Sitting of 19 February 1913

Preamble
The Lord CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Samuel Robinson's Trust Charity.

Beverley Charities.

Whitby Charities.

Haberdashers' Company Loan Fund Bearing Interest Charity.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Report from the Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments read, and agreed to, and a Message sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments, and Reasons for insisting on certain of their own Amendments.

ALLEGED ATROCITIES BY THE ALLIED FORCES.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what replies they have received to any representations they have made as to the treatment that the Mahomedan inhabitants of Macedonia and Thrace have received at the hands of the Forces of the Allied Balkan States.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am rather surprised that there has been no Question asked with reference to this subject already in this House. Without doubt there have been great atrocities perpetrated during the war in the Balkan Peninsula. At first it was thought that they were merely stories on the Turkish side, but there has been much independent evidence brought forward to show that there have been the grossest cruelties perpetrated from time to time. I will not weary your Lordships with any lengthy quotations, but I may quote from one newspaper which is not at all partial towards Turkey, in which it is said—
"From many sources the rumours are confirmed, all being to the effect that in numerous districts not a living soul has been left. All
1430
have been wiped off the face of the earth, occasionally women and children being spared to destitution and starvation, but mostly massacred with the rest. In some places men have been butchered like cattle."
Just before coming down to your Lordships' House this afternoon I received a letter, quite unasked for, from Constantinople, from a person who is doing a great work there in the relief of distress. He writes—
"We are working hard—17,000 souls to help, if you in England grant that a Mussulman has a soul."
Some little time ago another letter came from a lady in charge of a hospital there, whose work amongst the poor and suffering in Bombay I knew and witnessed for a number of years. In this letter she says—
"The worst of it is that all these terrible stories of rape and murder in the interior are true. While a portion of a family escape, the remainder fall victims to the Greeks and Bulgars. It may be difficult to stir up public feeling at home on behalf of the sufferers, but if it were the other way round and Turks were murdering Christians, there would be an outburst of indignation throughout Europe. But nobody will believe ill of the Allies."
I think I have said enough to show that there has been a great amount of cruel oppression taking place during this war.
It will be remembered that when the war commenced the Allies declared that they undertook the war on behalf of their co-religionists in the various States under Turkish rule, but that plea was soon put on one side, notably by the War Correspondent of The Times, who said it was evident that that was mere pretence and that the real object of the war was to acquire territory. At the same time it will be remembered that the great Powers of Europe made a formal declaration that in any circumstances the territorial status quo would be maintained in the Balkan States. They have not played a very shining part, and as soon as it was obvious who were going to be the victors one great Power after another hastily declared that it was very natural and proper that the Balkan States should reap the fruits of their victories; and so a war undertaken for the sake of oppressed co-religionists develops into a war for the acquisition of territory, and not only the acquisition of territory but the extermination of those who have been living in those territories.
I dare say it will be said of the people living there that it is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other, but I maintain that Christian people ought to show a higher example than that in conducting war. But I do not believe that to be an accurate description. I have never been in those parts of Europe myself, but almost every traveller who has been there maintains that the ordinary Turkish peasant is a quiet, inoffensive and well behaved person. Then it may be said that it is due to Turkish officials. Well, for a few years past I am certain that very few Turkish officials have ventured to connive at any oppression or unfair treatment of the Christian population. They would know that there would at once be a storm of indignation which would re-echo through Europe, that there would be inquiries and so on, and that the officers concerned would lose their positions. I think for these reasons that it would be much more desirable that the Government should publish the Consular Reports. This Sir Edward Grey has stedfastly refused to do. He says it is fairer to both sides that these Reports should not be made known. I venture to think it would be a wise policy to publish the Consular Reports, because these stories have got so far abroad—in many cases I dare say they are exaggerated—that the truth would be better than what is fiction in some cases at all events.
There is one other aspect of the question with which I think we are immediately concerned, apart from feelings of humanity. This war of extermination has led to at least 200,000 refugees going out of Turkey in Europe into Asia Minor. That, I think, may lead to very serious difficulties in Asia Minor. For a country to take up that large number of people in a destitute condition is a very difficult matter, and it is quite possible that they may wend their way further East. Then there will be a recrudescence of declared misbehaviour and cruelty on the part of these people, and the Powers may then claim that they cannot have such a state of disorder going on and therefore must take some means to put down anarchy and cruelty. And by the Turco-British Convention of 1878 we are called upon to see that no Turkish territory in Asia Minor is taken from her, but is kept in its entirety. Therefore I think in our own interests we should take some step, either to prevent, if it is not too late, this great exodus of the Mahomedan
1432
population from Turkey in Europe, or take sonic means to see whether these people who have gone across the Bosphorus can be settled peacefully and quietly in Asia Minor.
But my object in bringing forward this question is the bad effect the whole of these proceedings have had on the mind of the Mussulman population in India. A little time ago Sir Edward Grey in another place, rather ungenerously I think, said that his questioners in the House of Commons had perhaps rather influenced and stimulated this disappointed feeling on behalf of the Mussulmans of India by having put Questions in the House of Commons. I do not share that view at all. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must know that for the last four or five years Mussulman opinion in India has been much concerned, first of all at what the Mussulmans consider to be the neglect of the interests of Persians in Persia, then with the Tripoli War, and finally with regard to what has been going on in the Balkan States, and I consider that the Questions which have been asked in the House of Commons have done a public service to the Empire. They have shown our Indian Mahomedan population that they have friends in this country, and also that those deeds which would be called crimes if perpetrated by Mahomedans are not necessarily heroic acts when clone by Christians. Continually it is a theme of our public speakers to boast of the fact that our Sovereign rules over a greater number of Mahomedans—one hundred millions or thereabouts—than any other Monarch in the world. If we have this number of Mahomedan fellow-subjects we also have great responsibilities, and I think it is a pity that our public leaders have, on no occasion that I have seen, expressed any feeling for the Turks in their dark hours of the present time.
The members of the Government may say that they are not responsible for what the Press say, but the Press in this case, as in other instances, follow the Government most obediently, and in a most remarkable fashion take their cue from the Government, and I have seen repeatedly in the Press statements that must wound the feelings of our Mahomedan subjects. The Turks are taunted, they are jeered at, because they continue the war. Not a word is said in admiration of their courage

1433
at Adrianople and Scutari. There is no word of commendation for the bravery of that defence. Not only have they had to sacrifice what the victors have obtained, but they are reproached because they do not surrender what they have not lost. Therefore I put this Question hoping that I shall obtain an answer which will show that His Majesty's Government have some sympathy with those who were our allies in the past and whom we supported at San Stefano, and will do their utmost to secure for them treatment in accordance with the ordinary recognised rules of civilised warfare.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, the noble Lord has travelled rather widely from the comparatively narrow ground of the Question on the Paper. I hope my noble friend will not suspect me of any coldness or indifference as to these hateful atrocities if and when it is shown with due evidence that this or that given atrocity has been committed. But my noble friend will see that it is not very easy to judge how far the rumours to which he refers, and of which I do not want to speak too lightly, are well founded; and I am bound to say that, judging from the specimens which the noble Lord gave us, his standard of evidence or proof is lower than I have ever come in contact with in my whole life.
LORD LAMINGTON: I asked for the Consular Reports; that is the whole object of my Question.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: But the noble Lord, in grounding his request for the Consular Reports, gave one or two illustrations of opinion and report which struck me, if he will pardon me for saying so, as really nothing short of worthless. It is not easy to judge these stories. It is impossible to imagine that it could be otherwise. We cannot suppose that what we rightly call hateful atrocities have been committed. A Government must consider these things rather seriously. Rumour not based on first hand knowledge may deserve inquiry, but it is not in itself enough to justify such action and such violent expressions of opinion as the noble Lord seems to demand. It is impossible for any foreign Government to go into the Balkans or into Tripoli and
1434
investigate the truth of these rumours. The utmost they can do is to make representations in full and firm but courteous language to the Governments concerned. As to what the noble Lord said as to there having been no expressions of sympathy on the part of any leading member of His Majesty's Government with the sufferings of the Turks, surely, with the complete approval of this Rouse and of the other House and of the public, we are committed to a policy of neutrality. In these circumstances how could leading members of the Govermnent make it their business either to applaud or denounce? I am sure that on a little reflection the noble Lord will see that his demand is an unreasonable one.
Then he referred, properly enough, to, the fact that the Mussulman population of India is concerned, and he said that we appeared to be indifferent to that concern. We know perfectly well, and we certainly cannot complain of it, that the Mussulman population of India is and has been watching the war in Tripoli, affairs in Morocco, and affairs in the Balkans with the greatest concern and the liveliest interest and with the profoundest sympathy with the peoples of their own faith. We could not be ignorant of that. But what follows from that? The noble Lord has shown no connection between that state of feeling in India on the part of the Mussulman population and any failure of action on the part of His Majesty's Government. My noble friend took an opportunity to quarrel with language used by Sir Edward Grey in the other House early this month. For my part, apart from my being a colleague, I thought that that language and that attitude were admirable. I wish I had Sir Edward Grey's language here. He was asked to produce the Consular Reports, and his reply was something like this: What would be the effect—and I wish the noble Lord would ask himself this—what would be the effect in view of the desire we all have for a peaceful and settled future in the Balkans, of raking up and doing all we could to publish stories even though they may be true? The effect would only be mischievous and disadvantageous.
I turn to the noble Lord's Question. He wants to know whether any representations have been made by his Majesty's Government as to the treatment that the Mahomedan inhabitants of Macedonia and

1435
Thrace have received at the hands of the forces of the Allied Balkan States. Unofficial representations were made to two of the Powers concerned—Servia and Bulgaria. The Servian Government in reply stated that if any isolated cases did occur in which soldiers in the excitement of battle committed a crime the offenders have always been punished to the full extent of the military law. In the same manner in the case of all offences committed by the members of scattered voluntary bands which could not be controlled by the military authorities, the Servian authorities have severely punished all attempts at personal revenge. The Bulgarian Prime Minister has stated that no outrages have been committed by the Bulgarian regular troops and that any action by the Bulgarian bands has been directly opposed to the orders issued from headquarters. The most stringent orders have been issued from the Bulgarian headquarters for the prevention of all excesses and for the punishment of all persons guilty of them. All grades are instructed to employ the utmost rigour for this purpose and strong measures are being taken for the maintenance of order and for the protection of the population of the occupied districts. General Savof further states that he has instructed the courts-martial to deal with the utmost despatch with the cases before them, and to punish exemplarily those guilty in the above mentioned respects. Those are the answers we have received to our unofficial representations to two of the most important of the Governments concerned.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, although the information is imperfect, I fear there can be no doubt whatever of one thing, and that is that the Macedonian question, with, if not all, nearly all its attendant difficulties, still remains with us. It certainly had been hoped by all who were interested in this question that when once the Turkish domination ceased we should hear the last of these massacres. That has not been the case, and I must confess it is a great disappointment to those who think that the cause of Christianity is identified with that of progress and humanity: As regards the question of indifference, I entirely acquit His Majesty's Government of any sort of indifference in the matter, but I do so far agree with my noble friend that I cannot help contrasting the extreme indignation
1436
shown by certain classes in this country when it has been a question of Turks massacring Christians with the apparent apathy which is shown on the other side when it is a question of Christians massacring Turks. I remember a case that came before my notice when I was in Cairo, when very strong but unsuccessful representations were made to me by a large number of the Christian population to save from death an Armenian who had been convicted of murdering a Turk, the ground of their representation being the somewhat inconclusive one that because a number of inoffensive Armenians had been killed by Turks in Armenia therefore that it was quite just and natural that an inoffensive Turk should be murdered by a Christian in Cairo.
It was not, however, principally to urge these considerations that I rose to address your Lordships. I trust that as the affairs of Turkey are under consideration it will not be thought that I am wandering too far from the immediate question which my noble friend has brought to your Lordships' attention if I make a very few observations of a more general character. I wish more especially to allude to the great loss which not only the people of Turkey, but all those who are interested in the affairs of Turkey have sustained by the death of the late Nazim Pasha. I was not personally acquainted with him; I never met him, but I knew him well by repute, and from time to time I have been brought a good deal into contact with his friends and associates, who more or less shared his political opinions, and whom I consider the best type of Near Eastern politicians. Many of them were disciples of the late Midhat Pasha, whose name must be familiar to all who have paid attention to the affairs of the East.
Nazim Pasha was an earnest and sincere Liberal, and showed the strength and sincerity of his convictions by the fact that not only was he condemned to exile under the rule of the late Sultan, but I believe he was kept in close confinement for a great many years. But although an earnest Liberal he was not in any way associated or identified with what is called the Young Turkish Party whose aim, or perhaps I should more correctly say whose methods he thought were detrimental to the true interests of his country. Apart from his political opinions, Nazim Pasha was a

1437
thoroughly honest man with the courage of his convictions, and what the East requires more than anything else just now is honest men who have the courage of their convictions. He was for many years Governor, or Vali, of the province of Busra with the two adjoining districts, which I believe he administered with great success, and I have been informed on excellent authority that when he retired from office he could boast, as was the case with Vespasian before he was Emperor of Rome, that he was a poorer man than when he was appointed. For any one who knows the East it would be impossible to pay a more eloquent tribute to this distinguished officer's merits.
With regard to courage, while he had a full share of that physical courage which is the birthright his fellow-countrymen, he had a large share of a quality less common—moral courage. He showed his moral courage when he adopted an attitude which must have been very distasteful to a soldier. When he saw that further resistance was hopeless he advocated peace, and it was his advocacy of peace that brought about his death. It is pitiful to think that a man of the really eminent qualities of this distinguished officer should not have met with a soldier's death on the battlefield, but should have been foully assassinated by a few infatuated and misguided co-religionists and fellow-countrymen. Nazim Pasha is dead, but I earnestly hope that his friends and associates will not be discouraged and will not allow the political system with which his name is associated to die. I hope that it is not premature to allude to this subject now, but it is most earnestly to be hoped that immediately after this unfortunate war is over the Ottoman Government will take in hand the reform and regeneration of the Asiatic provinces which still remain to them. It is hoped they will do this in the interests of the provinces themselves and of the peace of Europe. Unless that is done, and unless the subject is taken up in a very different spirit from that employed in European Turkey, there will be serious troubles ahead. There will be serious risk that Europe, which for years has been oppressed by a European Eastern question, will find itself face to face with an Asiatic Eastern question which will not be inferior in magnitude and will be no less difficult of solution.
I have lived too long in the East to have very great confidence in a Moslem country
1438
being regenerated by its own unaided efforts. At the same time the Turks are a fine manly race, and anybody who has lived amongst them can testify that they have many qualities which deserve esteem and admiration. I am loth to believe that a nation possessed of such qualities cannot undertake their own regeneration, aided possibly to some slight extent by Europeans whose assistance should be given to them in the form least distasteful to themselves. Of this, however, I am well assured, that the hopes of all reformers in Turkey must centre round men of the Nazim Pasha type. They are a small body of men they will be surrounded by hostilities and intrigues of every description, and may not be able to do much; but many of them are honest and capable men; they know their country and understand its requirements, and they are not likely to make the fatal error of endeavouring to make too servile a copy of Western institutions. These are the men who really deserve all the support which they can receive from British public opinion, and when the proper time comes—it has not come yet, I think—from the united Powers of. Europe. I have made these remarks, perhaps somewhat irrelevant, because I believe that, in spite of contrary opinions which are sometimes expressed, the best class of Turkish politicians attach great importance to the public opinion of this country and because I hope it may be some encouragement and consolation to the friends and associates of Nazim Pasha to know that the really sterling worth of their deceased comrade is recognised at all events by some people in this country.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, unlike the noble Earl who has just spoken, I was acquainted with the late Nazim Pasha; but having a stronger sense of order than my noble friend, I do not propose to say anything on that subject, but shall direct attention for a moment to a matter, which appears to me somewhat more relevant, arising out of the Question of my noble friend Lord Lamington. If I were him, I should not be disposed to quarrel with the answer which he has received from the noble Viscount opposite. Everybody knows—I know it well enough from private information—that a great number of what are called atrocities have been committed; but, on the other hand, I know perfectly well that in present circumstances it is almost, if not literally, impossible to obtain accurate information on the subject. What

1439
is undoubtedly the case, in addition to the fact that atrocities have been committed, is that there are at this moment vast numbers of Mussulman refugees who have either left for Asia Minor or are now in Salonica or Constantinople. Any one whose memory carries him back to the time of the last Russo-Turkish war will remember that the same thing occurred then. Hundreds of thousands of similarly unfortunate people were driven out of Bulgaria, and, like the present refugees, I believe, lost everything and received no compensation. I do not think it would be out of place if the noble Viscount, as representing His Majesty's Government, would give us an assurance, however vague, that when hostilities cease some effort will be made to secure what. I maintain is only bare justice for the unfortunate people to whom I refer. That is a thing one is entitled to ask irrespective of one's personal sympathy, for it would be a crying instance of international injustice and a shame and disgrace to the civilised Powers if these unfortunate people are allowed to be treated in the way in which the Mussulman refugees of 1878 were treated.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord may be quite sure that when the time comes, if representations are made in the direction indicated, they will undoubtedly command the attention of His Majesty's Government. But I submit that to-day it would be premature for the Government to make any declaration on that point.

THE POSITION IN PERSIA.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement with reference to the present position of affairs in Persia, having special reference (1) to the granting of a loan; (2) to the financial administration; and (3) to the strengthening of the Gendarmerie.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, ever since the time of Mr. Shuster's recall, when Russia presented one or two Ultimatums to Persia, there has been a question of giving a large loan to Persia to help her in her regeneration, but a year and a quarter has elapsed and no money has been advanced, at least not any considerable sum. A statement has recently appeared in the Press, I do not know with what
1440
truth, that a loan of £400,000 was going to be made to Persia jointly by ourselves and Russia. I hope that is true. I understand that negotiations have been in progress concerning railway concessions. No doubt it is desirable that the terms of those concessions should be finally agreed upon before money is advanced, but when once those terms have been settled I trust that there will be no delay in granting the loan of £400,000, if that is the correct amount. At the same time one would like to know whether any undertaking has been given by the Persian Government as to the allocation of the money, and whether His Majesty's Government are going to see whether it is not possible to set up some better form of financial administration than at present exists in Teheran. M. Mornard is not regarded with great favour by a considerable section of the public in Persia irrespective of nationality, and my own view is that it would be very desirable to set up there a Treasury Board or an Advisory Council, or whatever it may be termed, consisting, for example, of a Russian, a Britisher, and either a Persian or a representative of some neutral Power, so as to see that the money was properly allocated and properly spent.
Mr. Shuster estimated that Persia could well give security for a loan of £3,000,000, and I think about three months ago M. Mornard said the revenue of Persia, properly looked after, would afford a loan of £5,000,000; so that there is ample margin, taking these two statements, for the safety of the advance. In my opinion a considerable portion of the loan should be ear-marked for the purposes of the Gendarmerie; and whilst mentioning that I wish to again express my admiration of the work which has been done by the Swedish officers who are in command of the Gendarmerie. They are most zealous and most anxious to perfect that force and make it efficient, and they have done wonders in a very brief space of time; but I think most authorities are agreed that there must be a large augmentation of that force. I question whether it would be possible to get a sufficient number of Swedish officers who would be capable of working the force up to a proper state of efficiency. I therefore ask His Majesty's Government to consider the desirability of introducing some British officers. It must be remembered that the Swedes, however good and painstaking they are, have no

1441
knowledge of Orientals, and do not know the language, whereas in India we have a large number of officers who are experienced in dealing with natives and in leading native troops, and who are also more or less acquainted with the language.
In the past I have never advocated this, nor have I ever desired that we should send a military expedition to Persia. I have never done so because, first of all, I did not wish to irritate the Persians or make them think that we had any idea of acquiring any of their territory; nor did I wish to give the Russian Government any excuse for retaining or increasing their force in Northern Persia. Therefore it cannot be said that I have ever been desirous of seeing us establish any military position in Persia; but I do think that the crucial moment has come when the Persian Gendarmerie might well be strengthened by lending a number of British officers from the Indian Army. At all events I should like to know whether His Majesty's Government have considered this point, because no delay is excusable at the present time. Already we have that unfortunate Cavalry regiment, the Central Indian Horse, up at Shiraz in a very unpleasant predicament, and nobody knows exactly how they are going to get back to India. Our prestige has suffered enormously, and the whole of Southern Persia is in that state of anarchy which has been described more than once in this House. Therefore I think it is essential for the well-being of Persia that the Gendarmerie should be made more efficient, and, the best way to accomplish this would be by lending a certain number of British officers, not to displace but to assist the Swedish officers in increasing the Gendarmerie and making it more efficient.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord sees the problem on the whole in much the same light as does His Majesty's Government. What be has said about the Persian Gendarmerie with Swedish officers is perfectly true, and it is very valuable to have the recognition of an undisputed friend of Persian nationality like the noble Lord taking that view. Not further back than December last one of our leading agents had a long conversation with the Commandant of the Swedish officers, who said that he had now a very considerable staff
1442
of Persian officers and non-commissioned officers at his disposal in an efficient state of preparation; but he would like to have 300 or 400 more men if the necessary funds were forthcoming. He has at hand ample material for an instructor class, which would create a larger force if the funds needed were obtained. The noble Lord was not quite accurate when he said that nothing has been advanced to Persia.
LORD LAMINGTON: No large loan.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Surely my noble friend has forgotten the £400,000 jointly advanced by Great Britain and Russia, and which the Persians have had, and, I suppose, have expended. Now there is a question, first of all, of an immediate advance; and here I must refer for a moment to the miserable incident of the murder of Captain Eckford, an officer of great ability and promise. That murder was a terrible and lamentable incident in the great road problem which it is incumbent upon us to solve because we are more interested than any other Power in the trade and so forth on the great Southern road. What were we to do after that incident happened? We could no doubt have sent a punitive expedition and have undertaken the duty of policing the road and restoring at least a superficial semblance of order. But there were enormous objections to sending a punitive expedition, and it was not a course for which the Government could make themselves responsible. Experience has shown only too abundantly that it is very easy to take the first step in a movement of that kind, but very hard to end it; and the noble Lord has told the House that he is fully alive to that and feels the force of that difficulty. The noble Lord will see that for us to undertake the complete pacification of the Southern road and its regeneration from its present abominable disorder would be really to impair the authority of the Persian Government. And it is with the view of giving the Persian Government the best chance we can that we abstain from any move of a military or semi-military kind which would involve us in obligations not only burdensome to ourselves but extremely disadvantageous to the Persian Government in whom we are interested.
The noble Lord asked whether we had considered the expediency of adding to

1443
the Swedish officers of the Gendarmerie a leaven, large or small, of British officers from India. Very little reconsideration will, I think, convince the noble Lord that that would be a very risky proceeding. And why? Because the Swedish officers are undertaking a very unwelcome responsibility—it is very difficult and risky work—and those who are best able to judge on the ground warn us that to add to that force another foreign element would lead inevitably to friction and jealousy. The Governor-General of Fars, I dare say, has his own preferences. He would, perhaps, cause some dissatisfaction by allotting this or that portion of the Persian force to a British officer instead of a Swedish officer, and vice versa. The difficulties which would arise and which it is not necessary to enlarge upon seem to us to justify the rejection of the proposal of the noble Lord.
None of the reforms desired in Persia can take place without money. My noble friend Lord Cromer said something just now about the difficulty of a Moslem community regenerating itself without foreign aid. I think that was a very pregnant remark and full of force coming from him, and not altogether inapplicable to the case of Persia. Now what are the details about money? As I have said they have had £400,000. It is proposed to raise £400,000 more, £200,000 from Great Britain—half of that, by the way, being contributed by India—and £200,000 from Russia. Another £100,000 is to be contributed by Great Britain alone for the special case of the Government of Fars, which contains these disturbed areas. We propose that the budget for the expenditure of that £100,000 should be framed in consultation with the Swedish Commandant, and then it will be submitted to the Governor-General of Fars; and it would be handed over in monthly payments of £8,000 to the Swedish Commandant. That is to deal with a present emergency and would last them for the best part of a year, and it is hoped that in a year the Gendarmerie might have gone on in its present good method of shaping itself and become a force that could be relied upon for the maintenance of order.
LORD LAMINGTON: Can the noble Viscount state the numbers of the Gendarmerie at the present time?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am afraid I cannot at the moment. I dare say I have the numbers on a paper here, but it would detain the House too long for me to find them. I will give them to the noble Lord later. The security for these advances is to be looked for in a large loan of £4,000,000, £5,000,000, or £6,000,000. As the noble Lord said, M. Mornard thinks there is security for £4,000,000 or £5,000,000.
LORD LAMINGTON: For £5,000,000.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: And some go so far as to say there is security for £6,000,000. At all events, the security is looked for in a large loan of £1,000,000, £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. We must look for such a loan in connection with the negotiations and operations now going on between the Persian Government and the Société d'Etudes. It is believed that a loan of that magnitude or something like that magnitude might be created in connection with the inquiries and the negotiations that are now going on between the Persian Government and the representatives and agents of the Société d'Etudes. We must look forward, and there seems to be some reason for looking forward, to a successful ending by and by to those negotiations. Meantime I have told the House how the case stands. I do not think the noble Lord raised any other question with which I need deal.
LORD LAMINGTON: There was the question about a Financial Board.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: A Financial Board to supersede M. Mornard, to be composed, as I understand, of a Frenchman, a Russian, and an Englishman—
LORD LAMINGTON: A Britisher, a Russian, and a representative of one neutral Power.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am not sure that the proposal has been before His Majesty's Government. We do not share the noble Lord's doubts as to the capacity of M. Mornard.
LORD LAMINGTON: Not his capacity. I quite admit his capacity. I was referring, to confidence.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: His Majesty's Government do not share the noble Lord's doubts as to either the capacity or goodwill of M. Mornard to make the best he can of the arduous task he has undertaken.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the policy of the noble Viscount opposite appears to be leading precisely in the direction which he is so anxious to avoid. I cannot imagine anything more likely to bring about a punitive expedition than the present state of things. It is all very fine to talk about the independence of the Persian Government; but the truth is that the Persian Government is absolutely impotent in that part of the world, and it is impossible to re-establish order or to obtain redress. The noble Viscount puts his faith in the Swedish Gendarmerie. I should be sorry to say anything disparagingly of that force. I have seen it myself, and in some respects it is creditable to the officers commanding it, but the officers have had little experience and it is too small a force to deal with disorders on a large scale. What is the noble Viscount going to do if another incident takes place like that of the murder of Captain Eckford the other day The outstanding fact is that nobody has been punished for that, and nobody is likely to be punished because there is no authority there to obtain redress. I cannot imagine any situation more likely to lead to something in the nature of a punitive expedition than what is going on there at the present moment, and I do not feel at all certain us my own mind that either the noble Viscount or his colleagues realise what the situation actually is.
LORD LAMINGTON: I should like to say that it is quite a new feature about the Société d'Etudes being connected in any way with this loan. I do not know whether the noble Viscount could throw any further light on that point.
No answer was given.

REVERSION DUTY.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue levy Reversion Duty on the determination of a lease of land or buildings when the lease has been granted
1446
for public or charitable purposes at a nominal rent, thus directly discouraging owners of land from granting such leases for the benefit of the public, and whether if Reversion Duty is levied under these circumstances His Majesty's Government will take steps to amend the law.
I will, in a few words, explain to the House the circumstances which have led me to ask this Question. The lease of certain school buildings in Ireland expired and the buildings reverted to their owner, by whose predecessor they had been built. There was no other school in the village, and the Commissioners of National Education were anxious to renew the lease, which the owner was ready to grant, and after some correspondence it was agreed that a lease for thirty-five years should be granted at a nominal rent of a penny a year. The lease was signed, but with it was sent an Increment Value Duty paper which was also to be signed by the owner. The owner declined to sign it, and a lengthy correspondence ensued with which I will not trouble your Lordships; but I think I must read the last letter from the Assistant Secretary and Comptroller of the Inland Revenue in Dublin on the subject. It is dated December 24, 1912, and is addressed to the Secretary of the Board of National Education, Marlborough-street, Dublin, and runs as follows—
"With reference to your letter of the 21st instant, I beg to inform you that it is the duty of the lessor on the occasion of the granting of a lease of land for a term exceeding fourteen years to deliver to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue reasonable particulars' of the lease for the purpose of the assessment of Increment Value Duty. See Section 4 (2) of the Act. In the case of the lease referred to in your letter no Increment Value Duty will be payable as the rent reserved is only 1d. per year. Reversion Duty may, however, apparently be payable by the lessor at the time of the determination of the lease in question, and the provisions relating to the ascertainment of such Duty will be found in Section 13 (1) and (2) of the Act."
I would point out that if the owner of the premises were to ask the full rack rent of the buildings which he proposes to let for school purposes it is probable that no Reversion Duty would be payable at the expiry of the lease, unless the value of the land in the village had increased very largely during the time of the lease; but, as it is, he or his successors will be heavily mulcted because he is public spirited and instead of getting the full rent which he might get for the land is willing to let it

1447
for the benefit of the public, as I have said, at a nominal rent of a penny a year. I do not think that this could have been the intention of His Majesty's Government when they passed the Finance Act of 1909–10, and I hope to hear from the noble Earl who will reply to me that, now that the attention of the Government has been called to this, they will take means to remove the grievance in the course of the present year.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, so far as the law at present stands there is no question about it that so long as the premises in question are used for charitable purposes no Reversion Duty is payable whatsoever. All charities, so long as they are used for charitable purposes, are exempt, and as your Lordships are aware short leases and terms under twenty-one years are also exempt. The only leases that pay are leases for over twenty-one years. Of course, it really in a sense is only the application of the general law, which is this, that when an owner enters into possession of a property at the termination of a lease, whether it is let for charitable purposes or otherwise, he has to pay Reversion Duty. The noble Lord has raised the question with regard to his own case, which I understand is a personal one. He has let his property for thirty-five years, as I follow him, on lease, and if he had continued the original lease he could have charged any rack rent he liked.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My point is that if school buildings are now let at the rack rent which they would fetch no Reversion Duty would be payable at the expiry of the lease, whereas if they were let at a nominal rent of, say, 1d. a year, there would be a very large Reversion Duty payable.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I misunderstood the noble Lord. What he says now is absolutely correct. I think the question is, if I may say so, one that requires some revision, and if the noble Lord will allow the matter to stand over until next session I will take an opportunity of speaking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it; and if the noble Lord will put the Question down again then, I hope I shall be able to give him a more satisfactory answer than I have given this evening.
LORD JOICEY: This is not only a personal question, because in the North of England to my knowledge very many properties are let for charitable purposes at merely peppercorn rents, quite nominal rents. I feel sure if it is known that Reversion Duty is to be paid on the termination of the lease these peppercorn rents will cease and much higher rents will be asked. I hope that my noble friend, in mentioning the question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will bring these cases before him.

SAMUEL ROBINSON'S TRUST CHARITY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, this Bill and the other three on the Paper are purely charitable Bills, and I ask your Lordships to pass them through all their stages to-night. They are non-contentious in every way.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

BEVERLEY CHARITIES BILL.
WHITBY CHARITIES BILL.
HABERDASHERS' COMPANY LOAN FUND BEARING INTEREST CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 3a, and passed.

RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Duration of Act.
3. This Act shall continue in force for five years after the passing thereof and no longer, unless continued by Parliament.
THE EARL OE GRANARD THE EARL OE GRANARD moved an Amendment to leave out from "thereof" to the end of the clause, and insert, "and thereafter if and so long as it may be continued by Parliament. Provided that where the increase of rates or charges with respect to which the complaint is made is an increase made before the expiration of this Act, this Act shall apply thereto whether the proceedings were instituted before or after the time when this Act ceases to be in force."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is put down to meet, if possible, some objections which have been raised to the Bill. The first portion of the Amendment is intended to make clear that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, as I explained to your Lordships last night, to prolong the Bill after the limited period if circumstances such as the conciliation scheme require it. The proviso becomes essential if a time limit is in the Bill. There is no limit of time within which an increase of a rate or charge can be challenged under the Act of 1891. A party aggrieved cannot recover damages unless his complaint is made within a year of the discovery by him of the matter complained of, but proceedings with the object of getting an increase disallowed could be undertaken at any time. All that a trader would have to do would be to wait until the Act expired and then challenge the increase, and the railway company would then be without such protection as the Act afforded. If it was a case of the repeal of an Act the ordinary law would meet the difficulty, but in the case of an Act lapsing it is necessary to provide for it. It is for these reasons that I have put the Amendment on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out from ("thereof") to the end of the clause and insert ("and thereafter if and so long as it may be continued by Parliament. Provided that where the increase of rates or charges with respect to which the complaint is made is an increase made before the expiration of this Act, this Act shall apply thereto whether the proceedings were instituted before or after the time when this Act ceases to be in force ").—(The Earl of Granard.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In all probability it will be more convenient to argue the main question on this Amendment. I need hardly point out that the noble Earl's Amendment in no way meets the real difficulty created by the clause as it stands in the Bill. I am very much in the hands of your Lordships' House. I can argue against this Amendment to show that it is quite insufficient to meet the purpose, but I think it would probably be better that I should raise the general question of the clause at this time so that we might have one discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The circumstances under which the engagement was given by the Government to the railway companies eighteen months ago were fully explained to the House on the occasion of the Second Reading yesterday. In regard to that there is really no conflict of opinion. The account given by the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of the Bill is substantially accurate from the point of view of the railway companies. But what I want to emphasise is this, that at the time the engagement was given a time limit formed no part of it at all. Clause 3 introduces a time limit. I want to make it perfectly clear that the question of a time limit was never even mentioned so far as I know to any one representing a railway company until last week, and when it was first suggested in another place the President of the Board of Trade was as hostile to it as possible. He resisted it in Committee, and the proposal when first made only secured forty-two supporters in the Division Lobby. That was for a three years' time limit. On the following evening the President of the Board of Trade opposed a five years enactment, and when the Report stage was taken in the other House he used these words—
"I do not think I can add much to what I have already said on the part of the Government in opposition to t his proposal, which is in substance the same as the proposal we had last night. It would not be in conformity with the undertaking of the Government, and, secondly, it would be destructive of the main object of the Bill if my hon. friend's Amendment were accepted. I hope the house will support the Government in rejecting a time arrangement, which would not be in the interest of the traders, and which, I am sure, would be detrimental to the men, and which would be opposed to the undertaking which the Government gave."

1451
You cannot have a more stringent, a more absolute, and as I think a more decisive, negative to a proposal than that. Later in the same evening the Attorney-General, in opposing it also, said—
"If we inserted the Amendment it would look as if the intention of Parliament was that the Bill should be limited. But that was not the pledge given by the Government…I submit that this is a case in which the House should support the Government in carrying out the undertaking which they have given."
Subsequently the Amendment was agreed to without a Division, although the President of the Board of Trade said in his speech—
"I have stated more than once that in my opinion the undertaking of the Government was a continuous one."
With regard to the special proposal now before the House, I have to point out that a mere reference to the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act is in no sense a fulfilment of the pledge. It is all very well in certain circumstances. I believe that an Act so important as the Ballot Act is in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, but that is not a thing which touches private interests between different sets of people. The case for the railway companies is this, that under certain circumstances a distinct pledge was given. The railway companies had grave doubts about the policy of giving way to the solicitations of the Government. I was not myself actually on the deputation which attended at the Board of Trade when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also present, but the circumstances were fully reported to us at the time. I was in London and followed the whole proceedings, and I venture to say without fear of contradiction that the patriotism of the railway companies, of the directors and shareholders, was appealed to not to stand in the way of what was a very important point of policy—first, that trade should not be disturbed; secondly, that there should be no fear of interference with the food supply of the large cities; and, if I am not very much mistaken, a still more important suggestion was made to the companies that there were circumstances not unconnected with foreign affairs which rendered it extremely inexpedient for an industrial fight of this kind to be prolonged. In other words, a distinct appeal was made to the patriotic instincts of the directors by those who were representative of the Government, and I venture to say without
1452
fear of contradiction that no patriotic man, without taking a responsibility upon his shoulders which no one would have liked to take, could have refused the appeal which was made.
It is not the same to refer us to the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act. I will tell your Lordships why. This promise was made by the Government, and not only by the Government but by certain important members of the Government. Five years hence it is quite possible that the same Government may be in power—I express no opinion, and I make no prophecy—but if by any accident the present Government should not be in power then those who will be in power, from whatever Party they are drawn, will not be bound by the promise given to the railway companies, and nothing of the kind can be pled. And if the same Government are in power the same individuals may not be in the same offices, and the same appeal to the promise which was made could not be made with similar effect. But, my Lords, the contention—and in this I have the support of the President of the Board of Trade—goes much further. No doubt if an increase of prices goes on and wages are raised, the wages paid by the railway companies are not likely to be reduced. I sympathise with what the noble Marquess said last night that many of the men are poorly paid, and probably in the rise of prices they were insufficiently paid. I have no hope that those circumstances, which are not the fault of the railway companies, will be much altered in the future, and therefore I say that the wages now paid are not likely to be reduced, and I can put it even higher than that because further claims for increased wages may have to be met in the future.
Now let me call your Lordships' attention to another point, a very strong one, on behalf of the railway companies. The railway companies years and years ago got the power, on making their railways, to have a series of certain maximum charges beyond which they were not to go. Do not let it be thought for a moment that this Bill is an intention to increase the maxima of those charges. There is nothing of that sort in the Bill. Indeed, it is provided in the first clause of the Bill that the present maxima shall under no circumstances be exceeded. In other words, the railway companies have made a bargain with the

1453
State to do certain things at certain rates. After these rates were codified and put into an easy form twenty years ago, the Act of 1894 was passed which had the effect of preventing railway companies from raising their rates even within the maximum promised to them without the consent of the Railway Commissioners, and all that the undertaking of the Government was intended to do was this. That the Railway Commissioners should take into consideration the fact that extra cost had been put upon the railway companies by the rise of wages, and that that should be a valid reason for increasing the rates, not beyond the maximum, but beyond what they happened to be before the cost of doing the work had been increased. That is a very important point, and I think it should be carefully remembered.
There has been a correspondence between the chairman of the Railway Association and the Prime Minister. A great deal of it is beside the point that we are discussing to-night, and I am not going into it. But one of the points which the railway companies made was that this Bill with the insertion of a time limit was a departure from the bargain made eighteen months ago. A letter has come in to-day under date, February 19, from the Prime Minister to the chairman of the Association in continuance of the letter which the Prime Minister was good enough to write a day or two ago. With the first three paragraphs of it I have no concern to-night, because they touch other points and not the particular point of controversy before us at the moment. But the last paragraph of the letter, as it cannot have been published yet, the House will excuse me reading. It is in these words—
"On the general question whether or not the Bill as passed by the House of Commons fulfils the undertaking given by the Government to the railway companies in August, 1911, the Prime Minister does not think that any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the controversy further. He desires me, however, to enclose for the information of the railway companies a copy of an Amendment which will be moved in the House of Lords on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The Amendment is intended to make somewhat clearer the intention to continue the Act after the period of five years, and also to secure that even if it should cease to be in force its provisions shall continue to apply to the determination of any complaint referring to increases of rates or charges made while the Act was in operation."
I am very much obliged for the kindly testimonial to my fairness which the noble
1454
Marquess the Secretary of State for India gave me the other night, although he added that on that particular occasion I had fallen from the high estimation in which he usually held me. I am very anxious to get back into the noble Marquess's good graces, and therefore I will take care not to overstate my case.
Just let me take two points in the paragraph I have just read. I have dealt with the question of whether the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act meets the case, and I think I have made this point—that even if this Government were in power in five years it would be doubtful whether they would be in complete command to carry the Bill. They might not be able to carry it in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act schedule, and, if they are not, this is absolutely no security to us at all. The Prime Minister says, with regard to the first point, that he does not think that any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the controversy further. When you have nothing to say it is a very good plan not to try to say it. There can be no doubt whatever that a definite and distinct promise was given, a promise in particularly precise and I should say in almost sacred terms. I do not want, as I say, to overstate my case; but it was reported to us at the time, and it was repeated in a letter from the chairman of the Railway Association a few days ago—
"As to the terms on which the Railway Strike was settled in August, 1911, the representatives of the railway companies pointed out to the Ministers with whom they were in negotiation that opposition to the proposed legislation might be expected, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly replied, 'We will carry the Bill or go to defeat.'"
I do not want to put that too high. I do not know what the circumstances in another place may have been, but there is no evidence, so far as I can see, that the Government were in danger of defeat. The Amendment the previous night for the three years limit was beaten with only forty-two supporting it. The President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General, speaking for the Government, were equally emphatic on the second night. I have never had the privilege of being in the other House and I do not know what the procedure is; but surely there is some method by which, even if it were not thought expedient to stake the existence of the Government upon it, the sense of the

1455
House could be taken—with the Government Whips at the door, or something of that sort—to show what really was the feeling of the House. But nothing of that sort was done. There was no Division taken, and the question was allowed to go by default. Now the Government have only to tell the Irish and the Welsh Members than if they do not attend they will lose the Bills they care for; that it is a question of confidence, and they can keep faith with the railway companies.
Without wanting to make undue controversy, I do think that in this matter the railway companies have been treated with less than perfect fairness. It seems to me that the only thing which it is fair to do is to omit this clause for the purpose of giving the other House of Parliament a chance of reconsidering a decision which seems to have been come to with undue haste and without full consideration. In the meantime, of course, I am only opposing the Amendment of the noble Earl, but when the time comes I shall probably ask the leave of the House, without further remark, to move the deletion of the clause which contains this time limit.
THE EARL OF GRANAED: The noble Lord has substantially told your Lordships what has been the history of this matter up to now, but I think the Government have one cause of complaint. After all, this Bill is in no sense a Party Bill. It is, if I may say so, a purely national one. It was to end, and the promise was given to end, a very critical state of affairs in the year 1911. The Government gave a promise at that time which they have endeavoured to carry out. But, my Lords, what were the facts of the case in the House of Commons the other night? I have a letter here from the President of the Board of Trade with regard to it. I understand that he received no support whatever from any members of the Opposition; in fact, he tells me that there were five or six very strong speeches in favour of the retention of a time limit. I also understand that no member of the official Opposition took any part whatever or even voted on the Bill through all its stages in that House. As your Lordships are aware, when we first brought in the Bill we were not in favour of any time limit whatever, but we had to face the feeling of the House of Commons; and, as far as I understand, on the occasion in question there was no
1456
doubt whatever that there was a hostile majority in the House against us, and however much we might have wanted to carry out our undertaking we should certainly have been beaten on that occasion. We cannot do the impossible. After all, the majority of the House of Commons rules, and under the circumstances we had no option then but to accept the Amendment. I understand from the noble Lord that he proposes to press this matter and refer the Bill again to the House of Commons. We as a Government would be very sorry indeed to see this Bill lost. We have given our pledge to pass it into law, and, of course, it is quite impossible for me to say what the feelings or the action of the House of Commons will be if this Bill returns to them with the time limit deleted. As your Lordships are aware, their time is very short, and I am much afraid that there might be a possibility of losing the Bill if this clause is struck out. I do not think that we can be accused of breach of faith. We have done out utmost to pass this Bill into law, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will see your way not to press for the omission of this clause.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not propose to take up the time of the House by discussing the intrinsic merits of this clause or of the Amendment which Lord Granard has moved. I will only say, in passing, that the clause itself seems to me to be a very badly conceived one. What we all desire, I take it, in this case is that there should be something in the nature of a settlement. If this Clause 3 remains in the Bill there is no possibility of a settlement. After the period of five years is over the fray can be or will be renewed de anno in annum on every occasion on which the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill comes up for consideration by Parliament. The clause seems to me to open up an endless vista of trouble between the railway companies and the traders. But, my Lords, that seems to me, after all, to be a minor consideration. The question of the merits of the clause is really somewhat beside the mark.
The real question which your Lordships have to consider is whether His Majesty's Government can retain this clause in the Bill without bringing the gravest possible discredit upon themselves. This Bill, your

1457
Lordships should remember, is the outcome of a pact deliberately entered into between the Government and the railway companies, a pact entered into at a moment when we were in the midst of a grave crisis in our industrial affairs. The bargain was accepted in some cases very reluctantly by the railway companies, but it was accepted in all cases only because the Government were able to offer the companies in return a valuable consideration—namely, the promise of a Bill which would enable them to vary their charges, not, as my noble friend pointed out just now, to any extent which they pleased, but within the statutory limits laid down, I think, by the Act of 1888. His Majesty's Government by this clause are importing an entirely new term into the agreement—a term that was undreamed of by either party at the time the agreement was entered into. The words of the pledge itself gave not the slightest indication that there was any intention on the part of the Government to make this contract subject to a limit of time. If there was any doubt about the actual terms of the pledge, the action and the language of the representatives of the Government have been of a kind to remove that doubt most effectively. In the course of the discussions the President of the Board of Trade resolutely opposed both the proposal for a time limit of three years and also one for five years, not upon the ground that those particular limits were inappropriate, but upon the broad ground that any limit at all was opposed to the principle of the Bill and the principle of the bargain which had been struck between the companies and the Government.
I have read the reports of the discussion which took place in the House of Commons, and it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that these things happened at a moment when the House was badly attended, when most of His Majesty's Ministers were absent—I understand that telephonic communication with the Prime Minister was resorted to at the last moment—and when a great deal of confusion prevailed in the minds of those present. One thing, however, appears very distinctly from the reports, and it is that more than one supporter of the Government got up and pointed out that he did not feel himself free to give his vote according to his convictions on account of the pressure put upon him by the Government Whips.
1458
I cannot insist sufficiently on the gravity of this matter. At this moment there is a kind of lull in regard to these industrial disputes, but can any of us doubt that in the future these disputes will arise again? The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack the other evening, in speaking on the Trade Unions Bill, used language which made it perfectly clear that in his opinion we might have to reckon with these great industrial difficulties again, and that there may be difficulties affecting what he called "the arteries of our national life." When these crises occur again, as they will, His Majesty's Government will be in the position of holding the balance in their hand. It will be for the Government to intervene if intervention is necessary. It will be for them to use repression if repression is necessary. It will be for them to protect those who stand in need of protection. But when that time comes it will make the whole difference to His Majesty's Government if they possess what is, after all, the most precious asset that any Government can possess, and that is a reputation for absolute good faith. The most disastrous thing, in my opinion, which could happen to the country, or to the Government of the day, would be that it should become generally understood that after a great public bargain of this kind has been entered into, the Government of the day is at liberty to repudiate it under Parliamentary pressure. For these reasons I shall most certainly give my vote to my noble friend Lord Balfour when he presently moves the omission of the clause; and with regard to what Was said just now by Lord Granard, who threatened us not obscurely with the loss of the Bill, I venture to express my opinion that the loss of the Bill would be a much less misfortune than that loss of reputation which, I believe, would result from the retention of this clause.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): I think that I ought to reply at once to what has fallen from the noble Marquess opposite, because I certainly do not yield to him in his estimate of the gravity of this matter in the form in which it is brought before us so far as it can be in any way held to involve the reputation of His Majesty's Government for acting in good faith. My noble friend behind me has stated what

1459
occurred in another place, and he stated with full truth that there His Majesty's Government did their best to carry the Bill through in the form in which it had been introduced, and in the form in which it is evident that the representatives of the railway companies thought it ought to be carried in order to meet the terms, as they conceived them to be, of the arrangement between themselves and H is Majesty's Government. But my noble friend has pointed out that the Government did not find it possible in the circumstances to get the Bill through the House of Commons in that form. I shall have a word to say later about the supposed terms of the arrangement, but that, of course, is not the point at this moment.
The point at this moment is that His Majesty's Government did try to carry the Bill through in that form. It certainly would not be right to regard the Opposition either in another place or here as in any sense specially representing the railway companies. It may so happen that at the moment of this debate they appear to be simply taking the side of the railway boards, but it is, of course, also the case, and it was particularly clear in the debate in the House of Commons, that the Opposition or many members of it regard themselves especially in this matter as representing the interests of the trading community. In the course of the debate that took place in the House of Commons the time limit was strongly advocated by hon. Members such as Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Peto, who are, I believe, regarded as specially representative of the agricultural community. The time limit was also advocated by at any rate one Member speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, and by another hon. Member, Sir Arthur Markham, who, as noble Lords opposite know, is a highly independent supporter of His Majesty's Government. Apparently, therefore, the effect would have been if a Division had taken place that Ministers and the leading members of the Opposition—if we are right in assuming that the Front Opposition Bench there take the same view, or would have taken the same view, that the noble Marquess has just expressed—would have walked into one Lobby together, whereas the whole of the rest of the House there present would have gone into the other.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: What is the evidence of that?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: All the evidence that we have at our disposal is the view that was taken by the Parliamentary officials concerned, and the fact that every single speech that was made from every quarter of the House was in support of this particular provision. The noble Marquess has said that if this provision is merely legalised for a certain number of years and then appears only in the schedule of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, it would be open to the Government of the day, or to the Opposition of the day if they were strong enough, to strike it out of that schedule and so to nullify the present work of Parliament. If that were so, I take it that it would be equally easy for them to repeal the Act or part of it, and I confess, therefore, that no very great weight that I can see attaches to that particular argument. Therefore when the noble Marquess speaks of the fray being renewed on every occasion when the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill is before either House of Parliament, if the materials for the renewal of the fray exist they would also exist for a discussion of the whole question and a possible repeal of the Bill or a part of it.
Now I go back to the question of the principle involved in the bargain, if that is the proper word, which was made between the Government, not as a Government but on behalf of the country, as the noble Marquess very truly said—it was a national bargain—and the railway companies. I took no personal part in the negotiations that took place at that time because they did not fall within my purview as a Departmental Minister, but I may venture to remind the House that I have always taken a close interest in matters affecting railway rates; and I suppose, with the undoubted exception of my noble friend opposite, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I have had as much to do with railway rates and their settlement as any noble Lord in this House. It was said, I think, by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Faber, that it was necessary and only honourable to make this pledge a pledge of permanent' continuance because there was a principle involved in it which, once admitted, could not be departed from. That is, if I may say so, not an accurate description. There is not, so far as I can see, any principle involved in the statement that on this particular occasion a general rise in the wages paid to railway servants affords a

1461
sound reason for a general raising of tolls or charges within the maxima provided by Parliament. That is not a principle; it is a particular application of a general principle which is very much wider. That general principle is this, That in consideration of the monopoly, or the qualified monopoly, possessed by railway companies, the country—that is, Parliament— reserves to itself the right to fix maxima above which railway companies must not charge either in respect to the carriage of passengers or of goods; and the further principle exists that the sums which railway companies are to be entitled to charge should be such as to give them a reasonable opportunity of earning a fair return on the capital invested. That was the principle on which the bargain was based. But this particular arrangement is merely a single application of that principle.
I should like your Lordships, therefore, to remember that as a matter of fact a time limit, whether you name a term of years or whether you admit that a Bill of this kind must of need be subject to possible modification in the future, is in fact inherent in such a proposal as that which is made to allow this particular increase of charges. A rise of wages is not the only factor which affects a railway company in solving the question whether it is receiving a fair return on its investment. As we all know there are many other subjects, such as, for instance, the increase or the decrease of local rates, the payment of which forms such a large part of the liability of railway companies. Then there are questions connected with the price of materials, the prices, for instance, of coal, of iron, or of timber which are all used in enormous quantities by railway companies. It would therefore not be too much to say that any changes of an abrupt kind, either in relation to local rates or to the price of commodities or to the discovery, if such a thing were possible, of some fat cheaper means of traction—all those, just as much as a rise or fall in the wages that have to be given to railway servants, would not only justify but make absolutely necessary a further revision of this proposal. I say therefore, quite fearlessly, that a time limit, whether you like to put it into the Bill in this form or not, is absolutely inherent in a Bill of this kind, and that, whether you put it in or whether you do not, when the time conies, if it comes, that justice demands that owing to the large gains of railway
1462
companies their charges and rates should be reduced, or that owing to their being put to some further expenses of the kind which I have mentioned they ought to be given a further opportunity of increasing those rates and charges—that in any one of those cases a bargain of this kind must be subject to revision. I venture to put it, therefore, to the House that, as a matter of fact, the existence of this five year limit, whether it is in the Bill or not, cannot be regarded as a matter of serious moment. It is a matter of the most serious moment, as the noble Marquess has quite truly pointed out, if the Government is thought or believed to have gone back on its word; but so far as the actual effect of placing a time limit in this Bill is concerned, I cannot understand the view of its great importance which is evidently, from the speech of Lord Claud Hamilton, taken by the representatives of the railway companies, because, as I say, when the circumstances demand, whether in relation to wages or anything else, revision is simply bound to come if it can be shown that the earnings of railway companies have either been largely increased or largely reduced by extraneous circumstances.
To return once more to the debate in another place, it is quite clear that my right hon. friends there saw that the construction placed upon the agreement by the railway companies was what the noble Marquess opposite has described it as being, and that being so it was certainly their duty to try to get the Bill through in the form in which it was introduced. I do not know whether it is disputed that the Government did their best. From the noble Lord's intervention just now I rather gather that he thinks that the Government did not put on all the pressure they might have done. I am assured that that is not the case; they did their very best to get the Bill through in that form. In the circumstances I cannot believe that, by altering the Bill as my noble friend Lord Balfour will shortly propose to alter it, he is really doing much service to the cause he has at heart, or that he is replacing the Government into the position of moral credit from which he thinks they have removed themselves by their own act. It is naturally most painful to His Majesty's Government to have their good faith impugned in a matter of this sort; but quite apart from the question of the merits—as to which I have ventured to say a word, and I hope

1463
I put the matter in a light somewhat different from that which it has already assumed—quite apart from that, the Government did their best to carry the Bill through in the form which the other parties, the railway companies, obviously expected.
LORD JOICEY: I quite recognise the difficult position in which the Government are placed at the moment with regard to this particular Amendment, but I think that all railway interests will agree that the question of rates may be open to revision at any time that Parliament feels disposed to interfere. Of course, every railway company gets its Bill on certain conditions laid down by Parliament, but that does not prevent Parliament from interfering with regard to rates or anything else if it feels so disposed. But I think that this pledge, or this bargain, was something rather different from that. It was a special advantage to be given to the railway companies for a special purpose—namely, to meet any additional cost which would be put upon them by agreeing to terms with their workmen. It requires two parties to make a bargain. The bargain was made, and, of course, the usual thing is, if any words in an agreement are considered not likely to carry out the bargain properly, that the bargain is thrown up; but in this case the railway companies are unable to do that because the Government has received its payment. The advances have been given to the men, the difficulties have been settled, and all that is left is for the Government to carry out its promise to the railway companies. I quite realise that the Government had great difficulties to contend with in another place.
But the whole question is—What was the bargain, and how has that bargain been carried out? It is absolutely necessary, if a bargain is entered into by two people, that both of them should be satisfied that the words in the agreement carry out the bargain at which they have arrived. The railway companies are perfectly satisfied, so far as I have been able to gather, that the terms proposed by the Government do not carry out the pledge which was given to them. I therefore cannot understand the position taken up by His Majesty's Government on this question. It is most important when you are dealing with a matter of this kind, which not only concerns the traders but concerns the whole of the
1464
workmen of the country, that there should be no doubt whatever that a pledge entered into by the Government should be carried out and should be carried out on such lines as will satisfy the other parties to the bargain. The railway companies are not satisfied; they consider that the pledge is not being carried out; and I think it is the duty of the Government to take such action as will satisfy those who have fulfilled their share of the bargain.
I personally have had many negotiations of various kinds with workmen and with traders, and I can say this from my experience—that there is nothing that creates so much bitterness as the idea that a bargain has not been properly carried out once it has been entered into. What does the trader do if he finds that one of his customers does not carry out his bargain? He refuses to have anything more to do with him. What happens between workmen and employers if the workmen or the employers consider that a bargain has not been carried out? Great bitterness of feeling is displayed, and I assure you that the parties always hesitate a great deal afterwards about entering into any other bargain. We have not got to the end of these negotiations, and I think it would have been very much better if the Government had strained a point, whatever their own views may be, to have satisfied the railway companies, because I believe this will have an effect upon any other negotiations that may take place. I think it is very bad precedent to create to give the impression throughout the country that the Government enters into a pledge and does not carry it out to the satisfaction of the other parties to the bargain. This is not a Party question, and I think it is a very unfortunate position which the Government have taken up, and I regret it extremely.
LORD BARNARD: The course which the proceedings have taken in your Lordships' House this evening has placed me in some slight embarrassment. I was under the impression, or I should have risen before, that we were discussing the Question put by the Lord Chairman as to the Amendment to Clause 3 in the Bill, but what has happened is that we are now discussing an Amendment that is not before the House. As that is so, perhaps I may venture to intrude on your Lordships' patience. Lord Balfour of Burleigh used

1465
arguments which it would be futile for me to deny carry great weight, and also in the same way the words which have fallen from other noble Lords it is equally impossible to set on one side. But at the same time in a Bill of this kind there is another interest which has to be taken into consideration, and which has up to the present been almost entirely ignored—that is the interest of the traders.
I represent in this House this evening only one branch of the traders, and that is the agricultural community. Let me call your Lordships' attention for one moment to the history of this Amendment. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House has referred almost incidentally, if I may venture to say so, to the action taken by Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Peto, but practically it was owing to the action of those two hon. Members in the House of Commons that the question of the time limit was brought forward at all. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware, but if not it is desirable that you and that the public also should know that the agricultural community feel, rightly or wrongly, a very considerable grievance against the railway companies. They consider that they have undue burdens placed upon the profitable conduct of their industry. Their great difficulty in the past has been to get in touch with the directors of the railway companies and with the Railway Companies Association. It is undeniable that the Railway Companies Association is an extremely powerful body. It is represented here on these Benches in very great strength this evening, and I would ask the numerous railway directors who are seated all around me to consider whether in the future they could not do something to conciliate the agricultural interest more than they have done in the past.
What happened was this, if your Lordships will throw your minds back. The Government, with a view to giving effect to the pledge which they had given at the close of the strike, brought in a Railways Bill. The agricultural community, and particularly the Land Association and the Central Chamber of Agriculture, with which I am associated, hoped that here was an opportunity, without in any way impugning the good faith of the Government to carry out their bargain, to obtain some kind of protection for themselves. That Bill, as your Lordships know, was dropped, and therefore a very large portion of the
1466
chances of the agricultural people was gone. Then the Railways (No. 2) Bill was introduced, and Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Peto and other Members fought our case in the House of Commons with what I consider the greatest energy and skill that could possibly be brought to bear upon it, and I am thankful to know that Members on the other side of the House concurred with the agricultural people in the views which they took. We feel that if we are to get nothing we shall have placed upon us for all time the disadvantages under which we contend we suffer at the present time. You will recollect that Mr. Bathurst pressed the President of the Board of Trade to I bring forward a far wider Bill dealing with the whole question of railway rates. Owners' risk rates is one of the greatest difficulties we have to contend with and one of the greatest evils, but the right hon. gentleman did not see his way to accede to that request; and as a pis-aller this time limit was put in in the hope that by that means some pressure could be brought to bear on the railway companies before the expiry of the time limit, whatever it might happen to be, to meet the agriculturists. I quite see that I am fighting an almost forlorn hope here, yet I venture to put before you this aspect of the question which has not received consideration, and I appeal to the strong body of railway directors whom I have the honour of addressing to see if they cannot do something to remove the feeling of grievance which exists.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I need not tell your Lordships that every member on this side of the House has the greatest sympathy with the difficulties of the agricultural interest in this country. It would be very strange if we were not in sympathy with them. Many of us are not only intimately bound up with agriculture ourselves, but we reckon amongst our friends the very large body of the tenant farmer class who are even more directly interested than we are, and we have always been deeply anxious to do justice to them. But, my Lords, justice is due, not only to the agriculturists, but to the railway companies of this country. As I said last night, we hold no brief for them. We are here in an absolutely impartial position merely to see that justice is done, and when it is told us upon high authority that an absolute bargain was entered into between His Majesty's Government and the railway

1467
companies I think we should be the lowest of mankind if we did not see that that bargain was adequately fulfilled. We have looked into this matter. I am sorry to trouble your Lordships with quotations, but really this is a case in which it is necessary to quote. I am not going to read all the correspondence which has passed between the railway companies and the Government; but here is a passage in a letter written on February 14—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: By whom?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is written on behalf of the Railway Association and signed by Sir George Armytage—
"On the 12th instant representatives of the railway companies saw the President of the Board of Trade in his room at the House of Commons at his request. The President informed t hem that there was a strung feeling in the House in favour of the insertion of a time limit in the Bill, and asked the representatives whether they could agree to some extended limit. They informed him definitely that the railway companies could not accept the Bill as a fulfilment of the Government pledge if any time limit was inserted. The matter was fully discussed, and the President promised the representatives of the railway companies that he would resist any such Amendment."
That was the letter sent to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not accept that statement, and here is a passage in the answer of the Prime Minister—
"The promise given by Mr. Buxton to the railway companies representatives on Wednesday, February 12, with regard to a time limit, referred to the only Amendment down on the Paper—viz., a time limit of three years. The promise was duly fulfilled, as stated in your letter."
Then the railway companies replied on February 17—
"Mr. Buxton's promise of February 12 referred explicitly to the principle of a time limit, and was not confined to t he question on the Paper."
What light do we get upon that by the debates in the House of Commons? Let me read to your Lordships what the President of the Board of Trade said himself on February 13—
"I do not think I can add much to what I have already said on the part of the Government in opposing this proposal, which is in substance the same as the proposal we had last night. The House should remember that the undertaking given by the Government was not, as some seem to think, conditional for a particular time and to come to an end at an early period when the events connected with that time had ceased to exist. It was a condition of the acceptance of the Report of the Royal Commission, through the Conciliation Boards, to improve the pay and conditions of labour, and to impose on the railway companies obligations which have led already to a considerable increase in pay and improvement in the conditions of work."
1468
Mr. Buxton definitely said that there was no condition such as suggested; that there had been definite money value given by the companies for the fulfilment of this condition; and that if the Amendment were carried—the very Amendment which he afterwards accepted—that condition would not be fulfilled by the Government.
Let me read what was said by another member of the Government who by his profession is well qualified to give a precise statement. I refer to the Attorney-General, and not only is he Attorney-General but in this Government he is a member of the Cabinet as well. This is what the Government say through their Attorney-General, a member of the Cabinet—
"If we inserted the Amendment it would look as if the intention of Parliament was that, the Bill should be limited. But that was not t he pledge given by the Government."
The Attorney-General went on to describe the necessity for fulfilling obligations and the difficulties some people found in doing so. He said—
"When an obligation is incurred everybody is ready to bear his share of the burden, to put his hands in his pocket, and almost to pay money in a time of great stringency and difficulty; but, unfortunately, when that period of stringency and difficulty has passed, hands do not go into pockets but rather button them. The Government is bound by the pledge it has made, and ought to be supported in carrying out what the whole House, or the vast majority of the House, wanted at that moment in the interests of the vast majority of the people, and which the vast majority of the people also supported."
Now, my Lords, I submit, in the face of those circumstances, it is not possible for the Government to run away from their undertaking. Why should they run away? What is the penalty? What was the noble Earl, Lord Granard, so much afraid of when he did his best to apologise for the conduct of the Government? He said the Government would have been beaten. Does that matter so very much? I do not mean merely from the point of view of a Party attack, but was not that contingency faced by the Government themselves? What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say? He said, "We will carry the Bill or go to defeat." He said so himself. He faced it. The thing which seemed to be impossible to the noble Earl and to the noble Marquess who leads the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer foresaw and faced and at the time the bargain was entered into he said "It

1469
doesn't matter if we are beaten; we will carry the Bill or go to defeat."He faced the contingency. But that was in the old days to which the Attorney-General referred. Now we have got to the time when they button up their pockets. The noble Marquess and the noble Earl have buttoned up their pockets and thrown over the challenge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I assert that there are no people in this House who are more ashamed of what has been done than the members of the Government opposite. I am perfectly certain that, if they were free to speak, they would say "We quite agree with you"—and with their supporter, Lord Joicey, who spoke just now—"that this is a bargain which ought to be kept." When yon have received valuable consideration for a bargain you are bound to carry out the bargain.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When the noble Marquess rose he began with an expression of sympathy. I hoped for a moment that it was for the Government, but we found that it was exclusively for the agricultural interest. I wish to draw attention to what I think is the real point before us. We were obliged to do our best for this Bill and we want to get it through to the utmost of our ability, and if we have taken the course in the other House that we have done, it is because we feel we are bound to the railway interest and want to do our very best for them. I quite agree that we had in our minds no definite idea of a time limit until these very recent discussions to which allusion has been made. I agree that what was in our minds was to make a permanent change in the law. There is, of course, no such thing as a permanent Act, because Parliament can always alter the terms of any Act. But we did not contemplate putting anything of the kind in, and we certainly should not have proposed any Bill in that form. I go further than that. I think that we had undertaken to the railway companies that there should be no time limit, not in terms, but in a spirit which precluded it; and to-day our desire is to get done the utmost we can in the way of fulfilment of our undertaking to the railway companies, not merely for our own credit but because we think it right and just towards the railway companies who made this bargain with us at the time of the settlement of the great strike, and whose position ought to be recognised.
1470
When the Bill came on in the House of Commons what happened was this. It has been described to me by a distinguished Member of Parliament. The Government had not a single friend in the House except the few people who represented the railway interest. The agricultural interest, as we have heard from the noble Lord opposite, was strongly represented on the Opposition side of the House, and everybody turned against the Government. Their own supporters went against them. That is a very unfortunate position, and your Lordships may say that it ought to have led to the Government resigning. But had they resigned it would have produced no other effect than that this Bill would have been lost altogether. We did not desire that this Bill should be lost, and therefore it was essential that we should not go to a Division. If we had gone to a Division all the indications were that the Government would have been beaten, and accordingly the course that was taken was the best they could take in the circumstances. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out that he conceived himself bound to the railway companies, that his view was the other way, but that he did not oppose the Amendment to the extent of bringing about a defeat because he felt that the best he could do for the Bill was to take, not the three years Amendment which had originally been proposed and which he had said to the railway companies he would resist to the utmost of his capacity, but the subsequent five years Amendment, which was pressed and which he was practically compelled to accept.
Let us dismiss the position of the Government. I agree that our position is an unhappy one. But we have done our best, and we cannot do more. What we want to do now is to save this Bill. I now come to the question of saving the Bill. I am apprehensive if it goes back with Lord Balfour's Amendment made that it will be in danger. I can only say we will do our best for it in whatever shape it goes back, but I am seriously apprehensive about the passage of this Bill if it is amended in the way suggested; and what I would respectfully urge your Lordships to do is not to make impossible a task which is difficult enough as it is at the present time. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Granard is designed to give to this Bill a natural character of permanence—that is

1471
to say, to carry it on with reference to the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act and to make it easy to renew the Act. I do not suppose anybody suggests that the Act should be or could be passed in a form in which it never could be revised; but we want to give it the general form of permanence, and with a view to that end to adapt it to the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act. If your Lordships think fit to take that view you will, by accepting that course, at all events have done the very best that can be done for the prospects of the Bill at the present time.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am sure that the whole House concurs with the noble and learned Viscount that the Government find themselves in a very unhappy position. But when we go from that and enter into the merits of this case the noble and learned Viscount says that what he desires is to do what is best for the railway companies and to preserve a portion of the original Bill rather than lose the whole Bill. Unfortunately the railway companies take a different view. As Lord Balfour of Burleigh has stated to your Lordships to-night, they consider that this Bill with the tune limit is of no value to them. They say it is distinctly quite a different bargain—and the noble and learned Viscount does not differ from them in that—from the bargain which was made with them. That is the real point. The question is whether the Bill in the shape in which the Government propose it now is of any value to the railway companies. The railway companies up to the present, at all events, have said that they do not think it is; and therefore it seems to me that the noble and learned Viscount is more anxious for the interests of the railway companies than they are themselves. Surely in a matter of this sort the opinion of the railway companies is rather to be taken than the opinion of the Government. The question whether the Government did or did not do everything they could in order to pass the Bill in its original form is a matter for argument. It is a very strange thing that the Prime Minister was not present on the occasion when the Government were so anxious to pass the Bill. Moreover, the Government did not put it to the test of a Division, and unless it was put to the test of a Division how could the Government possibly have told that they would be defeated? As the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, reminded
1472
your Lordships just now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at a time before the Government had received valuable consideration, said that the Government would support the Bill even if it involved their defeat. All we know is that they did not put it to that test. They simply accepted the Amendment, and now they ask your Lordships to accept the Bill in this emasculated form on the ground that half a loaf is better than no bread. Our discussion to-night has been more irregular, I may say, than usual, because we are supposed to be discussing an Amendment which has been proposed by Lord Granard, whereas at least five-sixths of the debate which has taken place has been with reference to an Amendment which is not yet before the House, and which, so far as we know, may never come before the House. I apprehend that the Question which the noble Lord in the Chair is going to put to us is whether Lord Granard's Amendment is to be accepted or not, and I cannot help thinking—it is merely my own opinion—that it would have been better to have disposed of that Amendment before discussing the subsequent Amendment which your Lordships may perhaps be called upon to consider hereafter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question now is, That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I move to leave out Clause 3, and in doing so I want to say a few words in reply to what has fallen from the Bench opposite. The noble Marquess who leads the House talked about the possibility of revision; but there is the possibility for revision in the Bill, because the railway companies are distinctly told that if they think it ought not to be permanent and ought to be revised there is a provision for that, and therefore that point is answered. The question of losing the Bill does not arise at the moment. When the Bill comes up here again, if, as I hope will not be the case, the other House rejects our Amendment, we shall have an opportunity of considering whether or not we insist on our Amendment, so that the saving of the Bill does not comp in question now. As it stands, the Bill is not a fulfilment of the bargain made, and therefore I move that this clause be not added to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendment reported: Bill read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Restriction on application of funds for certain political purposes.
3. —(1) The funds of a trade union shall not be applied, either directly or in conjunction with any other trade union, association, or body, or otherwise indirectly, in the furtherance of the political objects to which this section applies (without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects), unless the furtherance of those objects has been approved as an object of the union by a resolution for the time being in force passed on a ballot of the members of the union taken in accordance with this Act for the purpose by a majority of the members voting; and where such a resolution is in force, unless rules, to be approved, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, are in force providing —

(a) That any payments in the furtherance of those objects are to be made out of a separate fund (in this Act referred to as the political fund of the union), and for the exemption in accordance with this Act of any member of the union from any obligation to contribute to such a fund if he gives notice in accordance with this Act that he objects to contribute; and

(b) That a member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from any benefits of the union, or placed in any respect either directly or indirectly under any disability or at any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union (except in relation to the control or management of the political fund) by reason of his being so exempt, and that contribution to the political fund of the union shall not be made a condition for admission to the union.

(2) If any member of a trade union alleges that he is aggrieved by a breach of any rule made in pursuance of this section, he may complain to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after giving the complainant and any representative of the union an opportunity of being heard, may, if he considers that such a breach has been committed, make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances; and any such
1474
order of the Registrar shall be binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal and shall not be removable into any court of law or restrainable by injunction, and on being recorded in the county court, may be enforced as if it had been an order of the county court. In the application of this provision to Scotland the sheriff court shall be substituted for the county court, and "interdict" shall be substituted for "injunction."
(3) The political objects to which this section applies are the expenditure of money—

(a) on the payment of any expenses incurred either directly or indirectly by a candidate or prospective candidate for election to Parliament or to any public office, before, during, or after the election in connexion with his candidature or election; or

(b) on the holding of any meeting or the distribution of any literature or documents in support of any such candidate or prospective candidate; or

(c) on the maintenance of any person who is a member of Parliament or who holds a public office; or

(d) in connection with the registration of electors or the selection of a candidate for Parliament or any public office; or

(e) on the holding of political meetings of any kind, or on the distribution of political literature or political documents of any kind, unless the main purpose of the meetings or of the distribution of the literature or documents is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act; or

(f) on the publication or circulation of any newspaper having any political purpose.

The expression "public office" in this section means the office of member of any county, county borough, district., or parish council, or board of guardians, or of any public body who have power to raise money, either directly or indirectly, by means of a rate.
(4) A resolution under this section approving political objects as an object of the union shall take effect as if it were a rule of the union and may be rescinded in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as such a rule.
(5) The provisions of this Act as to the application of the funds of a union for political purposes shall apply to a union which is in whole or in part an association or combination of other unions as if the individual members of the component unions were the members of that union and not the unions; but nothing in this Act shall prevent any such component million from collecting from any of their members who are not exempt on behalf of the association or combination any contributions to the political fund of the association or combination.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that paragraph ( ) of subsection (3) will apply to publications which might not be considered newspapers in the ordinary acceptance of the term.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line, 18, after ("newspaper") insert ("or periodical").—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only repeat what I said in Committee, that I think there is great difficulty about this Amendment, at any rate in the form in which it stands. Since yesterday I have been in communication with prominent trade union officials, and I can give you this case. The railway servants have a newspaper which is mainly or largely devoted to the furtherance of their own interests, and that newspaper—
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will pardon me for interrupting, but this Amendment only deals with periodicals.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; but I was taking the opportunity of raising the more general question. I think the insertion of the word "periodical" will aggravate the difficulty which arises. I should myself very much prefer to see the Bill without this, because I think it really does make a difficult position more difficult at the present time. The noble Earl moved, on the Committee stage of the Bill—
"(f) on the publication or circulation of any newspaper having any political purpose."
His present Amendment proposes to make the situation worse. It would be very much better if there was such a modification as would make sure that the sole or principal purpose is the furtherance of political objects—something to mitigate what we have here. It is to induce the noble Earl to simplify matters that I have made the observations I have. I cannot think the noble Earl would wish to make a difficult position more difficult, and I think it would be better if we omitted paragraph (f) altogether and left the clause as it originally was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does not the noble and learned Viscount think it would be wiser to put in the words "or periodical"? They do not make any difference in principle. The noble and learned Viscount's observations would be entirely relevant, if I may say so with great respect, to the next Amendment, which is a limiting Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE THE EARL OF DUNMORE moved to amend paragraph (f) of subsection (3) so that it would read—
"(f) on the publication or circulation of any newspaper or periodical having any political
1476
purpose unless the main purpose of the news paper or periodical is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act."
The noble Earl said: When my Amendment came under discussion yesterday in regard to the publication or circulation of a newspaper having any political purpose the Lord Chancellor made certain observations. He pointed out that it would be very difficult to differentiate between a newspaper having a political purpose and a newspaper which dealt with ordinary trade union matters. It certainly was not desired by my Amendment, which now forms part of the clause, that a trade union should be prevented from publishing a newspaper dealing with ordinary trade union matters. But in view of what the noble and learned Viscount has just said, I should like to point out that this present Amendment proposes to meet the views which he expressed yesterday afternoon as far as I understood them, and I have adopted the language which is to be found in the preceding paragraph—namely, "unless the main purpose" of the newspaper or periodical "is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act."
If the present Amendment is accepted I should like to point out what the effect of this paragraph to which the noble and learned Viscount has objected would be. A trade union would be able to publish any newspaper or periodical, or apply its funds towards the publication of a newspaper or periodical, without any of the restrictions which are laid down in this Bill under Clause 3, if and so long as that newspaper or periodical had for its main purpose the furtherance of statutory objects —that is, the industrial relations between workmen and masters and others concerned in the industry. If, on the other hand, a trade union desires either itself to run a newspaper or to assist some other person in running a newspaper and if it were run for some special purpose, that would not be prevented by this Amendment. All that would happen would be that before doing so it would have to obtain the authority of the members of the trade union in the manner laid down in this Bill. This really is the point of the whole Amendment, that the expenditure on such a newspaper would have to come out of the political fund towards which those members who dissented from the political policy of the trade union would not be compelled to contribute.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, after ("purpose") insert ("unless the main purpose of the newspaper or periodical is the furtherance of statutory objects wit bin the meaning of this Act").—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl has considerably improved the form in which the matter would stand without his Amendment, but even as it is I think great embarrassment and difficulty would be created. How is anybody to say what is the main purpose of a newspaper or periodical? It would probably give rise to every sort of controversy, and all I can say is that I am grateful to the noble Earl for so far mitigating the situation by substituting his present Amendment for the one he previously proposed. I should like, however, to see this paragraph out altogether. I am sure it will do no good, and win only create difficulty and feeling on the part of trade unions. I have had evidence of that again to-day, and I repeat that in the present situation I think it would be better if the new paragraph were omitted altogether. I still hope that your Lordships will think fit, by general agreement, to omit it, although so far as the noble Earl is concerned the words which he has proposed are words which somewhat soften an otherwise objectionable paragraph.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am glad the noble and learned Viscount admits that the words proposed to be inserted by my noble friend are an improvement of the clause. They are proposed with the special object of meeting a criticism which was made in debate, and, as my noble friend pointed out, the particular reference to the "main purpose," to which the noble and learned Viscount referred a moment ago, is taken from the preceding paragraph, for the drafting of which His Majesty's Government are responsible. I want, however, to say one word with regard to what the noble and learned Viscount said as to his desire to get rid of paragraph (f) altogether. I do not say that the wording may not be improved, but surely something in the nature of paragraph (f) is indispensable in this Bill. Unless something in the nature of that paragraph is inserted I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it would not be possible for a trade union to publish a newspaper advocating Syndicalism of the most pronounced type, and to use in connection with the publication of
1478
that newspaper the funds of its contributors, and to do all that without any of the restrictions or safeguards which this Bill provides—I mean in the way of a previous resolution, the ballot, and measures for the protection of dissentients, which are contemplated by this Bill. If that is a conceivable thing, then I say my noble friend is perfectly right in putting in words to cover a contingency of that kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR.: In answer to the noble Marquess's question, I think that is so; but I have always thought it best not to attempt to restrain trade unions in these matters. You will not succeed in restraining them, and will only make them seek means of evading any such restriction. Hitherto trade unions have not published newspapers dealing with Syndicalism, and I would rather let them feel that they were not shackled with the fetters of Parliament in a matter of this kind, because as soon as they did feel that they were shackled and fettered in this way they might be tempted to do the very thing that you are proposing to restrain them from doing.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble and learned Viscount did not appreciate my point. It is not that I desire to restrain trade unions front publishing anything they wish to publish; it is to restrain them from applying to such a purpose the funds of members who may object altogether to contribute for the purpose of publishing and circulating a Syndicalist newspaper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Approval of rules.
4. A ballot for the purposes of this Act shall be taken in accordance with rules of the union to be approved for the purpose, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, but the Registrar of Friendly Societies shall not approve any such rules unless he is satisfied that every member has an equal right and, if reasonably possible, a fair opportunity of voting, and that the secrecy of the ballot is properly secured.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have myself an Amendment to move which comes in at the end of Clause 4, after the word "secured." It is to insert the new subsection that I proposed yesterday. Since yesterday I have been in communication with various officials of the trade

1479
unions, and also with the draftsman, and we have found that there are a considerable number of trade union rules which, unless this subsection is put in, will make it absolutely impossible to bring this Bill into operation for a period of years, in some cases two and in some cases three, after the Bill passes. For instance, take the rules of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. The annual general meeting has only power to amend, rescind, or make rules every three years, unless an alteration is recommended by the Executive Committee in the interim as being urgently required in the interests of the society, in which case the matter is to be brought before the next annual meeting; but no new rules can be made, altered, or rescinded, except by the annual meeting every third year. Then I find that the Plumbers' Association have a rule to a similar effect; and the Derbyshire Miners' Association cannot alter their rules for three years. I could multiply the instances. If the Bill is to do any good and be operative soon, the Amendment which I moved yesterday and which stood over for further consideration is, I suggest to your Lordships, an Amendment which ought to be made. It proceeds not particularly from the trade unions but from the legal advisers of the Government, and particularly from the Registrar of Friendly Societies. In these circumstances I would ask your Lordships to allow it to be added to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after ("secured") insert as a new subsection:
"(2) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies is satisfied, and certifies that riles for the purpose of a ballot under this Act or rules made for other purposes of this Act which require approval by the Registrar have been approved by a majority of members of a trade union, whether registered or not, voting for the purpose, or by a majority of delegates of such a trade union voting at a meeting called for the purpose, those rules shall have effect as rules of the union, notwithstanding that the provisions of the rules of the union as to the alteration of rules or the making of new rules have not been complied with."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By the courtesy of the noble and learned Viscount we have been put in possession of information which was not fully at our command yesterday when we discussed this Amendment. It is perfectly true that there are rules attaching to some societies which would prevent the Bill coming into
1480
operation for two or three years, and so far I agree with the noble and learned Viscount. We have no desire to prevent the Bill coming into operation within a reasonable period—in fact, we rather invited the Lord Chancellor yesterday to put the particular point more precisely before us. There are also rules, which the noble and learned Viscount did not mention, which prescribe that these alterations of constitution should not be carried except by a two-thirds majority. I cannot say that I see any objection to such rules as those. They seem to me to be very salutary and proper. The governing consideration which has been brought to our notice since the discussion yesterday is a difficulty in the consistency of the Bill if this Amendment were not carried. It seems when the Bill is read carefully that the resolution which deals with the application of funds for political purposes is to be carried by a bare majority, and it seems to follow that the rules which succeed that resolution and which are the necessary consequence of it if the Bill is to operate should not be more stringently enacted than the rules under which the whole machinery is put in motion. This makes a difficulty which I do not see my way to get over, and although I still hold the opinion I held yesterday I should not offer any opposition to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mode of giving effect to exemption from contributions to political fund.
6. Effect may be given to the exemption of members to contribute to the political fund of a union either by a separate levy of contributions to that fund from the members of the union who are not exempt, and in that case the rules shall provide that no moneys of the union other than the amount raised by such separate levy shall be carried to that fund, or by relieving any members who are exempt from the payment of the whole or any part of any periodical contributions required from the members of the union towards the expenses of the union, and in that case the rules shall provide that the relief shall be given as far as possible to all members who are exempt on the occasion of the same periodical payment.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE THE EARL OF DUNMORE had an Amendment on the Paper, after the word "that" ["and in that case the rules shall provide that"] to insert "notice in writing shall be given to each member of the union showing separatelythe amount of any periodical contribution which is

1481
required from him for the expenses of the union and the amount (if any) which is required from him for the political fund of the union, and that." The noble Earl said: I do not move this Amendment in view of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment which is intended to deal with the same point as that raised by my Amendment. But, with the permission of the House, I propose to make some observations after I have heard what the noble and learned Viscount has to say in moving his Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move to add at the end of Clause 6 the words "and for enabling members of the union to know as respects any such periodical contribution whether or not it is intended in whole or in part as a contribution to the political fund of the union." That means that there will be a rule to that effect, and the reason. I am anxious to put the matter in that form is the one which I stated yesterday. I have had the advantage of speaking to a trade union official, and he told me that to give notice to every member is impossible, the reason being that they change their addresses so frequently. The way he gets over that difficulty in practice is that although he does not know their actual addresses, as they are so constantly changing, he knows all the men by sight, and he conveys to them all the information and notifications that are necessary, but not in writing. If a rule is properly framed it can be secured that that is adequately done, and that will get over the difficulty. Owing to the constant migration of trade unionists it is impossible to deal with the matter in the way the noble Earl suggests. For that reason I beg to move in the form of which I have given notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, after ("payment") insert ("and for enabling members of the union to know as respects any such periodical contribution whether or not it is intended in whole or in part as a contribution to the political fund of the union").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD KENYON: I know many trade unionists who are very anxious for this Amendment, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it will be made absolutely clear to the members of the unions that they are contributing a certain proportion of their contributions to the political fund.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There will be a rule for enabling members to know whether the contribution is intended in whole or in part as a contribution to the political fund of the union.
LORD KENYON: I understand that they will get that information if they ask for it. But will it be conveyed to them on the contribution card?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The rules will provide for it.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: While thanking the noble and learned Viscount for trying to meet the point I raised yesterday and which I have raised again to-day in my Amendment, I would point out the exact difference between my Amendment and that which is now proposed. When a trade union adopts certain political objects, I am anxious that each member of the union should be clearly shown how much of the contribution which is demanded of him is required for the general purposes of the trade union, and how much is required for the political fund. The Amendment which is proposed by the noble and learned Viscount would be met if the member of the union is informed that a part of the contribution that is demanded of him is going to be allocated towards political purposes, but he could not tell the exact amount which was going to be so taken. Let us take a concrete instance. Suppose that 3s. 6d. is the amount of the contribution which is going to be required of trade union members. The trade union member would be informed that 3s. 6d. was the total contribution, and that a portion of it was going to be taken for political purposes. Under my original Amendment he would have had the exact figures stated. He would be told that 2s. 6d., let us say, was required for the general purposes of the trade union, and for the political fund. In order to meet the noble and learned Viscount so far as possible, I would venture to suggest an Amendment in substitution for his. My Amendment would read as follows—After the word "payment" at the end of the clause, to insert "and for enabling each member of the union to know as respects any such periodical contribution what portion, if any, of the sum payable by him is a contribution to the political fund of the union." This Amendment casts no aspersions whatever on the conduct of trade union officials, and it is, I think, quite clear

1483
that there is no such intention. It is purely a business matter. The scheme of the Bill is that the political fund shall be a separate fund, and surely it is more businesslike that the contributions which are demanded from the trade union members should be separated, as to whether they were required for the ordinary trade union purposes or whether they were required for the political fund.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Earl has met this case very fairly. I quite appreciate his point. It is in no way inconsistent with my criticism, and I am quite content to take the Amendment in the form which he now proposes. It was my object to have a rule which would avoid the necessity of sending round to each individual member, and the noble Earl meets that difficulty. I will accept the Amendment, therefore, in the form in which he puts it, and withdraw my own form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 5, line 40, after ("payment") insert ("and for enabling each member of the union to know as respects any such periodical contribution what portion, if any, of the sum payable by him is a contribution to the political fund of the union.")—(The, Earl of Dunmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule:

FORM OF EXEMPTION NOTICE.
Name of Trade Union

POLITICAL FUND (EXEMPTION NOTICE).
I hereby give notice that I object to contribute to the Political Fund of the
Union, and am in consequence exempt, in manner provided by the Trade Union Act, 1913, from contributing to that fund.

A.B.

Address

day of

19

THE EARL OF DUNMORE: I have an Amendment to the Schedule which I have put forward in view of a letter I have received from a member of a trade union, in which he points out that if the address is given it might lead to difficulties in the case of those members who prefer not to contribute towards the political fund. I shall be glad to hear whether the noble and learned Viscount can give the Amendment his support.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out ("address").—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would ask the noble Earl to withdraw this Amendment. Unless the trade union officials knew the address as well as the name, they would not be able effectively to tell whether or not the exemption notice was genuine. A notice signed "John Smith" might come from any one of hundreds of members of a union like the Society of Railway Servants, and unless the address were also given the union officials could not possibly tell which John Smith had claimed to be exempted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PILOTAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("persons") and insert ("person").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 35, after ("record") insert ("or in Scotland before the Court of Session")
Page 3, line 38, after ("Court") insert ("or in Scotland to the auditor of accounts in the Court of Session").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Pilotage Orders.
7.—(l) The Board of Trade may, by Order made under this Act (in this Act referred to as a Pilotage Order)—

(a) make such rearrangement of pilotage districts and pilotage authorities as they think necessary or expedient; and

(b) establish new pilotage districts and new pilotage authorities and abolish existing pilotage districts and existing pilotage authorities in cases where it appears to the Board necessary or expedient; and

(c) define the limits of pilotage districts, distinguishing as respects any pilotage district in part of which pilotage is compulsory and in part of which pilotage is not compulsory, the part of the district in which pilotage is compulsory; and

(d) provide for the incorporation of any pilotage authority, and make such alteration in the constitution of any pilotage authority with reference to their powers and duties as pilotage authority, and such provisions as to the appointment of committees (including, if it is thought fit, persons not members of the authority), and as to the relations between the authority and the committee, as the Board think necessary or expedient; and

(e) empower a pilotage authority to delegate to a committee thereof any of its powers and, duties, and provide if it seems necessary or desirable that the decisions of the committee on questions so delegated shall not require confirmation by the pilotage authority; and

(f) make such provision for the direct representation of pilots and shipowners on any pilotage authority or committee of a pilotage authority as the Board think necessary or expedient; and

(g) in cases where a pilotage authority have powers and duties as to other matters as well as pilotage, provide for their accounts as pilotage authority being kept separate from their accounts in relation to other matters; and

(h) provide that pilotage shall be compulsory in any area where it has previously not been compulsory; and

(i) authorise, where it appears expedient, any pilotage authority to make byelaws providing for the grant of certificates (in this Act referred to as deep sea certificates) certifying that persons are qualified to act as pilots of ships for any part of the sea or channels outside the district of any pilotage authority, so, however, that a pilot holding such a certificate shall not be entitled to supersede any other person as pilot of a ship; and

(j) provide that any Act (other than this Act), order, charter, custom, byelaw, regulation, or provision shall, so far as it relates to pilotage, cease to have effect within any pilotage district or as respects any pilotage authority, but may re-enact the whole or any part thereof so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act; and

1486

(k) provide for compensation being paid to any pilots for any loss or damage which may be incurred by them in consequence of any Order abolishing or rearranging any pilotage districts; and

(l) make any provisions which appear necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to the Order.

(2) Provision shall be made by Pilotage Order for the direct representation of pilots either on the pilotage authority or on the committee of the pilotage authority of any district where there are not less than six licensed pilots if a majority of the pilots licensed for the district signify in writing to the Board of Trade that they desire such representation, and, where such provision is made, provision shall also be made for the representation of shipowners on the authority or committee, as the case may be.
(3) A Pilotage Order establishing a pilotage authority for any pilotage, district shall provide for the representation on the pilotage authority of any dock or harbour authority having jurisdiction within the district which was represented on the pilotage authority for the district at the time of the passing of this Act, and which desires to be so represented.
(4) A Pilotage Order shall not be made by the Board of Trade except—

(a) for any of the purposes of Part I. of this Act; or

(b) on the application in writing of any person interested in the pilotage of any pilotage district or in the operation of the laws relating to pilotage in that district or the administration of those laws.

(5) A Pilotage Order shall require confirmation by Parliament—

(a) if it is an Order made for any of the purposes of Part I. of this Act; and

(b) if, whatever the purpose for which it is made, a petition is presented to the Board of Trade against the Order by any person appearing to the Board of Trade to be interested in the administration of pilotage in the district within six weeks after the Order is published and the petition is not withdrawn.

(6) A Pilotage Order which does not require confirmation by Parliament shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
(7) The provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to Pilotage Orders.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("they") and insert ("the Board").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I beg to move the Amendment to which I referred yesterday, in paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of Clause 7, to insert, after "compulsory," the words "or provide that pilotage shall be non-compulsory in any area where it has been compulsory." This simply restores paragraph (h) to what it was when

1487
it was introduced by the Board of Trade, and gives the Board of Trade full powers of dealing with this matter in all districts. This clause gives the Board of Trade very great powers, but for some reason which I do not understand power to alter a compulsory pilotage district or any part of it into a non-compulsory pilotage district appears to be reserved. There surely must be cases—in fact, I know of one which I mentioned to the House yesterday—in which it would be very desirable that some alteration should be made, or at any rate that the Board of Trade should be empowered to make such alteration if after inquiry at which all parties were heard it was thought necessary to do so. I mentioned yesterday the case of the Bristol district, where there is considerable unfairness in the case of ships bound to the port of Bristol as against ships going to other ports in the Channel but passing through absolutely the same pilotage area. I would ask whether it is not possible that the Board of Trade, who have these wide powers, should have this power added. Even if the words I propose are not inserted in the Bill I think the matter does require consideration, and what I really do not understand is why these words were left out in the Standing Committee in the House of Commons.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, after ("compulsory") insert ("or provide t hat pilotage shall be non-compulsory in any area where it has been compulsory").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
LORD INCHCAPE: I should like to associate myself with what the noble Viscount has said with regard to the disability under which the Board of Trade propose to bring themselves by this clause. It was carried, I believe, in Committee against the Government by a majority of 24 to 17; but I think it is most desirable that the Board of Trade should not bring themselves under this disability. As the noble Viscount has said, there may be many cases in which it may be advisable to make a compulsory area a non-compulsory area, but if this clause stands as it is in the Bill that will be found impossible. The fact is that compulsory pilotage and pilotage generally is a relic of the past. It was found to be necessary when the bulk of the trade of the world was done by sailing ships. But now that it is done by steamers the standard of capacity and skill on the part of captains and officers has very
1488
greatly increased, and I have no doubt that within the next few years the pilotage boards will find it desirable to make considerable variations in the compulsory areas. I would certainly urge His Majesty's Government to accept the proposal of the noble Viscount.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The noble Viscount is correct in saying that in the Bill as originally introduced there were similar words to those which he now proposes to put in, with the exception that there was a compensation clause at the end of it. The history of this clause is this. We were defeated in Standing Committee by 24 to 17, and we were also defeated in the House. It was moved again on Report stage by Sir W. H. Davies, one of the Members for Bristol, and it was defeated by 137 to 51. Therefore this particular Amendment has been before the House of Commons on two occasions, and has been rejected both times. With regard to Bristol, I am quite aware that ships going through the Bristol Channel to ports other than Bristol do not have to carry a pilot, and that the only compulsory area is the area actually around Bristol. The noble Viscount is, of course, aware that the present pilotage authority at Bristol is the Bristol Corporation, and in their evidence before the Departmental Committee they were strongly in favour of the retention of compulsory pilotage so far as regards the port of Bristol.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: A small area.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The area covered by the Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No, excuse me; they desired to alter the area so as to make it a fair area for the port of Bristol.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I am correct in saying that they supported compulsory pilotage as regards a certain portion of the port.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Yes, as regards a certain portion.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The view of the Government is this. The Amendment having been beaten twice in the House of Commons we are not particularly anxious to incorporate it again in the Bill, and I,

1489
of course, would much rather not accept the Amendment. If the noble Viscount presses it very strongly, however, I will assent to it, but only on the understanding that he will allow me to add the compensation provision which existed in the Bill when we originally introduced it.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I shall be happy to agree to what the noble Earl proposes, because I think it would be advisable that the House of Commons should have another opportunity of expressing its opinion on the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Earl has handed me a new provision which I think should go in as paragraph (m) at the end of the subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, at end insert "(m) provide, if it appears just, for compensation being paid to any pilots for any loss or damage which may be incurred by them in consequence of the Order; and".—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 1, at the beginning of the line insert ("until otherwise provided by Pilotage Order made under this Act")
Page 7, line 3, leave out from the first ("district") to ("and") in line 4.
Page 7, line 6, leave out from ("authority") to the end of the subsection.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendments moved—
Page 7, lines 39 and 37, leave out ("within the meaning of this section")
Page 7, line 40 and page 8, line 1, leave out ("within the meaning of this section").
Page 8, line 15, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("port")
Page 9, line 31, after ("such") insert ("classes of").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Liability of owner or master in the ease of a vessel under pilotage.
15.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in any public or local Act, the owner or master of a vessel navigating under circumstances in which pilotage is compulsory shall be answerable for any loss or damage caused by the vessel or by any fault of the navigation of the vessel in the same manner as he would if pilotage were not compulsory.
(2) This section shall not take effect until the first day of January, nineteen hundred and eighteen, or such earlier date as His Majesty may fix by Order in Council, certifying that it is necessary to bring the section into operation in order to enable His Majesty to comply with an international convention.
(3) As from the date of the coming into operation of this section, section six hundred and thirty-three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall cease to have effect.
LORD INCHCAPE: Clause 15 makes a very serious change in the law. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Section 633, an owner or master of a ship is not answerable to any person whatever for any loss or damage occasioned by the incapacity of any qualified pilot acting in charge of that ship within any district where the employment of a qualified pilot is compulsory by law. This protection of the shipowner is an old one, and it is based on what is believed to be the universally recognised principle of Common Law. The Bill now alters this, and throws the responsibility on the shipowner notwithstanding the fact that the shipowner is compelled to take a pilot put on board by some port authority. The shipowner is held responsible for all the damage that that pilot may do. This was not opposed in the House of Commons because we had an assurance that it would help the Government to secure a much desired international agreement as to the liability of shipowners. I would like to say to the noble Earl in charge of this Bill that I am glad to have his assurance that the President of the Board of Trade and His Majesty's Government will do their utmost to secure an international agreement which will be fair to the shipowners of this country, and, further, that they will do all in their power to secure the ratification of that agreement by the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more on this subject. I went into it very fully last night, and, as t he noble Lord very justly says, the matter is going to be

1491
submitted to an international conference in the autumn and the interests of the shipowners of this country will be safeguarded.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 23, leave out from ("final") to the end of the subsection.
Page 20, line 3, after ("fees") insert ("In the application of this section to Scotland references to the Court of Session shall be substituted for references to the High Court").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35:
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 18, after ("come") insert ("in").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 40 agreed to.
Clause 41:
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 31, after ("district") insert ("or a master or mate holding a pilotage certificate for that district")
Page 24, line 32, leave out from ("exhibited") to ("and") in line 33
Page 24, line 35, leave out from ("pounds") to the end of the clause.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Amendment moved—
Page 25, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("the usual signal for a pilot") and insert ("a pilot signal").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58:
Limit on penalty of bond given by pilot.
58. The penalty of a bond given by a pilot for the purpose of the provisions of this Act limiting pilots' liability shall not exceed one hundred pounds.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment made in Clause 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, leave out clause 58.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60:
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, after ("Order") insert ("or in the case of a byelaw by byelaw made").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a (with the Amendments), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL.
PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 3a, and passed.

TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Thursday, March 6.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.

DUKE OF ABERCORN.
Petition of James Albert Edward, Duke of Abercorn, Marquess of Hamilton, Viscount Strabane and Baron Mountcastle, Lord Hamilton, Baron of Strabane, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.