Lords Sitting of 29 June 1937

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Wyfold—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DUNSTABLE GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIRMINGHAM TAME AND REA MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WISBECH WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (YEADON WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, this Bill passed its Second Reading amid general assent.
850
On the Committee stage it was not amended, and therefore I should normally merely move its Third Reading in a formal way. On the Committee stage, however, my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury, in speaking on an Amendment to sever the positions of Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, made certain observations about Treasury control. He made them in the course of the withdrawal of his Amendment, which he was good enough to make, inasmuch as the Government did not accept it, and the result was that I had not any opportunity to deal with his statements, which unfortunately seemed to convey some reflection on certain members of the Civil Service and therefore not to be remarks which ought to pass altogether unnoticed. Anything that my noble friend says naturally carries weight both inside the House and outside, and I am sure that he will be the first to desire that I should correct any impression which may have been created but which is not altogether justified in fact.
My noble friend said that the provision of the Bill which linked the position of Prime Minister with the office of First Lord was inserted as a result of what he called:
"a new effort by the Treasury to get control of the rest of the Civil Service."
My noble friend explained to the House what he meant:
"… the Treasury have been making a strong effort for many years to assume control of the rest of the Civil Service."
And that your Lordships had all witnessed that process. He went on to say that
"the hegemony of the leadership of the Treasury over the other offices, and that of the permanent head of the Treasury over the other services, has never been really admitted."
And he suggested that some official—presumably, I suppose, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury—had "by some dexterous suggestion to the draftsman" surreptitiously attempted to get introduced into this Bill, "designed for a totally different purpose,"
"a few words in order to establish the Treasury as the head of the Civil Service."
I should like if I may, with your Lordships' indulgence, to deal with those statements.
So far from the Treasury making a new effort to get control of the rest of

851
the Civil Service, I think I can satisfy your Lordships that from the time the Civil Service was created a control by the Treasury over the Civil Service has always been recognised; and that, instead of the hegemony or the leadership of the Treasury over the other offices never having been really admitted, it has been repeatedly admitted both in another place and in the Service itself. Although your Lordships have witnessed, no doubt, a process of strengthening the Treasury control during the last twenty years—at any rate since the War—that has not been at all an effort by the Treasury to assume control, but an effort by Parliament and by successive Governments to make the control, which was always recognised, effective.
If I may, I shall have to go back a little to make that good. In 1855 the Civil Service Commission was first appointed. Before that date every Ministry appointed its own staff, mainly by favouritism, nepotism or anything of that kind. Even before 1855, however, it appears from the evidence of Sir Robert Peel, who was first Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister, before a Select Committee in 1850, that the major posts in what became the Civil Service were always subject to the control and advice of the Prime Minister. In 1855 the Civil Service Commission was appointed, and it was not until 1867 that the office of Permanent Secretary to the Treasury was first created. We have not got at present, we have not got anywhere, the papers relating to the actual appointments, so that I cannot produce the actual minute of appointment in the first instance. Nevertheless, as early as 1872, which was only five years after the appointment, it was recognised that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury was the head of the Civil Service.
That appears from a debate in the House of Commons on the giving of a salary of £2,500 to an Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, where the suggestion was made that this could not be done because other Under-Secretaries would ask for the same. To that demurrer rejoinder was made: "Well, there is already £2,500 paid to the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, and therefore there is nothing in that argument." The answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
852
Mr. Robert Lowe, as he then was, was this:
"The Secretary of the Treasury is not an Under-Secretary, he is the head of the Civil Service."
That was in 1872. In 1889, in Todd's Parliamentary Government, there is this statement:
"The Permanent Secretary [to the Treasury] is the official head of the Department and of the whole Civil Service."
So that at that date, at any rate, it was recognised both inside Parliament and by those who study constitutional matters that the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury was head of the Civil Service. In those early days the control of the Treasury was exercised first of all by a process of recruitment for all classes of posts throughout the Service being placed on a regular basis, subject to Treasury approval of the schemes for selection. Secondly, Treasury sanction came to be required for special appointments outside such schemes; and thirdly, Treasury sanction was specifically required in respect of numbers, pay and classification, in the case of all civil establishments. And the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury was always treated as entitled to be consulted as to who should be appointed to major posts in the Civil Service.
That was half a century ago, but no doubt in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and the early part of the twentieth century, Treasury control came to be somewhat relaxed, and that was made a matter of complaint by Parliament and by Royal Commissions. In 1912 a Royal Commission was appointed on the Civil Service because of criticisms made in another place, and that Commission, after enumerating defects which in their judgment existed in the organisation of the Civil Service at that time, recommended that the Treasury should be strengthened for the purpose of establishing a more effective control over the organisation of the Civil Service. In 1917 a Select Committee was appointed on National Expenditure, and that Committee reported that the degree of Treasury control then being exercised fell far short of the needs of the case. In 1918 the Machinery of Government Committee, presided over by Lord Haldane, was appointed to give effect to the re-

853
commendations of those two Commissions, and they made detailed recommendations as to the manner in which Treasury control ought to be strengthened. Their Report was published on December 14, 1918. That Report was considered by the Government of that day, by a very strong Committee, consisting of Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Lord Milner and Sir Auckland Geddes. They prepared a definite scheme which was submitted to the Cabinet and embodied in a Treasury Minute published over the signature of Mr. Baldwin, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which codified the position of affairs in 1919.
The statement in that document was that
"The functions of the Permanent Secretary will include responsibility for the organisation of the Treasury, for the general supervision and co-ordination of the work of the Treasury as a whole and for advising the Board. He will act as permanent head of the Civil Service, and advise the First Lord in regard to Civil Service appointments and decorations."
That was in 1919. Since that date the position has been recognised repeatedly in Reports of Committees, of which I will give merely a selection. In 1920 there was a Committee on Civil Service pay which was presided over by Mr. Asquith, and its Report contained this statement:
"The Secretary of the Treasury receives, in addition to his salary and bonus as a Departmental head, £500 a year to mark his position as permanent head of the Civil Service"
In 1922 the Report of the Royal Commission on Honours contained this statement:
"The respective claims (i.e. to honours) are weighed and considered by the Prime Minister in conjunction with the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, whose duty it is, as head of the Civil Service, to advise the Prime Minister on Civil Service decorations."
The Alan Anderson Committee in 1923 reported in these terms:
"In private employment the duties assigned to senior posts in the Civil Service carry a higher salary. For example, many large companies pay their general manager more than three times the salary of the Secretary to the Treasury, who is the permanent head of the Civil Service and chief financial adviser of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister."
And in 1924 a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, whose Report was published, stated who shall
854
normally be the members of the Committee of Imperial Defence, including, among others,
"The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury as head of the Civil Service."
I could give further examples, but I hope that is sufficient to indicate to your Lordships, first of all, that the position of Treasury control has existed from the very days when the Civil Service as we now know it was constituted in the middle of the last century; that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury has been recognised as the head of the Civil Service during the whole of that time; and that what has happened during the last twenty years has been that Parliament and Royal Commissions have insisted that Treasury control should be rendered more effective, and have persuaded the Government to make the control a more real thing than it had been in the past. Finally, so far from its not being recognised that the permanent head of the Treasury was the head of the Civil Service, Committee after Committee has definitely stated from 1872 down to 1924 that that was the office which he held. I venture to make this rather lengthy explanation because, as I said, anything that comes from my noble friend naturally attracts attention and naturally demands respect and consideration. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to deal somewhat exhaustively with the observations which he made. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need not say that I am extremely obliged to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his full explanation of the position of the Treasury. I need not add that I had not of course the opportunity of seeing all those documents which the noble and learned Viscount has cited, and no doubt if I had seen them my observations would have been couched in rather different language. The advantage of discussions in your Lordships' House on several stages of a Bill is that as the stages proceed the explanations become a little fuller. That is, of course, of great advantage for the public information. As to the position of the Treasury, I think the noble and learned Viscount has established by the documents which he cited that the Treasury is at the head of the Civil Service and that

855
the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury is the principal representative of the Treasury, and in that capacity has a certain leadership. The proper head of the Treasury is undoubtedly the First Lord of the Treasury, and I certainly never contested his position; on the contrary, the greater the control of the First Lord of the Treasury over the Treasury the better for all concerned.
The real thing that we require to avoid is anything like the gradual invasion of bureaucratic power in this country. What we want is permanently to maintain what we possess, and what we possess in the highest degree, which is the government of this country by Parliament and by the representatives of Parliament—namely, His Majesty's Government. They are the people who ought to control the Civil Service or any Department in the Civil Service, and, so far as the First Lord of the Treasury is concerned, I should not like in anything I said to derogate from his power in the least. No doubt if he is not Prime Minister he is himself not supreme, for the Prime Minister, if he occupies another office, which he may do, is the real supreme head of the Government, and the First Lord of the Treasury, though not exactly his subordinate any more than any other of my noble friends on that Bench are subordinates of the Prime Minister—they are his colleagues—like them, accepts his leadership and ultimate control of the Government of the country. I do not desire for a moment to derogate from the power of the First Lord of the Treasury, but let us be quite clear that we do not want the permanent head of the Treasury to interfere too much in the government of this country. It is because, whilst I had the opportunity of seeing it close, that I detected a tendency in that direction that I felt called upon to make the observations I did.
I should like to say—because it is only right I should say—that I have a great respect for the present occupant of the office of permanent head of the Treasury. I believe him to be a civil servant of the highest character and one who has performed great services for this country. He happens to be a personal friend of my own and I am very proud to have his friendship. But that does not alter
856
my view that in that capacity he ought not to have too much control of the government of this country. Government should reside not in the permanent officials but in the Parliamentary chief. And it is because I was aware long before the debate took place on this Bill that there was a tendency in the other direction, and I thought I detected a tendency on the part of the head of the Treasury to interfere with the powers of the permanent heads of the other Departments, that I said what I did. And I think the noble and learned Viscount will find, if he makes inquiry, that the apprehension which I expressed is shared by a good many members of the Civil Service and that I do not stand alone in that respect. But I agree, and I ought candidly to admit, that I was not aware of the documents which the noble and learned Viscount has cited. I fully accept the statement which he has made and recognise that if I had known what he knows I should not have couched what I had to say in the language that I used.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I would only like to associate myself with what my noble friend has said, that the First Lord of the Treasury, or rather the Treasury Board with the First Lord as its head, is the organism which exercises Treasury control. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury is the civil servant whose duty it is to advise the First Lord on the matters which come before him in relation to the Civil Service but the First Lord is himself, no doubt, entirely the person responsible to Parliament and to the country for the exercise of Treasury control. I think Treasury control does not really mean anything more than the control by the First Lord of the Treasury, and the headship of the Civil Service does not really convey very much more than that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury is the person charged with the duty in the Civil Service of advising the Prime Minister on Civil Service matters. I entirely accept what my noble friend said in that regard.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 3 [Additional salaries to Cabinet Ministers, who hold offices at salaries less than five thousand a year]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out "which" ["any Minister of the Crown to which this section applies"] and insert "whom." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be the first to agree that it is impolite and indeed improper to refer at any rate in an Act of Parliament to a Minister of the Crown as neuter. I therefore have much confidence in moving the small Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to make my apologies to my noble friend, who is always a purist in grammar and who constantly keeps us straight in relation to some of these Bills. I have communicated with the draftsman, and he desires me to express his indebtedness to my noble friend for having detected the mistake. We gladly accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Capacity of persons to whom salaries are payable under Act to sit and vote in House of Commons.
9.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided no person to whom a salary is payable under this Act shall by reason of his being the holder of the office or place in respect of which such a salary is payable, be rendered incapable of being elected, or of sitting and voting, as a member of the House of Commons:
Provided that—

(a) the number of persons entitled to sit and vote in that House while they are Ministers of the Crown named in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act shall not exceed fifteen;

(b) the number of persons entitled to sit and vote in that House while they are Ministers of the Crown named in Part II of the said Schedule shall not exceed three; and

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:

(a) the number of persons entitled to sit and vote in that House, while holding any office named in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, shall be less by two or more than the number of persons holding offices specified in Part I of that Schedule;

858

(b) the number of persons entitled to sit and vote in that House, while holding any office named in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, shall be less by one or more than the number of persons holding offices specified in Part II of that Schedule; and"

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I need not assure the House that in placing this Amendment on the Paper I had no intention of suggesting any fundamental change either in the Bill or in the Schedules of the Bill. Had that been my purpose I should clearly have proceeded to do so at an earlier stage. The purpose of this Amendment is to lay somewhat stronger emphasis on a principle which I think it is safe to say would be accepted by all Parties in your Lordships' House—that is to say, that in the allocation of the different Ministries there should be a certain number, limited by the terms of the Bill, to those who sit in another place, and that the other members either of the Cabinet or of those included in the Second Schedule should be members of your Lordships' House. That cannot, as the Bill is drawn, be anything more than a recommendation. It is not, curiously enough, obligatory so far as I know on any Minister of the Crown to sit in either House of Parliament. To take an extreme instance, if the Prime Minister to-morrow were to apply to be appointed Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or of the Manor of Northstead, after having vacated his seat there is nothing so far as I know to prevent his retaining his office as First Lord of the Treasury.
There have been many cases in the past where Ministers have not sat in Parliament. There is the well-known case of Mr. Gladstone who, having been appointed Colonial Secretary by Sir Robert Peel in December, 1845, and having resigned his seat at Newark owing to a conscientious scruple, remained out of Parliament but continued as Colonial Secretary until the Government was defeated and turned out in July of the following year, 1846. There are also some recent instances. Unless I am mistaken there has recently been a case of one of the Scottish Law Officers who had no seat in Parliament for a considerable time but who held his office without complaint from anybody. So far as Mr. Gladstone was concerned, I believe that even his unequalled explanatory powers did not enable him to answer the criticism which was levelled at his retention of office during that period of eight or nine months.

859
As some of your Lordships will know, there have been cases where the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has at times not been a member of your Lordships' House. Having been a commoner until his patent is entirely completed, it is possible for him to come and sit as Speaker of the House without any power of speaking or voting. That has actually happened within the knowledge of many of your Lordships.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It happened to me.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Apparently it happened even in the present case. But if any noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack endeavoured to exceed the functions of Speaker and endeavoured to take part in debate, he might easily find himself in the position of a Speaker in the seventeenth century of being forcibly held down on the Woolsack by some noble Lord—perhaps by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, who is so capable of doing it. When you come to think of it, that is a very strange position. It is conceivable there might be a Ministry composed of Privy Councillors—because nobody can advise the Crown except Privy Councillors—of persons not having a seat in either House of Parliament. It will be said, of course, and there I agree, that it is a situation not exactly likely to arise, but I can conceive some conditions under which, in a modified form, a difficulty might be created by the appointment of Ministers who were not members of either House.
I am sorry, therefore, that when His Majesty's Government were engaged in removing various anomalies attached to the salaries paid to Ministers and, so to speak, were tidying up the whole business, they did not go a step further and, while leaving the terms of the Bill much as they are—that is to say, that the number of Ministers who can sit in one House should not exceed a certain figure—they did not add a further proviso that nobody should be able to retain any of these offices after an interval, say, of two months or whatever might be considered the appropriate interval, unless he were a member of either one House or the other. That is not an Amendment which it would be possible for any of us to move within the terms of the Bill. It would, I fancy, necessitate a change in
860
the Title and Preamble of the Bill; and in present circumstances it may be assumed that neither that Amendment nor a still more marked Amendment—namely, that a maximum figure should be allotted to this House as also to another place—would be accepted. As I say, I am sorry that some such step was not taken, and I can only hope we shall not be told it is too late now to make some Amendment of that kind with the agreement of our friends. If that is so, I think it is a regrettable circumstance.
Various difficulties may arise according to the wording of the clause as proposed. It says:
"the number of persons entitled to sit and vote in that House while they are Ministers of the Crown … shall not exceed fifteen."
That would not prevent one or more of them from holding several of the offices included in the list. As we all know, it is by no means uncommon for a Minister to hold more than one office. The noble Marquess opposite, the Secretary of State for India, has also lately, I think, become Secretary of State for Burma. For some time after the division of the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office the two Offices were held by the same Minister, and, if I may refer to my own experience, it twice happened to me to hold the office of Lord Privy Seal in conjunction with two other different offices. How far it is possible to accept the terms of my Amendment, which says that the number of persons entitled to sit and vote in another place shall be less by two or more than the number of persons holding offices specified in Part I of that Schedule, I do not know, but it appears to me to meet the minor difficulty which I have just mentioned. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to say that in so far as this measure is concerned it is the desire of the Government that those members of any Ministry who are not sitting in another place should sit as members of your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 10, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert the said new paragraphs.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I readily give the Marquess at once the assurance for which he asks—or very nearly the assurance for which he asks

861
—namely, that Ministers who do not sit in the House of Commons should be members of this House. I do not give it quite in an unqualified form, because, as my noble friend himself points out, there have been cases in which Ministers who have not been members of either House have nevertheless held office for quite substantial periods. The Lord Advocate, in 1923 I think it was, was my noble and learned friend Lord Thankerton, then Mr. Watson. He was a Minister for nine months without being a member of another place; and the present Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Reid, has only recently been elected to Parliament in the House of Commons. Therefore I cannot say that we will do away altogether with the power of having such an arrangement; but I do most emphatically assure my noble friend that we should regard it as being entirely outside the purpose of the Bill for members who were not members of either House of Parliament to be appointed and to the detriment of the representation in this House of the Ministry of the day.
I do not think—my noble friend will forgive my saying so—that that is a thing very likely to happen. There may, of course, be extreme Governments. That is always a possible thing, although I hope not a very probable one in this country, but if an extreme Government came into office they probably would operate, not by way of decreasing representation on the Front Bench, but of increasing the representation on the Back Bench, and they would be much more likely to seek to end this House than to hamper their own administration of their business in the House. Your Lordships appreciate that if a Government has not got adequate representation on the Front Bench in this House it suffers inevitably in its efficiency, in the explanation of its case and in the presentation of its Bills. I do not think that it would be very likely for the Government to do that, because the only conceivable object of putting down the representation in this House would probably be to increase the representation in another place, and that is prohibited by the express terms of the Bill as it stands.
I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment. In the first place it is rather a drastic one to make at this stage. It would entail all sorts of consequential Amendments. For instance,
862
Clause 9 itself, subsection (2), deals with the position which would arise if at anytime the number of persons who are members of the House of Commons while they are Ministers of the Crown exceeds the number in Clause 9 (1). If that occurs then you have to wait until the number of Ministers in the House of Commons is reduced by death, resignation or otherwise. If my noble friend's proposed words were accepted, a number of consequential Amendments undoubtedly would have to be made. I think my noble friend's intention is exactly the same as the Government's intention, and I do not think there is any real danger of the contingency which my noble friend contemplates arising, because the only conceivable inducement for a Government to do anything of the kind—that is to say, appoint a member of the House of Commons to more than one office and have fewer Ministers in this House than this Bill contemplates—would be to provide extra Ministers in the House of Commons, and that is a thing which they are forbidden to do by the expressed terms of Clause 9. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not press his Amendment, although I hope also he will accept my assurance in the qualified terms which I am able to use.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, after the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

GREY SQUIRRELS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION AND KEEPING) ORDER, 1937.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, the Special Orders Committee under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, have reported to your Lordships' House that this Order, which is now submitted for approval, is not founded on any precedent, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, feels it desirable that I should explain shortly to your Lordships the purpose of the Order. The Order has been made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932. The immediate object of that

863
Act was to exterminate the musk rat which was then threatening the countryside, but it also includes powers to extend its application to other destructive mammals not native to this country and not established in a wild state in Great Britain or which had become so established only in the last fifty years. The present Order intends to bring the grey squirrel within the operation of the Act so that it may be prohibited from being imported or being kept in this country.
The indictment against the grey squirrel is a serious one. I feel sure that many of your Lordships will be aware that it causes great damage to farm and horticultural crops, to woodlands and to bird life. As your Lordships no doubt know it feeds upon ripe and unripe fruits, green shoots, buds and inner bark of certain trees, upon bulbs and roots, birds' eggs and young birds. In fact, its reputation as a pest is unassailable and the damage that it causes is of certain economic importance. Propaganda measures have not checked its ravages and something further is therefore thought to be necessary. By applying the Act of 1932 to the grey squirrel, this Order will have the effect of preventing the animal from being imported from abroad and of authorising the Agricultural Departments to take such steps as they think necessary to destroy all grey squirrels at large. In England the Ministry of Agriculture may authorise the agricultural committee of a county council to exercise the powers under the Act on the Department's behalf and at the Department's expense.
But we think that the grey squirrel can best be brought under control by voluntary agencies and the Government do not intend to undertake shooting and trapping or to use the power of entry on private land which would be conferred on it if approval is given to this Order. Those powers will not be exercised unless voluntary efforts at control and extermination fail. This Order is in fact an opening step in a campaign of propaganda and publicity which it is hoped will encourage the owners of land to exterminate the grey squirrel by their own efforts. Such efforts will now have the moral backing of this legislation and, in consequence, it is hoped that landowners will be encouraged to persist in the work of extermination until success is achieved, thereby making
864
it unnecessary for the Government to exercise the statutory powers which this Order will confer upon them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 9th instant, be approved (The Earl of Feversham.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I only want to say as I was Chairman of the Special Orders Committee that I think, as the noble Earl has told you, this Order wants a certain amount of explanation. It seems to me that what is to happen is that the grey squirrel is to become a musk rat, subject to all the disabilities of that pest. I was under the impression from what was told us in Committee—perhaps the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong or say if my impression is right—that the Government would render substantial assistance to those who were willing to co-operate in destroying the pest, that they would tell them the best way of dealing with it, and would also share some of the expense which must be entailed if the animal is to be destroyed and got rid of altogether. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me whether I am right or wrong about that.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not want to oppose this Order, but I would like to draw attention to one fact. The Government apparently obtained powers under an Act of 1932 and this year is 1937. The grey squirrel has been known as a menace for a great deal longer than five years. It seems to me rather dilatory for the Government to take action after such long delay. I quite appreciate that the Destructive Imported. Animals Act was passed under the menace of the musk rat. I had the impression that the last musk rat free in the open was killed not so very long ago. From that one gets the idea that the mind of the Ministry of Agriculture is something of the nature of a one-track mind. When the musk rat has been exterminated they take steps to exterminate the next menace. I hope that in future steps will be taken before the menace becomes so widespread as the grey squirrel is now. The grey squirrel has not yet reached my part of the world, but I think that landowners will welcome the Order and that the co-operation of the Department in the extermination of the grey squirrel will

865
be extremely helpful. I would, however, like to ask the noble Earl—I am ignorant of the law—whether the word "keeping" means that if you have unwanted grey squirrels on your land you are keeping them. I do not know whether if that is so you are committing an offence and are liable to a penalty. It would relieve my mind if the noble Earl would tell me that that is not so, because none of us who are landowners wish to keep grey squirrels, although we sometimes cannot help it.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken of measures to be taken in England. I hope that he will be able to inform your Lordships that some similar measures will be taken in Scotland. Unfortunately, in at least one area in Fife, we have that abominable little pest with us. It is said—I do not know whether it is true—that that is due to the mistaken action of the Carnegie Trustees in letting one loose in Dunfermline to amuse the children in a public park. However that may be, a considerable area is now subject to its ravages. I should like an assurance that something will be done to minimise those ravages. I whole-heartedly commend the Order, because I do not think many people in this country will be found who are not prepared to agree that the grey squirrel is a most undesirable alien.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I do not know what is the peculiar offence that the Carnegie Trustees have committed in Dunfermline, although I happen to be one of them. At any rate, I should like the particular offence crystallised for consideration by the Trustees, and I am quite sure—always assuming that they have committed this misdemeanour—that they will take steps to remedy the effect of their action. I really rose because the noble Earl who submitted this Order to your Lordships' House appealed to landowners to do their part in supporting the Government in suppressing the activities, and indeed in destroying the lives, of grey squirrels. He went on to say that the Government themselves did not propose to take any active measures in the matter. As regards the first suggestion, although I speak with some hesitation in the presence of my noble friend Lord
866
Hastings, who is Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Central Landowners' Association, I feel sure that he will allow me as a member of the Council of that Association to say that we will do all in our power in this respect, recognising as we do the very widespread damage for which the grey squirrel is responsible. But I venture to hope that the Government will do their part, too, and that where they control large areas of land where grey squirrels abound they will do their best to prevent grey squirrels spreading on to private property.
I am not in the fortunate position of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, because I happen to have a property in the immediate neighbourhood of the Forest of Dean, and we have also suffered very seriously in recent years from the depredations of foxes. There is no hunting in the district, but we suffer from those depredations entirely owing to the view of the Government Department that the fox has some value in promoting the growth of forest trees. I have never yet discovered what it is; however, I believe that the Department have revised their policy in this respect. I should think there are few parts of the country where the grey squirrel is more rampant or more destructive than in the neighbourhood of the Forest of Dean, and therefore I venture to hope that the noble Earl will see that Government Departments, at least as much as private landowners, will do their best to destroy this pest.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I say a few words to reinforce what has just been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe? The Government must recognise that the amount of property now in the hands of Government Departments is very large. The Forestry Commission are one of the owners of such property, and it is quite impossible for landowners to compete either with this kind of pest or with any other unless they have the co-operation of those owners or administrators of public property in the sense that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has mentioned. Quite truly landowners may be relied upon to co-operate with the Government, as they always have been, but their best efforts will be of no avail unless the Forestry Commission and other large public bodies can be induced to follow suit and not only to look upon

867
birds and animals solely from the standpoint of the damage or good they do to property, but to adopt a larger view altogether and treat the matter from a wide national standpoint. The purpose of the noble Earl's Motion and of the Paper which he has laid upon the Table will be very largely defeated unless he can prevail upon Departments and public authorities to follow the advice which he has given, and very properly given, to landowners.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: May I ask a question on one practical point? When this Order comes into force, will local authorities be empowered by the Ministry of Agriculture to give their assistance to private landowners in exterminating the grey squirrel?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I wish to assure the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in answer to the question that he put to me that the Ministry of Agriculture will endeavour in the future, as they have in the past, to give every assistance possible to private landowners in the campaign for the extermination of the grey squirrel.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Does that include financial assistance?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: No, not financial assistance.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: They told us that in Committee.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There was a few years ago an organisation called the National Anti-Grey-Squirrel Campaign, and as a result of that campaign certain resolutions were passed at a Conference in 1931 and were sent to the Ministry of Agriculture. One was a recommendation to issue an educational pamphlet on the grey squirrel and to suggest means by which its extermination could be most suitably brought about. These resolutions have been carried into effect by the Ministry of Agriculture. An advisory pamphlet has been circulated, a broadcast talk has been arranged and county councils have been circularised on two occasions about the need for an intensive campaign against the grey squirrel within their boundaries. Therefore, my Lords, a certain amount has been done in the past few years under the auspices of the Government Department concerned, with the co-operation of the county
868
councils, to organise a campaign on a national basis.
I should like to give the assurance not only to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, but also to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that it certainly is the most earnest intention of the Ministry of Agriculture to see that the problem is more successfully dealt with as a result of the moral backing given by this Order, empowering the employees of the State, either through the assistance of the county council or direct from the central authority, to enter on private ground. I know from my own estate in Yorkshire, which is one of the areas most thickly populated with grey squirrels, that a constant difficulty in eliminating the pest is the fact that they come from extensive forest areas such as that which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has mentioned. And as soon as one kills 300 or 400 grey squirrels in any given month a similar number come the next month and take their places. I am in entire agreement that it is essential that, if the grey squirrel is to be exterminated, the campaign must be on a nation-wide basis. It is with that object in view that the Order has been placed before your Lordships' House this afternoon for approval.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Might I ask the noble Earl whether he is speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as of the Minister of Agriculture?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am very glad that the noble Marquess has been so kind as to bring forward that point, which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has also raised. I referred first to the procedure that could be undertaken in England: the Ministry of Agriculture might authorise county councils to exterminate the grey squirrel and pay their expenses. That could not apply to Scotland, for I understand that the Department of Agriculture there is solely responsible for the elimination of the grey squirrel. It cannot be done there through the local authority, for there is no constituted agricultural committee similar to that which is in being in this country. Nevertheless, the work will be undertaken centrally in Scotland by the Department of Agriculture.

869
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, made the accusation that the Ministry of Agriculture had a one-track mind, and he referred to the fact that this Order had not been submitted to your Lordships for approval until the problem of the musk rat had been dealt with. I do not admit that the noble Earl is correct in his statement that we have a one-track mind. In the particular instance of the musk rat, we have been successful in eliminating that pest from England since the Act came into force in 1932, and 4,000 musk rats have been killed. I believe that rumours have been reported that the musk rat still exists in Scotland, but I hope that if our one-track mind can prevail as successfully in the campaign against the grey squirrel as it was able to do against the musk rat the noble Earl will, at a later date, be prepared to withdraw such a severe indictment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, asked me whether it was possible to give assistance to individual landowners in the extermination of the grey squirrel. It is not intended, unless voluntary enterprise fails of effect, to use the power of entry upon private property, and no such assistance is contemplated from State sources at present; but it is expected that with the publicity which will be given in the near future to this question, and with the increased propaganda which will be conducted both by the organisation which was instituted for this particular purpose and by the broadcast talks which may be given, it will not be necessary for State employees to have powers of entry to kill the grey squirrel.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: If I may say so the analogy which the noble Earl has drawn of the effective measures against the musk rat, where real means were taken by the local authorities, is not quite a fair one, because the propaganda against the grey squirrel is only to be a paper one. The musk rat was treated quite differently, and effectively.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Viscount is quite correct. It is true that at present there is only paper propaganda; but if voluntary means are not successful, then, without further submission to your Lordships' House, this Order can be implemented, as it was in the case of the musk rat. But I do not think it would be generally acceptable to landowners throughout the country if at
870
this stage, without further endeavour on the part of private enterprise, the Government were to take action immediately by right of entry in all cases.
LORD STANMORE: The noble Earl has stated that no financial assistance will be given to landowners in exterminating the grey squirrel. I was a member of the Special Orders Committee and there we distinctly understood that financial assistance would be given, and traps would be supplied.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: I am disappointed with the statement of the noble Earl. Of course we all want to get rid of the grey squirrel immediately, but the measures described to us seem to me to be very far away. Of what use is it to kill a grey squirrel to-day, when you know that another will come over the hedge from the property of someone else to-morrow? You may spend money in killing them off on your property, but no effort is made to kill them where they are breeding in somebody else's wood, or garden, it may be. I think we had better begin as soon as we can, and that the sooner we get these animals put upon a penal basis the better. I am certainly sorry that none of these traps will be supplied to those who have not got them, or the means of assistance to destroy the nests of these animals. One's neighbours may be able to give information about the grey squirrel, but they have not the means perhaps of destroying them, and I hope we shall not be long before we get some slight financial assistance, for without some Government assistance I do not see how we are going to exterminate these animals at present.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Perhaps when he replies the noble Earl will answer my question, whether it is an offence for an owner to have a grey squirrel upon his land.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am sure my right honourable friend will be very pleased at the expressions of opinion which have been made in this House this afternoon, because it was felt that the action that was proposed to be taken might not meet with the unanimous approval which your Lordships have expressed in this debate. I should like to assure Lord Iveagh that, in the event of the nation-wide campaign for the extermination of the grey squirrel being unsuccessful, then it would be possible at

871
some future date to make some financial provision for assistance to be given to those persons, to whom the noble Earl referred, who could not exterminate the grey squirrel with their own private resources. It is not, however, contemplated that such action should be taken until the result of the campaign which I have outlined is ascertained.
Lord Radnor asked a question as to the definition of the word "keeping." The noble Earl is quite right, inasmuch as the word "keeping" does not mean that those persons who have grey squirrels on their property will on that account be contravening the Order. The word "keeping" is directed against any person inducing a grey squirrel, whether in captivity or wild, to remain on his property. Some people keep grey squirrels as pets, and there is no incentive to trap or shoot if the squirrel next door happens to escape from the cage in which it is kept as a pet. The prohibition of "keeping" would apply to such cases as these, where the act of keeping was the result of a deliberate intention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I think you will agree that the demand for increased opportunities for physical training and fitness, particularly amongst the younger generation, is one of the most striking phenomena of the present day. How far this is due to the scantier but more healthy clothing which is now the fashion, particularly amongst the other sex, I am not prepared to say, but I think you will agree that the clothing of the present day, especially among hikers and others, makes any physical idiosyncrasy far more obvious to ordinary persons than it was. Rather do I base the demand for physical training and fitness on the results of national education. For many years we have been improving physical training in schools, and whereas in the old days only some two hours a week were given for playground exercises and gymnastic activities, at the present time it is not uncommon in elementary schools that a period
872
of physical activity should be provided for every day. That is more true, I am afraid, in our elementary schools than in our secondary schools, and it is only true to a wide extent where reorganisation has already taken place. Nevertheless, throughout the schools as a whole physical training has been very much improved as compared with old days. Since the War we have been pressing for a wider and more varied syllabus of physical training, to include an adequate daily period of exercise, organised games, wherever possible, swimming instruction, and gymnastics for older boys and girls. The result of that has been that children have left school with a desire for physical exercise. That desire has spread among the younger generation and they have now, I am glad to say, infected a great many of their elders.
Your Lordships debated the question of national physique last winter on November 10, and the noble Lord opposite, Lord Dawson of Penn, on that occasion remarked that we should distinguish between physical education and physical recreation. Well, I want both. I want the physical education given in schools compulsorily, and I want that given in such a way that it will become a hobby and a physical recreation to children when they leave school and in their later years. Of course the difficulty is, as Lord Milne said in the same debate, that "many of the people in this country who are in close contact with the young men and the young women after they leave school feel that what they have gained in school they lose once they leave school. The reason of that is that there are no facilities at all for the youth of the nation to carry out physical exercises. They are lacking in all opportunities for physical development." It is to meet that need that the Government have produced this Bill.
Before I deal with the clauses, I should like to mention a few general principles or which the Government scheme rests. The first, and perhaps the most important, is that the scheme is entirely voluntary. There were some noble Lords in the last debate who rather urged the Government to impose a compulsory scheme such as is in being in several Continental countries, but, as I think my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal pointed out in that

873
debate, there are other countries in Europe which have made a great success of physical training, and which do the whole thing on a voluntary basis, such as Sweden and Czechoslovakia. I think there is no question about the advantages of the voluntary system in the mind of anybody in your Lordships' House except possibly the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, who at one time had a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of this Bill. I understand that his motive for the rejection was that the Bill did not go far enough, and I think he possibly wanted a measure of compulsion, though I am not quite clear as to that. But with that possible exception I think your Lordships will agree that at any rate in this country it is essential that we should stick closely to the voluntary principle, for the simple reason that an Englishman is a fairly easy person to lead, but he is an impossible person to drive.
The second general principle is that the scheme is based on existing organisations. It is not proposed to build up an entirely new organisation to supplant and eradicate all those in existence. The reasons for that are two. In the first place there is no idea of setting up one new and uniform system. The Government feel that many parts of the country, differing so much as they do from each other, require different systems and different methods, and the town and the country also may have to be treated in different ways. Secondly, they feel that, with the number and value of the voluntary organisations already in existence in this country, it would obviously be extremely foolish not to make use of those voluntary organisations. There are, for instance, boys' and girls' clubs, which have been in existence for many years, the polytechnics, which appeal to my noble friend the Lord Chancellor in both a personal and an hereditary aspect, the Y.M.C.A.s and the Y.W.C.A.s, Scouts, Guides, and many other organisations. The object of the scheme is to mobilise voluntary effort and to join it with the extremely valuable work which is already being done throughout the country by local authorities. Now the tradition of the best voluntary organisations is not that the training should be purely physical. They have also aimed at training minds, and their objective has been a healthy mind in a healthy body. That fits in with
874
the aim which has been constantly before the Board of Education for many years, that a child should be made fit mentally, physically and socially for the life which lies in front of it.
The third principle which I should like to emphasise is that the scheme is in no sense military. It has been represented in various quarters that because this scheme came in at the same time as the Government rearmament scheme therefore they were linked together and this was a method of obtaining recruits for the Army and the other two Services and getting them physically fit to pass the doctor and to pass into the Services. In fact, I have seen it stated in some organs of the Press that the sole reason why I was appointed to the Board of Education was that I happened to have served some time in the Army, and therefore I was put in to militarise the whole physical education of the country. I admit that it is hard sometimes to see ourselves as others see us, but I have never been able yet to visualise myself as a very rubicund Colonel Blimp giving physical training to, I suppose, a squad of elderly spinsters and maiden aunts. Although there is no mention of a drill hall in the Bill, there is a mention of gymnasia, and that has caused one member of your Lordships' House who is so intimately acquainted with youth organisations, Lord Baden Powell, to say that he thinks there is too much emphasis on the gymnasium and gymnastic training, and not enough on outdoor exercise. If your Lordships examine Clause 3 of the Bill or the White Paper you will see that there is just as much insistence on playing fields, holiday camps and camping sites as there is on gymnasia.
We have to remember that in this country, being so largely urbanised as it is, it is very difficult to provide open spaces where games can readily be played, and it is difficult for those who work in great cities such as this to find the time to get away when their work is over to play games except at the week-ends. Therefore very often a good deal of their physical training has to be done in gymnasia. Particularly is that true during the winter months. There is, of course, a further reason why we should rather emphasise gymnasia. In foreign countries they have always started with gymnasia and gymnastic clubs, and it is only comparatively recently that they have taken to games

875
and outdoor sports. We in this country have started at the opposite end. We have started with games and sports, and it is only recently that we have realised the value of gymnastic training. We have begun to discover, possibly as the result of our not getting as many successes as we had hoped in the Olympic Games and other contests, that gymnastic training and outdoor exercise necessarily go together to get the perfect athlete. I think now there is no question that any professional footballer would at once say he would have very little chance in a Football Cup tie if he had not gone into strict physical training as well.
Of course, it is possible to become very fit by gymnastic training alone or even by home training. I think probably a good many of your Lordships do a certain amount of physical exercise in the morning. I do on a rowing machine, but I am bound to admit, and I think every one of your Lordships will admit, that it is extremely dull, and we shall never make a real success of a national system which confines itself solely to gymnastic training and physical jerks. Therefore we want to make it the more attractive by joining it up with outdoor sports and outdoor games, which by themselves do not make a man completely and absolutely as fit as he could be made, but which, joined with the gymnastic training, make an attractive hobby and recreation for people and, we believe, will be of real value to the health of the country. I hope I shall not be criticised for putting forward the views of a "wet bob" when I say I agree entirely with the remark in a recent article in The Times that "the ball, while it is in Britain the physical educationist's best servant, is surely his worst master."
If I may turn very briefly to the Bill itself, Clauses 1 and 2 give statutory recognition to the National Advisory Council and to the Grants Committee and provide for the establishment of local committees. There are two National Advisory Councils, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. That for England and Wales consists of thirty-one members under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, and your Lordships will agree that my predecessor was extremely fortunate in having got such a Chairman to preside over this Council. I do not know how many times
876
my noble friend has been champion of tennis and rackets, but if the whole youth and adolescence of this country try to follow his example in sport and games we shall certainly not go far wrong. In Scotland the Chairman is Sir Iain Colquhoun, also a person extremely well known in the North and one who should attract a great following in the propaganda and enthusiasm which we hope to arouse in that part of the country. The Grants Committee in England is presided over by Sir Henry Pelham and in Scotland by Mr. D. A. Anderson. Both the National Advisory Councils and the Grants Committees were set up on March 1. They have been working very hard since and have made considerable progress in planning the arrangements which will be necessary as soon as this Bill passes into law.
Arrangements have been made for setting up regional committees, of which there will be twenty-two in England and Wales and five in Scotland. In both countries it is almost certain that the regional committees will require a number of sub-committees to go over the area and comb it properly, because their duties are very wide. They have to review the facilities in their areas, they have to organise public interest, and they have to examine applications for grants. What normally will happen is that the locality will put up an application for a grant, possibly for a playing field or a swimming bath or a social club. That application is examined by the local committee, who pass it on with their recommendation for or against, and how far other claims are perhaps greater, to the Grants Committee. It is considered by the Grants Committee, and then it comes up before the Board of Education who make the grant or otherwise according to the advice which is given to them by the Grants Committee.
Clause 3 empowers the Board of Education, on the recommendation of the Grants Committee, to pay these grants for new and enlarged facilities for physical training and recreation. The local authority is joined in with the voluntary organisations in each area. The whole scheme is based on a very close co-operation between the local authority and the voluntary organisations, so that they may work together and that there may be no overlapping at all Grants are made for capital expenditure only, because we feel that if there is

877
any real desire for new opportunities for physical training there should be sufficient enthusiasm in the district to be able to raise sufficient money and effort to maintain the facility once it has been granted; but in exceptional cases where there is any difficulty, because the area may be hard hit financially, or may have a great deal of unemployment, then it is possible that a grant may be made for maintenance also.
The Board of Education has power to make grants for other purposes—firstly, for the training and supply of teachers and leaders for this movement. Your Lordships will, of course, agree that the whole success of the movement depends, as it does in so many other organisations such as the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides, on our getting efficient leaders and instructors. I shall have something to say presently of the National College which it is proposed to set up, but for the time being, until such College comes into existence, we propose to make full use of the experience and organisation of the Central Council of Recreative Physical Training. We also hope that the local authorities, and particularly the local education authorities, will co-operate fully in supplying teachers, of whom already a number are trained to enable physical training to be given not only in their own institutions, schools and so on, but also in those provided by voluntary associations as well. The Board of Education may also make grants towards the funds of national organisations for particular purposes. We visualise that some of these national organisations may require organisers locally, and therefore we propose to take powers, if your Lordships approve of this Bill, to meet part or the whole of the cost of the salaries of such organisers where we feel that to be necessary. Clauses 4 and 5 extend and simplify the powers of local authorities.
It is natural that in the notice taken in the Press and elsewhere of the White Paper published earlier in the year, and in the discussion that has taken place in another place, a good deal of emphasis has been laid on the work of voluntary organisations. But that does not mean that the Government do not value very highly indeed the work which has been done for a number of years by the local authorities. Indeed this scheme cannot realty succeed unless the local authorities throw themselves into it heart and soul.
878
Both from their statutory position and from their funds, and in many cases from their own experience, the help they can give to this scheme is of incalculable value.
In Clause 7 power is taken to set up one or more National Colleges, and the Board is empowered to provide, to maintain, and to aid them as it thinks fit. The object of the National College is to train and equip an adequate supply of teachers, carry on research work, arrange demonstrations, and also, if necessary, to help in training instructors for school work. The scheme as regards the National College has not yet been thoroughly worked out, but it is almost certain that at least one College will have to be set up in the very near future.
Clause 10 applies the Bill to Scotland. The remaining clauses to which I have not referred are mostly to bring in the financial provisions of the Bill and so on, and I need not go into them at this stage. Your Lordships may wish to know the estimated cost of this proposal. It is difficult to make a close estimate, but it is proposed that £2,000,000 sterling should be spent on capital expenditure over a period of three years, while the cost of maintenance will be about £150,000 a year. That is apart from the cost in Scotland.
His Majesty's Government believe that this Bill fills a very widely felt want. The knowledge of the value of physical training and physical culture is growing very rapidly throughout the country, and people really need greater facilities than they have at present. On the other hand, we realise that even now that knowledge is nothing like so widespread as it should be. There is still a very large number of people, including, I am afraid, those who sometimes are responsible for the better known public schools of the country, who have not yet realised the value of physical training. Some schools are renowned for producing boys who, perhaps because of their practice of walking about with their hands in their pockets as the school custom is, have round shoulders for the rest of their lives; and that does not apply to the elementary schools but to some of the best known public schools of the country. Therefore we feel that, even though in many cases the value of this training is appreciated, a good deal has yet to be done to make it more widely

879
known, and even where it is widely known to let people understand what we think is the best method of providing physical fitness and where facilities exist in their own areas to obtain it. Therefore power is taken under subsection (3) of Clause 3 for the Board of Education, in consultation with the National Advisory Council and on the recommendation of the Grants Committee, to spend money on publicity and propaganda.
We shall not achieve even with these methods any real success in this scheme unless we can bring it down to the individual by personal interview and by personal influence. That is where I should like to appeal to members of your Lordships' House, and particularly, if I may, to those who at times appear here but unfortunately are not present here to-day. I have been a member of this House many years and remember when the attendance was very much greater. It has been reduced, I think, mainly for two reasons. One is that many of your Lordships find it impossible to maintain a house in London and one in the country in these days when taxation is very heavy, and the other is that, unfortunately, our debates are perhaps more one-sided than they have been in previous years, so that many noble Lords feel they can exercise more influence for good by remaining in their country districts and taking part in local government than they can by attending your Lordships' House. That means that their influence in their own districts is very material indeed. I hope that many noble Lords who read this debate may feel that here they have a real opportunity of using that influence to the full by making this scheme known throughout their own areas, by making it known in the small towns, in the villages and even in the cottages, by seeing that every individual is made to realise how much benefit can be achieved by doing more physical training and more physical fitness exercises than he has ever done before, and insisting that his children also shall follow on the same lines.
It is only so, I think, that we shall obtain that increase in happiness which so many of us realise depends primarily on good health, and that we shall be enabled to improve the country in the region of health, fitness and happiness. Therefore, believing that this Bill does afford very much greater opportunities
880
than have ever been provided for the public in the past, I have every confidence in asking your Lordships to give it a very favourable passage through this House and not less support than it received in another place. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have authorised me to offer no opposition to this Bill; in fact to welcome it, and I do so with very great pleasure. And also, with very great pleasure, may I congratulate the noble Earl not only on his presentation of the Bill but upon his assumption of the high office of Minister of Education? When this movement for physical culture started I had the impression that the Ministry of Health were going to be responsible, but I gather now that it is to be the responsibility of the Board of Education. That being the case, and knowing the noble Earl as we do, I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that we could not have—with the necessity of having this Government in office at all—a better representative at the Ministry of Education than the noble Earl.
May I also very humbly support what he said in his tribute to my noble friend Lord Aberdare, and venture to agree with him in the good fortune that the nation and the Administration have had in securing his services as Chairman of the Advisory Council? He is himself a very good example of what happens to a man who keeps himself fit and keeps up his sports and recreations. I have felt for a very long time, and I have voiced it in public, that we ought to have a separate Ministry in this country for the whole range of sport and physical culture and everything in connection with that side of human activities. I believe it is of tremendous importance nowadays. With more and more people living in great cities, something of that kind is absolutely necessary. Sport is also of tremendous importance in present-day civilisation. I used to advocate that we should have a separate Under-Secretary of State for sport and physical culture. Well, I am not sure that this system may not be better if the President of the Board of Education can really take the matter under his wing and push it forward and help it.

881
I have two observations of a slightly critical nature to make, but not in connection with what is in the Bill. I have to take the opportunity of drawing attention to two other factors closely connected with the subject we are now discussing. The first is this. There is a welcome and splendid movement in the country, which the noble Earl I am sure would wish to encourage in every way, for people to get more and more out into the open country. Hiking, scouting, rock-climbing and mountaineering are all very splendid, and the people indulging in them have found that they are wonderful things, yet too much of the wilder part of this country is shut off from the general public. Bills have been introduced into both Houses of Parliament again and again to give access to the uncultivated parts of the country—the moorlands, mountains and so on—and they have always been rejected. I really think it is time the Government took the matter in hand. I will take only one example, the Pennines, which are almost a gift of the Almighty to the industrial regions of Northern England. A great part of the Pennines is forbidden to the people in the crowded cities and coalfields round about them.
A second observation I have to make on behalf of my Party, and this was discussed at a meeting of our Party Executive. It is that we can spend money upon, and organise, encourage and stimulate, physical culture, physical exercises and recreation as much as we like, but that if we have a large section of the people under-nourished or suffering from malnutrition, all that will be wasted. If I may put it colloquially, we say that wholesome and sufficient food is more important for a large section of poor people to-day than physical jerks. At the present time there is a large section of the population who definitely do not get sufficient food of the right quality to keep them in proper health. That, we say, is a scandal and a disgrace, because we have all the means of producing all the foodstuffs required in overwhelming abundance. It is a fatal flaw in the present economic and capitalist system, and it is because we recognise this flaw that we exist as a separate Party to try to remove it. I have to make that protest at the unnecessary malnutrition that is suffered by many people of this country; and, of course, the most disgraceful case of all is that of the young children. I
882
admit that the Government have done a good deal in making milk more freely available, but they ought to do a great deal more.
I am now going to deal with a matter which the noble Earl very cleverly evaded, and that is the importance of physical fitness in national defence. We recognise that on this side. We are not afraid of saying that part of our national defence must be a strong, virile population. If you want an Army, you may as well see that the recruits are strong and healthy. The fact that the noble Earl had a distinguished military career does not prejudice him in my eyes as Minister of Education. From that point of view alone I should have thought that he present Government, which is spending £2,000,000,000 on armaments—which we do not challenge as a policy—ought at least to see that young people have enough to eat so that they may be strong enough to bear arms, which is not the case at present in very large areas of the country.
I have had to make those two very critical observations on the Bill, and now I am going to make a constructive suggestion which I hope will interest the noble Earl. There is a very welcome growth in this country of what are called holiday camps. The noble Earl may have noticed them when moving about the country in seaside districts and other places. They are well fitted hutment camps, at which families and parties of friends can rent accommodation very reasonably, and they have all kinds of sporting facilities. There could be many more of them, and I think they would be worth subsidising, if they were in certain chosen areas, for this purpose. If you had more of these camps in certain suitable places, they would be very valuable in case of war, as mobilisation centres for the Territorial Army and other units. I think it would be worth while subsidising certain of these camps in conjunction with the War Office. I can make this suggestion because the noble Earl is a little diffident, but I am not afraid, of being accused of militarism. I think it is worth serious consideration. I hope that the whole scheme in the Bill will be most successful, and that the noble Earl and Lord Aberdare and others who will do the spade-work will be able to achieve a great step forward for the health and happiness of the people.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I warmly welcome this Bill, and there are two observations I should like to make in doing so. In the first place I am inclined to think that familiarity, besides breeding contempt, breeds complacency with existing conditions. I make that observation after five years' residence at the other end of the Empire, in New Zealand. Upon coming back here I discovered two factors which I am bound to say caused me a considerable shock. One of them—I have referred to it before in your Lordships' House—was the relative neglect of our land, and the other was the relative neglect of national physique in this old country of ours. I cannot help thinking that any one who goes with his eyes open to other parts of the world will discover that our national physique is not improving pari passu with that of several other countries, some of them fortunately comprised in the British Empire, but some of which, in days to come, may be potential enemies.
The other reason why I welcome the Bill—and I say it as President of the National Council of Social Service—is that it definitely combines Government action with voluntary organisation. I have had the opportunity, during the last two years, of seeing some quite admirable work in every sphere of social activity, including physical training and welfare in different parts of this country, and notably in what are known as the Special or Distressed Areas. I really cannot speak with sufficient admiration of the selfless work that is being conducted by numerous voluntary organisations, particularly in those unhappy areas, for the social advancement and physical development of those who are out of work or are dependants of unemployed persons, notably those connected with what are called occupational centres.
I notice that the noble Earl, in introducing this Bill, referred to the local authorities and the powers that they will have in future to obtain from the Government, I think through the Board of Education, certain grants for the purposes of this Bill. But he did not, I think, refer specifically to the local voluntary organisations which, for this purpose, are linked with the local authorities. May I say how very glad I am to find that there
884
is that link, and that there is special provision made in Clause 3 (1) (c) for grants being made to any national voluntary organisation having such objects as are stated in the Bill. I am perfectly conscious that one of the organisations must be that over which I have the honour to preside—namely, the National Council of Social Service. Therefore I want to express my special gratification at what I am sure will be the immense stimulus to the work which is rapidly developing with important ramifications of social value all over the country, but which has insufficient means to respond to the appeals constantly made by voluntary organisations carrying on unselfish work to the limit of their own financial resources.
There is one little matter to which perhaps I may be allowed to refer, and that is the tendency of some local authorities under the provisions of such a Bill as this to develop what I may call a somewhat one-sided programme of social, physical or health improvement to the displacement of other activities which are not less worthy of encouragement. I want to refer in this connection very specially to cottage gardens and allotments which are growing up in many arias, and which are of immense value to the older men in industrial districts who find themselves out of employment. In every area near an industrial town there is no doubt whatever that you have a large and important measure of health, and incidentally a greater adaptability, developing amongst those who have allotments and cottage gardens generously and amply provided with the help of the local authorities. In all the areas where there is serious unemployment, which it has been my experience to visit—I visited one only a fortnight ago in the colliery area of Nottinghamshire—where there are allotments provided, there is an element of hope. Not only is there an element of hope, but what we call the hard core of unemployment is not so obviously distressing. The men of forty-five years and upwards who have their allotments have some interest in life, and are not obsessed with the unfortunate idea that no employment can possibly await them in the future, and that therefore they are of no value as units in a self-respecting community. The fact that these men have the opportunity given them to bring some-

885
thing into the home maintains, not only an element of hope, but what I believe a Britisher regards as of more value than anything else, self respect.
I see in some parts of this country, particularly in the neighbourhood of our towns, not only public gardens but gymnasia, and, if I may be allowed to mention them, aerodromes being provided to the displacement of allotment gardens. I cannot persuade myself that that is taking a long view in the best interests of the country. I want to utter the hope that when the provisions of Clause 3 of this Bill, operating under the Board of Education, come to be carried out by the local authority, some sympathy will be shown to the allotment holders rather than that, for these new purposes of physical welfare, they should be displaced from their helpful and, as I believe, nationally useful activities.
I do not want to say anything more except that, knowing something of the activities of my noble friend Lord Aberdare and of Sir Iain Colquhoun, I most warmly welcome their appointment as Chairmen of the Advisory Councils for England and Scotland respectively. I am perfectly sure that under their Chairmanship the movement will not only proceed as the Government desire, but also proceed with new sympathy for those voluntary organisations which are doing their best to help in this desirable movement. May I add one word, and refer to the appointment of Captain Lionel Ellis as the organising secretary of the Advisory Council for England and Wales? Those who have known anything about the work of the National Council of Social Service for the last nineteen years must realise its enormous value and, in addition, the far-seeing vision and energy which Captain Lionel Ellis has thrown into his work as its secretary. If he does anything like as good work for the new Advisory Council as he has done for the National Council of Social Service, I am perfectly sure that the work will be carried on with great success and with great advantage to this country.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my new headmaster, the President of the Board of Education, has moved the Second Reading of the Bill with the lucidity and thoroughness which one would expect of him and has left me very little of substance to add. However, I
886
think it is entirely wrong, when there is a good Bill before this House, that a little more should not be made of it and a little more verbal support given to it. I hope, therefore, that I shall not weary your Lordships if I cover a certain amount of the same ground in the few words which I have to say. I should like to support this Bill, not only from the position which has surprisingly come my way—and here perhaps I may thank the three noble Lords who have been good enough to say those very kind words about me—but also because I have myself gained so much value, especially before and during the War, from physical training, and have derived so much enjoyment from cricket and other games. Naturally I would wish that everyone in this country could get an equal opportunity. Especially would I wish that everyone could feel what it is like to be really fit.
The ideal behind this campaign is an ideal of personal fitness: fitness for the greater enjoyment of life. We should fight hard to remove the reproach that we are a C3 nation. And we should aim at making everybody fit and therefore happy. I have no doubt that efficiency at work and zest for the pleasures of life can be enormously increased by being in good physical condition. I agree the whole structure of this Bill, and the only fault I can find with it is that it did not come earlier. The Greeks, two thousand years ago, knew that the only educated man was the man who was fit in body as well as in mind. It is curious that we remember that fact by the Latin tag "Mens sana in corpore sano". Perhaps my headmaster can give me the Greek equivalent! The best Greek thinkers did not, however, believe in the athlete or the champion as the ideal for everyone. Plato said that "the athlete was on the slippery slope which led to degeneration." The Greeks' great merit was that they practised what they preached and acted on the knowledge that the fit man was the happy man.
I believe that the result of this Bill will be bigger than any one anticipated who was instrumental in its original introduction to our democratic life. I foresee a great strengthening of the moral fibre and character of the citzens of our country; this, among other things, should go a long way to reduce the number of inmates of the prisons and asylums. I foresee better health, which will mean the need

887
of less medicine and drugs and should go far to relieve the pressure on our hospitals. I foresee better mental balance and alertness of mind, which should have very far-reaching effects, even so far perhaps as to reduce the number of deaths on our roads.
There is little left for me to say in amplification of what the President of the Board of Education has said about the technical effect of this Bill, but perhaps I may be allowed to reply to some of the criticisms which have been made of its purpose and otherwise. The first is of militarism. I am sure there is no truth in the charge that the Bill has a military motive, and I am glad to say that no responsible leader of public opinion has ever said so. The scheme seems to me to be the natural result of the demand of the children after leaving school because of their appreciation and understanding of the benefits of being physically fit. The aim is to inculcate a new way of life and a new attitude of mind. I need only stress what the President has already said: that the scheme is completely voluntary and that there is no regimentation. Compulsion or uniformity would be entirely alien to the national traditions and, I am sure, would be very much resented throughout the country.
Secondly, may I refer to gymnasia? A noble Lord for whom I have the very highest respect and who has been doing and, I am glad to say, continues to do such excellent work for youth, is reported to have said that gymnasia are unnecessary. I wish it were so, for I should like to see all exercise taken in the fresh air. What with our climate, however, the fact that darkness draws in early during over half the year and that the majority of our people are at work during the day light and live in large cities and towns where there are few playing fields within very close reach, gymnasia are generally a necessity. It is not the intention of the Council to set up gymnasia in pepper-pot fashion up and down the country. The Council are equally concerned with providing for swimming, walking, cycling and all forms of sport and exercise. They do not want to make everyone do physical jerks, though I should be glad personally to hear that everyone was doing his daily dozen. There are many people who do not realise
888
that modern exercise in a gymnasium is a pleasant and enjoyable thing. Such exercises give poise, balance, and the sense of rhythm, and really help sportsmen and athletes to do better at their activities. Boys like advanced gymnastics because of the chance to show off their strength and skill. "Gyms." can also serve other purposes—they can be the meeting place for boxing, fencing and other clubs, and also the sites for badminton, net-ball and other games.
Thirdly, may I say a word on nutrition? It has been stated that a vast number of children are under-nourished, and not fit for any physical training. The quotation which I noted was that "Anæmic children look distressed after doing physical training." I know that the Government have been, and are, taking steps to improve nutrition, which means better housing, better working conditions, etc., as well as supplying extra food in certain cases. This country is one of the best fed in the world. No school child, I am sure, need be underfed. I believe that ample powers and machinery exist for feeding children who need it. The machinery should be used, and the responsibility lies largely with the teacher, who has emergency powers to put a child on the feeding or milk list until a doctor can be seen. I am sure that no one would purposely put children through a course of physical training which was too much for them. I think that this subject has been overstressed and does not really arise under this Bill. May I state, however, that recent routine examination in London schools showed that of 184,733 children examined—these were unselected children—only 122 were found to be seriously ill-nourished, that is one in 1,500. Recently I was told by a reliable social service worker that he saw no sign of under-nourishment in Battersea.
Fourthly, may I say a word about overworked pitboys? It was stated in another place that boys working in mines, who had to get up at 4.30 a.m., would not be fit at any time to take advantage of this Bill. Some people may find difficulty in taxing exercise owing to working hours, but even those who engage in heavy manual work are made more brisk and are refreshed by physical exercise. Novelty and variety are probably the reason, but there is also the fact that different muscles are being brought into play, thus relieving the strain.

889
There is a wealth of testimony to this effect. Major Gamier, who for some thirteen years has so well and successfully been training teachers and leaders at the Lucas Tooth Gymnasium in the East End of London, speaking on the wireless the other clay, gave an example. A bricklayer's labourer, who felt tired after carrying bricks up his ladder, was refreshed after half an hour in a "gym". I think there is no doubt that a boy or man who takes regular exercise of a scientific type can do manual work with less weariness. It is the difference between being in training and out of training. Fifthly, and lastly, surprise was expressed that the B.B.C. did not provide early morning broadcasts. Discussions took place with the B.B.C. sometime ago, but certain technical difficulties were standing in the way. I am hopeful, however, that they will be making an announcement shortly, although possibly only of an experiment.
Now may I say one word about the National College? There must be an adequate supply of teachers, leaders and organisers. It is necessary to see that facilities throughout the country are properly used, and to keep people enthusiastic. The National College, to my mind, is a vital necessity, and not only for this purpose but for carrying out the very necessary medical research. I am not intending to say anything further upon the question of medical research, seeing that Lord Dawson is here and may be inclined to speak on the subject. Certainly no one can be more qualified to do so, I feel the College is perhaps the mainspring of the whole movement.
The Council must arouse a personal ambition in everyone to be fit and healthy. For this purpose they will need to use all the resources of modern publicity, such as posters, booklets and films. They must keep physical training plus recreation steadily before the people, and encourage them to use their leisure hours wisely. They hope to see the people of the nation fit and happy, so that they may enjoy their life to the full. They do not aim at getting champions, but wish everyone to reach a reasonable standard of proficiency in whatever line of activity they care to take up. My Lords, if this new machine does its work then it is only left to the individual to do his bit. I trust that we shall find that a very large number of our people over school age will join in, and
890
if they do I think that one day it will be recognised that the day on which this Bill became law was a milestone and a turning point in the history of the progress of this country.
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Aberdare that this Bill is of vast importance, because it does give method and structure to a policy which will aim at the promotion of the fitness of the nation. It is necessary not only in the interest of the present generation but of future generations, that they should be given the best opportunity to turn those great potentialities which are particularly notable in the British race into actualities. We have only to go back to the time of the War to visualise what powers are in our blood. At Aldershot, at the beginning of the War, there were sent down a number of lads who, you would have thought at the time, could never be converted into anything approaching a soldier. At the end of six weeks they already showed an alteration; at the end of six months they were unrecognisable. And my belief is that if the youth of this nation get the opportunity of a training in fitness they will create a surprise by the rapid way in which they will respond, for they have a certain elasticity, not only of body but of mind, which makes them respond very easily to advantages in the way of physical education.
I said I would urge that not only is this an important matter to the present generation but a higher standard of physical fitness is necessary for the preservation of the nation in future generations, and I will try quite briefly to put that forward. We have to remember that in securing a fit race in days gone by nature did a large part of the work. She killed off the unfit, and only the fit survived. But we are gradually undoing nature's efforts by our developed sense of greater humanity and a more acute conscience towards those who are in distress and those who are weak. But if we are to continue that policy of looking after the weaker brethren—and I cannot conceive anybody doubting that that is a right policy—we must remember that we are at the same time undoing nature's plan for discarding the weaklings of the race. It therefore becomes doubly important for us to set up a policy which will create fitness. If we create fitness and

891
give the proper opportunities it is inevitable that the more fit and efficient will come to the fore. Consequently the more fit and efficient will lead the nation, and the fit boys will ultimately marry the fit girls, and you will raise the eugenic standard of the race. It must be borne in mind that the young are all hero worshippers and they will follow the leaders of their own generation. If therefore you give opportunity to those who are most fit to move forward, as they inevitably will, in the company of their generation, they will set the pace of conduct and the standard of fitness for those who will come after them.
May I make one reference to the National College? I agree with my noble friend Lord Aberdare that that from one point of view is the pivot of this scheme. If we have a suitable college—and I hope it will be within reach of London—and if that college is erected in suitable and large enough grounds, we shall be able to have a community of students where they will learn the technique of their business, where men who are going to take up physical education as a whole-time job will be trained, and, in addition to those, where organisers and leaders for the voluntary organisations can receive a training of lesser duration and less strenuousness. And I hope there will be one more class regarded. I hope that we shall be able to choose the best of the boys who are passing into adolescence and give them at this college a special six-months training. Thus we may test out those who we think are potentially fit, and be able to give those who do turn out to be fit the opportunity of becoming the leaders of their generation in the walks of life which they individually pursue.
One word on the subject of nutrition. Is not the difference between my noble friends Lord Aberdare and Lord Strabolgi this, that the distribution in this country of what is called malnutrition—or what is, I think, very often more accurately called under-nutrition—is patchy? If one goes to the London elementary schools, one is very much impressed with the great change in the children. They are for the most part well nourished, even in the poorest districts. They are well dressed. They are a different generation from the
892
children we used to see years ago. On the other hand, if you go to the distressed areas where unemployment is rampant, I agree that there are places where under-nourishment may be found, and in some places one cannot get away from it. It is quite obvious. In connection with under-nutrition I think we are apt to lose sight of the fact that so many of the people of this country who are the heads of households have never been taught how to choose food. They do not know how to spend their weekly earnings to good advantage. Any one who has had opportunities of going into the homes of those who are less well off than oneself will be struck by the fact that they do not know how to choose food—food that is well within the reach of their earnings.
Further than that, so few of them know how to cook it. If you compare this country with certain countries on the Continent, the difference is manifest. If you go into the homes here you may see children sitting round a table and, instead of wholesome fond which has been cooked for their consumption, you see tinned fish, tinned vegetables and many other things which avoid the trouble of cooking. It is not only because the parents are unwilling to cook—in many instances they have never been taught how to cook. The result is that the homes of those of the in industrial classes do show more than one could wish an under-nourishment which is partly due to their want of education in this particular. It is not due to any carelessness or to want of love for their children, because there is nothing more striking than the devotion to the children to be found in most homes in all classes in this country: it is due to want of knowledge. And I believe that one of the best investments that the Government could make would be to provide travelling vans to go about the country and stop here, there and everywhere to give lessons and lectures on the choice and cooking of food. I believe that people are ready to receive such instruction, because they are beginning to understand that the choosing and cooking of food are no small matters in securing the proper nourishment of our younger people. I have nothing but praise for this Bill. I agree with my noble friend opposite that it gives an opportunity for opening up a new era. By the means provided in this Bill we have a prospect of giving this race the

893
opportunities which it needs to bring itself to the forefront in physical fitness and happiness.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I rise only to thank your Lordships who have taken part in the debate for the kind way in which the Bill has been received. I think the main point raised by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strabolgi—the question of nutrition—has been very adequately dealt with by the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn. I find myself in entire agreement with everything that Lord Dawson has said. I have not been very long in my present office, but I have already been making inquiries in the direction in which spoke, and my own view is that it is largely a question of education much more than a question of lack of money. A great deal can be done in that direction I am sure.
May I remind the noble Lord opposite of this, too? Many people are inclined to quote the very high physical development in Germany, and yet the younger Germans were those born either during or just after the War, when the question of nutrition in Germany was of course one of great difficulty and when practically no children, whatever their class or whatever their wealth, had much chance of getting adequate food. Similarly in regard to Czechoslovakia. Those of your Lordships who know something of the conditions in Czechoslovakia will say that anything of that kind was quite out of the question here; even amongst the unemployed the standard of life of our people here is so much higher than it is there. Yet in Czechoslovakia, by voluntary methods, the improvement in physique of all classes, and particularly working class, has been very remarkable. It has been due not to better nutrition so much as to physical training and physical
894
development given by the sort of methods that we propose under this Bill.
My noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Bledisloe, did not, I think, quite understand what I endeavoured to say to your Lordships, which was that the Grants Committee will make grants to voluntary associations every bit as much as to local authorities—in fact, in some ways, more so because local authorities already receive grants from the Government direct for many of these services such as swimming baths in urban areas and so on. The proposal is that we shall not as a rule give a grant to the voluntary association itself, but that we shall only give a grant for a specific object—the building of a gymnasium or the making of a swimming bath. That will no doubt be recommended by my noble friend's association or some similar body, but the grant will not be paid as a rule to his headquarters. It would be the recommendation of the local committee that such and such a thing is required at such and such a spot, and a grant will be made towards the provision of this facility. In conclusion, I can only again thank your Lordships for the support you have given to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until half-past three o'clock to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.