Sitting of 19 May 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD.
LEONARD HEDLEY, Lord Bishop of SHEFFIELD—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NEWCASTLE.
HERBERT LOUIS, Lord Bishop of NEWCASTLE—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PORT OF PORTSMOUTH FLOATING BRIDGE BILL.
  PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
    HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Read 2a.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LINCOLN EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HERTFORD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
FIFE-YOUNG'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3,a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
COOPER'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURE BILL.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he would state who informed him that it would be out of order for him to introduce the
414
Agriculture Bill; and whether he is not aware that Bills dealing with Finance are and can be introduced in the first instance in the House of Lords provided the financial clauses are printed in italics.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the other day the Minister of Agriculture informed the House, in answer to a Question by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, that he had been informed that it would be out of order for hint to introduce the Agriculture Bill in this House. I therefore venture to ask him the authority upon which he made this statement, because it is a very startling one, and if it were to form a precedent for Ministers in this House it would practically mean that we should have no Bills introduced here which dealt with money in any way. I also ask him whether he is aware that Bills dealing with finance are, and can be, introduced in this House, so long as the financial clauses are printed in italics. My noble friend, like myself, having been in another place, is aware that even in the House of Commons it does happen that a Bill is introduced with financial provisions in italics, because the House has not thought fit beforehand to pass a Resolution in Ways and Means. Therefore this procedure is common to both Houses of Parliament, and there is no reason why it should not be adopted in this case. There is all the more reason why we might consider that agricultural Bills should be introduced in the first instance in this House, because we are so fortunate as to have the Minister of Agriculture as a member of this House, while the Parliamentary Secretary alone has a seat in another place. Therefore the head of that great. Department. being in this House, it seems only reasonable that measures of his should be introduced here first of all and explained by himself to Parliament and the country.
The other day, I noticed, when this question was being discussed, it was stated that the Bill was to be introduced shortly, and I see that according to the Political Notes of The Times the Bill is to be introduced in the House of Commons tomorrow. Perhaps the noble Lord will inform me whether it is to be introduced under the 10-minutes rule or only in dummy form, because if it is the latter the consequence may be that it will only be printed and circulated next month, and that will give very little time for consideration in the House of Commons and also in the

415
country. I would ask the noble Lord to say whether it is the intention, if the Bill is introduced to-morrow in dummy form, to have it printed and circulated at once. Then Lord Crewe, when the question was under discussion, said he thought it would be necessary to give the House six weeks for the consideration of the Bill on all its stages. If that is so, I do not see what time is going to be left for us, if we are going to take the chance of its getting precedence in another place. Seeing that we were told by Lord Astor yesterday of the enormous difficulties of getting Bills through, I think probably the Bill will he considered at 3 o'clock in the morning, then rushed through upstairs, where there is hardly an agriculturist, and then finished by means of another all-night sitting for Report and Third Reading. So the Bill will probably come up to us in July, or perhaps August, and there will be no opportunity of considering it.
Lord Crewe also said it was desirable that we should have the Bill early, so that agricultural bodies throughout the country might consider it and instruct their representatives in either House. I notice that the Minister of Agriculture said—
"Owing to the fact that financial considerations are largely involved, particularly in connection with the question of guarantees, it would be out of order, I am informed, for the Bill to be introduced in the first instance in your Lordships' House."
All Bills, more or less, have financial clauses in them, and, as I have already stated, if that principle is laid down we shall never see any Bill of importance introduced in this House.
I venture to think from what one is told that this Bill, instead of being a Finance Bill, which might come up with the certificate of Mr. Speaker that it is a Money Bill, is going to be very far-reaching indeed—that it will deal not only with the price of corn but with such questions as fixity of tenure, fixity of rents, greater freedom of cultivation, and generally with contracts between landlord and tenant. In fact, the Bill is more or less to set up Land Courts, although they will not be so called, and it will be very interesting to see if the noble Lord will tell us whether it is the fact that this Bill is going to be very far-reaching—the noble Lord shakes his head—because he put his principal argument on the ground that it was a Money Bill. If it is going to be so far-reaching as to deal with other matters, and generally to alter
416
the land laws of the country, then I say there is all the more reason why it should be introduced in this House when we have plenty of time to discuss it, rather than that the Government should adopt the attitude, which they adopted with very little success yesterday, of throwing the Bill at our heads and asking us to pass it at once. If the noble Lord tells us that the Bill does not contain these provisions, perhaps he will tell us what it does contain, because he says it contains a great deal more than merely financial provisions.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords. I will confine myself as strictly as possible to the Question on the Paper. With regard to the specific question which Lord Strachie has put to me I can only plead that, possibly owing to inexperience of the rules of your Lordships' House, I may have used, in reply to what was a supplementary question at the end of the proceedings, a form of words which was not strictly accurate. When I used the words "Not in order" I used them in a colloquial sense, rather than with regard to the rules and regulations of your Lordships' House, with which I must confess I am not as perfectly acquainted as I shall endeavour to be in the future. Therefore in regard to the second part of my noble friend's Question, I am now aware, having fortified myself by reference to the authorities, that Bills dealing with finance are and can be introduced in the first instance in the House of Lords, provided the financial clauses are printed in italics.
I do not think, however, that it would in any way have affected the main point which I wish to make and that is that, whether in order or not, it would as a matter of fact have had certain inconveniences if this Bill, which is, like the Corn Production Act of 1917, to a large extent a financial measure, were introduced in the first instance in this House. The matter was very carefully considered by the Government, and, as my noble friend is no doubt aware, an announcement was made by the Leader of the House of Commons on behalf of the Government, I think only two days ago, that the Bill would be introduced in the House of Commons in the first instance. I am afraid that that decision, which was taken as a result of full discussion must stand. But I hope that my noble friend's rather gloomy prophesies about the course of events and the time

417
table may be falsified. First of all with regard to the date when the Bill will be available for purposes of study, it will be printed by Friday morning. Its presentation to-morrow will be formal, but we have taken special steps to see that it is printed and circulated to members of both Houses, so that they may have an opportunity of making it their principal study during the Whitsuntide recess.
LORD STRACHIE: Will you have it circulated to members of this House too?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: My noble friend is, perhaps, no better acquainted with all the Rules and Orders of this House than I am. We are both sinners in that respect. I understand that it would not be in order to print the Bill in this House till it is received.
LORD STRACHIE: Can it be circulated to us? That was done in the case of a Bill last year.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Perhaps my noble friend will consult the authorities of the House in regard to that. Having informed your Lordships that the Bill will be available on Friday morning, I cannot accept the tempting invitation of my noble friend to explain its provisions on this occasion. I think he will find that a good number of his forecasts are wide of the mark, but if he will be patient for only a few hours he will be able to satisfy his curiosity in these respects. I recognise that your Lordships have a special right to have ample time to discuss this measure and that it should not be "thrown at your heads," to use the phrase of my noble friend. I hope that the time table which we contemplate will enable the Bill to reach this House in ample time for it to be fully discussed before the normal period of closing the session.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I wish to say a word or two in reply to the noble Lord who has just sat down. Although he frankly admits that he was inaccurate in regard to the effect of bringing forward proposals in this House in the first instance, I understood from him that the difficulty now is—or one of his main difficulties now is—that an announcement has been made in the other House that the Bill will be brought in there. But supposing that a change was made in that
418
respect it would not be the only announcement that has been made in that House and subsequently withdrawn and not acted upon, That does not seem to me to be an adequate reason for not introducing the Bill in this House.
The noble Lord himself, with equal frankness, admitted that this is a House in which the subject is perhaps more generally understood than it is in the House of Commons, and that it would in ordinary circumstances be desirable that a Bill of that kind should come forward in the first instance in a House which is so largely interested in the particular subject with which it deals, especially when that might be done at a time when this House is not in the same position with regard to pressure of other Bills as is the case in the House of Commons. I am sorry to have heard the reply of the noble Lord, and I ask whether it is not possible for him to exercise influence, which of course he can exercise as Minister of Agriculture arid the person mainly responsible for the policy that is being pursued, in order to arrange that, instead of the Bill being introduced in the House of Commons because of what appears to have been a more or less casual announcement, that policy may be reversed and the Bill brought in here.

IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government when it is proposed to introduce the Land Purchase Bill for Ireland to which reference was made in the statement of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland on March 29.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may not be familiar with what was said by Mr. Macpherson on the occasion to which my question refers. He called attention to the fact that the question of land purchase had been dealt with by a sub-committee of the Irish Convention, and that the Report of that sub-committee was unanimously adopted by the whole Convention. He proceeded to say that the scheme which they put forward would undoubtedly remove the impasse and provide for a speedy completion of land purchase on terms equitable and fair between landlord and tenant. The Government, he added, recognising as it does that it is under an obligation to introduce

419
a land purchase scheme, has decided to adopt this scheme of the Convention as its basis, and will introduce a Purchase Bill upon the lines of that scheme immediately.
I happened to be a member of the subcommittee which drew up that Report, and I confess that I had a feeling of parental pride at the eulogy which was bestowed upon our offspring. Certainly there never was a more auspicious birth. All the fairy-godmothers were present except one, and the committee received the good wishes of every section of the Convention, from the stern and unbending Ulstermen through every stage of Unionism and Nationalism even to the dreamy, poetic, and eloquent Sinn Feiner, who was the only representative of that body, I think, amongst us. And when I found the absent fairy-godmother in the shape of Great Britain had appeared on March 29 in the form of Mr. Macpherson, and had announced his intention of adopting the child and providing him with an ample dowry, I confess that I thought his future looked extremely promising. But matters have changed since then. The guardianship has been removed to another quarter, and there is some fear lest the child has been overlain by its new nurse, and that the sturdy bantling may never appear at the Bar of your Lordships' House.
The Government at the present time are engaged in passing through the House of Commons a measure for Ireland which is detested by every section of Irishmen, so much so that even the Irish Members of the Government find themselves unable to vote for the Second Reading. I hope, nevertheless, that they really mean at the same time to press forward this land purchase measure, which has the approval of Irishmen of all shades of opinion, and from whom they might hope for not only approval but also active co-operation and assistance if it is brought forward in the House of Commons. I am not so sanguine as to say that the Bill would have the effect of quieting the unrest which exists in Ireland, but I do think it would show Irishmen that in one matter at any rate the Government are prepared to act upon the views which they know to be felt in Ireland on this matter. And it certainly is a matter of the very gravest importance that the land question should be settled before Home Rule is introduced. I am not one of those who believe for one minute that even if the Home Rule Bill is passed into
420
law it will ever be put into operation in the South and West of Ireland. If it is, I submit to His Majesty's Government that it will make matters very much easier for those who are called upon to take up that movement if they find this lion out of their path. There is no doubt that they will be pressed at once to take measures to settle the land question, and finding themselves without money, and possibly without credit, they might be tempted to yield to the wishes of the extremists of their Party and to settle the matter on terms that would not be equitable.
Even at the present minute I think it would have a very salutary effect in restraining to a certain extent the cattleraiding which unfortunately is so prevalent in the West of Ireland if land purchase were to be proceeded with as quickly as possible. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, if he is going to answer the Question, will be able to assure me that the Government intend to proceed with this matter at once, not only to introduce the Bill but to press it forward pari passu with the other Bill, for which I am afraid no great hopes of ultimate success in Ireland can be entertained. I think it will relieve feeling very much in Ireland if the noble and learned Lord is able to assure me of this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, it has always been recognised, as the noble Lord has quite truly said, that no proposals for an Irish settlement can be regarded as complete unless provision is made for the settlement of the land question. Land purchase in Ireland at the present moment is at a standstill, owing to the fact that sales, instead of being cash transactions under the Wyndham Act, have had to be carried out on the basis of a Three per Cent. Land Stock at its par value. The meaning of that, as your Lordships will see, is that a vendor, instead of receiving £1,000 purchase money in cash, would receive only £1,000 of Three per Cent Stock, which at the present market value is worth only £497 10s. It is apparent that no landlord can afford to sell on those terms, and a new scheme of land purchase is essential which will enable the unsold land to be brought within the Land Purchase Acts.
It is a matter of extreme difficulty, as the noble Lord would be the first to admit, to formulate a scheme which will be fair

421
and acceptable to the selling landlord on the one hand and to the purchasing tenant on the other. I agree with the tribute paid by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, to which the noble Lord made reference, that one of the most noteworthy achievements of the Irish Convention, perhaps its most noteworthy practical achievement, was the preparation of this scheme. It was the work, the noble Lord said, of a sub-committee which included representatives of all schools of thought, and it is a tribute to their efforts that their Report was accepted by the Convention unanimously. The scheme of which I am speaking removes the present impasse, and provides for the speedy conclusion of land purchase on terms which are believed to be acceptable both to the landlord and the tenant. The Government, recognizing, as I have already said, that it is under an obligation to bring before Parliament proposals for a land settlement as nearly concurrently as may be with its Home Rule proposals, has decided to adopt the Convention scheme as a basis, and to introduce a Land Purchase Bill for the purpose.
I do not pause to consider, because the argument would be a long one, whether the noble Lord's extremely gloomy views on the subject of the Home Rule Bill, which is now engaging the attention of the House of Commons, are in their entirety well founded or not, because more appropriate occasions will present themselves for the discussion of this undoubtedly difficult subject. But it has been suggested to me that in a very few moments I might attempt an indication of the salient features of the scheme for which the Committee of the Convention and, at a later stage, the Convention made itself responsible. Take, first, the landlords' position. The Convention felt, for reasons which need not be laboured, that it would be impossible to revert to payment of the purchase money in cash. It would involve too great a loss to the State. And it was not less apparent that the time had long since passed at which it was possible to expect that the landlord would accept Three per Cent. Stock at par. It was therefore proposed that payments should be made in a new Stock bearing dividends at such a rate that the market price of the Stock might be expected to stand at a little below par, and vendors would be required to take this Stock at its face value in payment of their purchase money.
422
A word very briefly about the tenant. The purchase money was to be fixed at such a sum that the purchase annuity payable by him in liquidation of it—and taking the place of the rent which, of course, he pays at present—would represent the same average reduction as compared with the rent which other tenants in the county had obtained by purchase under the Wyndham Act. Nothing could be more unfortunate than the contrast which exists to-day as between some of those who have obtained the advantages of the Wyndham Act and others, perhaps their neighbours, living at any rate near by them, under circumstances in which the comparison is most disadvantageous, and is felt to be very unfair by those who have not the benefits of the Wyndham Act. The danger of leaving land purchase uncompleted is very great—I entirely agree with the noble Lord on this point—and the advantages that would be gained by a settlement of the kind indicated can hardly be exaggerated. In the congested districts to-day there are still thousands ekeing out a bare existence on small uneconomic holdings, while there are large tracts of untenanted land which, but for the financial difficulties which have arisen, might be made available to provide them with enlarged economic holdings.
The noble Lord has asked me whether I can give him the precise date at which it is proposed to introduce this Land Purchase Bill. The noble Lord is not unaware of the Parliamentary difficulties under which the work of another place has been carried on in the busy months which have passed, and I cannot, of course, affect to ignore the circumstance that these difficulties are likely to be not less great when the House of Commons resumes its sittings after this short recess. But I may tell the noble Lord that the draft Bill is in an advanced state of preparation; it is, in fact, for all practical purposes complete—certainly for the purposes of mastering and understanding its contents. It is awaiting at this moment final sanction from the Cabinet, which may or may not be forthcoming in the present pressure of business before the Whitsuntide recess, but which may be confidently hoped for immediately after the recess if this first anticipation should fail, and I can assure the noble Lord that there is not the slightest intention of delaying the Bill in any way, but that, on the contrary, it is hoped that its arrival in this House will be not very much later than the Home Rule proposals to which the noble Lord has referred.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: May I be permitted to thank the noble and learned Lord for the very lucid explanation which he gave to the House of the provisions of the Report of the sub-Committee of the Irish Convention, and for the answer he has given. I should also like to ask whether the Government intend to adopt the idea of a bonus to landlords, as was recommended by that Committee. I ask that because the noble and learned Lord's speech is sure to be much read in Ireland, and if that was omitted it might be thought that the Government did not intend to adopt that portion of the Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will make allowance for the fact that I am speaking on a Bill for which at present I am not primarily responsible, and therefore I speak from recollection. But my recollection is that the bonus is to be adjusted on a graduated scale so as to secure that, where the number of years' purchase represented by the purchase money was small, the bonus was to be proportionately large, and vice versa.

TEE DISTURBANCES IN SYRIA.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord LAMINGTON I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information respecting the disturbances in Syria as reported in The Times of May 17, and, if it is true the disturbances did occur, whether they were not due to national rather than anti-Christian feeling.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the information contained in The Times telegram from Cairo of May 15 concerning the deplorable massacre of the Christian inhabitants of certain villages in Southern Syria is more detailed than that which has reached His Majesty's Government in official telegrams. From the latter we learn that the villages of Ain Ibl and Dibl were attached by Metwalli tribesmen, that Ain Ibl was sacked and partly burned, and that upwards of fifty persons were killed. As the noble Lord is aware, these villages are situated in a part of Syria that is in the French zone, and His Majesty's Government neither have any forces in the neighbourhood nor
424
have they any responsibility for the area concerned.
It is difficult, without greater local knowledge than we possess, to say how far these lamentable occurrences may have been provoked by national feeling. It may well be that recent events in Syria, and the proclamation of the Emir Feisal as king of that country, have aroused a strong national sentiment, although it is not clear why even if this be the case it should take the form of an attack upon Christian villages. From the account in The Times it would seem to be more likely that the attack upon these places was the outcome of a long smouldering antagonism between Moslem and Christian kindled to flame by recent events.
My noble Friend the Leader of the House is confined to bed by illness or he would have answered this Question himself. In the meantime he has telegraphed for further information, and if it arrives while the House is not in session he will see that it is communicated to the noble Lord.

COMPENSATION FOR MALICIOUS INJURIES.
LORD ARMAGHDALE LORD ARMAGHDALE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the refusal of Irish local authorities to levy rates to meet awards of compensation for malicious injuries, the amount of such awards will be deducted from the sums payable from the Imperial Exchequer in relief of local taxation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Question because it has been openly stated that the Government have no legal power to make the deductions to which reference is made. I think it would be advisable to have the question settled at once, and, if the Government find that they have not the power, they should obtain it without further delay. The point has arisen owing to the refusal of some local authorities in Ireland to levy rates to meet the awards which have been made by County Courts. The matter is one of great importance and urgency owing to the large number of claims pending as the result of the wave of mad criminality now passing over the Southern parts of Ireland. The failure of the Government to protect life and property imposes upon them, I submit, the responsibility of seeing that the victims shall receive such compensation as the law awards.
If the local authorities try to nullify the decision of the County Courts by refusing to find the money to pay the awards, it is only just that the grants in aid of local taxation payable to those authorities should be withheld. I believe it is a fact that there is a precedent; that the Government have, indeed, adopted this procedure in order to compel the Dublin Corporation to meet their share of the cost of the Police. I submit that it is obviously a simple and effective remedy against a defaulting local authority, and I trust that we shall be informed that it will be put into operation against those authorities who refuse to fulfil their obligations in the matter to which I have referred.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the compensation for criminal injuries which may have been recovered by a private individual against a local authority cannot be deducted from the sums payable to the local authority out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under the existing law. This right of deduction only arises in cases where the local authority is indebted to the Crown or a Government Department. An equally effective remedy exists, however, for the recovery of such compensation awarded to a private individual in respect of personal injuries or murder, and directions have been given by the. Irish Law Officers for its enforcement by serving a demand on the treasurer of the local authority, who is thereupon bound under Statute to pay the amount out of the first moneys coming into his hand. Should these proceedings prove ineffective, the question of legislation on the lines suggested by my noble friend will receive the most careful consideration.
LORD ARMAGHDALE: The noble Lord has stated that the Government are prepared to consider the question in cases of personal assault or murder; but what about the destruction of private property, which is the point in my question?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I discussed this question with the authorities of the Irish Government yesterday. I do not know whether it is a verbal disparity between the Question and my answer, or whether my noble friend's precise point was overlooked; but my impression is that the compensation awarded to private individuals is in respect of any injuries done to them or to their property.

THE CONDITION OF IRELAND.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement as to the steps which are being taken by the Irish Government to put an end to the condition of veiled rebellion in Ireland.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in the very few observations I am going to make this evening I do not desire to traverse the ground which was so admirably covered in a recent debate in your Lordships' House at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. I have nothing to add to the lucid description which he and other noble Lords then gave on the deplorable condition of Ireland, except to say that I think a good many noble Lords who sit in this House as representing the Government must feel rather bitterly the discredit which has been thrown upon their political reputations by the action of the Government as a whole, and of the Irish Government in particular. They are, of course, responsible for the condition of things in Ireland. That must never be forgotten. No doubt the difficulties with which they have had to deal are very formidable, but they are there to govern the country. They have failed to govern the country, and upon them rests the responsibility.
But I do not rise for the purpose of recrimination. I rise with a view of trying to aseeitain from the Government what steps they are now taking to restore the authority of His Majesty's Government in Ireland. I say, "the authority of His Majesty's Government in Ireland," because it is quite clear that the condition of things is rebellion. It has ceased to be merely disorder; it has ceased to he merely an effervescence of public opinion; it is definitely rebellion—that is to say, resistance to the King's Government and an attempt to set up some other Government in its place; and we wish to know, on the eve of the recess, whether His Majesty's Government are able to make to us any statement as to the steps which they are taking. I need not say that I have no desire to weaken the hands of the distinguished General who has now been sent to Ireland. I mean General Macready. He is entitled to, and I am sure will receive, the fullest support from your Lordships in the efforts which he is making.
There are, however, statements appearing in the public Press of a more or less authoritative character purporting to describe

427
the line which the policy of the Government in repressing this rebellion is about to take. There was, for example, a long note in The Times this morning. I do not know how far that was authoritative. It appears, therefore, to be suitable that one of us should take the opportunity which this afternoon affords to ask the Government if they will state, in their place in Parliament, what steps they are taking. It is not necessary for me to say that I do not want them to make any statement which in their judgment would defeat the object which we have in view. If they think that it is wiser in any particular direction to keep silence, that is for them to decide. I shall certainly not press them to say more than in their discretion they think can profitably he said. But within those limits I venture to put my Question.
When this subject was debated on Thursday week in your Lordships' House—I am sorry to say I was not able to be present then, but I have taken every precaution to make myself fully acquainted with what passed—certain suggestions were put forward. As I read the debate they were, most of them, suggestions for the proper use of the troops in Ireland. My noble friend Lord Midleton suggested that a system of patrols should be established. I think he also suggested that there should be better co-ordination between the military and police authorities; while my noble friend Lord Selborne, later in the debate, suggested that a special corps of former soldiers should be re-enlisted in some way in England for use in Ireland. All these matters were submitted to His Majesty's Government, and if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is able to tell us anything on that head without injury to the public service I am sure he will do so.
Before I sit down, if your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to say one or two words as to what I conceive to be the principles which this House would like to see borne in mind in carrying out this work. First, as to the punishment of the guilty. What is required is not so much severity as certainty. What is essential, as all of us know who have had any experience in administration, is that the guilty should know that punishment is inevitable for the crimes which they commit. I am quite aware that owing to the way in which matters have been handled in Ireland it is not possible to predicate
428
what I may call inevitableness of punishment following crime there at this moment. The Government have lost grip, lost control, so much in Ireland that it will want many months of strong control reasserted there in order to make it certain that punishment will follow crime. That is the object which, on that head, I venture to think the Government should have in view. I do not suggest that they should pay much attention to words. Words do not mean much anywhere; they mean next to nothing in Ireland. It is only when the words are followed by acts that they become serious. Let the Irish politicians and the Irish newspapers fire off as much sedition as they please. It does not seem to hurt anybody. But if, as the result of speeches or writings in any particular place, crime follows, then let those who uttered or wrote those words be punished—inevitably punished. Let them be quite certain that they cannot escape. That is the very foundation of the re-establishment of order and, if I may venture to say so with respect, let the Government make it quite clear that they will go on from step to step until the end is achieved; that they will shrink from nothing—I mean what I say—from nothing which is not immoral in what is necessary to re-establish order. Let the seditious population—I do not say all the population, because they are not all seditious; there is a large loyal body whom we value immensely—but let the seditious element of the population in Ireland realise that the Government will shrink from nothing, absolutely nothing, which is legitimate and moral in the re-assertion of law and order. Once they get that conviction the battle is more than half won. That is one thing.
Then once the Government have asserted the power to punish those who are guilty, let them be relentless in carrying out the punishment. I do not mean make the punishment over severe; I do not mean that at all. As I have said, it is not severity that is necessary, but certainty. Let us never hear that a convicted criminal in Ireland is let out of prison because of hunger-striking or any such thing as that. That was, in my judgment, a most deplorable confession of weakness on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I am not speaking of the untried prisoners. They present a different question. But, as your Lordships are aware, there were a great many convicts who were absolutely let out. I believe it was one of those incomprehensible blunders

429
which seem to take place only in Ireland. At any rate, let that never occur again. I hope the official who was guilty of the blunder was properly dealt with. That is the second great principle—following the first that punishment should be inevitable—that when the punishment is awarded it should be relentlessly exacted. Those are fundamental matters.
Then there is the protection of the innocent. I should like to hear the Government say that they would protect the innocent and law-abiding citizens of Ireland at whatever cost of effort or of money; that whatever is necessary to protect them the Government will afford. And, above all things, they should make it clear to friends of law and order in Ireland that they will not be abandoned. What I am so very much afraid of is that those who adhere to the British Government in Ireland are thinking that they are going to be abandoned to the wolves. There is the loyal population; and, above all the police. I want to hear the Lord Chancellor say that under no circumstances whatever will the Government abandon our friends in Ireland. I know they are hampered a good deal by the existence of a certain Bill which is before the other House of Parliament. I am not going to discuss the Home Rule Bill. I do not want to get mixed up with it. I want the Lord Chancellor to say in his place that the Government are firmly resolved that in any legislation or any administration of the law England will never abandon her friends in Ireland; never abandon the loyal population or the police; and that they will take care that whatever is done these, at any rate, shall be efficiently protected. How can you expect people to stand by us if they are not quite certain we arc going to stand by them. I earnestly hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to give us these assurances. If it is once clear that the whole power of this country will be used at whatever cost to punish the guilty, and that under no circumstances whatever will we abandon our friends then I believe the cause of law and order in Ireland is already won.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess has very closely followed on a recent discussion which took place in this House and has called attention to a melancholy and yet engrossing topic. No one can complain that he has thought it proper on the eve of a short recess to
430
ascertain whether the Government had anything to add to the reassurances given to your Lordships in relation to this anxious topic. Let me at once, in reply to the last words that fell from him, make I more complete if I can the assurance I attempted to give when I last addressed your Lordships that it is the policy of this Government, whether the struggle be short or long, to employ the whole available forces and all the resources of these Islands, in the first place to restore law and order in Ireland, and, in the second place, to render utterly impossible the campaign with the object of secession which is at present in progress in that country. More than that no one can say. I am conscious that the road which still remains to be travelled is long and anxious.
I do not agree with the noble Marquess that every Minister in this House, or every Minister, must be conscious of discredit in their political reputations. I confess that I am quite unconscious of discredit in this matter. I can only say that ever since I became a Minister I have given all the thought, all the capacity, and all the industry of which I am capable to attempt in council to reach some solution of the difficulty, and I know that all my colleagues who sit on that Bench, according to the measure of their capacity and opportunities, have done the same. It is quite true that up to the present we have not succeeded; but a temporary failure does not in the least necessarily mean any political discredit. The degree of political discredit must be measured in relation to the difficulty of the problems which require solution and, I think, in justice to those who have been engaged on this question, who are at least as high and efficient administrative officials as the members of any Government, it ought to be remembered that seldom in the history of the relations between Ireland and England have more formidable problems presented themselves than have arisen as one of the by-products of the war.
Ireland, rightly or wrongly, was excluded from the compulsory scope of our Conscription Acts. Ireland, in the main, chose to hold itself aloof from the great effort made by the Allies in the recent war. The result has been this, that some hundreds of thousands of young men, possessing many gifts which would have rendered them invaluable members of the forces of the Allies, remained in Ireland availing them-

431
selves of a period of unexampled material prosperity, not migrating as so large a proportion of them would have done had it not been for the circumstances of the war. You had operating upon this body the turbulent propaganda of those who in Ireland have always, from the days of the Clan-na-Gael, been open and avowed enemies of this country. Two circumstances rendered this a fruitful and promising field for their endeavours. In the first place the difficulties and accumulated anxieties of this country in the war, and, in the second place, the presence of a turbulent and disaffected population of young men who under normal circumstances would have found themselves in our Armies.
Let us make no mistake as to the actual circumstances which have resulted from the combination of which I have spoken. The noble Marquess does not use language too strong when he speaks of the state of affairs in Ireland as one of "veiled rebellion." There are districts in Ireland in which for certain periods the veil has been of the thinnest possible description. The problem with which we are faced to-day is this. In Southern Ireland we have to deal with a movement which has not come into the open presenting its armed forces to be dealt with by military means, but which, by a continuous succession of cowardly assassinations and murders, is challenging the power of this country to put it down. The difficulty of dealing with an open military insurrection would have been incomparably light in comparison. They murder isolated policemen, burn down and destroy barracks; and no man living can suddenly devise a scheme by which over the whole of that area you can protect every one against outbreaks and outrages of this character.
The problem is one of the most difficult that can be set. If the movement were purely military it could be dealt with at once, and with success. I agree that up to the present the Government has failed, and those whom the Government have placed in authority, to whom they gave their confidence and to whom they still extend their confidence, have failed to deal with this problem. Whether your Lordships would be right in accepting the invitation of the noble Marquess to say that Lord French and the late Chief Secretary, those who have assisted them in the Permanent Service and those who
432
have given attention to this matter in England, all deserve political discredit must depend upon the view your Lordships take as to the difficulties of the problem with which they have to deal. I do not know whether any noble Lords will be prepared to say that had this responsibility been theirs instead of being that of the Government as a whole they could be quite sure they would have met with more complete success. I should be very slow myself to be one of your Lordships to make any such claim, and I presume to offer this opinion with as much knowledge of recent months of Irish history as any one who has not been employed at the Irish Office. The malady is a deep-seated one. It is a fundamental malady. Shallow and superficial diagnosis, and still more hurried and too confident treatment, are not necessarily guarantees of success.
The noble Marquess laid down some principles. He said that punishment should be inevitable, and that its certainty should bring terror to the mind of the malefactor. My Lords, no one, and certainly no one whose duty lies in the direction of administering the law, will quarrel with a view which has very often with universal approval been acclaimed, but we have had to deal with a population in the South of Ireland of which those who are not actually concerned in a guilty conspiracy are themselves intimidated by that conspiracy, and the difficulty has been to obtain evidence which will enable you to estabish the guilt and thereby make the punishment both certain and inevitable. Can anything be more shocking than the case which occurs to all of us, and the tragic features of which will long remain in our memory. An able and most meritorious servant of the Government, in the full light of day, in Dublin, was forcibly taken from a tramcar and murdered before crowds of people, none of whom made or dared to make any protest, and what is perhaps worse, none of whom could be found bold enough to come forward and give evidence in relation to the crime. These things, my Lords, are in process in many parts of Ireland, and the first stage in the reconquest of law and order there is undoubtedly—and I think the noble Marquess meant to suggest it—so to restore the moral of the people as to convince them that the strength of this country is able to deal with the malefactors, and the only way to deal with the malefactors is to detect them and bring them before

433
whatever tribunal may be proper in the circumstances of the case, in a manner which will make their punishment possible. The difficulties of obtaining convictions in these matters are well known to your Lordships, and need no explanation from me.
The second of the principles indicated by the noble Marquess was that the Government should make it quite plain that they would go on step by step and shrink from nothing. I think I have already attempted to show, in the observations with which I began this short speech, that it is our intention to make it plain that the force and resolution of this country are as deeply committed to carry to success our purposes in Ireland as they were deeply and inextricably committed to carry through our purposes in the late war. Plainer language than that it is impossible to use, and I use that language with the authority of all my colleagues.
The noble Marquess, in conclusion, indicated his view, and I agree with him, that it will be necessary to make it plain by every means in our power that it is our intention to protect the innocent, and that it is our determination not to abandon our friends. The observation which I have to make upon that must be made in very guarded language, because the unhappy events of the last few months have demonstrated, unfortunately, that it is not at this moment in our power in all parts of Ireland to protect the innocent from isolated assault, and that it has not always been possible to see that our friends are protected from outrage and even from murder. But the noble Marquess is far too intimately aware of the actual condition of affairs in Ireland at this moment to have expected that it would be in the power of any Minister to give an assurance which would immediately offer both immunity and protection to every friend of ours in Ireland. But this at least I can say, that no one can be more conscious than the Government—few I think can be as conscious, for few have more intimate knowledge—of the debt and obligation of gratitude and of admiration that we owe to those who have sustained their courage and maintained the cause of this country amid hostile and murderous surroundings, like those in the South of Ireland, and most notably the heroic members of the Irish Constabulary.
434
I have been asked by the noble Marquess whether it is possible for the Government to indicate the steps we propose to take I may tell your Lordships in very general words that considerable military reinforcements have already been sent. It is in preparation to send more. If the troops who are at present in Ireland and those who are now being sent prove insufficient, then more will be sent. The only limit upon the numbers of those who will be sent is the extent and the danger of the crisis as it develops from week to week and month to month, and if the existing military forces of this country are insufficient for the task we should as little hesitate to come to the population of this country and ask them to increase that force as we hesitated in the crisis of the late war. The actual details of the steps which have already been taken, or are being prepared, or are being taken, are tactical matters and relate. to the joint action of the police and the military, to the increase of mobility in the use of both forces, and the noble Marquess would be as unwilling to give undue publicity to their nature as I or any other Minister. While, therefore, I cannot give the information which has been asked, I should have entirely failed to do my duty as a Minister had I not given your Lord ships the clearest possible indication of the determination of the Government to support the Irish Executive in every possible way, and with determination, until their object, which is the restoration of law and order in Ireland, has been completely attained.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the Question of the noble Marquess has produced two very interesting speeches, but I am not sure that it has added greatly to the information gained by your Lordships during the debate which was raised by Lord Askwith a day or two ago. The noble Marquess certainly did not exaggerate the situation when he described part of Ireland as being in a condition of veiled rebellion; and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, rightly as I think, was prepared to alter that epithet into certain parts of Ireland being in a state of positive rebellion. Surely the extraordinary feature of the situation is that His Majesty's Government, rightly or wrongly, find themselves in the position of combining the military occupation of a hostile country with an attempt in that same country to introduce a scheme of

435
political reform, which is devised and designed to please as many of the inhabitants of that country as possible. That is an unprecedented position, and I do not wonder that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack reiterated the difficulties in which His Majesty's Government find themselves owing to the state of affairs in Ireland.
The gravity of the situation has more than one aspect. In the first place there is the dreadful campaign of murder and outrage, which has not been too strongly, characterised either by the noble Marquess or by the noble and learned Lord, a campaign which even to those who have known something of Irish crime in the past is such as almost to fill one with a feeling of despair, owing not merely to the multiplication of the outrages themselves, but to the apparently ever-increasing difficulty of bringing the perpetrators to justice. The noble Marquess behind me, in laying down his two canons of what it was necessary that the Government should do and giving a great deal of good advice to the learned and noble Lord on the Woolsack, spoke of the necessity of convicting criminals in Ireland. That difficulty is very much greater now than it has ever been, but it has always been a big difficulty of Irish government. When the noble Marquess speaks of the certainty of punishment I would remind him that there never has been certainty of punishment in agrarian or political crimes in Ireland. If he were to look back at the figures during what we used to call the bad times he would see that a considerable proportion of agrarian and other crimes remained permanently undetected, but there was then, as has often been observed—I do not want to dwell on the point—the possibility, and in some cases the probability, of obtaining information in many cases, of which perhaps the most notable was that of the Phœnix Park murder. Information was forthcoming then, and conviction followed. Now apparently—and, after all, it must be one of the gravest features of the situation—no such information seems to be forthcoming. That seems to exhibit a degree of intimidation which has had no parallel in the past. I cannot, however, believe that the absence of information is entirely due to intimidation, but is due more to what is in a sense more grave still—namely, that those or the greater part of those who become cognisant of the origin of certain crimes are in such general
436
sympathy with the political objects and aims of the criminals that, even though they may not be in sympathy with the crime, they are not prepared to come forward and denounce those who commit the crime. That is a very grave political situation. We shall all, I am sure, be prepared in these circumstances to extend every possible sympathy and to make every allowance to the Irish Administration for their failure, which I think was the word the noble and learned Lord used, to deal with the whole situation as it exists at present.
The noble Marquess also said that the punishment of criminals should be relentless, and he carefully limited the meaning of that expression. He did not mean that there should be cruel punishment, but that no leniency should be shown in cases of convicted criminals. That, I think, will meet with the general view of your Lordships' House. But the difficulty, of course, in dealing with persons in prison is greatly increased when a considerable proportion of those persons are arrested on suspicion—suspicion which in the minds of the authorities amounts to moral certainty, but for one reason or another is not capable of public proof. It is not easy, however strong the conviction of guilt may be in the minds of the authorities, to treat those people as though they had been convicted in a Court of Law. How far the noble Marquess was right in saying that persons had been released who had been actually found guilty I have not the information which would enable me either to deny or confirm. I did not imagine that any of those persons who were released were undergoing conviction for the perpetration of actual violent crime. Perhaps the noble Marquess knows, and will correct me if I am wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend any facts. The facts are in the knowledge of the Government. I do not think the noble and learned Lord denied that convicted criminals were released in consequence of the hunger-strike.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe there were a few cases of that kind, but the number released was relatively small in relation to the total number of hunger-strikers. I do not know how far the noble Marquess is right in saying that their release was due to the blunder of some

437
subordinate. The matter is one of some detail with which I confess I find myself unprepared to deal at the Moment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The point I wanted to make was that if the Irish Government had released people who had been actually convicted they were probably people who had been convicted of seditious speech or of something of that kind, and not people who had been concerned in murders or direct criminal offences of the most serious type. But that I can leave. That is one point of the greatest gravity, this outburst of crime.
There is also the serious fact that the Republican Party in Ireland, or the Sinn Fein Party, or whatever they may be called, have presumed to set up what they describe as a form of Provisional Government of their own. That is a complete defiance of law and order of a totally different kind from that of which we have already spoken. I am bound to say that there—and here I come into conflict, I fear, with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—they have a very bad example before them in what was threatened in regard to Ulster six years ago. It was then said that the Provisional Government which it was designed to set up in Ulster would be purely orderly in its conduct, that it would simply take the place of the then Irish Administration conducted by the Government to which I belonged, and that, far from leading to criminal action, it would carry on its affairs with full reliance on propriety and justice. That is what the Sinn Fein Government apparently professes to do in Ireland. To my mind it is a monstrous abortion, but I confess I should have said the same of the intended Provisional Government in Ulster. I do not want to labour that point or to rake up the past, more particularly as, whatever the moral results may have been, no practical results followed.
But, taking the present situation, and agreeing, of course, that the gravest feature of the Irish position is the outburst of crime, at the same time one cannot fail to emphasise the seriousness of this sweeping aside of constituted authority in favour of a totally irresponsible body of administration, which may itself at any time become actively revolutionary and criminal. At the same time, I venture to think that the
438
noble Marquess was wrong—and I am not quite sure that the noble Lord on the Woolsack did not to some extent encourage what I hold to be his error—in dividing Ireland into two bodies of people, one of whom are described by the adjective "loyal," which seems to have become rather a political than a moral term, and all the rest are presumed to be in sympathy with the Revolution. Nobody who knows anything of Ireland can believe that it is possible to make a division of that kind. What always struck me during the years when I knew Irish affairs intimately was the existence of a certain definite hostile majority, and also the existence of a considerable number, not merely confined to the North-East of Ireland, who were devotedly attached to the British connection. Equally striking was the carelessness and indifference of so many of the inhabitants of Ireland to England and everything connected with it, the complete ignorance and carelessness about English affairs, and unfortunately also, to a large extent, to Imperial affairs, but not conceived in a spirit of definite hostility or likely to lead to anything like active rebellion against the British Crown and the British Government. And therefore one cannot help believing that even now in these lurid moments there is a large block of the Irish population which can be turned into a better way, that it is wrong to put down as an active Republican and as a potential rebel every man who is not anxious to sing "God Save the King" in public. There is, and there always has been, that large body in Ireland who have been brought into hostility to the British Government over the Church, or over the land, or over whatever the main question of the moment may be, but who are not to be regarded as being of the same kidney as those leaders of revolution and rebellion, even though—as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack deplored in terms with which we shall all agree—in cases of the commission of crime they are not prepared to come forward and denounce those whom they regard as lovers of their country and more or less in some sense or another as the apostles of freedom.
One could see that the determination, expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the Government would not in any sense weaken in their task so long as the condition of Ireland remained anything like what it is at present, received the approbation of the

439
House. It is quite true that for any Government to speak of weakening when it is a question of putting down crime and outrage is altogether an impossibility. Those who know Sir Nevil Macready are assured that he will bring to bear to his task a steady mind and the results of the remarkable experience which, as an administrator, as a soldier, and as a Chief of Police, he has had. I think that no better selection could have been made.
I cannot sit down without adding my humble testimony to what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said with regard to the Irish Constabulary. I was most proud as Lord Lieutenant to be in supreme control over that splendid force. It would be impossible to exaggerate what they have gone through in the last few years; nor, I think, is it possible to overestimate their courage and loyalty and steadiness. So far as they can be supported in the exercise of their semi-military duties on the military side by the employment of troops, I believe it will be all to the good. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the country will not grudge the employment of soldiers for that purpose. It is, of course, a lamentable necessity; because, to go back to what I said at first, it is hateful that a part of the United Kingdom should be the subject of a definite military occupation, though for the time being it may be a necessity. But the sooner the political aims of His Majesty's Government—amended as they may be in the course of the progress of their measure through both Houses of Parliament—can be brought into definite being, the more hope there Will be of a relief from the present almost intolerable condition of affairs.

PROFITEERING (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I am told that I have exhausted my right to speak on the Second. Reading of this Bill, but your Lordships raised yesterday certain questions to which you wished a rather fuller answer than I then gave. I am ready to deal with those points, but I do not know whether I have the leave of your Lordships to do so.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Two main points were raised. The first was brought up by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, when he asked what were the objections to postponing this Bill until after Whitsuntide, because there was a provision in it that when it became law the existing Act—which I think expired at midnight last night—will, as it were, be carried, on to fill the gap. I think I ought to deal with that point. I should like to say first of all that the provision was inserted in order to meet any short interval that might possibly elapse between the two Bills, but it was never contemplated by the Government that this gap would be anything like the fourteen or eighteen days it might be before the Act came into operation. That is a far wider area than they ever imagined.
If the amending Bill does not become law before the recess, certain things may happen. In the first place, expenditure will be incurred that would not otherwise have been necessary. It should be remembered that as far as the administration of the Profiteering Acts is concerned—I am speaking of retail sales—the work has been delegated to Profiteering Committees, some 1,800 in number, who are appointed by the local authorities all over the country. The expenses of those committees are defrayed out of the local rates in accordance with Clause 7 of the principal Act. At midnight on May 18 the principal Act lapsed, and the result is that until the amending Act comes into force these local committees will not only have no jurisdiction to deal with any case of profiteering but they will also have no right whatever to incur any expenditure on the administration of the Act of Parliament which has ceased to exist.
I do not know that it is a very popular or a very pleasant thing to sit on these committees, but the result will probably be that many members of those bodies will resign, and when the amending Act comes into operation it will be necessary to go through all the machinery of re-appointing the committees, which will mean additional expense. This applies also to the work of the Central Committee; because during this hiatus between the death of the one Act and the birth of the other—or the possible birth of the other—this Central Committee will have no power whatever to pursue its investigations. The activities of the Central Committee through its sub-

441
committees is very great. I am informed that it has held something like 300 meetings during the last six months, and among the many valuable and useful investigations it is carrying out is one into the cost of building material. Your Lordships know very well the immense importance of dealing immediately with that matter—certainly my noble friend beside me (Lord Astor) does—and I think this is an additional reason why it would be a pity to put a stop to the acitivites of those committees. They would have no right, of course, to summon any witnesses before them; and any witness would have the right to refuse to obey the orders of those tribunals.
The noble Marquess may say that they could still function because they might take the chance of your Lordships passing this measure afterwards to justify what they have done. But their position would be a rather dangerous one, because they certainly would have no power to incur expenditure. Again, there are plenty of people who are ready to flout these committees, because the Profiteering Act is very unpopular in some quarters. As a matter of fact, on arriving at the House this afternoon I received a bulky telegram urging me strongly to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. It may not surprise your Lordships to know that I do not intend to follow that advice; but there is no doubt that a good deal of hostility exists in many quarters against this Bill, and I think that fact would be largely taken advantage of if there is this contemplated big gap between the death of the principal Act and the birth of the amending Act.
My noble friend Lord Askwith raised a further point, and he was supported by other noble Lords, on the financial positions of the Bill. The principal Act, which came into operation on August 19, 1919, provided that the expenses of the Board of Trade under that measure should not exceed £75,000—subject, of course, to the approval of the Treasury—to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. The principal Act was to remain in force for a period of six months only, during which time the Board of Trade were authorised to spend this sum of £75,000. The policy of the Board of Trade has been to administer this Act with the greatest possible economy compatible with efficiency. During seven and a half months they expended only £17,000 out of the £75,000 which Parliament had authorised.
442
In regard to the estimate for this year of £120,000 there are those who have contended that it is excessive, and I should like to all you Lordships' attention to one or two points which I think I should plead anyhow in mitigation of sentence. The first is that there was very little expenditure during the first month and a half or two months, because the machinery and so on had not been brought fully into operation. Therefore, you must not judge the possible expenditure under the Act by what was spent in the first few months. Further, during the seven and a half months in which the Act has been in operation the Board have not been called upon to meet any legal expenses of a heavy nature in connection with large prosecutions. It by no means follows because that has been their fortunate experience during the past seven or eight months, that they will be so fortunate in the next twelve months, especially—and may I remind your Lordships of this—especially because the Board is under a statutory obligation to obtain information about trusts and combines.
Clause 1 of the Amending Bill contemplates the promotion of schemes limiting the profit to be allowed on the manufacture and distribution of articles or classes of articles at any stage of manufacture or production, and such schemes are going to have the approval of the Board of Trade. It is obvious that if these schemes are approved and the traders are let alone—and one hopes they may be let alone—in that way there will be much less work for the officials of the Board of Trade to do when such schemes have been set up; but it is quite obvious that the setting up and approving of schemes will cost a certain amount of money, because the schemes must be examined and enquired into to see that the prices to be charged are proper prices and that the accounts for costs and so on are properly made up. For this purpose it will be necessary to employ not officials—and it is, I think, rather the permanence of the permanent officials to which your Lordships' object—it will be necessary to employ expert accountants who will be called in to do the work. Once the work is done the work is over and it will not be necessary to do it again, but it is, I suggest, not permanent, but temporary, work.
I think your Lordships will also take into account that all this money, this

443
maximum of £120,000, or whatever amount is spent on these matters, is not spent on officials. Let me make that quite plain. It is not spent on those permanent officials to whom sonic of your Lordships (but I am sure not my noble friend opposite) take exception. The expenses of the Board of Trade in administering the Profiteering Act include not only the work of the Board of Trade but also the expenses of the Central Committee and the Appeal Tribunals. These Appeal Tribunals are 106 in number, being established, of course, all over the country to hear appeals from the 1,800 primary tribunals. If your Lordships are apt to think that £120,000 is a large sum it must be understood that it does not mean in the least that, with this expenditure before them, the Board of Trade intend to depart by one jot or tittle from the careful and economic way in which they have hitherto administered the Act.
I can give your Lordships that assurance and I hope that what I have been able to say about the cost of the administration of the Act may so far satisfy your Lordships that the sum asked for in respect of the ensuing year is really not excessive, considering the obligations which may come upon the Board of Trade and the wide range of expenditure which may have to be met. There was a third point raised by my noble friend Lord Midleton. His general point was this, "Supposing you are going to limit, profits in this country, will not everything tend to be exported and will there be enough in this country to meet the requirements of the population?" On that point it would be improper for me to give any answer at this stage because my noble friend has put down an Amendment, and it is more in accordance with the usage of the House to deal with that Amendment when I come to it on the Paper.
LORD ASKWITH: Am I to understand that the noble Viscount can also give an assurance that supposing something is saved out of this £120,000 it would not be used by the Board of Trade as savings of the Board of Trade and transferred to the excess expenditure of another Department?
VISCOUNT PEEL: That would be a very just question to ask in another place, but I do not think that here, where we do not deal with questions of finance, I could
444
answer it. Of course, I could not give an answer off-hand, and I do not think I should be in a position to give an assurance that expenditure saved under a particular head would not be transferred to another head. I hardly think I should be able to do so and, if I did, I am not sure that the assurance would be worth very much.
LORD ASKWITH: It is not much use saving if the money saved is to go to the enormous expenditure which is now being incurred by the Board of Trade upon various things throughout the country. I should have thought, in view of the fact that £17,500 was spent in six or nine months, that £120,000, which is £100,000 more, is a rather lavish estimate. One knows that accountants and auditors of big companies can be got for reasonable sums.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am not sure that I have not also exhausted my right to speak, but perhaps, by the indulgence of your Lordships, I may assure the noble Viscount that I have no desire to interfere with the passage of the Bill in Committee, and I think other noble Lords on this Bench take the same view. When I spoke of the possibility of the further consideration of the Bill being adjourned until after the recess, I confess I did take the view that in practice nothing adverse to the future progress of the Bill would be likely to happen, and that, having regard to its retrospective character, nobody, during the brief interval of a week or two, would be likely to take advantage of the fact that the former Act was not actually in operation; but I frankly say that the noble Viscount has made out, particularly from the point of view of public expenditure, a good case for hurrying on this measure, and certainly I have no desire whatever to obstruct it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON had an Amendment on the paper to insert in Clause I the following new subsection after subsection(2)—
"(3) It shall be permissible to the Board of Trade to provide in the case of any articles or classes of articles on which a limit of profit is fixed that an adequate supply is secured to the home market."
The noble Earl said: It has been pointed out to me that the Amendment on the Paper, hurriedly drafted, was calculated only to apply to Clause I of the Bill, whereas the intention was that it should apply generally and not merely to the cases dealt with by that particular clause. Therefore I do not move my Amendment to Clause 1. I now move, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause—
"( ) In fixing maximum prices or declaring a price which would, yield a reasonable profit, or approving a scheme for the limitation of profits for any article or class of articles, the Board of Trade shall have regard to the necessity of securing an adequate supply to the home market of the article or class of articles, and may if they think fit by Order, to take effect as an Order made under Section 1 of the principal Act, make such provisions as in the opinion of the Board of Trade are necessary to secure such supplies as aforesaid."
I assure the Government that this Amendment is not brought forward in any way with a desire to limit the Bill but to enable the principle of the Bill to be more clearly established. The only objection I can see is that it may be urged that it causes still more interference with traders than the Bill of last year and the Bill now before your Lordships' House. I explained the object of the Amendment last night, but perhaps I may be allowed briefly to explain it again.
In the Act of 1919 the intention of the Government was to try to limit undue profits on particular classes of articles. From the speech of the noble Viscount I did not gather that they had so far dealt with large classes of articles. They have dealt through a great number of committees with articles of general consumption, chiefly food, but there are large classes of articles which remain, articles of general use in this country, the prices of which have gone up by leaps and bounds since the Profiteering Act was passed last year. The. question is, How can the Government check this progress? The difficulty, of course, is that the whole world is hungering for these articles, and if traders are denied a market in this
446
country they seek and obtain it abroad, and at prices which are almost prohibitive. If the Government takes any class of articles, unlike food which to a large extent must be dealt with in this country, and says that manufacturers must lower their prices by one-third, the manufacturer is able, as soon as he has fulfilled his existing contracts, to fill contracts for months and possibly years to come at equally good prices, or higher prices, abroad, and the only result of fixing prices in such cases is to cause a shortage in this country.
There are two objections which I apprehend will be raised by the Government to the Amendment. One will be that they have not found this difficulty in a serious form up to the present. That is very obvious. Since the Armistice there has been a great shortage of sea transport, but that shortage is every day disappearing. Indeed freights have, in some instances, fallen considerably, and the alternative which was not open to the manufacturer eight or ten months ago is not only more open now but will be the natural and legitimate alternative in a few months' time.
The second objection will no doubt be that any check on exports must lengthen the period during which our exchange is righting itself with foreign countries. Perhaps I might be allowed to examine that objection for a moment. Take the case of the United States. I have seen it stated in trade journals of that country that the United States would be willing to take the whole of the linen production of Belfast if Belfast would only enter into an agreement to send abroad the greater part of that export. Unquestionably so far as our exchange is concerned that would be a most admirable operation for our trade. But from the point of view of prices and of wages, which are constantly chasing each other in a mad struggle from which the workman receives the minimum of profit and by which the period of reconstruction and contentment is immeasurably extended, if you allow a large portion of the linen, woollen, or cotton trade to go abroad you are doing the most serious damage and. increasing the unrest in this country.
I would ask the Government not to take powers forcing them to limit exports, but to take powers in the case of staple commodities for which there is a great market here and outside, and lay it down that to whatever proportion of that commodity there is a real need in this country the price

447
should apply, and should apply on condition that the manufacturer sells that portion of his production in this country. There are statistics which make it perfectly easy to decide what portion should be exported and what portion should be reserved for use in this country, and I consider that to pass this Bill without such a power in the hands of the Government may make it, as the last one has been, almost totally inoperative in some classes of production.
There is nothing more serious at this moment than the pace at which prices are rising for commodities which must be obtained. They are absolutely nullifying all the increase of wages, increases which themselves are making food and other articles scarcer every day and more costly. I cannot imagine anything which will more rapidly increase contentment and still the unrest among the wage-earning classes than if we showed them before the end of this year that a term has been placed on these continuous advances, that prices are beginning to fall, and that those who have had the great advantage out of the fortune of the war are contributing their fair share to filling the markets at home.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, after Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—( The Earl of Midleton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl has raised a very difficult point. Necessarily, I was going to say, in theory at any rate, if there is a tremendous demand for goods outside this country or for a certain class of goods, at high prices, and you limit prices in this country, there is a great danger that the goods will be sent into the most profitable market. That is an obvious proposition, and a very important one too. I would only say that in his Amendment first of all—because this is an important distinction—the noble Earl deals with the settling of maximum prices. The Bill dose not deal with the question of maximum prices at all, but only with the question of profits. The cost of production, of course, is taken into consideration, and a fair profit on that allowed. That is a different thing from saying that the price shall be less than a certain amount without considering the cost of production. I think your Lordships will also agree in this. Everybody lays stress upon the necessity for increased production, and therefore
448
anything which might militate against production and the progressive pace of production would be dangerous and should be avoided. It is obviously important that the least difficulty should be placed in the way of trade, especially at this time, and therefore we have to consider even in this Bill how much damage it may do to the reviving trade of the country.
Before I examine the particular proposal made by the noble Earl, I should like to say a word upon his criticism of what the Board of Trade is proposing and what is being done, because he desired rather to anticipate, I think, any possible points that I might urge in favour of the Government's proposal by dealing with them himself beforehand. There were two points on which he dwelt. The first was that if it had not yet been found a danger, it was theoretically a danger. His point was that this might become a real danger because of the question of transport. His second point was as to the effect upon exchange, and he tried to counter the important effect upon exchange which exports might have by drawing a terrible picture of what might happen in certain cases; for instance, the whole of the linen trade of Belfast being swept up in one enormous shipment into the American market. Everybody must admit, of course, that it is true that that danger does exist, and that it would exist to a far greater extent than at present if the principle were to obtain, or the practice were to obtain, that the Board of Trade should fix these maximum prices. I have shown, however, that it is profits and not prices with which the Board of Trade is dealing.
I must, in spite of the noble Earl's contention, urge that in the past certainly and up to the present this grave danger which he has suggested has not taken place, and whether it is necessary for the moment to take into account dangers which have not taken place yet, but which may take place, it is for your Lordships to determine. For instance, we were assured some months ago that we were going to have a tremendous drop in shipping freights. That did not take place, and therefore this present state of things may be prolonged, and I am afraid it will be for a much longer period than the noble Earl suggests. I think also, if the noble Earl will look at the particular provisions of the Bill, he will see what an effort has been made by the Government to meet

449
that particular difficulty, because, as I explained on the Second Reading of the Bill, these schemes for the limitation of profits are made as far as possible in combination and in consultation with the trades themselves, and the trades themselves in fixing these prices of course have regard to the questions of the home market. The noble Earl talked rather in a light way of sending all your products suddenly into a new market, but that is not the usual process of many of these trades. These traders have for years built up their trade in particular quarters and through particular channels in this country, and they do not want to lose those channels in order to get larger profits, perhaps, in a wider market. I think the noble Earl rather exaggerates the facility with which traders can change their markets.
Let me put this one point on the question of exchange, which I think to some extent the noble Earl slurred over. It must be the case, if you are going to prevent many classes of goods being exported from this country, that you must retard the recovery of exchange and suffer in your purchases in other countries, and suffer severely. This Amendment is much more far-reaching, far more expensive, far more productive of interference with trade, and sets up larger masses of officials than anything which the Government ever proposed. In fact I was astounded to hear that objection was taken to the hundred thousand pounds to be spent on this Bill, when it is difficult to overestimate the far greater numbers of officials and the much greater expense which must be involved under the proposal of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Under the present Government.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Under any Government at all. In fact, the little finger of the noble Earl is much thicker than the loins of the Government. Let me try to establish that particular proposition. First of all, the noble Earl reposes an exceedingly generous confidence in the Board of Trade, because in order to keep down prices and to ensure a sufficient supply of materials in this country the Board is to be able to take any steps that it may think necessary. I do not wish to be too critical of the words of the Amendment, but the noble Earl has so much confidence in the Board of Trade that he is prepared to give absolute carte
450
blanche to that Department to deal with this subject in any way it chooses. I know that your Lordships have great confidence in the Board of Trade, but unfortunately I doubt whether in another place, looking at it as a practical question, they will be prepared to give such unlimited confidence to the Board of Trade as the noble Earl.
What is involved? I must point out that in the Government Bill itself, in fixing the profits, regard is to be had to the supply of ordinary commodities in the United Kingdom. But the first thing that must be done under the Amendment is to restrict exports. As we know, in view of the exchange, in view of the growth of trade, and in view of the necessity for increased production, that is first of all a very dangerous and a very difficult thing to do at this stage of affairs. Moreover, how are you to restrict trade? You can only do it by setting up control over the whole of an article. It is obvious, before you can restrict trade, that you must know exactly the number of articles which should be retained in this country, and you must know precisely how much production there is at any particular time and at all times. And to do that you must, I suppose, set up your system of licences which has been a good deal criticised by my noble friend, and set up also this machinery for control over all these articles. And my Lords, you would have to do it at the very time when the Government is doing its best to free the country from this system of control. The noble Earl's case, in practice, leans in favour of the re-establishment of all this system of control. And at what expense? And who is to carry this out? This hundred thousand pounds is a mere bagatelle compared with the expenditure which would be incurred if this were done.
Your Lordships are quite familiar with what was done in the case of Coal Control. In that case the price was fixed in the country both for industrial and household coal, while exporters made very large profits. Obviously it was monstrous that some persons should be allowed to export their coal at a very large profit, and that others should have to sell it in this country barely at the cost of production. The result is that there has to be a pool—a sharing between exporters and those who sold at home. So that not only would the Board of Trade, without coming to

451
Parliament, be able to control exports, but it would also have to set up this great machinery of controls over again, and have a system in all these different trades and commodities for sharing all the profits, as was done in the case of the coal trade, the policy in regard to which was so vigorously denounced by noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl, in making such a proposition, has raised a very difficult point, and I ask him whether he has fully considered the consequences of what he advocates. I am afraid that the remedy that he suggests would be far worse than the disease. If any such set of circumstances as he foreshadows were to take place the Government no doubt would have to deal with it. I hope he will not urge us, and I hope your Lordships will not urge us, to spend, on the hypothesis indicated, so large a sum of money in setting up all these permanent officials.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, we are in a difficult position this afternoon, because the new clause which has been moved is one which we have only heard read from the Table. I understand that it differs in form from the actual Amendment upon the Paper. The Amendment upon the Paper refers only to Clause 1, and in regard to the articles and the schemes dealt with under Clause 1 it might have been possible to make an arrangement with manufacturers to see that an adequate supply was kept for the home market; but if, as I understand is now intended, the new clause is applied to all articles, then I am afraid it will be very difficult to carry out.
Although I have the utmost sympathy with the motives by which the noble Lord opposite is actuated in moving this clause, I think that in carrying out any such proposal as is here suggested an enormous amount of control and interference is absolutely inevitable. To carry it out effectually—I must say that here I agree with the noble Viscount who speaks for the Government—would mean a huge army of officials. Furthermore, I think in regard to many trades it might not be a practicable proposition. I happen to know most about the cotton trade, and if I may give an instance from that trade to show how difficult such a clause as this would be to carry out I should like to be allowed to do so. Cotton cloth is for the most part bought from manufacturers by merchants. Those mer-
452
chants often have the goods finished, and then they use them indiscriminately either in the home market or in the foreign market, for there are many goods which are sold both in the home and in the foreign market in precisely the same form. In a case like that I think that it would be almost impossible to carry out such a clause as this.
There is no reason from the point of view of the country why the utmost possible price should not be obtained for cotton goods that are sent abroad. It is clearly to our interests in every way, from the point of view of the exchange and from every other point of view, to obtain the highest price we can. I regret incidentally that the profits in the trade have been so high, for that brings other dangers in its train which I very much deplore. But there tine facts are, and it would be simply folly on our part not to take any price that we can obtain from overseas for the cotton goods which we make in such large quantities in this country. And I do not see how it would be practicable, when goods have left the hands of the manufacturer—and the manufacturer has only one price for them—and have gone into the merchant's hands, to discriminate between goods which even the merchant himself might not know when he bought them whether he was going to use in the home trade or the foreign market. I must say that I think this proposal is not a very practicable one.
I am not sufficiently acquainted with the question of transport by sea to know what the facts are about outward cargoes, but I do not think outward cargoes have been so short as the noble Earl suggested. It is the inward cargoes for which we have been short of shipping rather than the outward cargoes since our coal exports have been so much diminished. Finally, I think this proposal must have a serious effect upon exchange. It is entirely contrary to the advice which has been pressed upon traders by the Government that they should run the home markets as short of goods as possible in order that goods may be sent abroad to improve our exchange. In regard to the question of prices and wages chasing each other, of course that is a phenomenon with which we are all too familiar, and for which there does not seem any very short and simple remedy. I am sorry that I cannot support this proposal, for it seems to me

453
so impracticable that I am quite unable to do so.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Before the Amendment is put I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he thinks that his eloquent exposition of all the dangers which attend this comparatively innocuous Amendment are really justified by the facts of the case. The noble Viscount speaks as if the Government has not got power. But we know that wide powers are possessed by a number of Departments, and that those powers have been exercised without the slightest restraint for several years past. A Department, for instance, has had the power under the Defence of the Realm Act of putting on duties which this country has never yet in detail practised. Duties have been put on imports which the Department thought for one reason or another undesirable. At this moment a thirty-three per cent. ad valorem duty is being levied on goods coming from abroad, for which the. Government. are taking every bit as much responsibility as they are in regard to anything contained in this Amendment.
Then, again, the noble Viscount was extremely eloquent about the necessity of not stopping exports. Only yesterday he passed a Bill through this House—or some member of the Government passed a Bill through this House—for stopping the export of all sorts of fertilisers, the export of which is entirely prohibited. There are a number of other exports which at this moment are prohibited. I should like to ask him a plain question. The whole object of this Amendment is to male the Bill clearer. The noble Viscount has spoken to your Lordships five times—not too many—in the course of the last few days on the subject of the desirability of this Bill as it stands. Can he tell me of any of these staple commodities of which the price has been reduced in the least by the Profiteering Act of last Session? Why does not he tell us—not that this provision might be used in such a way as to create a very large staff, if the Government were, as I think, unwise enough to do anything of the kind, or that the Government would have enormous power to draw upon the public purse in order to create another of these huge bureaucracies with which we are so familiar—why does not he tell us that there is no necessity for such action because they are able to provide against
454
the danger which we anticipate if this Amendment is not passed. Will he get up and tell us of any commodity in which the action of the Profiteering Act has been such that it has reduced the price, or kept it to anything like a normal figure? I put that as a challenge, and I think, before we decide the Amendment, he ought to be good enough to deal with it.
As regards the general scope of the question the mere fact that the noble Viscount hopes, under Clause 1 of the Bill, to use associations of trades themselves for a number of other purposes makes it obvious that he can use them also for this purpose. But if he desires that we should proceed no further with this Amendment I hope he will, at all events, give us some means of judging how far the Government without such powers are likely to be able to deal with great emergencies.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl asks me a very difficult hypothetical question. He asks me how far prices of staple commodities have been reduced by the action of the Profiteering Act during the last six months. Every one knows that with the shortage of commodities and with all the difficulties we are familiar with, and the rise in wages, and so on, these prices are rising. I should like to ask him this question. How far have these prices been prevented from rising, rather than falling, by the provisions of the Profiteering Act? It really is most unreasonable, when we know that all prices must inevitably be rising through the rise in wages, to ask "In what staple trade have you by your Act caused them to fall?" The noble Earl knows much better than I do the answer to Ns question on that point.
There was another point, too, which he raised, and that was that you can already—you have been dealing with restrictions of import, and so on, under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations. But surely the noble Earl knows that those provisions come to an end about August, and I must say I am surprised to hear from the noble Earl that he is openly advocating the extension of the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations. I am afraid those Defence of the Realm Act Regulations are having a very short shrift in the other House. I may even say that some of their legality has been challenged, and that a Bill called the Indemnity Bill is now under consideration in another place

455
to try and justify and give an indemnity for actions taken under those provisions. I hope your Lordships do not wish to go back to the procedure during the war and to inflict again on this country all the difficulties and trouble under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations.
LORD ASKWITH: I think the noble Viscount is accusing the noble Earl of certain charges as to what he wants which are very different from what the noble Earl is apparently aiming at. What the noble Earl is aiming at appears to be the very serious difficulty of the cost of living in this country. That is what he would like to see reduced, and that is what the country would like to see reduced. He now fears, if this maximum price is put on in this country, that merchants or manufacturers will sell all their goods to foreign countries if those countries can give them either other goods or credit in return or if they recover their position in such a way that they can buy. This country would be swept of those goods, and people would not be able to get goods, which would not be on the market or, at any rate, they would not be put upon sale at the price which was proposed. That, I understand was his point, and it seems to me a very important one.
This is a most difficult subject, and a subject introduced at forty-eight hours' notice. I do not think it can possibly be tackled by an Amendment of this one Bill, but I would suggest to the noble Earl that he should reserve to himself the right of introducing—and this House should consider very carefully the responsibility—of an amending Bill, if such a result occurs in any of the staple necessaries. It can very easily occur, and in certain countries during the war export was stopped. Denmark stopped the export of eggs and butter in order that her own people might have sufficient. And when there is an enormous demand throughout the world for such things as cotton and woollen goods manufactured in England it is quite possible there might be a shortage of clothing, and it is quite possible there might be a shortage of other goods.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I venture to congratulate your Lordships on having adjourned the debate last night, because we have had the opportunity of hearing an excellent speech from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill which, I
456
think, he was not in a position to deliver yesterday. He has evidently taken to heart the observations of your Lordships, and has made himself acquainted with the difficulties of this subject and has delivered to us a very interesting speech showing all the objections which there are—necessarily are—to this restrictive legislation. Of course, no one would defend a check upon exports per se. The question is how far must you go if you start once upon this road of restrictions. Some sort of Profiteering Bill was no doubt necessary, but the one thing we seem not to have obtained from the Government is a defence of the profiteering policy, as they conceive it. None of us is in favour of profiteering, but we are not particularly lost in admiration of the methods which the Government have taken to restrict profiteering. Not only has the noble Viscount delivered a very interesting speech, but also he has delivered some excellent sentiments about the iniquities of bureaucracy, and of control, and of all the things which His Majesty's Government do.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was the noble Earl's bureaucracy I was criticising.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, it was quite general in terms. I am sure the noble Viscount will not think I am going too far if I remind him of a little proverb about Satan reproving sin. But the real point is that, though my noble friend has made his point absolutely clear to your Lordships, the Government have not made their reply clear. The noble Viscount said that when the occasion arises the Government will no doubt have to deal with it. That is a concession. I take that to be an announcement, on behalf of the Government, that if, in fact, in the working of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, there is an undue shortage of supply in the home market, the Government will feel it necessary to take legislative action. I am not, of course, wishing to interpret it too rigidly, but there is evidently a limit past which the restriction of supply cannot be allowed to go, and this the noble Viscount has recognised. It is a distinct achievement on the part of my noble friend that he has elicited that assurance from the Government. Personally I should be content to rest upon that. I recognise to the full the difficulties of the system which is proposed. I was very much impressed not only by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, who

457
speaks with great authority, but also by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Peel. I do not wish to restrict exports unduly, and I know how necessary it is to maintain the exchange; but I think that the Government ought to face the possibility, even the probability, of the event taking place which my noble friend has suggested—namely, that there will be a shortage of supply, and I hope they are considering what course they should take in that event. That appears to me to be the result of a useful debate and of the action of your Lordships yesterday.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: After the discussion which has taken place I shall not press the Amendment. I hope, however, that the noble Viscount realises that no one in this House objects more than I do to the necessity for this control, and that no one is more anxious than I am to maintain the foreign exchanges; but I am afraid that under this Bill the Government will concentrate too much on comparatively small and irritating restrictions and will prove, as in the past, faint-hearted in dealing with what is developing into a most serious evil.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Amendments to section I of principal Act.
2.—(1) Section one of the principal Act shall extend to hire purchase transactions and to the letting on hire of articles and offering to let, articles on hire in like manner as it applies to the sale and offering for sale of articles, and the expressions "sale," "seller" and "price" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) The Board of Trade may, by order, extend section one of the principal Act to any process of manufacture, or the repairing, altering, dyeing, cleaning, washing or otherwise treating of any articles mentioned in the order and processes incidental thereto, or after consultation with the Minister of Transport to any form of road transport, subject to such modification as may be necessary to adapt the provisions of that section thereto.
(3) For the proviso to subsection (2) of section one of the principal Act, the following proviso shall be substituted:—
"Provided that the profit sought or obtained shall not for the purposes of this section be deemed to be unreasonable—

"(a) in the case of a seller who was in the same way of business before the war, if the percentage rate of profit sought or obtained does not exceed the rate of net profit obtained by him upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions, due consideration being given to the relative expenses of carrying on the business; and

458

"(b) in the ease of a seller who was not in the same way of business before the war, if the percentage rate of profit sought or obtained by him does not exceed the average percentage rate of profit obtained by sellers in that way of business in the same locality on the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions, due consideration being given to the relative expenses of carrying on the business."

The said proviso shall not apply in any case where the profit in respect of any transaction has been fixed by a scheme approved by the Board of Trade under this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in any other Act a prosecution for an offence under subsection (2) of section one of the principal Act may be instituted at any time within one year after the commission of the offence, except where the act constituting the offence is a sale by retail.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "rate of net profit" and to insert "percentage rate of profit." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is purely drafting, and consequential upon some mistake in the other House.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("rate of net profit") arid insert ("percentage rate of profit").—( Viscount Peel.)
LORD EMMOTT: May I ask whether the noble Viscount can explain to me on what principle it is intended that the purpose of this paragraph should be carried out. Is the profit reckoned on the cost of the article?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is reckoned on the cost of the article, I understand, taking into consideration also all the relative expenses of carrying on the business.
LORD EMMOTT: Therefore it is not reckoned upon the profit he is making but upon the cost of the article, whether he is making a reasonable or an unreasonable profit on the article?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("under pre-war conditions") and insert ("before the war").— (Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My third Amendment is very nearly drafting. It is merely to make perfectly certain that such matters as the Excess Profits Tax and the Corporation Tax, and so on, can be taken into account. It was rather doubtful whether that would be done if the word "expenses" remained in—that there might be too narrow an interpretation of the words.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("expenses") and insert ("costs and charges").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is to make it equally fair whatever the district is in which the business is being carried on.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("in the same locality") and insert ("under similar conditions").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("under prewar conditions") and insert ("before the war")
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("expenses") and insert ("costs and charges").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Interpretation of s. 2 (b) of the principal Act.
3. For removing doubts, it is hereby declared that a person shall not be deemed to be a trade competitor within the meaning of proviso (b) to subsection (2) of section two of the principal Act of a person against whom a complaint is lodged by reason only that he is a member of a co-operative society which carries on a business of the same class or description as is carried on by that person, if he does not take part in the management of and is not a paid official of the co-operative society.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH LORD SOUTHBOROUGH moved, after "society" where that word first occurs, to insert "or a shareholder in a company." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see upon the Paper three Amendments to this clause and it is with the first that I am now dealing. The argument upon them is short and simple. The noble Viscount, when moving the Second Reading, referred to the committees which were established in different parts of the
460
country for the purpose of giving effect to the machinery of the Bill other than those provisions of it dealing particularly with prices. The main point of difficulty which has arisen is that whereas it was laid down that a competitor in trade must not be upon the tribunal which dealt with the case of a person charged with profiteering, some doubt has occurred as to the interpretation which can properly be put upon the term "trade competitor." The object not only of this Amendment but of the two succeeding ones is to make it quite plain that the definition of "trade competitor" shall be widened so that a shareholder of a company or a co-operator paid or unpaid shall not be excluded from sitting on the tribunal provided be takes no part in the management.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 3, line 2, at end insert ("or a shareholder in a company").—(Lord Southborough.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a perfectly fair Amendment. The provision is, of course, to apply only to officers of the company.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH: The other two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("a paid") and insert ("an")
Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("or company").—(Lord Southborough.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Minor amendments of principal Act.
4. The provisions of the principal Act specified in the first column of the schedule to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments (being amendments of a minor character) specified in the second column of that schedule.
LORD ASKWTH LORD ASKWTH moved to leave out "(being amendments of a minor character)." The noble Lord said: The amendments must surely stand by themselves. It is the opinion of a draftsman outside that they are of a minor character, but I have heard that in the Schedules of some Acts of Parliament you find things which might be very important to the trader, or factory, but which are thought by the draftsman to be of a minor character. I

461
am not sure that even in this Schedule there is not one. The word to which I particularly object is "minor."
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out ("(being amendments of a minor character)").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: These words were inserted by the draftsman because these Amendments were of a minor character.
LORD ASKWITH: In his opinion.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; and, I may add, in the opinion of those who have scanned them. But I see the objection to the principle, that it may be much more difficult for those who are construing these Acts, or who suffer from them, and their attention may not be so much called to Amendments if they are placed in that particular part of the Bill. May I suggest to the noble Lord that he might substitute such a word as "miscellaneous" which would not have the invidious meaning of "minor," and which would avoid the difficulty he has raised?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I see no reason why the brackets should not be left out altogether; they have no enacting power. The words would not mislead the Lord Chief Justice—I see that he agrees entirely with what I say—but they may mislead any layman who read the Act. He would think "I need not bother about the Schedule; that is only a minor matter." We had better avoid expressions of opinion in an Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I agree that it is impossible to deceive the Lord Chief Justice. I understood that my noble friend who moved the Amendment said that my suggestion would meet his point.
LORD ASKWITH: I thought it was a word which would go far to meet my point. I understood he suggested the word "miscellaneous."
THE EARL OF READING: Would the noble Viscount tell me the object of putting in words of this character which have no enacting effect? You must turn to the Schedule to see what are the particular cases or amendments dealt with. It is stated that you turn to the Schedule, and therefore there does not seem to be any object in retaining these words. It does no harm to leave them out.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have had a very great deal of high legal advice since I had the opportunity of speaking on the Amendment, and I will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Investigation as to proprietary articles.
7. Nothing in this Act or in the principal Act shall (in its application to a proprietary article hereinafter defined) require particulars of any secret process of preparation, or of the ingredients used in the composition of such article to be furnished: but the Board of Trade shall be entitled to require that the cost of any such article (exclusive of overhead charges) shall be furnished by the proprietor under the certificate of a duly qualified chartered accountant verified by statutory declaration. The accountant by whom the certificate is to be given shall be approved by the Board of Trade.
A "proprietary article" shall be deemed to be any article, the exclusive property of any individual, or company, or firm, the composition of which is secret or in the preparation of which secret processes of manufacture are employed.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had Amendments on the Paper altering Clause 7 to read as follows—
7. Nothing in this Act or in the principal Act shall require particulars of any secret process of preparation, or of the ingredients used in the composition of any article by such process to be furnished; but the Board of Trade shall be entitled to require that the cost of any such article (exclusive of overhead charges) shall be furnished by the owner or owners under the certificate of a duly qualified chartered accountant verified by statutory declaration. The accountant by whom the certificate is to be given shall be approved by the Board of Trade.
The noble Lord said: The decision of your Lordships with regard to the first Amendment in my name will decide all the rest, and also the question whether the Government prefer the wording of my Amendment or that of a new clause which my noble friend Lord Southborough proposes. I am inclined to think that Lord South-borough's clause is a little better than mine, particularly in regard to his description of the officer who is to give this certificate. I attempted to deal with the Government's own wording, but I think Lord Southborough's is better.
My first Amendment is to leave out the words "in its application to a proprietary article hereinafter defined." This clause, as at present drafted, provides that secrecy

463
should be kept with regard to proprietary articles and goes on to define proprietary articles. There is very considerable objection to this form of words and this definition "proprietary article" has come to mean something like" quack medicine." It is a phrase that is not applied to a great many trades. It is most unreasonable that, under the Profiteering Act, secrets of processes and preparations should be obtained, when the desired effect can be secured by knowing the cost of the whole thing. It is quite possible that that can be done.
If this Bill becomes better known I am perfectly certain there will be a great deal more excitement about this and the risk of the possibility of processes in the iron and steel trade becoming known. I have heard of one instance in connection with cement. There is also the possibility in regard to other articles which are in common use among the people and are really, with some people, almost necessary, such as custard power, Worcester sauce or, to mention another sauce on which in order to keep its secret hundreds of thousands of pounds years ago were spent in litigation, Yorkshire Relish. I have heard of the cases of particular classes of lens for spectacles which have been found out partly during the war and which are secret processes which it is most undesirable should become known. As the clause is worded it might allow, and I think on interpretation would allow, investigation to be made which might cause the secret processes to become known. I know that the steel trade certainly would have the strongest objection to any of their secret processes becoming known in this way. They suffered considerably during the war by some of their competitors happening to learn from the Ministry of Munitions—necessarily happening to learn—some of the secret processes that were being carried out. Of course, a great many things are made—some possibly by secret processes—which come into the ordinary necessaries of life in the iron and steel and tin plate trades. I therefore move to omit these words.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 4, line 11, leave out from ("shall") to ("require") in line 12.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the noble Lord prefers Lord South-borough's words. Do I understand that he moves his own Amendment?
LORD ASKWITH: I move it for the purpose of getting an answer from the Government. But if the Government accept the principle and prefer Lord Southborough's Amendment, I shall withdraw all my Amendments.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I should be very happy to accept the Amendment of my noble friend. In fact, this Amendment would carry out the promise or suggestion that was made in another place that this protection should be extended more widely than to proprietary articles in order to cover secret processes or preparations. There are one or two points in which I should prefer the Amendment of Lord Southborough, more especially because of the expression "chartered accountant." The noble Lord knows that there are incorporated accountants, and one would not wish to exclude one set of accountants from the Bill. Therefore if my noble friend moves it in that form I should be very pleased to accept it.
LORD ASKWITH: I withdraw my Amendment in favour of Lord South-borough's.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH LORD SOUTHBOROUGH moved to leave out Clause 7 and insert as a new clause—
".Nothing in this Act or in the principal Act shall require particulars of any secret process or preparation, or of the ingredients used in such process or preparation to be disclosed, but the Board of Trade shall be entitled to require that the cost of production (exclusive of overhead charges) shall be furnished by the producer under the certificate verified by statutory declaration of a qualified accountant approved by the Board of Trade."
The noble Lord said: I am content to move my Amendment. My noble friend has made the speech in favour of the new clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Southborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Short title, construction and duration.
10.—(1)This Act may be cited as the Profiteering (Amendment) Act, 1920; and the Profiteering Arts, 1919, shall be deemed to have continued in

465
force until the date of the passing of this Act, and the principal Act as amended by this Act may be cited together as the Profiteering Acts; 1919 and 1920.
(2) This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act:
Provided that the limit on the expenses of the Board of Trade, payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under that Act shall not apply to expenses incurred after the date of the passing of this Act, so, however, that the expenses so payable after that date shall not exceed one hundred and twenty thousand pounds.
(3) The principal Act and this Act. shall continue in force until the nineteenth day of May nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The first Amendment that I move in subsection (1) is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 5, line 4, leave out from ("1919") to ("this") in line 6, and insert ("and").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My next Amendment, in subsection (3), is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("and") and insert ("shall be deemed to have continued in foree until the date of the passing of this Act and the principal Act as amended by").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:

MINOR AMENDMENTS.

Enactment Amended.

Amendments to be made.

LORD ASKWITH: The Amendment that I propose to the Schedule is consequential.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, line 2, leave out ("Minor").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I rather hoped that the Government would have seen that it was not necessary to take this Bill through all its stages in such a hurry. I do not mean that there was any pledge by my noble friend, but I understood him to hesitate a little yesterday, and unless he can show us that it is really necessary to pass the Bill surely it would be wiser to postpone it. I do not want to press him unduly.
LORD HYLTON: Since the discussion which took place yesterday I have been in communication with the Treasury, and they inform me that it is considered desirable that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible date. If your Lordships look at Clause 2, subsection (2), you will find that it provides that any Order made by the Treasury under this section may be varied from time to time as the Treasury think proper, and such rate as may be first fixed under this section shall be deemed to have been in operation as from the twentieth day of November, 1919. As I pointed out to the House yesterday, the savings bank half year begins on May 20 and it is very desirable that the accounts, which are affected by the increased allowance for management expenses, should be put on the new basis. Great confusion will arise if this small point is not settled. I do not pretend that the heavens will fall if the Bill is not passed through all its stages before Whitsuntide, but as there is no serious principle involved I hope that your Lordships will allow it to go through Committee stage and possibly through the other stages as well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL or DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provision as to limits on savings banks deposits and on investment in Government stock.
1.—(1) There shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be no limit on the amount which may be received by a savings bank authority front any person by way of deposit or on the amount, of

467
Government stock which may be credited by a savings bank authority to the account of any depositor, and all enactments imposing, or relating whether direetly or indirectly to, any such limit shall cease to have effect:
Provided that it shall be lawful for the Treasury at any time by order under this section to limit the amount which may be so received from any person whatsoever either in any one year or in the aggregate, or the amount of Government stock which may be so credited to any person whatsoever either in one year or in the aggregate.
(2) An order under this section—

(a) may fix different limits as respects different classes of persons;

(b) may provide that any limit fixed by the order shall have effect subject to any exceptions or exclusions specified in the order;

(c) may contain special provisions with respect to depositors whose deposits at the date on which the order takes effect exceed the limit fixed by the order as regards deposits or in whose case the Government stock credited at that date exceeds the limit fixed by the order as regards Government stock:

(d) may contain such consequential and supplemental provisions as appear to the Treasury to be necessary for giving full effect to the order:

(e) may be revoked, extended or varied by a subsequent order:

(f) shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.

(3) Before any order is made under this section, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty-one days during the session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft order.
(4) This section shall take effect as from the expiration of a period of six months after the termination of the present war.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved to delete paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 1. The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment, as I led your Lordships to anticipate, in order to give the Government an opportunity of explaining what their intentions are with regard to allowing an unlimited amount of deposit by depositors. The conversation which has just taken place has reminded your Lordships that we are here parting with Parliamentary authority in order to vest that authority in departmental officers, subject only to the presentation of Papers to both Houses of Parliament to lie on the Table for twenty-one days. It is therefore rather important to know what are the intentions of the Departments concerned
468
as regards fixing different limits of deposit in savings banks in respect of different classses of persons. The difficulty we are under here is that we never know in legislation under the Defence of the Realm Act exactly what proposals are new and not based upon experience, and what are the subject of emergency legislation in which there is experience. I believe it has been the practice in the past to allow some philanthropic societies to have unlimited powers of deposit. That is a great privilege, and I want to know whether it has been the practice or is the intention to allow trade unions, for instance, to deposit not merely their provident funds but what may be called their "fighting funds" in savings banks. If you do that without limit you enable them possibly at some inconvenience to the Government, and at enormous advantage to themselves in the case of any contest in which they are about to engage, to withdraw their funds and make them available for campaign purposes without risk of any loss of capital. To put it mildly, if that takes place the Government will not be "keeping the ring" with impartiality in any coming contest between the employees and the employers, to whom no such privilege is given. I should like to know whether there is any such intention to discriminate in favour of such bodies in respect of unlimited right of deposit in savings banks.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("may fix different limits as respects different classes of persons").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD HYLTON: Those of your Lordships who are acquainted, like the noble Lord, with the history and constitution of savings banks, and with savings bank legislation in this country, will be aware that the legislation up to the time of the war has gradually grown up through a number of Statutes, the net result of which was that there was a considerable limit on the amount that individuals and corporations, such as trades unions, might invest in savings banks. Under the war emergency legislation of the last few years these limitations were removed, and at present no limit is in existence on the amount which any individual or society may invest.
When peace is finally settled and the various war emergency measures cease to operate it is obvious that the old limitations on the amount of deposit will again operate unless some such measure as the

469
present Bill is passed into law. It has been found that the policy of allowing unlimited deposits in the savings banks during the last few years has on the whole been very satisfactory, and your Lordships may perhaps be interested to know that the difference, the additional difference, in the balances to the credit of depositors at the end of the war as compared with the beginning of the war amounts, I think, to about £69,000,000.
There has been no sudden run on the savings banks. It is rather a curious fact that at the outbreak of the war in 1914, by an Order in Council, I believe, all banks were closed for two days for obvious reasons, but while it was intended that savings banks should also be closed for the same obvious reasons, owing to some mistake they remained open but no untoward result such as might have been anticipated took place. The opinion of the Treasury and of the Bank of England is that no limit should be placed on the deposits in the savings banks, and it is for this purpose that this Bill has been introduced. At the same time the Government are of opinion that although the system has answered very well during the war it is advisable in this legislation,
470
which is to be of a permanent and not an emergency character, that they should retain power to enable them to reimpose limits if circumstances arise to make it desirable that limits should again be imposed. For that reason I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. Probably it will be to the convenience of your Lordships if we meet tomorrow at 3 p.m. for prayers, with a view to a Royal Commission at 3.15.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
  SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
    WOOD GREEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
TRAMWAYS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment, agreed to.
SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL.
Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off sine die.
LANCASTER CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEW WINDSOR EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WIDNES EXTENSION) BILL [H.L.]
    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHESTERFIELD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
    To be read 2a on Tuesday, the 8th of June next (Viscount Astor).
PORT OF PORTSMOUTH FLOATING BRIDGE BILL.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.