Sitting of 15 August 1919

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Leicester Corporation Bill,
City and South London Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th August, and agreed to.
Ammanford Gas Bill,
As amended, considered;
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Fraserburgh Harbour (Rates) Order Confirmation Bill [Lord],
Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill,
Victoria Infirmary of Glasgow Act, 1888 (Amendment), Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered upon Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS (REGULATION).
    l. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow to what
    1794

    extent the principles laid down in the Covenant of the League of Nations as governing the conditions of labour are intended to apply to non-European nations, including the Japanese, who are parties to the Covenant, and to Possessions which are not fully self-governing, including India, particularly in relation to the following points, the adoption of an eight-hour day; the adoption of a weekly rest of at least twenty-four hours; the right of association for lawful purposes; and the abolition of child labour?
    Mr. BARNES (Minister without Portfolio): I presume the hon. and gallant Member is referring in particular to Article 427 of the Peace Treaty, the principles for regulating Labour conditions in industrial communities which the Article lays down are intended to be as far as possible of general application; but I would remind him that the preamble to the Article specially recognises that the differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, makes strict uniformity between all countries difficult of immediate attainment.
    Article 405 of the Treaty provides that the International Labour Conference, in framing recommendations or draft conventions for the regulation of Labour conditions shall have due regard to the special circumstances of those countries, and shall suggest the modifications, if any, which may be required to meet their case. The nature of these modifications will, of course, depend upon the circumstances of each case.
    The extent, therefore, to which the countries mentioned can adopt the principles of Article 427, is a matter which has to be worked out at the International Labour Conference.
    In regard to the question of the eight-hours day or forty-eight hours week, which is to be considered by the first conference in October, the organising Committee which is making preparations for the conference has invited the States in question to indicate the equivalent limitation of the hours of work which is considered suitable in the special circumstances of their countries. The reply will, of course, come before the Conference for consideration.
    I may say that India is not in the same category as the non-governing Colonies which arc mentioned, because India is

    1795
    regarded as—and is, as a matter of fact—a full member of the League of Nations, and of labour organisation.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me if, when this Conference meets in October, representatives of Indian organised labour will be invited to attend?
    Mr. BARNES: Certainly; that is to say, if there is organised labour in India. If there is not, the Indian Government will select representatives.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Indian labour will not, then, select its representatives?
    Mr. BARNES: No.
    Lieut-Colonel THORNE: Will Japanese organised labour be invited to send delegates to the Conference?
    Mr. BARNES: Yes, exactly as in the case of India, or that of any other country. If there is organised labour, labour will be represented through that organisation. If there is not, then the Government will select the representatives.
    Major HILLS: Will the Japanese Government be represented?
    Mr. BARNES: The Japanese Government has been invited by Washington, and I assume it will be there as a member of the League of Nations.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1—(Restriction of Notices to Quit.)
    On the making, after the passing of this Act, of any contract for sale of agricultural land comprising one or more holdings, any then current and unexpired notice to determine a tenancy given, either before or after the passing of this Act, by an owner or any predecessor to a tenant of any such holding prior to the making of such contract of sale shall be null and void, unless such tenant shall, after the passing of this Act and prior to such contract of sale, by writing, agree that such notice shall be valid.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out the words "agricultural land comprising one or more holdings," and insert instead thereof the words "a holding or any part of a holding held by a tenant from year to year."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Most of the Amendments are of a drafting character, but there is an important point here. This particular Amendment, which was put in in another place, restricts the Bill to yearly tenancies. That is put in in order that we may deal with the case of Scotland. It is proposed later on that Scotland should be included in the Bill, but inasmuch as in Scotland the general practice is that of leasing, and as the Bill would be inapplicable, and would cause a good deal of trouble if it were applied to leases, it is proposed to limit the Bill generally to cases of yearly tenancies, which is the general practice in England. For that reason I move that we accept the Amendment, largely at the instance of the Scottish Office, in order to facilitate including Scotland in the Bill at a later stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out the words "a tenancy" ["determined a tenancy"], and insert instead thereof the words "the tenancy of the holding."—Agreed to.
    After the word "given" ["a tenancy given"], insert the words "to the tenant."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "by an owner or any predecessor to a tenant of any such holding prior to the making of such contract or sale."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "such" ["unless such tenant shall"], and insert instead thereof the word "the."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2—(Definitions.)
    "Agricultural land" in this Act means land which is either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the rest pastoral or in whole or in part cultivated as a market garden.
    "Holding" means a parcel of agricultural land held by a tenant and which is not let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment or employment held under the land-lord.
    "Market garden" means a holding cultivated wholly or mainly for the purpose of the trade or business of market gardening.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out the words "Agricultural land' in this Act," and insert instead thereof the words ''In this Act ' Agricultural land.'"—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3—(Exemption of Purchases for Public Purposes.)
    This Act shall not apply to a contract for sale to a Government Department or local authority for the purpose of providing small holdings or allotments, or for any other public purpose.
    Lords Amendment:
    At end, add the words "made within three years after the passing of this Act."
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I ought to explain this Amendment to the House. The Bill as it went up to another place was made inapplicable to sales of land to and purchases made by public Government Departments or local authorities for public purposes. This limitation is now further limited by their being made only within three years. Our view is that it would be unnecessary to leave such purchases and sales out of the Bill after the emergency period of three years, which is the period we find, for example, in the Housing Act and the Land Settlement Bill of this Session.

    1805
    Therefore, for the next three years the Bill will not apply to such purposes, but will apply after the three years.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4—(Application of Act.)
    This Act shall not apply to Ireland. Lords Amendment:
    After the word "to," insert the words "Scotland or."
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Scotland was accidently and in error omitted from the Bill by an Amendment moved in another place. It was never intended by the Government that this should happen, especially after the Amendment I spoke of just now limiting the Bill to yearly tenancies. I wish to put right the mistake which was made elsewhere.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: This has been sprung upon us, and I am not quite sure in what respect Scotland is affected by this Bill now. It is important, because the yearly tenancy and the leasehold systems affect Scotland, and perhaps the Secretary for Scotland could inform us exactly in what respect this Bill applies to Scotland, and how it affects Scottish interests?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am sorry my hon. Friend has not had a chance of considering this before. The point is this: When the Bill was in this House at an earlier stage the question arose whether it should apply to Scotland or not. I said I was quite willing, so far as I was concerned, that it should, but the Scottish Office informed me that owing to the fact that the great majority of the tenancies in Scotland were long leases a difficulty might arise if this Bill, cancelling notices given within a year of the sale, was made applicable to these long leases. I therefore put in a caveat that it might be necessary in another place to bring in some limiting words dealing with that point as regards Scotland in particular. I have already done that by accepting the Amendment put in in another place limiting the Bill to yearly tenancies. What I am doing now is, having done that, to make the Bill applicable to Scotland. In the Lords a mistake was made and Scotland was cut out of the Bill. I am proposing now to put Scotland back because the limitation to yearly tenancies removes the difficulty which the
    1806
    Scottish Office and Scottish Members brought to my notice. The sole point we are considering at this stage is, as we have passed the other Amendment, whether the Bill should apply to Scotland or not? As I believe it is the general wish of Scottish Members that it should apply to Scotland I have moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment, which cuts Scotland out of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with one of their Amendments to the Bill."'
    Committee nominated of Sir Arthur Boscawen, Colonel Greig, Lieut.-Colonel Murray, Major Court hope, and Mr. Grundy.
    Three to be the quorum—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments, reported, and agreed' to.
    To be communicated to the Lords—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The subject of this Bill from the first line to the last is land. Its object is to facilitate and secure the settlement of suitable persons upon the land, preferably persons who have served in the forces of the Crown in this or in any previous war. Surely, there never was a time in our long Island story when the settlement of a contented and a robust peasantry upon our soil was more desirable or more urgent than it is to-day, and I hope I may add that never was that urgency more gene-rally recognised. The men from the land in Scotland have proved to be a tower of strength in the hour of national peril, and their ranks, which have been thinned by the scythe of death, must be replenished by men who, if need be, will vindicate the claim to heroism which they have so fully established. It behoves us, therefore, in our legislation, to have regard not only to the cities but to the solitudes as well, and it is desirable that in these days men

  1807
  should escape from the drive and the artificiality and the fever of city life to the freshness, the freedom, and the peace which a country life offers. The tillers of her soil are the very backbone of France to-day, and there is no reason why that should not be so in Scotland as well. The purpose of this Bill is to help to bring about that desirable consummation. It falls naturally into five parts—first, acquisition of land, secondly Amendment of the Landholders Act of 1911, thirdly allotments, fourthly finance, and fifthly general. With regard to the first, acquisition of land, the scheme of this part of the Bill differs materially from that of the English Bill, the Land Facilities Bill, because of the difference in the existing methods of providing small holdings in the two countries. In England land is acquired by way of purchase or hire by county councils, by whom in turn it is sold or let to smallholders. In Scotland, on the other hand, the normal method of providing smallholdings has been by way of extension of the crofting system of tenure. Under the provisions of the Small Landholders Act of 1911 the land is acquired neither by the county councils nor by the State. The method adopted has been to select land and to equip it, preferably by agreement with the landlord, but, failing agreement, there are compulsory powers to require the land to be let by the landlord direct to the smallholder under a system which confers fixity of tenure upon him at a fair rent determined by the Land Court. The cost of the equipment and of the compensation fall upon the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund. In accordance with the decision of the Government, it is now thought desirable to supplement the provisions of the 1911 Act by the acquisition of land by purchase as affording an alternative procedure which may be used alongside of existing powers to meet the special necessities of the present and of the immediate future. But whereas in England a code of compulsory purchase is to be found under the Small Holdings Act, 1908, in Scotland no such code exists, and accordingly it becomes necessary to provide such a code in this part of the Bill, and it will be found in the First Schedule.
  Having thus seen that the conditions of the problem in Scotland are entirely different from those of England, let me proceed to examine the provisions of the first part of the Bill. In a sentence, it
  1808
  widely extends the powers conferred by the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918. It extends these powers in six different particulars. First, it extends the time for acquiring land. The powers under these two Acts, to which I have referred, extend during the continuance of the War and a period of six months thereafter. The powers under this Bill extend to a period of two years from the date when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Secondly, it extends the method of acquiring land. Under the Small Holding Colonies Acts land could only be acquired by means of agreement. Under this Bill, with the consent of the Treasury and the Secretary for Scotland, land may be acquired compulsorily for all the purposes with which the Bill deals. Thirdly, it extends the terms upon which land can be acquired. Under the Small Holding Colonies Acts there were limitations in virtue of which land had to be taken either on lease or in consideration of an annual payment or on feu. These limitations entirely disappear under the present measure, and land can be acquired in exchange for capital value in the ordinary way. Fourthly, this Bill extends the purposes for which land may be acquired. Under the Small Holding Colonies Acts land could only be acquired for the purpose of colonies. Under this Bill land may be acquired for that purpose, but may also be acquired for the purposes of reclamation and drainage as well— very important purposes, as the House will agree. Again, it extends the amount of land which may be acquired. Under the Colonies Acts the amount of land which might be acquired is 20,000 acres. Under the present Bill there is no limitation whatsoever. Lastly, it extends the powers of the Board with regard to land after it has been acquired. It enables the Board
  "to erect, repair, or improve dwelling-houses and other buildings on any land acquired by the Board, or to execute any other improvement— "
  upon such land, or to arrange with the tenant for doing so. It enables the Board
  "to sell, excamb, or let any such land or any right or interest therein; and generally to manage any such land."
  So that it will be seen that, in the matter of time for acquiring the land, the method of acquiring it, the terms on which it may be acquired, the purpose for which it may be acquired, the amount which may be acquired, and the uses to which it may be put when acquired, this Bill widely

  1809
  extends the existing law. Further, power is conferred to enable the Board to inspect land which it may conceive may be suitable for the purpose it has in view, and the Board is also empowered to enter upon land acquired within fourteen days after giving due notice, and without previous compliance with the provisions of the Land Clauses Act. A similar provision was inserted in our Housing Bill. Finally, in this connection, power is conferred on the Board under Section 6 to let or to sell the land which they have acquired at such price, or at such rent, as in the opinion of the Board is reasonable. It will thus be seen how sweeping are the changes introduced by Part I. of this Bill—changes, however, which, I venture to think, are essential for its prompt and effective operation.
  I now pass to Part II. of the Bill, which is entitled "Amendment of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911" Here I feel that I am treading upon the embers of many controversies of bygone days, and it will be my endeavour to avoid kindling them into flame again. So far I have been dealing with the question of purchase alone under Part I. of the Bill. It is not thought, however, that the Bill should be limited to purchase. A strong feeling, I apprehend, exists, both in Parliament and outside Parliament, that the Landholders Act of 1911 should be developed in such a manner as will cheapen and accelerate its procedure, and free it from certain traditions which have hampered its operation in the past, and which have really made it so costly in its working as to render its wide application practically prohibitive. When the Amending Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) received a Second Heading some time ago, I gave certain pledges upon this subject, and Part II. of this Bill is a bond fide attempt to fulfil those pledges. I think my hon. Friend will find that in Part II. of the Bill many of the provisions of his Bill are included. The more important matters in which it is proposed to amend the Act of 1911 are three in number. There are many, but there are three very important matters in which it is proposed to amend that Act. I may put it in this way: There are three questions which naturally arise. First, who is to decide upon the application of compulsion, and who is to fix the rent of the new holding? That is the first question which naturally arises. Secondly, who is to assess compensation in
  1810
  the event of a dispute—compensation in respect of the constitution of the new holding? Thirdly, what shall be the measure of that compensation?
  Let me deal quite shortly with each of these three questions in the light of the Bill. As regards the first—who is to fix the rent of the holding and the application of compulsion?—under the Code of 1911, as it exists to-day, the interference of the Scottish Land Court was required as a stage in the procedure in the formation of new holdings. Their consent was necessary to the application of compulsion. The result in practice was great delay. And not only so, but where the Land Court happened to differ from the Board in respect of the rent that ought to be charged, not only delay, but dislocation followed. It seems to me unreasonable that the body which, on behalf of, and at the expense of, the State, forms a new holding—that is, the Board—should not be entitled to fix the original rent to be charged, of which I think they ought to be the best judges, in agreement with the person whom they select as suitable to be placed on the new holding. The Bill accordingly short-circuits the existing procedure. It eliminates altogether the intervention of the Land Court at this stage, and confers full powers upon the Board of Agriculture, except in the matter of compensation. The steps of procedure indicated in the Bill are, shortly, these The Board has, first of all, to be satisfied that there is a demand for small holdings, and that suitable land exists to fulfil that demand. A scheme for the constitution of small holdings is then prepared, and notice of the intended scheme must be given to the landlord. The prepared scheme is then intimated, not only to the landlord, but also to the tenant and the occupier, and they will have an opportunity of considering the prepared scheme, and making representations concerning it if they so desire. The Board may then, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, make an Order confirming the scheme, and notice of that Order is at once given to those interested in the land, namely, the landlord, the tenant, and the occupier of the land comprised in the scheme. Lastly, compensation is paid according to an agreement which may be reached, and so, in normal cases, the matter would end. If, however, no agreement is reached on the subject of compensation, then the second question arises for consideration.
  Mr. HOGGE: If no agreement is reached on the question of compensation, in the old days, they were enabled to go to the Court when the figure was below £300.
  Mr. MUNRO: I think that my ban. Friend is anticipating. There is nothing about £300 at this stage at all. We deal with the question irrespective of any sum. If agreement has been reached, the scheme is settled and the holders put on the land. If agreement is not reached, then the question arises, Who is to settle the question of disputed compensation, whatever its amount?
  Mr. HOGGE: What I am asking is, what is the amount at which the compensation can be disputed.
  Mr. MUNRO: I am not quite sure that apprehend the question fully. I will look into the point. Meantime, for the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that agreement has not been reached in the matter of compensation, whatever be its amount. Somebody has to settle, on behalf of the landlord and other persons interested and the Board, what the proper sum payable ought to be. It is thought that the most appropriate authority to settle this is the Land Court. As it exists to-day, the Land Court enjoys the confidence of all classes of the community as an impartial, fair and judicially-minded tribunal. Accordingly it is proposed to place this power in their hands, subject to what is set out in the Bill, namely, that after giving all persons interested an opportunity of being heard, and, if they so desire, hearing evidence in the matter, they should reach their conclusion upon the matter. Accordingly, the answer to the second question is the Land Court. There is no provision for carrying the matter further. On a question of law, I imagine it might be taken to the Court of Session, as before, but on a question of amount, a question of pure fact, the decision of the Land Court is to be final.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Does this take away entirely the right, in cases of the sum being under £300, to go to arbitration. That is the point which my hon. Friend wished to have cleared up.
  Mr. MUNRO: Yes; the idea underlying this Bill is that, whatever the amount, whether under £300 or over £300, it should be settled by the Land Court. So far, it has been perfectly plain sailing. Then there is the third question, What is to be
  1812
  the measure o£ compensation? That is an extremely difficult topic. There can be no doubt that the existing Code requires readjustment and modification, and the provisions which are contained in Clause 9, Sub-section (11), are an attempt to secure a more reasonable arrangement. I will not go into these details at this stage. They will give rise to cartful consideration in the Committee stage. It suffices to say that Clause 11 confers on any person whose property is injured the right to compensation for any damage or injury done in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of new holdings under the scheme, including any damage or injury done to a landlord in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation. Then follow two or three matters which the arbitrator is directed not to take into consideration. Moreover, there are provisions relating to the enlargements of existing holdings and common grazings. The law regarding these matters is amended in certain particular, with which I need not delay the House at this stage. Finally, in this connection, in Clause 12, the House will find a very important power conferred upon the Board. The Board may, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, apply the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund in making or guaranteeing advances to land banks or co-operative credit societies having for their object the assistance of landholders or statutory small tenants in the stocking, equipment, and profitable working of their holdings I have no doubt that this power will prove to be a very valuable one. In recent years land on many occasions has been available, and men have been available for the occupation of that land, but as these men have had no capital- they were men, in many cases, who had been serving in France and elsewhere at Is. 2d. or thereabouts per day, and they could not have any capital—these applications had to be turned down, and no action was possible, though the land was there and the men were there. Under this provision, that state of things will, I hope, become a relic of the past.
  With regard to Part III. of this Bill, I would like to say a few words. It deals with allotments, which is a very important topic. Prior to the War the allotment movement, for one reason or another, did not develop to any great extent in Scotland. During the War it received an enormous stimulus. In burghal

  1813
  areas alone there are more than 50,000 allotments, covering 2,000 acres of ground. in industrial districts also there are several thousand allotments now. I believe that the movement has come to stay. I believe that it ought to stay, and that it deserves all encouragement. Apart altogether from the food supply produced, the physical and social advantages are numerous and obvious. This part of the Bill is designed to facilitate the continuance and even the extension of allotment-holdings. With that object in view, it is proposed to amend the existing Statute in the light of the experience we have gained during the War, in order, first, to facilitate the provision of new allotments, secondly, to secure allotment-holders in the tenure of their plots, so far as that is reasonable and practicable, and thirdly, to assist them in the growing and production of their crops in the future. Clause 14 amends the existing law by way of simplification and concentration of the powers of local authorities, which will in future be in the hands of town councils in burghs and parish councils elsewhere. Experiences show that outside (burghs it is the parish councils which most readily and naturally concern themselves with these allotment movements, and during the War these councils have been most active in the matter in many districts. This Clause transfers the existing power of county councils to parish councils, and by Amendment of the Acts of 1892 and 1894 com bines the powers and duties of both those Acts in so far as they have proved useful in their hands.
  Clause 15 shortens and simplifies the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments, whether by way of purchase or lease. Direct application by the Board of Agriculture for an order supersedes the cumbrous procedure, by way of provisional Order, of the Act of 1892. Clause 16 authorises a local authority to devote to allotments, so far as and so long as may be practicable, land required for other purposes. All sorts of land have been set apart temporarily for allotments during the War—land in parks which are dedicated to public recreation and public resort, building land which may be required for housing, and so forth. It is not practicable to keep such land in perpetuity for allotment-holders, but it is well to keep it until it is otherwise required. Clause 17, which follows a similar provision in the English Bill, contains various provisions for the benefit of allotment-holders.
  1814
  Sub-section I facilitates the provision of seed, plants, and implements. Sub-section (2) penalises any damage done to crops. Sub-section (3) obviates the payment of Stamp Duty upon agreements relating to allotments, where, after all, the sums involved are comparatively small. Apart from the industry of the cultivator the development of the allotment system must largely depend on the discretion and zeal of the local authorities, and if this part of the Bill becomes law it is hoped that these authorities will find themselves well armed and equipped for the performance of their duties in this matter.
  Part IV. of the Bill is financial. Clause 21 provides for the issue by the Treasury, during the next two years, of a sum not exceeding £2,750,000 to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, who in turn are authorised to lend the money to the Board of Agriculture. I am asked how that sum was arrived at? I do not want to go into details. The total sum is £20,000,000. That was announced in another place. Roughly speaking, Scotland's share will be between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. The Clause requires the Board to submit an annual statement of losses. Proceedings, of course, cannot be carried out on an economic basis during the first few years, and it is therefore provided that this loss, which will be shown in the annual statement shall, to the extent approved by the Treasury, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. In this way it will be possible to make some sort of rough comparison between the scale of expenditure and the losses incurred in Scotland, with corresponding expenditure and losses incurred in England Tinder a very different system.
  Lastly, there is Part V. of the Bill, which is general. I will refer to two of the Clauses—22 and 23 only. The contents of Clause 22 I have anticipated. It provides that preference shall be given in all these matters to suitable persons who have served in the forces of the Crown in the present or any previous war. That is a proposal which, I am sure, does not require from me a single word of justification. Clause 23 provides that the Board may make or guarantee an advance by way of loan, out of money available under Clause 21 during the next two years, to any holder, of whatever sum the Board think necessary for the purchase of live stock, fertilisers, or implements required. That is a power which the Board regard as

  1815
  essential to the successful operation of the Bill in the special circumstances of the time, and I am disposed to think that the House will agree with that view.
  Sir L. HARMSWORTH: Does that apply to fighting men?
  Mr. MUNRO: No, it is perfectly general, and enables the Board to make those advances to all who require them, in the opinion of the Board, whether they have fought or not.
  Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: New holders?
  Mr. MUNRO: Yes. This Bill is not presented as a faultless piece of workmanship, nor are its provisions in any way sacrosanct. They represent, however, an honest attempt, after repeated and anxious consideration, to grapple with subjects which are not only vital and difficult, but which in the past have been acutely controversial. I earnestly hope that there may be no recrudescence of those controversies in the discussions on the Bill. I am very anxious that the Second Reading should be obtained, if at all possible, before the Recess—that is to say to-day. That will permit of the focussing, developing, and crystallising of public opinion outside in the course of the Recess, and when we come back we shall see precisely how we stand, and shall be able, I hope without unduly prolonged discussion, to pass the Bill through all its stages in this House.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I thought at one time it my duty to ask you to accept the Motion for the Adjournment of this Debate, but I think that the public interests of Scotland will be best served, on the whole, by acceding to the request of my right hon. and learned Friend, that the Second Reading of this Bill be given to-day. The points upon which I think we have some just cause of complaint with regard to the Bill being taken to-day and the Second Reading asked for are shortly these: First, that it is a very complicated matter, and has within it, in almost the most highly developed form, the objectional art of legislation by reference. We have here the Small Holding Colonies Act of 1916 and 1918, and we have that great subject of controversy, and indeed of litigation, the celebrated Smallholders Act of 1911. We have references in the Bill to the Congested Districts Board Act of 1897 and to the Scottish Local Government Act of 1894, and the Small Allotments
  1816
  Act of 1892. Everyone of those Acts in greater or lesser degree have a very important effect on Clauses in the Bill. This Bill was circulated this morning, and after a very strenuous Parliamentary week I confess I have not had the time to study it, and I am not able to contribute now any very helpful suggestions for that reason. I listened with very great pleasure to the descriptions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland gave us of the various Clauses. I welcome anything, as I think we all must do, which saves the machinery and gives greater facilities to local authorities and sweeps away, let us hope once for all, those decisions which gathered round the name of Lindean and which to a large extent choked the operations of the Act of 1911 and gave rise to a furious controversy in Scotland. There are probably some Members who have been able to devote more time to the subject and who will be able to contribute something useful to the Debate. I hope in the Recess we shall be able to study the Bill and that there will be some public discussion of its provisions, in Scotland at any rate. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that after some time has elapsed it would be a very useful thing if in Edinburgh or some other suitable centre in Scotland he would call a conference or attend a conference where those deeply interested might lay before him any objections or proposals for betterment so that on our return we should have those suggestions which in the opinion of those interested would achieve the highest degree of efficiency. Are the powers for the compulsory purchase of land in this Bill based upon the Acquisition of Land Rill which passed through this House yesterday?
  1.0 P.M.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): There is a Schedule which provides certain rules. What the right hon. Gentleman has, I think, in mind is those provisions of the Acquisition of Land Bill which affect the value of the land, and my answer to the question is "Yes."
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Then that Act, as it will be, I suppose, in a day or two, is applicable to this as to all other measures for dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes, except where they operate under special Acts?
  Mr. CLYDEassented.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I must express great disappointment with the Acquisition of Land Bill, because it will not help us very much in Scotland as it is now altered. Two or three Amendments were passed yesterday which to my mind vitally affect its usefulness. I do not know that it would be in order to make any further reference to this subject, but I express my great disappointment and regret that that measure, limited as it was, is now so cut down as to be almost wholly ineffective for public purposes, through public records. I wish to press again my suggestion as to a conference. I am quite certain such a step as that would make up for the lack to-day of that instructive and at all times helpful criticism which some Members of this House may not be in a position to offer to-day.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I am sure that every Member who listened to the speech of the Secretary for Scotland was extremely gratified at the fact that my right hon. Friend was able, despite his illness, to come down here to-day to propose the Second Reading of this Bill. We sympathise with him, and hope that the fact that he has come here to-day will not retard his complete recovery. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a most interesting and I think quite full explanation of this measure, and of the great changes proposed, and especially in the Scottish Small Landholders Act. Some of these he noticed, but glossed over without very much remark. There was one of great importance to which he hardly alluded, except in one sentence. I am glad, for one reason, that this Debate is to continue to-day. It would hardly have been possible to have allowed this Bill to be introduced and to remain completely silent, as that might give rise to misapprehension in the minds of those who read the Debate in the newspapers, as they might think that we accepted every proposal because we expressed no opinion. I earnestly hope, like my right hon. Friend, that there will be no revival of the old controversy. Personally, I have had quite enough of it, and I do not want to repeat the experience. I was called the "villain of the piece," but I only did my part, and there were equally the Prime Minister of the day, and the Patronage Secretary, and a good many other "villains." Why one was singled out for that special description I do not know. That particular controversy
  1818
  centred, of course, round the old Clause of the Landholders Act, which detailed the principle on which compensation would be granted for the compulsory taking of land for small holdings, and that Clause was, after a great deal of discussion, settled in its present terms in order completely to fulfil the pledge of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, when at the Albert Hall he made his speech before the election of 1906, and stated the conditions and terms on which he proposed to acquire land for the development of small holdings. It was not then, and I do not think it is now, thought that it goes one inch beyond what he promised to do, and although there have been circumstances which raised considerable difficulties in regard to the carrying out of that Clause, the Clause in itself is only a measure embodying the precise terms on which ho said land ought to be acquired. The present Prime Minister, in a speech made at the beginning of the last election, said:
  "You must not take any man's property away. You cannot build a great State on dishonesty. You are bound to come to grief if you attempt it. That is one of the fundamental errors of Bolshevism. These things come back to you in the end. They poison the blood of the communities and corrupt the soul. Whatever the man has got, pay him his full value for it."
  Mr. HOGGE: Even the hen-roost.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: The difficulty that has arisen in this question is the difficulty of meeting the very large sums which have been awarded in Scotland in certain cases for loss to the capital value of the estate caused by the establishment of small holdings. It is no good arguing the fact as to whether or not there is that diminution of value, because it is an obvious and established fact. It may be an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact, that the moment you establish small holdings on any property in Scotland the capital value of the estate is immediately reduced, even if the letting value of the small holdings be greater. You have an excellent example in the case of Ballencreiff. The owner of Ballencreiff, which is a very fine agricultural property, was offered £25,000 for that farm before these smallholdings were established on it. He asked for £30,000, being twenty-five years' purchase of the net rental, but that transaction was not carried out. Holdings were established at Ballencreiff, I think, in 1916 and in 1917; and in the commencement of 1918. The adjoining farms were offered for sale, and so was Ballencreiff. One of the

  1819
  holdings was sold at twenty-one and a half years' purchase and the other at twenty years' purchase, but Ballencreiff, which I understand was the best of the three, found no purchaser at all and was ultimately sold at fourteen years' purchase. That was an extreme case, I think, but the fact remains that it is a case very much in point. When I tell the House that the compensation fixed in that case for the landlord was only £8,000, and that £6,000 of that was for buildings and only £2,000 for loss in capital value, they will see the tremendous loss there was in consequence of the establishment of small holdings.
  Now the whole of this compensation is being swept away by my right hon. Friend in this proposal. In so far as the compensation Clause affects the letting value, either of the small holdings or of the estate itself, it is all carefully provided for. The Clause is quite a wide Clause and quite a suitable Clause, and no one can object to it, but, having got the Clause, you have then to look at the limitations made upon it, which are three in number. The first is the somewhat usual one, that no compensation is to be paid on account of the constitution of new holdings being compulsory. The second is the one to which I would refer particularly, and which provides that no compensation shall be payable
  "for injury done to or depreciation in the selling value of the land comprised in the scheme, or of any estate whereof such land forms part, except in so far as the same arises from injury done to or depreciation in the letting value of the land or estate."
  That immediately cuts out everything, and no depreciation of capital value is to be allowed for at all. That, therefore, knocks the bottom out of the Clause in the present Act, and at once raises, although I hope not in any acute controversial way, the most difficult point we have got to deal with. No doubt there are alternatives now, which did not exist when the Landholders Bill was passed, in the way of acquiring land. My right hon. Friend has several ways in which he can acquire land for small holdings without carrying out the transaction on the principle of the Landholders Act. He can feu laud or buy land, which Scottish Members at that time were foolish enough, as I think, to refuse power to do, and he can get it under the Acquisition of Land Act, but as I understand it—and I would like to have this point made clear by my right hon. Friend—probably the colonies
  1820
  of small holdings will be founded by acquiring the land by purchase or feu, but the provisions of the 1911 Act will be used, and will be useful also, where single holdings or groups of one or two are being created in certain places. 1 should think that that would probably be the end of it. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend agrees, but I think, where he establishes a large colony, he will most likely acquire the land by feu or by purchase, and use the Scottish Small Landholders Act in the other cases, and it is all to the good that he should have the power of doing so. I do not myself want to do anything more at the present moment than to point out to the House the enormous change which is being made in this particular Clause, and it is for the House to consider whether it is quite fair find right that it should make that alteration in the very drastic way in which it is proposed. I am not sure that there might not be some concession made which would meet certain cases of obvious hardship and great loss, but it is an extremely difficult thing to suggest how it can be done. I will frankly admit that some of the compensation which has been paid has certainly retarded the operations of the Act, although I may say that in the case of Lindean, which belongs to a personal friend of my own, he has often said to me, "If you will give me back my farm in the condition on which you took it, I will be glad to hand back the £12,000." There is a chance for my right hon. Friend. He can have the money back if he will restore the farm to Mr. Scott Plummer.
  Mr. MUNRO: He is a constituent of mine.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I had forgotten that, but my right hon. Friend will be able possibly to do a deal with Mr. Scott Plummer in the matter. That is all I want to say at the present moment, but I think it would be quite impassable to allow this Bill to get a Second Reading before pointing out those facts to the House. The next point on which the right hon. Gentleman laid stress was the question as to which authority was to fix the first rent of the holding. That he proposed, now should be the Board of Agriculture instead of the Land Court, and in that I quite agree with him. Then, who is to fix and assess the compensation in the event, I assume, of there being no agreement? The right hon. Gentleman cuts away the very important option which exists at present

  1821
  of going to arbitration where the claim exceeds £300. It is a very important option, and one which is exercised very largely. Let me admit that the exercise of that option generally arose largely from the fact that the Land Court was not considered satisfactory or fair as originally constituted. It was a most unfair Court. I have always offered criticism on this point in general, and not in particular terms, and I do so again. I say that Court was most unfair, and obviously partisan, and the whole of the difficulties which surround it have been caused by that. I admit there is a great change, and I daresay it is possible that the change of the assessing authority might be accepted Whether there should be an entire removal of the option is another matter. But I can conceive, as matters stand in this Bill, that the person making the claim would not in any way be damnified in any decision by the Land Court in the way of expenses. In the case of going to arbitration, I should think he would run the risk, if he were allowed very much less than he asked, of being saddled with the expense. If that were so, no doubt it would be a very great incentive to leaving arbitration alone, and going to the Land Court. There may be cases in which it is only fair and right that there should be arbitration, and there is no particular reason why the arbitration should be taken away.
  Those are the main points about which I think it necessary to make any remark at this stage of the proceedings. We only got the Bill yesterday, and it is much too important a measure to say anything very definite about to-day. One wants not only to consider it oneself, but to hear the opinion of those interested, particularly after past experience. It ought to make one very careful about committing one self; but I do earnestly hope that, difficult as these questions are, and controversial as they may become, they have got to be settled somehow, and I trust we shall be able to settle them in the Scottish Committee in a perfectly amicable way, and without the revival of some of the heat which used to permeate the Committee Room. With regard to many of the other points of the Bill, I must say I think these are great improvements, such as that part relating to allotments; while the financial position is very greatly improved. Then an attempt is made to deal with the question of tenant's compensation, which is a very
  1822
  serious question with which to deal. I do not know whether it may be considered by some tenant-farmers as too drastic a proposal, but, at all events, it seeks to limit the matter within fairly reasonable terms, and to give the tenant plenty of time for turning round in the event of dispossession.
  One thing I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman is this, that if he can possibly manage—I do not think he can do it in this Bill—to do something more than has been done for rural housing, we shall put more people on the land in that way than we are likely to put in many districts of Scotland by this method. I look with great concern upon the future of this subject. It is all very well to say local authorities are responsible. It is one thing to put responsibility in a Bill; it is another thing to provide them with the means of carrying it out. I do not think they are in a position to do so, and certainly not if the restrictive provisions made in the rules and regulations are adhered to. The right hon. Gentleman can consider this matter in regard to the regulations in connection with the Housing Bill, and if he will consider the question of rural housing, give some impetus to that, and some encouragement to those who have the responsibility, then that, coupled with many of the improvements in this Bill, will, I think, greatly improve the situation in Scotland.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I put a question with regard to the compensation to be paid? Take the operation of this Bill for acquiring land, say, for soldiers—that will be done under the Land Acquisition Act. Take the case of acquiring land for small holding—that could be done under the Land Acquisition also, with the addition of the conditions laid down in this Act specifically applied to the purchase and acqusition of land for small holdings.
  Mr. MUNRO: The Acquisition of Land Act will govern the assessment of compensation in all cases, but so far as a code for working out these principles is concerned, it will be found in the First Schedule of the Bill.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to—
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Rates) Bill [Lords],
  Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  Ministry of Transport Bill,—That they agree with the Amendment made by this House to the Amendment made by this House to the Lords Amendment with which the Lords have disagreed, but propose Amendments to the said Amendment.

  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BILL.
  Ordered, That the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment, disagreed to by the Lords, be now considered.— [Sir Eric Geddes.]
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment considered accordingly.
  The MINISTER (Designate) of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment to the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."
  Mr. HOGGE: I think the Minister might tell us why he now agrees.
  Sir E. GEDDES: The purport of the Amendment is simply this. The point of difference between us was as to the nomination of the Committee. The Lords have accepted that, but words have been inserted that, in addition to the other interests concerned, the Board of Trade shall specifically consult with the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the Minister of Labour shall consult, in addition to the others, the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress. This Amendment simply puts in those three bodies.
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I feel sure the House will join in congratulating the Secretary for Scotland in being able to be in his place to-day. He is a very valuable asset in our Scottish national life, and we all hope that he will be thoroughly restored to health during the coming Vacation. I made a suggestion that, after his speech to-day, the Second Reading
  1824
  might have been adjourned. I still think that that would have been the much more satisfactory process. As the right hon. Member for Peebles has said, it has been impossible for us adequately to study this Bill in the short time at our disposal. It might have been postponed until after the Recess, and until we had been in contact with our constituents and we could then have given the right hon. Gentleman: on Second Reading some indication of the Amendments that were necessary and desirable. As it has been decided to take the Second Reading to-day, I offer no further opposition to it. The right hon. Gentleman rightly alluded to the urgency of the problem with which this Bill is destined to deal, and he said particularly that one of the most important provisions of the Bill was that under which the procedure of the Small Landholders Act, 1911, would be hastened. With that I heartily concur. One of the chief defects of the Small Landholders Act is that its operation has been very dilatory and, in many cases, most expensive. In so far as this Bill remedies those defects, it will be welcomed by the rural population of Scotland.
  The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) referred to what, in his opinion, was the main change made by this Bill in the Scottish Small Landholders Act of 1911, and very rightly referred to himself as one of the villains of the piece in the controversy of 1909–10. If there are in this measure any points which might in some sense revive those controversies, I think we should all feel it is our duty to smooth over difficulties and try to come to some arrangement which will be for the benefit of agriculture and smallholders in Scotland. The hon. Baronet will agree that some alteration is necessary. He indicated that in his speech, and we all feel that to be the case. The hon. Baronet would perhaps not go so far as some of us in that respect but feeling as we do that some alteration is necessary I hope we shall be able to agree, more or less, with the provisions put into the Bill by the Secretary for Scotland. I join heartily with what was said by the hon. Baronet with respect to rural housing. That is one of the roots of the whole problem. It is an evil which has existed one might almost say from time immemorial. It is an evil which is certainly not entirely remedied under the Scottish Housing Bill, and I do hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman after due consideration, either in this Bill or

  1825
  some other measure, to introduce some method of hastening the development of rural housing in Scotland. I was more than glad to read Clause 12, which deals with advances to land banks. The right hon. Gentleman said that that would be of particular interest to me. He knows that that is so, and I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman not only for the great interest he has shown in the Scottish Central Land Bank in the past and the great assistance he has given to it, but for having included in this Bill such provisions as will enable that bank to continue to prosper and at the same time materially to assist financially small landholders in Scotland.
  A question has been raised by the right hon. Member for Peebles regarding the application of the Land Acquisition Act to the measure now under discussion. I agree that that Act, which was a bad Bill before it went to the other place, is now much worse, for it has been practically disembowelled, and it will totally fail to realise its objects. That is unquestionably the opinion of many people throughout Scotland, and that opinion will be more prevalent when the people see the Act in operation.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: In what respect was it disembowelled?
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Words were taken out which had only been put in after a long Debate in this House, when the Government accepted the Amendment moved by the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), which said that in assessing the compensation regard should be had to the basis of rating and taxation. We on this side of the House who were pressing that Amendment made a very valuable and surprising recruit in the right hon. Gentle-man the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), and, following upon the intervention of that right hon. Gentleman, many other hon. Members associated with him took the same line. In another place the words "Regard shall be had to" were taken out of the Bill, and instead the words "The undertaker shall be entitled to consider" were inserted. Besides that, the words "Capital value" were inserted instead of "assessment," and those two facts, in my judgment, disembowelled the Bill as it left this House. I have been drawn away from my argument by the interruption of the hon. Baronet opposite, but I am more than glad to have had the
  1826
  opportunity of saying those few words, and I am sure when the Act comes into operation the hon. Baronet opposite will be among the first to receive from his constituents complaints regarding the basis under which compensation is to be assessed.
  I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles to say that it might be advisable to have a conference in Glasgow or Edinburgh to discuss the various aspects of this Bill. I am not quite sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There will, of course, be many different opinions held about this Bill, and if such a conference is to take place it must necessarily be a very large one, in order that all interests should be represented. It might well be that those interests could give to the Secretary for Scotland certain of their views, but as to any really live discussion in a conference of that kind, I am somewhat doubtful that it could take place. After the Second Reading of this Bill has been obtained we shall all be in contact with our constituencies during the recess, and then we shall be able to give the right hon. Gentleman not only our own views after studying and considering this Bill, but the views of the majority of our constituents, and we can then indicate to the Secretary for Scotland in what manner we would desire to see the Bill altered or to see other Amendments incorporated in it.
  Mr. JAMESON: The only regret one can have in connection with the Second Reading of this Bill is that it is quite obvious from these empty benches that most of the representatives of Scotland of the Liberal and Labour persuasion are at present away on their grouse moors, and only a few hard-working Unionists like the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) are left to still adorn the field of legislative Labour.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That is quite wrong.
  Mr. JAMESON: We give a warm welcome to the principle of this Bill, and on the whole we quite agree that the proper course is to take the Second Reading now, and leave it to the Recess in order that we may meanwhile get into touch with our constituencies and gather the general Amendments that no doubt will be required to this measure. As representing a burgh constituency, the part of this Bill in which I am particularly interested is

  1827
  that which deals with allotments. We all know how very much interested the citizens of great cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow are in the new allotment movement which sprang up as a result of the late war. The extraordinary fascination of the soil and the tilling of it has proved of great interest to townsmen, and they are now much interested in rearing such interesting things as onions and carrots and various vegetables, and this I think it will be generally agreed is extremely healthy and beneficial to the country.
  The Secretary for Scotland was placed by the allotment-holders as leader of their movement, and made their president, and in this respect the people of Scotland have shown their confidence in the right hon. Gentleman. We have not been disappointed, because the Secretary for Scotland has taken the very greatest pains to find out what their wishes and needs are, and he has done all he could to meet their requirements. Accordingly my main and pleasant duty to-day is to express the gratitude of the allotment-holders of Scotland for everything he has given them by the present Bill.
  The allotment-holder in Scotland ex hypothesi is not so much interested in that part of the Bill that deals with acquiring allotments as in keeping his old allotment, and, accordingly, I put it very strongly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland whether he cannot sec his way to insert in this Bill some sort of provision for security of tenure. I never was a great and strong advocate of the general adoption of the principle of security of tenure in regard for the very large farmers of Scotland, but they have a certain amount of security of tenure, whereas the allotment-holder, who needs it, has not any. It will be readily seen that to make an allotment a success means a tremendous amount of intensive cultivation, and therefore demands security of tenure more than any other form of holding. The allotment, first of all, has to be cleaned of weeds and stones, and then it has to be treated with manure and tilled very intensively until, at the end of the process, it is a very different thing and a very much more valuable asset than it was when the allotment-holder took it over and before he had worked on it. Accordingly, the allotment-holder who is deprived of his allotment is a very great loser, and suffers a good lot of injustice. I am sure that the Secretary for Scotland only needs
  1828
  to have such considerations laid before him to do his very best to meet this necessity of the allotment-holder, and, with that qualification, I wish, on behalf of the general allotment-holders of Scotland, to express the gratitude which they feel to the Secretary for Scotland for the pains which he has taken to meet them in this matter.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I cannot possibly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) when he suggests that the Scottish Labour Members are absent because of their work on the grouse moors in Scotland at the present time. The majority of them are busily engaged on large and important industrial questions, and they have left behind them, I am afraid, a rather unsatisfactory representative to state their case. While, in common with other Scottish Members, we suffer from not having had an opportunity adequately to consider the measure, we welcome it, and the urgency for it will not be disputed. It may be true that in certain agricultural areas north of the Tweed there are men, and perhaps comparatively large numbers of women, who would not be there but for war conditions, and to that extent we have started the solution of our own rural problem. On the other hand, congestion in the large centres, and particularly the city centres, is more pronounced than ever. From these points of view, I most cordially welcome the Bill. We on these benches, however, do not for a single moment believe that it will solve the land problem of Scotland. I express my own view, and I think the view of the great majority of my colleagues, when I say that we do not anticipate any final or lasting solution of the laud problem as long as land remains private property. Probably it will be irrelevant this afternoon, to develop the case for the public ownership of land, but most hon. Members will agree, however much they may be opposed to us in principle, that land is fundamentally different from all other commodities and all the other needs of human life. With that very important reservation, our aim will be to try and improve this measure.
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh that Scottish allotment-holders urgently require the largest possible measure of security of tenure, and the same is true elsewhere. We have had numerous repre-

  1829
  sentations from the Scottish National Association of Allotment Holders, that the existing allotments are not developed and used to the extent to which they might be developed and used, and that many people are hindered from taking up allotments because they feel that the necessary hard work for the cultivation of the soil will be largely wasted by their being turned out after the lapse of one or two years, or perhaps even a shorter period. They have no desire, particularly in the urban centres in Scotland, to stand in the way of housing schemes, and they have made it perfectly plain in their Memorandum that all housing schemes are to have preference, but as regards other soil, much of which will not be used in the immediate future for housing purposes, they strongly suggest that an increased measure of security of tenure should be given. I do not think that point is adequately provided for in the present Bill, although I agree that our reading of it has been cursory at the best.
  The second improvement which is desired by Scottish allotment-holders will make for uniformity of conditions as regards not only tenure but rent and other considerations. Under the terms of the Act of 1892 the expenditure of any local authority on allotments must be taken into account over a certain term of years, and the rents of the allotments fixed accordingly. In some cases, even within one community, we have secured exceptionally favourable terms from proprietors or holders of land, and these allotments started with natural and other advantages, but, on the other hand, there are many cases in the large centres of Scotland and elsewhere where a considerable chemical expenditure was necessary before the allotments could be used. That has resulted in a comparative high rent for such allotments, and in a lack of uniformity of conditions even within quite small areas, and this has led to widespread unrest and dissatisfaction among allotment-holders. Probably there is no remedy for that lack of uniformity under the Act of 1892. I should, therefore, like to see the present Bill amended so as to make it possible to take into account the capital expenditure in the area generally, and thus obtain uniformity as regards rent and other conditions so as to enable allotment-holders to start their work on substantially the same terms.
  These are the two leading difficulties of the allotment-holders in Scotland at the present time. Beyond that it is our duty
  1830
  to welcome this measure in so far as it makes for the permanent establishment of this form of public enterprise. From the point of view of labour, we welcome the allotments movement, not so much for what it may produce in the way of commodities required for the people of the country, as for the opportunity which it affords of a different occupation or employment from that in which the great majority of the workers spend the bulk of their time. One of the best features of Continental industrial development in pre-war times—I regret to say that we lagged shamefully behind—was the variety of occupation afforded to great sections of the people. They spent so many hours per day in the factory or workshop, but, largely owing to easier conditions of land occupation and tenure, they were able to devote the remainder of their time, often a quite substantial portion of each day, to outdoor occupations, and they are not therefore tied to the narrow grind of one calling, with more or less demoralising results. I therefore most cordially welcome any Bill which will build up this allotment movement and provide a subsidiary, and it may be even a profitable occupation for people, because I regard that as a not unimportant factor in the solution of much of the industrial and social unrest in large centres in Scotland. Labour agrees with advanced Liberalism and Radicalism in Scotland, that the success of previous Small Holdings Acts has been seriously undermined by the excessive terms of compensation. I want, however, to be perfectly just to these Acts, and, while in my view compensation plays a large and important part in undermining their success, I hope I am the last to suggest that it is the one and only cause of their failure. I gather from the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) that compensation is likely to be as difficult a problem under this Bill as it is under previous Acts.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I did not say that.
  2.0 P.M.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I welcome the correction. I had understood the hon. Baronet, to indicate that the problem would be at least as difficult. Apart from that, I think we are very far indeed from having solved the difficulty of compensation, but I am willing to leave that very intricate and abstruse problem for the Committee stage of this Bill. I think I express the view of the Labour movement when I say that in

  1831
  the establishment of these small holdings we should strip compensation of all elements which can reasonably be regarded as due to the effort or enterprise of the community, and only give such compensation as is reasonable and fair, having regard to what the owner or his predecessors have put into the soil by way of capital expenditure, or what has been done by his agency to improve it. The other considerations which very largely undermined the success of the small land holdings' movement in Scotland were really economic rather than social or political; and the chief of these economic causes were the practical absence of agricultural organisation, as it is commonly described, in Scotland, and also the absence of the development of any scheme of rural credit north of the Tweed.
  Dealing first of all with agricultural organisation, the central weakness of the smallholder was his failure to obtain readily and cheaply, for the purposes of his small holding, the benefits and advantages of large-scale production. I have never been able to agree that there is any abiding antagonism between large-scale production, when we are thinking of a large land holding or a large farm, and the small holdings which we are now discussing. It has often been argued, in this House and outside, that under any circumstances of land tenure, range of prices, and so on, at the present time, small holdings were bound to fail because you could not bring to them the benefits and advantages of large-scale working. I entirely differ from that. I believe that a cursory reading of the history of agricultural organisation, in Ireland, even and in certain parts of the Continent and throughout the world generally, will lead to the conclusion that in agricultural organisation we have the bridge which can cover that gulf between large-scale production and the operations of the small-holder. In other words, it provides for the co-operative use of the best and latest machinery, it provides for the co-operative buying and selling of ingredients which are necessary for the cultivation of the stubborn Scottish soil, and it brings within the reach of the smallholder the advantages of the research of scientific experts in agriculture and in other spheres. I am willing to admit that agricultural organisation in this country is probably in its infancy, and has a very great deal to learn; but that does not rid
  1832
  us of the duty of incorporating in this measure some provisions which would seek to get the benefit of all that is best in what it is learning and what it is teaching at the present time.
  The other consideration is, as I have said, the almost entire absence of the provision of rural credit. Many men could have obtained the land, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman in his introductory speech. They had the experience and the skill in rural conditions. Some of them even had machinery, quite up-to-date machinery, at their disposal. But they had not the necessary capital, and they could not obtain it on terms sufficiently reasonable to enable them to start with any hope of certainty of success. I am perhaps the last to suggest that we should draw lessons unduly from our late enemies, but at all events it will be conceded that they had a much better appreciation in pre-war times of the advantages of rural credit than we had in this country. Hon. Members of this House are familiar with the growth and development of the Raiffeisen scheme of rural banking which had its origin in Southern Germany. Broadly its principle and method was the establishment of a central bank, with a large number of banks distributed throughout the country, reaching right down to the unit in the village—a little village organisation or committee which was responsible for reporting on the character and experience of the applicant for rural credit, which so far supervised him in the use of the money which he obtained for rural progress and development and which built up broadly and generally throughout the country a system which made it possible for the smallest man to get on reasonable and easy terms a supply of money for the cultivation of the little plot of soil he had in charge. Substantially the same system was adopted or extended in other parts of the world—India, Egypt, even Ireland, and many other instances could be quoted. It had two advantages—first, of giving him that ready and immediate supply of money; and, secondly, of putting him beyond the power and the reach of the moneylender, who, in a large number of cases, fastened upon the very vitals of rural progress. Is it impossible in this time of bedrock reconstruction to provide in this measure for some scheme of rural credit of that kind? I welcome the Clause in the Bill which seems to hold the promise

  1833
  or hope for land banks, and which makes it possible for money to be advanced to smallholders, I sincerely trust it may be possible in Committee to add to the provisions of the Bill in order to get the advantage of what is best in that Continental experience I have just outlined.
  The last point I desire to make turns on the establishment of discharged, disabled, and demobilised men generally upon the soil of Scotland. Let me say at once, that our experience in disablement-scheme work has been, on the whole, not too encouraging in that respect. I am willing to admit that a number of landowners have placed land more or less readily at our disposal, but there has been a singular disinclination on the part of quite considerable numbers of demobilised and discharged men, who desire and prefer an open-air life, to take advantage of the holdings which might be established. That has been due partly to the difficulty of finding the necessary capital, which I hope will be surmounted under this Bill, but it has also been due to at least two other causes as well. First, there is the absence in the rural districts of Scotland of anything resembling a social life. It meant placing these men very often in lonely parishes where they were divorced from all the intercourse and association of other days. That disposition and point of view are extremely hard to break down. Accordingly, I hope that in any system of land settlement in Scotland we are going to adopt, so far as we possibly can, one of the best recommendations of the Royal Commission on Housing in our country, that as far as possible we should build these houses in the rural areas in village communities. I do not say that is always possible where upland shepherds and others are concerned, but, so far as we can do it, let us build these houses in small communities in order that the advantages of associated life may be forthcoming, and that we shall do what we can to meet this admitted difficulty on the part of the discharged and demobilised men. The other point is the difficulty of training discharged and demobilised men in rural callings. I should like to see a widespread development of what we might call the lighter and easier forms of agriculture. Many of the men are suffering from physical disease as apart altogether from amputation or disablement of that kind; they are really not fit for the arduous toil on even a comparatively small allotment of
  1834
  land. When I use that phrase I mean more particularly ploughing and the heavier operations on the land. These men, however, are fit for other occupations on the soil, such as light fruit farming or progress on the land of that kind, which do not to the same extreme extent make a demand upon their impaired physique. Our difficulty in disablement-scheme work has been to find adequate facilities for such training on the soil. I believe that is one of the most hopeful features of progress in the light of the Bill we are now discussing. These and other proposals we shall probably try to embody in useful Amendments as the Bill passes through Committee. "I cannot sit down without expressing, while we are conscious of all its shortcomings, our general approval of the measure and saying that we shall do all that is within our limited power to assist its progress in the solution of one of our gravest national problems north of the Tweed.
  Mr. J. W. TAYLOR: I would not have intervened in the Debate except that one point in regard to allotments has not been touched upon. There has been a good deal of discussion on the question of fixity of tenure, and the difficulty of allotment-holders in cultivating their allotments with a reasonable hope that in future years they will reap the reward of what they have put on the soil. Power to acquire land for allotments was first given to the county councils and now it is extended to the parish councils. The parish councils are far more in touch with the people, who especially have developed allotments, than are the county councils. The town councils have not previously had power to acquire land for allotments. In 1916, in two towns in my Constituency, there was a great outcry for land for allotments. The town councils of both towns exercised all the powers they had of acquiring any land that was not on the valuation roll and giving it to the allotment-holders, but the allotment-holders were always under the fear of either the land being required for building purposes or for some other purpose, and that they would lose their allotment. I consider that with the provision in this Bill giving power to parish councils and town councils to ac-quire land either by purchase or by lease for allotment-holders, the town councils and parish councils can give security of tenure of the allotment-holders. If that is not done by the town council or the parish council, the allotment-holders will have the

  1835
  remedy in their own hands. They are in touch with the town council or the parish council, and can bring pressure to bear upon it to acquire that land. From my experience in Scotland I should say that no pressure will be required, that the town councils and parish councils will welcome this provision in the Act, and that they will either secure the land which is provided for them, under cultivation if possible, or if not possible acquire land in some other portion of their territory to give to the allotment-holders. The hon. Member (Mr. Graham) said there were different prices given for the land and the result very often was that the allotment-holders in one district of the same town had to pay a very much larger sum than in other portions of the town. I am happy to say that in the towns with which I am connected the allotment-holders' association acquired all the land for allotments, for some of which they paid a fairly high sum, but the others they got for nothing by taking land which was not in use, and they balanced up and charged a flat rent for all the allotments, so that everyone participated in the value of the small price and had not to pay a large price. That is a solution that allotment-holders have in their own hands, that by joining together and in co-operation they are able to make a flat rate for the allotments.
  I also welcome the power given to local authorities to acquire fertilisers and fruit trees and seed. Without this power at all in 1916, 1917 and 1918 the town council over which I presided bought a large stock of fertilising material and gave it out to the allotment-holders. They also procured the best specimens of potatoes and gave out the potato seed to the allotment-holders at a very small price. With these powers which have now been given to the town councils and parish councils the allotment-holders' position will be very much better than in the past.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to
  1836

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1919.

  2. War Loan Act, 1919.

  3. National Health Insurance Act, 1919.

  4. Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919.

  5. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1919.

  6. Retired Officers (Civil Employment) Act, 1919.

  7. Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act, 1919.

  8. Education (Compliance with Conditions of Grants) Act, 1919.

  9. Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919.

  10. Government of the Soudan Loan Act, 1919.

  11. Government War Obligations Act,1919.

  12. Police Act, 1919.

  13. Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.

  14. West Indian Court of Appeal Act, 1919.

  15. Checkweighing in Various Industries Act, 1919.

  16. Coal Mines Act, 1919.

  17. Commons Regulation (Coity Wallia) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1919.

  18. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Act, 1919.

  19. Electric Lighting Order Confirmation Act, 1919.

  20.City of London Police Act, 1919.

  21.Gas and Water Orders Act, 1919.

  22.Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1919.

  23. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1919.

  24. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1919.

  25. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1919.

  26. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1919.

  27. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1919.

  28. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1919.

  29. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1919.

  30. Wells Particular Baptist and Congregational Chapels Charities Schema Confirmation Act, 1919.

  31. National Trust Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1919.

  1837

  32. Brooke Robinson Museum Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1919.

  33. Congregational Chapels Scheme Confirmation Act, 1919.

  34. Eatington Wesleyan Methodist Chapel Property Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1919.

  35. Plumptre Hospital Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1919.

  36. Headcorn Baptist Chapel Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1919.

  37. Tramways Orders Confirmation Act, 1919.

  38. Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Act, 1919.

  39. Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Act, 1919.

  40. Newark Gas Act, 1919.

  41. Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Act, 1919.

  42. Stocksbridge Gas Act, 1919.

  43. Waterford Harbour Act, 1919.

  44. Nuneaton Corporation Act, 1919.

  45. Poole Corporation Act, 1919.

  46. London County Council (Money) Act, 1919.

  47. Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1919.

  48. Rotherham Corporation Act, 1919.

  49. Bournemouth Gas and Water Act, 1919.

  50. Sheffield Corporation Act, 1919.

  51. Birmingham Corporation Tramways Act, 1919.

  52. Blackpool Improvement Act, 1919.

  53. East Ham Corporation Act, 1919.

  54. Leeds Corporation Act, 1919.

  55. London Electric Railway Act, 1919.

  56. Shoreham - by - Sea Urban District Council Act, 1919.

  57. Tynemouth Corporation Act, 1919.

  58. West Hartlepool Corporation Act, 1919.

  59. Middlesbrough Corporation Act, 1919.

  60. Workington Corporation Act, 1919.

  61. Tyne Improvement Act, 1919.

  62. Huddersfield Corporation Gas Act, 1919.

  63. Dover Gas Act, 1919.

  64. Pembroke District Gas Act, 1919.

  65. Bedwellty Urban District Council Act, 1919.

  66. Birmingham Corporation Act, 1919.

  67. Milford Docks Act, 1919.

  68. Stretford Urban District Council Act, 1919.

  69. Londonderry Port and Harbour Act, 1919.

  70. Newcastle - upon - Tyne Corporation (Rates) Act, 1919.

  71. Clowes Settled Estate Act, 1919.

  72. Boland's Divorce Act, 1919.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Colonel GREIG: My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland may be congratulated upon the reception which has so far been extended to this Bill. The Bill deals with subjects of a critical nature, especially in view of our past experience, but the manner in which it has been approached by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) will tend to alleviate what otherwise might have been the acerbity with which it would have been discussed. There is one particular Sub-section in the Bill dealing with the question of compensation which I think will go a long way to ease the situation. One of the main difficulties in connection with compensation under the Landholders Act, 1911, was the fact that when a landowner came to an agreement with the Board of Agriculture for an agreed system of small holdings on his land, he could get no compensation under Section 17 of that Act if the scheme eventually failed and damage was done. That is met in the present Bill, and I suggest that the landowners will probably find that the Clause will go a long way to meet their views, because the difficulty to which I have referred was felt by them, and was what I know really led to a good many of the cases being fought. And if they come to an agreement with the Board for an agreed system of small holdings, they will now know that they will be entitled to the same compensation as if it had been carried through in the terms of the original Act. Of course, one realises that this Bill will cut down the measure of compensation, which was in certain cases unduly high under the old Act, but the concession to which I have referred I believe will be really of more value than the compensation, which admittedly was unduly high, that was given in many cases previously.
  The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who always makes useful contributions in debate, was under some misapprehension as to the methods of training in agriculture. The Bill scarcely deals with that matter directly, but it will assist if areas can be obtained upon which training schools and other means of training can be provided for the disabled soldier or even for the man in full possession of his physical powers. Of course, the

  1839
  Board has already started, under its present exiguous powers, two or three farms where training is given. The curious thing is that the very Department of training in which, the hon. Member opposite seems to suggest, disabled men might be able to find a certain amount of occupation does not appear to have been very successful. In reference to the market-garden colony which has already been established, the Board in their Report this year state that no suitable men offered themselves for training in market gardens, and towards the end of the year the question of making arrangements whereby training in agriculture would be given was under consideration. So in that respect nothing seems to have accrued, not because the Board did not provide for the training, but because the men were not forthcoming. The Craikstone farm in Aberdeen seems to be in operation now, but the scheme was intended to train men for after the War on the land as landholders, gardeners, market gardeners, and foresters, and a course of training with this object is provided on the farm at a fee of £l per man per week. It is well that these existing opportunities should be known, and no doubt this Bill will assist in that direction.
  We are all interested in allotments. The difficulty is that they must be near a man's residence, and they are mostly in centres of population which are expanding. Unless the land is quite close to a man's residence it is not much use to him, and then it is usually just the sort of land that is going to be used to grow not vegetables, but houses. There are two sides to that question. Some people who have allotments may wish to have security of tenure but there are a good many people who have to move about, and they would be glad to have allotments for the time being only, and would not wish to be tied to them.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Would my hon. and gallant Friend explain how we can grow houses?
  Colonel GREIG: I used a metaphor which may be a little extreme. Land obviously has two or three uses. You may grow food, and there is also a very expensive use, and that is the growing of houses. The difficulty about this matter is this, that when the land is wanted for housing, naturally the allotment-holder has to go.
  1840
  Vegetables, after all, are of less value than houses. What does the Bill do? It attempts to meet that in a very fair way. It gives the local authority, where it has been unable by agreement to acquire land, the power to acquire compulsorily by purchase. That is a very considerable step in advance, and in that way security of tenure can in a sense be got. The question of land banks is dealt with in the Bill in a way that is a considerable advance on past methods. I recall that twenty years ago, at the instance of a peer who was very much interested in this matter, a Bill was drafted for the introduction of the German system into this country. It did not at that time meet with much approval, but since then we have come to realise that for the smallholder it is absolutely necessary to have access to sources of credit on which he can rely to start him in his operations and to tide him over a bad time. Clause 12 of the Bill is a serious attempt to deal with that matter. It may be that in detail amendment may be necessary, but, as it stands, it seems to me a very useful Clause. It provides that the Board may, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, apply the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund in making or guaranteeing advances, directly or indirectly, to land banks or co-operative or credit societies, so that there is a very wide area in which assistance can be provided.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give credit to private enterprise in Scotland, which has made experiments in this matter?
  Colonel GREIG: Certainly. We all realise what has been done. We are glad, however, to know that we are now to get statutory acknowledgment, and I am sure we all desire that the operation should be very widely extended. I am glad that this Bill has been introduced, and I think we owe a great debt to the Secretary for Scotland for having brought it in.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: We have received an assurance from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) contradicting the assumption of the Member for East Edinburgh, as to the Members of the Labour party being engaged in pastime, and now we are assured that they are engaged in something far less innocent.
  Mr. HOGGE: Where are your own colleagues? Count them.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: This Bill is a step, but only a partial step, and I hope it is the forerunner of greater steps for dealing with land. What is at fault is not the method of landowning but the fact that there are not nearly enough landowners in this country. If there was a very much wider distribution of land it would be very much better for the country as a whole, both agriculturally and commercially. Now is the time to achieve that end. Every man who owns a bit of land, no matter how small, becomes a defender of liberty and of property. Those are very valuable assets, and we should do our best to multiply them. I hold that now is the time to get as many small holders on the land as possible, because we are in for a very good time in agriculture. The farmer and the producer of agricultural produce has lately thriven, and rightly thriven, and we are all indebted to him. He had a bad time for the whole of a generation, and but for the fact that the landowner was very often a man of considerable means, with investments other than those in agricultural land, and was ready to come to the assistance of the farmer of the generation that began about the seventies—1879 was the worst time—there would not have been any agriculture in this country at all. There was, one might say, a large economic conspiracy. It was not a conscious conspiracy, but it was there none the less, against agriculture in the respect that there were gigantic exports of coal. When coal was exported to Continental countries, to America, and elsewhere, food was brought back cheaply to the disadvantage of the farmer from the point of view of making a living. There is not likely to be the same quantity of coal going out. Mr. Smillie, the leader of the Miners—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member is getting rather wide in his remarks.
  3.0 P.M.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: My object was to show that with less coal going out and less food coming in there was likely to be a prosperous time for agriculturists. The land of this country can only support about 25,000,000 inhabitants, and if we do not export sufficient coal and get food in return we will require to go in for extensive cultivation in order to increase our food supply. I was distressed to hear one remark of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), that there was
  1842
  no doubt that smallholders depreciated the capital value of an estate. That is a striking confession, and it ought not to be so. Governments are equally responsible for it, as I notice that when the Woods and Forests Department advertise estates in Scotland they are careful to put in, "There are no crofters on the estate," as if that were an additional advantage. That is a. very unfortunate state of affairs. I suggest when this Bill is being put into operation that instead of taking up farms here and there and sub-dividing them, the correct procedure would be as far as possible to purchase the whole property, and then there would be no necessity to pay compensation in the way it is done now. Make the settlement of smallholders sufficiently large, and in that way avoid the necessity of paying compensation. I think the present state of affairs is due to some extent to the commercialisation of landowning. In former days the landowner was more inclined to boast of men on his land than the size of his rent roll, and that was the only certain and proper foundation for the holding of the land. I think this dislike to the smallholder on estates is not so much due to the landowner as to his administrator or factor, or the person who managed the estate, and who desired by a natural human tendency to deal with men who were to some extent his equals, and who had sufficient turnover of business to be practical, whereas the smallholder, who was very often merely a producer without much experience, was rather a more troublesome problem for the agent. I am sure that the War has not only had an educative effect on all of us, but especially on landowner's, and I feel certain great or considerable numbers of them will welcome this Bill, and do all that possibly lies within their power to facilitate its operations, and, above all, will be willing to receive as tenants on the land discharged soldiers, for whom this Bill is especially designed. I do wish that one aspect of this matter would be considered, and that is as to the question of buildings on the land, and I would ask the Secretary for Scotland with the Board of Agriculture to give it attention, and endeavour to relax the present building Regulations. When a man in this country starts a smallholding he has to put up a steading which is so costly that it is practically a millstone of debt round his neck for the larger period of the time he occupies the holding. If a man goes to one of the Colonies he is

  1843
  not interfered with as to the style of dwelling. He puts up a shelter for himself, and proceeds to cultivate the land, and makes money, and not until he has acquired sufficient money to enable him to build a satisfactory dwelling-house does he do so. He fends along in a more or less primitive dwelling which is perfectly healthy, and suitable for all his purposes. Our own men in the course of the War have found that a great deal of what we call civilised dwelling-houses are not particularly necessary, and perhaps not so healthy as the somewhat primitive way in which they lived. I think this question goes to the very heart of this problem. Building is enormously expensive and likely to be for many years, and I suggest the smallholder ought to get a chance to lift his head and make some money, and he will require some adaptation of the building regulations to make it practicable for him to start and try and prosper. There is, and always has been, a very strong demand for small holdings in Scotland, and there have been many obstacles in the way. I know of one man with a farm of from seventy to eighty acres and he had 120 applications for it some years before the War. The same thing applies to allotments. There has always been a desire on the part of the people to have allotments, but what has hindered them in getting and using allotments has not been so much the difficulty of getting the ground, though in many places that was insuperable, as the fact that there was no protection for them. Allotments during the War had the inestimable protection of that very powerful legal lady known as "D.O.R.A." If anybody touched the produce of any allotment-holder he was very severely dealt with.
  I doubt very much if the powers we have taken in Section 17 (2) are sufficiently drastic, because the Secretary for Scotland will know that all these allotments are very much exposed and in the open. During the War there was a spirit engendered in the people of respect for the allotments, owing to the fact that it was remembered that the allotment-holders were helping to beat the Germans, and even mischievous boys were restrained, but is it possible that that same spirit will be sustained after the pressure of war is taken away? I therefore suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that he should take some more drastic or
  1844
  elaborate power to protect the allotment-holders in the future, and that he should give him some of the protection which he had in the Defence of the Realm Act. After all, to destroy food of any kind is always to be regarded as a matter of sacrilege, and it should be treated as sacrilege, and the allotment-holder should have the greatest possible protection. It is not enough to give him the land and access to the ground if you do not make absolutely sure that the public conscience is aroused, that the children are taught in the schools, and that people regard these little plots, which are often very beautifully cultivated, and which it is such a pleasure to see people working on from the railway train, as something sacred. I welcome this Bill. It is a step in advance, although it does not go far enough. I should like to have seen a very big scheme of purchase, but we cannot have that in these hard-up days, I hope some day Scotland will have the privilege that Ireland has got, and that we shall have a large scheme of purchase, which will settle many thousands of Scotsmen on the land as owners, because I am sure in some such provision as that we shall make the greatest possible step in advance for social stability and national health and strength.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCHANAN: As representing an entirely industrial community, I will confine my few remarks to one part of this Bill, which I think is of vital interest to a constituency such as mine, and I would join most heartily with what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for West Renfrew (Colonel Greig) as to the importance of allotments. In my Constituency there has been an enormous demand for them, and the difficulty is not the want of ground, but the situation of that ground. It appears to me to be entirely useless—I know it has been tried with us—to offer a man. land as an allotment even half a mile away from his dwelling. We want to encourage these allotments, but they must be almost, so to speak, cheek by jowl with the man's dwelling, because, after all, though during the War food has been produced from these small bits of land, yet, to my mind it is almost of more importance that we should give a man healthy recreation. In my district, at the present moment, the parks are full of these people every evening after their work, but that, as we know, has to come to an end, and I welcome the Clause in this Bill which gives the local authority

  1845
  power to use any surplus land they may have for this purpose. I hope the local authority in my own Constituency at least will not be niggardly in the land they acquire, so as at least to have land in the future for this purpose. As the hon. Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) says, they cannot grow houses. We have heard houses talked about so much in the last few years that personally I believe houses are beginning to grow in my brain, but when we are growing houses on this land acquired by the local authorities, I hope we shall also have these allotments growing up and growing vegetables side by side with the houses. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) referred just now to the need of protection. Protection is certainly needed for these allotments, but if my experience is worth very much, I think they have been amply protected, or to a great extent, by public feeling, and I am sure that when these allotments, which with us are a new thing, come to be a thing of permanency, the custom will be such that people will never venture, except in very rare cases, to interfere with them in. any way. As one having interests in land, I would venture to give this Bill a blessing and to hope that it will result, not only in allotments, but in settling smallholders on the land, in all the benefits which I am sure we all hope from it.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am not going to make the complaint which has been made by other speakers, that we ought not to proceed with a discussion of this Bill this afternoon, for, after all, no Scottish Member is worth his salt who is not prepared to discuss a Land Bill on any opportunity which is offered him, and although this has been late in the Session in being introduced, I think some useful contribution can be made on the Second Reading Debate which will help us in Grand Committee after the Recess to come to some agreement on this extraordinarily important Bill. I regret that certain criticisms have been offered by certain Members, both of them now absent, about the attendance at this Debate. I believe that the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) wanted to know what interest the Liberal and Labour Members of Scotland had in the subject of land, but the hon. Member apparently has only one interest himself and that is to make his own speech, and then disappear from he
  1846
  House. At the moment when he was talking there were fewer Unionist colleagues of his in the House than any other section of the Scottish Members, just as, at this present moment, the largest attendance of Scottish Members are of the Liberal persuasion. I notice also that the hon. and learned Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten), having made his own inconsequent and irrelevant speech, has now disappeared.
  Mr. A. SHAW: Is it in order, Sir, to refer to the speech of an hon. Member as inconsequent and irrelevant?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As the hon. Member for Springburn is not in the House, and is not himself complaining, the Debate had better proceed.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am sure if my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock had been paying better attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Springburn, he would have agreed with me that that speech was both irrelevant and inconsequent, but as a consequence of delivering that speech the hon. and learned Member for Springburn has now retired from the Debate, having got rid of a cynical criticism of the explanation afforded by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. William Graham) as to the absence of the Scottish Labour Members from this House. There are, I think, five Scottish Labour Members in this House who are not here. As a matter of fact, when the hon. and learned Member for Springburn was speaking, he was surrounded by two of his colleagues of his own persuasion, and I hope that those organs of publicity in Scotland which usually make a great deal of that kind of thing will make it quite plain that the hon. and learned Member for Springburn had an admiring audience of two of his own colleagues while he was speaking.
  Having got rid of those criticisms, I want to say about this Bill that I think it is a great advance on anything that we have yet had in connection with land settlement in Scotland. So far as I can gather from the form of the Bill, it may be divided into two parts, although there are three parts in it. I take it—and I think I am right in assuming—that Parts II and III are permanent contributions to the settlement of land in Scotland, whereas Part I. is a temporary settlement to extend for a period of two years. Therefore, I am going to say straight away that, so far as

  1847
  I am personally concerned, I am not much worried about Part L, and would rather make what contribution I propose to make to the Debate on Part II., which, after all, is a permanent contribution to land settlement in Scotland, and a contribution which will obtain after Part I. of the Act has entered into the limbo of the past. Of course, I take a special interest in Part II., because from time to time in this House, first of all by the luck of the ballot pure and simple, and, secondly, by the cooperation of my own colleagues from Scotland, I have been in charge from time to time of amending Bills to the Scottish Smallholders Act, and even this Session I have had the good fortune to get the Second Reading of an amending Bill on a Friday afternoon. My right hon. Friend remembers that we refrained—and I think wisely refrained—from sending that Bill upstairs to the Scottish Grand Committee until we had seen this Bill. 1 think he will also agree that we have had to wait for a long time for the appearance of this Bill, and it is rather unfortunate, although I do not complain in the press of public business, that this Bill has only made its appearance in the last three days of the Session. It would have been very much more convenient if we had had the opportunity of considering this Bill a little earlier, so that between the printing of the Bill and the Second Reading Debate we could have had time to compare the provisions, for instance, in my own amending Bill and the Bill as it is produced this afternoon. However, do not think, after all, that that need worry us unduly. On Part II., which is, as I say, the part about which I want particularly to talk, I still see in Clause 9, Sub-section (11), these objectionable words "directly attributable." I had hoped that we would have got rid of words which would require to be interpreted. It is quite true the provision made by my right hon. Friend dealing with the question of assessing compensation to the landowner, when land is taken for the purpose of small holdings, is improved by this Subsection of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend sets out in paragraph (b) of Subsection (11) the detailed circumstances for which compensation shall not be paid.
  Mr. MUNRO: I do not understand my hon. Friend's point of view. He takes exception to the use of the words "directly attributable." Those are words limiting the compensation to be paid.
  Mr. HOGGE: I have no objection to telling my right hon. Friend quite frankly my point of view. It does not seem to me to matter how direct or how limited the words you put into an Act of Parliament, members of the learned profession will always argue for or against direct attributability or not, and I would rather have, if it could be obtained, some much more definite line of demarcation beyond which you could not go. If my right hon. Friend will look at paragraph (iii), it says that compensation shall not include "any compensation for injury done to the value of such land or estate as a sporting subject" Who is going to be the judge of direct attributability in that case? I do not trust the lawyer, if I may say so without offence, impersonally, on grounds of this kind, and I would very much rather see some closer and tighter definition of what could be attributed to the loss in value—letting or capital value—if the land be taken for the purpose. I had in my mind that the landlord might get over the difficulties of the restrictions placed upon him in Part II. by having the land acquired under Part I., and he might thereby put into operation all these delaying actions we have had in the Court of Session in Scotland by having his Land purchased under that. The Lord Advocate shakes his head. If that is not so, then I am gratefully relieved.
  The only other thing I want to say is with regard to what is omitted from the Bill. I presume I am right in assuming that my right hon. Friend did do me the justice to look at my Small Landholders (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill in constructing this Bill, and I very cordially at once admit that my right hon. Friend has copied a great many of the points which I, on behalf of my colleagues in this House, made in the amending Bill which I introduced. My right hon. Friend says he goes further. That only indicates that if we had gone upstairs in Committee, he would have accepted a great many Amendments we proposed. But I am willing to say my right hon. Friend has met the Bill I introduced this Session in a very lavish fashion, though there are one or two points which he has not yet transferred in the Bill, to which, I think, attention should be drawn. If my right hon. Friend has a copy of my Bill in his possession and will look at Clause 2, he will find in that we ask for powers as to water supply for small holdings. I do not think in this Bill power is taken to guarantee a sufficient water

  1849
  supply in the case of these small holdings. I am not going to argue that point this afternoon, because to Members attending this Debate it is not necessary; but I think everyone will agree, whatever his political views, that the success of small holdings largely depends upon equipment, and one of the most necessary things in the equipping of small holdings is obviously water supply. My right hon. Friend, in his Bill, in Part II., Clause 9, Sub-section (8), paragraph (d), does take power to see that in any other scheme there shall be shown a water supply, and the source from which it is to be taken. That is quite true. I have not examined the Bill in such detail as we all hope to examine it, but I am not sure that in the new Bill absolute power is taken to guarantee that in these schemes of small holdings power shall be taken. In one of the Clauses of my Bill I make provision by which the water supply is secured. I do not want to press that matter further now than this, that perhaps my right hon. Friend will between now and the Report stage—
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted; and forty Members being found present—
  Mr. HOGGE(resuming): I do not take offence at my speech being interrupted, but the greatest disservice that any member of the Labour party could do to that party or to Scotland is to try to count the House out when we are considering the question of placing Scottish workmen on the land. It would have been very much more profitable for him as a Labour Member to see that the other sixty-three Members of the Labour party were here, instead of enjoying themselves or occupying their time in other ways.
  Mr. DAVISON: I have plenty of my own sins to answer for.
  Mr. HOGGE: Then this one of trying to count the House out can be further added to the charge of the hon. Member, I should also like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Clause 9 of my Bill, which deals with the question of the enlargement of holdings. So far as I have been able to discover, in this new Bill my right hon. Friend does not take power to deal with that matter. This is a Committee point, and I only want now to indicate some of the lines of criticism which some of us intend to take on this question later.
  Take also Clause (10) of my Bill, dealing with land within burghs in crofting
  1850
  counties. This is an important question, My right hon. Friend will notice that in my Clause I confine the power to the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland. He will agree—for he represented one of these divisions at one time—that here is a case in which you cannot give either small holdings or allotments. Those concerned, therefore, are entitled to special treatment. On this question, I hope something will be done. Since the Bill was drafted Lord Leverhulme has gone to Lewis, and considerable new developments have occurred in that large area. As a matter of fact, I believe every Scotsman will agree that Lewis and the Islands do deserve and require separate treatment from the other parts of Scotland. That also, I hope, we shall be able to deal effectively with when we come to Committee.
  To return to the Bill proper, I think I have only one other remark to make—because I feel quite with other Members that we do not want a prolonged discussion, but rather to know where we are. With regard to the financial part of this Bill, Part IV., I asked in the course of my right hon. Friend's speech how the sum of £2,250,000 was arrived at, and he referred to his statement about the total grant of £20,000,000. I suppose £2,750,000 represents eleven-eightieths. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether this is the final allocation, and the only allocation, which will be made with regard to this money?
  We have just passed a Forestry Bill, or are in course of passing it. The House made Amendments which will possibly concentrate the Central Committee in Edinburgh, and probably take over the bulk of the land in Scotland. If large estates are taken, and only part of them used for forestry, the only useful purpose to which the rest can be put is small holdings. Anybody who has gone into the question from the point of view of the country will know that one of the reasons for bringing in this Bill is that opportunities for repopulating this country are more in Scotland than any other part of the United Kingdom, and if any part requires attention it is the island of Lewis and the Islands. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the War Scotland's Grant was allocated at £10,000 per year. We suspended that Grant until it was £200,000, to which we were entitled. It was stopped on account

  1851
  of the War, and because the machine had stopped working. You could not put a man on the land and the money went back to the Treasury. There is the better part of £250,000, and I am wondering whether, in view of the fact that the Scottish scheme was starved of that amount of money during the War, and that the money is now needed for reconstructive work, which is more urgent in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom, whether this eleven-eightieths is a proper kind of division?
  It was stated that £20,000,000 was available, but was it earmarked in any particular way? Let me refer for a moment to the Forestry Bill which we passed the other day. It was unanimously agreed that the centre of afforestation would be in Edinburgh, and we multiplied the number of Scottish Assistant Commissioners. Now this scheme must run concurrently with that scheme if you are not going to waste money. I think it is worth while asking, in view of the reconstruction in Scotland, whether it is necessary in relation to that £20,000,000 to say Ireland, shall have so much, Wales so much, England so much, and Scotland only eleven-eightieths? These are some of the criticisms which occur to me on the Second Reading.
  I am very grateful that the Bill has been introduced and I do not see, in view of Part II., that I should seek to ask Mr. Speaker to send my Bill up to Grand Committee, which after all I am sure is some relief to my right hon. Friend. I shall be prepared in Grand Committee to amend Part II. of this Bill in order to bring it into line with what we were attempting to do ourselves. I think I am stating the case for every Scottish Member when I say that there is no question upon which the average Scottish Member is more keenly interested than the repopulation of his own country. We may quarrel about the methods and the amount of compensation paid in this case and that, but I believe every man born in Scotland who loves this country desires to see the countryside repopulated, and wants to see the plains and valleys and counties of Scotland, which are now so sparsely populated, reviving their old glories. They have made enormous contributions not only in this War but to the Empire, and when people ask me why Scotsmen come to London and always migrate and never come back to Scotland
  1852
  the real answer to that question is the economic reason. Scotsmen in every part of Scotland, generally speaking, have been given an enormously better education than the average man in the Empire, and with that education Scotsmen have found it necessary to migrate to find an. outlet for their energy. The economic lever has driven them out of their own country, and if we keep same of these Scotsmen at home to develop our own country so much the better. It is for that broad, general reason that I welcome this Bill.
  Sir W. SUTHERLAND: I am sure the House generally agrees that this is a good Bill, and that most of the points we wish to raise are really points for Committee. There is one matter of very great importance to Highland Members, and I do not think it has been mentioned. It is one which to a constituency like my own is very vital. It is, as I read it, that Part I. is subject to the limitations of the Small Holdings Colonies Act, by which three-fourths of the land acquired shall be land suitable to be cultivated as arable land. As far as I can gather, I rather think the land taken is subject to that limitation. If that is so, it is a point of very great importance to the Highlanders in a constituency such as mine, where a very great part of the land which must inevitably go for the successful creation of small holdings must be rough, hill pasture land, suitable for the grazing of sheep and cattle. It is the whole essence of small holdings in certain Highland districts that the profit should depend upon the grazing over the hills. In the Highlands there are very many men who have returned from the Army and Navy, and are anxious to get small holdings. We get letters from them continually, and we have been asking them to keep quiet and not follow the example set by some of seizing the land.
  I am afraid that unless we get this provision altered it will make things very much more difficult, because the establishment of holdings under Part I. would be very much affected in many districts unless we obtain that alteration. I have no doubt the Lord Advocate will take that matter into consideration and do his best to meet us. I do not wish to raise Committee points, on which I have no doubt we shall be met. I think we may congratulate the Secretary for Scotland upon the introduction of a Bill which, generally speaking, is satisfac-

  1853
  tory. I only wish to mention one other small point, and that is the limitation to twenty-five acres of the land acquired by parish councils. This is a point relating to the natural conditions of holdings in districts of Scotland, where the whole success depends upon utilising the outrun and hill lands as pastures. Certainly twenty-five acres is a very small amount, and would certainly not be anything like the assistance that a larger area would be. I do not see why it is to be limited to so small an area, and I hope that point will also be considered and met.
  Colonel Sir A. SPROT: There is an idea prevalent that it might have been better if we had to-day merely a statement from the Secretary for Scotland and a very short discussion, and that without taking a Second Reading we should have gone into Recess, and meanwhile consulted our constituencies and taken their views about the details of this Bill. I leaned towards that course myself for a time, but now that we have had the Bill before us, and have had the very clear explanation of the Secretary for Scotland, I am of the opinion that the proper course has been taken, and I hope the measure will receive its Second Reading this afternoon, because, without committing oneself entirely to all that it contains, it will form a very good peg on which to hang a discussion when we go to visit our friends in the North. If there should be large meetings, as has been suggested, in Edinburgh or elsewhere, I am sure that we shall all be very glad to put in an appearance and to discuss the provisions of the Bill from the point of view of what is best for our country. I do not think, however, that will be the proper way to arrive at what we desire. This is the holiday month, and it may be found impossible to get people together for such a purpose. I have no doubt, however, that during our holiday we shall all have ample opportunity of discussing the Bill. There will also be discussions in the Press and in other ways, and we shall be able to arrive at the opinion of Scotland in the matter before we return to consider the Bill in Committee.
  We must all rejoice to see, according to the provisions of the Bill, that opportunity will be given to those returned soldiers who are desirous of doing so to settle upon the land of Scotland, and I associate myself most fully with the words which fell from the Secretary for Scotland upon the subject. How are these returned
  1854
  soldiers who are to be settled upon the land to be selected? We have all given pledges upon this subject, and we are all desirous of carrying out our pledges so far as it is possible to do so. This Bill is the outcome of those pledges, and I think the fullest publicity ought to be given to the steps that ought to be taken by returned soldiers who wish to get a small holding and adopt the farming profession. It is no use having applications receivable in an office in Edinburgh. These returned soldiers may be all over the country. They may be in Argyllshire or up in the North, and they may not have either the opportunity or the money necessary to present themselves at such an office. The thing ought not to be carried out by a private association. The Government, therefore, should make as public as possible the steps which ought to be taken by those who are desirous of availing themselves of this opportunity, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to tell us something upon this point when ho makes his speech in reply. The present occasion is very different from all previous occasions. If we take the old Army, there was a very small proportion of those serving who were at all suitable for settlement on the land. It is perfectly different to-day. There is not a family in any class all over the country which has not had some representative who has fought in this War. Many men came from the agricultural class and they will be found to be suitable for taking up such small holdings as we wish to have. I am afraid, however, that the selection will prove to be a matter of the very greatest difficulty, and all the Departments ought to co-operate with the Secretary for Scotland and lend him their assistance in evolving some plan which will enable him to get the proper persons to settle upon the land.
  4.0 P.M.
  Dr. MURRAY: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Secretary for Scotland upon the splendid advance which this Bill makes upon existing legislation with regard to small holdings in Scotland. I could have wished, however, that we had had more time to examine the Bill before we gave it a Second Reading. The pleasant and amiable way in which the- Secretary for Scotland accepts the somewhat humble role of sitting at the table of the Whips and picking up the crumbs is probably a very nice picture, but it is not very good for Scotland that he should be quite so humble. I could not

  1855
  help wondering the other night why we could not have had an important Bill of this character instead of that sordid, squalid Bill providing £1,000,000 to dope the Nonconformist conscience in Wales. A remnant of the Nonconformist conscience has found a refuge on these benches, the last refuge of political integrity in this House. An important Bill of this sort ought to have precedence over a squalid Bill of that kind. From the bird's-eye view that we have had of this Bill, I must say that as far as I can judge it is a very good measure so far as it goes. The Land Courts have been eliminated from certain stages in the schemes of small holdings— I am not at all criticising the Land Courts, they will have plenty of work to do, even after being eliminated from certain stages in the schemes— and I am glad to see that the Board of Agriculture are to have more direct action in the framing of schemes, because up till now the schemes have had to be submitted to the Land Courts, and it has meant a delay of months and sometimes years. I very much regret the attack of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs on the Land Court and its action in the past. So far as the people whom I represent are concerned— sections of the people in the Highlands and members of the Crofting community—I may say they had absolute confidence in the late Lord Kennedy, and looked upon him as a very fair judge in these matters. I can quite understand that the other parties may hold that the new judge is an improvement, but I do say that the attacks made upon Lord Kennedy were unjustified. He undertook his duty at a very difficult juncture and performed it in a way which earned the gratitude of the people in the Highlands. The Secretary for Scotland has a great advantage in the fact that the small holdings can now be secured much more ex-peditiously than under the old Bill. "We all know that it was on the rock of compensation that the Small Holdings Act was practically shipwrecked. The Board of Agriculture were, however, able to overcome certain of the difficulties and were successful in creating a great number of small holdings throughout Scotland, especially in some parts of the Highlands. There is no doubt whatever that the compensating Clauses in the old Act as interpreted by the Court of Session were very successful, and I am sorry they are not to have that finality which one could desire.
  1856
  I hope, however, the present proposal will grease the wheels of progress. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) referred to the question of water supply. That is a very important matter. There ought to be facilities for creating a water supply for these small holdings. There is one other matter which is of particular interest to my own Constituency. It has unfortunately been left out of the Bill, but perhaps the Secretary for Scotland, having plenty of information on the point, will be able to deal with it. It has regard to the system of crofters. They take houses and till the land, but they pay neither rent nor taxes. There are thousands of them, and I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will take steps to regularise their position and make them smallholders. At present they are neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. I think they should be dealt with in this Bill. The question of housing of the statutory small tenant is not touched in this Bill, and I think powers should be given for an increase in their holdings. Under the Housing Bill the condition of crofters is not very satisfactory, and I was hoping that in this Bill it might have been made much more clear. I am quite aware that the Board of Agriculture have power to give loans to crofters for the erection of houses and for improvements, but they are placed at a disadvantage with the people in the towns, who can get grants of money from the Exchequer for building houses, say, in Central Edinburgh and elsewhere. Why should not the crofters be given money in the same way for building houses in the Highlands and in the rural parts of Scotland? At present they are left in a very unsatisfactory position. I hope this Bill will improve matters in a very short time. The people are getting very impatient. I have petitions daily from various parts of my Constituenc5' asking when they are going to get small holdings, and, as I say, they are getting very impatient. The cry of "Back to the land" is all very well, but in the Highlands there is no need to urge people to get back to the land; they want to get on the land. Hundreds of thousands of them are anxious to do so, and I hope this Bill will place them in a more satisfactory position in that regard.
  Mr. CLYDE: Whatever may be said with regard to the unfortunately short notice which the House has had of this Bill, it

  1857
  will, I think, be agreed that the Debate to-day has revealed a very remarkable amount of agreement, and a very remarkable degree of resolution, to combine for the purpose of making this new legislative instrument as good as it can possibly be made for the purpose for which it is proposed. I know with regard to the question of time that some hon. Members— the hon. Member for Kincardine(Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) is one of them—feel strongly that they should have been asked to be present for the Debate this afternoon. It was not because we did not know that or had no sympathy with that feeling that we nevertheless felt compelled to ask the House to give the Second Heading to-day. It was because of the circumstances. The pressure of public business forced us, much against our will, time after time to postpone the introduction of this Bill. I know that that is no excuse, when the time comes, for asking that the Second Reading Debate should be taken. It was not that we were anxious to force the Debate on the House in these circumstances; it was the congestion of business which made it, so far as we were concerned, inevitable. The really remarkable and gratifying thing is to find in connection with a subject which has certainly scorched us with the fires of the controversy it has raised in the course of the last, let us say twenty years, that there is to-day, even among some of those who come to criticise the Bill— even in the Bill itself there are some signs of it— a very strong disposition on all sides to try to bury the ashes of that controversy which, after all, in the main has burned itself out. It is quite true that the solution which this Bill attempts does not go into those darker and deeper strata of political thought which the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) reminded us in the view of some hon. Members must be entered before a solution of the land question can be attained. It is true that we leave the ownership of land as it is, except in so far as the Board of Agriculture buys the land. That is true, but the hon. Member will permit me to say that I doubt, even if the property in land were made public, we should not find ourselves still under the necessity of having some Bill like this or something very like it to see so far as we could that facilities and opportunities were given equally to all sorts of people who were fitted for it to have a share in the cultivation of the land. Therefore do let us be content to try to
  1858
  tackle, if we can, with some hope" of moderate success the very practical questions which are within our reach.
  Another remarkable feature of the Debate is that in one-third of the time during which the discussion has lasted the topic ventilated has not been small holdings but allotments. I suppose that is not wonderful because of the development of allotments in our big towns and small towns because of the War. But it prompts one to say that if one of the legacies of the War is to be the development of something in the form of a rus in urbe in the way of ordinary occupations and avocations of the people in that way, we may be thankful. Whether the provisions this Bill contains with regard to allotments are found to be altogether satisfactory or not, there is no doubt that to some extent they are and must be tentative. Whether they are found successful or not, it is of enormous importance to use the present opportunity to provide encouragement and assistance for the development of allotments in towns. The hon. Member (Mr. Graham) pointed out several difficulties with regard to the administration of allotments at present. To some extent I have made myself familiar, in connection with the preparation of this Bill, with some of the points which he raised improvement could be made with regard to machinery, and, in view of the experience of the Scottish Committee with regard, at any rate, to two Bills within very recent months, there is every reason for Scottish Members to rely on the discretion and willingness of my right hon. Friend to consider any well-considered Amendment which is brought before us, and certainly if there are any of that character dealing with that particular topic I am sure they will be so considered. Of course, the essential trouble is to get land in big towns sufficiently near for the population to use it really to be of any proper service. That is a tremendous difficulty.
  What I really want to say a few words about I can do that by referring to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), which was in the happiest spirit with the exception of one unfortunate passage in which he so far forgot himself ns to say he would never have any confidence in a lawyer. I remind him that he is surrounded by those gentlemen in this House. The first question he asked was in regard to money. He asked, is it not possible that some different arrangement might be

  1859
  made some day with regard to the division of what I may describe as Imperial money. I could not hold out the smallest prospect, at any rate, at present, of any different arrangement from that which was based on the well-known proportion of the eleven-eightieths. He put a more pointed question, and I wish I could answer it as pointedly. He said, "I see your provision for £2,750,000 is a 'not execeeding' limit. Cannot you tell us exactly what it is"? I cannot tell him exactly what it is. It will not be precisely £2,750,000, but I can give him an assurance, which he must not take as a guarantee, but which I do not think he will find wrong, that the amount will be very little below £2,500,000. Accordingly, to that extent we are certain of our money. Another point which both he and others have raised, turning directly on that, is this. Is there any intention at all of allowing Part I. to be used as it were for the defeat of Part II.? In both cases the consent of the Secretary for Scotland has to be given to a proposal to purchase land under the Board of Agriculture's scheme. The intention—and I think it will be found the operation—of the Bill will be anything but in the direction which hon. Member's very rightly deprecate What is the real discrimination between Part I. and Part II.? You will have, under the circumstances which at present we have to face a very considerable number, especially in the more Northern and Western parts of the country, of cases where very large schemes are required. The difficulties in in the way of applying the Act of 1911to large schemes are enormous, and I am afraid, do what you will with your compensation Clauses, they will prove, on a large scale, covering a whole estate, enormously expensive, and at the end of it, when you have spent all your money you have not got the land. Therefore, with regard to large schemes, where land settlement proposals on a large scale are in question, the administrative probability will all be in favour of purchase. When the proposal, on the contrary, is the establishment of a single holding or a group of two, three, four, or five, here or there or somewhere else, all the administrative expediency and possibility will be against purchase and in favour of leasing. I do not think I can put it very much further than that.
  Most of the other questions asked I think raised what are really substantially
  1860
  Committee points. There is the question, Have you enough for rural credit? There is a Clause which is intended to provide means for it. If that can be strengthened, let it be strengthened by all manner of means. There is the question whether the term "directly attributable" is sufficiently clear. There again is a matter which can be properly discussed in Committee. A very important question has been raised about water supply. There is something in the Bill about that. These and other questions have been considered very frequently and deeply by my right hon. Friend and myself. They are all full of prickles and difficulties, but that will not prevent either him or me from having a most open mind. I know that my right hon. Friend's mind will be as open as possible to any proposal which would enable him to overcome the difficulties with which I know he is already fully familiar. There is a further point as to the limitation in the case of the purchase of land. That is a limitation to a proportion of three-quarters—three-quarters not of arable land but three-quarters of land capable of being made into arable land. I hope there is no misconception here. It is not as bad as it seems. What we want to guard against is being saddled with barren mountains and barren mountain tops. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife-shire (Sir A. Sprot), he raised a very important question and a very difficult question as to the selection of soldiers suitable to be supplied with land. There is a great difference between the north and west and the rest of the country. In the north and west demobilised soldiers or soldiers who have served, are most of them by their training fit to undertake the management of a holding; but that is not true to anything like the same extent when we come down to the south and east. There is a bureau which has already been opened by the Department of Agriculture. That bureau ought to be accessible to all sorts of applications in the Constituency of the hon. Member (Sir A. Sprot). Where they cannot apply personally they will have to write. This is a matter in regard to which we are very willing to listen to suggestions. If it is not self-satisfactory, the Bill will have failed in one important respect. I think that a foundation has been well laid to-day for what I hope will be as successful and as satisfactory a Committee stage that we have had in connection with the Housing Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I should like to know whether the original £200,000 a year which was earmarked by the Board of Agriculture comes into the finance of this Bill, or whether that has lapsed?
  Mr. CLYDE: The £200,000 referred to is the money, is it not, that we used to get under the Act of 1911, and which, during the War, was put down to £10,000?
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Yes.
  Mr. CLYDE: That money has gone. It is a great pity; but the same thing is true in the case of England. Their Grant was also reduced.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  That they have agreed to—
  Welsh Church (Temporalities) Bill, with Amendments.

  WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) BILL.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I understand that a message has come down from the Lords dealing with the Welsh Church Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not at all quarrel with the Government, because no doubt they have very good reason for bringing on this Bill at this rather unexpected hour. I am not suggesting that anything like an assurance was given, or that a breach of faith has been committed, but I did understand that the Amendments to the Welsh Church Bill would be taken on Monday. Suddenly the Amendments are taken now. It may happen to be a convenient course, but very few of those who are interested in the Bill are present now. But the reason why I rather object to it being taken now is not on the merits of the Bill, but because it will prevent us taking the Order which immediately succeeds—that is, the Sex Disqualification Bill. I have been credibly informed—I cannot say whether it is true or not—that certain junior members of the Government have been going around to the
  1862
  Scottish Members and urging them not to curtail their eloquence. It is not generally necessary to do that on a Scottish Bill, but I am told that certain Scottish Members who had not proposed to trouble the House on the Second Reading of the Bill have been induced to make considerable orations, no doubt greatly to the advantage of the House and the clearer understanding of the Bill. But it is rather odd that they should have done so. I am told that the object was to prevent the Sex Disqualification Bill being taken.
  Mr. HOGGE: I assure my hon. Friend that he is wrong. So far as the Scottish Members are concerned they did not want to discuss the Bill at all. They preferred to do that on another occasion. Very few of them made speeches of longer duration than ten minutes.
  Lord R. CECIL: I did not suggest that the Government Whips have been with the hon. Member. They are intelligent men, and I imagine would not trouble the hon. Member with any such request. What I want to point out is this Here is a Bill with a rather curious history. Many months ago a Bill with this object was introduced into this House. It was a much more extensive Bill than the Government measure. Upstairs in Committee a very odd thing happened—it was passed without Amendment. It came down here, and was allowed to go through Report without amendment or discussion. Then the Government tried to throw it out on the Third Heading, and I am glad to say they failed, and the Bill was passed and sent up to the House of Lords. I agreed entirely with that Bill which originated, I think, with the Labour party. Nothing was done with it in the House of Lords for a considerable time, and then, at the request of the Government, it was rejected, and the Government introduced another Bill. That Bill is, from my point of view, certainly a very inadequate Bill, but it was coming down to be discussed this afternoon, and we hope to debate it and to be able to amend it, and to send it back to the other House, if necessary. In that state of things the Government have quite suddenly decided to take the Welsh Church Amendments. Why do they do it? The Amendments could easily have been put off till Monday. Even supposing there is some difference of opinion between the Houses, the Amendments could easily be disposed of on Monday or Tuesday. I confess that I think it is a

  1863
  very unfortunate proceeding. It certainly bears the appearance that once again the Government of the day, whether Liberal or Conservative or Coalition, is engaged, not in defeating the demand by women, but in postponing it, and getting rid of it. That, I maintain, is what the Motion before the House means. It is an attempt to shelve another Bill, and that is the reason why I venture to draw attention to it, and to express the hope that the Government will not insist, but will allow the Order of the day to come forward, so that we can see whether they have any objection to the Amendments put down.
  Mr. HOGGE: I join in the protest, but not for the reasons put forward by the Noble Lord. I feel that when Ministers come down on a Friday after 4.30, having neglected to put in an appearance from twelve to 4.30, although a first-class Government measure is being taken, one is entitled to ask the Home Secretary for what reason he asks the House to agree to these Lords Amendments. The Prime Minister is present, and I would remind, him that this is the third time that the business has been interrupted by other business of which we have had no notice. Quite early in the afternoon Mr. Speaker interrupted the proceedings to deal with some Amendments to the Transport Bill with which the Lords had disagreed. Then the proceedings were again interrupted by Black Rod, and now, when a Bill which ought to have its turn is due for consideration, and when those Members who are interested in seeing that Bill put through are here, down comes the whole Government. I see the Government Bench filled at 4.30 on a Friday afternoon, although, we have been assured that the Prime Minister has not time to attend the House of Commons, and that his time ought to be occupied in thinking. Well, he is thinking. What does he think now? What does he think about coming down on a Friday afternoon in order to keep off an inconvenient Bill, so that some Amendments from the Lords might be considered? After all, who are the Lords? I have heard the Prime Minister on the subject of the Lords, and I would like to repeat his phraseology. I generally keep it for the platform, where I can pass it off as original. Why should this matter be so particularly urgent this afternoon? After all the House of Lords are not Welshmen, as far
  1864
  as I know. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some of them!"] I do not believe the Lords are entitled at this late hour to ask us to upset our business. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is committed to the policy of sex disqualification removal. He has got to see it through. He has the authority and can wipe on one side the Home Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal. He can get up and say that he is going to do it now. That is the policy on which he came into office, and now he is proposing to do something else. I appeal to him to put off the Welsh Bill now. He can cut half an hour out of his speech on Monday, and that will enable us to deal with the Welsh question. We will give him all the time he likes on Monday. Let us get on now with the other Bill and give the widest possible distribution of the franchise to every man and woman above a certain age. That is real democracy. The Prime Minister is a democrat, and I hope he will not now pursue this Welsh discussion.
  Major HILLS: I do think it would create a most unfortunate impression if this Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill is not discussed. On last Monday the Leader of the House informed me that the Government hoped to find time for this Bill. The time has come now, and something else is put up to keep it off. The House knows very well that the Government can easily discuss this Bill now. The Government are pledged up to the hilt on this question, and I am willing to refer to the pre-election pledges of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. Their conduct on the Bill, which this House passed and which was rejected in another place, will make a most unfortunate impression in the country. I do not believe the Prime Minister wants that. I believe that he wants to fulfil his pledges to women who are expecting those pledges to be fulfilled, and I appeal to him now. It will not take very long to discuss the Sex Disqualification Bill, and surely the Amendments to the Welsh Church Bill can be taken on Monday. We were told that this Bill would be taken yesterday, and yesterday we were told that the Committee stage could be taken to-day, and Members came down prepared to discuss the Committee stage. If this sort of plan is to be adopted, why were we not told before? Surely it is hardly worthy of a strong Government like the present Government to treat the country in that way. I do assure the Government that it

  1865
  will create the very worst impression amongst their followers in the country, and especially among the women, who have waited a good time for this Bill. I hope the Prime Minister will listen to what has been said. It will not take long to pass this Bill, and I am sure the House will assist him to expedite the business in the fastest possible way.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I hope that the Lords Amendments to the Welsh Bill will not be taken till Monday because they were only inserted this morning and we have not seen them on any Paper. Hon. Members do not in the least know what they are, and there is no means of seeing them except in a manuscript copy which is very difficult to follow at the Table. There is a considerable number of very important Amendments. I hope that the Government will be able to leave them to the unfettered discretion of the House. We should have the opportunity of seeing them. I could give instances where there are most reasonable Amendments which ought to be considered impartially by those who are anxious for a settlement of this question. I do urge the Government to put them down for Monday when we can have a fuller time to examine and discuss them and to discuss then amongst ourselves rather than come to a definite decision this afternoon. I think it is only fair to the Welsh Church that every opportunity should be given to those Members who are interested in her future and her
  present, and I hope the Government will proceed at once with the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I wish to join in the request to the Government to proceed with the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill. I know nothing about the controversy between Englishmen and Welshmen in regard to their respective, churches, but I voted with the Government originally on the first Bill on the grounds that they would themselves introduce a Bill for the removal of the sex disqualification. Having voted with the Government in that instance, I think it is up to the Government to fulfil their promise and to take this Bill now. This is a Bill which, I venture to say, every woman in the country is watching with eagerness and anxiety, and there will be great disappointment throughout the country if the Government do not take this Bill to-day.
  Sir HENRY COWAN: It seems a pity to waste time which might be devoted to either of these Bills in a discussion as to which of the two should be taken, but I think the women are entitled to the preference. They were badly sold on a previous Friday afternoon, and I appeal to the Prime Minister to give them a chance to-day.
  Question put, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  The House divided: Ayes, 55 ; Noes, 34.

  Division No. 108.]

  AYES.

  [4.39 p. m.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

  Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

  Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Seddon, J. A.

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

  Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

  Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)

  Sugden, W. H.

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Forestier-Walker, L

  Malone, Colonel C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Wallace, J.

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Morden, Col. H. Grant

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Parker, James

  Wardle, George J.

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Parry, Major Thomas Henry

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Green J. F. (Leicester)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

  Griggs, Sir Peter

  Pratt, John William

  Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  NOES.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Newbould, A. E.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

  Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Johnstone, J.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Sitch, C. H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhmpton, E.)

  Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.

  Spoor, B. G.

  Walsh, S. (Ince, Lanes.)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hogge and Major Hills.

  Lord H. CECIL: On a point of Order. I desire to ask you, Sir, why Standing Order No. 43 has not been complied with? That Order reads
  "Lords Amendments to public Bills shall be appointed to be considered on a future day, unless the House shall Order them to be considered forthwith."
  If I am not mistaken no Order has been made by the House to consider the Lords Amendments forthwith. No Question has been put at all on that. It is stated in Erskine May's Volume, and I believe it is the practice of the House—
  "If objection be taken, consideration of Amendments may be deferred."
  An HON. MEMBER: May!
  Lord H. CECIL: No doubt, but the whole practice is that Amendments are only forthwith considered when they are of substance—and not merely verbal—when it can be done by general consent. I would ask whether these proceedings are regular?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House has a right to decide, and it has decided.
  Lord H. CECIL: Was the Question put that the Amendments be forthwith considered?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is what the House has just divided upon.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: On a point of Order. Was not the Question put, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered "? Is that the same?
  Mr. HOGGE: I desire to move to re- post Progress, and ask leave to sit again, and for this reason—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is out of order.
  Lords Amendments considered.

  TITLE.
  Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
  Lords Amendment: After the word "the" ["the authority of"] insert the words" constitution and."
  Lords Amendment read a second time.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will you accept a Motion to report Progress until Ministers know
  1868
  what they are talking about? If not, I would beg to move that the Debate be now-adjourned.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no question of the Debate not being proceeded with. The Clerk will read the Amendments.
  Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment was put in in order that the Bill might deal, not only with the finances of the Church, but also with the question of Disestablishment.
  Mr. HOGGE: What Clause are we on?
  Mr. SHORTT: The title. There is an Amendment following on Disestablishment, with which the House will be asked to deal. This Amendment make a subsequent Amendment possible, and therefore I move as I do.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I very much regret the attitude taken up by the Government. The Home Secretary did not make it clear what the Amendment is which the Lords have inserted, and which has necessitated this consequential Amendment in the title. The Lords have inserted an Amendment dealing with the position of the Welsh Church in regard to Convocation, and the Home Secretary has suggested that it deals with the principle of Disestablishment. It does nothing of the kind. The Welsh Church has accepted the Bill, and accepts Disestablishment completely and unreservedly. The Lords Amendment relating to Convocation is only in order to enable the constitutional ecclesiastical procedure in Convocation to take place. That is to say, to enable the new Welsh Province to be set up by Convocation itself, with the assent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, instead of being imposed by the State, as was done in the original Act. It is merely a question of form as to whether, in carrying out Disestablishment, which we accept, you will allow the ecclesiastical constitution of this country, namely, Convocation, to proceed in the normal ecclesiastical manner, and set up the new province under writ of business from the Crown, issued direct to Convocation. That is the whole Amendment which the Lords have put in. It is only fair to

  1869
  the historical continuity of the Church in Wales, and the proper manner of carrying out Disestablishment, that you should put in this consequential Amendment in order that the Lords Amendment, which is merely one of wording and machinery, may be inserted later.
  Lord H. CECIL: It is very inconvenient to discuss what is considered on the one hand to be an Amendment of substance, while on the other hand it is held to be one of a consequential character. We have not had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment, and the Home Secretary has not explained the point at issue. Nevertheless ho has asked us to disagree with it. His explanation does not enable us to judge whether the Amendment is reasonable or unreasonable, but the House must form its own judgment. I suggest that the regular course is to postpone the consideration of this Amendment until the conclusion of the others, and that has often been done. I therefore move, "That the consideration of this Amendment be postponed until the other Amendments have been considered."
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House has decided to proceed with this Amendment.
  Lord H. CECIL: It has not decided to proceed with this Amendment in this way. The course I suggest is one which has often been taken.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That Amendment should have been moved before I put the Motion that the House doth disagree.
  Mr. HOGGE: I should like to understand what we are discussing. I have a, copy of the Bill here, and had I known that so many distinguished members of the Government were coming here I should have got a copy of the Bill earlier, and I should have taken the opportunity of consulting with my hon. Friends as to what these Amendments mean. So far I have not made a speech at all on this question, because, after all, it is a matter which does not concern me. If I am asked, at seven minutes to five on a Friday afternoon, to agree to certain Lords Amendments, I want to understand what I am doing.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: You are asked to disagree.
  Mr. HOGGE: Yes, I know, but I have disagreed so frequently that I should like to make an exception, if possible, this
  1870
  afternoon. As fax as 1 read it for the first time, this is a Bill to "continue in office the Welsh Commissioners, appointed under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, to postpone the date of Disestablishment, and to make further provision with respect to the temporalities of and marriages in the Church in Wales." I understand that the Amendment is to add the words "constitution and." I should like to know if 1 am quite right on this point. If that is so, it means that the Bill should read, "to make further provision with respect to the constitution and temporalities of and marriages in the Church in Wales." I would like to know if marriages in Wales have any special constitution. What really is the issue? I know nothing at all about it, and that is why I am making a speech. If I knew anything about it, I should not ask for information. One of the things most necessary, if you are going to make up your mind, is that you ought to be informed. I observe two right hon. Gentlemen present who do know, and one is the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), and I hope he will enlighten us as to what the addition of the words "constitution and" means. With regard to marriages in Wales, the Prime Minister is also a Welshman, and he is also married, and he might give us the other side, so that those of us who do not understand this question might appreciate the value of this Amendment. I shall be glad to give my verdict, if either of those two right hon. Gentlemen care to have it, after they have enlightened me from both sides as to the value of the Amendment. I could not understand my hon. and gallant Friend's (Captain Ormsby-Gore) enthusiasm for what he called a consequential Amendment. I thought that it was the first Amendment.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: This is a consequential Amendment to the title of the Bill, and the result of an Amendment put in a Clause later on by the House of Lords dealing with commutation.
  Mr. HOGGE: Then it seems to me that this is the cart before the horse, and that the Amendment which you refused to take from the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) was an Amendment in which there was extraordinary common sense. The hon. and gallant Member, who knows all about the Bill, assures me that this is a consequential Amendment to an. Amendment to a Clause which comes later. Then surely

  1871
  we ought to have the Amendments taken in order. I have left very little time for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Lord E. Cecil) to explain the Amendment, and for the Prime Minister to reply to him, but if they can do it in the time I shall be grateful.
  Lord R. CECIL: I am not sure that the Government would wish to discuss the matter now, because we have had no explanation why they are against this Amendment. Honestly, I do not think that this is the right way to do business; I do not wish to be critical. This is an important matter, but it has been treated very lightly by the Home Secretary; possibly he does not appreciate its importance. The question of commutation is not a question about which I myself feel very strongly, but it is a question about which certain members of my Church and of the Welsh Church, and, I believe, a very large body of Nonconformist opinion, feel very strongly. The broad issue, apart from details, is this: Is it right for the State to interfere in the internal government of a Church, whether it be the Church of England, or a Nonconformist Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Church? Is it right that they should interfere in the internal government of the Church before the views and wishes of the Church had been expressed? That is the whole issue, and really I cannot think that the Home Secretary has had any time or opportunity of considering the matter or
  1872
  of taking counsel with those who, I understand, represent the Welsh Nonconformists. One of the reasons why I consider that it is a pity that the Government have hurried on this Bill is that there has not been any opportunity of consultation. There was, Heaven knows, enough consultation in the earlier stages, and this is just a case of consultation. We could not raise this matter here. You cannot amend the Title of a Bill, or, at any rate, it is extremely difficult, but the procedure in the House of Lords is more lax, and it enabled them to raise the question. It has always been a bitter question, and we Churchmen in our ignorance have always attributed it to the fact that Mr. McKenna, who was in charge of the Welsh Church Act, did not understand the point at all. I, therefore, insisted on this Clause being inserted.
  It being Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Lords Amendments to be printed. [Bill 195.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at One minute after Five o'clock.

  POLICE (MAINTENANCE).
  POLICE (MAINTENANCE).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BLACKBERRIES.
  BLACKBERRIES.
  SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE.
  SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE.
  IMPORTED CATTLE (SHRINKAGE).
  IMPORTED CATTLE (SHRINKAGE).
IRELAND.
  DUNDRUM BAY (SEINE NETS).
  DUNDRUM BAY (SEINE NETS).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
  WAR DECORATIONS (ROYAL FLEET RESERVISTS).
  WAR DECORATIONS (ROYAL FLEET RESERVISTS).
  OFFICERS' WIVES ABROAD (PASSAGE EXPENSES).
  OFFICERS' WIVES ABROAD (PASSAGE EXPENSES).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NOTTS AND DERBYSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE T. RAWCLIFFE).
  NOTTS AND DERBYSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE T. RAWCLIFFE).
  MUNITIONS (PACKING CASES).
  MUNITIONS (PACKING CASES).
  INDIAN ARMY (BRITISH OFFICERS' PAY).
  INDIAN ARMY (BRITISH OFFICERS' PAY).
HOUSING.
  EJECTMENTS, MANCHESTER.
  EJECTMENTS, MANCHESTER.
  DISABLED SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  DISABLED SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  SMALL HOLDINGS, GRETNA.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, GRETNA.
  KORITZA (ALBANIAN REPUBLIC).
  KORITZA (ALBANIAN REPUBLIC).
Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Hubert Murray, Lord Bishop of OXFORD—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

WOMENS ROYAL AIR FORCE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Farrer be added to the Select Committee of Inquiry on Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROFITEERING BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons, That they agree to this Bill with Amendments.
The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BILL.
Message from the Commons, That they agree to the Amendment made by the Lords to the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments; that they insist on one of their Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose to amend the words so restored to the Bill.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The references are, to Bill (96) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
Rates Advisory Committee.
—(l) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for
948
safeguarding any interests affected by any directions as to rates, fares, tolls, dues, and other charges or special services, a committee shall be appointed consisting of six persons, one being an impartial person (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Railway and Canal Commission, two being representatives of trading interests nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, one being a representative of agricultural interests nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and two being representatives of labour interests nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress together with, if deemed advisable, one additional member who may at the discretion of the Minister be nominated from time to time by him.
(2) Before directing any revision of any rates, fares, tolls, dues, or other charges, or of any special services, the Minister shall refer the matter to the committee for their advice, and they shall report thereon to him, and where such revision is for the purpose of an increase in the net revenue of any undertakings which the Minister determines to be necessary, the committee shall also advise as to the best methods of obtaining such increase from the different classes of traffic, having due regard to existing contracts and the fairness and adequacy of the methods proposed to be adopted. Before prescribing the limits of rates, tolls, or charges in connection with a new transport service established under section nine of this Act, the Minister shall refer the matter to the committee for their advice.
(3) The committee before reporting or advising on any matters referred to them under this section, shall, unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so, give such public notice as they think best adapted for informing persons affected of the date when and the place where they will inquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the committee, and, unless in their-discretion the committee consider it unnecessary, shall be heard at such inquiry, and, if the committee in their discretion think fit, the whole or any part of the proceedings at such inquiry may be open to the public:
Provided that, for the purpose of this provision, the council of any city, borough, burgh, county, or district shall be deemed to be persons affected in any case where such council or any persons represented by them may be affected by any such proposed revision as aforesaid.
(4) The committee shall hear such witnesses and call for such documents and accounts as they think fit, and shall have power to take evidence on oath, and for that purpose any member of the committee may administer oaths.
(5) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to all or any of the members of the committee such salaries or other remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
(6) For the purposes of this section, specia services means the services mentioned in section five of the schedule to the orders relating to railway rates and charges, and in the corresponding sections of the schedules to the orders relating to canal tolls, rates and charges confirmed by various Acts passed in the years eighteen hundred

949
and ninety-one to eighteen hundred and ninety four.
The Commons agreed with this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment:
In line 5 of the Amendment leave out from ("off") to ("together") in line 13, and insert ("five persons, one being a person of experience in the law (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Lord Chancellor, two being representatives of trading and agricultural interests nominated by the Board of Trade, one being a representative of transportation interests nominated by the Minister, one being a representative of labour interests nominated by the Minister of Labour").
The Lords disagreed with the Commons Amendment to their Amendment:
The Commons now propose to amend their Amendment with which the Lords have disagreed, as follows:
In line 7 of the Amendment, after ("Trade") insert ("after consultation with the interest concerned"), and in line 10 of the Amendment, at end insert ("after consultation with the interests concerned").
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the Amendment of your Lordships which the Commons have refused to accept is that relating to the composition of the Rates Committee. The Commons have insisted on their Amendment, but have proposed a further Amendment thereto by inserting "trade" in line 7, and after "Labour" in line 9 the words "after consultation with the interests concerned." This Amendment was put in for the purpose of meeting the point raised by my noble friend Lord Emmott. I understand, however, that the words proposed by the Commons are considered too vague in character, and I therefore propose that the Lords agree with the Commons Amendment but propose a further Amendment thereto as follows: After "with" in the first Commons Amendment insert "the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and other;" and after "Labour" insert" after consultation with the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress and other." The clause will then be as follows—
… five persons, one being a person of experience in the law (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Lord Chancellor, two being representatives of trading and agricultural interests nominated by the Board of Trade 'after consultation with the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and other interests concerned, one being a representative of transportation interests nominated by the Minister of Labour after
950
consultation with the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress and other interests concerned."
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the Said Amendment, but propose the following further Amendment thereto: After ("with") in the first. Commons Amendment, insert ("the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and other"); after ("with") in the second Commons Amendment, insert. ("the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress and other").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this Amendment is an attempt on the part of the Government to put into form something of the spirit of the Amendment suggested yesterday by my noble friend below the gangway. I do not know precisely what my noble friend who sits near me (Lord Midleton) will say in respect of it, but at any rate. I will merely say (as my noble friend is now in his place) that I ant extremely grateful to the noble Earl for having considered the point so carefully as he has done in having it put in the proposed form.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I have had the advantage of seeing outside the words which the noble Earl proposes to insert. There is no question that we disagree in principle with the course the Government have taken. We want a democratic and not a bureaucratic nomination of this committee. We view with great suspicion in this Bill, as in a great many others, the tremendous extension of the bureaucratic power that has been made in the last fortnight or three weeks. Particularly have we suspicion of the manner in which the Government have appointed various committees, composed of men bearing distinguished names, whose recommendations have been entirely ignored. Those committees were there to advise the Ministers, but I can give instance after instance where their advice has been ignored completely; they have been told that their advice is confidential, and the public has lost the whole value of their work. That being so, we had hoped that the Government on this occasion, making so large a demand upon us with regard to this committee, would have consented to its being nominated outside. But, seeing the difference that has arisen between the two Houses on the question and the great importance that the Govern

951
ment attach to the matter, we feel that by the introduction of the proposed words there will at least be some security for the independence of the committee; therefore, I am sure that my noble friends on this side will agree with me that our only course is to assent to what the noble Earl has proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment. Then (Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.

WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Further provisions as to welsh ecclesiastical property.
4.—(1) The Welsh Commissioners may postpone the transfer under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, of any property vested in them to any person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, other than the representative body and such person or body of persons shall not be bound to accept the transfer of any such property until the Secretary of State so directs; and so long as any tithe rentcharge which was previously attached to a benefice remains vested in the Welsh Commissioners, the Welsh Commissioners shall be deemed to be the owners of a tithe rentcharge attached to a benefice for the purposes of the Tithe Rentcharge (Bates) Act, 1899.
(2) If the Welsh Commissioners so agree with the representative body it shall be lawful for the Welsh Commissioners to buy and for the representative body to sell to them any of the tithe rent charge transferred to the representative body under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, at a price to be ascertained by the same method as that prescribed by the Tithe Act, 1918, for the payment of compensation for the redemption of tithe rentcharge; and the Welsh Commissioners may determine out of what part of the funds vested in them the purchase money payable for any such tithe rentcharge is to be paid and the tithe rentcharge when purchased shall be dealt with by the Welsh Commissioners in like manner as if it had been derived from the same source as the purchase money:
Provided that if the tithe rentcharge at the time of sale is subject to any existing interest it shall be discharged from that interest, and the representative body shall be liable to pay to the person entitled to the existing interest., so long as that interest would have continued, an annuity equal to the annual value of his interest therein ascertained in manner provided by the Fifth Schedule to the Welsh Church Act, 1914, and this Act.
(3) There shall be included in the property which the Welsh Commissioners are required by subsection (1) of section eight of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, to transfer to the representative body any tithe rentcharge derived from sources other than endowments of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, and not being Welsh ecclesiastical property, which has been appropriated since the year sixteen hundred and sixty-two to benefices in Wales and Monmouthshire,
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (3), after "transfer to the representative body," to insert "(a)," and at the end of the subsection to insert "and (b) all burial grounds." The noble Lord said: In moving these Amendments I would point out that their object is to save to the Church in Wales the ancient churchyards. These Amendment which I propose to take together as being the more convenient course—would place the ancient churchyards under the care of the Representative Church Body, and not, as they are under the original Act, under the care of the local authorities. All the existing burial rights are preserved. The reason, I believe, why the original Act took the ancient churchyards away front the Church was because in just a very few cases the incumbent had behaved foolishly and had ridden a rather high horse in regard to his rights over the churchyard. The cases, however, were really very few, and it is a drastic thing to put the whole of the ancient churchyards under the care of the local authorities. I cannot think of anything that is more likely to cause friction in the future. It would always be a matter of soreness with the members of the Church, and it would always rankle. I am not at all certain that the local authorities would give the necessary care to the maintenance of the ancient churchyards, especially when it came to raising a rate for their maintenance, and assuredly the local authorities would have to raise rates for their maintenance. The way to avoid friction in the future is to let the Church Representative Body have the control of these ancient churchyards in the same way they have, under the Act, the control of all the modern churchyards—that is, those churchyards that have been given to the

953
church since 1662. The people who have boon put on the Church Representative Body are men of very wide experience and wide minded, and if any difficulties arose in the future I am quite sure that those representatives would put the matter straight at once and that there would be no difficulties in the future. In the past there have only been very few, and therefore I think in the future there would be none at all.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 35, after ("body") insert ("a") line 10, at end insert ("and (b) all burial grounds").—(Lord Dynevor.)
LORD CLWYD: The noble Lord opposite has referred to the possibility, if his Amendment is not accepted, of friction ensuing. I ant not going back to the past in regard to the history of this question, but on both sides those acquainted with that history will know that in the past there have been many difficulties and painful episodes in connection with this matter. All I wish to impress upon the Government from my standpoint is that this matter has been gone into very carefully quite recently by representatives of both sides, and, as was announced in the other House by Mr. Bonar Law, every effort has been made in order to reach what might be deemed a satisfactory understanding on the point. These efforts have failed, and, in my judgment, so far from avoiding friction and difficulty in the future, the passing of this Amendment would be the cause of further difficulty and friction. Upon these grounds, and in view of the fact that every effort has been made to settle the matter, I think the wisest and best course would be to let the understanding remain.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The two speeches we have just heard illustrate, I think, the difficulty that the Government is placed in by a proposition of this kind, because my noble friend opposite says that if the churchyards are left as they are and not banded over to the Representative Body there will be friction and trouble in the future, and my noble friend behind me says exactly the opposite, and that if a change is made there will also be friction and trouble. The position of the Government on this matter is really a very simple one. My noble friend knows that the greater number of the provisions of this Bill were arrived at after long and careful
954
negotiations between the Welsh Members, the representatives of the Welsh Church, and the Government's representatives. This Bill therefore represents general agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They do not appear to have had all the facts before them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was not present at these conferences, and I really do not know. I should think if you have a number of Welsh Members and Welsh Bishops and representatives of the Government, that would be sufficient to ensure that all the facts were brought before them. I do not know if the noble Lord knows of any facts that were hidden or suppressed or not brought before them. I know the view the noble Marquess takes of the intelligence of the Welsh Bishops, which I do not share. These matters were discussed at great length, and I believe an arrangement was very nearly being arrived at on this question of the burial grounds, but unfortunately the negotiations finally broke down. No agreement has, therefore, been arranged, and the Government's position is that they can hardly accept an Amendment of this kind, which is outside the agreement, because it may upset the whole agreement which has already been arrived at. They cannot accept Amendments from one side or the other which would vary or alter the agreement. They could only accept Amendments which were the result of general agreement. Therefore, with great reluctance I am compelled on behalf of the Government to refuse to accept the Amendment moved by my noble friend opposite.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: We met representatives of the Government on several occasions. An Amendment was put forward to place all the churchyards belonging to the Church, both ancient and modern, under the control of a joint committee of equal numbers, the chairman to be appointed by the Home Secretary. That arrangement, however, was not carried through. I think my noble friend will bear me out that the attempt to get it through has certainly had a very good effect upon the situation, and I look forward with hopefulness to these difficulties being solved.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is a difficult position in which your Lordships find yourselves. If I may refer to the speech of

955
the noble Lord who spoke second, I understood him to say that there had been hopes of a satisfactory arrangement being arrived at by the different parties to this painful controversy when the Bill was going through its stages in another place.
LORD CLWYD: I did not intend to convey that. There was no question of hope or otherwise expressed. I only referred to the fact that this conference had taken place, and that every possible avenue of settlement had been explored and had failed. In the circumstances I thought it was wisest to let the matter remain as it is.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the noble Lord used the words "satisfactory settlement"; at all events I understood him to do so, and I am going to point out that that rather implies—though perhaps he did not intend it—that the settlement which we find in existence is a satisfactory settlement. This question has not been before the House of Commons in the form of an Amendment. I am open to correction, but there was, as the Right Rev. Prelate has just stated, an Amendment on this subject down on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. When it was reached the Home Secretary asked that the Amendment be not pressed because there was a hope of a settlement being reached, and the Amendment was not pressed in the hope of a settlement. That settlement broke down, as we have just heard. Therefore the House of Commons has never yet on this Bill debated this question. It is perfectly true that another House of Commons debated this question, but I submit to your Lordships that it is not easy for us to rest with the rather easy assurance which is given by the right rev. Prelate that he hopes that in due course this matter will be settled. Settled how? By the introduction of another Bill? The right rev. Prelate shakes his head. How can a matter like this, which depends entirely on Statute, be settled by some local agreement? I suggest that it is not possible.
What are the merits of the case as we see it? Ancient churchyards have been in the custody of the Church in Wales throughout fifteen centuries, and against that custody is placed the assertion that in a certain number of cases there has been friction. I would venture to think they were comparatively few cases. The noble Lord who spoke second might think they were more numerous, but I am sure he would not say
956
that in all of those cases there has been friction owing to the unwisdom of the local incumbent—sometimes owing to the unwisdom of the incumbent, and sometimes also owing to the aggression of those who had severed their connection with the Church of England. It is an extraordinarily strong step to take these churchyards away from the Church and to put them in the hands of the local authority, a purely secular body, dependent on the ratepayers, without any religious obligation whatever, except the individual religious obligation of members composing the local authority, and to take them away just at the moment when, by its action in Wales, the Church in Wales has shown with what wisdom and moderation it has composed its Representative Bodies.
If you do not insert this Amendment you are closing for ever, so far as the Statute Law of the Realm goes, not only the possibility of the Church retaining control of these churchyards which she has controlled, I venture to say, wisely and reverently for fifteen hundred years; but also the chance of having any share in the management, because the right rev. Prelate has told us that he does not look to any other amending Bill in the future. Therefore, I do submit that the case for putting in this Amendment, which, for the reason I have given, was never discussed in the House of Commons, is a very strong one. If it is carried and it becomes law, I have the greatest confidence that in the years to come no complaints will arise from those of our fellow-countrymen in Wales, who, unfortunately, from my point of view, have left the ministrations of the Mother Church, but they will admit the true reverence and broad-minded wisdom with which the Church Representative Body has carried out the great trust imposed upon it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I feel that it may be a little, I will not say presumptuous, but out of place for me to deal with the details of the matter, because my knowledge of the real working of the question in Wales, either in the past or what may be expected in the future, is very small. But I do think that the whole precedents of the working of the system whereby the Church retains control of the churchyards, though full freedom is allowed to other bodies, are all in favour of such a course as the Amendment of the noble

957
Lord suggests. We go back nearly forty years to the legislation of 1880. I was then in a minority. I was not in this House of course, but I happened to be concerned in a subordinate capacity a good deal with the arrangements that were taking place both in this House and outside it. I remember the apprehensions aroused when the Burials Act of 1880 was passed—that if you left anything which should give to the authorities of the Church control over churchyards to which Nonconformists also were to have access, there would be all kinds of difficulties. The matter was met by the noble and learned Lord then on the Woolsack, the father of the noble Earl opposite, with a conclusive argument, and the then Archbishop of Canterbury supported the proposals of the Bill in the teeth of a great deal of apprehension which was then expressed as to the un workableness of it.
So far as I am aware, there is absolutely no body of opinion in England or Wales which will now say that what was then done was wrong. We are now trying to do very largely what was then done. I believe that nothing but good will ensue if, as the noble Earl said, we were to leave this matter to those on whom the responsibility has rested for centuries past. There is much evidence that they would invite co-operation from others in the practical working of it. The principle underlying the Amendment proposed by Lord Dynevor is one that I should like to support in the strongest way. What may be the action of the Government in the matter we must consider when that action is taken. I feel that the principle which the noble Lord has enunciated is one of high importance, and I believe that all precedents tend to show that it will work extremely well in practice.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I want to say a word about the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. It has always struck me, in the case of Wales, that you have got to consider the population from the point of view of things that have happened there in the past. The noble Earl, in the course of his speech, very frankly used the term "Church of England and those who had left it." As far as I have been able to understand, that has been the trouble in Wales. The question is, what is the Church of Wales? Many changes have taken place in the course of the history of the country and the result is the varied population which we have before us now.
958
I really cannot see on what ground of logic or of justice it is possible to support this Amendment. It is all very well to speak of secularising graveyards. From the point of view of the Church to which I belong, such a thing as the secularisation of graveyards is one to which we object very strongly. Knowing Wales well, as I do, and I think the right rev. Prelate will bear me out, I say tat public life in Wales cannot be said to be a secular thing at all. Wales is, in a very peculiar sense, a religious country, and under whatever body the graveyards are placed in Wales, secularisation is not a term that can be applied to them. From the point of view of one who knows the country and who has studied the history of the country, I must oppose this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has spoken, in terms with which I would not quarrel for a moment, of the strong religious character of the people in Wales. That I believe to be absolutely true, and it is a matter for which we ought to be profoundly thankful. But here is no suggestion of allowing these churchyards to be managed by other religious bodies in Wales. I would not, of course, be prepared to accept such a solution, though there would be something to be said for the noble Lord's argument if that had been the proposal. As the Act of 1914 stands, if no modification is introduced into it, these churchyards will be managed by a secular body—the parish council.
Let the noble Lord try and place himself if he will, and he is a liberal-minded man, in the position of Churchmen, whether in England or in Wales. Here are these churchyards, hallowed by every memory and every sacred feeling aroused when we walk across them. For centuries they have been the loving care of the religious body to which we belong. Henceforward they are to be handed over to the parish councils. We do not know how they will treat them. We can fancy the churchyards of the future right up to the door of the church, probably neglected, overgrown, ignored; and here we are ready ourselves to look after them as we have always done, not only in the interests of the Church but in the interests of all people, to whatever denomination they belong.
No doubt there have been scandals in the past, and Lord Clwyd will believe me when

959
I say that no one more profoundly disapproves of the scandals than I do. All we ask is that the churchyards should be left. I am certain nobody on the Government Bench would wish it otherwise, and I am sure the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill in his heart would intensely desire that the churchyards should be left to the Church. Why then are they not? In the past every one of the noble Lords opposite have pleaded for it; and when we are giving up so much something might be given to us in return; especially as it was shown absolutely conclusively last night that the Church would have enjoyed all the money she is to get under this Bill even if the Bill had not been passed at all.
We ask that the churchyards should be left, and that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of reconsidering the point. We do not put it higher than that. I ask the Government, confidently, to allow this Amendment to go into the Bill so that the House of Commons may have an opportunity of considering it again. My noble friend Lord Selborne reminds me that, owing to the circumstances of the case, no blame is attached to any one; the House of Commons have never considered this point. There were certain negotiations I know. I profoundly loathe the word "negotiations" now—all sorts of things are given away in negotiations, and, generally speaking, it is the things that I care about which are given away. It so happens that our opponents are more persistent, or more courageous, than ourselves. I hope the Government will allow this Amendment to go into the Bill and thus give the House of Commons an opportunity of considering it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I be allowed to say one word more? The noble Marquess has raised a personal question, and if I had been at this conference myself I should have most vigorously fought for handing the churchyards over to the Representative Body. But this is not a personal question. It is a matter of general agreement. I only want to say 'two things. The first is, that I made clear the position of the Government, that they could not assent to the change proposed unless an agreement had been arrived at between the Welsh Members and the Welsh Bishops sitting in conference with the Government. I have listened carefully to the debate and I have not heard,
960
even from the right rev. Prelate, The Bishop of Asaph, any statement indicating that if further negotiations went on there was much likelihood of some arrangement being arrived at.
The second point is with regard to the statement that the House of Commons never really did have an opportunity of deciding this question. I think they had an opportunity on the Report stage, because they could have pressed the matter then. They were told by the Government that no agreement had been arrived at between the parties to the issue, and that the Government, unless an agreement was arrived at, would be unable to accept such an agreement. The House of Commons, had they chosen, could have forced the issue. If the Amendment goes down to them they will hear again that no agreement has been arrived at, and will receive the same advice from the Government. I understand the noble Lord intends to press the Amendment but I can only repeat that, if your Lordships are successful, the Government will have to adopt the same position again in another place. They could not stand neutral; they could not let the House of Commons take its own view, and would be obliged to reaffirm the decision, that, an agreement not having been arrived at, they would be compelled to refuse the Amendment. That is the exact position and, therefore, your Lordships must take what course you think best.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Saving for divided parishes.
8. No parish situated in Wales or Monmouthshire and which is in an English diocese shall be deprived of the right of self-determination granted to border parishes by section nine, subsection (1), of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, by reason of its having been separated or divided off from a larger parish, situated partly in England and partly in Wales and Monmouthshire, if such separation has taken place subsequently to the year eighteen hundred and fifty.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The first Amendment on this clause is purely drafting. The words as they appear in the Bill, I am advised, mean nothing at all, and the Amendment carries out the intention of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, leave out from the beginning to the first ("of") in line 10, and insert ("Where an ecclesiastical parish which before the year eighteen hundred and fifty was situate partly in Wales or Monmouthshire and partly in England has since that year been divided into two ecclesiastical parishes, one of winch is situate wholly in Wales or Monmouthshire, and one wholly in England, and both those parishes are situated in an English diocese, then subsections (1) and (3) of section nine"),—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is also a drafting one.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 10, leave out from ("1914") to the end of the clause, and insert ("(which relates to border parishes) shall apply to the ecclesiastical perish so situate wholly in Wales or Monmouthshire in like manner as if part thereof were situate in England").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE had on the Paper an Amendment, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
Subsection (5) of clause 3 of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is enacted as follows:—
It shall be lawful for the representative Church body acting on behalf of the Bishops and Clergy of the Church in Wales to request the Archbishop of Canterbury to be relieved from attendance in the Convocation of the Province and thereupon the Archbishop may relieve them from attendance, and so long as such request is not withdrawn it shall not be necessary for the Archbishop when summoning Convocation in obedience to the royal writ to include in his citation the several Bishops and Clergy of the Church in Wales.
The noble and learned Lord said: The primary object of my Amendment is to get rid of a subsection in the original Act, which is as follows—
"As from the date of Disestablishment the bishops and clergy of the Church in Wales shall cease to be members of or be represented in the Houses of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, but nothing in this Act shall affect the powers of those Houses so far as they relate to matters outside Wales and Monmouthshire."
From the time this subsection was enacted it has given great offence and been the occasion of much soreness of feeling. There have been times when I shared that soreness and when I thought that this subsection was put in the Act by the then majority of the House of Commons—your Lordships are guiltless of any responsibility in respect of it—out of pure arrogance and outre cuidance, as it were, a deter
962
mination to stamp upon Church feeling; but reflection, and perhaps increasing age, has led me to suppose that a more charitable construction might be put upon the clause, and that it really represents a kind of meticulousness on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown, and, if I may say so, a certain clumsiness of thought and expression.
Convocation has, of course, two aspects. It is a body with a secular position and secular authority, and therefore liable to secular control. It can pass, with a license from the Crown and subsequent assent under the Great Seal, canons which will have within their limited sphere the force of law. It has still, though it is suspended since the time of Charles II, a power of taxation, and it has a specially authorised power of representation to the Crown in certain ecclesiastical matters. It is a body assembled by the King's Writ, addressed to the Archbishop, and it has therefore a side or form in which it is desirable and possible that Parliament, on such catastrophes happening as this Welsh Church Act, should deal with it. On the other hand Convocation is, as one of those canons which have the force of law says, the sacred synod of the province, and to say of the sacred synod of the province that it should be composed in this way or that, by the introduction or omission of certain bishops and clergy of certain dioceses, is nothing but an outrage upon the feelings of many Church people.
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is a plant of tender growth, and if you touch it from outside you immediately create cases of conscience and impose a burden upon many honest and religious people. The clause is quite unnecessary in the form which it takes, and I invite your Lordships to take this opportunity of modifying it. It has been suggested to me, from more than one quarter, that it would be enough simply to repeal this subsection, and there is a good deal to be said for that, but I think it would leave the Crown lawyers and possibly the Archbishop in a certain amount of difficulty. We know that it is under consideration to establish a separate province for the Church in Wales, and as far as my humble opinion goes that might be a very desirable thing. I apprehend that without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Archbishop of Canterbury, such a thing could not legally be done according to Church law, but that with that consent, which I dare say would be fully and freely

963
given, for the Welsh Church to establish itself as a separate province might be a very desirable thing.
As I am upon this matter, may I make a suggestion which is perhaps not quite germane to my Amendment, but which, as one who has given much study to this question during now a very long life, I should like to have an opportunity of ventilating. It is quite possible to have an ecclesiastical unit higher than a province. The Metropolitan, sometimes called the Archbishop, I take it presides over the province, but you may have an ecclesiastical unit higher than that presided over by a Primate. The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of all England, and the Archbishop of York Primate of England. They are Primates with only one province under them, but there are instances in Church history, and living instances, where provinces are grouped into larger units under a superior Archbishop, who may be very properly called a Primate. In the south of France, under the old Constitution before the Concordat arranged by Napoleon, such things were not unknown. The Archbishop of Bordeaux was Metropolitan of his province, but was subject to the Archbishop of Bourges, who was Primate of his province and also of Bordeaux, and there was an appeal from the Court of the Bishop to the Court of the Archbishop of Bordeaux, and from the Court of the Archbishop of Bordeaux to the Court of the Archbishop of Bourges. In the same way I think the Archbishop of Aix was a Primate over several provinces. At this moment in Canada and Australia the Colonial Church has adopted an equally convenient arrangement. There are several provinces in Canada, but they all meet in one general Synod over which one of the Metropolitans, chosen for this purpose, presides, and in Australia, where it is desirable to combine recognition of State rights and to let each of the Colonies have their own province and Metropolitan, it is still felt desirable to unite the whole Church of Australia under one Archbishop who presides over the whole body.
I hope if the Church in Wales takes this step of forming itself into a province it will still recognise the primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or that if he is asked to part with any rights it will only be such as are necessary for their being a separate province. At the moment there is nothing in the Welsh Church Act
964
separating the Welsh Bishops or Church from the Province of Canterbury, for which one may be thankful, but there is this provision separating them from the Convocation. It has been pointed out to me by a high authority that under the terms of the King's Writ, which I had not before me at the moment when drawing this Amendment, if they cease to be part of the province the Archbishop will not be bound to summon them, because the King's Writ does not dictate to the Archbishop who is in his province or what dioceses, but only desires him to summon the Bishops and clergy of his province. If, therefore, the Welsh Church should become a separate province this clause would be absolutely unnecessary, and might be simply repealed, but as they have not yet become a separate province, and as it is not certain, but most probable, that they will, I suggest that my Amendment had better stand and that it should proceed, after repealing the subsection, something in the language which I have proposed.
I venture to make two corrections in my proposed new clause which perhaps the noble Viscount will pardon me for making, considering the hurry in which this has necessarily been drawn up. The Lord Bishop of St. David's has informed me that the right word should not be "representative" Church body for this purpose, but the "governing" Church body. If that be so I propose to insert the word "governing" instead of "representative." I had also made this a kind of temporary provision. I had left it that as long as the Bishops requested not to be summoned, they should not be summoned, but I did that rather against my own feeling, and it has been pointed out to me that it would be very unwise to leave the matter in a state of suspense, and that the Bishops and Clergy of the Church in Wales had better go out of the Convocation of Canterbury once and for all, particularly as they might almost be embraced in the larger unit which I have suggested under a Primacy. Therefore I would cancel the words "so long as such request is not withdrawn." My Amendment would then read as follows—
"It shall be lawful for the governing Church body acting on behalf of the Bishops and Clergy of the Church in Wales to request the Archbishop of Canterbury to be relieved from attendance in the Convocation of the Province and thereupon the Archbishop may relieve them from attendance, and it shall not be necessary for the Archbishop when summoning Convocation in obedience to

965
the royal writ to include in his citation the several Bishops and Clergy of the Church in Wales."
If that Amendment is carried all that, as I venture to suggest, is arrogantly and clumsily expressed in the original Act of Parliament will be attained, and at the same time the position of the Church as a spiritual body will be preserved.
It is possible, and indeed even likely, that this Amendment might be very greatly improved. I had to prepare it at very short notice. I can conceive another form in which it might be put. "If the Bishops and Clergy of the Church in Wales shall, with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, form themselves into a new province, then it shall not be necessary for the Archbishop to summon them." I can conceive an Amendment somewhat of that kind, and if anyone proposes it now or hereafter, I shall be only too glad to submit to it. I will not weary your Lordships with details. I think that my clause is a workable one, and I do not think it will injure any feeling that ought to be considered, or any interest that ought to be considered. I cannot conceive it mattering two straws to any Nonconformist, and I cannot conceive it mattering to the Government, how this is expressed so long as it is effectually expressed; while on the other hand it will certainly recognise, as I feel sure your lordships would wish to recognise, the spiritual life of the Church. Therefore I commend it to your Lordships' notice.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: This is a really important matter, rather perhaps constitutional than practical, but it is, I think, very fortunate that an occasion has arisen for raising the points which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, has so clearly and cogently put before your Lordships. The matter is not obviously part of what was within the original purview of this particular Bill, but it does give an opportunity for doing what I regard as most desirable, and I very cordially support the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has moved. I wish to say a few words about it both on its constitutional and on its practical side.
As regards the constitutional question,
966
there is no doubt at all that there is a very widespread and strong feeling among Churchmen both in England and in Wales as to the proceedings—the high-handed proceedings—which Parliament took in putting in this particular clause in the teeth of the objection which we expressed to it in the Act of 1914, and it was with a view to the reconsideration of that that the Select Committee of this House was appointed in June, 1914. They put in the forefront of their reference this very point. The reference was this—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire and report whether the constitution of the Convocation of the Church of England has ever been altered by Act of Parliament without the assent and against, the protest of Convocation."
That reference led to the calling of a considerable amount of expert evidence before the Select Committee as to the constitutional bearing of this matter, and if any of your Lordships will be at the trouble to look at the evidence there given, there will be, I think, no doubt whatever in your minds that had that Committee been able to make a Report it must have stated quite specifically that there was no precedent whatever for the action which Parliament had at that moment provisionally taken. I dealt with it myself at some length, and with very considerable care, investigating the references and the authorities, and I may read a single sentence, namely—
"My point is that if you say the wishes of Convocation have been often protected or overridden by the action of Parliament, that does not cover the ground. Of course that has constantly happened. Parliament can do as it likes, but that is totally different from altering the constitution of Convocation. I do not say that there is anything that Parliament cannot do, but to alter the constitution of the body is absolutely without precedent and those facts as to overriding its wishes in other matters will be no precedent for the alteration of its constitution, least of all for the alteration of its constitution in the teeth of its own protest."
That was what I myself said. But what was much weightier than that was the evidence, of the high constitutional authorities who were unanimous in saying that there was no precedent for the action Parliament was taking in acting contrary to Convocation's own wish, and in reconstituting Convocation according to act of Parliament. I do not want to assume any undue or almost ludicrous authority for Convocation, but it is older than Parliament, and goes back before the con

967
stitution either of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. That Parliament should say in a light and easy way—I am not pressing the point to a fantastic degree—" We propose to alter the constitution "is a thing which is absolutely without precedent.
As has been already said by the noble and learned Lord, I cannot conceive who are the people who would be likely to take any exception to this change. It cannot be supposed for a moment that there is a desire on the part of Nonconformists in Wales or England that something should be done unnecessarily to hamper the freedom of action of the Church in England or Wales as regards its own religious gatherings and its own relations to fellow Churchmen on the other side of the Border. If a Constitutional question is raised as to the exact position of a non-established body which desires to have membership in the Convocation then it will be for the two bodies themselves in England and Wales to settle what they themselves desire to do. I venture to think that the initiative ought on every possible precedent and for every reason to come from them in the matter. Therefore, without fear or doubt, I claim that we have a right to ask that the constitutional wrong which was, I think, perpetrated when that clause was passed should be set right by the matter being placed in the position in which the noble and learned Lord's amendment would place it.
Having said that, I want to say that the question is really a constitutional rather than a practical one, because as a matter of practical fact the thing which the Act of Parliament would desire to bring about, though in an erroneous way, is as far as we can at present judge practically certain to be brought about without any interference of Parliament. At this moment I have been for some time in communication with the bishops and others in the Welsh portion of what is now the Province of Canterbury as to what is to happen after Disestablishment, and, as the matter is causing very wide interest, I venture to ask your Lordships to allow me to read to the House a formal letter which I wrote, which has received some little publicity, but very little, but which is really of very wide general interest in the Church, and is entirely germane to what we are now discussing. It is a letter to the Bishop of St. Asaph, written on May 24. The letter is as follows—
My dear Bishop of St. ASAPH,
I have received your very important letter in which, as Chairman of the Governing Body of the Church of England in Wales, you ask for my counsel respecting the future relation of the four Welsh Dioceses to the rest of our present Province of Canterbury. You are aware that I have continuously on behalf of our English Bishops pressed upon you and your Welsh Brethren in the Episcopate the assurance of our simple wish to be guided by your wishes and the wishes of the Church in Wales as regards the relation of the Church in Wales after Disestablishment to the Province of Canterbury and its Convocation. We have learnt to value the presence of our four Welsh brethren so highly that the loss to us would be very great if or when they leave our Convocation House, and I am certain that the same feeling is entertained in the Lower House. I have protested publicly and privately against the proposed statutory enactment interfering, without any consultation with us, with the existing Constitution of Convocation. I have pointed out in my evidence before the Select Committee of 1914 and elsewhere the wrongness of such Parliamentary action and its unconstitutional character.
On the other hand, if, as seems now to be the case, the disestablishment of the four Dioceses must unhappily be regarded as a fait accompli to take effect after the war, we have to consider what ought in future to be the position of your four Dioceses. I have, as I think you know, taken counsel on the subject with most of our English Bishops, as well as with all the Welsh Bishops, and I am prepared to say that I have the support of, at the very least, the great majority of them in expressing my deliberate opinion that it will conduce to the happy and orderly working of the whole Church in England and Wales if by our own joint action a separate Province be formed for Wales: indeed, I cannot help fearing that sinless this be done there is some danger of confusion, and even chaos, in the arrangements for the future. We shall hope in every possible way to retain the close followship in thought and action which has subsisted between the Bishops in the English and the Welsh Dioceses: but constitutionally the formation of a new Province will, as I believe, be essential to due orderliness and smoothness of working.
If I had reason to believe that this advice ran counter to the deliberate opinion of the bishops, clergy, and laymen who have been devising a new Constitution for the Church in Wales I should feel more hesitation than I do in giving you the advice which I here tender. Most gladly will I confer with you and with your colleagues in the Welsh Sees if you so desire. But the power and the resource which have been shown by the Welsh Church in the construction of its new arrangements seem to make it improbable that if once your decision be adopted you will be in need of any help at our hands. Whatever we can do with you and for you at this juncture in our history is wholly at your service, and I repeat that we are not going to allow the legal severance of some of the formal bonds which at present unite us to impair in the smallest degree the fellowship of the deeper kind which will continue to unite us in things spiritual.
I am, yours very truly,
(Signed) RANDALL CANTAUR.
I apologise for troubling your Lordships with that letter. It really is important in the Church's view that the matter should be understood as it stands to-day. Therefore it makes it the more natural that such an Amendment as the noble and learned Lord proposes should not be objected to or thrown out. It is not effecting any change which is not otherwise likely to be brought about, but it is making the whole procedure move in a constitutional way instead of an unconstitutional way, and it is, from the Churchman's point of view, safeguarding the privileges and the rights of the most ancient deliberative body in this country. I have reason to believe that all is likely to go forward in the direction of producing the result which is here aimed at, and I venture to hope that this Amendment will be carried, because I think it will smooth away certain constitutional difficulties which have arisen. It would smooth certain ruffled, and not unnaturally ruffled, feelings on the part of Churchmen who are deeply interested in this constitutional question, and I can conceive no one to whom the passing of that Amendment could do the slightest harm, or who could legitimately take exception to its operation.
LORD ASHBOURNE: The noble Marquess was quite right when he kindly assumed that I am of a liberal mind, and I always try to put myself in the position of other people. The difficulty in this case has been all along the number of people with whom you have to put, yourself in sympathy when you come to deal with Wales. But on this particular question I had intended to speak strongly against the Amendment, and I want your Lordships to bear in mind the reason, though I do not press it now as an argument exactly. All through the history of the Church in Wales, not merely since the Reformation (and there is a good deal of conflict about the time of the Reformation—a great many Welshmen did not accept it) all through history since the Normano-Saxon invasion the Church in Wales has not always been the Church of the People but it has always been governed from abroad.
The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill used the expression "extreme provincial feeling." What he calls provincialism we call nationalism, and there is a great deal of difference between them. The thought I had in my mind when I first read this Amendment was this. I have had a good deal of experience in dealing with ecclesias-
970
tics in my own church, among other places, and I have come to the conclusion that when you are up against a principle of such a kind that the ecclesiastical body cannot in decency yield you have to treat it as you would treat traditionally a small boy when you want to teach him to swim—throw him into the water and see how he will get on, because he will probably find a way out. I was going to act upon that principle, but as the question is put now, and after the discussion we had the other day over the Enabling Bill, when I was glad to do what I could to help it, I certainly think there is reasonable ground for allowing this thing to work out or: ecclesiastical lines.
It is not really a matter which will interest the Nonconformists in Wales. You will not get them to protest one way or the other. I am saying this because I feel that at the bottom of their hearts my Welsh friends will agree with me that the strength of the Church in Wales in the future may lie in its having a chance for the first time in its history of being a thoroughly Welsh Church. I have a sort of feeling that, realising this, they will make use to the full of the powers which are given to them in the Amendment which is now proposed. For that reason I support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Possibly my noble and learned friend who moved this Amendment will discharge me from the duty of dealing with the charges of outre cuidance and arrogance which he brought against the draftsman of the Bill. I have never heard the crime of outre cuidance very carefully defined, and I need not say very much upon this Amendment, because the most rev Primate has dealt with it far more fully than I am capable of doing. I wish to lay stress on only one point. He did state that really the question was not one of very great practical importance, because I understand that the Church in Wales has intended to form itself into a separate province. If it does that there is really no need to give it the power not to attend Convocation any longer, because apparently it cannot be called upon to do so, as, in the terms of summons to Convocation, the words are—
"At all convenient speed in lawful manner to call together all and singular the Bishops of your Province."
I suppose it is clear that, if the Bishops are not "of your Province," you cannot under this Writ call them together.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was not sure what meaning my noble friend attributed to it. He said that the Archbishops would not be bound to call them together, suggesting rather that he might call them together. I was advised that he could only do what he was entitled to do under the Writ of Summons, and that therefore he could not call them together.
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I say that we are dealing with two different things. If the Welsh Church ceases to be part of the Province the matter is simple. All that is then necessary is to repeal the offensive subsection which compels people to do that which they may do but which they ought not to be compelled to do. But if they are still part of the Province, then the Archbishop would have to summon them all. If they are not part of the Province he cannot summon them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I really think that the noble and learned Lord agrees with the statement I was putting forward
LORD PHILLIMORE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: On the assumption that they are going to form themselves into a separate Province and cannot be summoned to Convocation, the question then really has no practical importance—I lay stress on the word "practical." I am not sure how the Amendment as altered—
LORD PHILLIMORE: I have altered the word "representative" into "governing," because I understand that is correct.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But the words "the Archbishop may relieve them from attendance" remain in?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Then I cancelled a word making it temporary only.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The words "the Archbishop may relieve them from attendance" remain in?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Yes, and "it shall not be necessary."
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I was only going to suggest to my noble and learned friend
972
that if you are going to give complete freedom to the Welsh Church, ought you not to say "the Archibishop shall relieve them?"
LORD PHILLIMORE: Would the noble Viscount like me to say at once what the objection to that is? That is, again, Parliament dictating to the Archbishop what he is to do in a spiritual matter.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I thought that would probably be the answer of my noble and learned friend. I put it forward merely because it was suggested to me, although I felt the force of the objection that would be made. As to accepting the Amendment the position, therefore, is this. The provision in the Act of 1914 could not have effect for very long; but the difference, I understand, is that the Welsh Church says (if I may use the vernacular) "We do not want to be pushed out; we want to have the right to go out if we want to do so. We do not think that the State has the right to say to us on a point of this kind that we shall go out." That is the short point.
I am not exactly clear as to the relation of this particular Amendment to the agreement of which I have spoken. It appears to stand rather outside it. But, as has been pointed out, there does not seem any real reason to think that this would excite any particular susceptibilities in any quarter; and although I cannot accept the Amendment I am ready, with your Lordships concurrence, not to oppose its going in. I will go further and discuss the matter with the authorities and ask them whether I can allow it to stand.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
LORD DYNEVOR: My Amendment on this clause is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, after line 18, insert the following new subsection:
(2) The provisions of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, specified in the first column of the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the second column of that Schedule."—(Lord Dynevor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR: The next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 91.

Extent of Repeal.

Section 8

In paragraph (a) (vii) of subsection (1) the words ("and not being a burial ground")

Paragraph (a) (viii) of subsection (1)

Paragraph (b) of subsection (1).

Section 19

In subsection (1) the words ("and burial grounds")

Section 24

Subsections (3) and (4).

—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title:
An Act to continue in Office the Welsh Commissioners appointed under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, to postpone the date of disestablishment, and to make further provision with respect to the temporalities of, and marriages in, the Church in Wales.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think there must now be some alteration in the Title.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in the last line but one of the Title, after "the" to insert "constitution and." The noble Marquess said: In order to bring the Title into conformity with the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord that has just been passed, the words proposed in my Amendment will have to be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Title, line 4, after ("the") insert ("constitution and").—(The Marquess of Salisbury)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think it will be convenient to take the remaining stages of this Bill now, as we do not propose to sit to-morrow.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported; Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.
[The sitting was suspended at half-past one o'clock and resumed at a quarter past two.]

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following seventy-two Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

War Loan.

National Health Insurance.

Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy).

Expiring Laws Continuance.

Retired Officers (Civil Employment).

Restoration of Pre-War Practices (No. 3).

Education (Compliance with Conditions of Grants).

Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland).

Government of Soudan Loan.

Government War Obligations.

Police.

Ministry of Transport.

West Indian Court of Appeal.

Checkweighing in Various Industries.

Coal Mines.

Commons Regulation (Coity Wallia) Provisional Order.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.

Electric Lighting Provisional Order.

City of London Police.

Gas and Water Provisional Order.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).

Wells Particular Baptist and Congregational Chapels Charities

National Trust Charity.

Brooke Robinson Museum Charity.

Congregational Chapels Charities.

Eatington Wesleyan Methodist Chapel Property.

Plumptre Hospital Charity.

Headcorn Baptist Chapel Charity.

Tramways Provisional Orders.

975

Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation.

Greenock Port and Harbour Order Confirmation.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders.

Newark Gas.

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation.

Stocksbridge Gas.

Waterford Harbour.

Nuneaton Corporation.

Poole Corporation.

London County Council (Money).

Manchester Ship Canal.

Rotherham Corporation.

Bournemouth Gas and Water.

Sheffield Corporation.

Birmingham Corporation Tramways.

Blackpool Improvement.

East Ham Corporation.

Leeds Corporation.

London Electric Railway.

Shoreham-by-Sea Urban District Council.

Tynemouth Corporation.

West Hartlepool Corporation.

Middlesbrough Corporation.

Workington Corporation.

Tyne Improvement.

Huddersfield Corporation Gas.

Dover Gas.

Pembroke Gas.

Bedwellty Urban District Council.

Birmingham Corporation.

Milford Docks.

Stretford Urban District Council.

Londonderry Port and Harbour.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Rates).

Clowes Settled Estates.

Boland's Divorce.

PROFITEERING BILL.
Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended,
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, I will not pretend that the Bill of which I have the honour to move the Second Reading is one of a class of measures for which, personally, I have any very great affection. I do not suppose that it is one for which the majority of your Lordships have any great affection, and you will not be particularly reconciled to it by my saying that it is an emergency measure, a temporary measure; a measure to meet
976
very exceptional circumstances. Arguments of that kind have been used so very often during the last four or five years in defence of a great number of unpopular though necessary laws and regulations, that people generally are getting a bit tired of them. But, my Lords, an argument may be threadbare, it may be tiresome, but it may still be right, and that is the case in this instance. It is an exceptional measure, an emergency measure, a rough and ready remedy, but it is for a very great evil which it is impossible for any Government to ignore and with which, I believe, it would be impossible for any Parliament not to attempt to deal.
I feel, my Lords, that our controversies at the present time would be less acrimonious, and that public discontent would be much less general, if only the people would realise how extraordinarily abnormal the conditions all over the world in respect of industry and commerce are at the present time, how dislocated trade still is throughout the world, how little we can rely upon the operation of those economic forces which in ordinary circumstances would come into play, to check anything like excessive profits. People put up with everything during the war. At the present time they are, quite naturally, much less patient of restrictive laws and regulations; but it was not so much the war as the economic disturbances consequent upon the war which rendered interference with individual liberty and with private enterprise, and innumerable restrictions upon trade and business, inevitable. That great economic disturbance throughout the world still remains. In places anarchy reigns supreme, and production is practically stopped. There are other countries where production is crippled to an unprecedented degree owing to various causes which are the result of the war. Transportation is crippled on land, and even transportation by sea, although somewhat recovering at the present time, is very far from being equal to meeting all requirements. There is a scramble for shipping, to-day, almost as great as ever there was, and above all, last but by no means least, there is the absolute chaos of the exchanges. What that means it would take me too long to attempt to explain to your Lordships, but there is no business man who does not realise how the dislocation of the exchanges in all the principal countries of the world, and the constant changes which are occurring, disturb and impede business to an extent

977
which is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the world.
These are only some of the causes of the disturbance which lead to the crippling of production and impede the free flow of goods, and which afford exceptional opportunities for the speculator and the unscrupulous trader to enrich himself at the expense of the community. My Lords, do not let me be supposed to hold out the hope that anything we can do by this measure, or otherwise, will lead rapidly to a general fall of prices. Prices are high and will continue high from causes beyond all human control. There is a general scarcity of almost all articles of common and necessary use, and no wonder—it would be a miracle if it were otherwise. For four or five years the productive energies of the world, enormously increased no doubt by the stimulus of the war, have been devoted very largely to the creation of engines of destruction. Wealth, by millions and millions, has been destroyed or blown into the air. Labour has been diverted from the production of useful and necessary articles of all kinds.
Prices are, of course, high. The supply of all the articles which the world most wants is for the reasons which I have given, short of the demand, and there is no way out of this position, at least there is no sound and enduring way, except one, and that is the multiplication of goods, strenuous labour directed into the right channels—directed to the production of food, houses, ships, machinery, and all articles of use and necessity to the great body of the people, not of luxuries or things which we can largely do without. That is the only real and ultimate remedy, but that will take time. I need not say that the general slackness in respect of work—very natural, we must admit, after the strain of past years, but which I think it is about time to put a stop to—the general slackness and constant unfortunate interruptions of work owing to industrial disturbances are checking, delaying, and may fatally prejudice the recovery for which we are all longing and looking, and which in any case, as I have said, can only be a slow and gradual recovery. Unless these things can be by some means stopped there may be no recovery at all.
I say, then, with regard to the general high prices, that there are reasons for them which it is beyond human power to deal with. But here we must distinguish from this high tableland of prices, if I may
978
use that expression. Above this level, so much above the level to which we were accustomed in former years, there stand out certain peaks of excessive dearness. There are quite a number of articles of common use and consumption—for instance, many articles of clothing—which, judged not by the pre-war standard but by the very much higher standard of prices to which we are unfortunately now accustomed, still appear startlingly dear. Again, in almost all articles among goods of the same kind there are between place and place and between trader and trader extraordinary divergences of price. These facts are notorious, and they have engendered a widespread suspicion that there are nefarious influences at work. They have caused something like fury- among large sections of the people who are convinced that they are being robbed. They may be quite wrong—in many cases no doubt they are wrong—and their suspicions may be unfounded. Investigation will show that in many cases there are really exceptional reasons—difficulties of transportation, exceptional price of labour, a hundred causes—which may justify these prices that appear so startingly high.
I say that in many cases these suspicions may be wrong, but in many they may be right; anyway there is a case for inquiry. It is that inqury which the Government feel it their duty to undertake, and to undertake instantly. No matter what people may say to us about hurried legislation, the need for prompt legislation is great, for there is going to be a regular rebellion against these high prices, as there have been rebellions in other countries all over the world, unless people can be shown that there is good reason for them, or that where there is no good reason an attempt at any rate is being made to curb them. It is with this work of inquiry that the Bill starts. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1, subsection (1), you will see that the Bill empowers the Board of Trade to investigate prices, costs, and profits at all stages, and for that purpose by order to require any person to appear before them, and to furnish such information and produce such documents as they may require. That is enforced in a subsequent clause by the Board of Trade having power to require any person appearing before them to give evidence on oath. No doubt the most important exercise of this power may be to insist on the production of trade books.

979
This power of a general inquiry into the costs determining the range of prices in certain industries is the keynote of the whole Bill. We want to get at the truth about these extraordinary prices, and surely, my Lords, this will be all to the good, whatever the result. In some cases no doubt it will be shown that a trade or a section of a trade is exposed to exceptional disabilities, and has, owing to the circumstances of the time, to which I have referred, to contend with exceptional difficulties which justify these apparently outrageous prices. In that case it is only fair to the people engaged in the trade that the fact should be established, and should be established by an impartial authority. The public will be more satisfied, and the honest trader will no longer be exposed to injurious suspicion. That alone will surely be a valuable—though as far as the effect on our pockets is concerned it may be a negative—result, but it will be a valuable result as affecting not only fairness to individuals but the general state of public feeling.
Some relief will be afforded to the general tension when it is shown that there are cases—no doubt there will be many cases—where people have been under the impression that they have been robbed and where it will be shown to have been a wrong impression. But in the opposite case if it turns out—as I have no doubt whatever that it will turn out in some cases—that the public really is being grossly exploited, then no one surely will contend that we ought to sit down under such a state of things. Action will be called for, and action in that case will be justified, because it will be based on thorough knowledge. Here let me just say, lest anybody should think that we were going in for a wide and indiscriminate inquisition into the price of every sort of article, that this Act is limited in its application, by subsection (7) of Clause 1, "to any article or class of articles to which it is applied by order of the Board of Trade, being an article or class of articles declared by the order to be one or one of a kind in common use by the public, or being material, machinery, or accessories used in the production thereof."
We cannot hope, we do not attempt, to deal with all the innumerable articles of commerce. The purchasers of luxuries, of goods other than the common necessaries of life, must look after themselves. One
980
would like to stop all exploitation, but there is a limit to what is practicable. The great object is to prevent people of all classes from being plundered in their attempts to supply themselves with the common necessaries of life.
But the power given by the Bill to the Board of Trade is not limited to investigation, nor, as I have said, would any one wish that it should be a case of exploitation had been clearly made out. The Bill accordingly goes on to provide in Clause 1 (1) that the Board of Trade shall have power to receive and investigate complaints that a profit is being made which in view of all the circumstances is unreasonable, and on any such complaint they may by order either dismiss the complaint or declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit, and require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price. This is what I may call the disgorging clause, and it is no doubt, from the point of view of the general public, the most interesting provision of the Bill (I do not think myself that it is really the most important) and the one which is most likely to be of immediate application. It is clear that the investigations on a large scale into the operation of big branches of industry and trade which are contemplated by the first power of the Board of Trade to which I have referred will take much more time.
This clause, as I say, is likely to be of immediate application. I believe myself that its most powerful effect will be its deterrent effect, and that for one case in which a man is actually brought up under it there will be a hundred cases in which men will restrain themselves and put a limit to their greed of (rain rather than submit to the inquiry and the exposure which might ruin their business, even it it did not lead to their being subjected to severer penalties. For severer penalties than the mere having to disgorge unreasonable gains are provided in the Bill. In Clause 1 (2), which gives the Board of Trade power when it appears to them "that the circumstances so require"—which I interpret to mean in cases of very gross extortion to "take proceedings against the seller before a Court of summary jurisdiction," which Court of summary jurisdiction may impose a fine not exceeding £200, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. These are the principle weapons with which the Bill arms the public authority for preventing the exploitation of the public.

981
There are, of course, a great many points in this Bill on which I cannot touch, but which will all, no doubt, come under review in Committee. But I should like to say a few words about the manner in which these powers for the protection of the public are to be brought into play. I think it is idle to speculate—no man can tell—whether the complaints of excessive prices which may be brought under this Bill will or will not be very numerous. All speculation on that subject is mere guesswork. My own personal view is that there may be a considerable rush of applications in the first instance, but that, as the working of the measure gradually comes to be better understood, the number will fall off. I may be right or I may be wrong about that. Anyway, it is quite evident that the number of applications will be immensely greater than anything with which a public Department like the Board of Trade could itself deal. I do not suppose indeed that it will itself deal with any cases except those of a wide range of importance, such as may arise out of the operations of big wholesale dealers and manufacturers, perhaps of big trade combines. The vast majority of cases of complaints which are brought forward will have to be dealt with by those local committees which the Board of Trade is empowered by the Bill to invest with all its own powers under the Bill, with the exception of the power of fixing prices. As I conceive the situation, the main business of the Board of Trade will be that investigation into prices, costs, and profits in particular big branches of trade which may seem to call for such investigation to which I have already referred, and the general supervision of the local body to which, under Clause 2, it is enabled to delegate all or any of its powers, except the power of fixing prices.
No doubt the success or failure of the measure will depend very largely upon the composition and the working of the local committees which are to be appointed by the local authorities at the instance of the Board of Trade. On this point, all I can say is that our experience of the numerous local bodies which during the period of the war have been instrumental in carrying out—under the control of the central authority but with a great measure of independence—the exceptional powers created by Statute for the purposes of the war, in the case, for instance, of the Military Service Acts and more especially in the case of the
982
local committees under the Food Controller which have been extraordinarily successful in their work—our experience of them gives us good ground for hope that this unbeaureaucratic form of machinery will be both popular and effective.
Whatever may be said of this Bill, it cannot be said that it is a measure for empowering officials at Whitehall to go and interfere with everyone's business throughout the country. It is a measure very largely for the protection of the public by putting them in a position to protect themselves. At the same time, the recourse which, again on the analogy of the Military Service Acts, is given from these local committees to central appeal committees ought to prevent any possibility of injustice to an individual from local or personal animosities or from trade jealousies. There is, besides that, an important provision which was inserted in the House of Commons—I think it is certainly a good Amendment—to the effect that a member of a committee established by a local authority shall be disqualified from acting in any case where he is a trade competitor of the person against, whom the complaint under investigation has been lodged. So much about the reasons for the Bill, the main powers conferred by the Bill, and the machinery by which those powers are to be exercised.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships much longer about specific points, but there are three matters of sufficient magnitude to call for some notice even in this merely introductory speech. I refer In the first instance to the provision giving the Board of Trade power to fix prices, which provision was inserted in the House of Commons as an addition to Clause 1 (1) (a). I have already read those most important and vital words about the power of the Board of Trade to investigate prices, costs, and profits at all stages. The words here added by the House of Commons are—
"And on any such investigation they" [that is, the Board of Trade] "may by order fix maximum prices."
I know that there are many people, whose opinion is certainly entitled to respect, who think it would have been a better way of dealing with this difficulty (which we all recognise) by attempting to fix maximum prices all round and relying upon that alone to check profiteering. It is a proposal which has been most carefully considered

983
but which on investigation appeared to the members of the Government to be an impracticable method of carrying out the object which we all have at heart.
It is a very difficult subject with which to deal, but I think I should be justified in laying down the principle that the fixation of prices, in any case where you are not able to control the article from start to finish, is a most dangerous power which may very likely result in checking supply and production, thereby actually increasing the root of all our difficulties. That is not always the case; and, as I have said, in those comparatively rare cases where the authority which fixes the prices is able to control the article throughout, I think there is a case very often—as with regard to some of the particular articles of food—for the fixation of prices; but I do not object at all to this having been put into the Bill as I think it is a useful reserve power. There are cases in which is may be effective, but I am sure that it would be wise—as I am certain is the intention of the Board of Trade—to be very cautious in the exercise of it. Let me give one instance of the sort of difficulty that may arise. Take the case of an imported article, perhaps of considerable importance to the consumer. After careful investigation you fix a price which allows—considering what the importer has to pay for the article in the country of its origin and what he has to pay on transportation—a reasonable profit here. The moment you have fixed the price, up goes the cost in the country of origin. No doubt you may say, "You can alter the price here." Yes; but you cannot be constantly altering prices. These negotiations take time; meanwhile, until the alteration has been effected, there is a loss on that article with your fixed price. What happens is that the importer ceases to import, you at once get an increase of scarcity, and your last condition is worse than your first.
I am not arguing against the power; I wish merely to point out two things. One is that now we have the power we must be careful in our exercise of it; and the other is why we found it was impossible to rely only on this very doubtful and dangerous power in order to try to check the evil of high prices. It would have been an easier and pleasanter thing for the Government simply to have taken powers to regulate prices all round, but it would have been, in my opinion, wholly ineffective
984
as a general measure of control. The power of fixation of prices is one which it may be useful to have, and to which in certain cases resort may be had.
The next point of large importance to which I should like briefly to refer is the power contained in Clause 4, by which the Board of Trade may, if they think fit, authorise local authorities, subject to such conditions as the Board may impose, to purchase and sell any article or articles of any class to which this Bill applies. I know that this provision is highly controversial. I also know that in the opinion of many really competent judges it is regarded as perhaps the most valuable clause in the whole Bill. I am told that something of the kind has already been done successfully in various parts of the country although the power did not absolutely exist. That may or may not be the case. What is certain is that in some foreign countries where this method of trying to check high prices has been adopted—that is, where the authorities themselves have become dealers simply in order to keep a check by competition upon the traders—it has met with a very large measure of success. I think that the anxiety which it excites in some breasts is due to the idea that it is the commencement—the argument used against it is our old friend "the thin end of the wedge"—of a general system of muncipal trading. It is nothing of the kind. This is a six months' Bill. Can it be supposed that any local authority is going to plunge, especially when it is directed to proceed on a commercial basis and not by way of subsidy or expense to the ratepayers, into any large operation in the way of muncipal trading under a power which it will only have for six months? What is much more likely is that local markets of a temporary kind may be set up, or even the humble barrow may be called into requisition to compete with the excessive prices, where they exist, which may be charged by local shopkeepers. I hope that whatever the objection is on principle which your Lordships may take to any introduction of a system of municipal trading you will bear in mind the special circumstances of the case and not try to deprive us of the power of making an experiment which may fail, and if it fails may very well be abandoned, but which may also prove one of the most important and valuable means of checking the evils against which this Bill is directed.

985
You will be relieved to hear, my Lords, that I have come to the last point with which I propose on this occasion to trouble you. I should like to say one word with regard to a very remarkable clause which was inserted into the Bill in the House of Commons. It is what is now called Clause 3—"Operations of trusts, etc." It runs—
"Without prejudice to the generality of the powers under this Act, the Board of Trade shall obtain from all available sources information as to the nature, extent, and development of trusts, companies, firms, combinations, agreements, and arrangements connected with mining, manufactures, trade, commerce, finance, or transport, having for their purpose or effect the regulation of the prices or output of commodities or services produced or rendered in the United Kingdom or imported into the United Kingdom, or the delimitation of markets in respect thereof, or the regulation of transport rates and services, in so far as they tend to the creation of monopolies or to the restraint of trade, and the Board of Trade shall for the purposes of this section utilise the powers of investigation and of appointing committees conferred upon them by this Act."
The investigation into trust and combines existing for the restriction of trade and for the artificial augmentation of prices is no doubt one of the most difficult operations in which a Government Department could engage. I doubt whether within the six months during which the Bill will be in force it would be possible for the Board of Trade to carry out the provisions of this clause with regard to any considerable number of such trusts and combines. It may do so successfully in one or two cases. If the result is satisfactory, that part of the Bill, at any rate, may, by the good pleasure of Parliament, be prolonged.
What I would, however, specially like to say to your Lordships about this is that it may be argued, "Well, the introduction of this clause into the Bill in the House of Commons is a perfectly new departure and an immense enlargement of its original object and scope." It is a crossing of t's and a dotting of i's, and it is imposing upon the Board of Trade perhaps more definitely than was originally intended certain duties; but the duties themselves do not lie outside the scope and principle of what I have described as being the keynote and the basis of the whole measure—namely, that contained in Clause 1 (1) (a) which gives the power to investigate the prices, costs, and profits at all stages. Undoubtedly in the regulation of prices the power to look into the operation of these great trading trusts which determine whole
986
sale prices, and in some cases retail prices as well, is fundamentally more important than any action yon may take against the retailer, and if it had not been for the existence of that power in the Bill as it was originally drafted I think the measure would have been open to the criticism—to which it has been exposed, but in the circumstances unjustly exposed—that it attacked the small profiteer but let the large profiteer go scot free. That first Clause of the Bill is one which is directed against profiteering on the great scale, and it directs against it the only weapon by which I think it can be defeated; that is, the weapon of thorough investigation and publicity. This new clause, to which I do not in any way o-ojeet—it may be an advantage to put it in—is only writing large, as I say crossing the t's and dotting the i's of what was one of the most important provisions of the original measure, and one which was always within the contemplation of the Government.
I feel that I have been a very inadequate exponent of a very difficult and complicated subject. If there are points on which your Lordships require more elucidation—and I have no doubt there are ninny such points—it can be given, and I shall be very glad to give it so far as lies in my power in the further discussions of the Bill. I have only two or three remarks to make in conclusion. We have been reproached in the matter of this Bill with hasty legislation. It is true that the legislation is very hasty. I regret it as much as anybody, but the consideration given to this matter has not been hasty. The Bill, good or bad, is the result, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows as well as myself, of prolonged and most anxious consideration on the part of the Government.
You may criticise its provisions. There is no conceivable measure dealing with this subject which would not be open to any amount of criticism. It is very easy to criticise its provisions. It is very much more difficult to make out a case for alternative provisions, and it is a remarkable fact—and the Lord Chancellor will bear me out in this—that a great number of the suggestions which were made in the House of Commons for alternative methods of dealing with the trouble were suggestions which had been considered, and most carefully considered, over and over again by us, and which we only gave up because the weight of argument and expert advice con

987
vinced us that they were not practicable. The matter is one, I need not say, of extraordinary complexity and difficulty, and I hope your Lordships will take it from me that, whatever the defects of the measure may be and however regrettable it may be that we are obliged to discuss it in such a hurry—that I fully admit, and I feel it myself—whatever the defects of the measure may be, the proposals put forward by the Government are not the result of hasty deliberation and have not, in any case, been lightly adopted. They are the result of a very careful process of the winnowing of all possible suggestions for dealing with a matter of the greatest difficulty.
You may say, "If the thing is so difficult, so uncertain and so complex, why do you not leave it alone?" You cannot leave it alone. This is a universal evil all over the world. Profiteering is the cause of more disturbance, and it is a more powerful weapon in the hands of those who wish to destroy all social order than any other which they have got. You have it all over the world. In those countries where the authorities would not deal with it, the people have dealt with it themselves by rioting and rebellion. We do not want to leave matters to get to that point in this country. We believe—we are certain—that though these provisions may not be the absolute best, they are, nevertheless, provisions that will make a great and material difference and will bring about considerable relief to vast numbers of people. More than that, we are convinced—and I believe your Lordships will agree with me—that the mere fact that the Government and Parliament are not sitting with folded arms in the face of this great and admitted evil, but are making, at any rate, a serious, earnest and strenuous attempt to come to the relief of the suffering population, will do something, and will do a great deal, in itself, to allay that general indignation and resentment which might very soon take really dangerous forms, if nothing were done.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Milner.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Viscount, when uttering his final sentences, must have been well aware that the full sympathy of this House would go with him in regard to any general measure
988
having for its object the bringing of the whole question of supply and demand within reasonable limits; but I think the very full exposition of the Bill which he gave must have convinced your Lordships that he viewed with some apprehension the manner in which the points taken up by the Government in this great hurry would be accepted, and, still more, whether the methods adopted are entirely calculated to achieve the results he desires. Before I say a word on that subject, might I remind the noble Viscount that if the goodwill of this House could have been shown with regard to this subject, it has been shown by the appeals which for months have been made to the Government, to take action on their own account to prevent the state of affairs which they are now endeavouring, in great haste, to remedy.
If I merely mention the appeals which have been made, almost without response, I think I may convey to the Government that this House has not fallen short, for any want of goodwill, in this great work. First of all take the question of prices generally. The price of an article depends, as we all know, upon the sufficiency of the article. It requires an extraordinary organisation to enable any man or body of men to corner a large section of articles, if the supply is sufficient. We have, over and over again, almost implored the Government to open the ports, to take off the restrictions on a large number of imported goods. I believe that on the last occasion inquiry was made whether there were not some 700 articles on the tabooed list. I ask the noble Viscount now, Has that list been brought down? Are the Government doing their share to give to the country the fullest amount that we possibly can obtain by imports from abroad, or are they continuing, as they did for months after the Armistice, a restriction of imports most necessary to our manufactures, which is calculated to raise the price of every article? The second point on which we have pressed has been the delay of the Government in realising their own war stocks. They put those war stocks at £1,000,000,000. At intervals in the last few weeks there have been large sales of linen and other material, but has an substantial progress been made with those sales? In this way it is possible to do more to prevent profiteering than you can benefit the purchaser by punishment.

989
In the third place, Does the noble Viscount really think that the whole of this mischief is caused by unfair trading? Look at the question of the currency. Every time the Government has given one of its fresh benefactions, involving an enormous amount of money, you have had an inflation of the currency which has raised prices to the disadvantage of the whole community. With all these points before us I appeal to the Government not to think they are going to deal with profiteering only by the method of this Bill. It is quite impossible that a subject like this should be adequately dealt with in this House between Friday and Monday next. The urgency of it is, no doubt, great, and although these provisions were hastily considered in the House of Commons we perfectly realise that some measure must be hammered out in the course of the next few hours. May we not ask then that, side by side with this attempt, which I fear is a very crude one, the Government will take the larger steps which are necessary, and not delay too long.
I desire to make three or four criticisms on the Bill itself, and I do so not from a desire to make difficulties but with absolute sympathy with the object of the measure. The noble Viscount justified the insertion in Clause 1 of the provision for fixing maximum prices. That was done with strangely little consideration. It is probably a necessary power the Government should have in certain cases, but is it necessary or desirable in all cases. Take the desirability. Is it really possible to go over the whole field of British industry and insist on the Board of Trade taking action if they find it necessary? What does it mean? It means that everybody who feels himself aggrieved will go to the Board of Trade and ask them to interfere and fix the maximum price of the article hey are supplied with. Will it be possible for the Government to fix the price of pig-iron, steel-rails, all of which were only rendered possible by the subsidy from the Government, which I believe everyone would object to see revived. If you are not going to do it you may interfere in the most serious way with trade; and if the President of the Board of Trade has to do this his energies may be wasted on the much larger questions.
Take shipping. All sorts of deals are going on in shipping. There is undoubtedly great dislocation in shipping all over the
990
world. Are the Government going to say that, if the Board of Trade are sufficiently pressed, the unfortunate Minister will have to reconsider the price at which A may have bought from B, who may have bought from C, who nay have bought from D. I do not want to multiply instances but I suggest that we should consider, before the Committee stage, whether an Amendment which was moved by Colonel Walter Guinness in the House of Commons does not really meet the object in view. A provision specifying that maximum prices should apply to food, clothing, boots, and household necessities, would I believe cover nearly the whole of the province which particularly affects the classes to whom the noble Viscount alluded. The great amount of traffic from hand to hand and across the counter would be touched by such a provision, while the immense mass of the staple trade of the country would remain unfettered as at present. I commend that consideration to the noble Viscount with the desire that it should prove of some service.
I differ from the noble Viscount on one point. He thought that one of the chief results of the Bill would be its deterrent effect. I do not believe it. A great deal more would be done by leaving prices open than if the Board of Trade fixed the prices of raw material. In some cases it may be excessive. In all Bills which have interfered with prices, and with traffic, it has never been found that the deterrent effect has been such as the noble Viscount believes, while it has always been found that those who consider themselves aggrieved rush in and invoke assistance because they have nothing to lose and may gain a great deal. You will flood the Board of Trade. I believe, with an amount of business and complaints which will hang up the chief and immediate action we all wish to see taken.
I hope the noble Viscount will consider sub-section 5 of Clause 1—where a person is connected with a company and cannot prove he was ignorant, he is alleged to be guilty of what has transpired. I do not want in the least to absolve any person connected with companies any more than private firms or individuals. It is a question, however, to which the high legal authorities in this House should address their minds. It is a most serious change in the English law that you should assume a man guilty until he can prove himself innocent.

991
Surely before you proceed to give a man six months' imprisonment, or fine him £200, it is the business of the prosecutor to discover that he was a party to the offence and that he did not exercise proper care and safeguard the actions of those with whom he was connected. I suggest that because I think it is a point which was dealt with at a very late hour in the morning in the House of Commons.
The third point is with regard to trusts. Trust law is a very serious question. I believe it has baffled the United States of America in their operations for many years past. Is the noble Viscount quite sure that it is wise in this Bill to attempt to lay on the shoulders of the President of the Board of Trade such a prodigious inquiry as that involved in Clause 3? It covers the whole field of British industry. He wants, and we want him, to be able to put his finger on the plague spots and bring to book those who are making a profit out of the country's misfortunes. I think this huge inquiry must be either a dead letter or will snow under the distinguished official to whom it is proposed to entrust this duty.
The last question which I would raise is with regard to municipal trading. There is a very strong prejudice against municipal trading, and it surely ought to be the last resort. Is it wise, until you find there are no other means of reaching your goal, that these great powers for fixing prices and enforcing supplies should be hampered by attempts on the part of the municipalities, at a time when they should be busy with the Housing Question, to enter into competition with private concerns the members of whom are members or citizens of the municipalities? I should have thought it would be far better that we should have kept to what is I believe still existent, the power of Government purchase and Government control, which has been carried as far as it should be and which covered a large number of our special commodities. I am not urging that you should set them on foot, but that you should set in action in the same direction the machinery of hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of municipalities, to buy supplies and enter into contracts, seems to me to be a remedy worse than the disease which we want to cure.
I will only say one word more before I sit down. I believe the country is thoroughly sick of control, and that if we begin again we should do it by the smallest amount of
992
control consistent with our object. I heartily wish the Bill well, and I urge the noble Viscount to realise that any criticisms which I have ventured to make have been entirely with the desire that the object which we have in view should be carried out, and above all that in the wish there has been to spread the net sufficiently wide we may not have spread it so wide as to cause it by its own weight to fail in its object.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, even when most violently opposed to the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, I feel almost disarmed by his frankness and obvious sincerity. With the objects of this Bill I have great sympathy, but I do not think I ever heard during twenty years Parliamentary experience an important Bill damned with such faint praise as this Bill had bestowed upon it by the noble Viscount. He said that people had lost patience owing to the strain of long years of war. So also is a convalescent impatient, but a wise doctor does not try to improve his condition by quack remedies. What we need now is to get back to normal conditions in this country, but my doubt about this Bill—of course, I am not going to oppose the Second Reading—is whether it does not prolong the period of uncertainty in this country. I am not sure that it does not form part of a vicious circle in which we are, and that the remedy is not going to make the disease worse rather than better—whether the Bill is not a useless plaster, giving some local relief but doing nothing to remove the real cause from which we are suffering.
If I may enter upon the larger question touched upon by the noble Viscount and say what I believe we want to do and what must be done before any real improvement occurs, I would suggest that the Prime Minister, with such unique powers of appealing to the public and such imagination as are possessed by Mr. Lloyd George, ought in the present condition of affairs to tell the country frankly that we are in for a bad and difficult time, however well we behave, and that tinkering, partial measures will be of extraordinarily little me, that if only the country will be brave and patient and will work, things will come right in time, but that a new heaven and a new earth cannot be made, after the enormous waste of this war, by extravagant expectations which, when once formed, can only do damage if they are not realised.

993
The Government, however, have brought forward this measure. They appointed a committee one week to look into this question, and two or three weeks later they told the committee that it was of no further use and they were going to introduce a Bill. The best which I can say for the Bill is that it is a Bill of good intentions, but good intentions are proverbially the paving stones to a very doubtful destination. I have no animus against the Government, but I must say that the Government have not a good record on this question of profiteering. They have set a bad example hi some respects. During the years of war they made enormous profit out of oils and fats. It is true that a great deal more than that profit has gone in the subsidy on wheat, but look at the effect of the two transactions. The profit on fats and oils was made by keeping down the price paid to the natives of Africa, vet those natives had to pay more meanwhile for their cotton goods. It is no consolation to them that some of the profit thus made went for the payment for wheat from foreign countries. That is one instance of Government profiteering, and I could give others.
I was glad to hear the noble Viscount (Viscount Midleton) deal with the question of restrictions and embargoes on our trade. A few months ago it was the deliberate policy of the Government to keep up the prices of a great many commodities by the restriction of imports. That policy was avowedly based on the advice of Committees which I believe were largely manned by interested manufacturers. We have never had the composition of those Committees made public, but I believe they were largely manned by interested manufacturers. May I invite any of your Lordships who have the Bill in your hands to look at Clause 3. The Board of Trade is now to obtain from all available sources information as to the development—I am picking my words but I think quite fairly—of firms and combinations connected with manufactures having for their purpose or effect the regulation of the prices of commodities produced in the United Kingdom or imported into the United Kingdom, in so far as they tend to the creation of monopolies, or to the restraint of trade When I saw those words I really felt inclined to say to the Government: "Physician, heal thyself," because they are responsible for exactly the very condition of things which they are now instructing the Board of Trade to inquire
994
into. Their policy has been vacillating and uncertain to the last degree in regard to these trade questions.
I expect your Lordships all know your Pickwick, and you will remember the story of the Eatanswill Election. I think it was the hero, Mr. Pickwick himself, who said that he shouted with the crowd, and when asked what he did in the case of two crowds both of which were shouting he said that he shouted with the loudest. I do not want to be disrespectful to His Majesty's Government, but that is the course that they have pursued with regard to these trade matters. When the manufacturers shouted loudest about import restrictions the Government immediately went for a policy of restriction, now that the consumer is shouting they go for a policy of investigating the very policy of import restrictions that they have themselves set up.
Truly and wittily this Bill has been called a Manifesto rather than a Bill. It gives the impression to me of a Minister in a hurry, and a Minister who is not fully seized of British methods. Just when trade was recovering in many ways, a comparative stranger to our methods is to have all the powers that are given to him in Section 7 to which the noble Viscount alluded. I must say that I take an altogether different view of the effect of subsection (7) of Clause 1 from that taken by the noble Viscount. I should like to ask for a list of articles that could not be included under subsection (7), and if we got a list of those articles I am perfectly certain that it would not include any of the great articles of trade which are the foundation of the prosperity of this country. Everything of real importance under subsection (7), as I read it, is to be made the subject of the powers given to the Board of Trade under that subsection. I suppose that this Bib is inevitable, but I think that it will frighten honest traders. That is my real objection to it. I am afraid that it will have a deterrent effect upon honest traders, and that the dishonest man will run his chance. That is always the effect of legislation of this kind. I should have preferred to have certain commodities—as few as possible—regulated through the whole course of trade, as suggested inferentially by the noble Viscount opposite, rather than this Bill. Even such a course as that has disadvantages, as we all know, because Government regulation of price takes no cognisance of quality. Such a

995
course could not take proper cognisance of quality or grading. Those differences can only regulate themselves in a free market; they cannot regulate themselves under Government control.
The real trouble about profiteering will not be materially affected by this Bill. The real trouble is, I think, twofold. In the first place all that annual income returned as profits has been during the course of the war materially lessened by excess profits. The Government has never attempted to deal with the large question—I am afraid that it may now be too late—of the enormous increase of capital that many traders have achieved during this war—increase of capital which has not been subject to excess profits duty in any shape or form. That is one thing, and, after all, the working people of this country know it. I believe that is one of the great causes of dissatisfaction and unrest. My other remedy is the one I have already stated, that I think it is time the Government made known to the people as far as they can—and I am sure the Prime Minister could do it extraordinarily well if he gave his mind to it—the really dangerous and difficult position in which this country stands, and until that is done we cannot by little measures of this kind do much to get rid of the feeling of unrest in the country.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, there is no one less willing than I am to prolong debate on any subject in the sun of this hot day, but I think it would add to the scandal of the manner in which this Bill is being enacted if it did not have adequate consideration here. I hardly thought that it was a compliment to the intelligence of your Lordships' House when the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said that the Government were fully seized of all the information that they required, just after they had appointed a Select Committee of the other House to inquire into the problem in all its bearings. There is no one who would wish to treat lightly a Bill the policy and purpose of which is to set out to reduce the scale of prices on all articles of use by the public. At the same time your Lordships must recognise that this is an industrial revolution. It may be that the Board of Trade—for which the noble Viscount can only speak indirectly, and can hardly pledge them in doing so—does not mean widely to apply its power of fixing prices; still
996
you have given power to a Department of State to fix prices, if it so wish, for the whole range of commodities in common use throughout the country. It is quite true that the principle is not new. The principle was contained in the old Acts of the Edwards, of forestalling and regrating which Dr. Adam Smith denounced with so much force a long time ago. It was contained in a conspicuous degree in the famous decree of the Convention of 1793 fixing the maximum price of corn in France. We all know what was the end of all those experiments. I think that the noble Viscount must rather have been laughing within himself when he trotted out here those hoary fallacies of the Middle Ages as if he really believed in them.
I should like first to point out how unfairly this Bill is presented to the country. First of all, it is given the short title of "Profiteering." That is a kind of term which is applied very widely, and which it is impossible to define, but I beg your Lordships to recollect that in another place it was said—and said without contradiction—that the greatest profiteers of this country were the landlords. Of course, everybody here knows that to be transparently untrue, but it shows the difficulty of defining what profiteering is, and you can only imagine that the title was given to the Bill to make it practically impossible for anybody in either House of Parliament to oppose or amend it. I should like to see any candidate—and I speak with some experience—standing up before a popular audience in a great constituency and avowing that he had voted in favour of profiteering. Hardly anybody dared to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill or to vote against it at any subsequent stage, and I venture to say that it was very largely because of the skilful title which was given to it by the distinguished professor who carried it through the other House, and who seems to be less ingenuous than most professors are supposed to be in these matters of tactics.
But the question, of course, is whether this Bill is going to achieve any purpose at all, and we are unwilling to do anything here or elsewhere to throw away a chance of bringing down the range of prices. The arguments have been mainly that this Bill would have a terrorising effect. That was the argument used for the old Acts of centuries past—that the profiteers (they

997
were not called so) would be terrorised by the mere fact of heavy penalties being held over them. That was constantly used by those in the House of Commons who did not care to vote against the Bill. Therefore the Bill is defended on two lines of argument, first, that it is merely brought forward for parade purposes, that it is what in America they call Buncombe legislation; and, secondly, that it is brought forward without any intention of its being widely put into operation, and that it will be used simply for the purpose of making those who are deriving unconscionable profits from trade amenable to public opinion.
I use the argument because later on I wish to ask the noble Viscount to consider how far publicity is guaranteed to the tribunals set up under the Bill. The noble Viscount said that, he attached most importance to the method and system of inquiry which could be set up by the Board of Trade into articles of prime necessity, rather than to any work of local tribunals. I venture to point out that the Board of Trade is thus undertaking a task of such a vast complexity that it would require not one, but a hundred Royal Commissions to do the work adequately. It cannot be suggested that the local committees can do this work. The noble Viscount said that the real cause of the rise in prices is mainly to be attributed to the convulsions of exchange and to the enforced scarcity of means of production and means of transport. Does he imagine that the committee of Little Peddlington will be able to appreciate how far the convulsions of exchange and the difficulties of transport have had to do with prices of articles manufactured mainly from raw materials of foreign origin?
Perhaps in these matters the best thing is to give the House one experience derived from a particular trade of which one may have some knowledge. I will take the paper trade, for example. Nobody can say that paper is not a necessity of life, and that it is not an article of consumption by the public. I am not thinking only of newspapers because, as the noble Viscount, who is skilled in these matters knows, newspapers only take one-sixth of the whole of the paper production, of the country, and printing only one-third. As a matter of fact, I am told that every person dealing in a shop now insists more than ever upon the articles bought being carefully wrapped, not once but twice and three times in paper.
998
The community, that is to say, has reverted to its pre-war habits. As the noble Viscount knows from many cases which have been tried before the Courts, the weight of paper enters very materially into the cost of articles of consumption of the, very poor There are many famous cases which have proved that, and which have turned upon that and that alone. May I tell him that during the war the Paper Commission set up by the Government, which had power of restricting the importation of raw material never ventured to do more than fix a rough and ready price for paper consumed under contracts made before the war? They always professed the view that it would be beyond their ken and power to fix the price of paper outside the range of such contracts. I dare say there are a hundred grades and kinds of paper used. Paper mills range from the sweet and simple methods of Messrs. Portal's mills for the manufacture of bank paper to the huge concerns such as you find in Kent and in the North. When the Government fixed a schedule for the Paper Commission for the prices of waste paper to be used in manufacture there were thirty or forty different categories to be dealt with.
It is impossible to consider an article of that sort without seeing an endless series of special inquiries arising from them before the price could be fixed with any fairness, either to the producer or to the consumer. I point this out, because it is material as showing the want of reality in a good deal of the powers that are now sought under the Bill. But I also would ask the Government to say how far they are going to look into their own misfeasances at the present time. The high price of bricks is entirely caused by the fact that the Government is holding up the whole supply. They commandeered for the purpose of their great housing schemes the great quantity of bricks in the country, and at the present moment (I speak as Chairman of the Building Trades Committee of this part of England, and on the information given me by both employers and employed) the price of bricks for purposes outside these operations is artificially raised because the builders cannot get any quantity of the bricks released from Government control. That has been stated by the industrial Council of the building trade; it is the opinion of the trade. Therefore everything points really to the

999
wisdom of the advice which was given by my noble friend, that the only effective method of reducing the price of the necessities of life and of commodities in general use is to open the ports and remove the restrictions. As paper makers I admit it might not be pleasant for my colleagues, or confederates, to have the ports opened for the importation of paper. You are only allowed at present to import 25 per cent. of the supply manufactured at home. But if that were done it is quite certain that the price would fall. I am not dealing with the effect on the labour market—that is another matter—but the price would fall, and if you mean to reduce prices, and want to reduce prices, I think I can prove to the House that paper does enter into the price of nearly every commodity which the poor buy.
The old remedy resorted to throughout history whenever there has been a special scarcity of raw material, whenever there has been an abnormal rise in price, must be followed and adopted, and as soon as possible you must open the ports freely and you must increase, so far as you can, the facilities of shipping for that purpose. That is dealing with the main question of the supply of material on a great scale. I should say I do not think that the great trades have as a rule any reason to be afraid of the inquiry which is incorporated in Clause 1 of the Bill. Personally it seems to me a very good thing that in the Bill should be included also the proposal to hold inquiries into trusts, rings and kartels which was put forward by the Royal Commission which reported not long ago. I wish it had been done before. It seems to me that this would be an effective means of checking that which in some cases may be a great evil, and which any rate is an object of great suspicion by the public.
You cannot imagine that the power of inquiry into price—although I am aware that the smaller tribunals have no power of fixing prices—would be exercised except lay the Board of Trade. That must result in an expenditure far in excess of the £50,000 which the Government say will be absorbed in the process. The smaller committees which will be appointed I take it in every borough and in every urban district throughout the country—though that is not laid down in the Bill—will have to deal not with the big questions of articles of necessity in large dealings but with the petty dealings between small
1000
shopkeepers and their customers. I am honestly afraid—I believe the experience of every noble Lord in this House must be the same—that we are likely to reap a harvest of what I think the great poet calls "home-bred hate."
In this process every small tradesman will be called upon before the local committee and asked to make good his claim to the price he charges for various articles. A general inquiry by a committee of the Board of Trade is only setting up a series of Royal Commissions, and, as I have said. I do not think there is much reason for being afraid that injustice will be done by the Board of Trade or by those who act under its immediate future. Far be it from me to suggest that the committees in the various districts will act as a rule with prejudice or with unfairness. At the same time, it is a very hard and difficult thing to put the small shopkeeper before his fellow citizens and to ask him to account (as he will have to do) for every penny that goes to make up the price of the small dealings in which he is engaged. There is great temptation for the committee to take a prejudiced view. These committees cannot be considered as being quite on all fours with the Military Tribunals, and they necessarily start without any special knowledge of the trade. They can judge only from their general notions of what a fair profit ought to be.
In the other House, in the course of the Committee stage on this Bill, Mr. McLean who is one of the Labour leaders, stated that the price of an article ought to be fixed by the charge made for the highest efficiency in production and that nothing else should be allowed to count. I doubt whether there is a small shopkeeper in the country who could justify his charges if they were judged on that principle. The small shopkeeper has not many friends here I dare say, or even in the House of Commons; but you have to consider that he has "over-head charges"—as they would say in discussing industrial matters—for rent, and very often for assistance, which have to be spread over a very small number of commodities on sale. Naturally they increase proportionately to an inordinate degree. What is a profit to the small shopkeeper would be a gigantic gain to the great trader or to the co-operative society. If it is the intention of this House, or of Parliament, to crush out the small dealer everywhere, or if they contemplate

1001
it as a result of the machinery they are setting up under this Bill, that ought to be known. There is no doubt that perhaps the most economic means of distribution is through the great agencies and co-operative stores particularly in the north of England, and here in the South by those great firms whose names are household words in our midst. But no shopkeeper can justify his scale of profits as tested in that way. I hope injustice will not be done, but I think it is very likely to be done in some cases.
In the same way the noble Viscount spoke very hopefully of the power which is generally to be given under this Bill to municipal authorities to set up street markets. It is very easy, of course, for a local authority which has not to pay—which will not be surcharged with any loss it may make—to set up a department for dealing with one special line of goods or in one particular part of a general trade. There, again, the local authority could not pay rates to itself, and it would not be called upon to pay rates at all; it would have nothing but the day by day expense of carrying on a market in that particular line which it thought most favourable to its operations. I can only say that if this power is used I hope it will not be used except for a short period, and then that there will follow what there ought to have been long ago—namely, a general inquiry into the increase of market accommodation throughout the country. There is, as a matter of fact, a great paucity of markets in London and elsewhere, and no doubt the price of goods is artificially increased by the want of proper means for distribution and sale. But that is another matter.
I do not want to misrepresent the noble Viscount in any way, but he looks, I think, to public opinion, as brought into being and interpreted by these committees, as the principal means for effecting the object of the Bill. That cannot be done without publicity; therefore the newspaper Press is once more called upon to convey to the public faithful and accurate reports of the proceedings so that public opinion may not only be fully informed but may also be able to express itself in the various cases which will arise. I conceive that there will be an intense interest taken in the towns of the country in local proceedings, far more than in any general inquiry by the Board of Trade. The newspaper Press is in a considerable difficulty in this matter,
1002
and I have been asked by their representatives throughout the country to bring before the Government the expediency of extending to the Press for this purpose the qualified privilege which it enjoys under the Law of Libel (Amendment) Act of 1881, and the Amending Act of 1888. The Press has no general privilege for reporting what is not fair comment. Reports must be bona fide and without prejudice. At the same time, unless they are protected in this way in the report of proceedings taken before local Tribunals—though they are called by that name I think the title is an unhappy one; "local committees" would be better—they will not be able to do so with ally reasonable security.
Under the old Acts, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows, absolute Privilege is given to the reports of Parliament, of Parliamentary Committees, and in certain other cases; also, privilege is given to the reports of meetings of municipal bodies and of public authorities of a like character. But I do not think—I speak with great deference—that such a privilege would extend to the meetings of sub-committees appointed by a Department of State although the Department of State itself might, of course, be able to issue any report, or, more than that, to have its proceedings accurately given in the newspaper Press. Under this Bill these bodies may issue reports even when they sit in secret, and the power is retained by the Board of Trade of excluding the public from these Inquiries. Those communications might and would no doubt be privileged. I am dealing with the reports of these crises which, although these bodies are in no sense judicial (I am sorry to say), will take place with evidence not given on oath and with allegations freely made by old men and women as to hardships they may or may not have undergone. It is desirable in the interests of justice that there should be a fair and accurate reporting of these proceedings; otherwise that part of the Press which is most circumspect in its doings naturally will not want to put itself continually in a difficult and dangerous position; therefore it will either not report the proceedings or will give only an abbreviated, and, necessarily sometimes, an ineffective report.
I do not think there is very much difficulty about the matter; but it is of far more importance than appears at first sight. Public opinion can only have its

1003
expression, or mainly have its expression, through the newspaper Press of the country. Altogether I cannot say that I do not feel grave misgivings as to what the result of this legislation will be. It is said to be only temporary. There is hardly an important social measure in our time that has not been temporary in the first instance and its operations have not been continued either under the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts or by re-enactment afterwards. I do not know whether the best result of the steps we are now taking may not be to gain the information upon which a wide policy of trade regulation may be founded. I understand that to be an argument largely used by the promoters of the Bill. It was said by Mr. Bright that a country which could comprehend and act upon the lessons God had given it, would never be found wanting in times of crisis. Perhaps the lesson we shall learn from the operation of this Bill may teach us wisdom upon the great subject of our industrial commercial welfare in the future; and I hope, at all events, whatever legislation is undertaken will not be in the frantic, one would almost say the panic-stricken, haste in which we are asked to legislate now. I venture to make these suggestions to your Lordships' House, but I will not press the noble Viscount to give me an answer now. I dare say he will consider in Committee, if he is favourable to giving the privilege of publicity to the proceedings of these bodies, what words are apt for the purpose. I should be only too glad to accept them, because I think the Government and the newspaper Press have a common interest and a common purpose.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I quite agree with the noble Viscount. The public and the newspaper Press are both interested in this matter, and certainly the report of the proceedings of these Committees, if they are fair and accurate reports, should have the benefit of the privilege to which he refers. I am not quite sure whether they would have it without our putting express words to that effect into the Bill. If, however, on investigation I find that special words are necessary, I shall be happy to move an Amendment to that effect.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I am much obliged.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I ventured a few nights ago to make an
1004
emphatic protest against the manner in which Bills have, in this session in particular, been sent up to our House from the House of Commons. In the case of this Bill, which my noble friend has very properly criticised as a panic-stricken Bill, and in the circumstances under which it comes to us and under which it was carried, so we are informed, in an exhausted House of Commons, practically disabled by absolute fatigue from giving to the subject the care that it deserves, I cannot refrain, with the permission of your Lordships, from making a few observations in that direction against it to-night.
The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill said that it was a measure for which he had no affection. I can well under stand it, and I think the day will come, and at no distant time, when he will have even less reason than he has now for any affection for the measure of which he is the spokesman. The noble Viscount told us I in his opening observations that he thought our controversies here, and the general discontent existing at this moment with the Government, would be less than they are if we were to remember the war and the general consequences which have fallen from it. He went on to say, "I want to know the truth." What are the causes which have produced this state of feeling, which he described in some cases as one of absolute fury among some classes of the people? I am not in the least surprised at it, because this was the answer which he himself gave to his own question. What were the causes? The shortness of supplies of all things wanted by the people and the high prices which they had to give for them. These conditions, he said, had caused a positive fury, and the question I am going to ask the noble Viscount is how the Government have tried to remedy these consequences. In my opinion there are two causes which perhaps more than anything have contributed to these high prices and to the shortness of supplies. One of them the noble Viscount himself said was "exchange." I agree with him there. That, however, is not the only thing; for one of the most remarkable things in the career of this Government has been that they have never lost a possible opportunity of increasing to an enormous extent the amount of wages paid to the workers in this country.
There is nobody more anxious than myself that every man who does a good

1005
day's work should have a good and a fair rate of pay for it; but there are limits to everything, and the first result of these enormous increases in wages has been immensely diminished production. Everybody knows that. At one time it has been in agriculture. Great measures were taken two years ago—the noble Viscount took part in those debates and he will remember perfectly well, when proposals were made for increasing arable cultivation to an enormous extent, that I took part in the debate and suggested as an Amendment that the first thing to do was to see that the requisite labour would be there. We asked the Government to give a guarantee on that subject. They ended by agreeing to that demand, but there has never been sufficient labour since then. Wages have since gone up to the enormous height that they are now, and all the work that was done then for increasing arable cultivation, or nearly all of it, has been completely thrown away. Everyone knows—you can go through the country where you like—that at the present rate of wages, and the difficulties with regard to labour, the land which was ploughed up is now going back again of its own accord to grass, and vast quantities of it have been growing nothing but thistles and weeds.
The noble Viscount spoke about exchange. What have the Government done to deal with that question? It is a most unfortunate and extraordinary position into which this country has fallen. The exchange is so much against us that there has been nothing like it for years; it never has been so within my recollection, and I think you will have to go a long way back into history before you find anything of the sort. The Government, however, were warned of this two years ago by Lord D'Abernon. What has been done since then? Have you taken any steps to try and improve the exchange? You have done exactly the reverse. You have inflated the currency in this country by the issue of millions upon millions of £1 notes. That, in itself, is alone sufficient to have raised prices enormously, and you see the result in the exchange between ourselves and America to-day.
I do not want to delay the House. I do not know that we could do any good whatever by anything we can say here to-night, unless, indeed, there was a majority in this House prepared to throw out the Bill, and
1006
there is not one. Nor do I think, in all the circumstances, that it would be advisable to do so after holding out this prospect to the people, although I fancy the people will be greatly disappointed when the time comes. The noble Lord was confidant that what he was pressing to-night—the adoption of this Bill—would be both popular and effective. It is for that reason that I have reminded him of what occurred on a former occasion when he and I had to take prominent parts in the debate to which I have referred. I claim that I was more of a true prophet on that occasion than he was, and I have no doubt that I shall prove so again in this particular case.
I should like to remind him of another debate which we lied here when I brought forward what was practically a vote of censure on Lord Rhondda who had fixed prices upon article after article in, as I thought, a most unwarranted manner. What was the immediate result of that fixing of prices—a result which the noble Lord could not deny in debate? It was the immediate disappearance of almost every article upon which these arbitrary prices had been fixed. And now, it is to the fixing of prices in the same way, that you look in order to appease the discontent of the people, caused by the high prices which they have to pay. What will be their feeling, if the result of your endeavours on this occasion is the same as the result of the efforts of the noble Lord of whom I have just spoken; if the articles disappear, or become fewer instead of increasing, as the result of your action in putting maximum prices upon them? I think we ought in these respects to be guided by the experience which we have had even through the War as to the result of fixing arbitrary prices.
Remember that you are now going to give to the Board of Trade the most outrageous powers that ever were known. I can recall the time when a distinguished statesman in this House—I think it was in this House—said that the Board of Trade had always been the worst Department in the whole of the Government, and the most unpopular, because of the man who at that time was the chief official in charge of its business. I do not know who is at the present moment its chief official and I should be very sorry to make any reflection of that kind upon a man of whose proceed-

1007
ings I know nothing. I have made it quite clear, so far as I am concerned, that I am entirely opposed to the passing of this Bill, but I imagine that we have no alternative. We have not the power to throw it out. Even if we had, after what you have held out to the people, I would not be responsible for doing anything to cause them even greater discontent that they feel at the present moment.
After all, what is this Bill? What is the guise in which it comes to us? As the noble Lord said, the Bill is introduced apparently almost in a panic and it comes from a House which was not even in a physical condition to give it anything like the full attention it deserved; and then we are asked to deal with these enormous questions—all these new powers that are being conferred on a Government Department—at a moment's notice. I heard of the proceedings in the House of Commons, but I had no opportunity of seeing the Bill until I came to this House this morning. That is all the time that is thought by the Government to be requisite for the consideration by one of the Houses of Parliament of a Bill giving to a Government Department powers which have never been heard of before and which, unless they are used with the greatest possible caution, instead of getting you out of your difficulty, will land you, I am persuaded, into a far worse position before very long than you are in at the present moment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, it is indeed a melancholy result of Coalition government that one should see a distinguished statesman with a distinguished record which, without impertinence, one may attribute to him, supporting a Bill which, I feel convinced, must be contrary to all his traditions and all his training. A distinguished member of a college nearly as distinguished as my own in the great University of Oxford, he must have learned to laugh at the laws against forestalling and regrating; he must have been impressed with Bentham's argument against the usury laws and must have had rubbed into him, and almost taken in with every day at Oxford, the impossibility of artificial control of prices and the desirability of giving free handling to trade, and looking for the higgling of the market to bring about the right result.
We have been in great trouble. We are in great trouble. But the only way to get
1008
out of that trouble is to be courageous and to return to first principles. The longer we go on as we are, the worse we shall be. I can imagine the commission assigned to the noble Lord in the Cabinet. I should put it in the language addressed once to a converted heathen—
"Gentle Sicambrian, burn what you used to adore, and adore what you used to burn."
That seems to me to be the commission given to the noble Lord when he was asked to support this Bill. I will do him the respectful justice to say that he insisted largely on the powers of enquiry and research—a kind of research studentship for the Board of Trade. The President and his officers may research as much as ever they please, so far as I am concerned, if they will not have a fresh army of clerks at the expense of the taxpayers to conduct those researches, and if they will find time—poor things!—to attend to their legitimate business and not prolong correspondence over a great many months.
But apart from research, the Bill has all the evils of interference, with none of the advantages. Maximum prices! I should have thought we knew enough about them. Do your Lordships remember the time of food scarcity when a number of poor people—I call them poor; I mean small householders with limited means, fairly large families, and one or two servants—discovered (happy thought!) that they could buy a rabbit, which was not then subject to controlled price; whereupon rabbits went up, naturally enough, to a great price. What did the wiseacres of the Food Control Committee do? They put on a maximum price, with the result that rabbits disappeared from the market. That is the lesson I wish members of the Government would take.
At this hour, and in this thin House, and with the intimation from both sides that this Bill is not really going to be defeated (though I would be glad if it were defeated) it is no use my troubling your Lordships with a long speech. I have made my protest as an impenitent Cobdenite, Gladstonite, and Free Trader, and I venture to prophesy that you will do no good until you return to sane principles of commerce. Having done that, I will take up a more modest and humble position. I will take my position as a lawyer, and I will ask the attention of the noble Viscount to the passage to which Lord Midleton referred—subection (5) of Clause 1. To begin with, the grammar is wrong.
VISCOUNT MILNER: There is a misprint.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Can you tell me what it should be?
VISCOUNT MILNER: It should read "Where a person convicted under this section is a company the chairman"—the words "the chairman" have been dropped out.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Thank you; that explains it. But has the noble Viscount thought how this is to work? "Shall be guilty"—Does it mean that he is convicted? Does the conviction of the company thereby make the chairman guilty, or does it mean that thereupon there may be separate proceedings against the chairman, or managing director, or the officer concerned, in which he may be proved to be guilty. I confess as a lawyer I am quite unable to say what the meaning of the clause is. Without perhaps going so far as Lord Midleton in his assertion that nothing of the kind is known, because there is something like it in one of the Unseaworthy Ships Acts, I venture to say that it is going far indeed to enact that the chairman and every officer concerned in the management of the company (the chief clerk may stand for that) shall be guilty of a like offence unless he proves that the act took place without his knowledge. I feel certain that on consideration His Majesty's Government could put that clause into a form less likely to do injustice.
Then again in subsection 7 there are these words, "or class of articles declared by the order to be one or one of a kind in common use by the public." I would suggest four articles which the Board of Trade would be perfectly justified in saying should come under these words, and I ask your Lordships whether you are prepared to think there should be either profiteering alleged, or maximum prices, given in respect to them—namely, bicycles, photographs, gramophones, and newspapers. Those are four articles in common use by the public, and you may have the Board of Trade saying—I do not know why they should not—that to charge 2d. for a newspaper is a very illegitimate form of profit-erring.
There is one commodity in which there is more profiteering than in any other—and that commodity is labour. It is
1010
profiteering which ought (I will not say to be prevented, because to be consistent with my views persons should be able to sell their labour in the dearest market) but which ought not to be encouraged by the Government; and it is a profiteering which, almost alone, is at the bottom of our misfortunes. Let moral suasion be applied to those who are profiteering in this matter, let it be pointed out that they are the people who are really raising prices, and much more good will be done than by this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read la, and to be printed.
BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE UNIFORM BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.

CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.
WAR PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to, and with a consequential Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The House of Commons has accepted the Amendments which your Lordships inserted in this Bill, but owing to an oversight—a word having dropped out—a drafting Amendment was still required, and this the Commons have made.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL.
Message from the Commons, That they agree to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords; that they disagree to one other of the Amendments, for which disagreement they assign a Reason.
PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.
(From Minutes of August 14]
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (RATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Hylton), and reported from the Committee.
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
To be read 3a on Monday next (The Lord Hylton.)
INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
TRADE MARKS BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off until after the recess.

WOMEN'S ROYAL AIR FORCE.
The Select Committee to meet to-morrow, at half-past Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
Ordered, That the Select Committee have leave to hear Counsel and to examine witnesses on oath: The evidence taken before the said Committee, from time to time, 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.
House adjourned at five o'clock, until Monday, three o'clock.