any way that we can to enable her once more to gain a position in which she is able to trade satisfactorily and widely with all countries.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for his answer. I am glad that he denied that he had accepted Lord Newton's recipe for Government policy, to wait and see, but it did strike me that some elements of it had a strong resemblance to that particular policy. I may, however, have been wrong. But I should like to add this. The noble Earl told us that there were numbers of incidents of various kinds of unfair treatment of our nationals, and things which made it extremely difficult to come to an arrangement with Japan. The whole point of the position that I put before your Lordships was that these irritabilities, if I may so call them, in Japan are very largely due perhaps to the fact that we and other countries have not sufficiently recognised the position of Japan and her status. If we could approach the matter in a large way, as it were, and deal with these matters, I believe that these minor things would disappear. We have had now the policies to which I alluded. I think Japan is trying really to approach us and suggest a general agreement on broad lines, and it would be a great pity if the moment was not seized. I hope that by waiting the Government will not lose the opportunity of coming to a general arrangement with Japan on all these matters. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Agreements for subsidising air transport]:
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): The Amendment to this clause down in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out (" (if any) as may be ") and insert ("as may have been").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Delegation of certain functions of Secretary of State as respects civil aviation.
2.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for delegating to a body appearing to him to be so constituted as to consist of—

(a) persons substantially representative of the interests concerned with civil aviation (and in particular of operators, constructors and insurers of aircraft), and

(b) at least one person appointed by the Secretary of State as being an independent person,

such of the administrative functions of the Secretary of State with respect to the matters to which this subsection applies as may be specified in the order, and for entrusting to that body such advisory functions in connection with any of the said matters as may be so specified; and an order under this section may direct that any fees for the time being prescribed by an Order in Council under Part I of the principal Act in relation to matters with respect to which functions are delegated under this section to such a body as aforesaid, shall be paid to, and may be retained by, that body:
Provided that any such body as aforesaid shall be so constituted as to include among its members at least one person who has had not less than five years' professional experience as a pilot of civil aircraft.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
"(b) two persons appointed by the Secretary of State, one as being an independent person and the other as being a person who has had not less than five years' professional experience as a pilot of civil aircraft."
The noble Viscount said: This is almost in the nature of a drafting Amendment. Provision was inserted in another place that this proposed board should have upon it two members, one an independent member appointed by the Secretary of State, another a person with practical experience as a civil pilot. Both these, if I may say so, are improvements in the constitution of this body, and this Amendment gives a more convenient effect to what I think is the general intention.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to omit the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, leave out lines 12 to 15.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 2, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask a question on Clause 2? I believe that in the Second Reading debate on this Bill the noble Viscount said something about what this body was going to be called, but it does not appear in the Bill. Can the noble Viscount enlighten the Committee on this?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think I gave any such intimation; at least I do not remember that I did, and, indeed, I do not think any decision had been arrived at as to what it should be called. I do not think its name matters very much. What does matter is its functions, but I shall have an opportunity of communicating its name to the House because an Order has to be laid when the board is constituted. We can give it its title then.
LORD STRABOLGI: It will have to have a name, of course?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, it will have a name.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Information as to air transport undertakings and use of customs aerodromes.
(2) An Order in Council under this section may provide for imposing on any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of the Order such penalties (not exceeding a fine of twenty pounds and a further fine of five pounds for every day on which the contravention or non-compliance continues) as may he specified in the Order.
(3) No information with respect to any particular undertaking which has been obtained by virtue of an Order in Council under this section shall, without the consent of the person carrying on that undertaking, be disclosed otherwise than in connection with the execution of this section or of such an Order, and if any person discloses any such information in contravention of this subsection, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such
38
imprisonment and such fine or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "imposing on" and insert "rendering." The noble Viscount said: I have three Amendments down to this clause and they are in the nature of drafting Amendments. The object of the first two Amendments is to make it clear that all penalties shall be imposed on summary conviction. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, ("imposing on") and insert ("rendering").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The third Amendment of the noble Viscount is, I think, correct, if I may say so, and I shall be glad to accept it. The other two Amendments, I understand, are unnecessary, and would be rather irregular, because, under the Act of 1920, the Order provides that these matters should be dealt with on summary conviction. Similarly the Order will provide in the present case that they should be dealt with on summary conviction. I do not think it would be appropriate to put "summary conviction" in the body of the clause. I therefore ask my noble friend if he would withdraw the first two Amendments on my assurance that any Order in future will, like Orders under the Act of 1920, deal with this matter. But the third Amendment, I think, is an improvement and ought to be included.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It is a small matter and I do not propose to press the first two Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg to move the third Amendment, to insert the words "after conviction therefor" in subsection (2) after "continues."
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 11, after ("continues") insert ("after conviction therefor").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "of this section or." The noble Viscount said: I ought to give a word of explanation upon this. This Amendment is rendered necessary by

39
a recent decision of the Courts in a case of Rowell versus Pratt. We were always under the assumption that when a provision was inserted that information collected by Statute was to be treated as confidential, that information would in fact be confidential unless there were proceedings under the clause under which the information was given. But the Courts decided that, if Parliament wished to protect the confidential character of that information and to prevent it being made public in ordinary civil proceedings, Parliament must so provide. I think we are all agreed that we do desire that information of this kind which is given by the firms should be treated as confidential, and I am advised that in view of the decision of the Courts this arrangement is necessary in order to give effect to the intention of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("of this section or").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg to move that the words printed on the Paper be inserted, to add to subsection (3).
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 26, at end insert:
"Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the disclosure of any information for the purposes of any legal proceedings which may be taken by virtue of this subsection or of an Order in Council made under this section, or for the purpose of any report of any such proceedings, but, save as aforesaid, the restriction imposed by this subsection shall, in relation to any legal proceedings (including arbitrations), extend so as to prohibit and prevent any person who is in possession of any such information so obtained from disclosing, and from being required by any court or arbitrator to disclose, that information (whether as a witness or otherwise) except with the consent of the person carrying on the undertaking to which the information relates."—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Licensing of air transport and commercial flying]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I suppose the noble Viscount will also object to my proposed Amendment, to insert "on summary conviction" after "penalties"?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In that case I will not move.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Power of local authorities to carry on businesses in connection with aerodromes provided by them.
12.—(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied, with respect to any aerodrome provided by a local authority under Section eight of the principal Act, that it is necessary or expedient that the local authority should be empowered to carry on in connection with the aerodrome any particular business, being a business which appears to him to be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome, but which the authority would not otherwise have power to carry on, he may make an order authorising that local authority, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the order, to carry on that business in connection with the aerodrome.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, in subsection (1), after the first paragraph, to insert:
"Provided that before making any such order the Secretary of State shall take into consideration any objections which may be made by any company or person who is able and willing to carry on such ancillary business at the aerodrome on being granted by the local authority reasonable facilities for access to the aerodrome for that purpose including if need be the right to erect or use for a period of years suitable and convenient buildings and equipment."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment on the Paper is, I submit, one of importance. If your Lordships will look at Clause 12 you will see that subsection (1) says that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient that the local authority should be empowered to carry on an ancillary business in connection with the aerodrome which they have provided and which they work, he may by order allow them to operate that ancillary service at the aerodrome. The ancillary business may be a shop for spare parts or, much more likely, it may be an hotel.
In the past strong exception has been taken to municipal trading at the expense of the ratepayers, but in this case perhaps one cannot stress that point as we are dealing with municipal enterprise. I submit, however, that it is grossly unfair to private enterprise that the Secretary of State should not be compelled to take into consideration

41
tenders put forward by private enterprise as well as the proposals put forward by the municipality. All I am asking is fair play for both municipal enterprise and private enterprise. I shall be glad if the noble Viscount when he replies will indicate exactly what subsection (1) means. It is a little ambiguous. It seems to me that under that subsection he is either empowered to allow a municipality to build and erect an hotel, or to build and erect a repair shop, or he is empowered to say that he does not think they are fit to do it. My Amendment says in effect that the Secretary of State shall choose between the several tenderers or the people who want to do the work, whether it is a question of municipal enterprise or private enterprise, and that with him should rest the decision whether the municipality who owns the aerodrome or some private firm should conduct these ancillary services.
May I draw the noble Viscount's special attention to an answer given by the Minister of Health in reply to a question in another place? The Minister said:
"There are no specific powers in the general law enabling local authorities to erect hotels or to maintain them. Moreover, no local authority has, to our knowledge, specific powers to this end in a local Act. The only case in which such powers have been sought, according to our records, is that of the Bridlington Bill of 1904. The provisions appear to have been withdrawn by the promoters."
Accordingly the Government statement was that local authorities so far have not had power given them to run an hotel. Let me summarise what I want. My Amendment may be ill drawn, I do not know, but I submit that in fairness to private enterprise as well as to municipal enterprise the Secretary of State should be empowered to choose from the various people who tender for work on the aerodromes and to choose the best. In present circumstances it seems to me he is only empowered to give municipal enterprise a chance and private enterprise is entirely cut out.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Mount Temple.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am glad that my noble friend has raised this point, because it gives me an opportunity of
42
making rather plainer than I could in the Second Reading debate what is the purpose of this clause. It is not, as your Lordships might suppose from reading the clause for the first time, a clause which gives some new power to local authorities. It is on the contrary a limiting clause on the powers of local authorities as they exist to-day. I think I did explain in the Second Reading debate that under the old Act a local authority which wished to conduct an ancillary business upon a municipal aerodrome had to go to the Secretary of State for permission to do so, but the clause was drafted in a very curious form, or at any rate it had, as I thought, a very curious effect. Once authority had been given to a municipality anywhere to conduct a particular kind of ancillary business on an aerodrome, that automatically became authority for every municipality in the country which had an aerodrome to conduct a similar business on that aerodrome quite irrespective of whether it was necessary or desirable. There is no question of working hotels, and I do not suppose there is ever likely to be, but I might give this example. Three municipal aerodromes sell oil and petrol at the present time.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: And have repair shops?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, no municipal aerodrome has a repair shop. All repair shops are conducted by private enterprise by arrangement with the municipalities, a much more practical arrangement. There are three which sell oil and petrol. The first authority which applied got a licence to do so. Automatically some thirty or thirty-five municipalities which own aerodromes secured a similar right. I thought that was wrong and that each one should make application and each case should be decided on its merits. Therefore this clause, so far from giving any new power to local authorities, will in fact limit the powers local authorities have under the present law. If I may say so, I think it would be a mistake to put in this Amendment. I think it would tend to limit the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. Your Lordships will know that it is rather a dangerous thing to put into an Act of Parliament that one thing must be considered. There is the old legal maxim Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. It

43
is rather dangerous to say that one particular thing must be considered, because it may be held afterwards that it is only that thing or something of the same kind that may be considered. It is the duty of the Secretary of State under the clause as it stands to consider what facilities there are and what are the merits of the case.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Private enterprise as well as municipal enterprise.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Let me be plain. I am sure my noble friend would not read into this clause a compulsion laid upon the Secretary of State to give a local authority permission to erect an hotel on their premises. That obviously would require very special legislation. But if a local authority said: "We want to erect an hotel upon an aerodrome," and there was a perfectly good hotel available at the door of the aerodrome, I should most certainly feel it my duty to say—and I should consult the Minister of Health on the subject—that there was no reason why the municipality should go and erect an hotel, and that it had not been the habit of Parliament to give municipalities power to erect hotels. I should certainly refuse, such an application unless it was very plain, and the Minister of Health and I both agreed, that in the interests of travellers you had to have an hotel upon the aerodrome and there was no other hotel available. Therefore I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment, because I want the Secretary of State to have not only the power but the duty to consider all the circumstances of the case. The very clause itself exists because I wish to have the opportunity of considering any municipality's application on its merits and to limit the general right of municipalities as at present. Having said that, I hope that we may leave the clause as it stands, though I am very glad that my noble friend has raised the matter in order that I might make the position plain.
LORD STRABOLGI: The London County Council has communicated with my noble friend the Earl of Listowel on this matter, and he has asked me to put their point of view, which entirely supports that of the noble Viscount. They do not like the clause entirely as it stands. It is not altogether satisfactory,
44
it is a compromise; they have not got all they want. They are, however, very much opposed to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple. May I put this consideration to your Lordships also? We want to encourage municipal authorities to go to the great expense of creating aerodromes, and they want to have control over those aerodromes. Is it not far better for a municipality, where it can do so without injury to local interests, to provide the ancillary services and have decent, tidy, ordered arrangements, as they would have? I put it to your Lordships that that is an argument, and I must say that I think the noble Viscount has stated the matter with regard to the hotel difficulty absolutely fairly.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I am afraid I am a very innocent person. When I heard the speech of my noble friend the Minister for Air I thought he made out a case, and a very fair case; but directly Lord Strabolgi gets up and says he agrees with him, I begin to suspect that there may be more in it than meets the eye! However, I would rather, I think, give greater weight to a Government declaration, and especially to one coming from the Front Bench. May I say that I thank the noble Viscount very much for what he has said; he has perfectly explained the situation, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Trespassing at licensed aerodromes]:
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to add to the clause:
"And provided that reasonable access by a trade union official or by a reasonable number of trade union officials for purposes connected with trade union duty is not refused."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one that I ventured to foreshadow in our debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, will support me by returning good for evil after our recent experience. The wording is in reference to Clause 13, which deals with trespassers. Your Lordships will observe that any person trespassing on a licensed aerodrome shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5. Then comes a proviso with regard to notices having

45
been previously displayed. I submit to your Lordships, that we should have a second proviso:
"And provided that reasonable access by a trade union official or by a reasonable number of trade union officials for purposes connected with trade union duty is not refused."
This is the old contest that our grandfathers witnessed between the railway companies and the unions, which was fought out to a happy conclusion and to everyone's satisfaction after a great deal of loss and trouble.
We are in certain cases getting, I understand, a revival in modern form of that old trouble. Certain of the aerodrome authorities are objecting to their workmen and their employees belonging to a union. They are treating trade union officials of registered trade unions as trespassers, and it is believed that they may in some cases use the powers given under this Bill to act rather unfairly. These particular words may not be altogether acceptable from the draftsman's point of view, and I am quite prepared to substitute any words that would be accepted by the Secretary of State for Air. This is, however, the intention: it is a saving clause to allow men who are doing a duty which is recognised by the State reasonable access to an aerodrome. I am sure the Secretary of State will be sympathetic to the idea behind the Amendment and, as I say, if the wording presents any difficulty I shall be only too glad to arrange any different wording that might make the Amendment acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 5, at end insert:
("And provided that reasonable access by a trade union official or by a reasonable number of trade union officials for purposes connected with trade union duty is not refused.)."—(Lord Strabolgi.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am afraid I could not possibly ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment. Indeed, it strikes me as being a very extraordinary one. What is the object of this clause? It is to make it an offence to trespass upon a licensed aerodrome. That is done not chiefly in the interests of the aerodrome but, as I explained on the Second Beading, in the interests of the public at large, exactly as you
46
make it an offence for people to trespass on a railway line. I think it is probably a much more dangerous thing to trespass on an aerodrome. The machines are much faster.
LORD ELTISLEY: They are up in the air.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: They can come down, and they do not keep to the rails; you really have to mind your step very much. That is the whole object of putting in this clause, and I think your Lordships will agree that it is a very reasonable provision in the interests of the public. But now the noble Lord says: "Let us put in a proviso to this clause that, if a man happens to be a member of a trade union, he may go upon an aerodrome."
LORD STRABOLGI: Not a member; an official of a trade union.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: An official of a trade union, or a reasonable number of trade union officials, may go there for purposes of their trade. If we were going to deal with this matter at all it would have to be dealt with by general labour legislation. It would obviously be quite out of place to put in a special provision that trade union officials were not to be guilty of trespass if they went on to an aerodrome. No municipality or aerodrome owner in its senses is going to deal with trade union matters in this way so as to cause any difficulty. The proper method of dealing with a thing of this kind is by good will and common sense, and I suggest that it would be quite out of place, in a clause the sole object of which is to make an aerodrome a safe place for the public at large, that we should introduce some special labour provision for members or officials of trade unions. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Viscount knows perfectly well that in this matter—there is a very small Opposition in this House—I am entirely in his hands. I do not, however, think it is necessary for him to misrepresent the meaning of the proposed Amendment, even if he does not agree with it. The wording is that they should have reasonable access for trade union duty. The noble Viscount twists that, if I may so express it, by saying: "Oh, that means that if a man is a trade unionist"—first of all, and

47
afterwards if he is a trade union official—"he can wander all over the aerodrome." That is not the intention at all. This clause includes buildings and everything else, and you are going to have difficulty. This is a new industry, and always in new industries this difficulty has to be met; there is always the trouble of the open and closed shop.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is no provision, in the ordinary law affecting railway companies, laying down that trade union officials may have access to the property of railway companies on special occasions.
LORD STRABOLGI: And how much trouble and discussion we had with railway companies over this very thing! There was very prolonged trouble, prolonged contests and strikes, in the railway industry over this matter. However, I am inclined to avoid trouble, and I do not propose to press this Amendment if the noble Viscount will not accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Indication of presence of obstructions near aerodromes.
14.—(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied, with respect to any building, structure or erection in the vicinity of an aerodrome to which this section applies that, in order to avoid danger to aircraft flying in that vicinity in darkness or conditions or poor visibility, provision ought to be made (whether by lighting or otherwise) for giving to such aircraft warning of the presence of that building, structure or erection, he may by order authorise (subject to any conditions specified in the order) the proprietor of the aerodrome, and any person acting under the proprietor's instructions—

(a) to execute, instal, maintain, operate and, as occasion requires, to repair and alter such works and apparatus as may he necessary for enabling such warning to be given in the manner specified in the order; and

(b) so far as may be necessary for exercising any of the powers conferred by the order to enter upon and pass over (with or without vehicles) any such land as may be specified in the order:

Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any building, structure or erection if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been made, and are being carried out, satisfactory arrangements for the giving of such warning as aforesaid of the presence of the building, structure or erection.
(2) Every such order as aforesaid shall provide for requiring the proprietor of the aerodrome to which the order relates to pay to any person having an interest in any land affected by the order such compensation in respect of any damage which that person may suffer as a consequence of the order as may, in default of agreement, be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice.
(3) The ownership of anything shall not be taken to be affected by reason only that it is placed in, or affixed to, any land in pursuance of such an order as aforesaid; and (subject to the provisions of the next following subsection) so long as any such order in respect of an aerodrome is in force, no person shall, except with the consent of the proprietor of the aerodrome, remove, alter or interfere with any works executed, or thing placed, in, on or over any land in pursuance of the order.
If any person contravenes the preceding provisions of this subsection, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine; and every person who obstructs a person in the exercise of any of the powers conferred by such an order as aforesaid, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(4) Nothing in the last preceding sub section shall operate, in relation to any building, structure or erection, so as to restrict the making of any repairs or alterations of the building, structure or erection, provided that—

(a) notice of the making of the repairs or alterations is given as soon as may be to the proprietor of the aerodrome, and

(b) the giving of warning of the presence of the building, structure or erection in the manner provided by any order under this section in force in relation thereto is not interrupted.

(5) Any order under this section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order made by the Secretary of State, but the revocation or variation of any such order shall not affect the previous operation thereof.
THK EARL OF RADNOR THK EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "may" ["he may by order"], to insert "after giving notice in writing to the owner (or his agent) and the occupier of any such building structure or erection or the land upon which the same are situate of his intention to make on order under this section and considering any representations made by such persons within such period as may be specified in the notice." The noble Earl said: Before I get down to the details of this Amendment, perhaps I might be allowed to say a word in excuse

49
of the number of Amendments I have put down on this clause. As your Lordships will have noticed, there are a very large number of Amendments. I think I am right when I say that this clause was put into the Bill in another place on the Report stage and that there was never a proper opportunity for its full examination there. It is therefore very necessary that your Lordships should look into it with even greater care than usual.
The first Amendment which stands in my name provides that notice should be given in writing to the owner or his agent when any order is made. I think it speaks for itself. As a matter of fact the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has an Amendment on much the same line as mine later on, and Lord Eltisley also has an Amendment which covers very much the same ground, but I think I like mine better, because it is considerably shorter. If, however, the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will assure me that he will incorporate in those two subsequent Amendments words that are necessary, I should not want to press my Amendment further.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 13, after ("may") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think I can save time over this. Certainly Lord Radnor need make no excuses for putting his Amendment down. This clause was put in finally on Report in another place, and I think that the fact that I have adopted nearly all of his Amendments shows what a great help he has been. This Amendment is, I think, entirely met by my Amendment on the next page, at line 31—to insert a new subsection after subsection (1). These Amendments cover exactly the same point, and they have been rather carefully considered by the Parliamentary draftsman. I also propose when I come to it to make an arrangement with Lord Eltisley. I think I accept the principle of his Amendment which follows at page 13, line 31. That Amendment would seek really to require two things: firstly, that notice should be given to the landowner; and secondly, that any objection which the landowner makes should be taken note of and if the matter is not settled amicably there should be an appeal to the Secretary of State. I think those are both proper provisions which ought to
50
be inserted. I have had drafted by the Parliamentary draftsman proper provisions to go in to give effect to both of them, but I think it would be more convenient if I did not move a manuscript Amendment. Therefore I undertake to put down on Report an Amendment in proper form giving effect to the provisions which stand in the name of Lord Eltisley. If, however, I am asked whether I will give an undertaking with regard to the proviso relating to liability my answer must be emphatically No. As to Lord Radnor's first Amendment, it would be convenient if his first Amendment were withdrawn and then he could move his proviso at a later stage as an Amendment to my Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The proviso is really a separate Amendment, and I propose to move it as such, but in view of what the noble Viscount has said I will withdraw the first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"Provided that neither the owner nor the occupier of any land upon which entry is made shall be under any liability for any injury sustained by any person entering or being upon such land in pursuance of any such order."
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to which I attach a certain amount of importance. Under this clause of the Bill the employees of an aerodrome are entitled, or will be entitled, to go over anybody's land wherever it may be necessary, or thought to be necessary, to place some form of navigation light or warning for aeroplanes, and in fact such employee becomes a legalised trespasser. The noble Viscount admittedly has later on an Amendment which provides, I think, for statutory undertakings only, that three days' notice he given, except in emergencies, but even so the man is allowed to go on the land and he, in the course of his duty on behalf of the aerodrome, may suffer injury or death.
He or his dependants will then have two alternatives. He or they may proceed against the employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or he or they can proceed against the owner of the land—from whichever it is thought the most compensation can be obtained. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act

51
the compensation is limited in amount, but if the man proceeds against the owner of the land he can prosecute for damages at large. Naturally, in his own interests, he would do so, and the landowner can do nothing to prevent him from coming on his land. It affects possibly the ordinary landowner less than most people, but one must remember that emergencies would always occur at night, and a man wandering across country might fall into a pit or get on barbed wire in the darkness. When you come to statutory undertakings, such as the Electricity Board and the railway companies, the danger becomes much more apparent. There will be the high power electric lines and the railway trains, especially now that they are electrified, and it is difficult to see how any of these people can be reasonably expected to take such steps as make it certain that these individuals wandering across their land will not suffer injury or death in any emergency that may arise.
I would like to make it quite clear that by this Amendment I do not propose in any way to reduce the protection that the ordinary working man has now under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He will still have that protection. There are, I think, considerable difficulties of a legal nature in it. I am inclined to think that there will be objections, especially in view of what the noble Viscount said just now, to this Amendment, but I think it is a matter which needs careful consideration. One must remember that the ordinary trespasser has no claim against the landowner if he trespasses. The landowner must not entice him into danger or set traps for him, but if he trespasses without anything happening to him he has no claim against the landowner. But in this case the man will be in the same position as any trespasser and he may suffer injury, and he may, and quite likely will, claim against the landowner as being the individual from whom he could get most money. I understand there was a conference with the Ministry on one side and all the statutory undertakers on the other side, and that certain Amendments were agreed upon provisionally, all of which are incorporated in the Bill with the exception of the one which indemnifies the landowner against claims of this nature. I do not know who it was who objected to it, because I believe that in the original it was drafted
52
by the Air Ministry's advisers, and presumably therefore they approved of it. There must be other Ministries which have stepped in and objected. I should very much like to know who those people are and what the objections are, because I think there is considerable danger not only to statutory undertakers but also to the ordinary landowner.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I have been asked by the Public Utilities Association most strongly to support the Amendment. It seems to me to be a perfect outrage that one public body, the Air Ministry, should ride roughshod over other public bodies. The great electricity, gas, and water undertakings equally have a locus from Parliament, their activities are laid down, their prices are fixed, and they are just as much entitled to protection from Parliament as this newfangled Ministry. The people we are talking about are licensed trespassers. It is quite right that they should be allowed to go there, because we want to safeguard the property of those who fly and to make aerodromes safe. But I cannot understand the attitude of the Ministry, unless it has been overborne by some other Ministry—possibly the Treasury, which is always the nigger in the wood pile—in refusing to shoulder the liability for their servants when they trespass on somebody else's property.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: They would not be my servants.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Well, whose servants?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The municipalities'.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I accept the correction. They are the servants of a private company or a municipality. Anyhow they have a right to go on the property of the water company or gas company in order to save the rights of persons who fly. But surely when you have power to trespass on people's land, possibly doing damage to water towers or gasometers, the least you can do is to shoulder the responsibility for the damage done to that land; and to say to the great undertakers, including railway

53
companies and land owners, "You are liable for the damage done to this licensed trespasser," seems to me quite unfair. It may be said that in Common Law a trespasser on somebody else's land can get compensation if he is hurt. If that is so, surely the best way is that the aerodrome authority should pay for wayleaves, so that the undertaking whose property is trespassed on would have an income and could then insure against possible loss.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should like to support the general principle of this Amendment, but I think it is drafted a little too widely. It might well be accepted by the Government if after the word "sustained," the words were inserted "except such injury as is occasioned by his wilful default or neglect."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Air Ministry has no personal or financial interest in this matter at all. In no circumstances can any servant or employee of the Air Ministry be involved in this matter. The people who will be involved are the employees of the municipality or other aerodrome owner. I have been at great pains to get the highest legal advice I can as to what the effect of this proviso would be and how, if at all, it would alter the Common Law. I am advised that this Amendment would make a complete revolution in the Common Law of England and in the liability of statutory undertakers and others, and the strongest possible exception is taken to it by every Government Department which has any statutory duty to perform. It is right that I should say that. At Common Law if a person is entitled as of right to be present on any premises, the owner of the premises is under the same duty to him as if he were an invitee, that is, the owner is bound to use reasonable care to prevent damage to the entrant from unusual danger or to warn him of that danger. That is the law as laid down in a case in which the Great Western Railway were involved. But this Amendment goes even further, and it would relieve the owner or the statutory undertaker of all liability whatsoever. It would therefore actually put the man who goes in under the authority of the Act of Parliament on his lawful occasions in a worse position than an ordinary trespasser going upon the land.
54
The law I am advised is this. You must not encourage or track trespassers to a place where they are exposed, whether intentionally or not, to some specific danger of which you are cognisant—I do not think anybody is likely to do that—nor may you—and this seems more applicable to the ordinary person—when aware of the presence of trespassers, do any act which endangers their safety. I submit to your Lordships, on that statement of the law, which I am advised is an absolutely fair statement and which I do not think any lawyer in the House would challenge, that the proper course to adopt in this Bill is to leave the Common Law liability where it stands. Under that it would be the duty of the man going upon the land to use all reasonable care for his own safety and to make no unreasonable use of the premises, but where he sustained an injury in circumstances where the Common Law now puts a liability on the owner of the premises, the owner of the premises should not be relieved of that liability—in fact, we should leave the law of the incidence of liability exactly where it stands at present.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I had no intention, when drafting this Amendment, of altering the Common Law of trespass to the extent which the noble Viscount tells me the proposal would involve. I might point out that there is a difference between the ordinary trespasser and the employee of an aerodrome. The ordinary trespasser, if he injures himself in the course of his trespass, has no source of compensation other than the man on whose land he is trespassing. Therefore he must apply to him. The kind of man with whom we are dealing now has got workmen's compensation to fall back upon. He is not going to suffer. My point is that the landowner—all landowners—may be compelled to have this man on their land and to carry a liability whether they wish it or not. I am not going to suppose they are going to be unreasonable about it, but I can see the noble Viscount's difficulty. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Bertie for the suggestion he has made, and I think possibly one might find words to insert into this Amendment which might, if I may so put it, safeguard the Common Law position. In the circumstances I should prefer to withdraw this Amendment with a view to trying to find some

55
way out and of putting it down again on Report. I shall have to raise the question again in a more particular way when it comes to another Amendment I have on the Paper so far as railways are concerned, and by leave of the Committee I shall withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: As my noble friend Lord Radnor is going to put down the Amendment again on Report, would the noble Viscount allow two or three representatives from the big electricity, gas, and water companies to call at the Ministry and see one of his officials? They have some suggestion which they can make on this matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think I have done enough to show that I am trying to meet the public authorities in as reasonable a way as I can. I must say to your Lordships that this does raise an enormous question of principle. I am advised from all Departments and on the highest legal authority that if we give way in a public Act here and alter the Common Law liability, and your Lordships give the imprimatur of Parliament to that, you are in fact deciding a great question of principle. If we make this change here in the Common Law liability, then every single public utility undertaker in the country will have the right to come and review all the Acts of Parliament under which sanitary inspectors or anybody else has a statutory right, and to ask that the legal liability may be reviewed. I would take a single example. Take the case of a railway siding going through a steel works or a colliery. Everybody knows where the incidence of liability occurs there. If you were to change there the incidence of liability, you would raise the whole question of whether the railway company is not to be completely free of all liability, however negligent or careless it might be in respect of a siding of that kind. I am not being at all unreasonable about this. It does raise such an enormous question of principle that I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking, but I am perfectly prepared to discuss the matter again with all the Departments concerned.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble Viscount quoted the case of a railway siding at a colliery. A railway siding at a colliery is there to make money and convey coal. So far as this aerodrome
56
man is concerned, he is sent over somebody else's land in order to make money for his aerodrome. The landowner permits him to go, and he is willing in the interests of public safety that he should go, but he does not want him there in the least and he does not want to be put to any trouble or expense. But I shall try to find suitable words which may safeguard the Common Law position while at the same time safeguarding the landowners as they stand now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to insert after subsection (1):
"(2) The Secretary of State shall, before making any such order as aforesaid, cause to be published, in such manner as he thinks best for informing persons concerned, notice of the proposal to make the order and of the place where copies of the draft order may be obtained free of charge, and take into consideration any representations with respect to the order which may, within such period not being less than one month after the publication of the notice as may be specified therein, be made to him by any person appearing to him to have an interest in any land which would be affected by the order; and at the end of that period the order may, subject to the provisions of this section, be made with such modifications (if any) of the original draft as the Secretary of State thinks proper."
The noble Viscount said: I have explained the object of this Amendment. It is to give full notice, first of all, by publishing a draft order so that everybody may have an opportunity of knowing what is in the draft order, and I think it fair to couple with that the undertaking which I have given that I shall, on Report, put down an Amendment which will safeguard the points raised by my noble friend Lord Eltisley—namely, that there shall be notice of intention of carrying out the specific work by the authorised undertaker and an opportunity to make an objection to that work and for an appeal to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD ELTISLEY: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for the way in which he has met the substance of the two Amendments in my name which immediately follow this Amendment on the Marshalled List. My Amendments cover very much the same field and they

57
are put down at the instance of the County Councils' Association, which has conferred with the Municipal Corporations' Association. Both those important bodies are desirous that the points of these Amendments should be met. I would venture to plead for an extension of the time suggested—namely, of one month as contained in the noble Viscount's Amendment. I should like to see it increased to two months at any rate. It might well be that the local authority is on the eve of a vacation, and it may not be possible to get the personnel together to consider the particular matter in the narrow time limit of one month. May I say once more how grateful I am to the noble Viscount for his promise to deal with these two points?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I shall be very glad to agree to two months being substituted for one month, and I beg to move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment to proposed Amendment moved—
Line 8, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (2), after the second "order," to insert "such consideration in money in respect of the rights over such land conferred by the order and". The noble Earl said: This is, in fact, wayleaves. By this Bill the aerodrome proprietors, as we all realise, are going to have the right to go over other people's land, presumably also, if necessary, to lay electric cables and put lights, etc., on people's land. While there is very wide provision for compensation in case of loss or damage, there is no acknowledgment of the landowner's right of ownership. If you take any other undertakings, statutory or otherwise, you will always find wayleave agreements with, as a rule, an acknowledgment, and sometimes a rent in compensation for either the inconveniences or for the loss of privacy or for the depreciation of the value of the land owing to the right of the undertaker to go over it. There is no such provision in this Bill, yet these people will have the right to lay these lines, to go over the land, and, in fact, treat the land as though it was their own
58
without any acknowledgment to the owner of the land. I feel that something ought to be put into the Bill in order to establish the right of the owner to his land. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 35, after ("order") insert ("such consideration in money in respect of the rights over such land conferred by the order and").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment does not desire to make a profit out of this, as I understand him. I think that your Lordships will agree that the Amendments which I have put down, following some that the noble Earl himself has down, will ensure that any landowner will be completely indemnified against any possible loss or damage arising at any time when the light, or whatever it is, is put in, and at any time during its existence. I think it is common ground between us, therefore, that what he would wish to argue on behalf of the landowners would be a complete indemnification against any loss or damage, but he would not want the landowners to make money out of the putting in of what is a necessary provision for safety. If I may say so, that seems to me a very fair and proper line to take up, and one more characteristic of landlords than is sometimes said about them outside.
But the noble Earl really proposes this in order that the landowner may get some control over it, and in order that the landowner may get an acknowledgment of his rights of property. I would think, with respect, that that was completely assured to him by the considerable formalities which have to be gone through before any action can be taken. What has to happen? First of all an application has to be made to the Secretary of State. Then he has to consider the matter and make a draft order. Then the landowner has to be served with notice of what is required to be done. If the landowner objects to anything that is proposed an appeal lies to the Secretary of State. There is provision for independent assessment of compensation for any damage. I would suggest that really with all these formalities at each stage of the proceedings the right of the landowner in his property is in fact emphasised, but, as it is common ground between us that he does not wish to make a profit but merely wants to emphasise

59
the legal position of the landowner, I suggest on consideration that that is adequately done by the process to which I have alluded.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: In view of that full reply I do not think there is any point in my Amendment. I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 36, after ("any") insert ("loss or").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF BADNOR THE EARL OF BADNOR had an Amendment to subsection (2) on the Paper—after "suffer," insert "or of any expenses which he may reasonably incur." The noble Earl said: I think this is covered by the noble Viscount's Amendment to line 39, to add certain words to subsection (2). Therefore I do not move it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (2), after "determine," to insert "from time to time." The noble Viscount said: If your Lordships have read the words of this and the following Amendment which appear on the Paper, you will see that they do state very fully all possible lines of damage which the owners can suffer either at the beginning, or in the course of the maintenance of the safety appliances, or when they are finally taken away. I think they cover completely all actionable or contingent damage and they have been devised for that purpose.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 38, after ("determined") insert ("from time to time").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to subsection (2):
"and for the purposes of this subsection, any expense reasonably incurred in connection with the lawful removal of any apparatus installed in pursuance of such an order, and so much of any expense incurred in connection with the repair, alteration, demolition or removal of any building, structure or erection to which such an order relates as is attributable to the operation of the order, shall be deemed to be loss or damage suffered as a consequence of the order."
60
The noble Viscount said: I have already explained this Amendment in moving the preceding one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "remove, alter or interfere with any works executed, or thing," and insert "wilfully interfere with any works or things which, to the knowledge of that person, are works or things executed or." The noble Viscount said: I move this in order to make sure that a person who is interfering without knowledge shall not be liable. It is to meet the same point as that about which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, had an Amendment with regard to "knowingly." We shall get the words "wilfully interfere with" and "to the knowledge of that person," inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 4, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("placed") in line 5 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for moving this Amendment and the Amendment which comes later and is supplementary to the Marshalled list of Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (3), before "obstruct," to insert "wilfully." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment has already been explained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, after ("who") insert ("wilfully").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "the last preceding subsection" and insert "this section." The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 16, leave out ("the last preceding subsection") and insert ("this section").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I accept this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I move my Amendment to subsection (4) in order to make the matter clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 18, leave out ("making of any repairs or alterations of") and insert ("doing of any work for the purpose of repairing, altering, demolishing or removing.")—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will put the question that "making of any repairs" stand part in order to safeguard the Amendment which follows of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, to insert "extensions" after "repairs."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I understand that this word is unnecessary because the point is covered by the words I have just moved "any work for the purpose of repairing, altering, demolishing or removing." Alteration would necessarily include extension.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think that is probably so and therefore I will not move my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved in subsection (4), before "provided that", to insert "or any alteration in the use to which it is put." The noble Earl said: This I think is rather different. It is only a small point. I take it that the object of the subsection is to ensure that there should be no interference with the user of the land, but there is no provision made for alteration in the use to which it is put.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 19, after ("erection") insert ("or any alteration in the use to which it is put").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This point is intended to be covered, and I understand is in fact covered, by the words put in about the alteration of the premises. However, I will ask the draftsman to consider it and if there is any doubt as to whether the noble Earl's point is covered I will undertake to move an Amendment on Report. We do not want to put in words that are superfluous.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: In that case I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("making of the repairs or alterations") and insert ("doing of that work").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (5), after "State", to insert "in accordance with the provisions of this section". The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, after ("State") insert ("in accordance with the provisions of this section").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"( ) The following provisions shall have effect for the protection of statutory undertakers:—

(a) any order made under this section affecting any property held by such undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking shall he so framed as to avoid interference with the proper carrying on of the undertaking;

(b) no person shall, except in a case of emergency, enter, in pursuance of such an order, upon any land held by such undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking, unless he has given to the undertakers at least three clear days' notice of his intention so to do, and any person so entering on any such land shall comply with any reasonable directions given to him by or on behalf of the undertakers for preventing interference with the proper carrying on of the undertaking."

The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment of substances. It includes two provisions which I would ask your Lordships to insert in the interests of statutory undertakings. The first is that any order affecting property held by such undertakers shall be so framed as to avoid interference with the proper carrying on of the undertaking, and the second is that no person except in case of emergency shall enter in pursuance of such an order upon the undertaker's land, even when he has a right to do so, without giving three clear days' notice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 30, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice of the following Amendment to the proposed Amendment:
After paragraph (b) to insert:
"(c) railway undertakers shall not be liable for any injury sustained by any person while, in pursuance of any such order, he is on any lines of rails belonging to the undertakers or on any land immediately adjoining any such lines of rails."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment to the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount is intended to protect railway undertakers from the financial consequences of a person being injured on their line. Railway undertakers are in a rather different position from ordinary landowners or from other statutory undertakers. In ordinary law, I understand, there is no right to prosecute for trespass and you cannot get a conviction unless you can prove damage; you can only get an injunction. Railway companies have been marked out for special treatment in this matter by reason of the dangers connected with their undertaking. They can prosecute for trespass without proving damage and get a conviction, and that provision, I notice, is incorporated in this Bill so far as aerodromes are concerned.
As your Lordships will realise, railway companies are in a peculiar position. It is very difficult for them to take any steps without interfering with their trains running to ensure the safety of these men if they get across the railway lines. It is very difficult for them to prevent these men from doing that and in fact they cannot do so without interfering with the running of trains which they are under statutory obligation to run for the public convenience. Therefore I think they have a special case which entitles them to ask to be relieved of liability. It is all very well for the noble Viscount to say that aeroplanes go very fast, but when landing on an aerodrome, the majority at least do not go faster than railway trains. A train may travel at seventy or eighty miles an hour and most aeroplanes land at forty to sixty miles an hour. It is a very dangerous thing for the uninstructed to cross a railway line, and there have been quite a number of trespassers on railway lines who have been killed. Railway companies are not liable to pay compensation in such cases. Whenever a railway company grants a wayleave or grants permission for men to go across their
64
lines in the course of their duty there is an indemnity embodied in the agreement and railway companies do not have to pay compensation in the event of a man being killed or injured. Although the noble Viscount did not like my Amendment covering all landowners, I hope he will look on this as a special case in view of the peculiar situation of the railway companies and accept this Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
After paragraph (b) insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: Before the noble Viscount replies I should like to ask whether he has considered the position of other statutory undertakers, such as electricity and gas companies, because they are very much affected by this clause. If there was any interference with overhead wires or gas holders which led to accidents, they would be affected in the same way as if an accident happened on railway property. I hope the noble Viscount has taken that into consideration.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am afraid I do not like this any better than the other Amendment, in spite of the very able advocacy of my noble friend. I notice that he draws a distinction between himself as a railway director and himself as a landowner, and asks that better treatment should be given to the railway company. I really have replied already to this Amendment. The case put forward is that railway companies are in a very special position. Railway law, as I understand it, was laid down in a case to which the Great Western Railway, my noble friend's own line, was a party. I quite agree that if a concession could be made, there is no reason for giving it to railway companies and not to all statutory undertakings, but for the reasons I gave when dealing with the noble Earl's earlier Amendment I must resist this. If I accepted it, then in fairness I should have to include all statutory undertakers. We should be completely reversing the Common Law, as laid down, of the mutual obligation as between statutory undertakers and the general public. If I may say so, the railways are not in a special position. It is quite true that there is a notice saying that you must not trespass upon

65
the railway and that if you do you are liable to be fined forty shillings, and it is quite true that the same provision is inserted here in regard to the aerodrome owners, but both those provisions are in the interests of the general public. Just as I am not asking for any special privileges for the aerodrome owner on his aerodrome, or any special exemption from liability for a municipality which owns an aerodrome—I do not think it ought to have it—so I am bound, for the reasons which I gave before, to ask your Lordships not to press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Of course, I am not asking in this for any exemption for the railway company so far as the ordinary trespasser is concerned. I made that point before. The ordinary trespasser has to take his chance, and the railway company can deal with him, and does, as occasion necessitates. But here is somebody over whom they have no control, or very little control, who may be compelled to go on their lines, and against whose possible injury there are really no steps which they can take short of stopping their trains, which, as the noble Viscount can imagine, is in fact quite impossible, especially on a busy line.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: But you are not asked to do that. I am quite sure that that is not the law. The law is that everybody has to behave reasonably, and it would be utterly unreasonable for the aerodrome owner to expect any train on the line to be stopped because a man was going to do a job of work. That is not the law as laid down by the Courts.
THE EARL OP RADNOR: Take, for example, an electrified line in the suburban area. It would be necessary, when this man goes there, first of all to have a man waiting to see that he did not tread on the third rail and be electrocuted, and probably also to have another man on one side at a little distance away with the necessary red and green flags, to ensure that he crossed the line at the right moment. He is going to pay for that expense. I think there is a case for the railway undertakers. I think there is a case for all the statutory undertakers which should be conceded by the Government, and I think that I must test the feeling of your Lordships by going to a Division.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be inserted in the proposed new subsection?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Falmouth, V.

Lawrence, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Marley, L.

Grey, E.

Ullswater, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Midleton, E.

Palmer, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Berwick, L.

Phillimore, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Cranworth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Hastings, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halifax, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Plymouth, E.

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

Rothes, E.

Gorell, L.

Northumberland, D.

Sandwich, E.

Hampton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Heneage, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Stradbroke, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Zetland, M.

Jessel, L.

Brentford, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Airlie, E.

Swinton, V.

Remnant, L.

Amherst, E.

Trenchard, V.

Rennell, L.

Bathurst, E.

St. Levan, L.

Bradford, E.

Addington, L.

Sandhurst, L.

De La Warr, E.

Annaly, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Biddulph, L.

Iveagh, E.

Bingley, L.

Templemere, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cromwell, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Munster, E.

Daryngton, L.

Waleran, L.

Onslow, E.

Doverdale, L.

Woodbridge, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment to the proposed Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Limitation of liability for certain damage caused by aircraft.
15.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, where a person or his estate is liable to pay damages by reason of loss or damage which, after the commencement of this Part of this Act, is caused on any one occasion to persons or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, then, if the loss or damage was caused without his actual fault or privity, his or, as the case may be, his estate's total liability to pay damages by reason of the loss or damage shall be limited in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act.
Any reference in this Act to the total limit of liability appropriate to an aircraft shall be construed as a reference to the total amount to which a person could, in the circumstances mentioned in this subsection, limit his liability to pay damages in respect of loss or damage caused on any one occasion by that aircraft, whether to persons or to property; and any reference in this Act to the limit of liability for property claims appropriate to an aircraft shall be construed as a reference to the amount to which a person could, in such circumstances, limit his liability to pay damages in respect of loss or damage caused on any one occasion by that aircraft, if that loss or damage were only loss of, or damage to, property.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "then, if the loss or damage was caused without his actual fault or privity." The noble Lord said: The Amendments which stand in my name to this clause all stand or fall together. They are of very great importance; in fact, in my submission, they are vital to one of the main principles of the Bill; but I venture to hope that they are not controversial. The noble Viscount, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, when he came to this Part III used these words. He said:
"There is, your Lordships will observe, no limit upon the liability if the loss or damage is due to wilful misconduct on the part of the owner or pilot"
That would seem to me to be a perfectly correct description of the intention of the Government in this Part of the Bill, and certainly of the intention of the Committee upon whose recommendations this
68
Bill is founded, but it is not an actual description of what is to be found in the Bill. There are no such words in this clause as "wilful misconduct," and the Amendments which stand in my name are designed to give effect to the intention of the Government, rather than the actual effect that would be ensuing upon all owners and pilots of civil aircraft if the Bill were left in its present wording.
Part III is headed, as your Lordships will see, "Limitation of, and provision to be made for securing discharge of, liability in respect of certain damage caused by aircraft," but the actual words in the clause which I seek to amend relate only to "actual fault or privity," and not to any question of "wilful misconduct." The words as printed in the Bill have caused a great deal of misgiving and anxiety among owners and pilots of aircraft, because it is felt that if they remain without amendment there will be, in effect, no limitation of liability, and the Second Schedule of the Bill will be negatived. It is impossible to imagine an accident taking place to an aircraft flown by an owner-pilot and something happening which would not be taken to be his privity, and therefore, with the words in the Bill, it is felt that all the advantage of limitation of liability will be lost. Similarly, with regard to aircraft lines, if any fault can be proved on the part of the pilot, then, even if it be a comparatively trivial fault, the benefit of limitation of liability will be lost. The noble Viscount pointed out that it was a necessary corollary of the principle intended to be embodied in this Part of the Bill that if there was to be compulsory insurance there must be this limit of liability. I have endeavoured, in my various Amendments to Clause 15, to give effect to what I believe to be the intention of the Government. If I have correctly interpreted what I believe to be their intention, I hope the noble Viscount will be able to accept them, and thus relieve the very-great anxiety which is felt in this respect on the part of owners and pilots of aircraft.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 11, leave out from ("landing") to the end of line 12.—(Lord Gorell.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is an important Amendment, and I have taken the highest legal advice which is open

69
to me upon it. It is very important that we should express with precision in the Bill exactly what the liability is, and on whom rests the onus of proof. I think my noble friend has done real service in bringing attention to this point, where probably through a succession of Amendments and counter-Amendments being moved in another place, we had, I think, got quite definitely wrong. I can sum up the noble Lord's Amendments in a single sentence, by saying this. If we carry the Amendments, we shall put the onus of proving wilful misconduct on the third party, and the onus of disproving; wilful misconduct will rest with the aircraft owner. I think that is consistent with the proper principles of English law, and I am much obliged to my noble friend for moving his Amendments, which I accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL: My next three Amendments are consequential, and I would only like to say that I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 16, at end insert:
("Provided that a person or, as the case may he, his estate shall not be entitled to the benefit of this section in relation to any such loss or damage as aforesaid in any case in which it is proved that the loss or damage is attributable to his wilful misconduct or to wilful misconduct on the part of any of his servants or agents, unless (in a case where the loss or damage is attributable to wilful misconduct on the part of any of his servants or agents) it is proved that the loss or damage occurred without his actual fault or privity.")
Page 15, line 17, at the beginning insert ("(2)")
Page 15, line 20, leave out ("this") and insert ("the preceding").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Provision to be made in respect of aircraft against third party risks.
(3) The preceding provisions of this section shall not apply to an aircraft of which, at the material time, the owner is a local authority, a police authority or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, or which, at that time, is being used for police purposes by, or under the direction of, a police officer or by a person employed by a police authority or employed by the said Receiver, and shall not apply to any aircraft if and so long as the owner thereof has
70
deposited, and keeps deposited, with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, for and on behalf of that court, an amount at least equal to the total limit of liability appropriate to that aircraft or, where he is the owner of three or more aircraft, an amount at least equal to the aggregate of the two greatest of the total limits of liability appropriate to those aircraft respectively.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "shall not apply to aircraft of which, at the material time, the owner is a local authority, a police authority or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, or which, at that time, is being used for police purposes by, or under the direction of, a police officer or by a person employed by a police authority or employed by the said Receiver, and." The noble Viscount said: If your Lordships will look at subsection (3) of this clause you will see these words:
"The preceding provisions of this section shall not apply to an aircraft of which, at the material time, the owner is a local, authority, a police authority or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, or which, at that time, is being used for police purposes by, or under the direction of, a police officer or by a person employed by a police authority or employed by the said Receiver."
That seems to me rather an objectionable exclusion from third-party risks, and more especially so because I suspect that my noble friend will say that there is an analogous clause in the Road Traffic Act, and that makes it all the worse, because I am told that recently in the provinces a policeman who was employed by a local authority ran over and either killed or injured a pedestrian. Either the pedestrian, if he lived, or his dependents, brought an action against the local authority, and that action was dismissed on the ground that the local authority was not liable, but the policeman was, personally. It is a poor consolation to a person who has been injured to bring an action against a policeman who has not got the money to pay if the case goes against him.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 39, leave out from ("section") to ("shall") in line 3, page 18.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would rather like to look into this. The object of inserting the provision which my noble friend wishes to amend was the regular

71
practice by which the Government was not insured. The object of making people insure against third-party risk is in order to have a solvent person to go against. It was considered that the Government, or the Commissioner of Police, is sufficiently solvent not to force them to insure. My noble friend has raised a rather difficult point, whether, unless we insert these words, an action would not lie against the Commissioner of Police or local authority. I do not think he is right, because the owner of the aircraft is the person who is made liable under the Act of 1920 for the damage, and therefore if you are damaged by an aircraft owned by the county council or the Commissioner of Police, you will have a right of action, and your right of action must be against the owner of the aircraft, who is the public authority. But I have not had a chance of considering the bearing of the particular case that has been cited upon this clause, and if the Amendment is withdrawn now I will see that the appropriate legal authorities go into the matter before Report and if there is any doubt about it I will see that the appropriate words are introduced.
LORD STRABOLGI: I must say I was attracted by the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, and particularly by the case which he cited where a police car ran over a man and there was no action except against the policeman driver. But have we not to be a little careful about this? I think I am right in saying that under this clause and the preceding clauses there is a limit of liability in these compulsory third-party insurances. The fact that the local authorities and the police authorities are excluded from the provisions of this clause means also that, if they do damage property or life, in the same way there is no limit to the amount of damage at which they may be assessed by a Court. I do not know whether there is anything in that point, but it is well worth looking into. If we accepted Lord Bertie of Thame's Amendment we might to a certain extent be limiting the right of the subject to recover damages against a Government Department or a local authority.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the position is this. The local authority is liable, but the local authority has its liability limited, like anybody else. And the only question which arises here is whether it
72
should be compelled to take out an insurance policy.
LORD STRABOLGI: Does that mean that the local authority is limited under the Second Schedule to a certain amount?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think so.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am obliged for my noble friend's undertaking, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Interpretation]:
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to insert in subsection (1):
"'statutory undertakers' means any persons authorised by any enactment or statutory order to construct, work or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, water or other public undertaking;"
The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential Amendment. Having introduced special provisions to safeguard statutory undertakers, we must define what they are.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I accept this.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 18, after ("goods") insert ("or articles").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:

AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    PART I.
    Provisions as to the compulsory acquisition of land.
    2. The modifications subject to which the Lands Clauses Acts and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, shall be incorporated in a compulsory purchase order are as follows:—
    (c) where any land in England to which the compulsory purchase order relates is

    73
    glebe land or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice, the order shall provide that sums agreed upon or awarded for the purchase of the land, or to be paid by way of compensation for damage to be sustained by reason of severance or injury affecting the land, shall not be paid as directed by the Lands Clauses Acts, but shall be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be applied by them as money paid to them upon a sale, under the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts, of land belonging to a benefice.
    VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 2 of Part I, to leave out "the order shall provide that" and to insert "any". The noble Viscount said: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. My attention has been drawn to the fact that money which would be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have to be dealt with so to speak by two bites unless this Amendment were made. This gives authority to pay direct to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners where it is legal.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 33, line 19, leave out ("the order shall provide that") and insert ("any").—(Viscount Swinton.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    VISCOUNT SWINTON: The remaining Amendments to this Schedule are drafting.
    Amendments moved—
    Page 33, line 30, leave out ("whom") and insert ("which").
    Page 34, line 24, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:
    ("5. The provisions of subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (8) of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, (which relate to the conduct of local inquiries and to costs in connection therewith) shall apply in relation to any inquiry held by direction of the Secretary of State under the last preceding paragraph, as they apply in relatioon to an inquiry held by direction of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of that section.")
    Page 35, line 5, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
    Page 35, line 35, at end insert ("and")
    Page 35, line 38, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line 43.
    Page 36, line 6, leave out ("whom") and insert ("which").—(Viscount Swinton.)
    On Question, Amendments agreed to.
    First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Second Schedule agreed to.
    Third Schedule [Provisions as to policies of insurance, securities and deposits]:
    VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is a drafting Amendment here.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 42, line 21, leave, out ("II") and insert ("III").—(Viscount Swinton.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Fourth Schedule:

    FOURTH SCHEDULE.

      PART I.
      Enactments which may be applied by Order in Council.
      Paragraph (2) of Section three hundred and twenty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875.
      VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in Part I, to leave out "Paragraph (2) of Section three hundred and twenty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
      Amendment moved—
      Page 45, leave out lines 10 and 11.—(Viscount Swinton.)
      LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask why this is left out? I am sure it is all right, but I do not think we ought to pass it without knowing.
      VISCOUNT SWINTON: The reason is this. Those provisions are disappearing under a revision of the Local Government Acts. They will cease to exist in the course of a very short time I understand.
      LORD STRABOLGI: This is anticipatory?
      VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is slightly anticipatory.
      On Question, Amendment agreed to.
      Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
      Fifth Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments of principal Act]:
      VISCOUNT SWINTON: All these Amendments are drafting.
      Amendments moved—
      Page 47, line 14, leave out from ("omitted") to the end of line 21 and insert ("the words' the mode of enforcing such penalties, and ' shall be omitted").

      75
      Page 48, line 15, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
      page 48, line 15, leave out lines 29 to 33.
      Page 48, line 34, leave out ("(2A)") and insert ("(2)").
      Page 49, line 6, leave out ("(2B)") and insert ("(2A)")
      Page 50, after line 18, insert:
      ("Section ten.—In subsection (2) for the words 'any general safety or other regulations prescribed by Order in Council under ' there shall be substituted the words ' the powers conferred on His Majesty in Council by'").
      Page 52, line 36, after ("by") insert ("or under any of")—(Viscount Swinton.)
      On Question, Amendments agreed to.
      Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
      Sixth Schedule agreed to.
      Seventh Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
      VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is a drafting Amendment.
      Amendment moved—
      Page 54, line 21, in the third column after ("occurred") insert ("and the words 'the mode of enforcing such penalties'").—(Viscount Swinton.)
      On Question, Amendment agreed to.
      Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to

    TITHE BILL.
    Amendments reported (according to Order).
    Clause 16 [Recovery of annuities from owners of land]:
    LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to insert the following:
    "( ) For all the purposes of the enactments relating to rating and Land Tax, five-sixths and no more of each instalment of an annuity shall be allowed in any year of assessment as a deduction in respect of that year from the gross annual value of the lands in respect of which the annuity is charged."
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has not appeared on the Paper before and it raises a point which apparently had not occurred to anybody at an earlier stage, but it would appear on the face of it that as the Bill is drawn rates will be deducted twice over from the tithe-payer. Your Lordships will be aware that he is going to pay rates upon tithe in a fashion in which they were never paid before by reason of the raising
    76
    of the period of redemption from forty years, as proposed by the Royal Commission, to sixty years, the sixty years having been arrived at for the purpose—I was going to say of enabling the tithe-payer to pay the rates, but perhaps it would be more correct to say of extracting the rates from the tithe-payer. He will be paying rates upon land which is non-agricultural land, and he will also have deducted from him, owing to the method in which the Bill is drawn, a further charge for rates in respect of the period of redemption having been raised from forty to sixty years; so that in the case of the rate and tithe-payer, who will be paying tithe at the rate of £105 on non-agricultural land, it would appear on the face of it that he would be paying rates twice. I put the Amendment on the Order Paper because the point has caused anxiety to some who have not discovered it before, and I hope the Government will be able to explain exactly what is proposed to be done in respect of the case I have outlined.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 18, after line 43, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in what he says. It certainly does appear on the face of it that there is an injustice here, but I think, on further examination, that the noble Lord will see—and this is possibly why an Amendment has not been moved before to deal with this matter—that his fear is really based on a misunderstanding of Clause 13 (6) of the Bill. The position really is that the noble Lord is suggesting that for ordinary purposes—he did not mention Land Tax but this applies to Land Tax as well—five-sixths and no more of each instalment of annuity should be allowed as a deduction from the gross annual value of the land in respect of which that annuity is charged. This proposal is obviously framed on Clause 13 (6) which provides that five-sixths of the annuity shall be allowed as deduction for Income Tax purposes from the annual value of the land as assessed under Schedule A. The case for the proposal may be that at present, for Land Tax purposes, a deduction from annual value is allowed in respect of tithe rentcharge, and that in

    77
    future a deduction should therefore be allowed for interest included in the redemption annuity. The noble Lord has mentioned the question of rates, and he desires that it should be done in the case of rates. Actually Clause 13 (6) is purely a matter of machinery, and that is where the misunderstanding arises.
    In the case of a redemption annuity, consisting of definite proportions of interest and capital payable to a private person, there would be no need for Clause 13 (6) at all. The landowner who had paid Income Tax under Schedule A on the full annual value of his land would deduct Income Tax from the amount of interest included in the annuity; but the redemption annuity is payable to the Crown, which is not liable to Income Tax and would therefore be entitled to claim repayment of any Income Tax deducted from the interest. In order to prevent the unnecessary work involved in deducting tax from the interest payable to the Crown and a subsequent repayment claim by the Crown, this purely machinery proviso has been put in. I have gone into this Amendment at some length in order to show that there is in fact no real differentiation between that position and the position regarding Land Tax and rates; but there is a further very important point, and that is that the alteration which the noble Lord suggests would, in fact, mean a complete revision of the existing law as regards Land Tax and really it could not be dealt with in this Bill. The proper place, if the noble Lord desires to have the matter raised, would be to get his friends to raise it in another place, although I would not like to suggest to the noble Lord that the proposal will necessarily be accepted.
    LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I suspect the noble Earl is right. This is a very intricate and difficult point, and there was not very much time to consider it. We have had an explanation, which I shall not say is satisfactory, but which disables me from following up the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 18 [Ascertainment and registration of owners of land]:
    EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next Amendment, a manuscript Amendment,
    78
    is purely drafting. The wrong word slipped in.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 24, line 40, leave out (" appropriate ") and insert ("prescribed").—(Earl De La Warr.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following clause:
    Limitation of personal liability of trustees, etc. as owners of land.
    ". In proceedings taken against any person for the enforcement of a personal liability to pay any sum imposed by this Act on that person as being the owner of land, if be proves that the ownership of the land was vested in him in the capacity of a trustee or personal representative, and that his lights of indemnity are, otherwise than by reason of negligence or default on his part, insufficient to provide for his reimbursement in respect of that liability, the court may give such directions for the limitation or release of that liability as the court thinks just and equitable."
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, had an Amendment on the Paper on the Committee stage to deal with the question of the position of trustees, and on that occasion the noble Viscount the Leader of the House told the noble Lord that there was, in fact, a valid point to be dealt with and that on the Report stage he would suggest appropriate words. The words of this Amendment meet the point. They also, I think, meet the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, as to whether the new clause should not extend to executors as well as trustees. I am glad I can satisfy the noble Earl on that point, at any rate. Another point was raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who wished to be reassured that trustees would not one day wake up and find that they were responsible in respect of estates for tithe which they were unable to pay and that they were personally responsible in their own estates for payment of the tithe. I can assure the noble Marquess that such trustees are safeguarded by this proposed clause.
    Amendment moved—
    After Clause 32, insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)
    LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend very much for giving us this small grain of comfort. It will remove a sense of apprehension,

    79
    very real and obviously well founded, from the minds of a body of men of whom it is very desirable there should be a considerable number. With regard to the word "may," in the last line but two of the Amendment, I would like to ask the noble Earl whether I am right in understanding that "may" is all right and is really put there in a legal sense?
    EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think the word "may" was put in merely in order to be polite to the Courts who might not like us putting in "shall."
    THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I ask whether the words "trustee or personal representative" include the word "administrator" in Clause 17 (5)?
    EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should have made it clear that these words include "administrator."
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 46:
    Interpretation.
    46.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
    "agricultural land" means agricultural land as defined in Section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, and buildings (including dwelling-houses) occupied together with such land and used primarily in connection with agricultural operations thereon;
    LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, at the end of the definition of "agricultural land,"to insert" and includes agricultural property as defined in paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of Section twenty-two of the Finance Act, 1894." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is drawn in the same form as on the Committee stage. It was not then pressed because my noble friend the Leader of the House undertook that he would look into the matter and see if there was anything that could be done to meet objections to the way the Bill was drawn. The point can be explained in a very few words. It was at a late stage of the negotiations agreed that non-agricultural land should pay tithe at the prevailing rate of £105 for every £100 of commuted value of the tithe. When I say "agreed," it is quite literally correct both that the representatives of the landowners as a body did agree that this was a proper
    80
    gesture of friendliness to make to the tithe-owner, and that there was no case for paying less tithe upon non-agricultural land; but it never occurred to those bodies which I have been quoting that there was the slightest risk that land in agricultural centres should be compelled to pay tithe at the higher rate. We had in mind that it would be absurd for Piccadilly, and perhaps less important thoroughfares, to be relieved of tithe on the ground of agricultural pressure, but it did not occur to us that it would apply to the non-derated lands in the rural areas. Unfortunately it does.
    For the convenience of the scheme—I quite grant that it is very convenient—lands which are not derated as agricultural lands are taken to be non-agricultural lands. That sounds reasonable, but in fact it is not so reasonable. In the country there is a limited area of land which is not derated as agricultural land, and in almost all, but not quite all, cases it consists of a mansion house, and is in the form of a park, or whatever you like to call it. In some areas the local authority, that is to say, the rating authority, does not give to these lands the benefit of any doubt there may be, and in some areas these lands are not derated. Their owners feel that it is very hard that they should not only be hit by the fact that the local authority does not derate their land as agricultural land, but that what one may term the default of the local authority or the non-complaisance of the local authority causes them now to pay higher tithe as well, so they get caught both ways. It seems only equitable, particularly in view of the fact that this non-agricultural land clause was inserted by way of agreement, that the grievances of this particular small class of the community should be met. For this reason I put this Amendment down, and I hope the Government may find it possible to accept it.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 45, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)
    THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH: My Lords, I should be very glad if I could support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, because, owing to his treatment of the subject, he has said what he had to say with great moderation, courtesy and consideration,

    81
    and it would be a pleasure to be able to fall in with his views on this particular matter. It may not seem to be a very big thing, but there are two reasons why I hold that the House will feel that the Amendment ought not to be made. One is the reason that I put forward last week when I pointed out that it would make the administration of the Bill when it becomes an Act a very difficult matter on the dates which are put down, and almost impracticable. In a sense nothing is impossible, but still it would be very difficult for Queen Anne's Bounty to be ready at the dates at which they are required to be ready.
    The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, thought I was mistaken in saying that the substitution of a definition in one Act of Parliament, for a definition in another Act of Parliament was not a simple matter. This is not quite so simple. What has to be done first of all is to ascertain what land is derated. This is done by a reference to the rate book, and is not a difficult matter in itself. But the definition in the Bill goes further than that, and says that the lower rate of tithe annuity is to be chargeable on a farmhouse or buildings provided that they are used in connection primarily and mainly with agriculture. Therefore those who have to collect tithes on the 1st of October have to go to each holding where this might apply, and see how far the farm buildings and the farmhouse ought to be brought in so as to be included with the derated part of the land, and then to make calculations accordingly. But the definition which it is proposed to insert comes from the Act of 1894 and includes several other things. It includes parks, it includes gardens which are used for amenity purposes, it includes a mansion house, it includes land which is used exclusively for sporting rights. All these, according to the Amendment, are to be included in the land which is to have the lower rate.
    It will be necessary to send to every estate to which this might apply—and there are 300,000 persons from whom tithe is collected. Although in the case of a certain number of them we may know straight away that this question will not arise, still, in the case of a large proportion of them, it will arise. All those
    82
    persons have to be gone to. Someone has to go with the tithe apportionment and tithe map in his hand, and he has to decide, after inquiry from the person concerned, whether his land is used for agricultural purposes or not. If he finds that it is used for agricultural purposes then the tithe has to be collected at a lower rate in respect of that used for agricultural purposes and the rest at the higher rate. He has then to send the information to headquarters in London, who have to collect it at the rate of £91 11s. 2d. instead of £105. All these things would add much to the work and expense. I think it would be unreasonable, unless there was a very strong case indeed, to ask that this change should be made. It would be extremely difficult to be ready as the parties have to be ready, on October 1, to make their calculations, and before October 31 to put in their claims to the Tithe Commissioners. All that is very difficult to do in the time.
    The noble Lord suggests that the reason why this Amendment is to be put in is that otherwise you may be including in the higher rate of tithe land which it was really thought would naturally be included with agricultural land. Is it so in the case of those matters to which I have referred? If any part of a park is used for agricultural purposes—and of course a very large number of parks are—that becomes under the Bill as it stands agricultural land, and no question arises about it on that ground. It will be on the lower rate. But if it is exclusively used for something else, for purely amenity purposes, or as a sporting right or anything of that sort, is it reasonable that the concession which is allowed to agricultural land because it is agricultural land and is used for farming, should also apply to this other land because it happens to be in a part of the country where a good deal of the land is not urban but rural?
    As the noble Lord pointed out, there are two Amendments introduced into the Bill which are connected with one another. One is that the land which is not agricultural land shall pay tithe annuity on the higher rate of £105 per £100 commuted value, and the other is that the existing interests should be secured. The money which will come

    83
    from this concession in respect of the non-agricultural land has been included. It amounts to a certain sum. It has been decided that that shall be divided between the existing interests of incumbents, the existing interests of Ecclesiastical Corporations, the interests of the Clergy Pensions Board. And these calculations have been carefully made. If this definition comes in the difference may not be considerable, but it will still be something more off the tithe-owners. Further calculations will have to be made, and fresh consideration given, and the sum total will have to go in this, that, or the other direction. I submit that at this stage it is not really quite the right thing to impose a further reduction upon the tithe-owners. I do not think there would be very many cases in which there would be any hardship in retaining the definition as it is in the Bill. My impression is that most cases to which it would apply are cases in which there is no question that they should be brought within the higher rate of tithe, and the matter ought to be left to be dealt with by the definition already in the Bill which is the definition in the Derating Act of 1928. On those grounds it appears to me that the Amendment should not be accepted by the Government.
    EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this is a point of some importance and I think that the speech to which he have listened from the right reverend Prelate shows that it raises larger issues perhaps than the noble Lord who moved it at first thought. As the noble Lord said, we did start a discussion on this subject in Committee. He did not repeat the points he then made and I do not think it necessary for me to repeat the points I made either, except to say that the essential part of the case against this Amendment really is that we are discussing just a limited section of the problem. Let us be quite clear that so far as any parkland is now used for agricultural purposes it definitely gets remission. What we are discussing is parkland and other property that is not used for agricultural purposes but for amenity purposes. The question raised by the Amendment is how we are to determine whether this land is to be brought in and under what definition. The noble Lord wants a definition which will include it all. We feel that that would be very unfair to the tithe-owner. Not only will this definition
    84
    bring in parkland, but it will bring in buildings such as mansion houses, it will bring in land primarily devoted to sporting purposes, and it will bring in cottages, the butler's cottage, the chauffeur's cottage, the gardener's cottage. It is going to bring in a very great deal of property that I am quite sure the noble Lord did not think of when proposing his Amendment.
    Therefore we feel it is very much fairer and more in accordance with such agreement as has been come to on this point that we should adhere to the definition of agricultural land as laid down in the Derating Act. That is a perfectly clear and simple definition laid down a comparatively short time ago and accepted in its main principles from the very beginning. I quite realise that in some cases there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction as to the way in which local authorities administer that Act, and, if I may venture to say so, I think that is the one point which the noble Lord can really make with some force. But I suggest that if he desires to raise that specific point the proper way to deal with it is by an amendment of the Derating Act, and not by means of this Amendment. This particular point of differentiation between two types of land agricultural and non-agricultural was decided on as a means of making some concession to the Church which it was felt had suffered under the general arrangements. There is no doubt that the Amendment would take away the full effects of that concession. I know that the noble Lord can say quite fairly that this is an unexpected result and that it was never thought of at the time, but at the same time I hope he will realise that this Amendment goes a good deal further and therefore I would ask him not to press it.
    LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl, even with the help of the right reverend Prelate, has not taken us to the bottom of the difficulty. It may be found yet that my noble friend Lord Hastings was wise in taking a wider view of what is and what is not agricultural land. If you turn to the clause in the Bill you will see that as far as the land is concerned it is, as has been pointed out, to be judged according to whether or not it is derated. The Bill does not say that it is to be land

    85
    that is derated to-day or not derated to-day. That is where difficulty will come in. Suppose any noble Lord has deer in his park, the chances are that that land will be treated as an amenity park and as a rateable hereditament. If he gives up deer and substitutes sheep the, local authority should in reason, and probably would, transfer that item from the rateable hereditament column to the other column and that piece of land would cease to be rated. To make the point a little stronger, certain noble Lords, to my knowledge, were invited by agricultural committees during the War to plough up their parks and grow wheat. It is reasonable to suppose that when a park is ploughed up for wheat growing at the instance of the national authorities it becomes agricultural land. That may happen again. In other words, unless you take the definition suggested by my noble friend Lord Hastings, you are going to land yourselves in a condition of flux and no one will know where he stands. I think it is best to take the course suggested by my noble friend.
    LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think with the greatest possible respect to the right reverend Prelate that where an injustice is going to continue for sixty years it is not the best argument to lay before your Lordships' House that the righting of that injustice would delay the operation of certain parts of the Bill. However, to leave that point, I think that my noble friend Lord Phillimore made it clear that there will be no certainty in the amount of tithes derivable from this particular source. But I admit the noble Earls point, that this is really one of setting right anything that may be wrong in the Derating Act and ensuring that the local authority shall with complete uniformity implement and operate that Act throughout the country. That is really the strong point, and I am inclined, with the permission of the House, to withdraw my Amendment—on those grounds and on no other. I would therefore beg leave to withdraw.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like, in just one word, to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I fully agree, of course, with what he has said as to the need for some reform in the Derating Act in this matter,
    86
    and I only ask that this may not be done at the expense of the tithe-owners, who have already suffered so severely under the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Second Schedule:

    SECOND SCHEDULE.
    Constitution, Procedure, Staff and Expenses of the Commission.
    7. The Commission may hold such inquiries as appear to them to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of the proper discharge of their functions.
    Before holding any such inquiry the Commission shall give such notice as appears to them best adapted for informing persons affected of the date on which and the place at which the inquiry will be held.
    VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to add to paragraph 7: "and at any such inquiry any person appearing to the person holding the inquiry to be affected may appear either in person or by counsel, solicitor or agent." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I have put down to meet my noble friend Viscount Bertie of Thame, and I hope that it has met him.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 52, line 27, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Halifax.)
    VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I really am very grateful to my noble friend.
    On Question, Amendment, agreed to.
    Fourth Schedule:

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  Certification of Annual Value of Land in Agricultural Holding.
  1. In this Schedule the expression "charged land" means all land comprised in an agricultural holding exclusive of any part thereof in respect of which no annuity is charged.
  2. If the owner of any charged land makes before the first day of March in any year to the surveyor of taxes for the parish in which the land is assessed or situate an application in the prescribed form for a certificate of the annual value of the charged land for the period of twelve months ending on the fifth day of April in that year, the surveyor shall—
  (a) if the charged land is land assessed for income tax purposes under Schedule B by reference to annual value for that period apart from other land, furnish to the owner and, if the annuity or annuities is or are under the management of the Commission, to the Commission, a

  87
  statement in writing of the annual value as ascertained for the purposes of assessment;
  LORD HASTINGSmoved, at the end of sub-paragraph (a) in paragraph 2, to insert "such statement showing separately the amount of the assessment on the house and buildings and on the charged land." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is one of really very great importance, and it requires, I am afraid, a good deal of explanation, because it is a highly technical matter. Your Lordships will know, I think, that buildings are not titheable but land is titheable. On the other hand, Schedule B assessments take account of the value of land with the buildings upon it. Therefore Schedule B assessment is the estimated value of the land as now equipped, and, of course, the tithe is charged upon the land without any regard to the buildings. Clause 14 of the Bill, which is what we will call the Remission Clause, links titheable land with Schedule B assessment. Clause 14 provides that the maximum liability of the tithe-payer shall be one-third of the Schedule B assessment. It therefore follows, of course, that if the Schedule B assessment rises, so does the maximum liability of the tithe-payer. Now the Schedule B assessment may rise, and presumably will rise, with any added value that may be placed on the buildings. Buildings are not titheable, but yet, if the buildings rise in value, the Schedule B assessment rises in value and the Remission Clause becomes less operative than it would be if the Schedule B assessment remained fixed. So there is a sort of unnatural link created by this relationship of the Remission Clause to the Schedule B assessment.
  In the countryside, particularly in the high tithe-paying areas, there has been in the past and is still a great fear of what is known as "growing tithe." This peculiar link gives an opportunity of a really very alarming kind for growing tithe. It is, of course, quite reasonable to say that the tithe will not grow by reason of the fact that the landlord has spent money upon his buildings which has increased their assessable value, but it will grow in the sense that the amount of remission that will be obtainable in hard cases will be less. It will grow in that form. If a landlord, in order to
  88
  maintain his rent or even to let the farm, has to make considerable capital expenditure—on, for instance, cow byres, which are the usual plague of the day, though there are other forms of expenditure which may be necessary—he will be instantly liable to an increase in his Schedule B assessment, and if he is in a high tithe-paying area the increase in the Schedule B assessment will extend the liability to tithe which he will have to pay.
  I do not think that is the intention of the Government; I feel that it would not be the intention of the House, and in some sense it would be rather an abrogation of the present law, because it makes buildings titheable which have not previously been titheable. That is the whole purpose of my Amendment, and your Lordships will observe that the limit of liability may be enormously increased by operations of the kind which I venture to characterise. There arc, of course, arguments, and I have no doubt that someone, whether it is the noble Viscount or the noble Earl who replies to me, will provide them. I am not going to put them into their heads, but perhaps when they have used them, if they think of them, I shall have the opportunity of replying to them at the end. I know that there are arguments, but I think that there are really no arguments which can subvert what I have ventured to explain: the very real risk which the tithe-payer in the high tithe areas is going to run. This Bill has been brought into Parliament, and is now very close to becoming an Act, for the purpose of satisfying that very class of tithe-payers. It would be a thousand pities if, by some unintentional method, the benefit it was intended that they should gain should be taken away from them. And it would be taken away from them if this Amendment did not find its way into the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 55, line 29, at end insert ("such statement showing separately the amount of the assessment on the house and buildings and on the charged land.")—(Lord Hastings.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this again, I know, is an Amendment upon which the noble Lord places a great deal of importance, and I

  89
  only wish on behalf of the Government that I could recommend your Lordships' acceptance of it. The noble Lord has been so helpful, especially to-day, that we should have liked to accept an Amendment from him. But what is this real point before your Lordships? The noble Lord talks of the evil of growing tithe. Let us just see what this evil is. I think that the name is merely rather a misstatement of the problem. It is not a question of tithe increasing because of what the landlord does to his property; it is a matter of certain cases in which a landlord, by spending money on his property, so increases its value that it ceases to be subject to the possibility of relief under the one-third provision of Schedule B. That is a very different matter from an increase of tithe; it is a decrease of remission. If you or I are in difficulty and we go to one of our tradesmen and say we are very sorry but we really cannot meet our bill with him, and eventually he says he will take fifteen shillings in the pound, that is all right for the one year when we are very hard up; he keeps our trade. But surely that does not make a case next year, when we have had successful dealings on the Stock Exchange and are making profits, for again claiming that remission. Here, if the landlord is able to spend money on his land and increase its value, then it is very hard to say that he is entitled to this very special form of relief.
  The noble Lord makes this point, that frequently landlords have to spend money on their property simply in order to maintain the rent or in order to let it. That is perfectly true, but if that is so the rent, does not go up, the Schedule B amount does not go up, and then there is no question of decrease of remission. That is really the answer to the noble Lord. He says: "Surely it is not the intention of the Government to ensure by their Bill that all expenditure on buildings should result in an increase of tithe." Our first point, if I may summarise, is that it is not so. In no case does it result in an increase in tithe. Secondly, in some cases it might result in a decrease of remission, but that would only happen when the effect of that expenditure is to increase the value of the land, and therefore the land should, in fact, no longer claim relief.
  LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, here again the land is full of puzzling variety.
  90
  I can think at the moment of a farm of some 500 acres which is having a sum of £20,000 spent upon it in the shape of buildings, and, oddly enough, this sum has not been spent by any rich person, but by a semi-charitable association, anxious to place small holders on the land. That farm is subject to tithe. I do not say that the tithe is excessive in this case, or that any claim for remissions has ever been made, but is it to be thought that that land should, in fact, pay more tithe because it is being developed in the interests of the nation as a whole by the creation of small holdings? I also know of a noble Lord, a member of this House, who has for years pursued the policy of cutting up his big farms and creating small holdings. Whatever may be said as to the object of this clause in the relief of poverty, surely we are entitled also to say that this Bill did definitely set out to reduce the charges on the land and therefore on agriculture, and if this clause operates in the way in which Lord Hastings contends, the burden upon the land and upon agriculture will, in fact, be increased. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill could prove that in every instance it was a rich man who spent money on buildings, and he could well afford to pay tithe, that would be a partial answer, but my illustration shows that it will not always be the case, and I venture to think it would be safer to avoid an evil which it is difficult to forecast, but which, if it came to light, would create an odium to which we had all hoped the Bill would put a stop for ever. I hope, therefore, that if necessary Lord Hastings will go to a Division.
  LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, this is the first time that I have ever addressed the House. I am one of those ignoble Lords who try to do what they can for the country in their own district, on the county council and in other ways, and it is on very rare occasions that I am able to attend your Lordships' House. Whenever I receive a three-line Whip I do my best to put everything else aside and come to this House, and this is one of those occasions. I am here, and I cannot recall that I have ever voted against the Government when I have been in this House, but I find myself in a position now of being unconvinced by the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in saying that money which

  91
  is spent in buildings would not increase the Schedule B value of the farm. I think that the case has been very clearly made out for the Amendment. Where a large property is split up, and a good many buildings are placed upon it, it will very materially increase the value of that estate. Therefore, unless I hear any other argument that convinces me between now and the Division, if it takes place, I shall feel bound to go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, discussed at some length the question as to whether it was really right that a man who could afford to spend money on his farm premises, and so increase the value of a farm, should be accorded the relief which was given to him before the money was spent. There is, of course, something in that argument, but those of us who are only too familiar with the high-tithe areas, which coincide almost wholly with the areas which have suffered most from agricultural depression in recent years, know that the money which has been spent upon improvements of farm premises has, in the main, been borrowed money. The money has not been out of the resources of the landowner. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but, in the main, it is money borrowed in order to be able not to maintain the farm but to let the farm itself. So I do not think really that the argument that the man who spends money upon his farm does not, therefore, suffer from poverty is a sound one, because we can all quote instances of money being spent out of empty pockets, but yet in the expectation that one day it might be returned to the advantage of the spender.
  There is another very important point which perhaps I did not stress sufficiently strongly. It is that under the present law buildings are not titheable. Land is titheable, and therefore if you, by the non-inclusion of this Amendment, permit the value of the buildings to influence the amount of tithe which is paid, you go behind the existing law and indirectly make each building titheable. That is exactly what we want to try to avoid. We want to avoid putting any kind of restriction upon the spending of money on the improvement of buildings. If a landlord who is also a tithe-payer knows
  92
  that in spending the money upon his buildings any additional rent which he may get therefrom will, in all probability, have to go to pay interest at the bank on borrowed money, and also have to go in paying increased tithe, obviously the incentive to spend money on buildings is greatly diminished, and tenants who will come to the landlord asking for improved buildings will, in many cases, inevitably be met with the answer: "I dare not spend money, because anything you can pay in the shape of rent will go, with more besides, in loss of the remission which I get on my tithe." I cannot think that this will upset the finance of the scheme in the slightest degree, still less the tithe-owners, because no less tithe is going to be paid than is now paid. The only effect of the Amendment is that it will prevent the amount of the remissions from getting less by reason of the expenditure upon buildings. The noble Earl on behalf of the Government has expressed his regret that the Amendment cannot be accepted. I shall have to take the decision of the House on the matter.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, perhaps there is one thing that the noble Lord has said which is deserving of a further word of explanation. I do not intend to reargue the merits of the Amendment, but I am quite satisfied, having been over this ground a good many times with those who have been responsible for drafting the Bill, that many of the fears that the noble Lord has in mind are in fact unfounded and for this reason. He has suggested that under the clause which he seeks to amend some new law is being put upon tithe-payers and some alteration to their disadvantage is being made against which it is the duty of your Lordships' House to protect them. In fact, that is not the position. This Bill makes no alteration whatever in the arrangements under this head with regard to tithe which have been in operation for the last forty or fifty years, and I would suggest that if he has a complaint on that ground it is not reasonable to seek to make an alteration of the existing law in a matter of that sort in a limited Bill of this nature.
  I would therefore appeal to him and to your Lordships on the broadest ground. On the whole we have sought to bring in a Bill that would give substantial relief

  93
  to tithe-payers. We have reduced the annual annuity charge from £105 to £91, we have doubled the remission that it is open to tithe-owners to obtain, and, in deference to the feeling expressed in various quarters of the House, not least earnestly by the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, we have also extended, at some inconvenience to the Treasury, the arrangement by which tithe-payers are permitted to be three

  CONTENTS.

  Wellington, D.

  Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

  Harris, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Hastings, L.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Berwick, L.

  Phillimore, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Cromwell, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Grey, E.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

  St. Levan, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halifax, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Onslow, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Heneage, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Rothes, E.

  Hutchison of Montrose, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Jessel, L.

  Dufferin and Ava, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Remnant, L.

  Brentford, V.

  Rennell, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Swinton, V.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Bingley, L.

  Wakehurst, L.

  Iveagh, E.

  Daryngton, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Doverdale, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Munster, E.

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

  Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.