Sitting of 13 May 1920

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

CENSUS BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the taking from time to time of a census for Great Britain or any area therein, and for otherwise obtaining statistical information with respect to the population of Great Britain, and I move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

RAILWAYMEN'S WAGES.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: 149y Lords, my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was kind enough yesterday to say that he would supplement his answer to my question about the recent demand of the railwaymen for an increase of wages. The question was to this effect—whether the agreement as to wages of railway employees, come to in January last, left it free to the men to re-open the question at any time; or was the arrangement such that the present re-opening of the question is a breach of the agreement. I think my noble friend also said that he would be kind enough, in reply to my noble friend Lord Salisbury, to say whether the sanction of the Cabinet would be obtained before any settlement of the negotiations is reached.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I have now seine further information for my noble friend Lord Selborne on the two points with which I did not deal fully yesterday. With regard to the first item, I have to inform him that the agreement with the railwaymen last January fixed certain wages and contained arrangements for an automatic rise or fall of wages in accordance with the increase or decrease in the cost of living. While it was anticipated that this agreement

295
would last for a considerable time, no definite period was fixed. The establishment of procedure by which further wage questions could be discussed left it open to either side to propose changes from time to time.
As regards the other point, I hope that I shall not be unduly pressed beyond saying this, that pending the deliberations by the Wages Board it is undesirable to make any announcement which would prejudice that matter in one direction or in another. But the Minister of Transport is fully aware of the importance of the issues involved, and should any occasion arise he will, of course, lay the matter before the Cabinet before taking definitive action.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am much obliged to my noble friend.

LIVERPOOL COPPER WHARF COMPANY (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL. [H.L.]
  UXBRIDGE AND WYCOMBE DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
LEVER BROTHERS (WHARVES AND RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIRKENHEAD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

COAL PRODUCTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have not put down the searching Amendments which this Bill would require before it could be placed into satisfactory form. I have not done so because I relied on what I gathered was the attitude of the Government, that it was a Bill to which they intended to give close scrutiny. I have only to point out——
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? I do not think that either my noble friend
296
Lord Peel or I announced that we were going to give close scrutiny to the Bill. Certainly my noble friend Lord Peel has not put any Amendment on the Paper.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I gathered from what the Government said on the Second Reading that they intended to look very closely at this Bill, and they must. Just look at Clause I. The noble Earl hardly realises what it does. All the duties and powers of any Government Department in relation to mines and minerals are to be transferred to the Board of Trade. That transfers all powers relating to health, relating to the protection of the men in point of wages, in point of check-weighing, in point of hours—all the powers of inspection in regard to those things go from the Home Office, where they are at present, to the Board of Trade. All the powers of the Department of Research under the Privy Council in relation to surveys also pass to the Board of Trade. The measure is retrograde in the last degree. Whether it will pass this House I do not know, but I am quite sure that when it gets to the other House it will have very close attention. And it will require re-casting, not only in respect of Clause 1, but in respect of the Advisory Committee in Clause 2. I must leave the responsibility to the Government.
LORD GAINFORD: In reply to my noble friend I should like to say that instead of this Bill being a retrograde proposal in regard to Clause I it is really a progressive proposal. These proposals have been thoroughly thrashed out by a most competent Committee, who have come to the conclusion that, instead of a large number of matters dealing with milling concerns being separated in different Government Departments, it would be far better if they were all housed under one roof. It is with a view to securing the co-ordination of all the matters relating to mining under one Government Department that I have accepted, on behalf of those for whom I speak, the proposals of Mr. Leslie Scott's Committee, which recommended this unanimously with a view of securing the more effective and better production of minerals in this country.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): In the interests of saving your Lordships' time I drew attention, in the course of the

297
debate on the Second Reading, to one particular point, and I see that my noble friend (Lord Gainford) has put down a number of Amendments to meet it. He has been good enough to discuss the amendments with me, and I think that they most satisfactorily meet the anxiety that I felt. I am very much obliged to him for the trouble he has taken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Establishment of Mines Department of Board of Trade.
1. For the purpose of improving in the national interests the production and development of minerals there be established under the Board of Trade (in this Act referred to as "the Board") a Minis Department, to which shall be transferred, as from such date or dates as His Majesty in Council may by Order determine, all powers and duties of any Government department in relation to mines and minerals, and through which, under the direction of the President of the Board, shall be exercised and performed all Lowers and duties by this Act committed to the Board.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: As the Government do not appear to have given any attention to the contents of this Bill, I draw attention to Clause 1. My noble friend Lord Gainford said that this was founded on Mr. Leslie Scott's Committee. Mr. Leslie Scott's Committee was concerned with the acquisition of land. It was not concerned with inspection; it was not concerned with the conditions under which the mining population lives in the mine; it was not concerned with checkweighing; it was not concerned with wages or with hours. These are matters which belong to quite another Department from that of production, which is the Department of the Board of Trade. They belong to the Home Office, which handles them at the present time.
If the Government choose to treat these things with indifference, very well; the consequences be on their own heads. And the consequences will be upon their own heads. The whole of this Bill is founded upon the conception that there is one matter, and one matter only, with which a Bill to make provision for the production and development of coal and other minerals is concerned, and that is
298
simply its production. There is not a reference and not a consciousness in it that there is another and an enormous set of questions of which the public will probably very quickly hear from those whose lives and conditions of existence are intimately concerned with them. All these it is proposed to transfer to a Department which has hitherto had nothing in the world to do with them, and which is not accustomed to work with them—and this at a time when what is being called for in the public interest is closer attention to these things.
This Bill will go elsewhere, and no doubt there will be those whose concern it is to make their voices heard upon these things, and I have very little doubt that they will. But meanwhile I have only to point out that Clause 1, if it were to become law, would take away from the branch of Government which is charged with the duty of attending to those interests of which I have spoken a duty which is quite inapposite to a Department of Government like the Board of Trade.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I wish to say one word, not on the merits of Clause 1 so much as on the question of procedure. Lord Haldane appears to think that it is the duty of the Government to put down a variety of Amendments to Clause 1. He differs from Clause 1. I do not think he was in the House when I had occasion to address your Lordships about this Bill a week or two ago.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Indeed I was, and spoke. I put this very point.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I in my humble capacity likewise protested against Clause 1, which I did not like. But I must remind your Lordships that this Bill was avowedly introduced as an alternative to a measure announced in the gracious Speech from the Throne, but which has not yet been presented. I really think it is stretching too far the responsibilities of the Government to say that, having promised a Bill, they are bound to put down Amendments to all sorts of Bills which are introduced in anticipation of and in substitution for their own. That is the reason why the Government has not put down Amendments to this Bill, because in due course of time it hopes to introduce its own proposals upon the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It appears to me that the complaint of the noble Earl opposite does not exactly meet either the Bill or the point of my noble and learned friend (Lord Haldane) behind me. The noble Earl, I think, stated that this Bill was introduced by my noble friend as an alternative to the proposal by the Government, the details of which we are all awaiting—namely, that minerals should be nationalised. But that has no apparent bearing on the particular changes contemplated by Clause 1. My noble friend's Bill clearly covers a great deal more ground than the announced measure of His Majesty's Government, so far as we know it.
I have no prepossessions one way or the other as regards the content of Clause 1, but I do not precisely follow why my noble friend Lord Haldane regards the transfer of certain powers from the Home Office to a new Ministry as retrograde. It may or may not be a desirable thing to do to form a new Ministry of Mines, which is to undertake all the functions now exercised partly by the Home Office, and some of which, I take it, might very naturally fall under the domain of the Ministry of Health; but I cannot myself see that it involves any retrograde step. The staff of the Home Office for purposes of inspection—and my noble and learned friend mentioned the safeguarding of checkweighing and other matters affecting the men—has being very efficient, but if a new Ministry were formed I assume that that particular staff would be transferred to the new Ministry. It appears to be a matter rather of machinery than anything else. I do not express any opinion as to whether it is a desirable piece of machinery because I have not followed the Committee's Report on which my noble friend relies, but it appears to be in itself a harmless suggestion, and not one deserving of any very particularly harsh criticism.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Applications for compulsory powers for production or development of minerals.
4.—(1) Any person may make an application, in accordance with regulations made by the Board under this Act, to the Board showing, in accordance with such regulations, that the applicant is a person having an interest in the production and development of the minerals specified in the application, and that the production or
300
development of the minerals is impeded or prevented contrary to the national interests.
(2) The Board shall consider any such application duly made, and (unless the application appears to the Board to be frivolous) after referring the application to the Advisory Committee and considering their report may, if the applicant, and the persons concerned in the application fail, or by reason of any disability in law or otherwise are unable, to come to an agreement, make recommendations thereon to the Sanctioning Authority.
(3) An application for power to produce or develop minerals otherwise than by agreement shall be made only to the Board, provided that if, upon considering the report of the Advisory Committee, the Board is of opinion that the application raises a question of policy or principle which should be determined by Parliament, the Board shall refer the application to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Moans in the House of Commons, and the Chairman of the Sanctioning Authority (in this Act referred to as "the chairmen"), and if the chairmen by a majority certify that the application raises a question of policy or principle which should be determined by Parliament, the application shall not he proceeded with except by way of promotion of a Private Bill.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (3), before "determined by Parliament," to insert "considered in detail by Parliament and." The noble Lord said: This Amendment meets the point which the noble Earl in the Chair raised on the Second Reading in connection with Parliamentary control. It provides that not merely should a question of policy and principle be determined by Parliament but that it should be considered in detail. It is with a view to giving more effective Parliamentary control that I propose these words.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 32, after ("be") insert ("considered in detail by Parliament and").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: My next Amendment is not quite consequential, although it meets the same point. It is to restrict to the purview of the Chairman of Committees of your Lordships' House and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons to determine these matters without the help of the Chairman of the Sanctioning Authority. In that way it also promotes the more effective control of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Line 34, after ("Lords") insert ("and").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: The next three Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out from ("Commons") to end of line 36
Clause 4, page 3, line 37, leave out ("the chairman by a majority certify") and insert ("either of such chairmen certifies")
Clause 4, page 3, line 38, after ("be") insert ("considered in detail by Parliament and").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Powers of Sanctioning Authority.
5.—(1) The Sanctioning Authority shall have power, on any application on which a recommendation has been made by the Board, or on any application made by the Board in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to make a Compulsory Order, subject to such conditions as they think fit and to the due assessment of compensation, for the purpose of enabling the minerals specified in the application to be produced and developed in such manner, consistent so far as may be with the custom of the district, as in the opinion of the Sanctioning Authority is desirable in the national interests, and to that end may incorporate in the Compulsory Order provisions empowering and requiring any owner or limited owner of land or minerals, or any person having any right or interest in, under, or over any land or minerals affected by the Compulsory Order, to do such acts and comply with such requirements as may be specified in the Compulsory Order.
(2) A Compulsory Order may incorporate the Lauds Clauses Acts subject to the modifications of those Acts specified in the schedule to this Act, and the chairmen may by regulations provide for the assessment of compensation by an arbitrator appointed under the schedule to this Act, and any matters preliminary and incidental thereto, in respect of anything which the Sanctioning Authority has power to deal with by Compulsory Order and for which provision is not made in the Lands Clauses Acts: Provided that in any case of disputed compensation any person concerned shall have power to agree that the amount of compensation which he is entitled to receive or is required to pay under a Compulsory Order shall be assessed by the Sanctioning Authority, and thereupon the Sanctioning Authority shall assess the amount of such compensation, and for this purpose the Sanctioning Authority shall be deemed to be an arbitrator appointed under the schedule to this Act.
(3) A Compulsory Order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act on the twenty-eighth day after the date on which it is made: Provided that if before a Compulsory Order comes into force it is certified either by the Board or by the chairmen that a question of policy or principle is involved which should be determined by Parliament, the Compulsory Order shall not take effect, and thereupon any person interested may proceed by way of promotion of a Private Bill.
(4) The Sanctioning Authority may, if in their opinion the circumstances so require and on such terms and conditions as, subject to regulations under this Act, they think fit, make an Interim Order restraining, pending the decision of an application which is before the Sanctioning Authority, all or any dealing with any land or minerals affected by the application, and an Interim Order shall be final and conclusive for all purposes and shall have the same force and effect as an injunction granted by the High Court: Provided that no such Interim Order shall be operative for a period of more than six months.
LORD GAINFORD: The first Amendment on this clause is consequential on the others.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 4, line 19, leave out ("the chairmen") and insert ("the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons and the Chairman of the Sanctioning Authority (in this Act referred to as the chairmen')").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to leave out subsection (3), and to insert the following new subsections—
"(3) A compulsory order shall be laid forthwith before both Houses of Parliament if Parliament is sitting on, or is due to sit within twenty-eight days after, the date on which the compulsory order is made, and if either House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the compulsory order is laid before that House passes a resolution disapproving the order, the order shall not take effect; but if a resolution disapproving the order is not so passed by either House the order shall become final and have effect as if enacted in this Act.
"(4) If Parliament is not due to sit within twenty-eight days after the date on which the compulsory order is made the order shall be forthwith referred to the Board and the Chairmen, and if the Board and the Chairmen jointly certify that it is proper and expedient that the order should take effect notwithstanding Parliament is not sitting, the order shall become final and have effect as if enacted in this Act as on the date of such certificate; but in default of such certificate the order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be and shall be subject to the provisions of subsection three of this section.
"(5) If a compulsory order has been disapproved by a resolution of either House of Parliament as aforesaid, any applicant for the compulsory order may proceed by way of promotion of a Private Bill, and, subject to standing orders, the notices published and served and deposits made for the compulsory order shall be held to have been published and served and made for a Private Bill applying for similar powers."
The noble Lord said: The object of omitting subsection (3) and introducing these new subsections is, again, with a view of securing

303
much more effective and adequate Parliamentary control. I think the procedure must be a valuable one and will be acceptable to your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 4, line 33, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendment of Coal Mines Act, 1911.
8.—(1) Section nineteen of the Coal Mines Act, 1911 (which relates to notices of Opening and abandonment of mines), shall have effect as if in relation to paragraphs (i) and (iii) the words "not less than two months before" were substituted for the words "within two months after," and as if in relation to paragraph (ii) the words "not less than three months before" were substituted for the words "within two months after."
(2) Section twenty-one of the Coal Mines Act, 1911 (which relates to plans of abandoned mines), shall have effect as if for subsection one the following subsection were substituted:—
"(1) Where any mine or seam is abandoned, the person who is the owner of the mine or seam shall, not less than three months before the abandonment, send to the Secretary of State, an accurate plan showing such particulars, together with such section of the strata sunk through, or, if that is not reasonably practicable such section of every seam in the mine or of the seam as the case may be, and such information generally in relation to the mine or seam as may be prescribed either generally or in any particular case."
(3) After section nineteen of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, the following section shall be inserted in that Act, and that Act shall have effect accordingly:—
"19A.—(1) Any person who proposes to put down a bore for minerals shall give notice in writing to the Geological Survey of his intention to do so not hell than twenty-one days before the work is commenced, and shall deliver within the prescribed period to the Geological Survey a certified copy of the journal of such bore, and shall give reasonable facilities to officers of the Geological Survey to inspect and take samples.
"(2) The journal and any other information relating to the bore which in the opinion of the Geological Survey should be preserved (in this section referred to as "the record of the bore") shall be delivered by the Geological Survey to the Secretary of State, and shall be preserved under his care.
"(3) No person, except an inspector, shall be entitled without the consent of the person who put down the bore (or his successor in title) or a licence of the Secretary of State, to see the record of the bore whilst in the
304
custody of the Geological Survey or preserved as aforesaid until after the expiration of ten years from the commencement of the work, but such licence shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State, after considering any objections, is satisfied that the inspection of the record of the bore is necessary in the national interests.
"(4) If any person fails to comply with this section he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to omit except an inspector "from subsection (3) of the new section 19A to be inserted in the Coal Mines Act, 1911. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved merely to meet a view which has been expressed to me by representatives of the Geological Survey. Hitherto confidential information has been retained in their possession. This Amendment will enable the Secretary of State to issue a licence, in the event of the national interest requiring it, to persons—of course including inspectors, if so desired—who might then have access to confidential information connected with bore-holes. As the matter would be in the power of the Secretary of State it seemed to me to be undesirable to make it an obligation that the information should be given to inspectors if it were not required or thought necessary by the Secretary of State.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 7, line 7, leave out ("except an inspector").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
(4) Where the land is glebe land or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice, the order shall provide that sums agreed upon or awarded for the purchase of the land or to be paid by way of compensation for the damage to be sustained by the owner by reason of severance or other injury affecting the land shall not be paid as directed by the Lands Clauses Acts, but shall be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be applied by them as money paid to them upon a sale under the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts of land belonging to a benefice.
The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, at the end of subsection (4), after "Ireland," to insert "and in its application to Wales the representative body of the church in Wales shall be substituted for the Eccle-

305
siastical Commissioners as respects any glebe or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice to which the Welsh Church Act, 1914, applies, and the reference to the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts shall not apply."
The noble Lord said: Instead of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being called upon, as originally proposed in the Bill, to receive sums in connection with glebe lands or other land belonging to Ecclesiastical benefices, I have endeavoured to meet a point raised by Lord Dynevor on the Second Reading and to insert the proper authority in the case of Wales.
Amendment moved—
Schedule, page 9, line 11, after ("Ireland") insert the said words.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

HOUSE-LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

TRAMWAYS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. (Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DOXOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Supplemental provisions.
3.—(1) The Minister of Transport may for the purposes of this Act employ such accountants as he may think fit, and it shall be the duty of tramway undertakers to furnish to any such accountant such information and to produce to him such accounts and books as he may require for the purpose of reporting to the Minister or the Advisory Committee as to the financial position of the undertaking.
(2) The costs incurred by the Minister in connection with any application for an order under this Act, including the remuneration of any such accountant, shall be paid by the undertakers, and the Minister of Transport may certify the amount of the costs incurred, and any sum so certified and directed by the Minister to be paid
306
by the undertakers shall be a debt to the Crown from those undertakers.
(3) For determining the cost of labour for the purposes of this Act, the Minister of Labour shall, at the request of the Minister of Transport, certify what are the rates of wages which have been fixed either by the National Joint Industrial Council for the tramway industry or by an award under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919.
(4) For the purposes of this Act statutory maximum charges shall not include any charges authorised by an order under the principal or this Act.
(5) For the purposes of this Act, the word "tramway" shall include light railways constructed wholly or mainly on public roads.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert "and where a tramway undertaking is leased to or worked by a company or person other than the owners thereof, undertakers shall for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act include that company or person." The noble Viscount said: This is really a drafting amendment, and I desire to move it on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lytton.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 4, line 12, insert the said words.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

BRITISH WEST AFRICA.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the action of the Colonial Office in restricting the rights of natives in British West Africa in the disposal of natural products, viz., palm kernels, in the open markets of the world; to ask whether any action has been taken by the Foreign Office or the India Office in connection with this matter; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the matter to which I draw your attention and that of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for the Colonies was debated in December last. Lord Beauchamp, in an excellent speech, dealt very strictly with the technicalities of the subject, and Lord Emmott followed with an able speech. One asks oneself whether the Government have altered their Colonial policy with regard to natives on the West Coast of Africa, because those natives are prevented from dealing freely in the markets of the

307
world with the produce that they get from their own forests. Why? It is said that we wished to stop Germany having the monopoly of crushing these palm kernels. That is all very well. So far as it goes, it is quite right. But the duty of £2 per ton on kernels is to be continued for five years after the war. What is more, in the White Paper published in June, 1916, it is stated—
"If a duty of £2 per ton be found insufficient to divert the trade to this country, the amount should be raised until the duty is adequate to effect its purpose, and this determination should be made clear from the outset."
According to that the outlook for the exporters, especially the small ones, is not very rosy.
I must draw your attention to the fact that the first stage in the policy was taken as a war measure when Mr. Bonar Law, in 1915, appointed a Committee upon oil seeds and kernels under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland. The Committee was composed of Departmental officials, margarine manufacturers, palm oil merchants, a shipper, and Mr. T. Wiles, a corn merchant and M.P. for Islington, who issued a Minority Report. I would like to direct attention to the margarine manufacturers represented on the Committee. The Report was not signed either by Sir Frederick Lugard or Sir Hugh Clifford, and there are no two gentlemen in the world who know more than they do about the West Coast of Africa, how to deal with the natives, the finance of our dependency there, and the trade of the country. Sir Frederick Lugard appealed afterwards in The Times to have the duty removed.
My opinion, and the opinion of many others, is that this duty was imposed merely in the interests of a small group of manufacturers in this country who otherwise buy in the open markets. Lord Crawford, who answered for the Government, mentioned in his speech that assurances were given to those manufacturers, and he hinted at something which Mr. Bonar Law said with regard to the matter in August, 1916. Towards the end of his speech he said that a complete statement would be made as to the form which these assurances took. We have heard nothing more about those assurances, however. We do not know where they are, or what they were, or to whom they were given, and I must ask that they should be produced.
In case some of your Lordships do not know what palm kernels are used for, I wish to say that they are used for making salad oil and margarine, and I do not think our margarine factories need this protective duty of £2 per ton, for you have only to look at their dividends. It is rather interesting to see the enormous dividends that were paid. In 1919 the Jurgens group of margarine manufacturers invited additional capital to its £5,000,000, and it was stated in the prospectus that during the years 1912–13–14 the dividend was 20 per cent., during 1915–16–17 it was 25 per cent., and during 1918 it was 15 per cent., and £303,828 was carried forward. I wish I had some of those shares; they are extremely valuable. There is something more with regard to that company. They have just stated that this year they made £1,000,000 profit.
This Order came into force last October. There is a great deal more than the £2 which the exporter has to pay. It was mentioned by Lord Beauchamp and, with your Lordships' leave, I will quote it again—
"The larger exporters are allowed by the Nigerian Customs to give a bond to cover this duty, but the small shipper, be he native or European"—'and, of course, generally speaking he is a native'—"is debarred from giving a bond, and obliged to pay the duty, for which it is in the highest degree improbable that he will become liable, and which duty will only be returned to him, then without interest, on his producing the landing certificate from the port of discharge for the consignment——"
That is to say, it might be the port of Bristol—
"This certificate it will probably take him six months to obtain. For this landing certificate the charge is 5s. Customs fee and 5s. for clerical work entailed, so that a shipper who makes, say, fifty small shipments of five tons each incurs charges as follows, compared with his more favoured competitors—

50 Landing Certificates 10 s.

£25

10 per cent. interest for say—six months on £500, being a deposit of £2 per ton Export duty on 250 tons

£25

Allowing six months for obtaining the Landing Certificate."

I believe that Lord Crawford, in his reply, said something with regard to these charges being mitigated. I do not know how that has worked out. One asks oneself, Is it or is it not in the interests of the governed that this burden should be imposed? Surely it is not in the interests of the governed, especially of these natives. I have been on the West Coast twice. I

309
was there in 1882 and again a few years before the war, and the change in that country was to me marvellous to see. Railways have been built and the natives have been encouraged to grow their produce. It is a great thing if they work because it is a deadly climate and the white man suffers there. The change that I saw was very remarkable indeed, and I stopped on the coast some short time.
It was said that this duty of £2 per ton was placed on these kernels in order to enable our manufacturers to put up crushing mills, but I must point out that our manufacturers began to put up crushing mills long before the duty was imposed. And also I must point out to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for the Colonies that America, by Treaty, cannot put a £2 duty on cotton seed. Why on earth should we put a £2 duty on palm kernels? There would be a pretty good howl in this country among manufacturers, I imagine, if America were to put a £2 duty on cotton seed.
What has France done with regard to this matter? We do not put on these duties without hearing something from foreign countries about them. This is a letter addressed to the Foreign Office dated February 17, 1920—
"The French Government state that the object of the prohibition is to reserve for France the whole of the Colonial oleaginous produce which is recognised to be indispensable for the needs of French industry, and which is not nearly sufficient to furnish all the raw material which is required. They add that if the French Government freed the exportation of these articles to foreign countries, French manufacturers would be compelled to obtain even more of their raw materials in foreign countries, which would necessitate an additional and highly detrimental expense in respect of exchange and freight. They therefore regret that in these circumstances it is impossible to accede to the requests which have been addressed to them on behalf of His Majesty's Government."
What is the effect of that? The effect is that we cannot go into French West African territory and buy palm oil kernels. Our British merchants there cannot deal in these kernels. The natives can only sell to French merchants. Naturally it is a position which seriously affects them. If these prohibitions are continued there is no reason why they should not be extended throughout all the British Dependencies. I do not suppose it will; and I hope it will not. It is a bad policy. Why should not we encourage these
310
natives? It is a policy also which opens out a good chance of retaliation by foreign countries. We do not want that. We want the trade of the world to go free now after the war. Our Imperial policy is to administer a Dependency in the interests of the inhabitants of the Dependency, and why should not the native in West Africa have a free market for what he gathers in his soil?
A day or two ago Mr. Harris, the Secretary of the Aborigines Protection Society, received a letter from one of the largest merchants in Liverpool and on the West Coast, in which he said—
"Dear Mr. HARRIS,—I received yours of the 6th inst., and game was duly circulated amongst the directors. I do not know that I can add any fresh points to those you already possess in regard to the palm kernel export preferential duties. I think the main thing to be brought out is that the tax to-day is useless. None of the old Continental competitors in the palm kernel crushing industry can afford to buy palm kernels. I have only heard of one sale of a small quantity direct to Germany since the Armistice. It was reported on the market the other day that kernels had been sold to Hamburg at £43, carriage, insurance, and freight, free. The only use the tax has to-day is to give the French a handle to say tu quoque to us when we reproach them for their narrow views as expressed in differential tariffs, export prohibitions, and preferential treatment in French Colonies. This point you quite correctly bring out in your letter to LORD Emmott of May 6, on which I have no criticisms to make."
Even supposing the kernels pay the £2 per ton, they can be exported from England to Hamburg. May I point out to the noble Viscount that a sum of nearly £100,000 has been subscribed by the natives of West Africa to finance a deputation to this country in order to obtain a larger share in the government of their country and, incidentally, to get the £2 duty off the palm kernels.
I have asked for Papers. I should like to know whether there has been any communication with the India Office as to the adoption of a similar policy for India. I understand that there has been a communication on the point. The Indian producers are quite strong enough to be heard and to take care of themselves. But who is going to speak for the West African native in the same manner? I also ask for the assurances that were given in the speech made by Lord Crawford, and for the correspondence on this subject between the Foreign Office and any other Power I beg to move.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl has brought this question up once more. In December last we debated it in the absence of the Secretary of State, and in those circumstances it is impossible to expect or obtain so satisfactory a reply as can be made by the Minister who is himself responsible for the policy which is being discussed. I need not go again into the whole question. I refer only in passing to the Report of the Committee to which the noble Earl has alluded. It will be remembered that the recommendations of that Report were founded on the expectation of a continued formidable German competition after the war, and that Germany would be able to give State aid on a lavish scale for the crushing industry in that country. Instead of that, Germany is now only able to pay for very small quantities of palm kernels at the present rate of exchange.
On the hypothesis of German competition the Report was accepted by the Government, but it was not put into force at that time. An attempt was made to put it into force in 1918, but it failed against the determined opposition of the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast, which Sir Hugh Clifford did not see his way to break down. In October, 1919, it was put into force by the fiat of the Secretary of State. I am told that the new Governor of the Gold Coast made a special and urgent appeal to the unofficial minority on the Legislative Council not to oppose the legislation recommended by the Secretary of State. In spite of that appeal, the whole of the unofficial minority voted against the Ordinance. I put it forward as a general proposition that in financial matters it is highly undesirable that the unofficial minority should be voted clown by the official majority in these Legislative Councils; and when the policy recommended is one which appears to be against the interest of the natives and to inure to the benefit of manufacturers at home, it is doubly undesirable.
In the absence of the noble Viscount an answer was given on behalf of the Government on the last occasion by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He stated, by some mistake, that the Ordinance passed in October, 1919, had created a new market by December, 1919. That, of course, was entirely untenable, and he altered it by suggesting that manufacturers had put down machinery on
312
the strength of a guarantee or assurance given to them, and the noble Earl made a definite promise that this assurance would he given to the House. "I will undertake," said the noble Earl, "that a complete statement shall be made as to the justification of my remark that an assurance has been given. What form that assurance took I will endeavour to find out." My Lords, I take a somewhat different view of that assurance from that of the noble Earl opposite. I venture to say that in the absence of any kind of evidence of an assurance having been given to the House, no such assurance was given.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I must apologise to the House if I promised to give the House something which I did not give. The correspondence on the subject went direct to Lord Beauchamp.
LORD EMMOTT: In that correspondence, so far as I know—it was sent to me by Lord Beauchamp—there was nothing dealing with the question of assurances. I think I am correct in saying that no assurance was given——
VISCOUNT MILNER: I propose to deal with that point when I speak.
Loan EMMOTT:—and no assurance was required. I was in close touch with the question during the war. Nothing gave me more anxiety for some years than the supply of oil seeds. If ever there was a key industry, this was a key industry during the war. We depended upon it for the supply of glycerine for propellants and of margarine for the feeding of the population. What happened? The figures of the earlier years given in the Report which has been mentioned show that in 1913, before the war, the import of kernels was only 36,000 tons. In 1914 it was 75,000 tons. The influence of the war was already being felt. In 1915 it was 233,000 tons. In 1916 and 1917 it was 213,000 tons. In 1919 it was 300,000 tons. Those kernels were brought here and nearly all crushed here. The manufacturers had provided the machinery which was necessary. They did it because it paid them, but also for patriotic reasons. If they had not crushed those kernels they would not have had a sufficient supply of their ordinary seeds—namely, cotton seed, linseed, copra, &c. It was because it suited us from the shipping point of view

313
to bring from West Africa oil-bearing material to the home country, in preference to going further afield, that these kernels were brought here. With that observation I will leave the question of assurances.
Then the noble Earl said it was necessary to make good some of the money that had been lost by ceasing to import gin into these countries. That is perfectly true, but it is not this £2 preferential duty that they are getting much money from. There is another duty besides this. There is the £2 export duty on kernels sent everywhere, to this country as well as to other countries. This £2 differential duty is only charged where the goods are sent to foreign countries. The £2 duty on all kernels must bring in some hundreds of thousands of pounds, although I imagine not half the amount which used to be obtained from the duties on gin. The £2 preferential duty cannot up to the present time have brought in any large amount of money and, so far as it provides anything, it negatives the purpose for which it was proposed.
A more effective part of the noble Earl's reply was the question of precedents. He mentioned tin from the Straits Settlements and Nigeria, and said that Lord Harcourt was responsible for imposing the duty in the case of Nigeria. My noble friend Lord Harcourt is not here, but he authorises me to say that the case was put to him by Sir John Anderson, Permanent Secretary at the Colonial Office, and that when he sanctioned it it was in his mind that it was only a war measure, although he did not put any such minute on the Papers at the time. In any case, my Lords, tin is an industry carried on under the supervision of white men, and carried on by the payment of wages. It is a very different industry from the collection of these kernels, which is a very ancient native industry.
Then the noble Earl produced, with a great flourish, another precedent in the shape of the preferential duty imposed on the export of hides from India. Among the Papers sent to Lord Beauchamp was a report of the debates in the Council in India on this particular duty, and I notice that several of the Indian members objected to Empire Preference. They only valued this export duty as a protection to the tanning industry at home. In any event if a duty forced on a reluctant, colony
314
by the fiat of the Secretary of State is unwise—if, as I shall show, it is opposed to the principle of the Covenant of the League of Nations with regard to Central Africa—any precedents produced on this matter do in my mind lose all their force, even in a somewhat precedent-ridden community as we are here. Then Lord Crawford seemed to imagine that I was actuated in my opposition to this measure by hostility to Imperial Preference. I think he even accused me of using severe epithets about those who support Imperial Preference. I never spoke or thought of Imperial Preference.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This debate took place four or five months ago, and I have not looked at the Report since. Therefore I am unable to answer the noble Lord. I cannot reply, and I plead guilty at once and apologise.
LORD EMMOTT: The noble Earl is very good-natured about it. He implored me to read my speeches the next day, which I did, to see what the epithets were. Speaking only for myself, for I probably plough a rather lonely furrow, I have never expressed or felt any particular hostility to Imperial Preference. So long as we retain our present fiscal system Imperial Preference given in the Mother Country must be largely a farce, and I should object to its being used as a lever to force us to impose duties which otherwise we should consider undesirable. Apart from that, I do not see how we could reasonably refuse it. To my mind this duty is an absolute negation of Imperial Preference. The essence of Imperial Preference is that the part of the Empire giving it makes a financial sacrifice in pursuit of what is really the noble ideal of binding more closely the links of Empire. Preference forced on a reluctant Colony by the fiat of the Secretary of State, particularly for the benefit of trade in the home country, eliminates the whole idea of voluntary sacrifice, which is the valuable spiritual factor in Preference. It brings exacerbation and ill-will, and must be fissiparous in its effect on the links binding the Empire together.
I say in all seriousness that West Africa has not been particularly well treated during the war. The prices of all produce were controlled and kept at a pre-war level during the war. Sir Frederick Lugard, in his interesting Report, mentions that in

315
Lagos in 1918 the price of oil was £3 18 s. per ton less, and the price of kernels £3 10 s. 10 d. per ton less, than before the war.
VISCOUNT MILNER: What date was that?
LORD EMMOTT: 1918.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It is much higher since.
LORD EMMOTT: Yes, I will deal with that in a moment. I am dealing with 1918. I think the controlled price here was £24 or £26, but at that time the goods that the natives had to buy, and particularly cotton goods, were going up by leaps and bounds, and they, still more than the native produce, have gone up since 1918, and are now excessively high. As soon as the market was free and competitive prices obtained, kernels went up very much, and since that happened this duty has been imposed. When it was put on I must say that it was not of much importance, became prices were high at the time, and the coast price at Lagos was about £30 to £31. That, of course, compared with pre-war prices, was high, but to-day prices are very much down again. The price at Lagos to-day is only £24, and a tax of £4—that is £2 all-round tax and £2 differential tax-on £24 is a very heavy impost.
Incidentally, the recommendations of the Commission have not been carried out, because now a landing certificate is accepted instead of a crushing certificate, so that the kernels can be brought here and re-shipped to any foreign country. What we know happens as a result of this is that the Colony does not get its £2 differential duty, although the kernels go to the foreign destination. I hope in these circumstances that the Secretary of State will be good enough to explain his intentions as to the future.
I want to ask, in regard to this part of the matter, three specific questions. First of all, does he mean to drop this tax when the five years have expired? That is a very important matter. Is this to be a permanent tax or is it not In the second place, as prices are falling, does he intend to retain this tax and so lower the prices that merchants can offord to pay for the produce? Or, on the other band, does he mean to follow the recommendation
316
that the Committee made as to certain contingencies? Does he mean to make it a movable tax? Does he mean to increase it?
There is one other point, and it is a much more serious one. I presume that the Secretary of State accepts the principle of trusteeship in dealing with native races. When I was at the Colonial Office we always regarded the interests of the natives of the Colony—as we understood them—as having a claim far superior to the interest of the traders at home. I am quite sure that the noble Viscount also follows that policy. Sir Frederick Lugard, to whom reference has been made, said in a letter to The Times to which Lord Mayo referred, that the Power in control, in dealing with subject races, should in no remote way seek her own advantage at their expense—that any sacrifice asked from them in return for however great sacrifices by the Suzerain Power must be wholly voluntary. I must say it is difficult to understand how this duty can be defended on the basis of our acknowledged principle of Colonial policy. It is quite unnecessary for the purposes for which it was intended, as against Germany. So far as it inures to anybody's benefit, it inures to the benefit of home traders and has a depressing effect on prices in the Colony. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain, if it is consistent, how it is consistent with the basis of our Colonial policy which has been carried out for the last fifty or seventy years.
To-day we are face to face with the reconstruction of the greater part of the world. With the best statesmanship and with the greatest good will the position is serious enough. The Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Curzon of Kedleston), practically never speaks here without warning us how serious the dangers are. If one could imagine Europe once again free from war, famine, and pestilence, and facing the future with some hope of prosperity, the chief risk of the recrudescence of war would arise, I think, in regard to matters of trade. To guard against that risk the League of Nations has been set up, and in laying down the lines of government in the Covenant of the League, to which we were a party, we made ourselves responsible for this part of Article XXII—
"Other peoples, especially t hose of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the

317
territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion … the prohibition of abuses … and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League."
The whole purpose of the League of Nations and of the League of Nations' Covenant is to preserve peace. The meaning of that section is that peace will be endangered if we depart from the policy there recommended—that is to say, no preferential import or export duties shall be imposed by a Mandatory of the League, on the signatories of the League.
Apart from any League of Nations, that has been the settled policy of this country for many years. In 1896 the then Colonial Secretary, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, said—
"We, in our Colonial policy, as fast as we acquire new territory and develop it, develop it as trustees of civilisation for the commerce of the world. We offer in all these markets over which our Flag floats the same opportunities, the same open field to foreigners that we otter to our own subjects, and upon the same terms. In that policy we stand alone, because all other nations, as fast as they acquire new territory—acting, as I believe, most mistakenly in their own interests, and, above all, in the interests of the countries they administer—all other nations seek at once to secure the monopoly for their own products by preferential and artificial methods."
It has been one of the greatest glories of this country that we have governed coloured people more humanely and more successfully in a financial way than any other country in the world. The moral effect has been that when some territory was to be absorbed by one of the great white races, it was preferred that Great Britain should take it rather than any other nation, because of our retaining the policy of the open door. To our great honour the natives also preferred us, because of the humane treatment which, on the whole, we have given to them. As to the financial effect of our policy, in all these Colonies—in West Africa, in Nigeria (I think even Northern Nigeria, but at any rate in Southern Nigeria), in the Gold Coast, in Sierra Leone, on the other side of Africa, in British East Africa—grants in aid had ceased; the Colonies were paying for themselves, even at the time when I was at the Colonial Office, now some years ago.
The point I want to put is this. Regarding the matter at the lowest, is this a wise
318
moment to change what has been in the past a settled policy on our part? We are warned that this country is not specially popular at the present moment, even among our Allies with whom we fought the recent wars. I do not see any special readiness on the part of foreign people to impute the best motives to all our actions at the present time. The question I put is this. What must those who are disposed to be critical think of us who have obtained so large a part of our Empire on the principle of the open door, of us who are the foremost advocates of the League of Nations, of us who have set our seal to the solemn Covenant from which I read your Lordships a few words just now, applying to the policy to be pursued in Central Africa—what must they think of us if we take this opportunity to reverse a policy in our old possessions not subject to mandate at all—a policy which we have carried out for seventy years—and adopt a new one directly opposed to the principles set out in Article XXII of the League of Nations Covenant. The noble Earl opposite has referred to the effect on France, and I will say no more about that.
I have only one word, in conculsion, as to the Colonies themselves. I think the effect in the Colonies must not be ignored or belittled. I do not know what the Colonial Office hears from West Africa or from Nigeria of which I have most second-hand knowledge of late. All I can say is that the opinions expressed to me by well-informed people are that the conditions there are more unsettled than they have been for many years. I do not for a moment suggest that this duty of which I complain is the main cause of that unsettlement; the main cause is lack of silver and the forcing on the natives of paper currency which has become tremendously depreciated. I can hardly believe some of the stories I hear about that paper currency. But what I do say is that there is most serious unsettlement there at the present moment, and I venture to maintain that it is an unwise moment to add to the unrest by imposing a duty like this, or by maintaining it for a moment longer than is necessary.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who has just addressed us will not consider it discourteous on my part if I do not follow him into the discussion of the very big

319
general principles which he has raised. I do not think it could be expected of me, nor do I think it would be a convenient plan, to enter into a general discussion of our economic policy on a comparatively small point like this. I may say, however, that I accept—I have repeatedly stated it myself—the principle of trusteeship with regard to our position as a nation in all these dependent Crown Colonies and Protectorates. I consider that wherever we are obliged, owing to the backwardness of the population of these countries, to keep the ultimate authority in our own hands, we have to exercise that authority in the interests of the people of those countries and not for our own advantage.
I may say that this particular policy which is so severely criticised was adopted in what we considered to be the interests of those Colonies, whether we were right or wrong in that opinion. I do not think that it would serve any good purpose or that I am called upon to go over again the whole ground of the discussion which took place in this House in my absence. I shall confine myself on this occasion to dealing with the new points, as far as there were any new points, which have been raised to-day, and to replying as far as I can to the questions which have been directly addressed to me.
I think the root of the whole matter is this question of assurances. Personally I do not consider—I have never considered, as far as my own actions are concerned in this matter—that I could take any other course than that which I did take, which was to press the Colonial Governments concerned to carry out the policy which had been laid down by the Government three years before, and which only owing to accidental circumstances had not been carried out when I came into the Colonial Office rather more than a year ago. I considered that we were bound to do what we had announced to the world that it was our determination and intention to do, seeing that people had for several years been acting on the belief that, His Majesty's Government having all the powers in its hands in such a matter, would carry out its expressed intention.
There seems to have been some misunderstanding about assurances. I was not here when my noble friend behind me (Lord Crawford) spoke of the assurances given by the Government. It seems to have been supposed that be referred to some direct
320
assurances given to individual manufacturers that, if they took such and such a course, the Government would take particular action. What I fancy he must have been referring to, and certainly what I rely upon, it not any such individual assurances to manufacturers, but the policy laid down by the Secretary of State when he communicated the Report of the Committee to the several Governments concerned, which became a Parliamentary Paper, which policy does, to my mind, amount to an assurance, not to individuals but urbi et orbi, a declaration of policy of what His Majesty's Government proposed to do. And this was an instruction, as I read it. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me to have been an instruction to the Governors-General of Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Edible and Oil-Producing Nuts and Seeds. The words are very strong. This is what my predecessor—not my immediate predecessor but the then occupant of the Colonial Office—said in this Despatch of June 1, 1916, which was a Parliamentary Paper—
"I have considered carefully the Report which the Committee have presented, and I see no reason why their proposals should not be adopted forthwith. Of their four recommendations the first and last alone call for action on the part of your Government."
Now the first recommendation which he referred to is this—
"The imposition for a period of years of an export duty on palm kernels, to be remitted if the kernels are brought to the United Kingdom and crushed there."
Then he went on to say, "You will, I am sure, cause the necessary action to be taken forthwith." Later in the Despatch he said—
"To this end, I consider that the Committee's recommendation of an export duty, to be fixed provisionally at £2 per ton of palm kernels and to be remitted on production of proof that the kernels have been delivered to, and crushed by, a seed crusher in the United Kingdom, or any part of the British Empire, is a practicable proposal which should be adopted. It will therefore be necessary to introduce legislation in the West African Colonies to impose such an export duty upon palm kernels …"
There are the assurances, as I understand it, to which my noble friend referred. This policy having been publicly announced, having been embodied in Ordinances submitted to the various Colonial Legislatures, I venture to say that any parties who had

321
put their capital into the development of kernel-crushing machinery in this country on the face of those declarations would have had good ground for complaining that they had been unfairly treated, in fact that there had been something like a breach of faith on the part of His Majesty's Government, if we had not gone on with the legislation we had practically promised. To my mind, that is the dominating factor in the case.
It may be said that the change of circumstances rendered this legislation unnecessary, that the justification for it was that, without this preferential system, it was impossible to develop in this country an industry which it was in the interests of the native producer himself to see developed here. It is then said that this might have been the case if Germany had not been so ruined by the war but that, seeing the condition in which Germany was left at the close of the war, it was no longer necessary to give this advantage to the British manufacturer, and that the British manufacturer who had put his money into this business, or who might have done so, on the faith of the promise of the benefit he would derive from this preferential duty, was safe in any case. It may or may not be so; but it seems to me that it is much too soon to say what will or will not be the position of that manufacturer as against foreign competitors during the next few years. Whether it was owing to the promise of this preferential duty or to other causes—I think undoubtedly, to some extent at any rate, owing to the encouragement given by the imposition of that duty—for some reason. or other we have now got in this country what we had not before—namely, a large kernel-crushing industry. It is, in my opinion, a great advantage to the native producer, as it obviously is au advantage to this country, to have that industry. The imposition of this preferential duty was part of a policy directed to the establishment of that industry. I was not prepared to run the chance of that policy failing to achieve its object; I was not prepared to weaken the chances of success of that policy by departing from the course laid down by my predecessors.
The noble Lord who spoke last asked me with regard to the future. He asked whether I intended to carry on this preferential export duty after the expiration of five years. It is very unlikely that this will be a matter for me to decide.
322
But as things now stand the Ordinances are so drafted that the preferential duty ceases at the end of five years, if nothing more is done. As I have always understood the case, the object of the duty was a temporary one. Unless I misconceive the position, a preferential duty was imposed in order to give a start to a particular industry in this country, and it was never intended to maintain it longer than was requisite to achieve that object. I think it is always very dangerous to give promises about the future as one can never foresee all the circumstances that may arise, and I am not prepared to give a promise in this case; but certainly I should hope that at the end of the period for which the duty is now imposed it might not be found necessary to continue it.
I agree with the noble Lord who spoke last that the principle of Imperial Preference is not really involved in this matter. The great merit, or one of the great merits (because I think it has others), of Imperial Preference is that it is a sacrifice willingly made by one part of the Empire in order to give an advantage to the rest from what I myself have described as a "fraternal feeling." That, of course, is not applicable to the present case. As I have said, I think this is a special case which has to be justified on special grounds. I believe the adoption of the policy by my predecessor was justified. I think that the object which he sought is being achieved, and I am inclined to think that it will be unnecessary to maintain the duty at the end of the period of five years for which it has been imposed.
With regard to the fact that the Ordinances have been passed in one Colony over the heads of the non-official members, I should like to say this. Of course, it is always an unpleasant duty to instruct any Governor to use the official vote to over-ride the unofficial vote, but the only justification for keeping an official majority in any Colony is that we are convinced that we are better judges, for the time being, of the interests of the native population than they are themselves. Unless we thought that, we should not be justified in keeping our official majority. If that is the case, then I think that the argument that the unofficial vote was against you is not an argument which possesses any force. The responsibility rests with us. It is not as if we departed from the principle of trusteeship. On the contrary, on the principle

323
of trusteeship we keep the authority in the hands which we think for the time being, most competent to use it, and we must not be fearful about making use of that reserve power.
As regards the actual position of the natives in these Colonies, I was glad to hear what the noble Earl opposite said about their greatly improved condition. The noble Lord who spoke last referred to a recent fall in the price of the produce upon which this duty is placed, which, he said, made it a heavy one. There may have been some slight fall recently, but if you compare the price of the produce now with what it was at the most prosperous period before the war, not to say with what it was at the time when this policy which is so much attacked was initiated, you can only come to the conclusion that the native, from whatever cause, is enormously better off than he was as a producer. The price at Lagos in 1913. or at the beginning of 1914—at any rate the best price before the war—which was received by the natives selling at Lagos was £16. It fell during the war to £9. It was that tremendous fall, owing to the loss of the German market, which led to this question first being taken in hand by my predecessor at the Colonial Office. Then there was cause to be alarmed about the position of the native producer. The latest figure I have got is £28.
LORD EMMOTT: £24.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Your figures are more recent than mine, perhaps. Was that at Lagos?
LORD EMMOTT: I understand so.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Even £24 is a figure which contrasts very favourably with the best figure which the native producer received in pre-war times.
THE EARL OF MAYO: When was the £9 to which you refer?
VISCOUNT MILNER: Either in 1915 or at the beginning of 1916.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Was not that in consequence of the lack of shipping?
VISCOUNT MILNER: That was in consequence of the loss of the German
324
market, which was the only market they had. Now they have got, at any rate, a good and secure market within the Empire.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am a little disappointed with the noble Viscount's speech. It seems to me that he has not indicated to your Lordships what is the real definite attitude of His Majesty's Government in regard to a departure from our traditional policy in connection with subject races, especially in Africa. He commenced his observations by deprecating the raising of the question of commercial policy on such a small point, but it seems to me that the Government, in accepting, on the recommendation of an Inquiry made during the war, a proposal which has been put into operation since, are really departing from a most valuable policy which has been to the great advantage of the Empire in the past.
The noble Viscount has alluded to the importance of accepting the position of trustee for the good of the native races whom we govern. It has been our proud boast that when we occupied territory of a more or less uncivilised character we always did our utmost to secure the freedom of those races, and their welfare and happiness, and that we did not exploit them for our peculiar benefit. In that way we differed from many others who have failed in their colonising programmes. As a trustee it seems to me there are duties to the native rather than to the home manufacturer, and we ought not to dwell upon the fact that an industry has been established at home which is going to be a profitable industry to a small section of our community if it is not also going to be to the interest of the natives concerned in one of our Colonies. The noble Viscount seems to me to have failed in proving that the policy of placing this high duty upon the product of a particular Colony is to the advantage of the community itself. Our loyal subjects in our various dependencies have been mainly secured in the past because we did not exploit their labour for our special benefit. This is a direct departure from that policy. Because it is an important departure and because we have had no definite declaration that even at the end of five years it will cease, I have ventured to raise my protest against the continuation of a policy which has only recently been adopted by His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I beg to move for the Papers for which I asked.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Motion is that there be laid before the House the following Papers——
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No notice has been given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Noble Earl moved for Papers, and in the course of his speech indicated the Papers which I accepted as the substance of the Motion.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I hear of these Papers for the first time, and I cannot promise the noble Earl to lay them without inquiry. He asks, for instance, for the correspondence between the Foreign Office and other Powers. I am not aware of the existence of such correspondence.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I read one letter myself.
VISCOUNT MILNER: That does not alter the fact that I know nothing about it. Communications with the India Office is another matter, about which I know nothing. The noble Earl also asks for the correspondence in connection with the assurances given by the Government on the subject. No assurances were given by correspondence, and I have tried to explain that these assurances were the declared policy of the Government. There have been no assurances given to individual manufacturers. Therefore I am asked to agree to Papers some of which I know do not exist and communications with the Foreign Office with which I am not acquainted. If the noble Earl really wants to know whether foreign Governments have protested against our action I can tell him that they have not. What he quoted from was the reply of the French Government to our protests against their prohibiting the export of oil seeds to any country except France. That is a perfectly different point. No protest has been addressed to us against the course we have taken with regard to the duties under discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it seems to me hardly a convenient course that a discussion should take place across the Table as to the particular Papers for
326
which the noble Earl asks. Would not the simplest course be for the noble Earl to place himself in communication with the noble Viscount as to what Papers he requires in order to see whether they can properly be produced?
VISCOUNT MILNER: I should be very willing to follow that course.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I think the noble Viscount has a list of the Papers.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes, but it is not sufficiently explicit to enable me to deal with the matter.
THE EARL OF MAYO: For the present I will leave the matter in the hands of the noble Viscount.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  A MONDAY SITTING.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House I desire to state to your Lordships what we propose as the business for next week. There are three Bills which ought to be passed before we adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess—namely, the National Health Insurance Bill, the Ejection (Suspensory Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, and the Profiteering Bill. Each of these measures is expected to reach us from the House of Commons late to-night. It is therefore suggested that we should meet on Monday next, and that the Standing Orders should be suspended in order to enable us to take on that day the First and Second Readings of the National Health Bill and the Ejection (Suspensory Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, and the First Reading of the Profiteering Bill. Furthermore it is suggested that on Tuesday next we should take the Second Reading of the Profiteering Bill, and the remaining stages of that and of the other two Bills before the House adjourns at its rising on Wednesday, or upon its rising on Thursday, for the Whitsuntide Recess.
  Moved, That the House do adjourn until Monday next.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, so far as I am able to judge, the course sug-

  327
  gested by the noble Earl seems to be the most convenient in the circumstances. Could he tell us when these Bills will be in the possession of the House? If they are only read a First Time on Monday it may, perhaps, be difficult to get them printed in time. It is possible, of course, to circulate the House of Commons Bill before the First Reading takes place.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD If the printers can get it accomplished the Bills
  328
  shall be circulated on Saturday; otherwise I will try and arrange for copies of the Commons Bills to be circulated to your Lordships. I will put myself in communication with the authorities on the subject in order to secure the earliest possible printing of these measures.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at six o'clock.

FIFE-YOUNG'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

COOPER'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That, the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill had been complied with:

Wolverhampton Corporation.

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Lincoln Extension) [H.L].

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:

Londonderry Bridge Commissioners.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  LONDONDERRY BRIDGE COMMISSIONERS.
  (Petition for Bill.)
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
DERWENT VALLEY, CALVER AND BAKEWELL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS COMPANY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (LANDS) BILL.
  LEIGH CORPORATION BILL.
    LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LANCASTER CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons amended.
CARBERY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.

WHITE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.
[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, May 14.]
Appeal Committee—Second Report from; read, and agreed to.