Sitting of 11 November 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances under the Irish Land Purchase Acts for the months of August, September, October, November, and December, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of Report of Departmental Committee on the fixing of Charges for scutching Flax and Tow [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 1st November, 1918, giving effect to Rules of Court (Ord. LXIII, Rule 5) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 1st November, 1918, giving effect to Rules of Court (Ord. LVIII., Rule 25) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877 (RULES).
Copy presented of Rules made by the Lord Chancellor and County Court Judges under the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) ACT, 1888.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 1st November, 1918, increasing Solicitors' Costs by 25 per cent. during the War and for six months thereafter [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WINTER ASSIZES (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Three Orders in Council, dated the 1st November, 1918, for holding Winter Assizes in Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (BENGAL DETENUS COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of Sir N. Chandavarkar and Mr. Justice Beachcroft on Detenus and Internees in Bengal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction to consider the position of the Building Industry after the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Statement with regard to Advisory Bodies other than Reporting Committees appointed by the Minister of Reconstruction [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Seventy-third Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland for the year 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMISTICE WITH GERMANY.

  PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
  Immediately after Prayers, the PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George) rose, and said: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The Armistice, as has already been announced in the Press, was signed this morning at five o'clock, after a discussion which was prolonged all night. I will read to the House the conditions of the Armistice in so far as they have reached

  2455
  us up to the present. I ought to warn the House, and the public, that we have only received such corrections as were rendered necessary by the new conditions by telephone. I have been correcting them up to the latest moment, and there is a possibility that there may be a few mistakes. But substantially these will represent the conditions which Germany has accepted:—

  CONDITIONS OF AN ARMISTICE WITH GERMANY.

    A.—CLAUSES RELATING TO WESTERN FRONT.
    1. "Cessation of operations by land and in the air, six hours after the signature of the Armistice."
    The Armistice was signed at five o'clock in the morning; the War ceased at eleven o'clock this morning.
    2. "Immediate evacuation of invaded countries—Belgium, France, Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg—so ordered as to be completed within fourteen days from the signature of the Armistice."
    There have been certain alterations in the number of days.
    "German troops which have not left the above-mentioned territories within the period fixed will become prisoners of war.
    "Occupation by the Allied and United States Forces jointly will keep pace with evacuation in these areas.
    "All movements of evacuation and occupation will be regulated in accordance with a Note which has been served upon the German Commander-in-Chief.
    3. "Repatriation, beginning at once, to be completed within fourteen days of all inhabitants of the countries above enumerated (including hostages, persons under trial, or convicted).
    4. "Surrender in good condition by the German Armies of the following equipment:

    5,000 guns (2,500 heavy, 2,500 field);

    30,000 machine-guns;

    3,000 minnenwerfer;

    2,000 aeroplanes (fighters, bombers—firstly D.7's—and night bombing machines);

    The above to be delivered in situ to the Allied and United States troops in accordance with the detailed conditions laid down in the Note.
    5. "Evacuation by the German Armies of the countries on the left bank of the Rhine. These countries on the left bank of the Rhine shall be administered by the local authorities under the control of the Allied and United States Armies of occupation.
    "The occupation of these territories will be carried out by Allied and United States garrisons holding the principal crossings of the Rhine (Mayence, Coblentz, Cologne), together with bridgeheads at these points of a 30 kilometre radius on the right bank, and by garrisons similarly holding the strategic points of the regions.
    "A neutral zone shall be set up on the right bank of the Rhine between the river and a line drawn 10 kilometres distant from the Dutch frontier to the Swiss frontier."
    This is in addition to the bridgeheads, I ought to explain to the House.
    "In the case of inhabitants"—
    Inhabitants of the neutral zone and of the provinces on the left bank of the Rhine—
    "no person shall be prosecuted for having taken part in any military measures previous to the signing of the Armistice.
    "No measure of a general or official character shall be taken which would have as a consequence the depreciation of industrial establishments or a reduction of their personnel.
    "Evacuation by the enemy of the Rhinelands shall be so ordered as to be completed within a further period of 16 days—in all 31 days after the signature of the Armistice.
    "All movements of evacuation and occupation will be regulated according to the Note.
    6. "In all territory evacuated by the enemy there shall be no evacuation of inhabitants; no damage or harm shall be done to the persons or property of the inhabitants.
    "No destruction of any kind to be committed.
    "Military establishments of all kinds shall be delivered intact, as well as military stores of food, munitions, equipment not removed during the period fixed for evacuation. Stores of food of all kinds for the civil population, cattle, etc., shall be left in situ.
    "Industrial establishments shall not be impaired in any way and their personnel shall not be moved.
    7. "Roads and means of communication of every kind, railroads, waterways, main roads, bridges, telegraphs, telephones, shall be in no manner impaired.
    "All civil and military personnel at present employed on them shall remain.
    "5,000 locomotives, 150,000 wagons and 5,000 motor lorries in good working order, with all necessary spare parts and fittings, shall be delivered to the Associated Powers within the period fixed for the evacuation of Belgium and Luxembourg.
    "The railways of Alsace-Lorraine shall be handed over within the same period, together with all pre-war personnel and material.
    "Further, material necessary for the working of railways in the country on the left bank of the Rhine shall be left in situ.
    "All stores of coal and material for upkeep of permanent way, signals, and repair shops, shall be left in situ and kept in an efficient state by Germany as far as the means of communication are concerned during the whole period of the Armistice.
    "All barges taken from the Allies shall be restored to them; the Note appended as Annexure 2 regulates the details of these measures.
    8. "The German Command shall be responsible for revealing all mines or delay action fuses disposed on territory evacuated by the German troops, and shall assist in their discovery and destruction.
    "The German Command shall also reveal all destructive measures that may have been taken (such as poisoning or pollution of springs, wells, etc.), under penalty of reprisals.
    9. "The right of requisition shall be exercised by the Allied and United States Armies in all occupied territory, save for the settlement of accounts with authorised persons.
    "The upkeep of the troops of occupation in the Rhineland (excluding Alsace-Lorraine) shall be charged to the German Government.
    10. "The immediate repatriation without reciprocity according to detailed conditions, which shall be fixed, of all Allied and United States prisoners of war; the Allied Powers and the United States of America shall be able to dispose of these prisoners as they wish. However, the return of German prisoners of war interned in Holland and Switzerland shall continue as heretofore. The return of German prisoners of war shall be settled at the peace preliminaries.
    11. "Sick and wounded who cannot be removed from evacuated territory will be cared for by German personnel who will be left on the spot with the medical material required.

    CLAUSES RELATING TO THE EASTERN FRONTIERS OF GERMANY.
    12. "All German troops at present in any territory which before the War belonged to Russia, Rumania, or Turkey, shall withdraw within the frontiers of Germany, as they existed on 1st August, 1914, and all German troops at present in territories which before the War formed part of Russia must likewise return to within the frontiers of Germany as above defined as soon as the Allies shall think the moment suitable, having regard to the internal situation of those territories.
    13. "Evacuation by German troops to begin at once; and all German instructors, prisoners, and civilian as well as military agents, now on the territory of Russia (as defined on 1st August, 1914) to be recalled.
    14. "German troops to cease at once all requisitions and seizures and any other undertaking with a view to obtaining supplies intended for Germany in Rumania and Russia, as defined on 1st August, 1914.
    15. "Abandonment of the Treaties of Bucharest and Brest-Litovsk and of the Supplementary Treaties.
    16. "The Allies shall have free access to the territories evacuated by the Germans on their Eastern Frontier, either through Danzig, or by the Vistula, in order to convey supplies to the populations of those territories or for the purpose of maintaining order.

    CLAUSE RELATING TO EAST AFRICA.
    17. "Unconditional evacuation of all German forces operating in East Africa, within one month.

    GENERAL CLAUSES.
    18. "Repatriation, without reciprocity, within a maximum period of one month, in accordance with detailed conditions hereafter to be fixed, of all civilians interned or deported who may be citizens of other Allied or Associated States than those mentioned in Clause 3.
    19. "With the reservation that any future claims and demands of the Allies and the United States of America remain unaffected, the following financial conditions are required:
    "Reparation for damage done.
    "While the Armistice lasts, no public securities shall be removed by the enemy which can serve as a pledge to the Allies for the recovery or reparation for war losses.
    "Immediate restitution of the cash deposit in the National Bank of Belgium and, in general, immediate return of all documents, specie, stock, shares, paper money, together with plant for the issue thereof, touching public or private interests in the invaded countries.
    "Restitution of the Russian and Roumanian gold yielded to Germany or taken by that Power.
    "This gold to be delivered in trust to the Allies until the signature of peace.

    NAVAL CONDITIONS.
    20. "Immediate cessation of all hostilities at sea, and definite information to be given as to the location and movements of all German ships.
    "Notification to be given to Neutrals that freedom of navigation in all territorial waters is given to the Naval and Mercantile Marines of the Allied and Associated Powers, all questions of neutrality being waived.
    21. "All Naval and Mercantile Marine prisoners of war of the Allied and Associated Powers in German hands to be returned, without reciprocity.
    22. "Handing over to the Allies and the United States of all submarines (including all submarine cruisers and mine-layers) which are present at the moment with full complement in the ports specified by the Allies and the United States. Those that cannot put to sea to be deprived of crews and supplies and shall remain under the supervision of the Allies and the United States. Submarines ready to put to sea shall be prepared to leave German ports immediately on receipt of wireless order to sail to the port of surrender, the remainder to follow as early as possible. The conditions of this Article shall be carried within fourteen days after the signing of the Armistice."
    That is the surrender of all available submarines.
    23. "The following German surface warships, which shall be designated by the Allies and the United States of America, shall forthwith be disarmed and thereafter interned in neutral ports, or, failing them, Allied ports to be designated by the Allies and the United States of America, and placed under the serveillance of the Allies and the United States of America, only caretakers being left on board, namely:

    Six Battle Cruisers;

    Ten Battleships;

    Eight Light Cruisers, including two Mine-layers;

    Fifty Destroyers of the most modern types.

    "All other surface warships (including river craft) are to be concentrated in German Naval bases to be designated by the Allies and the United States of America, and are to be paid-off and completely disarmed and placed under the supervision of the Allies and the United

    2461
    States of America. All vessels of the Auxiliary Fleet (trawlers, motor vessels, etc.) are to be disarmed. All vessels specified for internment shall be ready to leave German ports seven days after the signing of the Armistice. Directions for the voyage will be given by wireless."
    In consequence of recent events this has had to be added. I have just had it by telephone—
    "A declaration has been signed by us—"
    This comes from Admiral Wemyss—
    "and handed to the German delegates to the effect that in the event of ships not being handed over owing to the mutinous state of the fleet, the Allies reserve the right to occupy Heligoland as an advanced base to enable them to enforce the terms of Armistice. The German delegates have on their part signed a declaration that they will recommend the Chancellor to accept this."
    24. "The Allies and the United States of America shall have the right to sweep up all minefields and obstructions laid by Germany outside German territorial waters, and the positions of these are to be indicated.
    25. "Freedom of access to and from the Baltic to be given to the Naval and Mercantile Marines of the Allied and Associated Powers. To secure this, the Allies and the United States of America shall be empowered to occupy all German forts, fortifications, batteries, and defence works of all kinds in all the entrances from the Cattegat into the Baltic, and to sweep up all mines and obstructions within and without German territorial waters without any questions of neutrality being raised, and the positions of all such mines and obstructions are to be indicated.
    26. "The existing blockade conditions set up by the Allied and Associated Powers are to remain unchanged, and all German merchant ships found at sea are to remain liable to capture The Allies and the United States contemplate the provisioning of Germany during the Armistice as shall be found necessary.
    27. "All naval aircraft are to be concentrated and immobilised in German bases to be specified by the Allies and the United States of America.
    28. "In evacuating the Belgian coasts and ports, Germany shall abandon all merchant ships, tugs, lighters, cranes, and all other harbour materials; all materials for inland navigation; all aircraft, and air materials and stores; all arms and armaments and all stores and apparatus of all kinds.
    29. "All Black Sea ports are to be evacuated by Germany; all Russian warships of all descriptions seized by Germany in the Black Sea are to be handed over to the Allies and the United States of America; all neutral merchant ships seized are to be released; all warlike and other materials of all kinds seized in those ports are to be returned, and German materials as specified in Clause 28 are to be abandoned.
    30. "All merchant ships in German hands belonging to the Allied and Associated Powers are to be restored in ports to be specified by the Allies and the United States of America without reciprocity.
    31. "No destruction of ships or of materials to be permitted before evacuation, surrender, or restoration.
    32. "The German Government shall formally notify the Neutral Governments of the world, and particularly the Governments of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland, that all restrictions placed on the trading of their vessels with the Allied and Associated countries, whether by the German Government or by private German interests, and whether in the return for specific concessions such as the export of shipbuilding materials or not, are immediately cancelled.
    33. "No transfers of German merchant shipping of any description to any neutral flag are to take place after signature of the Armistice.

    DURATION OF ARMISTICE.
    34. "The duration of the Armistice is to be thirty-six days with option to extend. During this period, on

    2463
    failure of execution of any of the above Clauses, the Armistice may be denounced by one of the contracting parties on forty-eight hours' previous notice.

    TIME LIMIT FOR REPLY.
    35. "This Armistice to be accepted or refused by Germany within seventy-two hours of notification."
    Those are the conditions of the Armistice. Thus at eleven o'clock this morning came to an end the cruellest and most terrible War that has ever scourged mankind. I hope we may say that thus, this fateful morning, came to an end all wars.
    This is no time for words. Our hearts are too full of a gratitude to which no tongue can give adequate expression. I will, therefore, move "That this House do immediately adjourn, until this time To-morrow, and that we proceed, as a House of Commons, to St. Margaret's, to give humble and reverent thanks for the deliverance of the world from its great peril."
    Mr. ASQUITH: I am sure that the House, without any distinction or difference of opinion, will agree with the Motion that the Prime Minister has made, and that the course which he proposes to adopt is the only one which is consonant with our feelings and with those of the country and the Empire. With regard to the terms of the Armistice as read out I will simply say this: It is clear from it that its acceptance by our enemies means not only that the War is at an end, but that the War cannot be resumed; and I join with a full heart
    2464
    in his aspiration not only that this War may not be resumed, but that now we have entered upon a new chapter in international history, in which war will be recognised as an obsolete anachronism, never to be revived. As the Prime Minister has said, there is nothing that we can do in conditions so unexampled as these than as a House, and on behalf of the nation, to acknowledge our gratitude to Almighty God.
    Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I propose to proceed at once to St. Margaret's, and I will invite the House to follow, very much in the same order in which we proceeded on the 4th August last, namely: I will go first with the Mace; then I invite Privy Councillors to follow in fours, as far as may be, in order of precedence, and then the rest of the House will fall in behind. We will occupy the seats in the Church all down the nave on the South side.
    House adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Three o'clock, until To-morrow, at a Quarter before Three o'clock.

  SERVICE OF THANKSGIVING.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER and the Members proceeded to the Church of Saint Margaret, Westminster, and, with the House of Lords, attended a Service of Thanksgiving to Almighty God, on the conclusion of the Armistice signed this day.

THANKSGIVING SERVICE.
Moved, That this House do attend this day at St. Margaret's, Westminster, to give thanks to Almighty God on the occasion of the cessation of hostilities owing to the acceptance by Germany of the terms of Armistice imposed upon her by the Allies and the United States of America.—(Viscount Midleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.
House adjourned in order to proceed to St. Margaret's Church.
House resumed.

LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LANCATER CORPORATION BILL.
COMMERCIAL GAS BILL.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ARMISTICE TERMS SIGNED BY GERMANY.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): MY Lords, I beg to announce to your Lordship the terms of the Armistice which were accepted and signed this morning. The terms as I shall communicate them to the House are not verbally quite complete. Messages have been constantly exchanged with Paris since early this morning, while the terms were under discussion, and certain modifications of the actual words may in effect be found necessary later on. Substantially, however, your Lordship may take the terms as I communicate them to you as accurate.
Clauses relating to Western Front.
1. Cessation of operations by land and in the air six hours after the signature of the Armistice.
2. Immediate evacuation of invaded counties: Belgium, France, Alsace-Lorraine, and Luxembourg, so ordered as
1116
to be completed within fourteen days from the signature of the Armistice. German troops which have not left the above-mentioned territories within the period fixed will become prisoners of war. Occupation by the Allied and United States Forces jointly will keep pace with evacuation in these areas. All movements of evacuation and occupation will be regulated in accordance with a Note.
3. Repatriation, beginning at once, to be completed within Fourteen days, of all inhabitants of the countries above enumerated (including hostages, prisoners under trial or convicted).
4. Surrender in good condition by the German Army of the following equipment: 5,000 guns (2,500 heavy, 2,500 field), 30,000 machine guns, 3,000 minenwerfer, 2,000 aeroplanes (fighters, bombers—firstly D 7's—and night bombing machines). The above to be delivered in situ to the Allied and United States troops, in accordance with the detailed conditions laid down in the Note.
5. Evacuation by the German Armies of the countries on the left bank of the Rhine. These countries on the left bank of the Rhine shall be administered by the local authorities under the control of the Allied and United States Armies of Occupation. The occupation of these territories will be carried out by Allied and United States Garrisons holding the principal crossings of the Rhine (Mayence, Coblenz, Cologne), together with bridge-heads at these points of a thirty kilometer radius on the right bank, and by Garrisons similarly holding the strategic points of the regions. A neutral zone shall be set up on the right bank of the Rhine between the river and a line drawn ten kilometres distant, starting from the Dutch frontier to the Swiss frontier. In the case of inhabitants, no person shall be prosecuted for having taken a part in any military measures previous to the signing of the Armistice. No measure of a general or official character shall be taken which would have as a consequence the depreciation of industrial establishments or a reduction in personnel. Evacuation by the enemy of the Rhinelands shall be so ordered as to be completed within a further period of sixteen days, in all thirty-one days after the signature of the Armistice. All movements of evacuation and occupation will be regulated according to the Note.
6. In all territory evacuated by the enemy there shall be no evacuation of inhabitants. No damage or harm shall be done to the persons or property of the inhabitants. No destruction of any kind to be committed. Military establishments of all kinds shall be delivered intact, as well as military stores of food, munitions, equipment not removed during the periods fixed for evacuation. Stores of food of all kinds for the civil population, cattle, &c., shall be left in situ. Industrial establishments shall not be impaired in any way and their personnel shall not be moved.
7. Roads and means of communication of every kind, railroads, waterways, main roads, bridges, telegraphs, telephones shall be in no manner impaired. All civil and military personnel at present employed on them shall remain. 5,000 locomotives, 150,000 waggons, and 5,000 motor lorries in good working order, with all necessary spare parts and fittings, shall be delivered to the Associated Powers within the period fixed for the evacuation of Belgium and Luxembourg. The railways of Alsace-Lorraine shall be handed over within the same period together with all pre-war personnel and material. Further, material necessary for the working of railways in the country on the left bank of the Rhine shall be left in situ. All stores of coal and material for upkeep of permanent way, signals, and repair shops shall be left in situ and kept in an efficient state by Germany, as far as the means of communication are concerned, during the whole period of the Armistice. All barges taken from the Allies shall be restored to them.
8. The German Command shall be responsible for revealing all mines or delay action fuses disposed on territory evacuated by the German troops, and shall assist in their discovery and destruction. The German Command shall also reveal all destructive measures that may have been taken (such as poisoning or pollution of springs, wells, &c.) under penalty of reprisals.
9. The right of requisition shall be exercised by the Allied and United States Armies in all occupied territory, save for settlement of accounts with authorised persons. The upkeep of the troops of occupation in the Rhineland (excluding Alsace-Lorraine) shall be charged to the German Command.
10. The immediate repatriation without reciprocity, according to detailed con-
1118
ditions which shall be fixed, of all Allied and United States prisoners of war; the Allied Powers and the United States of America shall be able to dispose of these prisoners as they wish. However, the return of German prisoners of war interned in Holland and Switzerland shall continue as heretofore. The return of German prisoners of war shall be settled at Peace preliminaries.
11. Sick and wounded who cannot be removed from evacuated territory will be cared for by German personnel who will be left on the spot with the medical material required.
Clauses relating to the Eastern Frontiers of Germany.
12. All German troops at present in any territory which before the war belonged to Russia, Rumania, or Turkey shall withdraw within the frontiers of Germany as they existed on August 1, 1914, and all German troops at present in territories which before the war formed part of Russia must likewise return to within the frontiers of Germany as above defined as soon as the Allies shall think the moment suitable having regard to the internal Situation of those territories.
13. Evacuation by German troops to begin at once; and all German instructors, prisoners and civilians as well as military agents now on the territory of Russia (as defined on August 1, 1914) to be recalled.
14. German troops to cease at once all requisitions and seizures and any other undertaking with a view to obtaining supplies intended for Germany in Rumania and Russia, as defined on August 1, 1914.
15. Complete abandonment of the Treaties of Bucharest and Brest-Litovsk and of the Supplementary Treaties.
16. The Allies shall have free access to the territories evacuated by the Germans on their Eastern frontier, either through Danzig or by the Vistula, in order to convey supplies to the populations of those territories or for the purpose of maintaining order.
Clause relating to East Africa.
17. Unconditional evacuation of all German forces operating in East Africa within one month.
General Clauses.
18. Repatriation, without reciprocity, within a maximum period of one month, in accordance with detailed conditions hereafter to be fixed, of all civilians interned or deported who may be citizens of other Allied or Associated States than those mentioned in Clause 3.
19. With the reservation that any future claims and demands of the Allies and United States of America remain unaffected, the following financial conditions are required:
Reparation for damage done.
While the Armistice lasts, no public securities shall be removed by the enemy which can serve as a pledge to the Allies for the recovery or reparation for war losses.
Immediate restitution of the cash deposit in the National Bank of Belgium, and, in general, immediate return of all documents, specie, stock, shares, paper money, together with plant or the issue thereof, touching public or private interests in the invaded countries. Restitution of the Russian and Rumanian gold yielded to Germany or taken by that Power. This gold to be delivered in trust to the Allies until the signature of Peace.
Naval conditions.
20. Immediate cessation of all hostilities at sea, and definite information to be given as to the location and movements of all German ships. Notification to be given to neutrals that freedom of navigation in all territorial waters is given to the Naval and Mercantile Marines of the Allied and Associated Powers, all questions of neutrality being waived.
21. All Naval and Mercantile Marine prisoners of war of the Allied and Associated Powers in German hands to be returned, without reciprocity.
22. Handing over to the Allies and the United States of America all submarines, cruisers, and mine-layers which are present at the moment with full complement in the ports specified by the Allies and the United States. Those that cannot put to sea to be deprived of crews and supplies, and shall remain under the supervision of the Allies and the United States. Submarines ready to put to sea shall be prepared to leave German ports immediately on receipt of wireless orders to sail to the
1120
port of surrender, the remainder to follow as early as possible. The conditions of this Article shall be carried out within fourteen days after the signing of the Armistice.
23. The following German surface war ships, which shall be designated by the Allies and the United States of America, shall forthwith be disarmed and thereafter interned in neutral ports, or, failing them, Allied ports to be designated by the Allies and the United States of America, and placed under the surveillance of the Allies and the United States of America, only caretakers being left on board—namely, six battle cruisers, ten battle-ships, eight light cruisers (including two mine-layers), fifty destroyers of the most modern types. All other surface warships (including river craft) are to be concentrated in German Naval bases to be designated by the Allies and the United States of America, and are to be paid off and completely disarmed and placed under the supervision of the Allies and the United States of America. All vessels of the auxiliary fleet (trawlers, motor-vessels, etc.) are to be disarmed. All vessels specified for internment shall be ready to leave German ports seven days after the signing of the Armistice. Directions for voyage will be given by wireless.
My Lords, there is a further paragraph of Clause 23, the exact terms of which are not in possession of His Majesty's Government. Briefly, however, that supplementary sentence provides that in the event of these naval terms not being duly carried out, Heligoland shall be occupied by the Allied Powers.
24. The Allies and the United States of America shall have the right to sweep up all minefields and obstructions laid by Germany outside German territorial waters, and the positions of these are to be indicated.
25. Freedom of access to and from the Baltic to be given to the Naval and Mercantile Marines of the Allied and Associated Powers. To secure this the Allies and the United States of America shall be empowered to occupy all German forts, fortifications, batteries, and defence works of all kinds, in all the entrances from the Cattegat into the Baltic, and to sweep tip all mines and obstructions within and without German territorial waters without any questions of neutrality being raised, and the positions of all such mines and structions are to be indicated.
26. The existing blockade conditions set up by the Allied and Associated Powers are to remain unchanged, and all Germany merchant ships found at sea are to remain liable to capture. The Allies and the United States of America contemplate the provisioning of Germany during the Armistice as shall be found necessary.
27. All Naval aircraft are to be concentrated and immobilised in German bases to be specified by the Allies and the United States of America.
28. In evacuating the Belgian coasts and ports, Germany shall abandon all merchant ships, tugs, lighters, cranes, and all other harbour materials, all materials for inland navigation, all aircraft, and air materials and stores, all arms and armaments, and all stores and apparatus of all kind.
29. All Black Sea ports are to be evacuated by Germany; all Russian warships of all descriptions seized by Germany in the Black Sea are to be handed over to the Allies and the United States of America, all neutral merchant ships seized are to be released, all warlike and other materials of all kind seized in those ports are to be returned, and German materials as specified in Clause 28 are to be abandoned.
30. All merchant ships in German hands belonging to the Allied and Associated Powers are to be restored in ports to be specified by the Allies and the United States of America, without reciprocity.
31. No destruction of ships or of materials to be permitted before evacuation, surrender, or restoration.
32. The German Government shall formally notify the neutral Governments of the World, and particularly the Governments of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland, that all restrictions placed on the trading of their vessels with the Allies and Associated countries, whether by the German Government or by private German interests, and whether in return for specific concessions such as the export of ship-building materials or not, are immediately cancelled.
33. No transfers of German merchant shipping of any description to any neutral flag are to take place after the signature of the Armistice.
Duration of Armistice.
34. The duration of the Armistice is to be thirty-six days, with option to extend.
1122
During this period, on failure of execution of any of the above clauses, the Armistice may be denounced by one of the contracting parties, on forty-eight hours previous notice.
The last clause—35—is the time limit for a reply. "This Armistice to be accepted or refused by Germany within seventy-two hours of notification." Your Lordships are aware that the Armistice was accepted at an early hour this morning.

RECONSTRUCTION.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. What steps have been taken to ensure that on the cessation of the manufacture of munitions of war in various works, such works can return to the manufacture of their peace products with as little delay as possible.

2. Whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the question of the period of control.

3. Whether any plans have been formulated by the Government with regard to the necessarily large quantity of material and stores which they still possess; and whether it has been possible to make the various trades acquainted with such plans.

4. Whether any scheme has been prepared for the redistribution of labour and material, more especially with regard to those works which have been established during the war for the manufacture of war supplies and munitions for the fighting forces.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation to descend to the ordinary business of the House after the portentous and, I venture to say, most satisfactory announcement to which we have just listened, from the Bench opposite. But, having consulted representatives of His Majesty's Government, I think I shall be best advised in proceeding with the Question of which I have given notice, in as much as, having regard to the business for the other days of this week and next week, it is not probable that I should have another opportunity of doing so.
My Lords, I put down my Questions with no spirit of hostility to the Government, and hardly in that of criticism. If there

1123
is any criticism implied, it is an apprehension that plans for the great transformation from war to peace have not been sufficiently advanced by the foresight of those responsible. I think I am not wrong in saying that until this morning no announcement of concerted plans on the part of any Government Department had been made public, and so far as the outside public is concerned, there is no evidence of any preparation on the part of those concerned. It was on account of that fact that I ventured to go so far as to put this Question on the Paper about the middle of last week. It is common ground for all of us that this country had made no preparation for the war, and in consequence was found unprepared. Our anxiety now is that it should not be found equally unprepared for peace. It is impossible to over-state the difficulty and the complexity of all the points involved, but I hope that I shall not be thought wrong in doing so.
I venture to call attention to the fact that in the Report of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War, of which I was chairman and which presented its Report eleven months ago, this matter was fully dealt with. In the Report of that Committee a chapter is devoted to stating the circumstances as they then existed, and to setting forth the far-reaching methods of control of industry and of all descriptions of trade and of export with foreign and neutral countries which the war had made necessary. It is the fact that most drastic restrictions have been imposed on imports for the purpose of maintaining foreign exchanges, and for economising tonnage, while in the case of many important food-stuffs and raw materials the Government has assumed complete responsibility and is exercising the closest control over prices and distribution. The difficulties arising from the shortage of labour and materials, caused by the requirements of the Army, the manufacture of munitions, and the control of shipping have all been affected by regulations regarding production and manufacture, and as we all know, the Government have taken actual possession of mines, railways, and canals. It is not going too far to say that some classes of manufacture have been entirely prohibited and others have been very severely restricted. These are simply examples of the vast and complicated network of regulations and restrictions by means of which the numerous Departments and specially-created Committees have been
1124
controlling British industry during the period of the war.
It is obvious to everybody that under such conditions the normal commercial and industrial operations of the country have been carried on with the greatest difficulty. British merchants and manufacturers have acquiesced with a loyalty which is beyond all praise in these conditions during the war, but there is a widespread demand that these restrictions should be removed at the earliest possible date after peace is declared. In the Report to which I have alluded we inserted this paragraph—
"We recognise that it will be necessary to continue, for some period after the war, some portion of the control of home and foreign trade imposed during the war to which we have referred in the preceding paragraph. It is not possible for us at the present time to certify the precise measures which will be required. They will depend upon a number of factors which cannot be accurately determined."
That was so at the time when the Report was drafted. But in a subsequent paragraph we recommended that the Government policy should be so framed as to keep within the narrowest possible limits such restrictive measures as it may be necessary to continue, and that every effort should be made to restore normal industrial conditions within the shortest possible time, subject always to the essential needs of the country, and to our obligations to the Allies.
The last quotation that I shall venture to make from the Report was in these words—
"The early restoration of unrestricted dealing in the markets of this country and the world at competitive prices is essential to the re-establishment of British industry and commerce on a sound basis. It is essentially important, with a view to the maintenance of the foreign exchanges and the recovery of our position in the markets of the world, that our general export trade should be freed, as soon as possible, from all unnecessary restrictions both as regards its nature and amount and the channel through which it would normally flow."
May I go so far as to express a hope that these words embody the policy of His Majesty's Government. I know that a great variety of different circumstances will have to be taken into account. I am most anxious that this policy should be considered by some authority which has supreme control, and that a definite policy should be announced, so that all interests may regulate their procedure by the announcements made. I attach the greatest

1125
importance to there being one supreme authority so far as the public is concerned—some authority which will have power to control and to regulate the proceedings of the different Departments.
I know quite well that there are many matters which concern equally the interests of the military forces and civic interests. My Lords, it is there that I hope that the supreme control will come into effect. I trust that I am not unjust to the military authorities when I say that so far as our experience of the past is concerned we think that the military authorities are apt to regard too exclusively military interests. It may be that they cannot know, that they cannot understand, trade difficulties and trade circumstances, but I venture to say that in such matter's as agriculture, mining operations, and things of that kind, we have over and over again come face to face with the fact that these great interests have not been sufficiently considered by those who have had power in time of war in military matters. I know well that there are a great variety of things to be taken into account. There has to be taken into account the length of the service of the individual man, the place where he may happen to he stationed, and his distance front home. It is also fair to take into account his age, whether he is married or single, and what his conditions of life may be. Moreover, there have to be considered the interests of the trade and industries to which the men respectively belong, and the wants and wishes of the men themselves, whether they are inclined to go back to the same industries and whether in those industries there will be room for them. We all hope that our loyalty, and the loyalty of all our fellow-subjects, to them will be such that if those heroes who have been doing our work abroad desire to go back to their places those places will be kept open for them. But all this requires regulation and care, and unless there is some supreme authority having control I think that we run the risk of great confusion.
There is one matter to which I should like especially to call the attention of the noble Viscount who, I believe, will reply. I think that the circumstances of the young men who were studying for the learned professions, who have given up their education, who have run the risk of breaking the careers of their lives, deserve the most thorough consideration. It is also in the
1126
interests of the State that the doctors and the learned professions and the clergy should be recruited so far as it may be possible. Let me give the House—I will not occupy more time than I can possibly help—one instance which I know from personal knowledge? At the outbreak of war the number of students entering the Divinity course of the Theological Faculties of the Scottish Universities was about fifty. In 1917 there were only two left; they had all gone to military service. The average annual number of vacancies arising from deaths in the Church in Scotland is over forty; and from what I have said, I am sure your Lordships will understand—and I think the Government also will understand—that there is a case for releasing that class of young man, whose whole future career is at stake, as speedily as it may be possible.
Then there are the questions affecting the great army of women workers. These women have responded to the call of the country; they have done their duty nobly; they deserve the fullest consideration, and the fullest measure of fair play. I am certain that they would be willing to make way for those who have served the country in arms; but those women who desire it must be as far as possible continued in their employments, and continued in their employments on fair and reasonable terms. In all these matters I think it is "up to" the Government (if I may say so) to give a distinct lead. Without that distinct lead there can be nothing, in my humble opinion, but confusion and chaos.
I will make no further preliminary remarks, but will call your Lordships attention to the terms of the first Question on the Paper. That Question deals with two classes of factories and works—those which are in old-established spheres of industry and have been controlled, and those which are large new works specially founded by the Government. We are anxious to know what is to be the line taken in regard to these two great processes of institutions. Take first the matter of the firms controlled by the Government for the period of the war, and how long afterwards this control is to continue. I know the circumstances of one large factory in the North of England which was occupied in the manufacture of locomotives. They handed over the whole of their works to the Government for the manufacture of howitzer carriages in the

1127
early part of 1915, and they have not been Able to make any locomotives since. They employ about 3,000 hands. The whole of their competitors in this country have continued to manufacture nearly 50 per cent. of their usual trade. This firm was working full time on munitions, including Saturdays and Sundays at double rates. They have asked whether they cannot stop this Saturday and Sunday work, but have been told to carry on. That may now, of course, be altered. It is estimated that it will take three months properly to reconvert the machinery from suitability for munitions to suitability for locomotive making; and surely it would have been a reasonable thing on the part of the Government to allow that firm to slow down and gradually to change, letting some proportion of its premises and its hands be turned back to locomotive making.
If I understood rightly the announcement which was made earlier this afternoon, some thousands of locomotives are to be handed over to the Allies. I do not know how many of those locomotives will reach this country, nor do I know whether the gauge would be suitable if they did come here; but I can tell your Lordships, that the railway company with which I Am concerned requires eighty locomotives at the present time, and they will probably have to pay three or four times as much for them now as they would have had to pay for them four or five years ago. I know of another large railway company that wants 150 locomotives; and surely it is of great importance to the future Arrangement of trade and traffic in this country that these demands should be considered and dealt with as soon as possible.
Then what is to be done with the new factories which have been created by the Government? Are they to be leased, or sold, or pulled down, or kept on by the Government? If so, to what purposes are they to be turned? Then there are the questions of ordnance, of explosives, of projectiles, and of aircraft. What is to be done with the raw material which has been accumulated for these things? Surely it ought as far as possible to be, in part at any rate, placed at the disposal of ordinary manufacture.
With regard to the other questions, some of them have reference to the displacement
1128
of labour. Supposing that munition works can be stopped, what is to be done with those who have been working in these munition works? They cannot all be turned adrift at once. You cannot, go on making munitions so soon as we are sure of peace. If you do not make munitions you cannot instantly begin to make other things. You will have to have regard to the interests of these men and women. It is obviously not in the public interest or, I go so far as to say, even in their own interests, that they should be paid full wages for doing nothing. I saw an announcement in the paper this morning, but I am afraid that I have not had time—having regard to all the other employments of the day—to study it, and I express no opinion upon it except to say that so far as I can judge it proceeds upon sound lines; but I can see no reason why that announcement could not have been made some weeks ago.
There will be other labour questions to settle. There will be the allocation of labour to various commercial undertakings, and there will be all the intricate questions which surround what are known as trade union rules. I know something of the difficulties and complexities of the situation; I do not suppose that any intelligent man can avoid knowing something of them. I have every hope that with a wise lead, and with the wise guidance and help of the best minds, both amongst employers and amongst the men, a settlement will be arrived at on these questions; but up to the present time, although there are associations both of employers and of men endeavouring to come to an agreement, we have not yet so far as I know had any real lead on the part of the Government. It is for that lead, and for that guidance which will concentrate discussion, that I am anxious to make an appeal to-day.
Only one word more You cannot overrate the importance of this period of transition. The sooner you get through transition the better; the sooner you get back to normal conditions the better; and it is for promptitude, and for ability, and for the foresight with which the necessary changes must be faced, that. I make an appeal. The more you can give in that direction the more you will lay the foundation of getting back to the really sound commercial prosperity to which we all look forward in the times of pace for which we hope. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name on the Paper.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, before my, noble friend on the Front Bench replies to the Questions that have been put to him by the noble Lord, I ask leave to say a few words in addition to what Lord Balfour has said. My noble friend has covered a great deal of ground in a speech of very great interest. I am going to deal with only one part of this question, and one that arises incidentally out of the broader question he has raised. I think I have said before in this House that I attach the utmost importance to our getting our export trade into free working order at the earliest possible moment. It is in regard to that matter that I have one or two practical suggestions to bring before your Lordships. It is, I think, germane to this subject because Lord Balfour's Motion refers to the works which have been employed in munitions returning to the manufacture of their peace products. If they are to do that they must have an outlet for those products, and it is particularly in regard to that part of the question that I want to say a few words.
During the war there have been in this country an enormous number of controlling organisations. In the earlier period of the war those organisations were set up for blockade considerations. There were a number of organisations, with which Lord Balfour and I are very well acquainted, for seeing that our exports did not get into the hands of the enemy, and I think I may say in regard to them quorum pars parva fui. There were also organisations set up for the purpose of discriminating between those who were our friends in-neutral countries and those who were doing their best to assist the enemy—and very necessary these organisations were. In the later period of the war the chief consideration which has been before His Majesty's Government and before Departments such as mine, which control exports, has been the necessity of conserving supplies for home purposes, particularly for the purposes of the war, and in regard to this question organisations have been set up for granting priority certificates, and indeed for controlling, almost from start to finish, many processes of manufacture. The tendency of all those control Departments has naturally been, when there is any fear of shortage, to refuse any thing for which there is a demand for export. I think there are very few people who realise how much our trade has been interfered with during this war. I never knew myself, until I had the
1130
experience that I have gained in the War Trade Department, how many valuable: trades are carried on in this country in the manufacture of what are called proprietary articles, in which perhaps some small quantity of oil or metal or something of that kind required for war purposes has been necessary. Many of those trades, as Lord Balfour has said, have had to be almost shut up, and a valuable export trade has bee for the time lost, which I think, we ought as quickly as possible to try and regain.
We have diverted and curtailed our exports to an enormous extent, for the figures of value of our export trade are no criterion to the quantities, and the quantities that are now going abroad are merely a fraction of what they were when this war began. Another thing we have done necessarily by our controlling organisations is that we have interfered with the taking of post, war contracts; by our manufacturers and merchants. The question is, how are we to salve what can be salved of the trade that we possessed before the war? How are we to take advantage of the present high prices, which certainly will not last very long? I think the answer is that we must set free as far as possible trade from the shackles which now bird it. We must abolish at the earliest possible moment—I admit that it cannot be done at once—as many as possible of our controls, and at the same time, we shall get rid, I hope, of the Departments that now grant priority certificates. I know this cannot be done at once. The shortage of shipping alone means that there must be a control of imports, and if there is a control of imports that more or less conditions what you can do with exports. There is I think, before another place a Bill called the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill; I confess I wanted that Bill introduced a year or more ago, and I am afraid that introducing it so late may have led to an increase of opposition to it. But I do say most emphatically that some such Bill is absolutely essential. We cannot possibly: afford at this time to allow ourselves to be denuded of food and raw materials absolutely essential to our industry. We must keep control and be able to prevent export of food—of raw materials for. Margarine—of cotton, wool, and a great many other commodities for the supply of which we are dependent upon other countries. But what can be done is to free as soon as possible the export of manufactured goods, and I want to ask my noble

1131
friend who represents the Government on this occasion to represent to the Government the desirability of the point that Lord Balfour has raised of their being some big controlling authority who will attend to all these various questions.
In my own Department I set up a Committee, as soon as I thought it was wise to do so, to consider our Prohibited Export List with a view to making recommendations. Those recommendations I shall have to make to the Board of Trade, but I hope that the higher authorities in His Majesty's Government will attend to this matter and see that these recommendations are looked into, and as soon as possible in regard to any goods of which we are not very short in this country that some of our export restrictions may be relaxed. I am not asking that they should be taken off altogether, but I am asking that in regard to a great many commodities they should be removed from what we technically know as List A to List C. That is to say, that they should be only controlled in the blockade area and not as regards the other markets of the world. Mr. Churchill, in his speech the other day, said that two-thirds of the munition workers were ordinarily on peace work, and he thought that the transfer back to peace work would be very much facilitated by that fact. I agree, if only we give them something to do when they are transferred to their peace work; and I think the way to encourage that transfer is to abolish as soon as we safely can all the restrictions on the export of manufactured goods. Our manufacturing capacity in ordinary times is so great, our dependence on our export trade in order that we may be able to pay for our imports is also so great, that I would urge the Government, when there is a doubt, to err on the side of freedom rather than keeping these restrictions on too long. I am told that such a scheme would encourage wild speculation. Prices are enormously high now compared with pre-war prices. Cotton goods are three or four times as high, wool and silk goods two or three times as high, and in regard to everything prices have gone up enormously. My own opinion is that there is much more fear of a dangerous slump of prices coming pretty quickly than there is of undue speculation if prices of manufactured articles are allowed to go free.
Therefore I would urge that the utmost freedom should be allowed as soon as possible in the export of manufactured
1132
goods—first, because manufacturers will be very much hampered in making contracts if they have an uncertainty as to whether they will be allowed a licence for the goods that they are manufacturing, and also by the actual delay in getting licences—about which I know a good deal when, as is sometimes the case, I have to consult some half a dozen different Departments about the matter. In the second place, I want to see our manufacturers obtaining the advantage of present high prices rather than having to wait until the slump comes. And thirdly, and most important, I do want to see us do all that we can to try to prevent the unemployment that may be very soon upon us unless we can get our export trade going into satisfactory channels once more.
I may give one concrete example—I think it was mentioned by Lord Balfour. Mr. Churchill said the other day that the flow of steel and iron for making shells and stampings and forgings of all kinds can be arrested and legitimately arrested. That flow, I take it, will now be arrested, but it is not only a question of iron and steel; there is copper and lead and a good many other metals, which have been, in short supply, but will now be, in ample supply, available for manufacturing purposes. When that flow is arrested, when those commodities are diverted from the making of munitions to ordinary peace trade purposes, then at the same time surely there ought to be a relaxation of any prohibitions of export which are on List A to List C. There ought to be a relaxation of the export prohibition so that the manufacturer will know what he can do with his goods, and will be able to make contracts without having to go to the Government to ask whether he can carry out those contracts.
We have heard to-night, in the profoundly important statement which has been made of the terms of Armistice—I think I am correct in my understanding of it—that what we know as the blockade is to be continued for the time being. Of course, I am not advocating that anything which is necessary in the way of blockade should be interfered with. The blockade is a political and military question which will be settled by our statesmen and the statesmen of the Allies, who have this matter in hand; but in any case our blockade policy is concerted with our Allies and their consent would have to be obtained to any change. I merely wish to

1133
express the hope that before long even in Europe there may be some relaxation of the restrictions on export. The reason I have urged this question to-night is that it does seem to me to be urgent and vital. If the Cabinet leaves this matter without instruction there may be delay in the Departments in carrying out the policy which ought to be carried out. I want to see delay and mischief avoided by timely and resolute action in regard to this matter
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, in the four Questions on the Paper my noble friend has raised the gravest questions which lie ahead of this country. At this moment these questions are thick upon us, and unless the crucial problem of resettlement is satisfactorily settled there can be no social peace or industrial contentment after the war. The question is raised not perhaps in its entirety, but I venture not so much for the moment to deal with the labour side of it, although I happen to be vice-chairman of the Resettlement Committee under the Ministry of Labour, which has been considering these matters for the past year. The whole of the problem of resettlement depends upon the supply of raw materials, and it is not only a question of exports but also of imports that has to be considered, as my noble friend who has just spoken knows full well. I do not in the least think that the Government have neglected to take advice on all these questions, but the advice has come before they are quite prepared to act upon it, and the problems will arise not in the course of months but in the course of weeks and even days, and will have to be dealt with.
As a matter of fact, the Government two years ago appointed a Committee under Mr. Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, to advise as to reconstruction, and had presented to them also the detailed report of a body of economists competent to speak in regard to every trade, but it had to deal necessarily with conditions as they were then and could only make a forecast from the probabilities which presented themselves to their view. A great many of their conclusions are necessarily somewhat out of date. There have been other inquiries, and the noble Viscount has in his hands the Reports of the Ministry of Reconstruction. They deal with the problem of raw material in all branches of trade, but nothing can exceed the difficulty of re-establishing some of the trades unless there is a large and privileged im-
1134
portation of the raw material required for the immediate purposes of their business.
I take again the building trade by way of example. There is no stock of raw material for the building trade in this country, I believe, except a certain reserve of slates. Above all, there is no seasoned timber here. I want to know whether provision is being made for priority treatment for the importation of timber, and what applies to timber applies to other raw materials in that great industry, which had the greatest outflow of any prior to the war, and which may be expected, provided there is a sufficiency of raw materials, to recover the quickest from the effects of the war. The building trade is a crucial one because it will have the largest outflow of any when the Army is disbanded. It lost the whole of its pivotal men, and the men employed in various branches to the extent of 50 per cent.; but it is no good bringing back these men and thinking there can be any extension of the activities of the industry, unless raw materials can be provided and put to a proper use.
What I fear is that there has not been up to the present sufficient co-ordination with regard to trade necessities and I think the responsibility for providing for them ought to be very definitely fixed. You have many Departments dealing with reconstruction. They have had a multitude of Committees sitting, many of them crossing one another at every turn but not necessarily conflicting on that account. I think that in regard to these matters we have really passed the Committee stage, and that no matter how imperfect the conclusions may be at this moment, it is necessary for the Government, through the War Cabinet, to grasp the matter for itself in all its bearings and to try to see how far under very different conditions the demands of the various trades can be met. I am well aware chat they have a priority list. The priority list is not a scientific one, and it will require tremendous effort to arrange it in order to bring back the men not only in proportion to their outflow to the services of the Crown for the war, but also in conformity with the conditions of the market with regard to raw materials.
I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to tell us who is responsible for this matter. It cannot be the Minister for Reconstruction, because he is not an executive officer of the Crown. He exists

1135
only in an advisory capacity to the different Ministries, and I have no doubt he has rendered great services, but at the same time he cannot himself be charged with the responsibility because he has no administrative work of that sort under his hand. He has to work the whole time through other Departments, without any authority over them, and it is only through the War Cabinet that his influence can be exercised. It is in the supply of raw materials in all trades that the re-employment of the men depends. So far as one can see, it is the discharge of the civil workers that is coming first. It has been published in the newspapers to-day that the civil workers who are going out of employment now are each one of them to take an unemployment certificate lasting for thirteen weeks during the next six months, covering various rates of payment—24 s. for men and I think 20 s. for women with a smaller amount for juvenile employees. Nobody can say that that it is an illiberal grant, but I believe it may have to be extended in some cases for a longer period of time.
We are all rejoicing over the Armistice of to-day, but unfortunately in regard to the working of the machinery there has not been time to supply the Employment Exchanges with the lists of those who are about to be discharged, and they have not yet been registered. I hope that in the next week the registration will be completed, but it is very doubtful, however perfect the register may be, whether it will be possible to absorb the great mass of working people who will practically be out of employment in three weeks from now. In these circumstances, pursuing the line of policy that we all wish to see carried through—that is to say, that those who have served the State well in any capacity should have the most generous treatment consistent with public policy—I cannot see myself that the period of the unemployment certificate should be limited to thirteen weeks. I am very much inclined to think that they should be as liberally treated—I do not think I am at liberty to disclose the period of time—as the men who have served in the Forces of the Crown. Otherwise, I fear there may not be sufficient time for the re-engagement in industry of that proportion of women who mean to maintain their industrial independence.
Inquiring in the various parts of the country from those who are responsible for
1136
the Women's Department of our Employment Exchanges I gather that it is quite clear that great numbers of these women mean to pursue an industrial career. A certain proportion now leaving will quickly take themselves back to home life and domestic duties, but that is not the case in regard to the great majority. Most of them will be desirous to be re-employed. and the House must bear in mind that there are one and a half millions more women now in industrial employment in this country than there were before the war, so that there is a great number who will have to be taken on for various processes of industry which they were not in before and about which there is no general agreement with the trade unions.
Unfortunately, the time has not been sufficient for the Joint Industrial Councils which have been set up under the Whitley Report, in some cases even to meet, certainly not to consider any of these questions of principle. If there had been a longer interval no doubt they might have been able to settle, as between the employers and employed who sit there in equal numbers, what attitude would be accorded to the women by the trade unions in many of those branches of industry which they have entered for the first time during the war. That, however, cannot be now, because it has not been possible, and consequently you are facing this question of women's re-employment without any definite agreement with the trade unions or federations. Many of us think it is not desirable that women should continue to be employed in some trades, heavy trades, to a large extent at all events, but, on the other hand, some, such as lace work and others, no doubt they will be slow to leave and it is not very desirable that they should be forced out.
So far as I know there is no general agreement, and that will make it more difficult still for these women who, in three weeks, are to leave the filling factories and the munition works, to obtain work immediately. It is quite clear that the allowances made to men or women ought not to be so high as to prevent them from retaking their places in productive industry. That would be a mistake. Generous though it might be in its conception, it would retard and not advance the period of resettlement. Though I think the House would do well to consider it. I do not wish this afternoon to deal with the general

1137
question and problem of resettlement as it affects the Forces of the Crown. Lord Balfour of Burleigh has not raised it, and it is not desirable that more should be said about it.
It has certainly been fully considered by the Government. but I would ask my noble friend who is going to reply—In the first place, what arrangements have been made with regard to the importation of raw material; has a priority list been definitely settled and is it being at the present moment brought into execution? Secondly, are any efforts going to be made by the War Cabinet to settle with the trade unions the terms of women's re-employment as soon as possible?; and thirdly—most important of all—who is the Minister responsible for resettlement? I know from experience that the Minister of Labour has under his charge the whole of the resettlement, both of officers and men of the Army as well as civil workers, and that he has of course the general charge both of the Employment Exchanges and of the Appointments Department, but I do not understand what are his relations with the Minister for Reconstruction and how far the War Cabinet is now overriding both. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of defining responsibility, and fixing it where it ought to be, and seeing to it that those who undertake it have the power to act as well as to advise.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I rise not to prolog the discussion but in order to give some information which I think may be interesting to your Lordships and especially to my noble friend who will presently reply. The Association of Chambers of Commerce have had under consideration the position of firms engaged in munition work on the conclusion of hostilities and on the application of the "break" clause in Government contracts, and the Executive Committee have passed a very strong resolution which, with your permission. I will read—
"That the Executive Council of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom is of the opinion that in view of the intimate connection between the liquidation of contracts by the Ministry of Munitions and the question of Reconstruction it appears desirable that the Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Reconstruction should be under one Minister who should be the strongest man the Government can find for the post."
That is a strong resolutions, and it is a resolutions, I believe, which the
commercial
1138
world will highly appreciate. I believe I am right in saying that the Federation of British Industries also approves of it. It was passed last week, and it has been communicated to Ministers and, I believe, to the Government generally. I thought that before my noble friend replied he might be put in possession of the views of a great body like the Association of Chambers of Commerce, and I am sure I am right in saying—although I have not been authorised to do so—that bodies such as the Federation of British Industries have similar views.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in some ways I should have preferred to follow the noble Viscount in order that I might see how far he had relieved my anxieties by his reply, but I dare say it might be more convenient to him that I should raise my points first, so that he could embody in one reply anything he has to say upon them. We have heard this afternoon the terms of an Armistice which represent the final conclusion of the night male from which Europe has suffered, and we cannot wonder at the natural rejoicing in the street and elsewhere that has followed from it. But those who have to think responsibly of the future of industry and of the future of the country and of the resettlement of many questions will, I think, have all realised that an era of very great difficulty for everyone concerned will necessarily set in with the advent of peace.
Almost the first concrete reference to what was to be done was made in the speech—to which the noble Lord below the gangway opposite has already alluded—delivered last week by the Minister of Munitions. Speaking at the Ministry he gave an outline of t he Government scheme. I think there is not much to quarrel with in the picture that he drew, except that it seemed to me that in some matters he was willing to let the output of munitions go on longer than I hope may be necessary, and there was one sentence which may have been made inadvertently but which I think requires perhaps a little more explanation. Mr. Churchill said—
"I cannot suppose that the need of the use of war material on a great scale or the need for maintaining for a long period considerable armies will not be forced upon us."
The need of maintaining considerable armies for the purposes of policing, I think, may very well be forced upon us by the conditions which we observe in Europe, but I do trust that no responsible person anticipates that

1139
there will be any longer the necessity for the use of war material on a great scale, that there will be no more engagements in the future, I hope, comparable with anything we have had on the Western Front. There are many difficulties, and there is one thing upon which I think we should all be agreed. The noble Lord below the gangway referred to it. It is that the sooner we can turn from the things we have been making to things which are useful to the community and profitable to the world, the better. We have been making implement of destruction and things which are destroyed—that is to say, using the material wealth of the world for these things instead of for useful things. We are all agreed about that. The sooner we can turn from making things which are wasteful to making things that are useful, the better. The point which has been referred to may, I think, present some difficulties in that respect, unless the Government looks at it with a rather larger eye than the Treasury is apt to give to these question.
I ask your Lordships to take the question with which I am connected. I am connected with more than one firm which has supplied the Government, and is still supplying them, with large quantities of munitions. Take, as an instance, the manufacture of aeroplane engines. One firm with which I am connected has the order to go on manufacturing aeroplane engines full blast, at its full capacity, for four months, and delivering those to the Government. I trust that the Government will not require those aeroplane engines. I can only imagine that if they are made and if they are delivered they will be put upon some scrap heap, or coralled in some field where they will rust; that they will not in all probability be used. And that is so all round, it applies, mutatis mutandis, to practically every other kind of munition industry. Is it not much better that they should be stopped not at the end of four months, but, if possible, at the end of four days?
Now comes a difficulty which I want to put to the noble Viscount, if I can have his attention for a moment. Obviously the manufacturer will make a profit out of those engines, and he will not readily consent to cease the manufacture of munitions unless there is some equivalent or some recompense for the profit he would make. He has to consider his business interests and
1140
the interests of his shareholders. Are the Treasury going to raise the usual sort of difficulty, saying they are not going to pay for things they have not got? It is a case, obviously, for a compromise, and I think it is very desirable that the Government and those concerned with these questions should consider whether it is not worth their while to pay a good deal on this account. They will not have to pay the same as for the finished product. But there should be a stoppage of the manufacture of a useless article for a period of days instead of weeks or months in order to allow the world to turn to the manufacture of articles which represent wealth to the community instead of waste. That will have to be considered, and if it is not considered will probably lead to delay, owing to the Treasury haggling over the question, and not taking a large view of it.
I agree entirely with what has been said as to the great difficulty there will be in the shortage of raw materials in every department; the enormous amount of steel and of many other important things like that, which may be, and probably will be, released by stopping the manufacture of engines, lorries, shells, and all these other things. There is a shortage of the amount of material required, a most serious shortage of timber, for instance, and other things required for the building trade, and I thing those who have control of the imports of this country will have to consider that carefully, and be ready to provide for that shortage if we are to make use of the labour when it is released.
While I am on the subject, I would like also to mention the question of the Excess Profits Duty. I saw a hint thrown out the other day that the Excess Profits Duty may be continued after the war. On what basis and for what reason that is to be continued any longer than a short period after the war, I hardly know. It ought not, I should think, to be continued until you have roped in all the excess profits which are due from war manufacturers. I think it will upset trade and industry if you do continue it long. The industries which have been manufacturing munitions have to face a difficult time; they have to face an idle period of three months or six months it may be, after the war. I do not know how far it has been considered, or how far they will want their Excess Profits Duty to be continued.

1141
I should like also, if I may, to make a suggestion. In another part Lord Balfour of Burleigh spoke about the redistribution of labour. I think we all recognise that the demobilisation question is one of extraordinary difficulty. There is one small extent to which I think it might be eased, and I have not seen it suggested in public. I do not know what schemes are in the. pigeon-holes of the Government Departments or what schemes have reached pigeonholes and have stayed there. There is one step in demobilisation which might be taken at once, and that is the returning of men who have a definite position to return to. I will give you an instance of the personal service people, such as those who are drivers of motor cars, gardeners, estate labourers, and so on. In an enormous numbers of cases there must be people whose job are waiting for them, just the men, surely, to be wisely demobilised at the earliest possible moment. There must be a vast number of people in the position of foremen, commercial travellers, principal clerks, and people important in business, whose niche is waiting for these men to be put back into them, and where the business is suffering from want of them. Surely they should be demobilised and returned at the earliest possible moment. I do not say that accounts for more than a fraction of the whole lot, but every fraction you can get rid of out of the Army and return to civil life at the earliest moment is it definite advantage to the country, and I hope the authorities will consider those cases in arranging demobilisation.
Over and above those, there are a vast number of ordinary men, men in ordinary labouring life. An enormous number of employers have pledged themselves—and they have every intention of redeeming their pledges—to put back into their works men who have enlisted and have fought for their country, as soon as they can be got. I am not blind to the difficult question of the employers; primarily the Government have to deal with those as they arise. There are trade union decisions to consider in regard to female labour. We shall be involved in these difficulties and we shall have to do the best we can. But let us return to civil life as early as possible as many men as can be returned where they will be able instantly to fill the niche which they have occupied before. Let us turn to the making of useful material which the world is waiting for.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords I think your Lordships will feel some admiration for my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that he has not let even an hour pass after the terms of the Armistice were settled before he has raised all these vexed questions of reconstruction and demobilisation which have to be dealt with almost immediately. But I can assure lay noble friend of this generally, that all these questions which he has raised and discussed have been, or many of them have been, for a long time, not only under consideration, investigation and examination, but that decisions also have been taken on a great many of them. Every one will agree with my noble friend that demobilisation and reconstruction are one vast question. Unfortunately it; is a question which has a great many aspects, and noble Lords speaking this evening have touched on a very large number of those aspects, and I am afraid that in the reply that I can now make I can hardly do justice to the great breadth and range of the matters which which they have dealt. Among other reasons, I cannot do so because the Minister of Reconstruction himself will very soon deliver a comprehensive account of the whole of the work of the Department, and therefore I am afraid that, in what I may say, I must be a good deal restricted.
There is one point which—I will not say it is not relevant to this subject, because it is hardly possible to conceive of any question at the present moment in our social life that is not relevant to the Question which my noble friend has put down—was alluded to and that is the question of demobilisation on the military side, and of the order in which that demobilisation is to take place. That question has been raised I think by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also, and perhaps I shall be excused, as it has not been raised in the Questions put upon the Paper, from dealing with so large a matter this evening. The questions of export, of import, of licences of supply and amount of raw materials, the rationing of raw materials, and the distribution of labour, are of course all closely allied. On one aspect of those questions Lord Emmott made some very valuable observations to your Lordships—namely, on the subject of export, and how far it, was possible with

1143
the least delay to promote free exports from this country.
LORD EMMOTT: Of manufactured goods.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of manufactured goods. He stated with his usual lucidity the bearing of the field of exports upon the imports, and also upon other questions connected with trade. There is only one matter upon which I should like, if I may, to correct the noble Lord. That is in regard to the mistake which was made by my noble friend, who has been as we all know the head of the War Trade Department, and has organised and controlled its fortunes. The only phrase which he made use of to which I take some exception was a slight misquotation. He ought to have used the phrase quorum pars magna fui. All I can do, and all I think that he asked me to do in that particular matter, is to place it before the Minister of Reconstruction, and to urge him to give it his more immediate attention. My noble friend Lord Burnham, not content with the general discussion on this subject, has put to me certain very specific questions. I am afraid that I shall be obliged to have notice before replying to them. He raised the whole question of the condition of labour in connection with trade union rules.
LORD BURNHAM: Particularly the imports question.
VISCOUNT PEEL: And the question of female labour, a large matter in itself, which I should not like to deal with except fully, and he also raised the question of imports after my noble friend Lord Emmott had raised the question of exports. I think that several noble Lords have asked that, at the head of reconstruction there might be placed a most powerful and competent man in the Government. They have rather suggested, I think, that one man should be placed at the head of the whole work, but I think that your Lordships must see that this would be hardly possible having regard to the number of subjects which reconstruction embraces. There is the question of restoring control over labour exchanges, and the return of civil labour to work when the demobilisation of civil labour begins. There is also the question of Army demobilisation, and the question of the rationing of raw materials and the distribution of labour. All these matters are so
1144
vast that it is very difficult to see how one man could possibly be able to control them, and decisions on these matters must necessarily be taken by the War Cabinet itself.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised two questions which your Lordships will feel are, perhaps, to some extent outside the immediate purpose we are on this evening. I refer to the question of Excess Profits Duty and its application—how long it ought to be carried on—and further the detailed question as to what was to be what he called the "compromise price" paid for contracts which have been concluded on certain lines.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount will pardon me. I did not ask him to state what the compromise price would be. I only hoped that some one in the Government was bearing in mind that they are wasting articles.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will take care that all the points raised by the noble Earl shall be conveyed to the Minister in charge of reconstruction. As to the specific questions which have been asked by my noble friend, I should like to do what I can to reply to them specifically. The first Question he raised was, what steps had been taken to ensure that on the cessation of the manufacture of munitions of war in various works, such works can return to the manufacture of their peace products with as little delay as possible. The Civil War Workers' Committee has presented no less than five interim Reports, and they have prepared very elaborate plans to meet the difficulties which may arise in this transfer from a war basis to a peace basis. These Reports, I may say, are now in the hands of the printers, and it is hoped that they may be circulated very shortly. The plan's of which outlines are given by the Committee in so far as they affect such questions as the breaking of contracts, the release of material, the procuring of machine tools and the preparation of jigs, patterns, and gauges, have already been the subject of detailed consideration by the Ministry of Munitions, the War Office, and the Minister of Reconstruction. As a result of those discussions definite proposals have been placed before the Cabinet Committee on Demobilisation, and approved by them, and steps have already been taken to give effect to those recommendations.

1145
With regard to the placing of orders, the Departments have been authorised to offer the assistance which the manufacturers may require, particularly in connection with the requirements of Overseas Governments and public authorities. A good deal of information has been steadily accumulated for some time past and is now in the possession of the Department of Overseas Trade and the Ministry of Munitions. Central and local authorities also have been urged to press on, as material becomes available, with the execution of work and repairs which have been suspended owing to the prevalence of war conditions. For some time past a Committee appointed by the Minister of Reconstruction, called the Engineering New industries Committee, has been at work, and with the assistance of its branch Committees it has practically covered the whole field of engineering. These Committees have made very important and valuable suggestions as to new openings for industry, and the Minister of Munitions has agreed to assist both in spreading the information and in releasing materials, so far as is practicable at the present moment, for the preparation of samples.
The second Question is, "whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the question of the period of control." My noble friend has put that down, but I do not think he strongly pressed the point in his speech as to an exact period. He will be aware that it is not possible at present to state any specific or definite period for the release of control; but I am able to state that the general policy of His Majesty's Government is to release industries at the earliest possible moment from every form of control, consonant, of course, with the national interest. At the present moment the whole field and the possibilities of the release of control are being carefully examined by His Majesty's Government.
In his third Question the noble Lord asks whether any plans have been formulated by the Government with regard to the necessarily large quantity of material and stores which they will possess; and whether it has been possible to make the various trades acquainted with such plans. For some time a Committee has been at work, called the Surplus Government Property Advisory Council. This Committee is responsible to the Ministry of Reconstruction, and sits under the chairmanship of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. As
1146
the noble Marquess knows, the Council has presented an interim Report on the work it has done up to the present time; but, as this Report is now under the immediate consideration of the War Cabinet, I am afraid it would not be possible for me to make any public statement on that subject.
The fourth Question is "whether any scheme has been prepared for the redistribution of labour and material, more especially with regard to those works which have been established during the war for the manufacture of war supplies and munitions for the fighting forces." The Civil War Workers Committee dealt in great detail with plans for the redistribution of labour and material; and decisions have been already given by the Government on the majority, I believe, of their recommendations. As regards the question of the distribution of materials, there was an announcement in the Press last Wednesday, as your Lordships know, of the appointment of a Ministerial Committee and also of a Council to deal with questions of post-war priority. This Council has already begun its work and has taken a general survey of the problem. It has had placed before it the Reports of the various trade Committees of the Ministry of Reconstruction dealing with specific materials or groups of materials, in addition to the information already available in the various controlling Departments. So your Lordships will see that the fears of my noble friend Lord Balfour that these questions have not been considered by the Government have no foundation. These questions have been long considered, and decisions have been taken on a great number of them.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The point I want to make is that, if decisions are taken, the sooner they are announced the better.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I can only express my regret that I cannot this afternoon give a more full answer to my noble friend; because I suppose it is not unnatural for the Minister himself to wish to make his own full statement on the matter. I understand that he is going to do so shortly, and that he will then give all the details that the country desires to know.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a short time. I

1147
think we have all been awaiting the speech of the noble Viscount on this most important question, but I do not know how far any of your Lordships share with me in a certain sense of disappointment at the reply which he has given. We have all felt I am sure the significance—I might almost say the historic significance—of proceeding at once, after hearing the most monemtous announcement which has, perhaps, ever been made in this House, to the consideration of these questions affecting the immediate resettlement of the industry of the people. I think it is worth recalling the fact that while around us outside the whole of the Nation is receiving the news of this armistice with unfeigned joy and delight, we here should be sitting together at once considering the only questions which will make the joy of the people lasting and secure. We have heard the terms of the Armistice which we hope will bring peace, but unless the period during which that Armistice lasts is used by the Government for immediate and swift decisions of a kind comparable only to those that have been taken during the past days, the period of the Armistice may lead to a time of chaos and confusion in the country at home.
Why I said a moment ago that some of us, perhaps, felt a certain measure of disappointment at the reply of the noble Viscount was this, that we heard of endless Committees, Reports, and consultations; whereas, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, said in his very clear speech at the beginning, the time has come for immediate decisions of the utmost possible importance. I have no wish to take up any time on this matter for I am in no sense an expert on these subjects; but I wish on the part of many throughout the country to impress upon the Government—though I feel sure it is hardly necessary—that during this most fateful time, these thirty-six days of the Armistice, they will remember two things. First, that it is well worth while to be as liberal as possible in the treatment of those who are dislodged from their present industries as well as in the case of the men who will be rapidly coming back from the Front, and also in regard to these general questions affecting contracts, profits, and the like, to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred. We would have been willing to spend millions of money upon continuing the war. It is well worth while to be ready to spend millions of money in ensuring that the war really leads to peace not only abroad but at home. The limit
1148
has been indicated by Lord Burnham, when he said that nothing is to be done to prevent those thrown out from industry being induced to seek their own places in the world of labour. But short of that I hope that the Treasury will regard any money that is spent in tiding over this most incomparably important period of the next two months as of the same class and character as expenditure demanded for the prosecution of the war.
The other point which I hope will be remembered is the one to which Lord Balfour especially referred—namely, the need at present in regard to these matters, not so much of Reports, of consultations, and of Committees, but of some driving force adequate to carry the country through these next few weeks of the same kind as the driving force which, if I may say so, the Prime Minister used in carrying the country through the most critical periods of the war. As has been pointed out, the Minister of Reconstruction is not an Executive Officer. It is impossible for all these Different Departments to be perpetually interviewing one another, settling under whose particular jurisdiction each bit of this most complicated and difficult situation comes. What is wanted now—and I have no doubt it will be provided—is within the War Cabinet, or created, if it be possible, outside it, some special Cabinet of Reconstruction with the same kind of decisiveness and of force as we have felt of late to be necessary in carrying through the war. These questions are not merely of great social and economic interest; they have become now vital to the peace and prosperity of the people.

PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of Amendments be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received—(Lord Elphinstone.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I only desire to say that, so far as I and those with whom I was acting in the course of the deliberations on this subject in Committee are concerned we do not intend to weary your Lordships by going into any further details on the matter. But I should like to take the opportunity of giving notice to the Government and to your Lordships that on an early day next

1149
session I shall ask leave of the House to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Agreement made with Messrs. Pearson in respect to the petroleum fields of this country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: The Amendment standing in my name has been placed on the Paper in order to give the Government a chance of replying to a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on the Committee stage of the Bill. His point was this. Under the Defence of the Realm Act no compensation for any loss of amenity is obtainable. Moreover, it appeared to him that, failing some such clause as this granting compensation for loss of amenity, no compensation for loss of amenity would be obtainable after the Defence of the Realm Act ceased to operate. That is to say, a licensee or the Government itself might enter on land and take control of that land, the Defence of the Realm Act would cease to operate, and even then the occupier of the land would have no claim for compensation for loss of amenity. It is quite true that is the case with regard to all land required for war purposes, and in view of the present military situation and the length of time it would take for producing petroleum it can hardly be pretended that petroleum production is a war necessity. I should be very glad if the Government could give us further information regarding this point.
Amendment moved—
After clause 3 insert as a new clause:
"Compensation.
"Compensation shall be paid by any person acting on behalf of His Majesty or by a licensee under this Act to any persons owning or interested in any land, for any damage sustained by them through surface damage, subsidence, flooding, destruction of vegetation or loss of amenity caused by or arising out of the exercise by any such person or licensee of the powers conferred by this Act, and the proof of such damage and the amount of such compensation shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration".—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): The noble Duke has intimated that he moved this Amendment for the purpose of enabling me to reply to the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. That question, I understand,
1150
was of a more general nature than the noble Duke has intimated. I thought that the question was whether the compensation which was given by what is usually called the Duke Commission in regard to anything that was done—taking possession and so on under the Prerogative or otherwise—could be given if peace came and the Defence of the Realm Act ceased to operate. I answered at the time and said I thought that if any damage had been done while the war was going on by the exercise of the powers conferred under the Defence of the Realm Act the compensation might be assessed after the war had ended on the broad ground that injury had been sustained while the Act was in operation, and that the assessment of the claims by the Duke Commission might go on although the war had ceased. Your Lordships are, of course, aware that the assessment of claims made by that Commission was not an assessment of claims which were legally enforcible. The assessment of compensation was an assessment of compensation ex gratia. I understand that it never was the practice of the Duke Commission to give compensation for loss of amenity. As regards the powers of the Commission going on although peace has intervened, I have made inquiry into the subject, and I find that the answer I gave was quite correct, that the powers of the Commission would go on, it being, of course, clearly understood that the compensation is ex gratia not a matter of legal right.
With regard to compensation for loss of amenity, if it is the case that that Commission has, as I rather understand, not granted compensation for amenity, I do not know whether an exception can be made in the present case. The principles on which that Commission acted must be applied impartially to all the cases that fall within the purview of the constitution of that Commission. So that all I have to say with regard to the question which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, asked is that I confirm the answer which I gave him. Compensation for loss of amenity certainly would require either a complete change of practice by the Commission, which I think is not very likely to be made, or an Act of Parliament to secure such compensation in this case. The noble Earl went on to refer to another Act, the Acquisition of Land Act, 1916. Under that Act where possession has been taker of land in anyway during the war, the possession may be

1151
retained after the war, under the terms of Section 1 of that Act. In that case a rent is to be paid to the owner.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is for five years, is it not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Two years, with a power to extend for three; that is five altogether. Then Section 3 of the Act goes on to provide for acquiring the fee of any such land. Provision is made for applying the Lands Clauses Act, with certain modifications, to all such cases of acquisition and assessing the compensation under the Lands Clauses Act as modified in the Acquisition of Land Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But that is only in the case of the acquisition of the fee. In the case of the first class, what compensation will there be?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the case of the first class, the only provision in the Statute as far as I recollect is for the payment of rent, and the compensation would be the compensation granted under the advice of the Duke Commission, subject to the limitations which I have indicated. Of course if anything further is desired there would have to be legislation.
With regard to the Amendment, the noble Duke's proposal is that "compensation shall be paid by any person acting on behalf of His Majesty or by a licensee under this Act to any persons owning or interested in any land, for any damage sustained by them through surface damage, subsidence, flooding, destruction of vegetation or loss of amenity caused by or arising out of the exercise by any such person or licensee of the powers conferred by this Act." But this Bill confers no powers. On the contrary, the second clause in its second paragraph makes this provision—
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring on any person any right to enter on or interfere with land for the purpose of searching or boring for or getting petroleum which he does not enjoy apart from this Act, or shall prejudice or affect the rights, if any, of any person interested in any land in respect of petroleum gotten through or from the land in which he is so interested."
So that the Amendment would not be applicable; it would not fit in with the scheme of the Bill. I have covered all the matters dealt with by the noble Duke, and I do not know that I can add anything to what I have stated.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is perfectly clear, but I am bound to say that I do not think it leads to a satisfactory result. I quite agree that the compensation given by the Duke Commission was merely compensation given ex gratia, and therefore there was no guarantee that any compensation would be given in respect of the particular subject-matter at all, and I believe it is right to say—I see the Chairman of that Committee is present—that as a matter of fact compensation was not granted ex gratia merely where the amenities were interfered with. So the result is that under what the noble Lord referred to as the Duke Commission no compensation would be obtained for what the Duke of Northumberland desires compensation should be given. Then I think that what the Lord Chancellor has pointed out is quite accurate, that compensation could not be obtained under the 1916 Act—that is, the Acquisition of Land Act; the result being that you allow interference with property which may be of a very serious kind indeed, and the owner would have no claim to compensation and would not get it ex gratia.
This appears to me to be extremely unjust, because the principles of our law are very wide principles—namely, that where property is interfered with in the public interest compensation adequate to the damage should be given. It you once depart from a principle of that kind you get very near indeed to the principle of confiscation as regards property. The learned Lord Chancellor also pointed out that the terms of the Amendment as proposed would not meet the difficulty, and I think that is clear, but I should like to make a suggestion to the noble Duke—namely, that he should leave out the words from "amenity" down to the word "Act"; that is, leave out the words "caused by or arising out of the exercise by any such person or licensee of the powers conferred by this Act."
Then, I think, although I have not had much time to consider the matter in detail, that he would obtain the compensation which he seeks; and although the noble Lord on the Woolsack has said that in order to get compensation you would want some other statutory authority, I think the right principle is that you should give statutory authority for compensation in the same Act as you give the right to inter-

1153
fere with private property. You do not give the right to interfere with private property and chance subsequent legislation. That is not the principle of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1916, and therefore I hope that the noble Duke will persevere with his Amendment, leaving out what I call the obnoxious words. I feel sure that if the power is given to licensees to interfere with private property, there should be corresponding compensation under the Statute which gives the right of interference.
LORD TERRINGTON: The noble Lord having alluded to the Duke Commission, perhaps I may be allowed, as Chairman of that Commission, to state that there is a little misapprehension about the question of giving compensation for loss of amenities. The Commission do take into consideration and give compensation for loss of amenities, where it is directly connected with the subject matter of the property interfered with. Where the Commission do not give compensation is in respect of property not taken under the Statute and therefore not within the terms of the reference to the Commission. For instance, if the claimant is the owner of a field or house adjoining land taken by the Crown for the purpose of erecting huts or camps, or for any other purpose connected with the war, then if the only loss or damage sustained is that his land is situate in close contiguity to that taken by the Crown, it is regarded that there has been no interference within the terms of the reference to the Commission, and therefore the only claim being one for loss of amenities it did not come within the sphere of the reference. Where the loss of amenities does arise in respect of property actually taken by the Crown under the terms of the Statute, then the loss of the amenity is part and parcel of the general damage and is taken into consideration and compensation is allowed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, who speaks with great authority, for the statement he has made, which I think will operate to a great extent to relieve the minds of many noble Lords who are interested in this matter. The distinction that he has pointed out is one which is on the same lines as that acted on in a good many cases in regard to compensation, and it is with some satisfaction that I welcome the statement which the noble Lord has been good enough to make.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: In view of the explanation of the noble Lord opposite, and of the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think, although I have had to frame it in a manner that perhaps may look a little complicated, that the object of it can be expressed in a very few words. It is intended to remedy a defect in the Irish County Court procedure which prohibits one County Court Judge from acting for another if that other happens to be unable to attend to his duties by reason of sickness. Explained in those terms it becomes a simple matter, but perhaps it is necessary that I should explain shortly the necessity for this short Bill. It is not a very ambitious Bill, nor will it, I think, altogether cure the undoubted grievance which exists, but it will go a long way and I think remedy a grievance that has been very prominently brought before my notice during the five years I had the honour of occupying the position of Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
Under the Irish County Court system, which is largely different from the English, in the year 1851 barristers of ten years' standing—who by the Statute are not styled County Court Judges but Chairmen of Quarter Sessions—were appointed to administer civil and criminal jurisdiction in Ireland in a number of cases. With regard to the civil jurisdiction it is roughly very much the same as the jurisdiction exercised by the English County Court Judges, but with regard to the criminal jurisdiction it is quite a different matter. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions, as he was called under the Statute, was made permanent Chairman, and in that way he practically administered the greater part of the criminal work of the county.
The result of placing the Judge in that position is that primarily his sittings have to be fixed not as in England, for the convenience of civil business, but with regard to the Quarter Sessions for the trial of criminal cases. In the Statute these barristers—who continued to practise at the bar, and whose position, I think, was

1155
not unlike that which obtains in the Scottish system—sat to discharge criminal business in the months, roughly speaking, of January, April, June, September, October and sometimes November. A Judge or Chairman is not allowed to discharge any duties in an adjoining county, unless in some very exceptional circumstances which one need not bother about. He is confined to his county, and primarily he discharges the duties of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. He sits in a number of very small towns, and when the criminal business is disposed of he disposes of the civil business.
The practical position of affairs is that some County Court Judges have all their time occupied while others are temporarily occupied in one town. In an adjoining county another Judge might be at that period unoccupied. Owing to the system adopted by the Act this position of affairs is quite unavoidable. Matters went on until 1877, when an Irish County Court Act was passed and the title and position of these barristers were altered. They were created County Court Judges, but their position was not exactly the same as that of English County Court Judges. As I have explained they were exercising criminal jurisdiction, partly owing to the fact that the offices of Recorders of cities in Ireland—officers that still remain in England—were all amalgamated with the office of County Court Judge. Accordingly, we have now a series of permanent Judges who are very much in the same position as Superior Court Judges with regard to their tenure of office.
Each Judge discharges duties in his own county. Each finds that he is not intended and not allowed to travel outside. The grievance is a simple one. A Judge, like anybody else, falls ill, and the only method at present by which a substitute can be appointed is for the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to nominate under his hand a practising barrister of ten years standing. That is similar to the provision in the English County Court Act, but here I think the duties are discharged by the nominee of the County Court Judge himself. The Lord Chancellor, having so nominated the practising barrister to discharge the duties of a County Court Judge during illness, has then a very unpleasant duty indeed to discharge. He is bound, under Section 9 of the Act of 1851, to "dock" the salary of the unfortunate County Court Judge of a sufficient
1156
sum which, in his opinion, will recompense the deputy for his services.
The injustice of the thing is very evident. A Judge falls not very seriously ill, but so ill that he cannot discharge his duties for a couple of days. In an adjoining county, perhaps in two or three counties, there is one or more County Court Judges who could very well discharge his duties, but they are prevented by the Statute from doing so. A Judge cannot be taken from one county to another, and the result has been, as I think, a decided grievance amongst the County Court Judges in Ireland. To remedy this the Bill proposes not what might be a very controversial matter, to enable one Judge to discharge, without any distinction, duties in another country; it merely proposes to amend the section of the Act of 1851, by which practically only practising barristers who had to be paid out of the Judge's salaries are appointed, and to enable the Lord Chancellor, if he thinks that it would not interfere with the proper discharge of the duties of the other County Court. Judge, and with the consent (which is essential) of the other County Court Judge, to nominate him to discharge the duties of the Judge who has fallen temporarily ill. Of course, it might not effect a cure in every case, but it will undoubtedly ameliorate the situation which has existed, I think, largely by accidental omission from the County Courts Act of 1887, and to that extent I commend it to your Lordships as being eminently reasonable and non controversial. It became essential that the Bill should also provide that the Judge and Recorder who should be appointed to discharge the duties of another Judge and Recorder not ill should not receive remuneration for so acting. It appeared to me to be well to avoid anything which would look like dealing with a money matter, which I take it cannot be regularly done in your Lordships' House. That is the position of this Bill, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Shandon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, inquiries have been made in regard to this Bill by those who are best competent to deal with it, the authorities in Ireland. My noble and learned friend who has just moved the Second Reading of course speaks with a unique authority as to the practice in Ireland in these matters, and I believe that the statement he has made is perfectly accurate in every particular in

1157
regard to it. The power to appoint a deputy County Court Judge rests with the Lord Chancellor. The deputy has to be a practising barrister of at least ten years standing and the deputy's remuneration is fixed by the Lord Chancellor and paid out of the salary of the County Court Judge. I believe that is the present state of the law. The proposal made by the Bill is that the existing law should be supplemented by enabling the Lord Chancellor to appoint as deputy any other County Court Judge who consents to act, but that County Court Judges who will discharge these additional duties should not have any remuneration for doing it, and that these additional duties rendered necessary by the illness and unavoidable absence of a County Court Judge should be discharged by calling in in this way the assistance of his brother. I am afraid that as this matter comes from Ireland it cannot be regarded as non-contentious. The General Council of the Bar of Ireland have held a meeting to consider the Bill, and have passed a resolution condemning it and recording their unanimous opinion that the proposed change would dissolve the bussiness of country courts and Assizes and would result in causing inconvenience, delay, and hardships to the litigants and to the members of the legal profession with no corresponding benefit to the public. That is the view of the General Council of the Bar of Ireland. The Irish Lord Chancellor and the Irish Law Officers were consulted in the matter by the Chief Secretary, and they have expressed the opinion that the Bill is not a satisfactory measure, and the Irish Office concurs in that opinion. For these reasons I hope that, in spite of the very clear and lucid statements made by my noble and learned friend, the House will not give this measure a Second Reading.
LORD SHANDON: It would be useless for me to waste the time of your Lordships' House by pressing the Bill to a Second Reading if the view of the Government is, as it appears to me to be, against me. Accordingly I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Bill is based on the Report of the Departmental Committee which was issued in 1912. The war followed before anything could be done in the way of improving the superannuation of school teachers, until interest in the subject was revived by the passage through Parliament of the Education Bill presented by Mr. Fisher. That was a very large and comprehensive scheme of progress for scholars. This Bill is the correlative Act to help and encourage the teachers who have to deal with the new scheme of education. I find that everybody seems to acknowledge that this Bill is necessary. I am informed, by excellent authorities, that the recruiting for the teaching profession is poor; indeed, that there is a tendency for it to become even more so. The fact is that salaries are modest and not sufficient to attract as good a class of recruit as the importance of national education demands. Although this Bill does not affect the question of salaries, it raises the level of pensions to a very much more satisfactory standard. The salary remains relatively meagre, but the pension becomes relatively favorable.
This proposal applies to all qualified teachers in State schools of all kinds below University rank, whether the teachers are certified or not, whether they are teachers in special subjects or in elementary or secondary or technical schools, or whether they are engaged in teaching centres, in training colleges, or aided schools which are neither Universities nor departments of Universities under University colleges. The scheme, therefore, is widely drawn. As to the scheme itself, these pensions are noncontributory. They are based to a large extent upon the lines laid down in the Civil Service pensions, and sixty is the basic year, subject, as your Lordships will see, to variations in one direction or another, for the application of pensions. The cost will amount to something between two and two and-a-half millions sterling annually. After very careful consideration, the Board of Education has decided that this scheme of non-contributory pensions must involve the termination of local schemes. It has been found impracticable that local and central schemes should run on parallel lines within the same district, and I gather that no serious objections is taken, either by local education authorities or by the teachers concerned, to the abolition of these local schemes of superannuation, owing to the fact that this new scheme, in super-

1159
seding the old ones, takes and carries itself all their old responsibility.
One advantage of doing away with local schemes is that it adds, and must add, to the mobility of the teaching profession. The local pension scheme naturally tends to localise or stabilise the school teacher, which is manifestly undesirable, for in no profession, I suppose, is a change of scene and environment more desirable than amongst teachers. Local schemes, therefore, will be wound up, and no fresh scheme of a local character will be permitted, unless with the consent of the Board of Education. This is a Bill which will raise the status and improve the efficiency of the teaching profession. I commend it to Your Lordships' hearty approval.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY:: My Lords, the noble Earl has not exaggerated when he speaks of this Bill as one of very wide and far-reaching importance. It is one for which I am quite sure the teaching profession will be grateful to Mr. Fisher and the others who have planned it. The Bill is the natural sequence of Mr. Fisher's Education Bill. The importance which attaches to the status of the teacher in both elementary and secondary schools has not been perhaps adequately emphasised before, and this Bill will not merely recognise what that status is, but it will, I am sure, tend to the raising of the qualifications of those who enter the profession, because they will, for the first time, find themselves in a more assured position with regard to pensions after good service done, those pensions having the great advantage of resting on what is described as the non-contributory basis. The fact of good work well done under proper inspection, in whatever kind of school, will, speaking generally, entitle the teacher to a pension. This involves an expenditure of a very considerable sum—some two and a-half millions annually—and that is perhaps rather more generous than had been by many people expected.
I am quite certain that as regards this matter, just as happened in regard to other matters in the Education Bill a few months ago, the generous policy is the wise policy. We shall obtain the right teachers—better teachers—and that will produce the better education of the children, and altogether the profession and its work will be improved in every respect by such provisions as this Bill contains. It is generous not only in the amount given, but I venture to say,
1160
too, in the range of those to whom it applies, but not more generous than is just. It is justly generous in the range of those to whom it is made applicable. The elementary teachers of this country had undoubtedly some of them, unhappily, an undue apprehension that there might be some difference made between the status for pension purposes of those who had worked in what are known as elementary schools and those who had worked in county council schools under the local education authority. No such distinction appears in the Bill—rightly I am quite certain. The qualification of the teacher to receive pension is based upon the good work which he or she has done in a school properly inspected, and proved to be adequate in its arrangements of all kinds, and to produce adequate results. Those conditions fulfilled the pension will come to the elementary teacher in the natural course.
With regard to the secondary teachers there is a little more difficulty. Undoubtedly there are a certain number of teachers in our secondary schools upon whom the arrangements of the Bill as it stands will, or at all events may, press hardly. I say "will or at all events may." It is not quite certain that they must do so; the matter depends in part upon the regulations which are by the later clauses of the Bill prescribed as regulations which will be laid down in the Education Office as to the condition of a school which is to receive a Government grant, and, therefore, to enable the teachers to become qualified teachers and to receive the pension. That point may possibly be raised in the Committee stage. It does raise a problem with regard to a certain number of teachers, but speaking generally I believe that the scheme is conceived upon the right lines, that its generosity is a wise generosity, that its results will be exactly what they are meant to be, and that it will induce the better type of man and woman to adopt a profession which is certainly not overpaid but will be better paid now, and, by reason of the pension, will give an assured security to those who enter upon it. I most cordially and gratefully welcome the Second Reading of a Bill which I believe is calculated to supplement most usefully the work already done by the Education Bill passed this session.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would like to echo what the most

1161
rev. Primate has just said in welcoming this Bill, which is, as he has most properly put it, a necessary sequel to the great Education Act which was passed earlier this year. It is abundantly necessary, in pursuance of the policy of that Act, to raise the status of the teacher. It partly is, perhaps, that the teacher was always rather underpaid, and partly because the standard of living and of comfort has gone up, and the proper remuneration for the kind of talents that you require in a teacher is much higher than it used to be. That is not the only difficulty. In consequence of the recent Education Act the number of teachers we shall require in our schools is enormously increased. It is increased partly because the size of classes is much smaller, and partly because, the age having been raised and a large measure of continuation schools having been established, you will require a very much larger number of teachers. Consequently you must give a greater reward in order to attract them into the profession. But I would not put it merely upon the rather sordid basis of attracting them into the profession. I would say that they are entitled, if you take into account the talents of a high order that they require, to a higher class of payment, and I am very glad that it is provided for.
We are entering upon a new era in education matters. Education is to be far more important than it used to be. It is a demand—a very legitimate demand—by the working classes of this country which Parliament has seen fit to meet, which it will have to go through with to the end. But, as I ventured to say once before in your Lordships' House—perhaps your Lordships will allow me to repeat it—there is one great risk attaching to this extension of education, and it is lest you should try and control the free play of diversity of opinion and conviction and training amongst the children of the people. That is a very great danger. We do not want uniformity of any kind so long as a certain standard of education is reached. The more diversity in the teaching the better, and therefore we ought to watch very closely the working of this education system to see, however well equipped it is with teachers, and, however well those teachers may be paid, that every effort is made to maintain that diversity of instruction in order that children should acquire and should not be deprived of the views of their parents in the course of their education. That, of course, affects those great
1162
denominational issues which have so often been a matter of discussion in Parliament during the passage of Education Bills.
I am glad to say that this particular Bill shows a very great tenderness for the denominational difficulties. There is in general, in respect of grant-aided schools, no discrimination made whatever between denominational schools and county schools, between non-provided schools and provided schools, but, as the most rev. Primate has said, there is not that completeness of assurance in respect of non-grant aided schools. By an Amendment in another place the teachers of those schools were brought within the operation of the Bill, but there was no such provision inserted in another place as to make it quite certain that there would be no discrimination on the grounds of religious belief between one kind of teacher and another. As the Bill stands now, that is subject to regulation, and it is quite possible that when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill some effort will be made to ask your Lordships to consider whether a Motion may not made in that respect, and if so, I think that your Lordships will consider it. But broadly, taking the Bill as a whole, it is a measure which we must all. I think, congratulate the Government on having introduced, notwithstanding the additionally heavy burden which it will put upon the taxpayers' pocket.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I deem it incumbent to say a few words in welcoming the provisions of this Bill, for I am one of the few members of your Lordships' House who can speak as an old schoolmaster, and as one who has seen with his own eyes the problem which this Bill sets out to face, and has himself, in old years, spent a considerable amount of time and thought in doing on a very small scale the kind of pension work that the Government is doing on a national scale. I may say that I have noticed that nothing tends more to spoil the work of a schoolmaster—and I am sure the same must be true of the schoolmistress—than the thought that old age is coining on, and that adequate provision is not available for meeting needs. Constantly I have had conversations with men who have been at their wits end to know in what direction they should turn for employment, and indeed for a livelihood, when the time came that they must surrender their happy work and look in other

1163
directions for a means of spending their time.
The schoolmaster's personality is necessarily a very sensitive thing, and anything that tends to make a schoolmaster or a schoolmistress anxious or self-contred is quite certain to react upon the success of the work they do. They are always in the presence of quick-eyed critics, who can gain good from the fresh and eager personality of a good master, but who, on the other hand, are quickly depressed by a master who for any reason has begun to lose his spring, and his interest in his work. I believe that the provisions of this Bill will relieve the anxieties of a vast number of the teachers throughout the length and breadth of our land, and by relieving their anxieties will add fresh power to their work right up to the time when necessarily they must lay down their work.
I cannot say that to my mind the large sum of money required annually for carrying out the provisions of this Bill seems at all disproportionate to the gains that are likely to result. I confess that I consider that this money is being spent not so much upon the teachers as upon the young people in their charge; and anybody who listened—as we all must have listened with eager interest—to the discussion in regard to after-war problems that took place in this House at an earlier hour this afternoon, must have been reflecting that it will rest upon the children of this generation to solve those problems of which we see only the beginning. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that these children should be reared in the best atmosphere and in the most promising surroundings; and I believe that to relieve their teachers of anxiety and to enable their teachers to carry on their work at the very best level to the very end, will be to confer a very deep service upon the children. I rejoice to know that this is one more point in which the teachers of the future will have the honourable satisfaction of knowing that they are being put into the position that we like to accord to public servants of the State; and I like to know also that their self-respect will be enhanced by the enjoyment of the better situation which the provisions of this Bill are about to confer upon them.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support this Bill from the point of view of education in the
1164
Army—a point of view to which I ventured in a few sentences to call your Lordships' attention at the Second Reading of the Education Act. As so many noble Lords have said, this Bill stimulates an improved supply of teachers, and that is a question which not only affects the future of the Act, but also affects the present from the point of view of the Army education scheme. The time is now and the need is now, and we therefore welcome this successor to the Education Act. As your Lordships are probably aware, there is now in the Army a very large educational scheme extending to the troops in Great Britain, in France, in Italy, and in Ireland; and from the day when fighting stops—that is, from to-day—begins the time of greatest activity in educational resettlement and educational training in the Army, until such time as the troops are reabsorbed into civil life. There is, therefore, an enormous interest in, and demand for, education; and we, the same as the Board, have need of a very large body of teachers who must be to a very great extent willing volunteers; consequently, we are unearthing some new teaching talent, and at any rate increasing interest in the Army in the teaching profession. It may be that this interest which we are creating may be of service in the future to the causes of education in this country. At least, there is a new ground for recruits for the teaching profession who will have had a certain amount of experience which may be valuable for work in the continuation schools; and since our need is very great for a large number of teachers, I welcome cordially any measure which is designed to improve the conditions of the teaching profession.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

TITHE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, this is a Bill for the purpose of amending the Tithes Acts which have been passed since the year 1836 up to almost the present time; and it amends them in three main ways. First of all, it departs from the ordinary custom of fixing the tithe varying on the price of grain, and fixes it

1165
at the figure at which it stands this year—namely, £109—for a period of seven years. Secondly, it proposes to do away with the septennial average upon which the price of tithe is fixed and substitute for it a fifteen years average. Thirdly, it provides a scheme to amend the Acts relating to the redemption of the tithe, and to make them more easily carried out.
There is some urgency in dealing with this matter, because, owing to the abnormal prices to which grain has risen consequent upon the war, the tithe is becoming a very serious burden—in some cases an almost intolerable burden—upon the tithe-payers. There is also considerable advantage in dealing with the matter now because, owing to the high rate of Government interest, it is possible to provide a scheme of redemption which will be better both for the tithe-owner and the tithe-payer. Your Lordships are no doubt familiar with most of the details surrounding the incidence of the tithe rent charge, but I should like to take up a few minutes of your time in placing the position shortly before the House.
In the year 1836, for very good reasons, the whole of the tithe then existing—in whatever class the tithe was—was valued and commuted at a rent charge, perpetual but varying year by year according to the average price of grain. The intention obviously of the authors of the Act was, by using the price of grain as a basis, to provide for the tithe-owner an income which would always have the same purchasing power in the chief necessities of life. The method that was adopted was to take £100 of tithe and divide it into three parts and ascertain what quantity of each sort of grain at the prices of the day would each equal one-third part of £100. The price of the day was for wheat 7s. 0¼d. per bushel, for barley 3s. 11½d., and for oats 2s. 9d. and the quantities fixed were ninety-five bushels of wheat, 168 bushels of barley, and 242 bushels of oats. Those fixed quantities have ever since the passing of that Act remained the multipliers which, used in connection with the price of the day—subject, of course, to the septennial average—have given us year by year the value of the tithe rent charge.
The septennial average was adopted in order, as far as possible, to prevent any sharp rise or fall in the value of the tithe rent charge which might follow a sudden rise or fall in the price of grain. But in
1166
spite of the septennial average the fluctuations have been very considerable. Starting at par in 1836 they rose to £112 in 1861 and reached the same figure in 1875. These are the highest prices to which tithe rose. They fell in the year 1901 to £66; consequently during those eighty odd years we have seen a fluctuation of £46 in the tithe rent charge. The average value of the tithe rent charge in the same period has been £91, and it might appear from that that the tithe owner had had very much the the worst of the bargain. I do not think that is strictly the case, because whether the tithe is high or low he has always received a sum of equal purchasing power to £100 in 1836—a sum which would, at the price of the day, purchase the same amount of grain as £100 would have purchased in that year.
But at the same time I have no doubt that the tithe-owner has been very severely hit in the time of low prices, chiefly perhaps because the price of grain is no longer such a good index of the value of money or the purchasing power of an income as at one time it may have been. There are many articles of necessity now that probably were luxuries eighty years ago. The general standard of living and comfort has risen for every one. Every man in receipt of wages or a salary has had additions made in order to enable him to keep up a necessary standard, and I think it is perfectly clear that the tithe-owner is fully entitled to tithe, to whatever extent it may rise, even though it were fixed on the abnormal prices due to the war. And there is absolutely nothing in the erroneous idea that because tithe has gone up in consequence of the war therefore the tithe owner is making a profit out of the war.
This being, as I submit, a correct view, Parliament would require to have some very strong reason before it can justly cut down the tithe owner's income, and it would require to be shown some reasonable inducement to the tithe owner for accepting such a reduction. Before I deal with that I think I will say one word on the position of the tithe payer. In the year 1891 the burden of the payment of tithe was placed on the landowner. I believe that the land owner had always been ultimately responsible for the payment of tithe, but by the ordinary contract of tenancy he had passed that burden on to the tenant, and there it had remained. But the Act of 1891 made him primarily as well as ultimately re-

1167
sponsible. Of recent years there has sprung up a class of owner—the owner occupier—which has increased enormously owning to the sales of estates; and he is in a position, occupying his farm, of taking advantage of the high price of grain. Numerically he is probably almost the larger class of tithe-payer, although in the aggregate, of course, the amount of tithe he pays is very much less. But having the advantage of the high price of grain, it should be presumed that he would there-force be easily able to pay the high price of tithe. And, other things being equal, undoubtedly it ought to be so.
But one must recognise, I think, the cost of production, and that has increased enormously during recent years. Rates and taxes and everything else going to the production of corn have gone up in price. Labour alone is 100 per cent. higher than before the war and probably 200 per cent. higher than at the time of the passing of the Act of 1836. And while there are in this cost of production many elements of permanency which I think are entirely absent from the present high range of prices, that is to say, while the cost of production will to a large extent keep somewhere near its present level, it is quite certain that the price of corn will fall. But the tithe-payer sees before him a largely increasing tithe. He can be certain, I think, that next year tithe will rise to £123. The following year we may be certain that it will rise to or about the figure of £136, and after that there will be a rapid rise the extent of which, of course, it is impossible accurately to judge. But he has before him this certain rise, which has to come out of the margin left between the high cost of production and the price of corn. The price of corn is certain to fall, but owing to the high prices at present existing the price of tithe, on the septennial average, would remain for a considerable period. And with the falling price of corn, and the sustained cost of production and the high rent charge, the position of the owner-occupier would be almost an impossible one.
The position of the non-occupying owner is in some respects worse. He gets no advantage at all from the existing high price of corn. He is as well as—perhaps more than—any one else burdened with the burdens of the war. And there is nothing by which he can increase his income to meet these additional charges. It has
1168
been suggested that he should raise his rents. I admit that in certain cases, in low-rented estates, it might be not only possible but fair to invite the tenants, as long as they can do so, to assist the owner in these heavy charges put upon his land, but I do not like to contemplate at all what might be the effect if there was a general attempt to raise rents all over the country for the purpose of paying a charge due to the Church. I think it would create a position which neither the tithe-owner nor the tithe-payer would like to see; and it seems that we are now in this position, that the tithe-owner has a perfect right to demand the full income which prices would give him, but the tithe-payer not perhaps next year or the year after, but at some time, will be in a position that he cannot pay. Consequently we have reached a deadlock which I think does require Parliament to come in and settle.
May I turn to the question, which I want to answer if I can, of what would really justify Parliament in stepping in, assisting the tithe-payer, and lowering the income of the clergy. I am speaking of the clergy as the tithe-owners because I am certain that Parliament will consider that any scheme which is fair to the clerical tithe-owner will be abundantly fair to the lay tithe-owner. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to what happened just before the passing of the Tithe Act, 1836. There were, as we know, serious troubles in connection with tithe, and a great deal of friction and ill-feeling. For certain reasons tithe was considered to be a charge upon production, and there was a sense of injustice among men who were improving their estates that on account of their outlay of capital they should have to pay larger charges. The method of collection, in so far as it remained collected in kind, was also another matter of constant friction, with the result that matters reached a danger point and there were actually tithe riots in many parts of the country. The clergy up to that time, to their credit, had done their best voluntarily to meet the state of affairs. I think one sees in the Debates that the tithe-owner was not in very many cases attempting to collect more than about 60 per cent. of the tithe due to him. He found that it was better to abate something of his just demand, to accept less than the fair income to which he was entitled, rather than rouse that friction and ill-feeling which did a great deal to undermine and destroy his personal in-

1169
fluence and personal friendships, which were necessary for the proper carrying out of his sacred duties.
That was the position then. I do not suggest for one moment that the same position has occurred or is likely to occur now, but there is just this resemblance—one sees it in the very general suggestion that the clergy are making a profit out of the war. It is absolutely wrong, but it does exist, and there is the danger, which I think is a present danger, that if tithe increased, as it would naturally increase, if it really became an unfair burden upon the owner or the occupier, then there would be the same sort of ill-feeling and friction which existed in the older time, and which we all believe would be very disadvantageous to the clergy themselves. I do not rely for one moment upon that as the chief reason for asking the clergy to abate their income. I think we find it very much more in the possibility of finding a stable scheme of tithe redemption. If we can carry through a redemption I think it must fulfil two principles. It must give the tithe-owner an income such as he has reasonable expectation of receiving, and at the same time it must be sufficiently attractive to the tithe-payer to induce him to redeem. If we can adopt such a scheme and if it is carried out, as we hope, fully, then I think we shall have done a very great deal to get rid of all those difficulties which surround the tithe question, and we shall have got past a great number of those controversies which it is far better to avoid than to discuss.
The existence of the present high rate of interest on Government loans makes it possible to reconcile the natural difference between the tithe payer and the tithe owner, and the proposals of the Government are laid down in the Second Schedule of this Act. I have endeavoured in placing the position before your Lordships to put as fairly as I can the relative position of the tithe owner and the tithe payer. I have endeavoured to draw a fair line between interests which are necessarily conflicting, and that is the spirit in which the Bill is drawn, and I am quite confident it is the spirit in which it will be discussed in this House.
My noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor has a measure before your Lordships dealing with the same question. We travel side by side on exactly the same road. The measures are drawn in the same
1170
spirit and we have the same aims in view, but we try to arrive at them by slightly different methods. The noble and, learned Lord restricts the price of tithe for a period which I think amounts to thirteen years—for the Corn Production Act and ten years thereafter. Our proposal is to restrict it for seven years; but we have in this scheme, in the first clause I think of the Bill, the substitution of a fifteen years average for a septennial average. That would have the effect undoubtedly of stabilising the price, and I think he will be satisfied that our two schemes combined are not very widely different from the one which he proposes. In the second clause we deal with the redemption of rent charges, and in that our method is different from the noble and learned Lord's. He proposes a flat rate of twenty years purchase for tithe, while we propose in the Second Schedule of the Bill a varying rate, our object being, of course, to fix a varying rate of years purchase, so that we can always get a capital sum of redemption money, which, at the particular price or rate of interest of Government loans for the day, will give an amount equal to the original income from the tithe. I think a flat rate would in many cases work unfairly. I presume that twenty years is taken at the present moment because the rate of Government loans is now about 5 per cent.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
LORD CLINTON: While it is applicable as long as the rate remains at 5 per cent. it evidently becomes quite inapplicable when the rate rises high above, or falls much below, that figure. Obviously, the income which the capital sum for redemption at twenty years purchase would produce at 3 per cent. is very much less than it would produce if the interest on Government loans remains at 5 per cent. These are the reasons why I think a flat rate is inapplicable for any long period of time, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree that a varying rate is more suitable to our purpose. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any more remarks upon these clauses. They are intended to carry out the main principles of the Bill, and if there is anything in them they can be dealt with in Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clinton.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, though the hour is not favourable for dealing with the subject at length, I should like to say a few words upon the Bill the Second Reading of which has just been moved by the noble Lord. His speech was one of singular lucidity, and I believe it will ultimately be referred to as one of the most lucid and effective statements ever made upon a subject which is certainly complicated to those who have only studied it a little, and complicated even to those who, for one reason or another, have had to study it a great deal.
That some Bill was at this moment practically necessary I am myself persuaded. I note what the noble Lord has said as to the reasons why the Bill was introduced and as to the obvious objections to the introduction of a Bill which might seem to betoken that its introducers held the opinion—which he has so decidedly repudiated—that the tithe owner had been, to use a vulgar phrase, in some way profiteering during the present war. The noble Lord has made perfectly clear that there is no accusation (if I could call it so) of that kind against the tithe-owner, and it would be exceedingly hard on the clergy if anything of the kind were to be alleged by those really competent to make a statement on the subject.
But none the less there is in the popular mind at this moment a feeling on the subject which it is very desirable to meet and allay if we possibly can without unfairness either to the tithe-payer or the tithe-owner. So far as I am able to judge the Bill, though it could not be shown, I think, to be logically necessary, can be shown to be practically necessary owing to what has now happened. The Bill, as drawn, makes every endeavour to be studiously fair both to the tithe payer and the tithe-owner. Whether it is so is a matter upon which judgment may very well be formed in your Lordships' House when the Bill is considered in Committee, because the House contains very many noble Lords to whom the subject is familiar and who are exceptionally competent to form a judgment on the subject.
It must always be remembered that while in all these discussions we speak of the clergy as tithe-owners, it is not the clergy only who own tithes. There are not only private individuals but corporations, too, who own tithes which are
1172
not clerical in any strict sense at all, and the question has to be dealt with from quite another point of view than that of a mere question between the incumbent and his tithe-paying parishioners. But the question is one which has got to be dealt with at this moment, and I believe, as I have said, that the way in which this Bill attempts to deal with it is on the whole the right way.
First, it tries to steady or stabilize, to use the noble Lord's word, the fluctuations which have been so visible both during these latest years and, in the opposite direction, a good many years ago—fluctuations which are quite singularly undesirable in the case of those whose income is affected by a very small change, upwards or downwards. The income, being a small one, ought to be at least settled so that the man with so small an income should know what he has reasonably a right to expect. I imagine no single tithe-owner expected ten years ago that it was in the least likely the rise would take place which has since occurred, and certainly twenty-five years ago most people did not expect anything like the fall which subsequently took place.
When fluctuation causes the greatest possible harm as regards the income of a man whose total income is, say, £250 or £300 a year, and when a man gets £68 instead of his £100, it is obviously a matter of the most serious import to people so circumstanced. This Bill will prevent these rapid and most disturbing fluctuations by substituting for the seven years average a fifteen years average. The fifteen years average will be a far more steadying thing and will prevent changes coming as rapidly as they did. Then, on the other point which the noble Lord made, the provision for making redemption easier is a provision which is singularly opportune at the present time. We can just now make it desirable both for the tithe-payer and the tithe-owner to redeem, and I venture to hope that the immediate result of this Bill will, on a very large scale indeed, mean the redemption of the tithe at present paid.
From the point of view of the life of the Church, and from other points of view as well, it is a desirable thing, I am certain, that such redemption should take place, and the fact that this Bill facilitates it in the way it does is one of the characteristics which commend it strongly to myself. In arranging for such redemption we have to take care that the incumbent does not, in

1173
his anxiety to make an arrangement which will relieve him from present difficulties, do something which would be of permanent loss and detriment to the money of which he is only a trustee. This is done by the provisions which are made in this Bill. In the Schedule care is taken to show that those with whom the ultimate judgment has to rest as to whether or not the redemption is to be allowed, are bound to take into consideration the quite considerable series of points to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, called attention a few weeks ago.
For all these reasons I regard the Bill as on the whole a right and wise one. That it will be so regarded by tithe-owners all through the country we dare not hope. The clergy are most naturally feeling at this moment in many places a sense of disappointment that, whereas for years the holder of a particular benefice had received some £70 or even less in lieu of £100, now, when owing to circumstances the tithe has gone up, the Legislature steps in to say that he is not to have the corresponding advantage; that is an obvious feeling, and we have the greatest sympathy with it, but I do believe that when the matter is considered properly and the long term of years is regarded which lies ahead, and when the whole conditions are carefully weighed, as they have been weighed both in Convocation and elsewhere by some of the most thoughtful of the clergy, it will be found to be an advantage to the owners of tithe and to the payers and to provide the possibility of immediate arrangement. Therefore I can cordially ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill which Lord Clinton has introduced, and say I believe it to be wisely and well drawn on the whole, though possibly there may be details which may have to be considered in Committee. And I believe your Lordships, by passing such a Bill through the House, will be conferring that benefit on both the parties for whom it is intended.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I heartily support the Bill which has been introduced by the noble Lord opposite. There are two things to be considered as regards a Tithe Redemption Bill—first, the sum which you ought to capitalise; secondly, the method of capitalisation. When I introduced my Bill, I proposed that the sum to be capitalised should be based upon the gross tithe. In the Bill before your Lordships it is upon the net tithe. But
1174
the net tithe is taken at £109, where the gross tithe which I took was £100, the old par value. Anf if you take the land tax and rates and the cost of collection, in the great majority of cases there will be the same original base figure on which the calculation is to be made. In other words, tithe from £100 to £109 will come to about the same figure as in my Bill. It will not be the same in all cases, but on the average it will be about the same.
The other factor is the number of years purchase. For the next two years it is stated at twenty-one years, which I think is quite a proper figure. After that the number of years purchase is to be calculated, so that a permanent unit equal to the gross annual value after deducting from that value the average amount paid, and so on, is to be the sum for compensation. That is to say, you are to capitalise the net tithe on such a basis that you guarantee, as far as you can, to the tithe-owner the same income that he is then receiving. And that is, of course, a perfectly just provision.
But there is one matter to which I would call the attention of the noble Lord opposite The transaction is to be carried out practically through the agency, or with the approval, of Queen Anne's Bounty. Also I understand that the funds of redemption are to be paid into Queen Anne's Bounty. What I wish to ask the noble Lord is, Could not he have substituted for Queen Anne's Bounty the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? I know that at the present time Queen Anne's Bounty deals with tithe redemption, but it is only £70,000 in the aggregate which has been spent in tithe. But when you are dealing with glebe lands you go to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The importance, from the clerical tithe-owner's point of view, is this. If you go to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which is a stronger financial body, you might have a guarantee not only that the annuity originally purchased should be the equivalent of the income which the tithe-owner was receiving, but that that annuity should not be diminished in the future. If you go to Queen Anne's Bounty you pay, as the noble Lord appreciates, the sum into the general Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, and it may be, in fact might almost inevitably be, that the rate of interest would generally diminish, and the annuities which you provide for the tithe-owner would also diminish to a corresponding extent. That

1175
is a hard matter. You should not only give him the annuity at the time, but ensure that the annuity is not altered in the future, so that he may know what the expectation of his future income may be. I think this could be carried out if it were done through the agency of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have surplus funds for making good any loss which might arise from the operation of a change in the value of money. I only make that suggestion. In other respects I think the Bill is an admirable one, which will carry out the purposes to which the noble Lord has referred, and I hope it will be passed into law at the earliest possible moment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, rather earlier in this session I addressed your Lordships' House on the whole question of tithe, and I hope I may be allowed to say to-day how cordially I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill to facilitate the redemption of tithe. For, as I said at that time—and I hope we are all agreed—that procedure certainly seems to offer the most favourable means of dealing with what I am sure is a rather difficult problem. I am thankful to know that this problem has now been removed from the hands of the amateur, for earlier in the year it is undoubtedly the case that some of the clerical tithe-owners—and I only speak of them—were moved to make some rather quixotic proposals in a generous way, giving the extra tithe that they were receiving to the Red Cross, or something of the kind. They who could afford to do that sort of thing were a little hard on their clerical brethren who could not afford to do so, and I am very glad to know that such action as that is likely to be put a stop to by the Bill, and that the whole question has been grappled with by the Government.
Whenever we speak to the clergy on the subject of tithe, the first question that comes forward is the question of rates. The clergy say they are the only class in the community who pay rates—they should say half rates—on their income. The truth is, no doubt, that as a matter of fact and of history this is a rather rough-and-ready way of expressing the grievance. But some of them do certainly feel it very strongly that they should be rated to any extent on agriculture. This Bill does not attempt to deal with the very thorny
1176
subject of rates, and if there is any question of revision of rates on tithe or on agritural property, of course the whole thing would have to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner.
But there is one particular point with regard to rates which I venture to bring forward to-day, and on which I desire to ask whether there is a possibility of the Government accepting any Amendment to the Bill. We cannot say that the word "rate" never occurs in the Bill—because in the Second Schedule the rates of which the tithe-owner is to be relieved are to be considered in determining the price that he should receive by way of redemption. I am not, therefore, entirely introducing the question of rates, because, as I say, it does occur in one place in the Bill. The point that I have in my mind is this. I consider it very unfortunate that at the present time assessment committees are far more inclined to raise the rates on tithe than on land. No doubt in part this comes about because tithe goes up and the assessment committees are aware of it, and can easily re-assess it. In the case of land it is naturally much more difficult to deal with the issue. The rates might fairly be based on the hypothetical rent which a tenant would be prepared to give. I think that it is very probable that the assessment committees are shelving the question of reassessment, although they do not postpone the re-assessment of tithe rent-charge. I have heard of a parish where the tithe-owner pays one quarter of the total of the rates on the agricultural land subject to tithe when he is supposed to receive a tenth of the produce.
I believe that the fallacy to which the noble Lord alluded that rents cannot be raised at the present time, is rather widespread, and that that may account for some of the confusion. It is forgotten that an operation one way or the other dependent upon the establishment of a minimum price of corn by the nature of the case cannot rise when the price of corn is above such minimum, but I would like to make this inquiry if I may of the Government—whether it would be possible to introduce a clause into the Bill touching the question of rates to this effect, that tithe rent-charge should not be more than a certain percentage of the rates. What, of course, is needed is that some authoritative pressure should be exercised upon assessment committees. That appears to be rather a difficult thing

1177
to bring about, though I suppose there must be some remedy if one knew how to exercise it. Meantime such a clause might set assessment committees thinking, and give them a rather useful lead in a matter which I think is very legitimate ground of dissatisfaction with the clergy. I am not, my Lords, raising the whole question of rates, but only this one fact, that the clergy appear to me at the present time to be paying, even accepting things as they are, a disproportionate and an unfair amount of the rates that arise from agricultural land liable to tithe.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, in reference to the right rev. Prelate's remarks, historically I do not want to go far back. I have no doubt that there is a distinct liability upon the tithe to pay rates owing to the fact that the tithe-owner is not a mortgagee. He is an owner and occupier in so far as the produce belongs to him, and I have no doubt on that account that he is liable to the rate. The special point is that he shall not pay more than a certain proportion. He pays a rate upon his ascertained tithe for the year. It has nothing to do with the proportion upon the rest of the agricultural land. If his tithe is raised then his proportion undoubtedly is raised; but it is because he has a larger tithe that he pays a larger rate—at least, that is how I understand the matter. I do not think that I can promise to put in an Amendment to the Bill, but if the right rev. Prelate
1178
would like to put one down I should be very glad to consider it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LICENSED STOCKBROKERS (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I beg to give notice that to-morrow I propose to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX shall be suspended for the remainder of the session.
[From Minutes of November 7.]

SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL. [H.L.]
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to Members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 127.)

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (CONSOLIDA- TION) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes before eight o'clock.