Sitting of 21 December 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HAMILTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Promoter of the Bill, Mrs. Mary Isabella Hamilton, have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if she shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of her intention to do so be lodged in the Judicial Office not later than Three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid.
That the Bill shall be deposited in the Judicial Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day of which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session.
That the proceedings on the Bill shall be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages.
That the Standing Orders, by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated, shall not apply to the Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the Second Reading of the Dyestuffs

701
(Import Regulation) Bill, which I now move, has the object of safeguarding the dye-making industry of this country. Its effect and purport is to prohibit all import of dyestuffs into this country, except those that may be imported under licence. The materials to which the Bill applies are described in the first clause of the Bill as synthetic organic dyestuffs, colours and colouring matters, and all organic intermediate products used in the manufacture of dyestuffs, colours, or colouring matters. These synthetic organic dyes represent dyes produced from coal tar or compound of carbon, and are called synthetic because they are built up in the factory or laboratory and are not produced by extraction like the natural dyes. As your Lordships are aware, many of the natural dyes have been entirely driven out. of the market by the synthetic dyes, and, of course, a very large range of dyes has been produced by these synthetic processes which were not produced by what I may call the natural system. The second head of prohibition is colours and colouring matters, which are not in the strict sense of the word dyes but are produced by the same processes and require the same knowledge as is required for the production of synthetic organic dyes proper. Then under the third head come what are known as the intermediate products, which more or less explain themselves. They come half-way between the coal tar and the finished product.
Such being the subjects which are to be only imported under licence, what is the system which is to be applied to them? The system is the licensing system, and these licences may be either general or particular—that is to say, there may be a general licence allowing certain classes of dyes to be freely imported, or there may be a particular licence either for some particular dye or even some particular person, if there is urgent necessity for the grant of such a licence. This system of licences is under the control of the Board of Trade, but the Board of Trade will, I understand, very largely act upon the advice of a Committee known as the Licensing Committee. This Committee is really the pivot of the Bill, and I should like to call your Lordships' attention very closely to the composition of the Committee. If you had all the interests which may be said to be affected by the use of dyes represented on the Committee you would have had a very large and unwieldy body, but the number of the Committee
702
is limited to eleven—five representatives of the dye consumers, three of the dye producers, and three neutrals, one of whom is to be chairman. I should like to say at once that this Committee and its composition is not a rigid scheme forced by an inelastic Public Department upon a reluctant trade, but it is, on the contrary, the product of the. consideration and the consultation of the trade itself, and it differs in many respects from the Committee which administered the system of licences when they were prohibited in the year 1919. Of course, the important point about this Committee—and this your Lordships will easily observe—is the great predominance given upon it to the representatives of the dye consumers. They have five out of the eleven members, and this was readily conceded by the representatives of the dye manufacturers, because they felt that unless the dye consumers were satisfied the whole system was bound to break down.
The second note of the scheme, therefore, is that it comes before your Lordships as a scheme very largely agreed to by the trade concerned. Something like 90 per cent. of the trade of colour consumers have, I understand, agreed to this scheme and are prepared to work it. These are mainly representative of what is called the Colour Users' Association. The objection to the Bill comes from the Calico Printers' Association. One reason I believe why they object to it is that they are mostly making use of particular dyes which are not made to any particular extent in this country at the present time, and would have to be imported; therefore naturally they have some fears about their trade. But I shall show later that those fears are groundless, and I might explain that, while they have made vigorous objection, when the matter is passed they are perfectly prepared to co-operate with the Committee, and it seems certain that a prominent calico printer will form one of the members of the Committee. I think that the producers speak for themselves, but as regards the three neutrals, one of these, I understand, will be a distinguished organic chemist, familiar with all these processes but not naturally interested in the dye industry, and there will be a chairman who will be appointed by the President of the Board of Trade himself.
Let me say a word as to how this system of licences will work. I understand that

703
many of those who use dyes generally place contracts for their requirements a good many months ahead. They know, therefore, at any time what their requirements will be. Again, the manufacturers will be able to make a fairly good estimate for some months to come of what their production of dyes is likely to be. The first duty, therefore, of this committee will be to balance the supply against the demand, and if the demand is a good deal larger than the supply, they will then have to examine into it and see that the surplus amount is imported, and imported without difficulty, from other countries. Take any particular class of dyes. If the dye is not produced in this country it is obvious that there will not be the slightest difficulty about the importation of that dye. A licence would then be granted without question. But a more difficult case arises where the dye may be produced, but not in sufficient quantities, in this country. In that case a percentage will have to be imported from abroad. This committee, who really are the trade themselves, will have to decide what the surplus to be imported should be, and what percentage it will be of the amount produced in this country. They will also have to deal probably with the distribution. The arrangement no doubt will be that the trade will very largely ration itself, so that not only will the trade, or this committee, decide on the amounts to be imported into this country, but they will also deal very largely with the distribution, so as to ensure that the distribution is fairly arranged. Suppose it is not so much a question of amount as of price. I think in that case the consumers on this Committee will be perfectly able to take care of themselves, and will ensure that prices for any particular dye are not too high in this country. They will reduce the price, or will import from other countries in order to ensure that prices are reduced. That is a very general account of the way in which this committee will work.
Before I deal a little further with the action of this Committee I must refer to one or two of the minor points in the Bill, so that I may finish with the details. A licence fee for administrative expenses up to £5 may be charged by the Committee, but there is no licence duty, because it is thought that in many ways, as your Lordships will easily see, this might act unfairly on different importers at different periods of the year and in differ-
704
ent states of the market. There is one very important provision that was introduced in another place, I think on the Report stage, and that is that dyes produced in the British Empire will be imported free. There is established here another example of Imperial Preference which I am quite sure will commend itself to your Lordships. There is another provision to avoid any suspicion of unfairness as regards the dealings of the Committee. If any applicant complains that any member of the Committee may be said to be a trade competitor or to have feeling against him, that member. of the Committee will not deal with this applicant's case, nor will he be able to examine any papers or anything connected with his case.
There is another Committee set up in subsection (6) of Clause 2. That is a committee which has nothing whatever to do with the licence. The subsection runs—
"For the purpose of advising them with respect to the efficient and economical development of the dye-making industry, the Board shall constitute a committee of persons concerned in the trades of dye-maker or dye-user and of such other persons not directly concerned in such trades as the Board may determine."
The business of that committee will be, I understand, to keep a sort of watching brief over the general interests of the industry, to examine into such questions as to what dyes are produced in this country and what are not, to make suggestions possibly as to the further course of production, to co-ordinate research both at the Universities and elsewhere, and to further experimentation in the production of some of these organic dyes. The last point on the Bill that I wish to refer to is the period of time for which it operates. It will operate for ten years. Your Lordships will observe words not very usual in Bills of this kind—it will operate "for ten years and no longer."
Let me say a word now as to the particular method of safeguarding the trade which is adopted in this Bill. There will be many who agree with the general principle and who yet dislike the method which is adopted. There are only three main ways in which this trade could be safeguarded. One is by the method of tariff, the other is by subsidies, and the third is by some system of licence such as is embodied in this Bill. I will dismiss the question of subsidies rapidly, because your Lordships realize that public money has to be safe-

705
guarded, and subsidies involve extremely difficult inquiries into both the cost of production and selling prices not only in this country but in other countries, and they also involve an amount of interference and control and the creation of that large number of officials to which your Lordships have always been definitely opposed. I therefore dismiss that system in a few words. Then there is the method of tariff. Tariffs, of course, have rather a disagreeable sound in many people's ears. Moreover, you do not want tariffs, because under the licensing system you desire all these dyes if possible to come in free, and if you were to have a tariff put on, considering the difficulties of the exchange and the relation of the German currency to our own at the present time, these tariffs to be of any value would have to be so large that the system would practically be impossible.
Therefore we come to the licensing system, which I submit to your Lordships is more elastic, because it can be most carefully graded, as times goes on, to the actual requirements of the trade. Moreover, it gives perfect freedom for as many articles as possible. Only those which are being made at a reasonable price in this country will be safeguarded from that crushing competition of Germany upon which I will later say a word. This licensing system is to be worked as far as possible by persons whose interest it is to have these dyes and make use of them at the lowest possible price. Further, the system will be as little official as possible. I understand that the cost to the State of the administration will be quite negligible, something between £2,000 and £3,000, because the experts who will advise this Committee will be paid, I understand, by these interests themselves. The Board of Trade, of course, will rely very largely on the advice which they get from this Committee and will only intervene if the Objects of the Bill are really being set aside. Moreover, so far is this process of freedom and decentralisation carried that this Committee does not meet in London, where it might be subject to all the unholy influences of Whitehall, but in Manchester, and it will be separated, therefore, by the great distance from Whitehall. The only part that will be played by the Board of Trade and by the President will be for the President in London to smile benignantly upon the Committee in Manchester, from the distance between London and Man-
706
chester. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that if there is State control it is State control reduced to the smallest possible proportions. If it is a disagreeable pill, it is a homœopathic pill containing very small quantities of the disagreeable drug.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Emmott has some designs rather adverse to this Bill, largely because of the experience he has had at the Foreign Trade Department during the war. That was worked, of course, very largely by officials, and though no doubt my noble friend had the very greatest success in that particular Department I believe one of his difficulties was that he was hampered by other Government Departments always wanting to have a finger in the pie and to have their say as to whether an article should or should not be dealt with. Here we have not several Departments intervening in the matter—which, I agree, makes action almost impossible; in fact, there is hardly one Department, because there is only one Department which is put in the position of general control.
There is one great advantage, I think, in this Bill which will perhaps make discussion and debate on it more easy; there is nothing in it to arouse the furies of controversy as between Free Trade and Protection, which have fortunately been lulled to sleep—to a long sleep, let us hope—during the war. I should like on this head to quote from Mr. Asquith himself, quite the most impeccable, the most austere, and I believe the most orthodox of Free Traders—
"I want to impress upon the Government that there is really no question here of what I might call the abstract question of Free Trade and Protection. It does nor arise. The question is, What is the hest method of safeguarding what we agree to be an important national industry?"
There is, I believe, on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of this Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There are three.
VISCOUNT PEEL: As the noble and learned Lord says, there are three. But let me deal for the moment with the first. The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, is to move—
"That this House declines to proceed with this Bill until time has been afforded for full inquiry into the circumstances that have led to its introduction."
LORD BUCKMASTER: With the permission of the House I shall ask leave to withdraw that Motion, and let Lord Emmott's Motion be that on which the debate shall proceed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If I may say so, I think the noble and learned Lord has exercised a very wise discretion, because it relieves me to some extent from a portion of my task.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Viscount need not feel relieved, because I shall use the same arguments on Lord Emmott's Motion.
VISCOUNT PEEL: On the contrary, I submit that the arguments will be quite different.
LORD BUCKMASTER: No; they are quite the same.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They ought to be different if they are relevant, because the noble and learned Lord thinks there has not been sufficient inquiry.
LORD BUCKMASTER: So does Lord Emmott.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Does he also think so?
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If Lord Emmott thinks so, I am going to try to prove to your Lordships that I do not believe that there is hardly any question which has conic before your Lordships in the form of a Bill which has had so continuous, so protracted, and so searching an investigation as the subject-matter upon which this Bill is based.
Now, I must ask your Lordships to go back awhile, and to allow me to call your attention to what happened at the outbreak of and during the war, because the conditions then and the experience we got then are one of the great grounds upon which I am asking your Lordships to pass this Bill. First of all, what was the position as regards these organic dyestuffs in this country and in Germany at the outbreak of the war? Everybody knows the general story of the invention and production of these dyestuffs in this country by the brilliant Englishman, of the brains
708
of that Englishman being stolen by the Teuton, and of the tremendous and highly-organised industry built up in Germany as the result of that man's brains. The result was that the imports into this country and our total consumption before the war came from Germany, and that the small remnant that was produced in this country and the distribution, the agency, and the selling were very largely under the control of the German firms themselves. So that the penetration of that industry and its control in this country by Germany could hardly be surpassed.
Again, as the result of having this highly-organised industry with its very large capital, the Germans had the immense advantage that these great dye-making businesses could without difficulty be converted into industries for the production of materials for explosives and munitions of war. What advantage that gave to the Germans your Lordships may easily conceive. It also had a more malificent advantage to the Germans in that they were able, again very easily, to produce those quantities of poison gas which introduced a new and disagreeable element into the practice of war. But there was a third point upon which I lay very great stress on behalf of the Government, and that was that connected with the immense production of these synthetic dyes there was a cluster of highly-trained chemists, highly skilled in all the problems of the carbon compounds leading up to the production of these dyes. They were always experimenting; they were always in touch with these industries; they were always suggesting new methods and new dyes. The existence within that country of this large number of highly-trained chemists had one tremendous result for the Germans during the war—they were able to produce and to extract their nitrogen from the air to build up nitric acid for the explosives, which made it unnecessary for them to import nitrates from Chili and made them absolutely self-dependent as regards the importation of these most necessary ingredients for their explosives. They had, therefore, those three great advantages over ourselves.
On the other hand, what had we? We found ourselves in the most deplorable position. We had not the trade; we had not the materials; we had not the intermediates. Our trade was controlled by Germany, and we had not that large body

709
of chemists highly trained in organic chemistry who would have been of such incalculable and inestimable advantage to us during the war, a body of chemists who would grow most easily in connection with this organic industry of dyes, and who, unless they got some means of livelihood, cannot live by the contemplation of the fascinating, the formidable, and elaborate system of the carbon compounds. Improvisation on this scale was entirely impossible. I dwell on this because it must emphasise the story to show the desperate efforts that were made by this country to try and remedy the terrible condition into which it had fallen through the neglect of the safeguarding of this key and pivotal industry.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It was the neglect of science.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I dealt with that when speaking of the chemists. What were one or two of the steps that we had to take at the outbreak of the war? First of all we actually had to grant licences in order to import dyestuffs from enemy countries. And I suppose we should have continued to do so only that the Germans were quite alive to that position, and they would not allow their agents in neutral countries to sell dyestuffs to the United Kingdom. except in exchange for rubber, copper, and other commodities of which Germany fell short. The Swiss came most gallantly to our rescue, and we made rather elaborate arrangements with Switzerland, by which certain intermediates were exported to Switzerland, under promise that when they were manufactured into the finished articles the products should come back to this country. We also gave priority to the dye industry in this country, such as it was, in respect of buildings and plant, and we gave them as much as we could of the limited quantities of benzol, toluol, and phenol which could be reserved for them and which was not used for making munitions of war.
But that did not exhaust our activities, because then the Government began, by subsidy, to try to assist companies that were making these dyestuffs. I do not want to deal fully with that point, though I shall be quite ready to answer any question upon it, because the history of that is rather long. But I would remind your Lordships that as early as 1915 the British
710
Dyes Industries was started, and the Government lent it a great deal of money in the form of debentures, although that company was not quite so successful as it might have been in the production of dyes, because its activities were so much required for the production of explosives. The later step was taken when the larger company was formed, called the Dyestuffs Corporation. That was a combination of the old dyestuffs company and of Levinsteins, and of that the Government took a very large share. Indeed, the money was very largely obtained on the face of the understanding deliberately made by the President of the Board of Trade that it would be some safeguard of the interests of dye makers if they subscribed the money. There is therefore no doubt some obligation to the shareholders.
But I want to place this case upon. a far wider basis than that; I want to place it on the general interests of the country, and not merely on an undertaking given to the shareholders. Again, various systems of assisting the trade were set on foot as regards the provision of capital at cheaper rates for undertakings that required money, and for special classes of dyes which required specially heavy outlay at the outset. But all these efforts were improvisation—efforts to meet the terrible difficulty in which the British Government was placed. through not having in this country a properly organised dye industry which might have supplied its needs if it had existed, and which would undoubtedly have shortened the war.
Complaint has been made, and is made on the. Notice Paper, of insufficient inquiry before this Bill was launched upon your Lordships want. to show that not only was there ample and sufficient enquiry, but that this particular policy is not the mere outcome of the brains of the Government at the present time, but is really only the carrying out of a continuous stream of advice and suggestion that has come from the different Governments, Coalition and other, during the last five years, and of men representing every side of politics and industry. The first prominent man, I believe, who sounded the tocsin of danger in this respect was again Mr. Asquith, who, speaking in November, 1914, said—
"The excessive dependence of this country on a single foreign country for materials of such vital importance to industries in which a million of our workpeople are employed constitutes a permanent danger, which can only be remedied by a

711
combined national effort on a scale which justifies an exceptional method of State encouragement."
The next quotation I will give is from April, 1916. Mr. Runciman, at that time, I think, President of the Board of Trade, set up a committee of the textile trades representing entirely colour users. They report in May, 1917, and say—
"It will always be a matter for wonder that great and powerful trades like the British textile trades should have allowed themselves to sink into a state of complete dependence upon a foreign country in respect of the supply of materials vital to their industry."
They also approve of the general prohibition of the importation of foreign dyes for a term of years except under licence, which is exactly the proposal in this Bill; and they call attention to the certainty that the Germans will make a desperate effort to recover after the war that complete control over our industry which they possessed before the war. May I say, though I only give those two illustrations, that the whole of the Report of that Committee is extremely interesting as showing the general position of our dye industry in the opinion of those most competent witnesses.
Then again the matter was taken into other hands. On October 6, 1916, a Committee of the Cabinet, consisting of Mr. Runciman, as Chairman, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Chamberlain and Dr. Addison reported unanimously in favour of prohibiting the importation of dyestuffs after the war except under licences granted by the Dyes Commission, and in favour of encouraging the manufacture of the more difficult dyes during the reconstruction period by special measures. There we get a pronouncement of a committee of the Cabinet. And then we get sonic advice from rather a different angle—from an extremely important committee presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That committee did not, I believe, make a specific recommendation about the dyes industry, but it reported that the industries described as key and pivotal should be maintained in this country at all hazards and at all expense. No ordinary economic rules apply to the situation of these minor but important industries. Again, the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee was very exhaustive and very extensive. There was a further Report on a similar subject on January 8, 1918. It was called the Economic Offensive Committee and the Chairman was Sir Edward Carson. Their Report was approved by the War
712
Cabinet on January 23, 1918. They reasserted the principle of the prohibition of imported dyestuffs after the war except under licence.
I think I have already gone through a pretty extensive list of investigations, and you can hardly say that so far the matter has not been dealt with most exhaustively and most thoroughly. I come to May 5, 1918. Sir Albert Stanley, then President of the Board of Trade, said—
"In order to safeguard this particular industry against the great efforts which these great German dye-making firms are certain to make after the war to destroy all that we have accomplished through the war and to make this industry again subservient to Germany, the importation of all foreign dyestuffs should be controlled by a system of licences for a period of not less than ten years."
Action, indeed, was taken upon that point, and on January 24, 1919, there was a Proclamation prohibiting imports into the United Kingdom except under licence of all derivatives of coal tar capable pf being used as dyestuffs or synthetic colours; and on July 18, 1919, the prospectus of the British Dyestuffs Corporation containing Sir Albert Stanley's statement was issued and was approved by the Government before it was issued. The prohibition of dyestuffs under Section 43 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, continued in operation until Mr. Justice Sankey's judgment, which declared that under that section prohibition of any matters other than those relating to arms and ammunition was ultra vires. Since Mr. Justice Sankey's judgment was given there has been no restriction on the import of dyes, but, as your Lordships know, towards the end of last year and the early months of this year there was practically an atrophy of the import of dyes into this country from Germany because their works had not yet recovered. Their recovery since then has been extremely rapid.
Having shown the immense weight of authority and investigation that there has been behind this Bill, I want now to give your Lordships a few figures to show the actual position of the import of dyes into this country and of production in Germany and our own country in the years before the war. In 1913 the British output was 2,000 tons, while the British import was 18,000 tons, representing a value of something under £2,000,000. The German output at that time was 135,000 tons, that is to say over seventy times the amount of the British output. After the

713
efforts the British Government had made during the war, the British output in 1918 was 17,500 tons, and the British import was 2,000 tons, which is exactly the amount that they had been making in the year before the war. In 1919 the British output was 20,000 tons; that is to say an amount equal to the whole of the amount of import and output in this country in the year before the war.
I do not like to present these figures without one reservation. These figures may be all very well as to quantity, but what about quality? These dyes, I understand, were of the more ordinary sorts and not of the rarer kinds which require far more kill to produce. What is the German position? Owing to the difficulties which Germany encountered in the early portion of this year, the amount imported into this country was negligible; in fact, it did not exist at all in the first two or three months. But since that time the growth of the German imports has been rapidly increasing, and up to September the amount imported from Germany was 3,000 tons. That is all the more significant, because, as I said, in the early months of the year there was no import at all. Moreover, let us examine the figures of the German output. At the present time I understand the German output is 5,500 tons monthly. In a year that would represent something like 66,000 tons, n half the output of Germany in the year before the war. I understand that this recovery is going on very rapidly, and that the enormous German combination is developing its resources and factories. I would remind your Lordships that during the war there was a very large combination of leading German firms, the result of which was that something like £40,000,000 of capital were combined in the one industry.
So much for some of the dangers to which we are exposed from the side of Germany, dangers thoroughly realised by traders in this country. I understand that the German makers have made no secret of their determination to put, their wares on our market at any price and to ensure that there shall be no renascence, or rather that there shall be a decay, of this rising, useful, British industry. Other countries, of course, have taken measures to safeguard their own industries. In the United States they have a system of prohibition of the entry into that country of dyestuffs except under licence. They have not only a system of import under licence but they combine
714
with that a 30 per cent. ad valorem duty on imported dyestuffs.
I submit, therefore, to your Lordships that the policy expressed in this Bill is necessary on several broad grounds. I think I have shown, and I believe your Lordships realise, that for the purpose of making ourselves entirely self-dependent in tune of war it is absolutely essential. We have had too bitter an experience to forget what we have gone through. But I do not put it only on that account. I put it also on the ground of the necessity of establishing in time of peace a highly organised and valuable dye industry, because I am informed that it is mainly in connection with dyestuffs that you have these clusters of organic chemists who are so necessary not only to the dye industry of the country but for the prosecution of further researches in the application of chemistry to industry and for the further advancement and application of fresh processes to so many of our industrial concerns. On those two grounds—the necessity in peace, and the vital necessity in war, of having an organised dyestuff industry—I urge this Bill.
Again, I think I have shown to your Lordships that this safeguarding is really necessary because of the dangers to which we are exposed by this very highly organised, very highly trained, and very competent business which is so rapidly recovering its position in Germany. Much may be forgiven, no doubt, to those who, not having had the experience, have made mistakes, not so much from sloth as from ignorance; but I think your Lordships will agree that no quarter is given either to individuals or to nations who, having once been scorched in the fire of experience, have resolutely averted their eyes from the fierce light of facts, and have made, through mere weakness and poverty of purpose, a grand refusal to face those facts and to take in time the necessary steps to safeguard what I submit to be a most vital industry.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move—
That this House declines to proceed at this period of the session and without further enquiry with a Bill which will have injurious effects upon the Textile Industry of the country.
The noble Lord said: By the courtesy of my noble and learned friend Lord Buck-master, it has been arranged that I should move my Motion this afternoon rather than that he should move his, but I am glad to know that it is not likely to prevent his taking part in the debate at a later stage. My noble friend who has just moved the Second Reading of the Bill always pays the House the compliment of getting up any ease which he has to lay before it, and he has explained the purpose and scope of the Bill with his usual lucidity. I must confess that I am not in any way convinced by what he has said, nor do I withdraw in any way my opposition to this Bill.
My objection to it is not merely on the ground that I dislike licensing, but on much wider grounds. I do not believe that, the organisation that has been set up is likely to carry out the purpose and objects which the noble Viscount claims that it will carry out. I believe that the method adopted must do serious damage to the cotton trade and other textile trades; and I believe also that in so far as it is successful in keeping out the dyes that we want and are not making satisfactorily here, and improving the dividends of this Dyestuffs Corporation—in so far as it does that it will drive our dyeing trade abroad, so that we shall lose not only the making of the dyes but also the dyeing which hitherto has been done here. There was one great mistake which my noble friend made, naturally enough because his case has been given to him by the Department that he represents so ably in this, House. He has told you that 90 per cent. of the trades interested support this Bill. That is absolutely and entirely incorrect. I shall show in the course of my observations that it is not so.
I notice that my noble friend made a good many claims on behalf of this Bill in reference to Amendments which were no part of the original Bill, but were put in during the Committee and Report stages in another place. I noticed also that he passed over in a very perfunctory way the method of subsidy. I think lie forgot that His Majesty's Government has already subsidised this trade to the extent of £1,700,000, and that one reason for the Bill is in order that a reasonable dividend may be earned on that subsidy. They have done that without making any provision that it shall be applied to research, which is an essential point in regard to this matter.
During the nine years in which I have had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House I have often heard complaints of Bills of a highly controversial or technical character being sent up in the last few days of a dying session. I do not know any more glaring case than is presented by this Bill. It deals with a question of very real difficulty. The difficulty is how to establish the manufacture of dyestuffs here, and how at the same time to provide that those who use the dyestuffs shall have the very best and, as far as possible, the cheapest dyes that can be made anywhere in the wide world. As regards quality and cheapness, quality is an infinitely more important point. If these trades do not get the dyestuffs, they being absolutely vital to the interests of the country, the whole country will suffer. There have been many months of negotiations with the textile trade in regard to this question, and during those months no agreement has been reached. But the President of the Board of Trade during the last few weeks has apparently made a bargain with one small section of the trade called the Dye Users, not with the great bulk of the textile trades at all. He has brought in this Bill in hot haste and given us no time in which to consider it.
I am going to plead this afternoon for further time for delay and consideration of this matter. My noble friend Lord Peel has stated what the case was before the war, and how we had become dependent for nearly nine-tenths of our dyes upon Germany. The German success was largely due to subsidised research and to intense application given to this particular subject. We had entirely neglected to take similar steps. Their success was helped by bad Patent Laws in this country, and it is a common rumour that some of the best legal talent of this country was regularly engaged to take care that, as far as possible, the Germans should be saved from competition here. We are sadly behind in regard to this matter. It will take us years to catch up, but there is a general agreement on all sides, I think, that we ought to have a great dye industry in this country. First of all, on military grounds it is desirable that we should have the industry in case we are again plunged into war. In the second place, it is desirable from the point of view of the textile and other trades which use dyes, that they should have command of the dyes if war

717
again breaks out; and in the third place—and not the least important—it is very humiliating for us, a great commercial nation, that we should be so sadly behind in the manufacture of an article of this kind. On all these grounds I speak entirely from the point of view of a desire to see this industry built up in this country.
My noble friend has described the shortage of these dyes early in the war and how British Dyes, Ltd., was formed. Their dividends, by the by, were limited to 6 per cent., and the Government lent them £1,200,000 at 4 per cent. which was only to be paid out of profits and not if profits were not earned. The trade supplied the rest of the money required for that organisation. It was not worked from the point of view of snaking a dividend. It was worked from the point of view of supplying the dyes of which we were so short, and also to take part in research work for future development. My noble friend Lord Cawley, who I understand will follow me in this debate, will explain the promotion of the present organisation, the British Dyestuffs Corporation. He will explain the absorption of the Levin-stein firm, and I hope he will say something of the exceptional favours shown to that firm. My noble friend will also show you how British Dyes, Limited, the early organisation, against the wishes of most of its directors and of all the chief practical directors, had forced upon it a large bonus for which it did not ask, and how the capital of this organisation has been thereby inflated. The result is that there is this huge company with nearly £10,000,000 of capital and a great deal of water in that capital, which needs £700,000 a year in order to pay a dividend at 8 per cent. on the ordinary shares, and that sum is arrived at without any provision, as far as I remember, that anything is to be set aside for research. I have a good deal to say, and I do not want to occupy your Lordships too long, but a majority of the directors of the old British Dyes, Limited, issued a circular explaining their objection to the lines on which the British Dyestuffs Corporation, on whose behalf this Bill is introduced, was promoted. I must read some extracts. They say—
"British Dyes, Limited, was formed for a national purpose. In the prospectus it was declared that the primary object of the company was to provide a supply of dyes, and the invitation to subscribe its capital was expressly addressed to 'Users of dyes and colours and others willing to assist in providing a supply thereof,' and all
718
other subscriptions have been declined. This Company was thus in a position to adopt a policy which was directed more to the production of dyes than to the payment of dividends. and its control was vested in a body of shareholders who are representative of the industries dependent on dyes. The results of an amalgamation on the terms proposed—."
that is, the amalgamation which has now taken place—
"would be to establish a practical monopoly of the manufacture of dyes in this country, and to introduce into the amalgamated company a body of shareholder whose interest would be financial. This result is open to serious objection. In the first place, it is not right that the interests of the great industries concerned as regards supply, prices. etc., should be made dependent on a company so controlled. In the second place, the natural tendency of such a company would be to direct its policy mainly towards the payment of dividends and maintaining the value of its shares instead of towards the establishment of a national supply of dyes. For the latter purpose, it will be necessary for many years to pursue a policy of development. requiring heavy expenditure on plant, and also on research, experiment, and education, and any consideration as to dividends and value of shares must be subordinated to this policy."
I say that on these grounds alone enquiry is needed before this Bill should be passed by your Lordships.
I appeal for delay also on broader grounds. My noble friend did not make so much of the pledges given by various people as was made of that particular question in another place, but I must meet that point. The pledges given were on three grounds. There was the Report of the Cabinet Committee, to which he has referred, recommending prohibition and licensing. There was Lord Ashfield's statement when he was Sir Albert Stanley and President of the Board of Trade in 1918, that prohibition of the character proposed in this Bill was intended. Finally there were the promises made in the prospectus of the British Dyestuffs Corporation on broad constitutional lines. I object to an attempt to tie the hands of Parliament by pledges of this kind. That prospectus is a striking example of the danger of Government meddling with business and the impropriety of their becoming company promoters.
Let me examine these pledges. A Cabinet Committee Report obviously binds nobody except those who make it. In most cases Cabinet Committee Reports are not even issued to the public at all, and this particular Cabinet Committee Report was made in the middle of the war, rather

719
early in the war than late in the war. A great many other pledges were also given at the same time which have not been fulfilled. What has become of the Resolutions of the Paris Conference? They, I think, arc about as dead as Queen Anne. Let me take Lord Ashfield's pledge. If that pledge was an obiter dictum of his own, then in that case it binds nobody but himself—I say that because there is another obiter dictum by a very prominent member of the Government which is certainly not going to be fulfilled by the Government, and that is Mr. Winston Churchill's pledge to his constituents that the railways of the country were going to be nationalised. If one pledge is good, another pledge is good. But if the pledge of Lord Ashfield's was, as I expect it was, a pledge which really represented the opinion of the Government as a whole, it cannot bind anybody but the Government. Quite recently a Bill which contained some pledges given by another Minister—the Health Bill, which was recently before your Lordships' House—was rejected by you, and Dr. Addison is quite unable to carry out pledges which he has given to hospitals in various parts of the country. Such a pledge is not a reason to which your Lordships have attached undue importance.
Finally, I come to the prospectus. I maintain that it would be a very good thing to teach this Government, and all future Governments, to avoid stock-jobbing pledges. The very extract from Sir Albert Stanley's speech in the House of Commons which is put in that prospectus is inserted in a way that is misleading. It is clear in any case as a constitutional matter that the Government can do nothing but promise legislation; they cannot bind Parliament to pass that legislation; and if the Government is to be allowed to make pledges and Parliament is to be bound to carry out those pledges, then I say, Do away with Parliament, abolish the Constitution, and face the facts. Parliament is not bound by Government pledges. It is bound to bring the best of its judgment to bear on the problems submitted to it and to decide them according to its view of public interest. These pledges in the prospectus of which I speak mean that the policy of this company is to be directed to paying a dividend on inflated capital, which ought to amount to £700,000 a year at least. Otherwise they mean nothing, because ex hypothesi dyes are dearer in
720
this country and many of them not so good as those which can be imported from abroad. To protect this company, import is to be prohibited under licence and the Board of Trade is to issue licences and the President is to be responsible for them. I do not quite understand my noble friend's arithmetic in regard to this Committee. He represented, I understood, that five out of eleven is a preponderating majority for the five. I did not quite follow that part of his argument.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Five is more than three.
LORD EMMOTT: But five is not a majority of eleven.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Obviously it is not, but five is a very large protection.
LORD EMMOTT: My noble friend spoke of a preponderating majority, but he has not got it. The three directors whom the President of the Board of Trade is to appoint from independent people will be expected, I presume, to see that as far as possible a dividend is paid on the £1,700,000. The three colour makers have all an interest in getting dear dyes; they have a direct personal interest in dyes being dear. The five colour users are agents for dyeing purposes. They have no responsibility for selling the cloth as a rule, they have not the responsibility of the merchant who really does the business and sells the cloths in all the markets of the world, and their interest, if they can get the business, is really not at all the same interest that the merchant or the manufacturer has in the cheapness and excellence of dyes.
This trade is a trade of vast importance. The exports of cotton, woollen, and silk goods for the first eleven months of the year amounted to £409,000,000, at the rate of £446,000,000 for the whole year. The exports of other textiles and apparel amounted to another £98,000,000, or £107,000,000 for the whole year, and the two taken together represent half the total export trade of the United Kingdom. All these goods are not dyed, but it is calculated, and I think the calculation is quite within the mark, that the export trade dependent on dyes in cotton, silk, woollen, leather, and paper goods amounts to £350,000,000 a year—

721
that is between one-third and one-fourth of our total exports at the present time. These trades employ directly and indirectly 1,500,000 workpeople. Their capital represents many hundred millions. The trade is absolutely vital to the finances and general stability of exchange and to the general prosperity of the country. The cotton and woollen trades are far the most important, and If you are going to handicap them by dear dyes you jeopardise them in competition. If you are going to handicap them by inferior dyes you absolutely ruin them.
I do not know as much about the woollen trade as I do about the cotton trade, but here is a letter that was sent to me from the Scottish Woollen Trade Mark Association, Limited. It says that they represent more than four-fifths of the entire output of the Scottish tweed industry, and they write to inform my friend that—
"They regard with the gravest apprehension the regulation of imports of dyes and dyestuffs proposed by this Bill. The traditional Scottish tweed industry owes a considerable part of its great reputation as a high-grade industry at home and abroad to the fine colourings, and non-fading qualities of its product, of which about three-fourths finds its market overseas. Since the resumption of civilian trade following upon the Armistice serious difficulty has already been experienced in obtaining satisfactory dyes, and it is clear Vita the British dye industry is at present. far from being in a position to supply requirements. My members gravely fear that the effect of the present Bill will to conserve the interests of the dyeing industry to the serious detriment of the textile industries."
I have another letter from one of the largest firms in Scotland, in which they say—
"We are quite prepared to give British dye-makers a reasonable preference as to price, but not as to quality. … It is obvious that unless British textile manufacturers can get the very best dyestuffs it will be absolutely fatal to the industry in the neutral markets of the world. … Might we suggest that in the first instance the import of dyestuffs should be absolutely without restriction, except in so far as those shades are concerned which the British makers are already producing equal in quality to the Continental makes and in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of the home trade. … In our opinion the delay involved in procuring licences before any imports could take place would be fatal to the dyeing and textile industries, which are largely seasonal trades."
Those are letters from the woollen industry. As regards the cotton industry, Lord Cawley, who has special knowledge of the question, will describe it. But I beg to
722
remind your Lordships that the trade is very highly specialised, by which I mean that spinners, manufacturers, merchants, and dyers are all working in water-tight compartments, and in such a trade the President of the Board of Trade only consulted one small section—namely, the Colour Users' Association. He says that this Association represented 90 per cent. of the trade. Well, my Lords, they were not unanimous. At the meeting when this Bill came before them, two or three weeks ago, which shows the hot haste with which the Bill is being carried through, a show of hands was taken, and I am informed by credible witnesses that if the number of machines represented by the number of hands had been taken instead of the number of hands held up, there would probably have been a majority against the Bill. But of this 90 per cent. of the trade the Calico Printers' Association alone were deadly hostile to the Bill, and they use 20 per cent. of the whole of the colours used in this country.
But even if that part of the trade were unanimous, what is that part of the trade as to capital and the numbers employed compared with the rest of the cotton and woollen trades who have not been consulted? The bulk of the cotton trade, employers and employed, are against this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade seems to think that it is no part of his business to consult the people most affected. If he can make a hole-and-corner agreement with some small section of the trade that is enough for him, and in comes the Bill in hot haste. It is the duty of the Ministry to consult larger sections of the trade. The trade did not expect the Bill to be introduced this session. The President of the Board of Trade used language to that effect in the other House. As soon as the Bill appeared a protest was signed by six large houses, and the rest of the trade was circularised. That protest was signed by 1,100 other traders, and only fifteen objected to the protest. Where is your 90 per cent. now? Far more than 90 per cent. of the great mass of the cotton trade are against the Bill. Only last Friday a meeting was held in Manchester of many hundreds of manufacturers and merchants, and they passed a resolution showing strong hostility to this measure.
The trade feel that the Dyestuffs Corporation is not going to solve their difficulty. In the course of the passage of the

723
Bill through the other House the President of the Board of Trade accepted an Amendment, to which my noble friend alluded, in subsection (6) of Clause 2, that for the purpose of advising the Board with respect to the efficient and economical development of the dye industry the Board shall constitute a Committee of persons concerned, and so on. That is what is wanted. It is research, research, research, the whole time; experiment after experiment. That is what needs to be done if we are to obtain real supremacy in this trade, not trusts and monopolies, safeguarded by licensing, to keep up dividends and make their first aim the payment of dividends on the strength of a Government prospectus.
The cotton trade feel that their trade is being put in jeopardy by this Bill. They never know when they can accept an order which involves dyes hitherto coming from abroad. In the old days they could always get them. Immense stores of dyes of every variety were kept in this country, and so consumers could obtain them if they were obtainable anywhere. Orders will come in for cloth in which both British and foreign dyes are to be used. How can merchants know, except after great delay caused by necessary inquiries, if they are to be allowed to use the foreign dye which is asked for, or if the Committee is going to replace it by a British dye which is not guaranteed? it means loss of business in a case like that.
I must say one word about licensing, for I do know something about it. It is absolutely impossible to be fair in licensing. Think of what it means? It was made clear, I think, in the other House that this must be a question of licences of individuals: that is, a man goes one day for a certain dye, makes out his case, and gets his licence. The next day his competitor goes for a similar dye and is told he cannot have it because the quota for the year is finished. That is not business. It is going to hold up trade in a most objectionable way. Furthermore it is one of the happy little habits of Government Departments to say, "Go to your competitor and get it from him; we have just given him a licence." It is not in human nature that that should be a very agreeable thing to do. Licensing must be unfair. There is always a tendency to corruption in it. It inevitably means delay, uncertainty, and friction for an export trade on which the country is so dependent as it is on
724
this particular trade, and it would be a fatal bar to success and to promptitude.
America and American example are given to us as something that we ought to imitate. The President of the Board of Trade, during the discussion in another place, did not seem to grasp the fact that America was a country chiefly dependent upon her home trade while we are dependent upon our export trade. America can afford to make mistakes in the matter of dyes and we cannot, because our goods go to the neutral markets of the world. There is a real danger of American and German combination in regard to this matter. If we are going to exclude so rigidly what we can make in this country there may be a combination to exclude what we cannot make here. It is said that that is prevented for a time by the Treaty of Versailles, but after the four years there is nothing in the Treaty, so far as I know, to prevent such a combination of trade as would deprive us of the use of some of these dyes which we may not be able to
manufacture for ourselves.
I come to my last point. If this Bill is passed in this form I believe that the result will be to drive our dyeing trade abroad. The Bill does nothing to prevent that. It is not a fanciful imagining of mine. Here is an extract read in the other House from a firm—
"The matter is so important and the losses which will be incurred through using British dyes so great that we are now making arrangements to send raw wool to the Continent to have it dyed in fanciful and delicate colours. Fortunately the Bill has no power over this, and the advocates of protection for dyes in Yorkshire and Lancashire will find a profitable part of their trade disappear to Holland."
The cotton firm with which I am connected has, for fifty years or more, made a certain article called "velveteen." It is simply woven out of raw cotton in the loom. It has been sold to British and before the war for most of the fifty years also to German firms who had the cloth cut and dyed and finished. The Germans for many years have been competitors in that trade with Great Britain all over the civilised world. So far there has been no resumption, on the part of British manufacturers, of trade with Germany since the war, but if there is to be any doubt as to that trade being able to obtain the best dyes wherever they are made, then I say it is inevitable that the dyeing part of that trade must drift to the Continent. Surely it is far worse to stimu-

725
late dyeing as well the making of colours on the Continent by legislation than to allow the purchase of dyes in which they are superior and to keep the dyeing in this country. In that case they will get two trades instead of one. It seems to me simply national folly to run such a risk, when a little delay and inquiry, and the putting of this Bill off to next Session may enable some better solution to be found. For these reasons I plead for delay and reconsideration.
The cotton and the woollen trades at the present time, like nearly all other trades, are suffering from great depression, and I beg the House at a time like this not to put new obstructions, new delays, and new uncertainties in the way of manufacturers and merchants. The President of the Board of Trade has only just now, under pressure, agreed to set up a Committee to report on the efficient and economical development of the dye-making industry. That ought to have been done first, and done long ago. When that Committee reports it will be time enough to consider how we are to deal with this part of the question. 1s to the terms of reference to that Committee, it should be asked to consider what form of protection (if any), which will not run the risk of doing serious damage to these industries dependent, as they are, on good and cheap dyes, is to be carried out. It will be able to report on that question, and give some solution better than may he hoped for from this Bill.
I do not ignore the difficulties of the Government, hampered by pledges which ought not to have been given. I quite see their difficulty, but I say that the duty of this House—if I may use that phrase with great respect—not bound by such pledges is to see that the exports of this country, which are vital to her prosperity and finance and the stability of her exchange, are not jeopardised by unwise legislation, passed in a quite unnecessary hurry, which may have the effect of causing us to lose the trade of dyeing the goods, and so never permit of the building up of the trade of manufacturing the dyes which is the ostensible purpose of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after "That" and insert "this House declines to proceed at this period of the session and without further inquiry with a Bill which will have injurious effects upon the textile industry of the country.—(Lord Emmott.)
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I wish to second the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Emmott. I do this because for a great number of years—practically all my life—I have, been a very considerable user of these aniline colours. This Amendment is asking for delay. For myself I do not see why this extreme hurry is necessary. This is only one amongst a number of key industries, and there is no reason that I can see why it should be treated differently from the others. For a long time the President of the Board of Trade resisted all the importunities of people who wanted to hurry on this measure, but at last the scheme of the Bill has been passed through in a very hasty way. I saw in one of the newspapers a paragraph headed "Dyestuff Drive." It said—
"The Government drove the Dyestuffs Bill through the Report stage in the House of Commons in the same relentless way that they secured its passage in Standing Committee."
It was also driven through the Second Reading. Only one night was given to it, and two hours of that were taken for an Irish debate, and although there was a great deal of adverse criticism no answer was given by anyone on the Government Bench to that criticism, and the Closure was resorted to. Therefore this Bill has been relentlessly driven through, and I hope that your Lordships will use the prerogative of this House of delaying hasty legislation. This is legislation which has been very ill-considered.
My noble friend Lord Emmott and the noble Viscount have referred to the history of the dye industry, and I am not going to enter into that further than to say that it is true what Mr. Asquith said, namely—
"We had the whole trade in our hands, and if our men of business had shown intelligence and foresight there is no reason why these inventions should not have been from the very beginning and continued throughout a British and not a German industry."
That no doubt is true, but there is some excuse for our not having kept this industry, because the trade and manufacturers were all very much handicapped by our patent laws. I myself was one of a deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to three different Presidents of the Board of Trade. The last deputation went in 1896, when the present Prime Minister was President of the Board of Trade. With his quick intelligence he saw the points

727
immediately, and the patent laws were altered. Unfortunately a little while after a judges' decision rather took away the benefit that was derived from the altered law.
These patents laws did certainly handicap our trade, and the late Mr. Levinstein, who was connected with the dyeing trade, told me that in his opinion our non-success in this aniline colour trade was largely, if not wholly, due to our patent laws. Our Patent Office practically gave a patent to anybody who went there, while the German Office investigated thoroughly every application. The result was that the Germans came over here and patented every process. They discovered that there was no obligation on them to work a patent in this country. They made their patents very wide, and obtained the very best legal assistance here to fight all their cases, with the result that it was almost impossible for any small capitalist to start in the aniline colour industry here. In fact, my Lords, even now as all these patents are non-operative—because there are no German patents operative now—the great bulk of this aniline colour trade might be done in this country without a subsidy or anything else. It is a little derogatory to our business acumen and ability to think that when we have all the raw materials here we cannot make as cheaply as Germany the commoner dyes, the great bulk of which have been in existence for perhaps twenty years, without the aid of a subsidy. Now I should like to say a word about the British Dyes Company, which I might almost call the Government Company.
NOBLE LORDS: The Dyes Corporation.
LORD CAWLEY: No, not the Corporation; British Dyes, Ltd., the company which was formed by the Government almost at the outbreak of war. When war broke out there were only two firms making aniline colours in this country to any great extent. One was Messrs. Levinstein, who had had a somewhat chequered career, and to whom I have referred. They had been in business I think from about the 'seventies, but they had not paid any dividend on their ordinary shares for a great many years and their preference shares were in arrears for about twelve years. Within a very short time of the opening of the war, I think in about six
728
months, they paid off all the arrears on their preference shares. There was also the firm of Messrs. Read & Holiday, of Huddersfield, who had done a little better than Levinstein. The Government, in conjunction with some of the users of dyes, bought up this firm and established the company which they called British Dyes, Ltd. The Government agreed to lend this company £1,750,000. As a matter of fact, they were only called upon to lend them £1,200,000, the users of dyestuffs finding the remainder of the capital, a sum of about £960,000.
The Company was really very successful. The Government had two directors upon the Board, and they devoted their energies very largely to research and experiment and to putting up plant for manufacturing those intermediate products which had never been manufactured in this country before and are absolutely' essential to the successful production of some of the most important dyestuffs. At their annual meeting the Company was referred to by the Chairman of the Bradford Dyers' Association—one of the largest combinations of colour users in this country—in these terms:
"I should like first of all to express my very warm appreciation of the work which has been done by your Board. A month ago I had an opportunity of making my first inspection of the great works you have erected, and speaking with a knowledge of the finest works in Germany I am glad to say that in my opinion the general plan of these great, works at Dalton will stand comparison with any in Germany. I congratulate the directors of the Company on their foresight and courage in conceiving and carrying out plans which seem to lay broad and deep the foundations of a successful industry. It is my belief t hat in the scale on which you have embarked on the manufacture of the primary intermediates you have rendered a service of incalculable value to the future production of colour in this country".
That opinion was expressed by a man I know very well, and who has a very intimate knowledge of the German works, and I think it is a great testimony to the directors of the Company which the Government set up.
This being the case, it is difficult to understand why the Board of Trade were so very anxious that this Company should be amalmagated with Messrs. Levinstein. I have nothing to say against Messrs. Levinstein. They made huge profits out of the war, and they were not controlled. That is a point I should like to lay stress upon, because the Board of Trade controlled

729
their own concern and left Levinsteins uncontrolled. Levinsteins were a company trading to make profit and they made it, and why the Government should wish to unite the Company they had helped to establish, who were doing good work and carrying on a system of research and experiment so necessary for any future trade, with Levinsteins, who were merely a trailing concern, it is very difficult for anybody to conceive.
British Dyes, Ltd., was established on right lines, and had admittedly made great progress towards establishing a national dye industry. It is easy to see why the shareholders of the company who represented £960,000 of the capital were anxious to join Levinsteins. No doubt they had tins future company put before them, in which for their £960,000 they got £1,500,000 in the Dyestuffs Corporation in which the Government are interested at the moment. It is easy to see how the company was done away with so far as the shareholders are concerned, because their dividends in British Dyes, Ltd.—the Government assisted company—were limited to 6 per cent., whereas in the Dyes Corporation they have got a shareholding of £1,500,000 and are promised by the prospectus from 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. Not only that, but there are promises held out to them that still more profits will be made than those mentioned in the prospectus.
Whether the Board of Trade thought Levinsteins more capable or not I do not know, but they seemed to have a great liking for them. This is amply proved by the fact that when the works or rather the factory that had been established by a German firm, Meister, Lucius and Brüning, at Ellesmere Port, was taken over by the Government almost at the commencment of the war, the directorate of British Dyes, Ltd., approached the Board of Trade with the object of buying it from them. The Board of Trade at that time declined. They said, "No, we are going to work it ourselves." A little while afterwards it came to the knowledge of the directors of British Dyes that the Board of Trade were in negotiation with Messrs. Levinstein, and the British Dyes protested that they ought to be allowed to tender for these works. The Board of Trade refused to allow them to tender. They sold the works to Messrs. Levinstein for £75,000, and shortly afterwards Messrs.
730
I Levinstein sold—not the factory, not the works, but merely the recipe for manufacturing synthetic indigo—to an American firm for £250,000.
Eventually this amalgamation took place, or rather Messrs. Levinstein annexed British Dyes, and floated the Company which really is the genesis of this Bill. There is no doubt. that if this company had not been formed on this capital of £10,000,000, with the Government pledge of a prohibition of colours coming from Germany, we should never have heard of this Bill. The capital of this Company is £10,000,000, and the Government have subscribed, or are subscribing, £1,700,000—not in Debentures, bear in mind, but in Preference and Preferred Ordinary shares—£850,000 of each. So that really the Government are in the business. If the business is not profitable the Government will not get any dividend. The shareholders of British Dyes receive 1,500,000 shares for their 960,000 shares, and those are promised 7 to 8 per cent., in place of the 6 per cent. to winch their former dividend was limited. Messrs. Levinstein also come out of it very well. Before the war they were a company not paying any dividend, in fact the market value of Messrs. Levinstein's concern then was, I think, £30,000. What do they get out of this? Messrs. Levinstein get 950,000 shares. I may say the nominal capital was 90,000 shares and for those 90,000 in their own concern they get 950,000. The public subscribe, no doubt mainly on the Government declaration about the prohibition of licences. but to some extent also because my noble friend Lord Moulton was advertised as the Chairman, and his name has a glamour on account of his well-known scientific attainments. No doubt his name carried some weight in inducing people to subscribe for the £5,000,000 which the public put in.
Our total consumption of these dyes before the war was only £2,000,000, of which about 80 per cent. came from abroad. If we get the whole of the business it is not a big thing, and to handicap our exports, as this licensing system will do, is to me a grossly unsound proposition from the business point of view. But there are other ways of getting at least a good share of the business, without resorting to this worst of all system of protection—because I think that this licensing system is the worst kind of protection of all. if this

731
Bill is delayed—and we are only asking for delay—we think that, if it is considered in connection with other key industries, there might be some other way of getting the result, and that result might be achieved by less objectionable methods.
The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill made a great point of the support from the textile industry. He said the Bill was supported by 90 per cent, of that industry. It nothing of the sort.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Of the colour users.
LORD CAWLEY: It is not supported by 90 per cent. of the colour users, or anything like it. This 90 per cent., I suppose, is got from a meeting of users that was held just before the Bill was introduced, at which on a show of hands there was a majority, but not an overwhelming majority. The Chairman, after the resolution had been passed, said it had been carried by an overwhelming majority, but he was obliged to withdraw it. As a matter of fact, a great part of the support given at that meeting was given under an illusion. The biggest user in that meeting was the representative of the Bradford Dyers' Association. What did he say? He said lie had always been really in favour of subsidy, but still in licensing there was machinery whereby subsidies could be applied, and therefore he was in favour of licensing. Then he went on to say that if he thought it was intended to be final he would not be supporting it. He looked on it as only the first stage of the machinery. Clearly, the support on which this Bill is introduced is purely fictitious. Lord Emmott has informed you that the Calico Printers' Association is also against it. They are bitterly against it because of all the users of aniline dyes they are the only firm who merchant the goods as well as print them.
The cotton trade is a curiously worked trade. The cotton comes in at Liverpool. It goes to the spinner, perhaps at Bolton, or Rochdale, or Oldham. The spinner is not often the manufacturer; he is not often the weaver; he just spins the cotton into yarn. From the spinning mill it goes to the weaver, commonly called the manufacturer, and that is a separate trade again. From the manufacturer it goes to the merchant at Manchester, and the merchant
732
sends the goods to the bleacher or dyer or calico printer as the different markets that he serves requires. It is the merchant who has to bear the brunt of any complaint from foreign countries, and it is the merchant who has to bear the brunt if, on account of the high cost of dyes, he is not able to sell his calico. The dyer is a person who merely works for hire. I know that because I have been a dyer and calico printer myself. The goods do not belong to the dyer at all; he does not own them. Ho simply gets the goods from the merchant, and manipulates them according to the orders of the merchant. The merchant instructs him what shades and what patterns are required. The dyer very seldom knows even the market to which they are going. The merchants, therefore, have to bear the brunt if anything goes wrong with regard to the colour to be used.
Before the war if a South American merchant showed a pattern to a representative of a Manchester merchant and asked whether he could be supplied with such goods he would immediately have got a reply in the affirmative. But if this Bill passes, the representative of the Manchester merchant will now have to say, "I cannot tell you whether we can supply such a pattern, because some of these colours come from Germany. I should therefore have to send the pattern home to see whether the people at home can get a licence to obtain the colours from Germany." The pattern is sent home and comes before the Committee we are speaking of. The Committee consults its experts, the experts disagree, and months may be taken up before the merchant in South America can get an answer from Manchester. My Lords, this is not a fictitious representation; it is what will take place every day. It is impossible that business should be carried on upon those lines. If the merchant from India, or China, or South America, or any part of the world, found out that that was the state of things he would very likely go to the German merchant or to the American merchant from whom he can immediately get an answer and have the certainty that they can supply the order.
I have been a Free Trader all my life, but rather than have this system of licensing I would have a Customs Duty. I would rather have a fair and square tariff of

733
10, or 15, or 20 per cent. put on all colours that come into this country. We should then know where we were. As research is such a very important thing, I think that perhaps the "sting" of Protection might be taken off if the product from the Customs Duty was used for experiment and research. I should infinitely prefer that to a system of licensing. I think it would be better even from a military point of view, because a big sum might be put on one side for the purpose of military research, and the scientific men who conducted that research would be able to produce fresh gases and other poisons by which in the next war we might poison an enemy. A system of licensing leads to all kinds of abuses and backstairs methods, and in my opinion it is the very worst kind of protection.
There is really no reason why this Bill should be rushed through in the way it has been. No doubt the Government is in a dilemma, when it allies itself with a joint stock company and induces the public to subscribe to an inflated capital. No doubt something will have to be done to keep faith with the shareholders, but for my part I am sure it would be a cheaper and much better way if the Government were to pay the shareholders out and cut their losses. If they did that, the cost would be £5,000,000. If they go on with this Bill I am sure the textile trade will be mulcted in millions a year—not simply £5,000,000 in a lump sum. It would he infinitely better if the Government were to do that than to remain parties to what really is the promotion of a company with a lot of watered capital in it, which cannot possibly pay the dividend they promised of £700,000 a year without handicapping to an enormous extent the textile trade and endangering other trades.
This is a matter that can well be considered between now and the re-opening of Parliament when we are promised a Bill dealing with all key industries. I would suggest a Committee of both Houses to inquire into this matter. In the circumstances I hope that your Lordships will exercise your prerogative of delaying this hasty and ill-considered legislation.
LORD INCHCAPE: My Lords, this Bill, to which your Lordships' assent is invited, introduces into the conduct of British business and into our body of
734
commercial legislation principles and practices which seem to me not merely questionable but dangerous. The purpose of the Bill as was explained by the noble Viscount is to establish in Great Britain the dye-making industry, and it proposes to effect this purpose by prohibiting for the next ten years the importation of all foreign dyes except under licence from the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade is to be the licensing authority, but it is to be assisted in its deliberations by an Advisory Committee of eleven members, five of whom arc to represent the dye-users, three the dye-makers, while the remaining three may be described as neutrals.
The effect of this measure, if it became law, would be to confer a virtual monopoly of dye-making in this country upon the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, a concern in which the Government have invested £1,700,000 of the taxpayers' money. I know nothing as to how this Corporation came into being, or of its financial history, or its dealings with the Board of Trade. These do not concern me. I have nothing to say against or about the Corporation, and I propose to speak only on the broad question.
There are two reasons why Parliament is urged to protect the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, from foreign competition during the next ten years. One is that the Government, subject to the concurrence of Parliament, is pledged to it, and on the strength of that pledge the public have subscribed money to the Corporation. The other is that a flourishing dye industry is a valuable addition to our domestic enterprise in time of peace, and essential to our security in time of war. In regard to the pledge I am the very last man to urge its repudiation. On the contrary, I think that a Government should be particularly punctilious. But while the Government's pledge must be honoured, there may very well be other and better ways of redeeming it than by this Bill.
Let us redeem the pledge given during a time of excitement and anxiety by a fair annual contribution, by accepting say 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. on the £1,700,000 which it is proposed to invest, or which has been invested in the company, and leave it to fight its own way free from all Government control. 1t will be infinitely better for the company and for the country.

735
I go further. I believe it would pay the country hands down to make a present to the company of this £1,700,000 on condition that they devoted a certain amount annually to research, rather than to start this campaign of prohibition of imports. All the pledges given during the war, or even after victory had been secured, have not been literally fulfilled. The Kaiser, for instance, has not been hanged. He has not even been tried.
As for the argument that the dye industry is necessary for our strength in war time, what industry is there of which as much cannot be said? Your Lordships will remember that during the war a Commission was appointed by a neutral Government to draw up a list of articles that could by no possibility whatever be considered as of military use. The Commission reported that there was just one substance for which they could not discover a definite military value, and that was human hair. But when the German women took to sacrificing their hair to make the machine bands for which leather was no longer procurable they proved that the one exception detected by the Commission was no exception at all. The plain truth seems to be that there is nothing made or grown which does not help, or the want of which does not hinder, a belligerent in carrying on modern warfare, and if we are to protect and subsidise any industry at all because of its potential military value we shall have to protect and subsidise all industries.
The dye industry is undoubtedly an important industry because it furnishes a process that is necessary to the carrying on of far bigger trades. It employs in this country, or may eventually employ, perhaps 10,000 people. But the industries to which it ministers employ something like 1,500,000 people. Its total production cannot be valued at more than £10,000,000 a year. But the textile, silk, leather and paper trades, which depend on dyes, have an export trade alone of about £350,000,000 a year. I submit to your Lordships that we must be very careful not to sacrifice the greater to the less, and not to imperil the magnificent industries of Yorkshire and Lancashire in order to buttress by artificial means a branch of manufacturing for which we have never shown any natural inclination or aptitude. Undoubtedly, as it seems to me, we shall be imperilling these larger industries if we make it diffi-
736
cult for them to obtain the best dyes that are made anywhere. The moment you limit their choice as to colour, shade and quality, and try to force inferior dyes upon them, or to snake them buy more expensive dyes, merely because they are of British manufacture—at that moment you jeopardise their export trade, which is the breath of their industrial life, and you oblige them to consider the ways and means of sending their products to other countries where they can be dyed and finished without the restrictions which if this Bill were to become law would be imposed in the United Kingdom.
As I read this Bill, any cotton or woollen manufacturer who wanted to use a special dye would first of all have to convince the Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade that it was not manufactured in Great Britain. That naturally would not be a matter that could be settled at a moment's notice. If, after hearing all the evidence, the Advisory Committee supported his contention, it would then, I presume, recommend to the Board of Trade that a licence should be granted for the import of a specific quantity of this particular dye for a specific period. The Board of Trade is no more famous than any other Government Department for acting on such recommendations with any excessive celerity. In due and dignified course, however, I assume it would attend to the matter and issue the licence. If by that time the order for which the manufacturer needed the special dye had not long since been cancelled, he would telegraph to Germany for the allotted amount and the German dye-maker, unless he were a fool, would make him pay for it through the nose, knowing that there could be no competition, that Great Britain had publicly advertised her inability to produce this special dye, and that he thus had the British manufacturer at his mercy. Finally, the dye would arrive in England, and after the Customs House officials had quite satisfied themselves that the transaction was in order, it would be allowed to go on to its destination. I will leave your Lordships to estimate the amount of time that would have elapsed between the manufacturer's discovery of his need and the ultimate receipt of the dye.
Have we not had enough of this sort of thing during the war? Have we not found it an impossible basis on which to do business? You cannot run commerce

737
on a system of coupons. You cannot run any business if at every turn your freedom of action is manacled by bureaucratic red tape, and if you have to interview and argue with Committees and officials in order to get permission to trade. The kind of machinery which this Bill would set up would lead to something more serious than delays and obstructions. It would lead insensibly, but inevitably, to favouritism and discriminations; it would place the man in a large way of business at a very decided advantage over his smaller competitor; it would tend to crate an atmosphere of suspicion even if it did not actually result in those illicit deals and unwholesome log-rolling agreements which are rarely absent when Government Once begins to interfere with the daily operations of business.
This Bill, I greatly fear, if passed, would be but the prelude to other measures of the same stamp. It is well known to your Lordships that there are other industries not less convinced than the dye-makers that they are "key" industries, which are only waiting for the passage of this Bill to press their claims. They can make out just as good or just as bad a case for preferential treatment and they can urge the same excuses of trade depression, their "pivotal" character, foreign competition, the collapse of the Continental exchanges, and so on. But I am sure it will occur to many of your Lordships that if we do not allow and encourage Germany to export we can never expect her either to rectify the exchange situation or to pay the Allies a single mark by way of indemnity.
Germany's position in that respect is very like our own vis-à-vis the United States. We owe America large sums, and a fall in sterling facilitates our export to that country. If America were to legislate against our exports on the ground that they are underselling her own manufacturers and producers would she not be doing a very foolish thing? Would she not be postponing the day when we can discharge our indebtedness and prolonging the unsettlement and instability of the dollar-sterling exchange, which hurts her as much as, or more than, it hurts us? It is just the same with Germany and ourselves. The mark can only regain its old value if Germany is permitted to trade as widely as possible. If we hinder her from trading, as this Bill is meant to hinder her, we perpetuate that depreciation of the mark
738
which enables her to compete effectively with us in neutral markets, and we retard, against our own interests, the period of her return and of the return of all Europe to normal conditions.
My Lords, I believe this country owes her commercial greatness and her financial pre-eminence of the past to her open markets. Industry- after industry has found its home in these Islands though the raw materials on which they are based have had to be transported here for many thousands of miles. We have been the chief carriers of the world, the greatest exporters of manufactured goods, the financial centre of the universe and the possessors of an unrivalled entrepôt and distributing trade. In nay judgment we achieved this great position partly because of our geographical situation, partly because of the character, skill, and experience of our people, and partly because of our wise policy of free and unrestricted imports. The geographical situation and the skill of our people remain, but the commercial policy which has alone enabled them to turn their natural advantages to account is in danger of being undermined by the proposals in this Bill. So long as we are free to import what we need without let or hindrance from all quarters of the globe I am confident that we can win back all the ground, and perhaps something more than we had to yield during the war. But if we begin to restrict commerce, as this Bill would restrict it, and to imagine that bureaucratic coddling would assist our restoration to industrial health, we would be striking, I verily believe, a more fatal blow at our own prosperity than it is in the power of any of our competitors to deliver.
LORD MOULTON: My Lords, I do not intend in my contribution to the debate to pay the slightest attention to what I might almost call the gossipy talk as to particular firms. Statements have been made with regard to them which, so far as I could hear them, distinctly astound me. All I know is that there was an amalgamation which simply went according to the valuation of an accepted valuer, and two firms became one. Whether the directors of one firm issued circulars or not, and what the dividend of the other firm had been, seem to me to be utterly apart from the very serious question that we have to consider. I am going to speak only of the Bill itself.

739
My Lords, people have short memories. I remember at the beginning of the war when the textile industry, rightly pronounced so important as to be at least one third if not more of our total exports, were face to face with this: that they had trusted entirely to get their dyes, essential to their existence, from a nation that was now an alien enemy. The terror that they were in made them feel, what I still feel, having a somewhat better memory than many, that the only salvation for England is that it should give up merely sticking to its traditional trades, in which I admit with the last speaker it has made such large profits especially through its possession of the carrying trade. It made them feel that England should learn the greatest of all trades in its promise for the future and almost in its performance at the present—the chemical trade. They thought then, under the realisation of the danger in which they were, that they could not be safe unless they had a dye trade of their own which would put their textiles beyond the reach of their enemies.
Various ways were tried. The British Dyestuffs Company was formed very much on the lines that I then advised—that all the shareholders should be dye users, that the dividends should be limited, and that what was over should be for development and research. It did its work apparently, even by the admission of the foes of this Bill, well. The dye industry, in order to satisfy the needs of a nation, must be on a big scale. It is not like an industry that makes one or two products; it makes hundreds, widely distinct in their nature, and in order to satisfy the need of the textile industry and the demands of the country the scale on which it works must be a huge one. That, I think, was the reason which led to the amalgamation of the two firms in order to make one very big one. I am not, however, going to be led into talking about that.
What I want your Lordships to consider is this. In the future is England to be destitute of a chemical industry, as it was in the past? You, perhaps, do not feel it as I do. I remember at the beginning of the war, when the question of providing the necessary explosives for our troops came before me and I looked around, I found that we had neither the plant nor the industries which could be turned to the work. We barely had the chemists to guide it. Not that we do not turn out
740
admirable chemists, but there was then, and unless care is taken in the future there will be again, no opening for a chemist in industrial life, and as sure as that is the case, in spite of all the money that may be spent by the Education Office on training, in spite of all the efforts of our Universities, chemistry will wither in England and be a plant that never takes root. I think that the future of England depends on whether it does acquire a great chemical industry. To do so it must begin with the dyes. Dyes are the great purely organic chemical industry—the others cluster round, but the trunk from which the growth comes must necessarily be the organic chemistry of dye-making. You have only to look to Germany and you see that that has been the way there. You have only, to look at America and you see the same thing has occurred there, and also in Switzerland. Therefore, if we cannot establish a dye industry on a wide scale in England we must reconcile ourselves to the chemical industry never appearing, and that means that we are absolutely dependent on nations not our friends necessarily, and nations separated from us at a time when warfare has shown that carriage from one country to another can no longer be relied upon as safe.
For my own part I think that that is the greatest question in front of those who turn their attention either to education or to England's industries. When I look back upon the first few months of my experience of making explosives I feel that it is wonderful that we ever got through. As I have said, we had neither the plant nor the men nor the industries. England never showed itself more full of innate vigour than it did when, in spite of that, it grew to a point that it absolutely snowed under our foes, who had taken such long preparation for the Great War. It must not be thought that I ask for dye works for the purpose of explosives if a war should come, although the very first thing that I had to do with regard to British Dyestuffs, Limited, which was formed at the beginning of the war, was to throw upon it a huge proportion of my production, until I could build specialised factories. But what I do look to the dye industry for is that they should in peace satisfy the needs of the industrial community, and that when war comes they should have nothing more to fear in the way of being cut off from what is absolutely essential to the existence of the textile industries. I defy your Lordships

741
to find any solution for that except the creation of a big dye industry.
I have heard to-night all sorts of objections to the system of licensing—all sorts of ways in which it can go wrong. I daresay it can, and if the people who have to carry it out do not bring their good will to it no. doubt there will be difficulties, but if they appreciate the need, and the way it is going to fulfil the need, I have not much fear of my countrymen in that respect. But I want your Lordships to consider what alternative there is to a licensing system. I have thought over it long, and used all the ingenuity that I possess to think of some other way. I feel scorn of those who in questions that are critical to a nation find comfort in applying the ordinary formulae that they would apply in their business, and feel that that is sufficient justification for their action. What have we here? We have a combination of the whole of the German chemical industry at Mannheim, who pool their profits, divide the total profits proportionately to the various firms, so that they are independent to almost a complete extent of the way in which the profit is made. Such a combination can ruin any infant industry. Just think of it yourselves. I do not wish to argue this forensically, but I want your Lordships to think how a combination so big, so independent of any particular
market, can be met by any such thing as a subsidy or an import duty. It could afford to sell for years not making a penny. What you have to consider is not whether the persons who actually bought the dyes would have in those particular years better balance sheets than they would if they got their dyes from the home market; you have to consider whether the burden of the home market is likely to do permanent good to any industry in England. You are called upon here to devise a scheme to defend it. You can do so by means of this licensing.
With regard to quality, I am sure that nobody who has followed any utterances of mine, whether in direct connection with the industry or otherwise, has heard anything but the precept that quality stands first of all, and that the one thing that the English dyes must win is a reputation for absolutely unblemished purity. That they can do if you have chemists of the best class, and chemists with a national love of honesty. You can, therefore, put aside the question of quality. That can be
742
secured. But how in the world are you to meet a foe like this combine if you allow them to get their goods in, whatever be the price, in the teeth of home production which is equal in quality? Not only must it be equal in quality, but it is assumed that it will be reasonable in price. Only in that way can you keep for the home product a home market, and you cannot build up an industry into vigour and make it grow till it becomes adult and capable of beating its enemies in the field unless it has a home market for its best goods at a reasonable price.
I am not calling for too much from the rest of the nation to say that if it will grant a home market in this way to goods equal to those of the Germans and sold at reasonable prices, we shall then get a permanent industry which ought to be ultimately as strong and ultimately quite fearless of German competition. That is the idea before me. I can see no way of getting it as good as this scheme if it is worked with goodwill, as I believe it will be. Remember that you cannot shut your eyes to the fact that, irregular or not, the Government pledged this protection to the industry, and allowed millions to be subscribed on the face of that pledge. It was put in the prospectus with the direct consent and approbation of the Government itself. You cannot shut your eyes to this, that if you are going to say that the Government is not bound under these circumstances to give it that protection you have given a blow to the trust of the English people in the good faith, not only of the Government but of the nation, from which they will never recover.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, at this stage of the session those who sit on the Front Bench opposite are accustomed to hear complaints from those who sit on the Bench that it is My privilege to occupy as to the scanty opportunities that are afforded to us for examining important measures that are pressed upon our notice. The complaints do not depend upon the individuals; they depend upon the benches, and they are made from time to time by people who under altered circumstances have to do their best to repel them. None the less, at the bottom of those complaints there is a strong and just feeling that if this House is adequately to discharge its duties as one of the Houses of Parliament, it is not right that im-

743
portant measures should be, forced upon it at a time when we cannot give them that leisured consideration and discussion that is essential if legislation is to be sound. That is a true general proposition from which I believe no one will differ. But I think it is but rarely that it has had an application so strong as with regard to the Bill which is before your Lordships this evening.
Both the noble Lord whose Motion is now before the House, and the noble Lord who spoke in succession to him, have expressed their anxiety and willingness to see what are the best steps that can be taken for the purpose of securing some protection to the dye industry in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Inchcape, of course took quite a different view. But they, have pointed out—and I submit that their arguments are very powerful—that there has not been proper time even for the trades and those concerned in this Bill to discuss and consider what is the best means, and they regard this Bill it is plain with undisguised aversion and fear, and they do it not speaking for themselves but speaking for one of the most powerful and most prosperous industries in this country. I wish—and I shall be as brief as I can—to say a few words in support of their position. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, who moved the Second Reading of this Bill began his history of events by saying that Germany had stolen our secret for making dyes. I do not quite know what he means. Was there any dishonest behaviour connected with it?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was using the word "stolen" in a picturesque sense. They took our ideas and used them, and they were quite entitled to do so.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If that were so it is a little unfortunate that the noble Viscount should have used the phrase both in the manner and in the tone in which he did. The suggestion was—I think it was what he meant—that there has been some dishonest action on the part of the German nation in acquiring information which the genius of this country had discovered.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Are not metaphors allowable?
LORD BUCKMASTER: To steal is hardly a metaphor; it implies dishonest
744
conduct, and I am not acquainted with any metaphor connected with thieving and stealing. But it is enough for the noble Viscount to say that he did not mean what the words imported. It is quite enough for me. It is perfectly true that owing to the genius of an Englishman there was discovered the germ of the idea which the Germans elaborated. The Germans then, entirely to their credit, spent very large sums of money—in doing what? Not in perfecting an industry at all but in training brains, in encouraging education, in doing all they could to promote scientific learning. That is the way they began their industry.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: And it was by collecting and organising the whole of that carefully trained and skilled intelligence and bringing it to bear upon industrial methods that they were able to build up this great dye industry from which, until the outbreak of the war, this country had certainly drawn considerable profit. It is that which we are seeking to combat, and, if we are seeking to combat it, it is obvious that we ought to combat it by the same means. We ought to train the scientific men. We ought to encourage scientific education. We ought to try to collect together, not in one trading company but from all the laboratories, all the workshops, and all the Universities of the kingdom all the skill and science that we can gain for the purpose of bringing it to bear upon the development of our chemical trade. That is a conclusion with which I believe no one will quarrel.
Now I ask your Lordships to see what it is that this Bill asks us to do. I think I can show your Lordships that it asks us to do nothing whatever of the kind, and although I agree, as I fortunately so often do, with what Lord Moulton said as to the importance of our chemical industry, I think he cannot really have given the attention of his great mind to the circumstances in which this Bill has been introduced. It is, of course, impossible to ignore the position which this Bill is intended to safeguard. It depends upon the formation of the company to which reference has more than once been made. Your Lordships must know how that company was formed, why it was formed, and further—and this is the most important thing of all—what it was formed to accomplish. I will show your Lordships that

745
from the beginning to the end of the prospectus upon which the money of the public has been advanced there is not one word about scientific education or scientific research. The shareholder might protest if you spent his money in scientific research. He might say: "It was not for the purpose of encouraging education. I am a person engaged in commerce and in the proper investment of my money, and I do not want any of your wild-cat schemes of investigation and research. I want you to work this company so as to make dividends for me. That is why I invested my money, and that is what your prospectus led me to believe I should get."
The important point about that is that if this company were one of many companies, if there were other companies—you may say that there are groups of competing industries and that you will be able by their competition to afford the magnet by which you can draw upon this reservoir of scientific attainment which we are slowly filling by Government assistance in our schools and Universities—then I think there would be something to be said for it. There is nothing of the kind, and this company so far as I know is tin only one.
LORD MOULTON: No.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Can any one tell me the names of the others?
LORD CAWLEY: That company represents about 80 per cent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is not so. I will give the noble Lord the names of the other companies.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It may be so. I should like to know them, because no one will dispute that the Government pledge to which reference was made was given with regard to this company, and that the Government money that was invested was invested in this company.
LORD MOULTON: The pledge was given with regard to no company at all. It was simply given to the industry.
LORD EMMOTT: It is on the prospectus of this company.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think the noble and learned Lord has forgotten the
746
prospectus. This pledge was not in form a pledge at all, but was stated as a proposal of the Government by the then President of the Board of Trade, who being a member of this House I much regret not to see here to-day. I refer to Lord Ashfield, who was President of the Board of Trade at the moment when this statement was made. He is ill, and that is sufficient reason for his not being here. It was stated why it was proposed that there should be this protection, and when I am told that it was given to the industry at large I say it is set. out in full in the face of this prospectus which I assume was approved by the Government, because otherwise a most improper use was wade of Government authority—
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was approved.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Of course it was; it must have been.
LORD MOULTON: If my noble and learned friend will read it, the pledge was in order to safeguard the dye industry from aggression. No one has ever thought of it being confined to any company at all, and none of the machinery of the Bill refers to that.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Does any one suppose for a moment that a Bill of this kind has any special reference to a particular company? I am only pointing out that the pledge which we, among others, are asked to implement is a pledge which is set out on the face of the prospectus of a company which was formed to invite a subscription of £5,000,000, from the British public. That pledge never was given in the first instance as a pledge at all. It was stated as a proposal and nothing more, though in the prospectus the statement that it was a proposal has been passed by and it is used as a pledge.
But that is not all. If you come to the pledges there was another statement made. On July 25, Sir Albert Stanley made this statement—
"The companies will be put under an obligation—a deadly obligation—to manufacture a range of dyes which perhaps at the present moment cannot be produced upon a commercial basis, but a range of cutouts which it is essential in the national interest should be produced."
In this prospectus there is no obligation upon them to do anything of the kind—nothing whatever. This is a prospectus

747
which simply incorporates a dye company to make dyes and to make what dyes they please, and the Government control as set out upon the prospectus—I imagine, as the Government saw it, they would have put in other provisions that the Government desired to insist upon, if there were such provisions—is confined to this, that the company shall supply its products at reasonable prices, due regard being given to the cost of manufacture, a reasonable profit to the company, and other relevant circumstances, and also that it shall distribute its products amongst customers in an equitable manner and not otherwise. Where is this "deadly obligation to manufacture a range of dyes which perhaps at this moment cannot be produced upon a commercial basis?" What are the dyes that a company so formed, a trading commercial concern, will produce? They will, of course, produce the dyes that are most wanted. Which are those? Those are the commoner forms of dyes. Those are the dyes about which I suppose everybody knows already. Those are the dyes which a few companies, carrying on I admit a very precarious existence, did in fact manufacture before the war.
What is there here to enable us to satisfy the wish that all of us share, that there shall be a grand development of scientific education built up in this country in order that we may beat Germany in the way that is the most honourable—by the rivalry of intelligence, not by State subsidies? I can find nothing whatever about it. There may be other things behind. There has surely been enough said about this matter to show that to ask us now to accept this Bill without further question and to pass it at this stage of the session is an unreasonable proposal for the Government to make.
And surely, if you go on to consider what is going to happen in the trade, it must be plain that some further consideration is really needed. This Bill does not merely restrict the importation of dyestuffs. Not at all. It restricts all organic intermediate products used in the manufacture of such dyestuffs. And I have a list of some of these organic products, furnished me by a chemist, which are startling in their number and extent, and they include among other things such objects of common daily use in every household as carbolic acid. It is easy to say, "Oh, but you cannot think that the
748
Government would be so foolish as to restrict the importation of that." Why not? It cannot come in except under licence. If, in fact, it is an intermediate product you cannot bring it in. And I should like to know very much from the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill (whom I regret not to see in his place) and who said "You want no officials," who are the people you are going to have at the docks to prevent the importation of formaldehyde, formic acid, acetic acid, acetic anhydride, acetyl chloride, acetanilide, methyl alcohol, and twenty-five more products the very nomenclature of which is unfamiliar to anybody who has not got an expert education. And all of these, I am sure, are products which would be readily recognised by an expert as being organic intermediate products used in the manufacture of dyestuffs. Surely a Bill of such wide-reaching and sweeping powers as this cannot be needed for the only purpose by which its introduction is to be justified—namely, the purpose of protecting an industry in its infancy and the encouragement of scientific education in this country, in order that we may build up and renew the power that for a moment is lost.
I wish to say something about the necessary effect of the Bill as it stands upon the textile trades. I have pointed out, what I believe to be indisputable, the necessary result of working under this company, which, whether or not it be the only company, is admittedly the favoured company and the biggest company, because there is no other company that I am aware of in which the Government have embarked £1,700,000. We may hear of some later on, but for the moment it is the only one we know, though I do know that there are some five or six other undertakings in which the Government has also invested money.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, that is not so. The Government money is only in this one.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes, for the dyestuffs, but there is quite a lot of others. There is a White Paper in which you will find quite an interesting list of companies in which Government money has been embarked—and so far as I know without Parliament's sanction having been obtained before it was embarked. But that is a comparatively small matter. This is the

749
company to which we have to look. This is the big company, which is going to work behind the scenes. The textile industries depend absolutely for their existence on being able to dye their products and accept the orders for their products from all the neutral markets of the world. If an order is sent to one of our big firms of manufacturers for a particular coloured cloth or web of any description he has got to see if he can get it from this dye company. If they say they can give it him and there is delay, he has no remedy whatever, except to go and ask for a licence to get it from America. And whatever promises may be held out as to the expedition with which this system of licensing will operate I say it is useless to ask people to imagine that the common experience of life is for once going to be falsified in the execution of this Bill. We know quite well, again, that similar licences are not, and cannot, be executed promptly, and the moment that the opportunity of accepting the order goes by the British manufacturer loses his market—probably to one of the very Germans whom you are seeking to keep out.
This is a matter of the utmost gravity. I do not deny the importance of our chemical industry, but I say that upon our textile trade depends far more than it is possible in a few moments to measure of the future of our national prosperity. It is not merely at home; it is in these neutral markets. One noble Lord, Lord Inchcape, asks how are we going to pay our debt to America? There is only one way. We cannot do it by exporting our goods to Germany, because the balance of trade has been against us. The only way that we can do it is by exporting our goods in abundance to the neutral countries, and getting by the operation of the cross exchanges, our debt cancelled in New York. I am quite certain that the noble Lord will agree with me there. Is this Bill going to help us to do that? Of course it will not, it will hinder us. You may say that the hindrance is necessary, but you cannot suggest that we shall not be hindered, and if, as everybody who is engaged in the industry seems to fear, it is going to impede and impair the efficiency of their trade because of the lack of expedition with which they can accept and despatch orders, to say nothing of the horrible fear that the British goods may rot be first-class when they are delivered, then I say this Bill as it stands ought to be condemned.
750
Then I am told it is essential that we should do this in order to build up once again for war—war against our old rival, the country to which we exported vast quantities of our finished products. Are we actually going to base the whole of our social and economic life for the next thirty years on the prospect of being ready immediately for war with Germany? I can only say, if that is so, something will happen before that war takes place which will render that war unnecessary, for we shall have destroyed British trade, and with it the foundations of our finance, and all that our financial credit means. I cannot help being reminded of the story of a great French physician who, having cured a patient of every possible symptom of disease that he could discover, found the patient dead, and exclaimed in horror Il est mort—guéri. If we go from one trade to the other trying to prop one. trade here and another there by penalising all the rest of our trade; if we interfere from time to time, in the belief that by State control we could manage the vast industries of this country, we shall cure a symptom here and we shall cure a symptom there, but in the end we shall kill British trade.
I say nothing as to what might be the proper course to take if this Bill came back to us again, but I do say that your Lordships must have heard this afternoon arguments, advanced by people who know, that must satisfy you that there has not been full and adequate investigation into all the causes that have led up to this measure, and that the Government can offer no justification for introducing at this late period of the Session a Bill which, according to their own statement, has been due for nearly two years. Those are the reasons for which I ask your Lordships to accept the Motion, which, although it will for the moment reject the Bill, is not intended to express your Lordships' disapproval of the measure itself, but expresses your determination to have this matter more fully investigated, and not to let a question of such vast importance be decided in such unseemly haste.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, I think I should say a few words about the reasons which have induced the Government to proceed even at this late and inconvenient stage of the session with this measure, and try to answer the arguments that are advanced in favour of

751
delay. It was the desire of the Government to deal with this question of the protection of what are known as key industries in a general measure, and it was still recently in contemplation that that general measure should have a foremost place in the legislation of the coming year. It certainly was not without the greatest reluctance that the Government added to its already heavy programme of legislation for this session the measure which is now before us. The reason for doing so was that the President of the Board of Trade brought before his colleagues evidence which I believe convinced them all—quite a majority of them in the first instance being unfavourable to such a course—that if we delayed in affording protection to this industry there would be no industry to protect. All noble Lords who have been in Cabinets must be well aware that the last thing a Government desires at any time is to have a very heavy list of Bills which it is committed to passing, especially towards the close of a session, and I am quite certain that this measure would never have been introduced had it not been that we were one and all convinced that it was a matter of national necessity.
We are told that the noble Lords who are opposing this Bill are as keen as we are to see a flourishing chemical industry. They want. it as much as the Government; it is dear to their hearts they say—but this is the wrong way of doing it. Not one time in a hundred is a measure opposed on the ground that it is undesirable in itself. Ninety-nine per cent. of measures, in my experience, are opposed much more cleverly by the people who really hate the object, by saying "The object is all right, but this is not the right way to de it; you should have done it the other way."
Before the question of the actual measures to be taken for the protection of the British dye industry became a burning question, there was practically unanimous agreement that the system of licensing was the right system. It was put forward by the first Government of Mr. Asquith, it was supported by the first Coalition Government., and it was taken from the first Coalition Government by the present Government. It is not as if this was a new question. For four or five years every responsible Minister who has spoken on the matter, and every Government Committee appointed to enquire into the subject, has reported in favour of affording protection to this
752
industry, assuming that protection was needed, by the method of licence. Now when we have come forward with a proposal to that effect, for the first time I hear it said by a representative of the trade that he would much rather have a fifteen or thirty per cent. tariff. But a fifteen or thirty per cent. tariff would not serve the purpose to-day. The advantage which the German industry has in the rate of exchange at this moment is so enormous that it will defeat any tariff protection which you can afford.
Before the Government, was actually committed to the policy of defending this trade by the means of licensing, I venture to say there was practically universal agreement upon this as being the right method of procedure if protection was needed, and it was especially upheld and commended because it avoided the eternal controversy between Free Traders and Protectionists. Here we had a method of defending an industry that we were all agreed in regarding as essential to our national welfare, which was agreed to by both the great Parties in the State and by all the leading statesmen on both sides. Now when we come forward with a measure based on this principle which has been universally accepted we are told in the first place that it is a surprise, that there has not been time enough to enquire into the matter—although we have been discussing it for four or five years! In the next place we are told that we ought to have done it. by means of a tariff.
As far as the Government is concerned, the position is absolutely clear. We are pledged up to the hilt to this measure. We could not as men of honour have taken any other course than we have taken the moment we were convinced that the industry was in real danger. I do not say that because the Government is pledged to a particular course, therefore Parliament is pledged. Parliament is free to refuse, if it thinks right, to implement the pledge of the Government. Whether it is a good, or wise, or right thing to do, after people have been induced to put up millions of money on the faith of that pledge, is another question; but nobody disputes your Lordships' complete right to repudiate this whole proposal despite all its history, despite the fact that statesmen of both Parties have been pledged to it, and despite the fact that the Government has contemplated this state of the matter for

753
years. It has been represented that the pledge which the Government gave was merely a sort of casual expression of opinion such as one very eminent member of the Government on the hustings made on the subject of nationalisation. Really it is trifling to compare the two things. A single Minister in the heat of an election contest flies the "Nationalisation of Railways" kite. Is that a pledge of the Government? Is Parliament, is the country in any way committed? Is that comparable to a pledge given in the circumstances under which this pledge was given? Not only had this method of protection by licence previously received the approval of successive leading statesmen of both Parties, but the particular promise to which reference is always made—under what conditions was that given? It was made, not casually but by the President of the Board of Trade, the natural spokesman of the Government on such a subject, on the Board of Trade Vote in the House of Commons. It was made with a full explanation of the policy. It was made at the beginning of a long debate during which no single member rose to question or to oppose the plan which was then put forward. Now a great deal is being made of this prospectus but, that being the stated policy of the Government—stated over and over again and finally announced in that very formal manner by the President of the Board of Trade before the House of Commons, and unchallenged by the House—was it not perfectly justifiable, in addressing the public and asking for subscriptions, to make the assertion that this was the Government policy?
It was not a promise given to one particular company, but any company which was appealing to the public for subscriptions was perfectly entitled to quote, and to rely upon, the Government promise which was generally given. You say, "The Government announces that it means to control the importation of dyestuffs into this country by licence," and any company which was going to operate in the production of dyestuffs was perfectly entitled, in appealing to the public for subscriptions, to refer to, and to use, that promise as an inducement to people to subscribe. A great deal of prejudice has been created in the course of this discussion by suggestions that private interests have made I will not say improper profits; there has been much suggestion of company-mongering and so
754
forth, calculated to make the whole of these proceedings appear in an unfavourable light.
I am not, I cannot pretend to be, familiar with all the financial details of the history of this affair, but the main features of it are surely perfectly straightforward. Objection has been raised to-night to the amalgamation of the original company with Levinstein. I think the impression left on your Lordships' mind was that the original company was of a specially pure and exalted character, which, somehow or other, was tainted by its association with Levinstein. It was suggested that there was something wrong in that association and that interested parties made too much out of it. But the amalgamation with Levinstein was made under pressure by the dye users themselves. It was at their suggestion that this amalgamation was effected and it was they who approached the Government with the statement that they were convinced—these are their very words—.
"That the scheme for the amalgamation of British Dyes, Limited, and Levinstein, Limited, is the first but most important and difficult step towards freeing the country within a reasonable time from dependence on Germany for synthetic dye stuffs, and we strongly urge shareholders to accept it."
This circular was signed by every colour users' association in the country—the Bradford Dyers' Association, the Bleachers' Association, the Yorkshire Dyers' Federation, and so forth.
Here let me say with regard to the question which has been considerably discussed to-night of the interest of the textile trade generally. In support of this measure we have quoted the Dye Users' Association. The statement that 90 per cent. of the Dye Users' Association were in favour of this measure is rather a misleading statement, and I do not want to insist upon it. What is the fact is that 90 per cent. of the dye users are in association and that the majority of the association are in favour of the measure.
LORD EMMOTT: By a show of hands.
VISCOUNT MILNER: At any rate, though you may question it, that is their official verdict on the question.
LORD EMMOTT: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, I should like to say that I am told that the number of machines

755
represented by those who opposed was probably greater than the number of machines represented by those who voted in favour of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My information is not the same. I cannot really say, but I am informed by persons upon whom I am bound to rely that this is not the case. In any event, whether it was by a show of hands or in any other way, the association was in favour of the Bill and has agreed to work it. It was said by one noble Lord, "Oh yes; that is all very well for the dye users, but they are not the people who are really concerned. It is the great body of the manufacturers in the textile industry and the merchants who really matter." Apparently the argument is that the dye users would be indifferent if the dyes were bad, and that it would be the merchants and the manufacturers who would suffer. But is that a serious argument? Can you suppose that these people, whose existence depends upon their being able to use good dyes, whose trade would be lost if they did not use them, are not the best protectors of the industry as a whole in this particular matter? They are the people of all others who are most likely to take care that the dyes are good, because if they were to use imperfect and improper dyes their whole raison d'être would be gone. In this vast agglomeration of trades which constitutes the textile industry as a whole, surely it is precisely the dye users who are the party to whom you would look, and whom you would expect to be foremost in protesting if there was anything which imperilled the supply of good and reasonably cheap dyes.
I am not at all certain to what extent the different branches of the textile industries are in favour of this Bill and arc opposed to it. All I know is that during the years that a measure of this kind has been the professed and declared policy of successive Governments and when everybody has had reason to look forward to it, there has been no serious protest on behalf of the textile industries of this country. It is only in the last month or two that we have had certain protests. I am not surprised at this, because it seems to me that it is the textile industries of this country that, above all others, are interested in the success of these measures.
Nothing to my mind could be more misleading than the attempt which has been
756
made during the debate to-night to contrast the interest of the dye-producing trade of this country and the great mass of her textile industries. What would the position of those textile industries be if we had not a strong dye-producing industry in this country? They would be absolutely at the mercy—not only in war but in peace—of the competitive nations which might possess a stronger industry of that character. It was one of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, that there might be a combination, even under our present circumstances, of American and German dye-producers to withhold from us certain particularly important dyes. My Lords, if they can combine to withhold certain dyes they most surely can combine to withhold all if we had no dye industry in this country at all.
Nobody is more convinced than I am of the supreme importance to this nation of maintaining its great exporting industries of which the textile are the chief, but I am equally convinced that the future of those industries is gravely imperilled unless we succeed by hook or by crook in establishing in this country a chemical industry and, as a foundation to that, a dye industry which is strong enough to hold its own against any competition. We have made great progress during the last four years in the establishment of such an industry. The figures which have been quoted here to-night as to the development of the British industry are surely surprisingly encouraging. We only produced 10 per cent. of the dyes we consumed four or five years ago. We are producing something like 80 or 90 per cent. now. We have got a long way towards the establishment of this vital industry, but here we are threatened at this critical moment, and threatened in a manner which Lord Moulton has explained much better than I can and with an eloquence which I cannot rival, with the onrush of a competition which has everything in the circumstances of the moment in its favour owing to the extraordinary state of exchange. I do not blame people who are doing it; they are entitled to do it; but it is deliberately directed to crushing this vital but still young industry in this country in its beginning.
The Government are convinced that immediate action is necessary to prevent this national disaster. The action the are taking is the kind of action which has

757
been approved over and over again by statesmen of every Party during the last four years, and I cannot believe that the criticisms that you have heard to-night, powerful as many of them are but really criticisms directed to points of infinitely minor importance, will induce your Lordships to refuse to proceed at once with the measure which is necessary for the preservation of our national industry.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I desire to make a few observations.
NOBLE LORDS: Divide! Divide!
LORD SHEFFIELD: This is a most important question affecting many industries, and I do not propose to abstain from calling your Lordships' attention to certain facts. The noble Lord who has just spoken clearly attached great importance to the percentage of members of the industries involved which the Government could rely upon.
NOBLE LORDS: Divide! Divide!
LORD SHEFFIELD: I am in possession of the House, and I intend to make my remarks. The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill began by assuring us that 90 per cent. of the persons interested were in favour of the Bill. He got that remark, I think, from the President of the Board of Trade, who made the same observation on the First Reading of the Bill. It will be found in HANSARD at col. 1601. The President of the Board of Trade himself, at the end of the Second Reading, was obliged to withdraw that remark. When taxed with having said that 90 per cent. of the trade were in favour of the Bill he denied that he said that 90 per cent. of the dye-users supported the Bill. In the first place, this Bill is only concerned with the makers of synthetic dyes and intermediate products, tar-products, but the dye users will include all dye users, not necessarily those who use tar products. Further the meeting at which the resolution was carried was not largely attended. There was only about two-thirds in favour of it, and, as Lord Emmott has pointed out, it was a vote by individuals and not by persons interested to any extent in the trade.
NOBLE LORDS: Divide! Divide!
LORD SHEFFIELD: I am sorry that your Lordships are impatient, but I think
758
there are facts which, considering the importance of the industry, must be brought before you. There is another question to which I wish to call attention. There is no doubt that the trades most interested are the great textile trades, cotton and wool. Of course the dye-user is an instrument in carrying out the efficiency of that trade, but the trade themselves, the merchants especially, are concerned in the efficiency of the products in the command they have of foreign markets. It is mainly a question of foreign markets.
What did the President of the Board of Trade say in the Grand Committee on December 14? He complained that while other people had helped him he had had no communication with the textile industry. He complained that the textile trade had not let him know their views, and he said, "Only yesterday and to-day am I learning I the views of a very important body of people." Is it not clear that a Bill introduced in this hurried way, read a first time on December 3, and brought up here on the eve of Christmas—is it not clear that the time allotted is entirely insufficient? In the Manchester Guardian on December 18 there was a report of a very large meeting of the trade held in the Memorial Hall. It was known that an important memorial had been sent to the Prime Minister, and that he had refused to entertain it in any way. At that meeting a Resolution was carried against the Bill unanimously, and that shows what was the attitude of the cotton trade of Lancashire. At that meeting it was stated that 1,141 postcards had been received from members of the trade supporting the protest against the Bill. I will not trouble your Lordships with details of the subdivisions of the trade, but it is quite sufficiently important to show that in that brief space of time 1,141 members of the trade, all important firms, had protested against the Bill. It is a mockery to suppose that this Bill can be considered satisfactorily. The Bill was only printed about December 3, and the people interested in the trade have had no opportunity of having their views stated.
I dare say very few of your Lordships have taken the trouble to read the proceedings on the Bill in the Grand Committee, but there were several members of that Grand Committee who were evidently very familiar with the technique of the trade, and anybody who reads the report of the debate will see how many difficult and technical questions were raised

759
which require careful consideration. Obviously, if your Lordships had any interest in the matter and wished to do justice to the Bill, you would wish to be in communication with the experts familiar with the trade. It is quite essential in my opinion that before you hurry the Bill through you should give an opportunity at this last minute to enable those most affected, who tell you they may be ruined,
Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
[The sitting was suspended shortly after eight o'clock and resumed at half-past nine.]

ROADS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
to express their views and submit their arguments. I think I have called your Lordships' attention to two or three vital points which will justify us in adopting the Amendment.
On Question, That the Bill be now read 2a?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Dynevor, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Churchill, V.

Erskine, L.

Ailsa, M.

Falmouth, V.

Faringdon, L.

Bath, M.

Finlay, V.

Greville, L.

Camden, M.

Goschen, V.

Harris, L.

Exeter, M.

Hardinge, V.

Hylton, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Hood, V.

Inverforth, L.

Salisbury, M.

Milner, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Albemarle, E.

Peel, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Ancaster, E.

Lawrence, L.

Bradford, E.

Abinger, L.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield. E.

Ampthill, L.

Marehamley, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Baccleuch and Queensberry.)

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Monkton, L. (V. Galway.)

Avebury, L.

Moulton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Balfour, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Bellew, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Lindsey, E.

Berwick, L.

Riddell, L.

Lucan, E.

Blythswood, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Lytton, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

St. Levan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore. L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Powis, E.

Cole brooke, L.

Selborne, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Stanhope, E.

de Manley, L.

Sydenham, L.

Strafford, E.

Deramore, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Vane, E. (M. Lordonderry.)

Desborough, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Wicklow, E.

Dewar, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Boston, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Buckmaster, L.

Pentland, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Cawley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Chalmers, L.

Rotherham, B.

Russell, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Westmeath, E.

Emmott, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sede, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Shaw, L.

Bryce, V.

Hemphill, L.

Southwark, L.

Cowdray, V.

Incheape, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Cladstone, V.

Knareshorough, L.

Haldane, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swaythling, L.

Knollys, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Tenterden, L.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I notice that the noble Earl in charge of this Bill said on the Second Reading that the measure was practically non-contentious. That is the view of their Bills which is sometimes taken by members of the Govern-

761
ment who wish to get on with them, and I daresay as it was considered in your Lordships' House at the somewhat unusual time of Saturday that was undoubtedly true so far as those proceedings were concerned. The fact is that this Bill although largely administrative bristles with contentious matter, and were it not for the hour both of the session and of the night there would be many points which I should like to discuss at some length with the noble Earl opposite. The main objection taken to it by motorists is one which is outside the purview of this Bill and outside the purview of this House, and that is the very high taxes we have to pay. Those are not imposed by this Bill, which merely deals with the machinery for their imposition.
Motorists as a whole are, perhaps, rather afraid of the Minister of Transport, and I am not sure that they do not always suspect his intentions, but since notice was given of the Committee stage of this Bill I have had an opportunity of consulting not only with the noble Earl but, by his kindness, with some of the advisers of the Ministry of Transport, and I hope that when we come into Committee the result of those conferences will be, considerably to shorten anything we have to say. There are a great many points that I could touch on. as I think the noble Earl knows, but I believe I shall be consulting the convenience of the House if I deal with them specifically as they arise in Committee.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee, I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he can give us any light and leading on the position of the Bill administratively; I mean, the present position of the Bill as regards its administration both from the point of view of the local authorities who have to administer it and of the public who have to suffer under it.
Clause 1 of the Bill enacts that on and after January 1, 1921, these licences have to be obtained. A local authority who have to administer the Act depend for obtaining these licences on the Ministry of Transport. They have to get their stationery forms. They have to get the licences themselves, and I know that in many cases they have not got them yet. Also there are such small details left open and not yet decided as whether they are to use officially stamped letters or whether they are not. The local authorities have in a very short time to
762
provide staffs for dealing with the applications for licences, and it is not easy to provide staffs for temporary work; you cannot take men on for a temporary job lasting three months so easily as you can for one lasting a longer period. It is a complicated thing, and you must have efficient staffs. It is very important that those staffs should have their stationery, forms, and all the paraphernalia in their possession two or three days at least before the Bill conies into operation, because otherwise the county halls of the counties will be besieged by people demanding licenses, and possibly the local authority will not have received these licenses from the Ministry of Transport.
The fact of the matter is that the Ministry of Transport are all behindhand in dealing with this Bill. I will give one illustration. It refers to the Regulations to carry out Clause 10, which says that the local authority are to provide metal plaques for the manufacturers dealing in motors who do not have to pay the full duties. The Ministry of Transport has sent down designs of those plaques. If this Bill is to become operative on January 1, and the local authorities are bound to supply those plaques on January 1, how in the world are they to get them, because the Ministry of Transport has not told them, and they are left to suppose that they have to order them and have them made during the Christmas holidays. The circular which gave this order arrived at the office of my county council on December 17—only four days ago, and the council, as I understand this Bill, have to provide these plaques by the morning of January 1, which appears to me to be a physical impossibility, unless the Ministry of Transport can show us the way. I ask that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill may be able to give us some guarantee that these local authorities are going to be provided with the material and papers and so forth in such time as will enable their new clerks to be able to understand them, and to deal with the public when they demand these things. Otherwise they are put in an unfair position, and the whole situation will be chaotic.
And if it is not fair for the local authorities' officials to put them in this position, it is still less fair to the public, and I fear that, whatever advertisements may be put in the local papers, a great many people who do not read the local papers will not see them, and we may have queues at the

763
county halls demanding things which it is impossible to give, and there will be a great deal of trouble and public irritation. Therefore, the second thing I would ask the noble Earl is whether the operation of the Bill cannot be postponed. There will be no prosecution under this Bill, I should think, until at any rate February 1. If there are to be no prosecutions before then, why not say so? Cannot we get something authoritative from the Government on that point, because the effect would be that people would not all come at the same time on January 1 to get their licenses and create the unfortunate situation which I am rather afraid of. If the Government could give us some such guarantee as that I believe that such a course would do much to oil the wheels and enable this very difficult and critical thing—as it is for these small local authorities—to be dealt with.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I should like to support the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton. I think it will be almost impossible to get this Act into working order before January 1. I have seen it stated in the public prints that it is not to come into operation until February 1, but I have only seen that stated without any particular authority. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us some light on this question, because it is obviously impossible for the county councils and also for the public to work under this entirely new system without notice in the period which elapses between now and the 1st of January. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will be able to give us some information.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I was rather alarmed when I heard the noble Earl opposite take me to task for claiming that this Bill was an uncontroversial Bill, but I was relieved as he went on to find that his chief objection to the Bill was not contained in the Bill at all but was directed to the motor taxes which are imposed by the Budget. A glance at the Order Paper is sufficient to show that this Bill is not without some elements of controversy. That I readily admit, but I hope the noble Earl will find as we go through Committee that, taken as a whole, considering its size and importance, no very great measure of controversy is raised by it.
With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, I agree with him that the late period at which this
764
Bill has been introduced will allow very little time for the preparation and issue of the necessary registration cards, licences, and other forms for which the local authorities will become responsible. I ought, however, in justice to the Minister of Transport to say that the delay in introducing this Bill is not to be attributed to him, because the Finance Act which established these licences only received the Royal Assent on August 4 this year, and therefore there has been a very short time for the Department to prepare all the necessary machinery for working out the details of the scheme now embodied in this Bill. I admit that the fact that the Bill is only now introduced and that it has to come into operation on January 1 will allow a very short time to the local authorities.
I can assure the noble Lord that the declaration forms, registration cards, and licences are all now being distributed rapidly to the various local authorities throughout the country, and I am assured by the Department that all this material will be in the hands of the authorities at any rate by January 1. I will also give him the assurance for which he asks, that it is not the intention of the Ministry of Transport to take any action in Court, or anywhere else, for failure to comply with the requirements of the Act during the month of January—that is to say, no one will be held responsible for the requirements of the Act till February 1. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that that is the best way to attain the end we all have in view, because if we definitely postpone the operation of the Act we should only get the rush that he objects to at a later stage. I therefore give him that assurance. I would also like to add that it is of the utmost importance that those interested in the motor industry and owners of motor cars should apply for their licences and registration cards at as early a date as possible, and should also, as far as possible, apply for them in writing so as to avoid the queues to which the noble Lord has referred.
I can give him the further assurance that whilst the facts to which I have alluded have already been notified in the technical Press, it is the intention of the Ministry of Transport to issue to the Daily Press the information which I have now given to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Establishment of Road Fund.
3.—(1) There shall be established for the purposes of this Act, in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury for the purpose, a fund to be called the Road Fund, and subject to such regulations as may be made by the Treasury with respect to accounts and investments, the Road Fund shall be subject to the control and management of the Minister.
(2) There shall be transferred or paid to the Road Fund all moneys which on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, are standing to the account of the road improvement giant or are payable to that account, and all investments representing accumulations of money standing to the account of the road improvement grant shall be transferred to such persons as the Treasury may direct, and shall, subject to the provisions of any regulations made by the Treasury under the foregoing subsection, be held by those persons for the purposes of the Road Fund.
(3) Any sums received by the Minister under Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, shall be paid by the Minister into the Road Fund in such manner as the Treasury may direct.
(4) There shall be paid out of the Road Fund in every year—

(a) to every county council by whom the said duties are levied an amount equal to the expenses properly incurred by that council in accordance with directions issued by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury in or in connection with the levying of the duties, and the registration of vehicles, and in issuing licences to drivers of vehicles, and such directions may provide for advances to be made to the said county councils from time to time as may be necessary during the year on account of such expenses:

(b) to every local or police authority such sum as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine to represent the amount which would, if this Act had not been passed, have been received by the authority on account of fees or charges for the licensing of mechanically-propelled hackney carriages:

THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, in subsection (2), after "Treasury may direct and shall," to insert "upon a direction in that behalf being given by the Treasury, by virtue of this Act vest in the persons specified in the direction, and shall." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment required by the Treasury. It merely
766
gives effect to the intention of the Bill and. makes it clear that no document transferring an investment shall be required.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, after ("shall") insert ("upon a direction in that behalf being given by the Treasury, by virtue of this Act vest in the persons specified in the direction, and shall ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next three Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 8, leave out the first ("and") and leave out ("in issuing") and insert ("the issuing of")
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("to be") and insert ("being") and leave out ("the said")
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("such expenses") and insert ("any expenses so incurred by them as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (4) (b), before "amount," to insert "net." The noble Lord said: I will not trouble your Lordships with any argument about this Amendment, which I understand the Government will not accept. The noble Earl has explained that it really does not affect the point.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: This was put down under a misapprehension. The. Amendment is not necessary.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: will not move it.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I have next another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after the first ("the") insert ("estimated amount of the").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question, is that Clause 3, as amended, stand part.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to ask the noble Earl a question of which I am sorry to say I have not given him notice, and perhaps he will tell me that he cannot answer it. There was, it was always understood, a very large sum of several million pounds (I rather think £5,000,000)

767
to the credit of the Road Fund at the beginning of the war which was, of course, very properly used for the purposes of the war. Has that money been returned, or will that money be returned, to the purposes for which it was originally collected and for which motorists were given to understand it was to be used? If the noble Earl is not in a position to reply I cannot press it, but it is a matter of some importance and I should be glad if he would tell the House what has happened to that sum.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I believe that the money to which the noble Earl refers has already been paid over and is now being distributed in grants.
On Question, Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provisions as to licences.
5.—(1) Every person applying for a licence under section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by this Act, or under section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, shall make such a declaration and furnish such particulars with respect to the vehicle or carriage for which the licence is to be taken out or otherwise as may be prescribed.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act as to general licences, every licence issued under section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by this Act, shall be issued in respect of the vehicle specified in the application for the licence and shall not entitle the person to whom it is issued to use any other vehicle, and a county council shall not be required to issue any licence for which application is made unless they are satisfied that the licence applied for is the appropriate licence for the vehicle specified in the application, and, in the case of an application for a licence for a vehicle purporting to be the first application for a licence in respect of the vehicle, that a licence has not previously been issued in respect of that vehicle.
(3) Where any vehicle in respect of which any such licence as aforesaid has been issued is altered after the licence has, been issued in such manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a licence at a higher rate of duty or a licence of a different class is required, the licence shall become void but the holder of the licence shall, on surrendering the same and furnishing the prescribed particulars, be entitled to receive a new licence in respect of the vehicle on payment of such amount, if any, as represents the difference between the amount payable on the new licence and the amount paid on the surrendered licence.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of the Acts relating to Excise licences and without prejudice to those provisions, any such licence as aforesaid may be transferred in the prescribed manner.
(5) Subject as may prescribed every such licence as aforesaid shall, in the prescribed manner. be fixed to and exhibited on the vehicle in respect of which it is issued.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, in subsection (3), after "in respect of the vehicle," to insert "to have effect for the period for which the surrendered vehicle would, if it had not been surrendered, have remained in force." The noble Earl said: This is intended to make it clear that a person applying for a new licence in respect of an altered vehicle cannot demand a quarterly licence instead of an annual licence. If he is in possession of an annual licence he must apply for another annual licence, and if he is in possession of a quarterly licence he Must apply for another quarterly licence. The words are required to make it clear that existing licences must be renewed in the same form.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, after ("vehicle") insert ("to have effect for the period for which the surrendered licence would, if it had not been surrendered, have remained in force").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the follow new subsection—
(6) Sections twenty and twenty-one of the Revenue Act, 1869, shall, subject to such modifications and exceptions as may be prescribed, apply to the declaration to be prescribed cinder this section, and sections twenty-two and twenty-three of the said Act shall have effect as though references to the declaration to be so prescribed as aforesaid were therein substituted in relation to carriages for references to the declaration under that Act.
The noble Earl said: This is practically a drafting Amendment. It inserts a provision adapting to the present Bill Sections 22 and 23 of the Revenue Act of 1869.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I have on the Paper an Amendment to insert, at the end of the clause, the following new subsection—
(6) Where upon application for a licence to ply for hire with an omnibus, the licensing authority either refuses to grant a licence or grants such a licence subject to conditions, in either case the applicant shall have a right of

769
appeal to the Minister of Transport from the decision of the licensing authority, and the Minister shall have power to make such order thereon as he thinks fit, and such order shall be binding upon the licensing authority.
For the purpose of this subsection the expression "omnibus" includes every omnibus, char-a-bane, wagonette, brake, stage coach, or other carriage plying for hire or used to carry passengers at separate fares.
I am advised from a quarter from which all advice that comes is entitled to receive great respect that this Amendment, which I understand will be accepted with an addition, ought to come in Clause 15. Therefore I shall not move it now but will move it later.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Registration and identification marks.
6.—(1) On the first issue by a county council of a licenee under section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by this Act, for a vehicle it shall be the duty of the council to register the vehicle in the prescribed manner without any further application in that behalf by the person taking out the licence, and subject to the provisions of this section, every such council shall assign a separate number to every vehicle registered with them, and the mark indicating the registered number of the vehicle and the council with which the vehicle is registered shall be fixed on the vehicle or on any other vehicle drawn by that vehicle or on both in the prescribed manner:
Provided that any number which has been assigned to a motor car under section two of the Motor Car Act, 1903, and which is the registered number of that ear on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, shall be treated as having been assigned to the car under the provision of this section and no new number shall be assigned to such a car.
(2) If the mark to be fixed in accordance with this Act is not so fixed, or if, being so fixed, it is in any way obscured or rendered or allowed to become not easily distinguishable, the person driving the vehicle shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction in respect of the first offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and in respect of a second or subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds:
Provided that a person charged under this section with obscuring a mark or rendering or allowing it to become not easily distinguishable, shall not be liable to be convicted on the charge if he proves that he has taken all steps reasonably practicable to prevent the mark being obscured or rendered not easily distinguishable.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The first Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
page 6, line 29, leave out the first ("the") and insert, ("a").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: With reference to the Amendment I have down on this clause, I am well aware that the Government in another place inserted certain words including those now in the Bill. I suggest with all respect that those words are not quite sufficient, and that the words I have put down on the Paper "or that the mark has become obscured by causes beyond his control" should he added. There are certainly circumstances under which snow or mud may get on the number plate and obscure it and the driver may be quite unaware of the fact even though he may have stopped half an hour before to clean the number plate. The Government have no objection in principle to it, but they think it is covered by the words of the Bill. I suggest that the words I have put down make it perfectly clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 11, at end insert ("or that the mark has become obscured by causes beyond his control").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, because it goes further than the Government are prepared to go. I think the case the noble Lord has in his mind is met by the words in the Bill. He has presented the case of a car driven in snow and the driver being stopped and criticised because his number plate has become obscured by snow. If according to the words in the Bill now, he is able to show that within a reasonable period he got down and cleaned the number plate it will be, of course, unreasonable to expect that he should do that every five minutes or even every half hour. If the Amendment were accepted it would be possible for him to go through a whole journey under those conditions without taking any step whatever to see if the number plate were obscured, and he could therefore claim that the circumstances were beyond his control.
I am unable to accept the Amendment because I am told that the Home Office attach a great deal of importance to not further weakening this clause. In support of that view I would like to tell your Lordships some rather interesting facts. Many complaints have been received of serious accidents caused by motor cars which have not stopped and owing to the obscuring of the number plate have passed on, and no means have been available for finding

771
out the identity of the car causing the accident. The police authorities stated that in 1916 there were ten cases of fatal accidents in the metropolis in which the motor cars concerned passed on and escaped without being identified. This led the police to take special action, and in the course of a short campaign following those ten cases they discovered 4,000 cases of defective and not easily distinguishable number plates. In a subsequent campaign they discovered 6,000 similar cases. As the result of that many prosecutions ensued, and the result was that the number of fatal accidents caused by unidentified motor cars was reduced to 7 in 1917, to 2 in 1918, and to none at all in 1919. In view of those facts I hope your Lordships will support me in maintaining the clause as it stands.
EARL RUSSELL: I think the proviso here gives a somewhat illusory protection, because in spite of what the noble Lord says it is rather difficult to prove that you have taken all steps reasonably practicable unless you have in fact stopped every time your number plate becomes obscured, and in the kind of weather we have now it would mean stopping about every two miles. I think if the noble Lord looks into these alarming figures about number plates he will find that a good many of the cases are what I should call trivial. I have heard, and comparatively recently, of prosecutions for defective number plates, because the distance between the figures was seven-sixteenths of an inch instead of half an inch, or whatever it is that is prescribed, and those things do not do any harm; but I realise the difficulty of the Government and of the Minister of Transport. We want to snake sure not only that we shall suppress the road hog and the ruffian who drives a motor car, but that the ordinary motorist shall take every care to have his number plates in proper order; but subject to that we do not want unduly to harass him. I am afraid that whatever this provision is we shall have in the future, as in the past, to leave it to the common sense of the police and of the benches of magistrates.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Earl has said, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new paragraph—
"A person shall not be liable to a penalty under this section if he proves that he has had no reasonable opportunity of registering the vehicle in accordance with this section, and that the vehicle is being driven on a public road for the purpose of being registered."
The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is to enable a person who is in charge of an unregistered vehicle to drive it to the nearest registry office in order to register it.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think there may be cases in which the provision made will be convenient, and therefore I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following new subsections—
"(2) In paragraph (c) of subsection (1) or section four of the Motor Car Act, 1903, the words 'may cause' shall be substituted for the words 'shall cause,' and the words 'where any particulars are so endorsed' shall be substituted for the word 'also,' and in subsection (2) of that section the words, 'if so required by the convicting court' shall be inserted after the word ('shall')
(3) Where a person who is the holder of a licence which has been endorsed under section four of the Motor Car Act, 1903, or under that section as amended by this Act, has not during a continuous period of not less than three years had any conviction so endorsed on the licence, he shall be entitled, either on applying for a renewal of the licence or, subject to payment of a fee of five shillings, at any time, to have issued to him a new licenc free from endorsements."
The noble Earl said: There are two other Amendments dealing with this matter on the Paper in the names of Earl Russell and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. and I hope they will find that the new subsections which I am now moving will meet the point which they have in view. The point is this. It has been, I think, a justifiable ground of complaint on behalf of motor drivers for many years past, that if, as the result of some offence—it may be only a trivial offence—their licence is endorsed, that endorsement remains

773
upon the licence for all time. Motorists have continually asked that some limit at any rate may be put to this period of endorsement. The Amendment which stands in my name will have this effect, that if for a period of three years no conviction has been recorded against the holder of a licence, he will then be entitled to apply for a clean licence. That, I think, is sufficient to carry out all the promises and mote or less pledges given to motorists on this point, and I think also as much as it is reasonable to require.
Amendment moved.—
Page 7, line 14. at end insert the said new subaction.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I beg to thank the noble Earl for his concession on this point. I think it. is only fair that there should be some time limit to these endorsements. The days are past when you branded a person for life on the forehead, or by means of his licence, and there is no other offence known to English law for which your record of crime is placed against you for all time. Therefore the notate Earl is wily doing what is fair and eight.
EARL RUSSELL: I wish to join my noble friend in thanking the noble Lord opposite. I think we have received a concession which has, I think I may say, been to some extent held before motorists for some time as a reasonable thing for there to look for, and I am glad that our join efforts have succeeded in obtaining form the noble Lord, with his assistance, what I think is substantially the concession asked for. I may point out that I have at this moment in my pocket a licence with an endorsement of the year 1904 for an offence which I do not hesitate to say no bench of magistrates would convict to-day. I have been compelled for sixteen years to carry that stamp of infamy in my pocket and I am glad to get rid of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert "in such manner and in accordance with such directions as may be contained in any Order in Council made under this Act." The noble Earl said: This merely gives effect to the intention of the Bill and follows the wording of subsection (5) which refers to the payment of certain funds into the Exchequer.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, at end insert ("in such a manner and in accordance with such directions as may be contained in any Order in Council made under this Act").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Do these words make it possible for the proceeds of taxation on motors to be diverted to other purposes by Order in Council?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: They will be diverted into the Exchequer instead of into the County Council.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I move the omission of Clause 8. This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
(3) Where a licence has been taken out as for a vehicle to be used solely for a certain purpose and the vehicle is at any One during the period for which the licence is in force used for some other purpose, the person so using the vehicle shall, if the rate of duty chargeable in respect of a licence for a vehicle used for that other purpose is higher than the rate chargeable in respect of the licence held by him, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of an amount not exceeding, three times the difference between the duty actually paid on the licence and the duty payable on a licence appropriate to a vehicle used for that other purpose or twenty pounds, whichever amount is the greater.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "on summary conviction to a penalty of an amount not exceeding" and insert "to an excise penalty of an amount equal to." The noble Earl said: These words are moved for the purpose of amending the clause to the form which is usual in the case of excise penalties. It does not alter in any way the effect of the clause, as under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts a penalty less than a maximum can always be imposed, but these being Excise penalties the draftsman attaches importance to the fact that the language in all cases should conform to that of the Excise Act. The Amendment is now moved for that purpose.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("on summary conviction to a penalty of an amount not exceeding") ark insert ("to an excise penalty of an amount equal to").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Provision as to licence duty in case of manufacturers or dealers in mechanically propelled vehicles.
10.—(1) If any person being a manufacturer of or dealer in vehicles makes, in the prescribed manner, an application in that behalf to the council of the county in which his business premises are situate, that he may be entitled, in lieu of taking out a licence for each vehicle kept by him at the appropriate rate of duty chargeable under the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, to take out a general licence in respect of all vehicles used by him the council may, subject to the prescribed conditions, issue to him such a licence on payment of duty at the yearly rate of ten pounds, or, in the case of a licence chargeable with duty under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of the said Schedule, at the yearly rate of thirty shillings:
Provided that—

(a) licences under this section at the yearly rate of fifteen pounds may taken for one quarter of the year only beginning the first day of January, the twenty-fifth day of Marsh, the first day of July, or the first day of October, and in the case of any licence so taken out the duty shall be thirty per cent. of the full annual duty; and

(b) the holder of any licence issued under this section shall not be entitled by virtue of that licence to use more than one vehicle at any one time, or to use any vehicle for any purpose other than such purposes as may be prescribed; and

THE EARL OF LYTTON: The Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 35, after ("licence") insert ("to be used only on vehicles")
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("fifteen") and insert ("ten").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved in subsection (1) (b), after "at any one time," to insert "except in the case of a vehicle drawing a trailer and used for the prescribed purpose." The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment in order to enable a motor landed at a port to tow another one, or to tow a trailer up to the registering sergeant. The manufacturer naturally has to get a number plate for each vehicle used, but when he tows another vehicle it will save trouble I think if he is allowed to have one number plate for the two.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 7, after ("time") insert ("except in the case of a vehicle drawing a trailer and used for the prescribed purpose").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: "Provided that the power conferred on the Minister by this section shall not be deemed to extend to any sums now or hereafter payable by any persons, whether by virtue of any Act or otherwise, and whether in one sum or by annual or other instalments, by way of charges for the adaptation, alteration or reconstruction of any road used by their vehicles."
The noble Viscount said: The matter I wish to bring before your Lordships is rather a different one, and to my mind a very important one. We are all aware that during the year 1921 a further tax is to be imposed on motors which will bring in a large revenue. We cannot be certain how long that tax will last. This is a question which concerns county councils in a very important manner. As your Lordships are aware, when boroughs have obtained powers of running omnibuses into county areas it was done by private Acts of Parliament under which arrangements were made for the payment of a lump sum or a sum paid by instalments to the county councils to meet what had to be done in the way of the reconstruction or reinstatement of roads for the purpose. Under the clause as it stands in the Bill, the Minister has power if he thinks fit to change or alter the whole principle on which such payments are made. I do not think that is a fair or right position for a county council to be put into when they have made a distinct bargain under an Act of Parliament, and I think the Act of Parliament ought to be carefully observed and not changed at the will of the Minister. Therefore I have put down an Amendment with the object of preventing those sums which are paid either by instalments or else in a lump being affected or changed by the Minister. It was part of a bargain by which the roads of the county were made fit and suitable for the purpose I have mentioned. It is a totally

777
different proposition to the mileage rates for the maintenance of roads, and if the noble Lord says that a large sum of money is going to be allotted to the maintenance of roads that is a different point to the one I wish to bring before your Lordships. I sincerely hope my noble friend will accept my Amendment, and recognise the difference between the two classes of charges.
Amendment moved—
page 10, line 31, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Viscount Galway.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Whilst I am not able to accept my noble friend's Amendment, I think there is a great deal of force in what he has said. I certainly recognise that there is a difference between the two classes of charges to which he has referred. Clause 11 as it stands empowers the Minister to determine or modify mileage charges or other annual payments in respect of the use of roads by motor omnibuses. These mileage charges are usually payable either by borough councils running omnibuses outside their districts or by omnibus companies. My noble friend I think agrees that it is desirable that these payments should end since they are now to be superseded by the road fund. But it is true, as he has pointed out, that there are also occasions when quite apart from the mileage charges lump sum payments are made by these omnibus undertakings in respect of the alteration of roads or by boroughs running omnibuses outside their areas, and in so far as those are capital sums paid in respect of alterations to the roads, whether as lump sums or by payments covering a number of years in annual instalments, it is not the intention of the Minister to interfere with those payments, and I am informed that the Amendment of the noble Lord is really not necessary. There is always an objection to putting words into a Bill which must be presumed to have some meaning, when in fact they have no meaning. If the noble Lord will be satisfied with my assurance that the distinction between these two sums is recognised and will he maintained, I hope he will not press the Amendment. I am unable to accept it.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I shall be quite satisfied with the noble Earl's assurance, and no doubt the Minister of Transport would thoroughly endorse everything he had said. But still he admits himself that
778
his clause gives the Minister of the day power to interfere, and although one is only too glad to rely on the noble Earl's assurance, still words in an Act of Parliament, when they come to be interpreted elsewhere, do not command that, amount of respect that one would like to see granted to assurances given in this House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am not quite able to understand the position of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Either his words have an effect, or they have not. So far as I read them the effect seems to me entirely reasonable, because it stops the breaking of an existing bargain. The noble Earl's statements seemed to me to be inconclusive. He seemed at one time to say it would be of no effect and at the other time that the Minister of Transport would do the thing without them.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am sorry if I did not make my point clear. I did not mean that the Minister would give an assurance that he would not use the words of the clause in a particular sense, but I am informed that the words as they stand do not, in fact, cover the case which the noble Viscount has in his mind. For that reason the Amendment is unnecessary.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Special provisions as to hackney carriages.
(2) Where a licence has been taken out in respect of any vehicle at the rate of duty appropriate to a hackney carriage seating not more than a certain number of persons, the person keeping the vehicle shall, if it is used on any occasion for the purpose of seating more persons than the number aforesaid, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of an amount not exceeding three times the difference between the duty actually paid on the licence and the duty payable on a licence for a vehicle being a hackney carriage seating that greater number of persons.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: There is a drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("on summary conviction to a penalty of an amount not exceeding") and insert ("to an excise penalty of an amount equal to").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "three times." The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down in order to ask the Government whether they do not think this penalty is rather stiff. There may be cases in which it would be wise to leave to the Bench the exact amount of the penalty.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("three times").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am afraid I cannot accept this, because the effect would be to make the penalty for seating more persons in a hackney carriage than the number for which the licence has been taken out only the sum equal to the difference between the duty actually paid and the duty payable on a licence for a vehicle seating a greater number of persons. It would, in effect, be no penalty at all, and it would merely require the payment of the proper amount of duty. The penalty in the Bill is quite a light one, and payment of three times the difference is, in the opinion of the Government, by no means excessive.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: There are four drafting Amendments here.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 13, leave out ("hackney")
Page 11, line 14, after ("type") insert ("being hackney carriages")
Page 11, line 18, leave out ("vehicle") and insert ("carriage")
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("vehicle") and insert ("carriage").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Regulations.
13.—(1) The Minister may make regulations generally for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect, and in particular, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, may make regulations—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in the first paragraph of subsection (1), to leave out "and in particular,
780
without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, may make regulations." The noble Lord said: I should like to know if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill could explain what these words mean. They are English words, no doubt, but I do not understand them.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, 1ine 28, leave out from ("and") to end of paragraph, line 30.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
EARL RUSSELL: Before the noble Earl in charge of the Bill replies I should like to ask if I understand correctly that Clause 13 is the clause which is giving power to make regulations in substitution for the section in the Motor Car Act, 1903, and whether this is the clause which will give the power there used to be in the Local Government Board Regulations under the 1903
Act. With regard to paragraph (c) I am not sure about the "size, shape and character of the identification marks," but I take it that those words refer to what one ordinarily calls the numbers. Then there is also a provision for displaying the new licence. I do not wish to discuss the draft regulations now because they are not before us, but I should like to take this opportunity to make an appeal, through the noble Earl, to the Minister of Transport to avoid as far as possible defacing what, after all, in many cases are private carriages with an increasing number of symbols and other things stuck about them. We have had to put on a great number of them at the front and back of motor cars, and I understand it is now proposed that we should display some sort of coloured sign visible to the whole world on our wind screen. I hope it will be remembered that in many cases these are not tradesmen's vans but private carriages.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think there is some misunderstanding as to the meaning of the clause. The clause runs as follows—"The Minister may make regulations generally for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect." That is to say, the clause does not give to the Minister any power of making regulations generally except in so far as to carry out any one of the clauses of this Act for which regulation may be necessary. It only gives him the power of making the regulation if it is necessary for the purpose of fulfilling any of the provisions of the Act. The words which Lord Montagu proposes to leave out would confine the power of the

781
Minister to making regulations to the specific items which are mentioned below. I am not able to say offhand whether there is any other provision in the Bill which requires a regulation. I am not aware that there is, but there may be. This Bill has been drafted rather hurriedly in order to carry out the administration of the new funds provided by the Act, and I am told that it is possible there may be some clause in the Bill for which a regulation will have to apply which has not been included in the specific items below. That being so, it is desired to retain the words, but I can assure the noble Lord they will have no other effect than giving power to the Minister to make the Regulation should the Regulation be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this Act.
With regard to the remarks of the noble Earl, I can assure him that it is not intended to issue any vexatious regulations or to interfere with the liberty and convenience of motorists more than is necessary for their own protection and their own convenience. The regulation with regard to licences to which he has referred has been made as much in the interests of the motorists as in the interests of the administration. Hitherto, as the noble Earl knows, a licence has been attached to the individual and may be transferable to any car. Now the licence is to Be attached to the car itself and will remain attached to the car. It is necessary to have some means of identifying the car to which the licence is attached with the owner, and it is only to establish that link between the owner and the licensed car that the registration books, to which I shall refer later, have been introduced, but not by any means for the purposes of red tape or vexatious Regulations.
EARL RUSSELL: There is a point in connection with licences attaching to cars instead of owners which I should have been glad to hear considered had time allowed. The noble Earl no doubt realises—I am sure the Ministry of Transport does—that if anybody sells a car at any period of the year, except on December 31, he will, in effect, lose a considerable sum of money—namely, the proportion of the licence fee paid for the whole year. I rather wish that when the Ministry of Transport attached the licence to the car it had at the same time made the surrender value, so to speak, of the licence payable by the purchaser of the car. It will
782
cause a good deal of actual difficulty in practice in people taking new cars for old ones at any time except at the end of the year. There will be an administrative difficulty.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Earl has not appreciated the fact that when the car changes hands the licence changes hands also, and the new owner gets the advantage of it.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I have, and the old owner loses the surrender value.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: That will be taken into consideration by the man who buys.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Under the Bill you can take out a quarterly licence or a half-yearly licence for the rest of the year at a reduced rate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, after ("displayed") insert ("and rendered easily distinguishable whether by night or by day").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I wish by the next Amendment to call attention to the question of registration books. I know the police attach a good deal of importance to them, and think that they will prevent traffic in stolen cars. I doubt that. As you can write for a licence book, so I think it will be possible for a car thief to write from a respectable address, such as a hotel, for a registration book, afterwards sell the car and produce a title for it. I think this provision will give facilities to the thief. We are anxious to avoid the perils of car stealing which has reached considerable proportions. Hundreds are stolen in the course of the year. Gangs go about stealing them, but I doubt whether the registration books will prevent them. I should like to hear what the noble Earl says, however.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 1, leave out ("registration books") and insert ("licences").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I could not accept the Amendment, because the institution of these registration books is, in fact, one of the most important provisions of the Bill. My noble friend is right in thinking that one of the reasons for the introduction of the registration cards is that it will make more difficult the theft of a car. He, on the contrary, I understand, is of opinion that it may have the opposite effect; that men may steal a car, drive it to another part of the country, stay at a hotel there for some days and then apply through the authorities for a registration card in respect of the car. I do not think the task of the thief will be so easy as my noble friend believes, because in future when any one applies for a registration card—and he must apply to the authority of the county in which he resides—the county authority will require either the production of the registration card of the car, or some evidence that the car for which the registration is required is a new car. He will either have to show the car or produce the invoice from the manufacturer or the dealer from whom he has bought the car, or produce some evidence to show that the car is a new car and has never had a licence before. Only on production of such evidence, which could not be produced in the case of a stolen car, would the card be issued. If my noble friend considers the matter carefully I think he will come to the conclusion that the system of registration cards which is introduced in this Bill will prove to be a very effective preventive to motor thefts which have been common in the past.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, in subsection (1) (g), after "payable" to insert "including vehicles belonging to the Crown." The noble Earl said: Cars belonging to the Crown do not at present pay licences, and it might be held that because of that they would not be entitled to the issue of registration cards. The Amendment is moved to make it quite clear that though licence duties are not paid in respect of these cars, Government Departments may apply for registration.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Although it is the practice for such cars not to have licences they wear out the roads as much as any other cars, if not more so. I have always held that cars in the service of a Government Department should pay
784
I towards road upkeep. I do not resist the Amendment, but I think all cars should contribute.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 20, after ("payable") insert ("including vehicles belonging to the Crown").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Penalties.
14.—(1) If any person uses any vehicle for which a licence under the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by this Act is not in force, or being a holder of a general licence or general licences issued under this Act uses at any one time a greater number of vehicles than he is authorised to use by virtue of that licence or those licences, he shall be liable to an excise penalty of twenty pounds, or an excise penalty equal to three times the amount of the duty payable in respect of the vehicles or vehicles whichever is the greater.
Proceedings for a penalty under this subsection may be brought at any time within a period of twelve months from the date on which the offence was committed.
(2) If any person in connection with an application for a licence for a vehicle or a carriage makes a declaration which to his knowledge is false or in any material respect misleading, or if any person being required by virtue of this Act to furnish particulars in connection with a change of the registration of any vehicle furnishes any particulars which to his knowledge are false or in any material respect misleading, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months.
(3) If in any proceedings under this section any question arises as to the number of vehicles used or as to the character, weight or horse-power of any vehicle or as to the number of persons seated by a vehicle, or as to the purpose for which any vehicle has been used, the burden of proof in respect of the matter in question shall lie on the defendant.
(4) If any person forges or fraudulently alters or uses or fraudulently lends or allows to be used by any other person any mark or identifying a vehicle or any licence or registration book under this Act, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months.
(5) All penalties and forfeitures recovered under or in pursuance of this Act, whether by a county council or by any other person, shall be paid into the Exchequer in such manner and in accordance with such directions as may be contained in any Order in Council made under this Act.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 41, leave out the first ("a") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "one hundred" ["one hundred pounds"] and insert "fifty."
Amendment moved—
Page 13, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("one hundred") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This is a very stiff penalty which comes from the Revenue Act of 1869. The effect of it will be that if one of your Lordships filled up a form in January next for a certain vehicle and in good faith mis-stated the weight you might be liable to six months' imprisonment or a very severe fine. I think for this offence the penalty is too great. I am quite aware that this penalty was put in originally for purposes of the Revenue Act, but it seems to me that in criminal proceedings it has always been the tradition that a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty. Now, however, you put upon the man the burden of proving he is innocent.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, lines 20 to 25, leave out subsection 3.)—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think the noble Lord's Amendment and that which follows are alternatives. I very much regret that I am unable to accept either of them. The first Amendment would omit altogether the provision for placing the onus of proof on the defendant in respect of certain questions in any proceedings.
This provision is one commonly inserted in the Excise Acts. For instance Section 25 of the Revenue Act, 1869, is to the same effect. I believe in all Excise Acts that is the ordinary law, and it is necessary to maintain it in this case. If the noble Lord will consider for a moment cases might arise in which if the onus of proof were upon the prosecuting authority, the owner has it in his power by refusing
786
necessary information to make such proof impossible. For instance, if a false declaration were made regarding the horse-power of a car the only means the authority would have of proving it to be false would be by inspection of the car. The owner of the car might refuse access to the car and therefore proof by the authority would be impossible. I hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to stand as it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: These are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 39, after the second ("any") insert ("county council")
Page 13, line 41, at end. insert ("a").
Page 13, Page 14, line 2, after the second ("any") insert ("county council or")
Page 13, line 5, after ("paid") insert ("or to whom a general identification mark has been assigned under proviso (b) to subsection (4) of section two of the Motor Car Act, 1903")
Page 13, line 8, after ("licence") insert ("or mark")
Page 13, line 10, after ("licence") insert ("or mark").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection—
"Where upon application for a licence to ply for hire with an omnibus, the licensing authority either refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence subject to conditions, in either case the applicant shall have a right of appeal to the Minister of Transport from the decision of the licensing authority, and the Minister shall have power to make such order thereon as he thinks fit, and such order shall be binding upon the licensing authority.
"For the purpose of this subsection the expression 'omnibus' includes every omnibus, char-a-bane, wagonette, brake, stage coach, or other carriage plying for hire or used to carry passengers at separate fares."
The noble Lord said: I should tell your Lordships that these words are copied from the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, but in that place they are only temporary in their operation and this would make them permanent. The object is to give an appeal from the arbitrary refusal by a licensing authority of a licence to any vehicle requiring to he licensed submitted

787
to a police authority to be so licensed. No one would suggest that there has been an abuse or arbitrary conduct in many cases, but there have been cases which made it seem necessary to Parliament to grant this appeal in the Ministry of Transport Act. I therefore move it here, and I have been asked to make an addition to the form which is on the Paper—namely,
to insert between the two paragraphs—
"An order made by the Minister under this subsection shall be final and not subject to appeal to any Court, and shall, on the application of the Minister, be enforceable by writ of mandamus."
I suppose I must accept those terms as a condition of the acceptance of my words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 16, that the said two paragraphs, with the addition, be there inserted.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I accept the Amendment in the form in which it is now moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The first two Amendments in my name are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("and paragraph (3) of section three of the Locomotives Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1878")
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("prescribe") and insert ("prescribes").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next two Amendments taken together have the effect that they give power to prescribe by regulation different weights for the different class of locomotives in order to meet the case of locomotives carrying different kinds of gear and detachable parts.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 21, leave out ("the prescribed weight") and insert ("such weight as may be prescribed")
Page 14, line 22, at end insert ("and different weights may be prescribed with respect to different classes of locomotives").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new paragraph—
"() After five years from the passing of this Act no vehicle or locomotive using the highways shall exceed a hind axle laden weight of six tons and a front axle weight of three tons."
The noble Lord said: I have put this Amendment down in order to raise the question of the desirability of not increasing the weight of heavy vehicles upon the roads of this country. At the present moment heavy vehicles weigh far too much, up to 14 tons, with 8 tons weight on the hind wheels. This is far too much for anything but the best made roads, and this is an attempt on my part to limit the weight of laden or unladen vehicles. I think this is a subject to which the Ministry of Transport should give attention. Although I do not press this Amendment to-night it is a matter of great importance, and I trust local authorities will bring it forward again in some other form.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 22, insert the said new paragraph,—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I sympathise entirely with the object of the Amendment and I can assure the noble Lord that the subject is engaging the attention of the Ministry of Transport. I am informed, however, that it would be quite impossible to accept this Amendment. At the present time it is found impossible to restrict some locomotives with a maximum weight of 10 or 14 tons. It is only by a certain measure of indulgence that locomotives are able to be kept within that figure, and it would be impossible at present to restrict them to 9 tons weight. Even in five years that would be impossible. I shall be glad, therefore, if my noble friend will not press his Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The first of the two Amendments to this clause which stand in my name is the usual provision in the interpretation clause, and the second is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("unless the context otherwise requires").
Page 15, line 3, at end insert ("the expression 'police authority' includes the receiver of the metropolitan police district").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: This is only a drafting re-arrangement; subsection (2) becomes paragraph (a) of the next clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 4 to 12, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause—
19. In the application of this Act to Scotland:

(a) A reference to paragraph (3) of section three of the Locomotives Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1878, shall be substituted for the reference to paragraph (3) of section twenty-eight of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878; and

(b) Except in this section references to a county shall be deemed to include references to a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh containing within its boundaries, as ascertained, fixed, or determined for police purposes, a population according to the census for the time being last taken of or exceeding fifty thousand, and every other burgh shall be deemed to form part of the county within which it is situated, and the expression "county council" shall be construed accordingly; and

(c) Section four of the Locomotives Act, 1898, with the exception of subsection (3) thereof shall apply to Scotland, with the substitution of arbitration by a single arbiter to be, appointed, failing agreement, by the sheriff, for arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889, and county and town councils may borrow for the purposes of the said section as so applied in like manner as they may borrow for the purposes of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878.

The noble Earl said: The new clause which I move to insert after Clause 18 is consequential. I moved it out in another place and I move it in now.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As I understand the matter the new clause which the noble Earl is moving is in substitution of the subsection which has been omitted from Clause 18.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: This is so.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have given notice of an Amendment to the subsection, and the best way of bringing it forward will be to move the same Amendment to the same words which stand in paragraph (b). Perhaps the noble Earl in the Chair will put paragraph (a) first?
On Question, Amendment (new Clause 19 as printed to the end of paragraph (a)) agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: With regard to paragraph (b) I beg to move an Amendment to the Amendment. The Amendment I move is in these terms: Leave out the words "Except in this section" and insert after "police burgh" "containing within its boundaries as ascertained, fixed or determined for police purposes a population according to the census for the time being last taken exceeding 60,000 and every other burgh shall be deemed to form part of the county within which it is situate."
I think the Amendment is an extremely bad one on every ground. It will have a most unfair effect on local administration in Scotland, and in my opinion will cause very grave and very great difficulties. In the first place it takes control away from the local authority which now has it. In Scotland nearly all burghs manage their roads, do repairs and pay for all expenses, and to take from those burghs the control of the motor traffic and give it to the county councils will be most unfair. The county councils will not have the same interest as the purely local authority, but in all probability their interest will be diverse and different.
The clause has only been brought to my notice to-day, and from the tenour of the communication I received I cannot think that the local authorities can have known of it for very long. I should like to ask those who know exactly when this clause was produced, when it saw the light for the first time.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
In paragraph (b) of the Amendment, leave out ("Except in this section"), and leave out all words after ("police burgh") and insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I have had no notice of this Amendment, and I am afraid that it is quite impossible for me to accept it. The noble Lord speaks of this as if it were a new clause moved now for the first time, but this is only a re-arrangement of the Bill as it was originally introduced. I have moved an Amendment on Clause 16 to leave out a paragraph of that clause for the purpose of inserting it here—the clause applying the Bill to Scotland. The clause to which the noble Lord takes exception is introduced from the Motor Car Act, 1903. So far as I understand, this is not a novel provision. It is, however, a little difficult for me to know what the effect of the Amendment is.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Suppose there is a large county, and in it there are a dozen or 15 burghs. At the present time those burghs manage their own roads, they control the traffic, they pay the expenses, and they are the local authority. The effect of the provision which is now suggested is to take away the control from the purely local authority and give it to the county council. I cannot conceive that this has been made public without protests being received, and the tenour of the telegram which I have received today shows that the Convention of Royal Burghs, an authority which represents all the burghs in Scotland, have evidently only learnt of it for the first time. I am quite confident from my knowledge of local affairs that it is wrong in principle, it will be had in effect, and will cause a great deal of friction and difficulty in the future administration of this matter.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I should like to support my noble friend. These burghs are not only entirely separate from the counties, but in most cases they have also an entirely separate police force. I do not see how it is possible for the county council to carry it out, and from my own experience I do not think they would have any desire to do so.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I can only repeat the assurance which I gave just
792
now, that the provision to which the noble Lord takes exception is directly copied from the Motor-car Act of 1903. It is not a new provision at all, and I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord is dealing with a different point. Although I have had no previous notice of the Amendment I have been informed of the telegram to which he refers, but that telegram refers to a different clause of the Bill—to Clause 7, which deals with the closing of roads, and that is quite a different point. The point there is that it is provided, on the application of a county council, that the Minister, after holding a local inquiry, may order a road to be closed, and the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland, I understand, have taken exception to that provision, thinking this gives the right to the county councils to close the roads over which they have control. That, however, is a complete misapprehension. The county councils will have no control whatever over the portion of the roads which belongs to the Royal burghs, but the clause to which that telegram refers gives to the Minister, on the application of the County Council, the power to hold an inquiry at which of course the burghs who are the road authorities would have -an opportunity of being heard, and if the Minister is satisfied, after holding such an inquiry and hearing what the burghs have to say, that it is desirable that a portion of the road should be closed, then the Minister and not the County Council will take the necessary action. Therefore, the protest to which the noble Lord must be referring deals with another part of the Bill, and that protest is also, I think, made under a misapprehension, became the Bill will not have the effect which I think it was supposed it would have.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If the noble Lord says the Bill has not that effect, that will probably be so. As I understand it, this is an interpretation clause applying the Bill to Scotland. It applies the term "Council" in a special sense. The term "Council" is used in Clause 7 to which the noble Earl referred. That word "Council" is interpreted in this Amendment just in the same way as it was in the Bill before the noble Lord moved out the last sub-section. The noble Lord says I am wrong, but as I read it it means that the Burgh Council will be cut out of any authority at the inquiry and everywhere else and will never he heard.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: No.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is the interpretation put upon it. I will read him the telegram: "Have wired Scottish Office and Ministry of Transport protesting against sub-clause (2) and proviso of Clause 7 as interfering with autonomy of burgh road authorities with populations under 50,000. See clause 18 (2)"—that is a clause which has just been cut out, and which is now being put in again in the same words—"In Scotland nearly all burghs are road authorities. If this objectionable clause is retained the restriction or prohibition of motor traffic on a burgh highway would be in the hands of County Council." That is their interpretation of it. If the noble Lord will give me the undertaking that the burgh council will be summoned to this inquiry which is indicated, of course I will accept it and not detain the House.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I will certainly give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. The effect of the clause to which this telegram refers will be that although the portion of the road is in the charge of the Royal burgh which is the road authority for that portion of it, on the motion of the county council the Minister may held an inquiry for the purpose of closing the road, but at that inquiry the burgh which is the road authority will not be shut out. The burgh will have full opportunity of stating its views, and its views will be heard. The effect of the words will not be as stated, to transfer the powers over the roads from the burgh to the county council; it will merely mean that on the motion of the county council the Minister will have the right to hold an inquiry. As I stated to the noble Lord, the county council will have no power whatever to close the roads over the heads of the burgh.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I cannot carry the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, remaining paragraphs—(b) and (c)—of Lord Lytton's Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 13, at beginning insert the following new subsection:
794
("(1) This Act, in its application to Ireland, shall have effect with the following modification, namely, a reference to section two of the Public Roads (Ireland) Act, 1911, shall be substituted for the reference to section twenty-eight of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878.
(2) Section four of the Locomotives Act, 1898 (which relates to the erection and use of weighing machines) shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications, namely—

(a) a reference to county councils and urban district councils shall be substituted for the reference to road authorities;

(b) a reference to the enactments with respect to arbitrations in Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Arbitration Act, 1889; and

(c) a reference to the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878, to 1919, shall be substituted for the reference to the Public Health Act, 1875."—(The Earl of Lytton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:

Amendments of Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909.

Sections 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 19, and Schedule.

References to the Minister shall be substituted for references to the Road Board.

Section 8

The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of subsection (1)—

"(a) to make to any highway authority advances in respect of the construction of new roads or the maintenance or improvement of existing roads, or to make such advances, in conjunction with a highway authority, to any company or person."

In subsection (5) the definition of "roads" shall be extended so as to include road-ferries and footways.

Section 11

In subsection (1) for the words "the Treasury have approved a proposal by the Road Board" there shall be substituted the words "the Minister proposes."

Subsection (2) shall cease to have effect,

In subsection (6) the words from "and any receipts" to the end of the subsection shall be repealed.

Section 13

For the words "the road improvement grant" wherever those words occur there shall' be substituted the words "the Road Fund."

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of the new paragraph (a) substituted for paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section 8, after "person," to insert "or to any local authority or company responsible for the maintenance of any road or part thereof." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name was based upon this principle. This is a Bill which, in consideration of further taxation upon the owners of motor cars and motor vehicles offers them better roads by intercepting the revenue so raised and making it applicable to giving the motorists a better quality of roads by applying it in relief of persons and authorities liable for the maintenance of roads. Among such persons and bodies are county councils, borough councils and other municipal authorities and companies who own tramways. It seems to me quite unreasonable that whereas you do not diminish in any way the liability of these authorities to make their present statutory contribution to the upkeep of the roads you are going to deny them participation in what is practically a grant-in-aid intended to secure them from the injury to the roads caused by the traffic of heavy vehicles brought from a distance by persons who do not contribute to the local rates. In another place the Amendment was moved and your Lordships should remember it represents the great interests of the county councils, municipal borough councils and other local authorities owning tramways, besides tramway companies. It was treated with scant courtesy, but later the truth came out when the Minister was obliged to confess practically that he had not foreseen this necessary act of justice and had not provided money to pay for it. I submit that it is an act of justice to tramway companies and authorities who are liable for the maintenance of roads to the extent of 18 in. of each side of the full width of the track. They were subjected to that liability by Parliament at a time when tramways, being horse tramways, really did use and wear out roads to some appreciable extent. The wearing out of the roads by tramway authorities has not increased, but the authorities are not relieved of their statutory liability, and vet they are told they are not to be made participants in the benefits of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 15, after ("person") insert ("or to any local authority or company responsible for the maintenance of any road or part thereof").—
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I do not know what the noble Lord means by calling this Amendment an "act of justice." The position is that these tramway companies, as part of the obligation which they entered into when they obtained their Acts, undertook, where they broke up the roads, to pay a contribution towards the repair of the roads afterwards and the maintenance of the road 18 inches on each side of the tramway track. This obligation applies not only to tramway companies but also to railway companies in respect of bridges which they cross, gas companies, electric lighting companies, water companies and, in fact, all companies who for the purpose of their undertakings have to break up the road. None of them would be relieved of their statutory undertakings by the Amendment of the noble Lord. In consideration of these statutory obligations to maintain the roads tramcars under the Finance Act only pay the nominal duty of 15 s., whereas omnibuses pay duties up to £70 and in London up to £84. Tramways practically pay no duties under the Finance Act towards the Road Fund, and it would be far from an act of justice—it would be very unfair—if you were to ask motor users who pay these large duties into the Road Fund to pay a contribution which would have the effect of relieving the tramway undertakings from their statutory obligations. I cannot possibly accept the Amendment, which I do not think your Lordships would consider reasonable, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I adhere to my statement that this Amendment is an act of justice. The strictures of the noble Earl would be deserved if I were asking for relief from any of the obligations under which tramway com panics are laid. I am not doing that. All T am doing is to ask those companies should participate in the relief.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Amendment is to apply this to the Edinburgh and Dublin Gazettes.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, leave out ("Gazette") and insert ("Edinburgh or Dublin Gazette as the case requires").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 20, after ("oath") insert ("and the person holding the inquiry shall for that purpose have power to administer an oath").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 44, in third column, leave out ("sections seven") and insert ("section seven: subsection (3) of section eight, subsection (2) of section eleven, and sections").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: As I postponed the Committee stage to suit noble Lords who had Amendments on the Paper, I hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages to-night. I have to move (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), that the Report be now received.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE had given notice, on the Motion for the Third Reading, to move That the Bill be read a third time this day six months. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I beg to move the rejection of the Agriculture Bill. I am very sensible of the extreme courtesy and patience with which your Lordships bore with me on Tuesday last when you allowed me to voice the serious alarm which some of us felt with regard to the provisions of this Bill. In any circumstances it would be unpardonable of me if at this time of the year when every moment is of great importance I had attempted to detain the House at any length, and particularly so at the present time, when the Third Reading of this Bill, to which so many of
798
us have set solicits objections, is brought on at five minutes past eleven on a cold, wet wintry night. It is all the more un-fortunate that His Majesty's Government have thought fit to do this, because it has necessitated the absence of many noble Lords who were anxious to vote against the Bill, and who are prevented from doing so by the time at which this important measure, which means the spending of so many millions, has been brought on in this House. But I crave the indulgence which I feel certain, from so many past courtesies, will be accorded me, just for five or six minutes while I try to explain the reason why it is imperative and necessary that we should record our vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.
On Wednesday last there were eighty independent peers who voted against this measure, some twenty-five independent peers were in favour of the Bill, and the Government majority was thirty-eight in a House of over 700 members. The Bill, I believe, was principally opposed because Lord Lee of Fareham, the Minister in charge of the Bill; would not and did not—perhaps I might go so far as to say he could not and dared not—tell the House how many millions it would be certain to cost the nation, although we gave him great latitude as regards that, and we said we should be obliged to him if he could tell us the figure even within ten millions. The country is still in the dark as to what the cost of the Bill will be. The Scottish peers, led by the Duke of Buccleuch, gave a sort of lukewarm and tepid approval of the measure. I believe to a certain extent that was caused by the fact that the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture unanimously passed a resolution in favour of throwing out the Bill. The Irish peers contracted themselves out of the Bill en bloc, and the Free Trade and Liberal peers, with the whole of their Party and Press behind them, voted against this measure, which the Minister who brought it in himself acknowledged to be a most unpopular one. There is such a widespread and general fear and dislike of this Bill that its Third Reading cannot be permitted to be passed even at this hour and in a House so attenuated, without a challenge and without a protest.
Any prospect that there was of a greater production of wheat has completely vanished. If England was to be made a self-supporting country it is generally acknowledged that two things must be done. There is no doubt about it. It is

799
the opinion of the best experts in England, and it is absolute gospel truth. If you want to make this country self-supporting you have to double the number of cattle and sheep that there are in this country. That does not come into the Bill. It is a detail that was not worth mentioning. In addition you have to plough up 12,500 square miles of grass country and to put in wheat instead of the permanent pasture. An Amendment which was brought forward from all parts of the House by seven noble Lords of all shades of opinion was carried by 146 votes to 34 against the Government—a majority of more than four to one. That Amendment deprived the agricultural committees of all power to order farmers to plough up their grass land. The result of that naturally is that Part 1, as far as increased cultivation goes, is as dead as Julius Cæsar. There will not be, there cannot be, one single additional acre ploughed up in the whole of England, and in consequence there will not be a single extra labourer on the land. But the guarantees in Part 1 remain, with the inevitable crushing taxation which remains also.
May I say a brief word about Part II. It will be remembered that we were told when the original Bill was brought forward something about security of tenure. There is no such word as security of tenure in the Bill, but there was in the Memorandum. We were told that security of tenure was to be obtained for tenant farmers by fining landlords. All landlords who wanted to get their land back for their own cultivation or any other proper reason were to be fined four years' net rent, and landlords who acted capriciously and evicted their tenants from caprice—we know what that means—were to be fined anything from fourteen to twenty years' net rent. That was stated in this House by some noble Lord, and he was not challenged. Therefore, I am justified in making that statement. I do not want to argue whether these fines are right or wrong. It is the Government. proposal and it is not for me to say whether it is an honest way of treating tenants or whether it is highway robbery. The situation has again been changed, and indeed we have a flat rate and the right of capricious eviction is now legalised and restored in the Bill.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: No.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: That is challenged, but that is my opinion
800
and I challenge contradiction. The right of capricious eviction is to be on the same footing as the undoubted legal right of a landlord to bring himself back into possession of his own land and cultivate it himself or put any person he likes to cultivate it. As regards the security we were told by the noble Lord opposite that this Bill does not mean security. We were anxious to know what it did mean? Lord Clinton I think it was said what the Bill means is "continuity of tenure." The noble Lord was thanked by the Minister in charge of the Bill for that suggestion and we were told then that this continuity was a policy which did not permit dual control, fixity of tenure, fair rents or free sales. Is that so? What is the difference, I ask with all respect, between fixity, security, and continuity of tenure? I am not here to split hairs or to chop logic, whatever that may be. We are also told that this Bill is illogical and has no logic in it, but I ask what is the difference between these three things—fixity, security and continuity of tenure. Are not these agricultural committees, which some noble Lords have called soviet committees, dual control?
On the question of dual control I should like to say that the rules of good husbandry—which was one of the great points of the Bill—are part of every contract of tenancy which it is not only the interests but the duty of landlords to enforce. By handing their duties to the Minister they leave themselves without these duties. There is one thing still more dangerous than dual ownership and that is ownership without any duties at all.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Are not wages boards a stepping stone to land courts and is not the Evesham custom which is introduced in the Bill the free sale of market gardeners' rights and interests? The time has now come for plain and open speaking and we must not be afraid to be both plain and open. The fact is that in the opinion of a great many of us this Bill is nothing but camouflage all round.
My last word is this. We are told that this is the Prime Minister's Bill. This Bill was adumbrated, I believe that is the proper word, in the Caxton Hall speech. In that speech the Prime Minister recanted, or if that is too strong a word perhaps I may

801
say that he decanted his old land policy, and that policy which caused so much commotion in days gone by has now lost all its old strength, all its old colour, all its old bouquet and the whole of its sparkle. The Prime Minister dares not tax food directly. He is right there, because his great prototype, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, tried it, and his is an example that the present Prime Minister is wise not to follow. He dares not tax food itself, so what does he do? He taxes indirectly the man who has to eat the food which keeps him and his family from starvation. And when the public find out this new piece of political legerdemain all I have to say is, God help Lloyd George. This is what they call Yule-tide, and the Prime Minister is sending out his annual message of benevolence to his fellow-countrymen in England. He is sending out this message to an over-taxed and exhausted nation, who are longing for peace, for rest and retrenchment, and the benediction of Mr. Lloyd George at this solemn Christmas time is not Pax—but Tax vobiscum. I ask the House with all sincerity to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill as the House of Lords' protest against reckless extravagance and impending ruin. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(The Marquess of Lincolnshire.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am physically incapable of addressing your Lordships tonight for more than a moment, and I only do so in order to explain why it is that, having placed an Amendment of my own on the Paper, I am not in a position to move it. Why the Government have chosen to put down two other Bills to-night before this I really do not know. Whether it be in regard to the number of people it employs, or the capital embarked in it, or the importance of this industry for the safety of the nation, this is beyond all question the largest and most important industry in the Kingdom, and it is strange indeed that under those circumstances, on the last occasion when we have an opportunity of expressing our opinions upon it, that the Bill should be postponed by the action of the Government to this hour of the night. With all my heart and soul, having regard to the principles which the Bill still contains, in spite of the Amendments made in the measure, I shall support the Motion of the noble Marquess.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I desire to support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. This Bill was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lee, as a Bill that found its main justification in the provisions that it made for increasing our corn supplies in case of war. That increase was sought by inducing, on the one band, men to increase the cultivation of their land by a guarantee, and, on the other, by the control that was vested in representatives of the Government to secure that a greater extent of land should be placed under the plough. It was pointed out that the two mutually supported each other, and it was true. Now the provisions that enabled the Government to increase the amount of arable land have gone, and there is nothing left but a guarantee which operates, as your Lordships know, not per quarter of wheat produced but per acre of land sown. So that there is no inducement whatever left in the Bill for any man who is farming fertile land to increase its fertility; nor is there any real inducement to a man to plough infertile land which he has no desire whatever to take from its present use. Therefore the main purpose of the Bill has, I submit, been already defeated by your Lordships in Committee.
Then there remains the other matter to which I called more detailed attention on the Second Reading. That is the question as to how the expenses are to be borne, which, by this Bill, must be incurred by the Government representatives. The noble Lord, Lord Lee, told me that the Bill contained the necessary provisions. I could not find them, and I hoped that the Committee stage would produce them, or their equivalent. It has not done so. How does the matter stand now? It stands in this way. If a tenant has not within the terms of his covenant maintained his holding, he can be called upon to do so; and he can be fined for not obeying the covenant made between himself and his landlord. It is a thing that I believe is unknown in any other relationship in the kingdom that you should take a man before a magistrate and summarily convict him of having broken a covenant. You may fine him £20, and £1 a day so long as he fails to obey. Not only does this involve a very heavy expenditure on roads, stone walls, fences, and the many obligations that a tenant may have agreed to carry out, but more; the Government may enter and do the work themselves, and they are at liberty then to recover

803
the money from the tenant. This is the only power I can find in the Bill to recover the money from the tenant. Supposing the tenant cannot pay, where is the money coming from? It may be some consolation to you for some of the other burdens you may have to bear that the result will be that the Government will have repaired the landlord's land at the State's expense. They will have performed the tenant's covenant for him, and there will be no means of getting the money back. Of course you may say "Sell the man up," but it would be an unpleasant thing for the Government to sell up tenant farmers who have been unable to obey covenants which their landlords might very well be ready to allow to remain unperformed for a short period of time.
The same thing happens with regard to the rights that are exercised when they enter on the estate that they think is not being properly developed. There is no means whatever provided in the Bill that I can find to indemnify the taxpayers against the loss that the Government may bear in such an operation. It is the most remarkable provision that I have ever known introduced into what after all, in spite of its being, as the noble Viscount has said, a great industry, is only one unit in our whole industrial system. It is a big unit, I admit, but nothing but a unit.
What is the explanation for imposing upon this industry the shackles and restrictions in which this Bill places it? Whatever may have been said in the first instance as to the necessity being justified by the urgent need of increasing our wheat supply, I submit to your Lordships without hesitation that what has happened destroys the possibility of that ever becoming operative. The only thing left is this guarantee which, if it operates, will cause such resentment that it will quickly be withdrawn. This Bill has been dishevelled in its passage through Committee; the best and most merciful thing to do now is to put it out of its misery by killing it altogether.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I am going to vote against this Bill purely and absolutely because it will increase the taxation of the country. It is impossible to say what the Bill will cost. The noble Lord in charge of it cannot be expected to give a definite estimate, but we ought
804
to remember that he did say it may become a serious financial burden, and that is the opinion of the Government. That is as far as we can expect him to go. It may cost £5,000,000, or £10,000,000, or £20,000,000. If wheat or oats were sold at 1s. per quarter below the minimum price the guarantee would cost the taxpayer £1,750,000; if sold at 10s. below, £17,500,000; if £1 below, which may easily be the case, £35,000,000. Sir James Wilson, in speaking at the International Institution at Rome, predicted that in a very short time wheat would be at 50s. Freights are coming down and it may be that in two or three years we shall be able to get considerable wheat from Russia.
This Bill will be extremely unpopular in the country. I do not think it will do any good to agriculture. We in the Western counties were not very much afraid of
committees because no committee that understood agriculture would make us plough up very much land. Cultivation has accommodated itself to the stress of our climate; corn growing has gone to the east, and production of meat and dairy produce has remained in the west. To whom will the guarantee go? The eastern counties cannot produce more corn. They have ploughed up every yard of land possible I believe in Norfolk. It was stated before Lord Selborne's Committee that they produced 1,100,000 quarters of wheat and could not produce more. When the price of corn goes down the guarantee will go mainly to those people who already produce corn and not much to people who have ploughed up land and want compensation for doing so.
I remember very well that when the Agricultural Rating Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in 1896, it was fought vehemently by the present Prime Minister. That Bill was going to cost the country about £3,000,000 a year. The noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, remembers it very well, because he introduced it. The present Prime Minister was so vehement that he was suspended from the House for breaking the rules. Now the same Prime Minister consents to a Bill which may cost £30,000,000 or £40,000,000. I do not think it is a wise course to take. Unemployment is increasing, thousands of people are out of work in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and when they come to realise that some millions of the taxpayers' money is going to subsidise one industry I

805
think there will be a row. I do not think the Bill will remain. The country will not stand it. It will be a bad thing for agriculture, a bad thing for landlords and for this House, and I shall vote against the Third Reading.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I feel sure that your Lordships will not expect me at this hour, and with a considerable amount of business in connection with this Bill still to get through, which I understand is to be followed by other business before we adjourn, to do more than make a brief reply. At the same time I feel it is only courteous that I should reply, however briefly, to certain criticisms which have been made. May I do so in the first place by apologising profoundly to your Lordships for the fact that it is half-past eleven o'clock, and that we are called upon to discuss a measure of this magnitude at this hour. It is a real grievance of your Lordships' House that this sort of thing is apt to happen at the end of every Session; but some noble Lords will remember that I was anxious to bring on this Bill earlier, but it was postponed for a week. May I also thank noble Lords most warmly for the extreme kindness and courtesy shown to me throughout the stages of the Bill. As your Lordships can imagine, mine was a difficult and anxious task, and I have been greatly helped by the extreme kindness of noble Lords.
With regard to the speeches made tonight, I could, of course, if this were an appropriate occasion, enter into a defence of the objects of the Bill, which would deal adequately with some of those speeches. I will, however, content myself with saying with regard to most of them, especially the speech to which we have just listened, that although it is only two years since we were in peril of our existence in war time owing to the possible shortage of food supplies, already that lesson, which I thought would be burned deep in the minds of everyone in these islands, has been completely forgotten by some noble Lords who have addressed us to-night.
As to the noble Marquess who moved the rejection of the Bill, I will only say that we have every reason to be indebted to him for the second time in these debates for having enlivened our drooping spirits after the long hours of fatigue and despairing gloom, even with the cold, wet, and windy night against which some of his supporters
806
have not been proof. He challenged me again in very vigorous terms to say how many millions this Bill was going to cost. He said, "How many millions for certain." I think the answer to that is, "None, for certain," and I can only refer the noble Marquess to the very full explanation which I gave in the earlier stages on the Bill, and Put forward in the White Paper laid before Parliament, Which gave all the information it was Possible for the Government to give in advance of actual facts. Both the noble Marquess and Lord Buck-master seem to feel that the only virtue of the Bill had gone when the Ploughing Order Provision was struck out. I regret the disappearance of that portion of the Bill as much as anyone, but I do not recollect that either the noble Marquess or the noble and learned Lord came down to this House to support me when that Provision was attacked.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Of course, I did not.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: On the contrary, I think that even if they had been here they would have joined in the hue and cry after me. Therefore I do not think they can complain that this provision has been cut out.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I do not complain.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am quite sure the noble Lord at any rate would have consistently voted against any and all Provision in the Bill in order to show his detestation of it. I feel that what remains of that Particular Portion of the Bill, while it does not go so far as I or the Government would have wished, does leave a very valuable and workable Power on the Part of the county authorities, and a compromise was arrived at by which I stand and which I think will be very valuable and effective.
The noble Marquess said, "This is a time for indulging in plain speaking." On a previous occasion his speaking was certainly plain, but it was in English. He referred to the Bill as "rotten." Now he has been moved to express his plain language in French by the adoption of a term which became familiar to all of us during the war. But whether he denounces the Bill in English or in French, or denounces the Prime Minister in English or

807
in French, I think the Government will remain comparatively serene. He denounces the Prime Minister with whom he was associated for so many years, and he even went so far as to give utterance to the aspiration, "God help Lloyd George." I suppose the noble Marquess regards that as necessary in view of the fact that he feels it incumbent upon him to withdraw his own support from the Prime Minister, who must seek support from other quarters.
With regard to the speech of my noble friend Lord Chaplin, I would like to say that every one deeply regrets that he should have been physically incapable of taking part fully in our debates. We have egarded with admiration three or four times the attempts that he has made to assist us, in spite of the fact that he has obviously been suffering from physical disability.
I will only say this in conclusion. The Bill as it stands—it is not yet in its final form—is, I think, still a good Bill. There are one or two blemishes in it which I hope may be rectified before it receives the Royal Assent. I regret that the clause relating to leasing was struck out of the
Bill by your Lordships, and I feel sure that in some form or another it may commend itself to you at a later stage. I also cannot help expressing considerable apprehension with regard to the possible effect upon the compensation for disturbance clauses of the exact and super-stiff wording of the definition which was put into the Bill of "good husbandry." I think that is a matter which requires to be further explored, and whilst I do not think any great modification will be required, I believe that the Bill as it stands would not be fair to all parties concerned. I most earnestly appeal to your Lordships to give this Bill a Third Reading. I cannot believe that after all the time that has been taken in trying to improve this measure, and which bears now in its lineaments so many traces of its parental origin in this House, that your Lordships would go to the extreme length of strangling the offspring for which you are largely responsible.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Strafford, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Deramore, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Desborough, L.

Sutherland, D.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Dynevor, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Ailsa, M.

Erskine, L.

Bath, M.

Falmouth, V.

Faringdon, L.

Camden, M.

Goschen, V.

Harris, L.

Exeter, M.

Hardinge, V.

Hastings, L.

Hood, V.

Hylton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Milner, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Caithness, E.

Peel, V.

Marchamley, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Monckton, L. (Galway.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Abinger, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Addington, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Jersey, E.

Ampthill, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Kimberley, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Rathcreedan, L.

Lucan, E.

Balfour, L.

Riddell, L.

Lytton, E.

Blythswood, L.

St. Levan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Sandys, L.

Onslow, E.

Clinton, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Powis, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Stanhope, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cholmondeley, M.

Midleton, E.

Lamington, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (Lord Great Chamberlain.) [Teller.]

Wicklow, E.

Lawrence, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Chaplin, V.

Saye and Sele, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Sempill, L.

Ancaster, E.

Bellew, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (Sheffield.)

Lanesborough, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Lichfield, E.

Cawley, L.

Sydenham, L.

Lindsey, E.

Inchcape, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 3a accordingly.
Clause 4:
(7) Where the Minister is of opinion, after consultation with the agricultural committee, that the owner of any agricultural estate situate wholly or partly in the area of the committee, whether the estate or any part thereof is or is not in the occupation of tenants, grossly mismanages the estate to such an extent as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon or the welfare of those who are engaged in the cultivation of the estate, the Minister may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable so to do in the national interest, and after making such public inquiry as he thinks proper and after taking into consideration any representations made to him by the owner, by order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the estate or any part thereof:
Provided that—

(a) an order made under this subsection shall not, except where the person appointed by the order to act as receiver and manager of the estate is appointed to act in the place of a person previously appointed under this subsection, take effect until a period of six months has elapsed after the date on which notice of the order having been made was given to the owner of the estate, and the owner may at any time during the said period appeal against the order to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and where any such appeal is made, the order shall not take effect pending the determination of the appeal; and

(b) an order made under this subsection shall not, except with the consent of the owner, extend to a mansion house, or the garden or grounds attached thereto, or to any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house, or to any land or buildings which are not used, or intended to be used, for agricultural purposes; and

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I have three drafting Amendments on this Clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 35, after ("garden") insert ("attached thereto").
Page 4, line 33, after ("derived") insert. ("by the tenant").
Page 6, line 25, leave out ("making") and insert ("holding").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved, in subsection (7) (b), to leave out "or of any home farm."
810
The noble Lord said: It seems to me quite inconsistent that the home farm, if it is grossly mismanaged, to the disadvantage of the country and of those who are engaged in the cultivation of the estate, should be omitted from the provisions of the clause as regards interference. I think it savours badly that the landlord should be preserved from interference when the tenant is prejudiced.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("or of any home farm").—(Lord Harris.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I hope that these words will not be accepted. As far as I understand, the landlord as occupier can be dealt with perfectly well. It seems rather a pity that this alteration should be made at this stage. I understand that the earlier part of the Bill is quite sufficient to deal with the landlord as occupier.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: This is not a Government Amendment, but I cannot quite agree with what the noble Duke has just said, because we have had many experiences of dealing with these extraordinary people—I can call them nothing else—who make almost a science of grossly mismanaging their estates and defying all authority. In cases with which I have been familiar we have passed cultivation orders and other orders upon them by the score, and they do not take the slightest notice. They will submit to fines and penalties, but those measures are quite inadequate, and meanwhile the persecution of tenants and the destruction of land for food purposes is going on. Those powers are quite inadequate when a rich man has definitely made up his mind—
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: But this does not apply to his tenant.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: No, I do not say it applies to tenants. It applies to those very few black sheep who so grossly mismanage their estates that they really become a scandal to the countryside. It does seem an extraordinary thing that such people should be allowed to mismanage the home farm to any extent they please under the protection of this clause. Though, as I say, this is not a Government Amendment, there seems a great deal to be said for it. I cannot imagine how or

811
why anybody could wish to retain for these people the privilege which is contained in the clause. Personally I shall support the noble Lord if he goes to a Division.
LORD CLINTON: I agree with my noble friend Lord Harris. If he goes to a Division I will support him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Arbitration under the Corn Production Act, 1917.
5.—(1) If in any arbitration under Part IV. of the Act of 1917 the arbitrator states a case for the opinion of the county court on any question of law, the opinion of the court on any question so stated shall be final unless within the terms and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court either party appeals to the Court of Appeal, from whose decision no appeal shall lie, except with leave of that Court.
(2) The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any arbitration under Part IV. of the Act of 1917.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved to leave out "terms" ["unless within the terms"] and insert "time." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, leave out ("terms") and insert ("time").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, after ("this") insert ("part of this").—(Lard Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
LORD LEE OF FABEHAM: My next Amendment is substantially drafting, and makes it clear that the award of the arbitrator shall be given within twenty-eight days of the date on which the matter is referred to him. This is the time allowed under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, which regulates these arbitrators. in most cases it will result in the decision of the arbitrator being given within the period mentioned in the words proposed to be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, leave out from ("committee") to ("subject") in line 12 and insert ("and the award of the arbitrator shall be given within twenty-eight days of the date on which the matter is referred to him").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 4, after ("improvements") insert ("which have been")
Page 13, line 7, leave out from ("execution") to ("or") in line 9 and insert ("and have not been executed by him under an obligation imposed by the terms of his contract of tenancy")
Page 13, line 11, leave out ("provided that the arbitrator").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is now a manuscript Amendment in the name of Lord Lamington. Following the precedents which have been laid down by those who have preceded me here I should have ventured to advise your Lordships not to receive a manuscript Amendment on the Third Reading of any Bill, but I have been satisfied that the noble Lord gave in this Amendment in time. It was through an accident that it did not appear on the Paper. In those circumstances I imagine that your Lordships will be prepared to allow the Amendment to be put.
LORD LAMINGTON: I referred to this the other evening, and Lord Lee said he was willing to consider it in the interval. The effect of the Amendment is to delete from subsection (6) the words "shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation)." It seems to me grossly unfair. I presume the tenant would be justified in calling expert witnesses in respect of his claim, and the landlord would be put to the expense of examining it carefully, and he may have to employ expert legal advice as to how far he is to resist such claim.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 20, leave out from ("and") to ("but") in line 23.—(Lord Lamington.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: It is true that I agreed to reconsider the matter carefully, and I have done so. But I regret to say that I have decided that I cannot accept the Amendment. It is not a question of its merit. This subsection represents a compromise which was come to after a great amount of discussion and after long consideration. As I have said before, I do not contend that this is either logical or based on any ascertained facts. It was a rough and ready rule, which on the whole was accepted by both sides concerned as being a way out of a difficulty. If

813
you start to cut into that compromise by taking something out of it which was there at the time it was negotiated, in the first place you upset the balance, and secondly you run the risk that in another place people who wish to put more into the subsection—that is more against the landlord—than is there now, would have the excuse of saying that an alteration had been made by way of deduction and why should they not stiffen it in another direction that would be most undesirable. I hope that your Lordships, having accepted this from yesterday, will not wish to alter it now even by a hair's breadth.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out subsection (9), which ran—
(9) In any case where a tenant holds two or more holdings, whether from the same landlord or different landlords, and receives notice to quit one or more but not all of the holdings, the compensation for disturbance in respect of the holding or holdings shall be reduced by such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the reduction (if any) of the loss attributable to the notice to quit by reason of the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings.
and to insert in its place the following new subsection—
"(9) In any case where a tenant holds two or more holdings, whether from the same landlord or different landlord, and receives notice to quit one or more but not all of the holdings the arbitrator in ascertaining the compensation for disturbance in respect of the holding or holdings shall take into consideration the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings, and shall only award such sum in respect of the loss or expenses directly attributable to the quitting as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator by the tenant to have been incurred by him, but in no case a sum exceeding two years' rent of the holding or holdings in respect of which he has received notice to quit."
The noble Duke said: I do not wish to detain your Lordships on this Amendment. In another place it was considered that the occupier of several holdings should not have the same compensation as the occupier of one holding. So far as I can see subsection (9) does not meet the case. Possibly my noble friend will say that what I propose is no better. Your Lordships will understand that the compensation clause appeared originally in one form; in Committee it took a different form; and on Report its present form. In these circumstances it has been difficult to draft satisfactory words. There is practical import-
814
ance in the question and strong feeling is entertained, especially among working-men, farm servants and any men with small farms who desire to obtain a better holding. I think the occupier of the multiple holding is probably too well treated in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 10 to 18, leave out subsection (9) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD LEE OF FARERAM: I shall be much obliged if the noble Duke will not press the Amendment. I have discussed it at considerable length with my advisers and I am informed that there would be difficulty in the words suggested, because they seem to be inconsistent with the general principle as to the ascertainment of compensation for disturbance which has been agreed upon and which in effect secures the payment of one year's rent at least by way of compensation. The subsection as it stands in the Bill enables an arbitrator to reduce the compensation that would otherwise be payable "by such an amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the reduction (if any) of the loss attributable to the notice to quit by reason of the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings." It may be difficult to work but it embodies a reasonable principle, and I am not prepared to accept instead of it the subsection proposed by the noble Duke. and I hope he will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12:
Application of Act to cottage on holdings under Act of 1908.
12. Where the occupation of a dwelling-house (including a garden attached thereto) forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies has been allowed by the tenant of the holding to a workman employed by him in agriculture on the holding, whether the occupation is under a contract of tenancy or not, and the occupation is terminated on account of the termination by the tenant of the holding of the employment of the workman, the provisions of the section of this Part of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance shall (subject as hereinafter provided and so far as the same are capable of application) apply as if the dwelling-house (including a garden attached thereto) were a holding and, where there is no contract of tenancy, as if the person allowing the dwelling-house to be so occupied were the landlord and the workman were the tenant, and the notice to terminate the occupation were a notice to quit:
Provided that—
(1) compensation shall not be payable under this section if—
(a) the notice to terminate the occupation is given before the expiration of six weeks from the commencement of the occupation; or
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "six weeks" and insert "three months."
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("six weeks") and insert ("three months").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I accept this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The next Amendment is to some extent consequential on the alteration of the basis of compensation for disturbance in the case of farms, which is made applicable, with modifications, to the case of a cottage. The compensation will in every case be fifty-two times the maximum weekly value of the benefit of a free cottage as determined for the purpose of the minimum wage, but it was pointed out to me that such value may from time to time be altered, and I think a reasonable maximum is ten pounds.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 6, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("equal") in line 8, and insert ("the compensation payable shall be such sum, not exceeding ten pounds, as is").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection—
"(4) Any question as to whether compensation is payable under this section or as to the amount payable, shall, on the application of the tenant or workman, be determined by the district wages committee or a sub-committee to which power in that behalf has been delegated by the committee, and the committee or sub-committee, may in any case in which it appears to them to be just, direct the payment by the tenant to the workman of a sum in respect of his expenses of appearing before them, and any sum so directed to be paid shall be recoverable summarily by the tenant as a civil debt."
The noble Lord said: I promised to consider the views expressed by Lord
816
Salisbury as to the provision of a cheap and less cumbersome tribunal to decide any question as to whether compensation is payable under this clause and as to the amount of the compensation. It has been to carry out that promise that I have put down this Amendment, and I hope it will be acceptable.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 14, after subsection (3), insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lee of Fareham)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I feel that there is great difficulty in providing an adequate tribunal. The clause is not apt to the Bill and should not have been inserted, but being there we have to make the best of it, and I think the Amendment is a great improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: These are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 7, after ("if any") insert ("for the protection of the landlord")
Page 19, line 41, after ("if any") insert ("for the protection of the landlord").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22:
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 16, leave out ("the").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26:
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 20, leave out ("applies") and insert ("apply").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON rose to move a manuscript Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Lord moves this Amendment I should like to ask your Lordships' ruling. This is a manuscript Amendment which the noble Lord only showed to me a moment ago. I have tried most carefully to study what the practice of this House has been for many years on the Third Reading of a Bill. Since I have been Lord Chancellor only on one occasion has a manuscript

817
Amendment been admitted on the Third Reading, and that was of a technical kind on which no discussion on merits was possible. Carrying my research further I have examined the advice given by Lord Halsbury, Lord Herschell and their successors, and that advice, which has always been followed by your Lordships, was that on Third Reading under no circumstances at all, unless it were purely technical, should a manuscript Amendment be admitted, and I warn your Lordships that if this practice is admitted we cannot take individual cases of individual Amendments and say it would be convenient to examine this particular Amendment. I ask your Lordships to consider that if we depart from a practice which, so far as I know, has been the unbroken practice of the House, we should have to consider on its merits the claim of each individual member to propose a manuscript Amendment on Third Reading. I found myself in this matter on the clear advice given by Lord Halsbury, Lord Herschell, and every succeeding Lord Chancellor.
LORD CLINTON: It is for your Lordships to say, but the Amendment is a purely technical matter, to remedy an omission, of which we gave notice and which Amendment the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is willing to accept. They are matters which require no explanation to your Lordships and can easily be inserted here. If your Lordships approve, I will move the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Your Lordships will be glad to hear it if it is a small matter, but I must say that I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that there is great objection to inserting manuscript Amendments on Third Reading. I remember a case when a manuscript Amendment was admitted on Third Reading and it was subsequently discovered that we had put it in the wrong place. There is great objection, because it is the last opportunity that your Lordships have of dealing with the Bill, and if this practice is once countenanced it will grow by leaps and bounds, and I think your Lordships would very much regret it. If it is a mere matter of drafting, we have always admitted that.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Although I, naturally, would not give any advice with regard to the Rules of your Lordships'
818
House, so far as I understand these Amendments I do not object to them in principle. If it would meet the convenience of the noble Lord, I will arrange to have them moved in another place. I hope that will meet his views.
Clause 33:
LORD STANMORE: The Amendment in my name is a drafting Amendment to the new subsection moved by the Duke of Buccleuch yesterday. It is, I believe, an improvement.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, lines 12 to 20, leave out subsection (8) and insert.
"(10) Subsection (2) of section eighteen of the Act of 1908, shall have effect as if at the end thereof the following words were added and in the case of any lease so renewed the period of notice shall be not less than one year nor more than two years.'"—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 35, lines 43 and 44, leave out ("in the Third Schedule the proviso to paragraph (a) of Article 8").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I should like to say, on behalf of this side of the House, how greatly we appreciate the ability, the knowledge, the extreme courtesy, and the conciliatory attitude of the noble Lord in charge of this Bill.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 256.)

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
FORTH CONSERVANCY ORDER CONFIR MATION BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off sine die.
DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with Amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 3, page 3, line 17, after ("authorised") insert ("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall interfere with the right of pre-emption conferred by section five of the principal Act as amended by section two of this Act")
Clause 3, page 4, line 19, leave out ("or anything in") and insert ("and")
Clause 3, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("shall not apply to any such provision").
Clause 5, page 5, line 24, after ("of") insert ("sections one, two, three, ten and thirteen of ") and after ("and") insert ("for the purposes of")
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that this House do agree with the Commons Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JURIES (EMERGENCY) PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
AIR NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed and to be considered to-morrow.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment last made by the Lords, agreed to; with the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted upon, and the Amendment made by the Lords in lieu thereof agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until a quarter to four o'clock to-morrow, and in doing so I should like to give notice, for the convenience of noble Lords, that we propose to meet at 12 o'clock noon on Thursday.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past twelve o'clock midnight.