Sitting of 16 November 1920

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Paisley Corporation (Inchinnan Opening Bridge) Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
Copy ordered of Statement "of Particulars of Loans of which the balances outstanding are proposed to be remitted or written off, in whole or in part, from the assets of the Local Loans Fund."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
POST OFFICE (HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN MAIL CONTRACT).
Copy ordered "of Contract, dated the 11th day of November, 1920, between the Postmaster-General and the London and North Western Railway Company for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails between Holyhead and Kingstown from the 28th day of November, 1920, together with copy of the Treasury Minute thereon."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  HAYTI.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, according to a report made by the commandant of the American Marine Corps, during the 3½ years of occupation of Hayti by America some 3,250, or approximately one out of every 400 of the Haytian population, were killed; has his attention been drawn
  1666
  to a statement made by Mr. Harry A. Frank, in an American journal, to the effect that the Haytian Government protested to England, asking her to intervene to stop such practices; whether the Haytian Government or anyone on its behalf made any protest or request to the British Government; and, if so, will he state what attitude the British Government took in regard to the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am aware that allegation have been made with regard to the conduct of some of the American troops in Hayti, and I understand that a board of inquiry has been appointed to investigate the matter. I am making inquiries with regard to the statements by Mr. Frank, to which the hon. Member refers, but no request for intervention has been received by His Majesty's Government from or on behalf of the Haytian Government.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Had we not better put our own house in order in Ireland before bothering about anywhere else?
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the Haytian Government will not be able to exact ample revenge now that they are members of the League of Nations, and in that capacity presumably the equals of the Republics of France and America?

  SILESIA.
  Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the number of British officials who have retired from the Inter-Allied Commission in Silesia, and the reasons for their retirement?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Four subordinate officials recently sent in their resignations. Of these, two have been accepted.

  PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
  Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the amount of revenue received from British visas; and what is the cost of obtaining it?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The amount received by passport control officers in respect of fees for British visas during the half-year ended the 30th of September last amounted approximately to £95,000. The estimated cost of the staff employed amounts for the current financial year to £120,000.
  Mr. HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether under the present Regulations British subjects may visit Canada without holding a passport, providing they comply with the immigration Regulations of the Canadian authorities; and, if so, will he cause this fact to be made known to the passport officers at ports such as Liverpool, so that travellers may be spared their attentions?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first portion of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that this fact has already been made known by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the immigration officers at British ports, who also deal with outgoing passenger traffic, and are under the control of the Home Office.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH REFUGEES.
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps can be taken to assist, financial or otherwise, on their home journey the British refugees, especially women, who are still occasionally escaping, ill and penniless, from Bolshevist Russia?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Hajesty's representative at Helsingfors and His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople make all the arrangements necessary for sending to the United Kingdom at the expense of His Majesty's Government any British refugees who leave Russia.

    M. KRYSSIN.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether M. Kryssin, one of the three directors of the All-Russian Co-operative Society, who has been domiciled in the United Kingdom for some years, is
    1668
    identical with the Basil A. Kryssin, who was formerly associated with Litvinoff and was put under arrest in September, 1918, for reasons similar to those which led to M. Litvinoff's deportation?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. RAPER: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that his answer is in the affirmative, it is the policy of the Government to allow what is more or less a propaganda bureau to be run by a notorious Communist in this country?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot accept that description.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that this bureau was started by Glichko, that the second director, M. Rosovsky, who has been sent back, is a notorious Communist, and that the other director is a woman associated with Rosovsky?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, is it usual in the practice of this House to attack members attached to a foreign mission who are enjoying the hospitality of his Majesty's Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It depends on the conduct of the particular persons in question, and how far His Majesty's Government will enter into negotiations with them. If that be so—I am not quite certain whether it is—surely it is not improper to ask as to the activities which those persons are carrying on.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it open to hon. Members of this House to attack members of any foreign mission of any country?
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that the other member of this mission, M. Kameneff, was sent back because of certain events which transpired, but that the Government approved of M. Kryssin, and therefore the point does not arise?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I really do not know. That question should be addressed to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
    Licut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that this mission is entirely unrecognised, and that therefore it has no official position?
    Mr. LEONARD LYLE: Is it not more praiseworthy to attack foreign Communists than the Government of your own country?

    GENERAL WRANGEL.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement as to the military position of General Wrangel?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On the 11th November the Soviet troops broke through the last line of General Wrangel's defences in the north of the Crimea and advanced rapidly. Djankoi was captured on the 12th November, Simferopol on the 13th November. According to Press reports, Sebastopol has been occupied by the Soviet troops. The latest news I have is that General Wrangel and his staff are leaving the Crimea on the Russian cruiser "Kornilov." As regards the details of the fighting since the Soviet Red Army attacked in the Crimea, I have no information from official sources to supplement the accounts published in the Press.
    Mr. HOGGE: Have we a military mission with General Wrangel, and what has happened to the members of it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think we have two officers, but I have not received any special report from them. I imagine events have been moving very rapidly.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman now pinning his faith to General Balahovitch?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to requisition the services of General Wrangel, and send him over to Ireland to keep company with General Tudor in his work of burning down houses and destroying property?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: General Wrangel is not burning down houses, but the unfortunate people who have hitherto been protected by his army will now be liable to the vilest persecution.

    SOVIET FUNDS (GREAT BRITAIN).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Home Secretary if he can give any information as to the identity, whereabouts, or disposal of the £75,000 alleged to have been sent by the emissaries of the Soviet government of Russia to the "Daily Herald," and
    1670
    alleged to have been declined by the directors of that paper?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My information is that rather more than £40,000 out of the £75,000 were the proceeds of a sale of precious stones sent over by the Soviet Government, and that this sum was invested in Exchequer Bonds by Mr. Francis Meynell, then a director of the "Daily Herald." It is not known what has been done with the bonds.
    Mr. DOYLE: Is it the intention of the Government to attach and confiscate these funds which were sent into this country for propaganda purposes, and will the right hon. Gentleman say what methods are adopted in the United States and France to deal with similar moneys?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make investigations as to where the money comes from that supports the Government papers in this country?
    Mr. DOYLE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of my question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    BRITISH PRISONERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether all British prisoners have now been released from Russia; and when trade will be permitted between Russia and the British Empire?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): We are informed that there are still a number of British subjects in regard to whom no information has been received, and we are in communication with the Soviet Government on the subject. I hope that it will soon be possible to make a statement on the subject of trade negotiations, probably in the course of a week.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the understanding signed on the 7th of July was not to the effect that the prisoners should be released simultaneously with the opening up of trade with Russia; and that in any case, in view of the fact that the great bulk of the prisoners have been released, does the

    1671
    right hon. Gentleman not think that the ten months' delay has been too long in view of the parlous state of trade?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that there is nothing to prevent people trading with Russia at the present time, if they are prepared to take the risk, and almost the certainty of not getting paid?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not say definitely that the statement would be made within a week. I think the position of the Government has been made clear to the House. We have undertaken to resume trade negotiations if certain conditions are complied with; and one of those conditions is the immediate release of the British prisoners. I hope the conditions will be so far fulfilled within a week as to enable us to make a statement.
    Mr. ASQUITH: What is the number approximately of the prisoners still detained?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We do not know. We have given the Soviet Government the names of a certain number about whom we have no information, and have asked for information. If the Soviet Government, as I trust, try to fulfil their engagement to release all prisoners, we hope to be in a position to resume trade relations.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Have any reports been received from the prisoners as to their treatment in Russia, and will the information be communicated to the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like notice of that question. I do not know of any reports of the kind.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to cases in which trade licences have been refused?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly require notice of that question.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS).
    Mr. KILEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many treaties and agreements have been registered with the League of Nations
    1672
    since its inauguration; how many of such treaties and agreements have been published; and whether, in such case, the complete text has been registered or published?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Sixteen treaties and international engagements of various kinds have up to the present been registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations by His Majesty's Government. The complete texts have been communicated in every case. The duty of publication rests, of course, with the Secretariat-General of the League, and I have no information as to the number of treaties, etc., already published by the League, nor as to the number of treaties registered with the League by foreign Governments.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: May we assume that it is in the discretion of the Secretariat to publish or not?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that is so.

    SICILY.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will call for a report on the extent of the occupation of land in Sicily by the agricultural workers and whether their seizure of the land has been sanctioned by the Italian Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am prepared to ask H.M. Ambassador at Rome to obtain such information as he can from the Italian authorities as to the extent of land occupied. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Bedwelty (Mr. Charles Edwards) on 9th November.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY INSTRUCTORS (ALLOWANCES).
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the grant of increased travelling allowances to Territorial Army instructors would apply to only an extremely small number of Regular soldiers, looking to the fact that the great bulk of the rest of the Army are housed in barracks and no

    1673
    travelling is involved; with regard to associations having authority to rent, purchase, or construct accommodation for Territorial instructors, whether he is aware that every case has to be referred to the War Office for special authority, that delay must ensue, with the almost inevitable result that the opportunity would be lost, so great being the demand for property of the description required; and whether, in view of the inadequacy of the ordinary lodging allowances authorised by the allowance regulations to Territorial Army instructors, he will authorise an increase for those men whose duties lie in London?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): The number of Regular soldiers, other than permanent staff instructors, on the lodging list is at least as many as the permanent staff instructors on the lodging list. As regards the purchase or renting of accommodation, when this proves necessary, in cases of urgency all the necessary particulars can be furnished in a telegram, and this is frequently done. Territorial Force County Associations have the power to secure that instructors are not out of pocket on account of necessary expenses of accommodation in excess of their lodging allowance.

    TROOPS IN FRANCE.
    Lieut-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men still serving in France; and what was the expenditure under the War Office Votes incurred during the nine months to 30th September, 1920, in this connection?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The officers and other ranks at present serving in France number approximately 3,700. Figures for the total expenditure during the nine months to 30th September, during which period the numbers have been progressively reduced, are not available, but the present rate of expenditure, including the cost of local labour, is approximately £100,000 a month, a small portion of which is recoverable from the Disposal Board.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask why it is that the expenditure up to the end of September is not available; can the War Office not get it?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think so, but I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.
    Sir F. HALL: I will repeat the question this day week.

    CHAPMAN'S YARD, NEWCASTLE.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a claim for compensation in regard to the military occupation of Chapman's Yard, Northumberland Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne; whether the amount of the claim has been mutually agreed upon between Mr. Chapman and the Director-General of Lands; whether the matter has now been in abeyance for nearly two years; whether repeated applications by Mr. Chapman have met with no response and numerous letters have remained unanswered; and if he will see that this admitted claim is promptly paid.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am informed that a claim in this case has been received, which includes items for rent, dilapidations and loss of profits, but the figures are not agreed by the Department, and the claim has therefore to be referred to the War Compensation Court. It is expected that it will be placed before the court for hearing within the next fourteen days. I understand that it was not until the 5th July, 1920, that Mr. Chapman submitted his claim in proper form, and that no letters from Mr. Chapman have remained unanswered so far as the War Office is concerned.

    MILITARY MISSIONS IN EUROPE.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers and other ranks who are on duty with military missions in Europe?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): There are at present 23 officers and 41 other ranks on duty with military missions in Europe.

    DURHAM LIGHT INFANTRY (DEPOT).
    Major HILLSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to complete the scheme for building barracks at Durham, in order that the Durham Light Infantry may have a depot within their own county?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The scheme referred to will be proceeded with as soon as the financial situation permits, but at present no funds are available for the purpose.
    Major HILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the County of Durham raised 43 battalions during the War out of a population of 1,500,000, and does he not think it would encourage recruiting to establish a depot of this famous regiment inside their own county?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The services of the County of Durham are well recognised in the War Office, and it is the intention to establish this depot, this barracks, as soon as the finances are available, but the hon. Member knows that it is not desirable to spend money unnecessarily at the present moment. It will be put in hand as soon as circumstances permit.
    Major HILLS: Could any expenditure be more necessary than the comparatively small amount required to build a barracks in Durham?

    GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, CAIRO.
    Captain TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War what was the cost of transferring general headquarters in Cairo from the Savoy Hotel to Abbassia; what further sum it cost a few weeks later to move it back to Cairo and place it in the Eden Palace Hotel; and what rent is now paid for this hotel?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am already making enquiries into this matter, and will let the hon. and gallant Member know the result as soon as possible.
    Captain TERRELL: May I put the question down again for this day week?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot say whether the answer will be available then, but if the hon. Member puts the question down, I will endeavour to answer it.

    ARMY LIST.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War the total cost involved in the preparation of the Army List?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 2nd November to the hon. Member for Frome, to which I have nothing to add.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is there any reason that advertisements should not be received to lessen the cost of production?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not know any reason; but if the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I will ascertain for him.

    1ST EAST YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE W. GARTON).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet had a report regarding Private W. Garton, No. 4335983, of the 1st East Yorkshire Regiment, at present stationed at Mullingar, who has been refused discharge by purchase; and whether he is aware that Private Garton is the only son and principal support of a widowed mother who lost her husband in the War, and that his mother raised the purchase money for his discharge with great difficulty and sacrifice?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have now received a report from the military authorities in Ireland, who state that they have investigated the case, and do not consider the circumstances are such as to warrant the discharge of Private Garton by purchase.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who in a case like this decides whether compassionate grounds are sufficient to release a man; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a case where there is a widowed mother and two invalid sisters, and this youth is the main support, and is it possible to have this case considered?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The decision rests with the commanding officer of the district in Ireland. The case has been considered very fully first of all on compassionate grounds which were found to be insufficient; and secondly, on the ground of discharge by purchase, and again the grounds were considered insufficient.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this matter left to the discretion or the whim of the commanding officer?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: These various grounds are fully considered by the officer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the motion for Adjournment to-night.

    NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether a Committee of Inquiry has been investigating the general management of the Navy and Army Canteen Board, with

    1677
    special reference to the disposal of surplus stocks; whether surplus stocks have been sold at less than market value; and whether it is the intention of his Department to publish the Report of this Inquiry?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: For the information of the Army Council an inquiry was ordered into matters connected with allegations contained in questions asked in the House regarding the disposal of surplus stocks by the Navy and Army Canteen Board. The investigation has now been completed, and a Report will be made to the Army Council at an early date.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the stocks are not disposed of as to interfere with the accumulated stocks which are being sold by private firms?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, Sir; I think the business of the Board is to sell stocks to the best possible advantage.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if these stocks are too suddenly placed on the market there is no particular advantage to the taxpaying public, it may be considerably to the detriment of the holder of private stocks?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Well, Sir, I do not think there is any reason to fear that those stocks are being sold in an unusual way. The endeavour is to sell them at the best possible price. I am quite aware of the fact that too much on the market at once depresses the market, but I think it may be left to those concerned to use their discretion.
    Captain TERRELL: May I ask if the Report will be published?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think not. I think it is a private Report to the Army Council, asked for by them, and I do not suppose anyone else knows what is in it.
    Captain TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the publication of this Report?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will lay the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman before the Army Council.

    ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office if he can give any information regarding the
    1678
    position of employment and proposed discharges at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, and what progress has been made in providing alternative work?
    Mr. MILLSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the growing apprehension of the workpeople and the general community in Woolwich as a result of the continuous discharges; and whether any forms of alternative work are contemplated that would open the machine shops already closed?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The War Office is aware of the apprenhensions referred to. There are still about 19,200 persons employed in all departments at Woolwich Arsenal as compared with 13,700 before the War, while the ample amount of military equipment in store reduces the amount of production required. The position is difficult, but while further discharges are unavoidable, every effort is being made to minimise them during the coming winter by obtaining alternative civilian work. This has relieved the situation in the ordnance factory department, and it is hoped that the number of men it will be necessary to discharge from that department during the winter will be small. This is irrespective of discharges arising from substitutions, so far as it may be possible, of ex-soldiers now employed in other departments for men engaged during the War. There is a considerable surplus of such ex-soldiers in the inspection and other departments.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Have the Government now made up their minds definitely that they will insist upon the discharge of men over 60 years of age?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It never was the case that there was a decision to discharge the men over 60 years of age. There were certain men over 60 years of age who were less efficient whom it was necessary to discharge. The Government have to regard the interests of the different classes of men and also to maintain the efficiency of the Arsenal.

  MESOPOTAMIA.

    BARBED WIRE.
    Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an order was recently placed

    1679
    with a Warrington firm for 60 tons of barbed wire for Mesopotamia at £1,000 a ton; whether there is a large quantity of surplus barbed wire, the property of the Government, which has not yet been disposed of; and whether, such being the case, this could have been utilised instead of orders for new wire being given.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Certain purchases of barbed wire have recently had to be made, but neither the quantity nor the price quoted in the question are correct. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the third part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. WHITE: May I ask why any barbed wire was bought and how much was bought?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should require notice of the quantity.
    Mr. WHITE: And the price—can we have the price?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is not usual, I believe, to give the prices paid by the Army Contracts Department, but the hon. Member has obviously transposed the figures, because barbed wire is worth something like £60 a ton, not £1,000.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the War Office made any inquiries, before this order was given, as to whether there was any barbed wire available out of old stores?
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it the practice of the Department to co-ordinate with other Government Departments to ascertain, for instance, if they are buying a motor car, whether the Disposal Board have any?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Inquiry is made, and has been made in this case, of the Disposal Board as to whether there was any barbed wire available, and the answer was that there was not.

    NATIVE CASUALTIES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what is the estimate of the casualties suffered by the native population of Mesopotamia in fighting against our troops since the armistice with Turkey?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A total of 8,200 casualties to Arab insurgents during the
    1680
    recent rebellion between 1st July and the present date has been reported by the General Officer Commanding, Mesopotamia. The proportion of killed to wounded is estimated at one to three. No reports of any other Arab casualties have been received.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said a week ago that these were not rebels, may I ask what difference there is between a rebel and an insurgent?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I never said anything of the sort. My hon. Friend asked, as a supplementary question, whether we intended to give the country back to the rebels, and I said that I had heard nothing of any proposal to give the country back to the rebels. That is all I said.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Back to the insurgents instead.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The policy of the Government is to set up an Arab State, an Arab Government, not formed out of the rebels, but out of those strong and responsible elements in the Arab community who, we believe, can control and guide their fellow-countrymen.

    ROLLS-ROYCE CHASSIS.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state what is the price paid for the Rolls-Royce chassis recently acquired by the War Office?
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state what was the price paid for the 100 Rolls-Royce chassis ordered for military use in Mesopotamia and now being delivered?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are objections, on grounds of public policy, to publishing the prices quoted by manufacturers to the War Office, and I regret that I am unable to give the information asked for in this case. I may mention, however, that a substantial rebate has been obtained on the ordinary retail price.
    Captain TERRELL: May I ask if the Department consulted the Disposal Board to find out whether there were any Rolla-Royce chassis available?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.
    Captain TERRELL: May I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman asks a question of which he has given no notice, and which does not arise directly out of the question on the Paper. If the hon. Member puts the question on the Paper, I will answer it.
    Captain TERRELL: Why does the question not arise as it deals with Rolls-Royce chassis for Mesopotamia?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it intended to send any of these to Mesopotamia now, having regard to the policy of the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, it is all the more necessary to send them now, as we hope to withdraw a great many troops, and to use those cars to get and keep the country in a state of order.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will not the price of the chassis appear in the Estimates which the War Office must present to this House; if so, why not give the price now?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are we to understand that we are going to be permanently responsible for keeping order in Mesopotamia, after the troops have been withdrawn?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This subject has to be debated. I certainly do not understand that the troops will go away, and leave the country to go to wreck and ruin. What we wish to do is to set up an Arab Government, like many of the Governments we have set up, and offer it a certain amount of aid.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can I not have an answer to my question? Is it not the fact that the price of these chassis must appear on the Estimates which we must approve?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it is the practice. I do not think the price will appear, and the reasons which prevent the price appearing prevent me from giving an answer now. If the price will appear, then of course the hon. Member will get the information.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will move to reduce the Army Estimates by the price of the chassis.

    EXPENDITURE.
    Major BARNESasked the Secretary of State for War whether the estimates given of the monthly expenditure on military purposes in Mesopotamia, namely, £2,500,000, is an inclusive figure covering the proportion of the cost of the 100 Rolls-Royce chassis ordered for that country, engineering works carried out for the purpose of military operations, whether by soldiers or civilians, medical service, and all expenditure directly or indirectly connected with the military operations and garrisoning of the country; and, if not, what is the said inclusive figure?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The £2,500,000 a month includes the cost of the Rolls-Royce chassis referred to, but not capital expenditure on works and land. The latest estimate of expenditure on the last two items during the current financial year is approximately £1,000,000.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that the Rolls-Royce cars sold by the Disposal Board fetched a better price than the new cars that have been now bought for the War Office, because they were sold at the top of the market, whereas the new cars have been bought cheaper, and a profit has been made by the Disposal Board?
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that the only possible way to reduce military expenditure in Mesopotamia is by enormously increasing the means of transport between the various units in that country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Both of these supplementary questions are extremely well-founded and extremely well-intentioned!
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to send any Black and Tans to Mesopotamia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; their services are at present fully engaged.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for War whether his Budget Estimate of £21,600,000 for the expedition in connection with the Mesopotamia garrison was based on the possibility of reducing the garrison in the course of the year; whether the garrison has not been reduced but, on the contrary, increased by

    1683
    over 30,000 men; and whether he is satisfied that the present rate of expenditure in Mesopotamia does not exceed £2,500,000 a month?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the strength of the garrison is about 30,000 above what on 1st April last I estimated it would be, but it is only about 20,000 above the actual strength on that date. The best estimate I can give of the present rate of expenditure, exclusive of capital, is £2,500,000 a month.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the capital expenditure?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said, in the course of a reply to another question, that the capital expenditure on this account is estimated at about £1,000,000.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of an early cessation of hostilities in Mesopotamia, so avoiding the continued loss of valuable lives?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid, Sir, I could not—any immediate cessation. I had hoped that the garrison would have been greatly reduced below the figure previously given, even by this time.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Leader of the House his own urgent desire to make a full statement on the matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is already settled that there is to be a statement.

  HOUSING.

    CHISELDON (WATER SUPPLY).
    Lieut.-Colonel BELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the military authorities are refusing to allow the Highworth Rural District Council to obtain water for their new houses at Chiseldon from the Chiseldon camp water supply, although they had previously agreed to do so; that this action is delaying the council's housing scheme at Chiseldon and will, if persisted in, involve the district in great additional expense, part of whch will fall on the
    1684
    War Department as ratepayers in respect of Chiseldon Camp; and if he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Certain negotiations regarding the size of the connection have been necessary in order to safeguard the water supply to the camp. An agreement has now been reached on the matter.

  IRELAND.

    ARMOURED CARS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary of State for War how many times since the 30th June last soldiers on military duty in Ireland in motor cars or lorries have been attacked by men in ambush; how many soldiers have in consequence been killed; how many soldiers wounded; how many soldiers captured or disarmed; how many rifles and how much ammunition secured by the attackers; and can he give any assurance to the effect that military motor cars and lorries conveying men on dangerous services will in future be provided with more adequate protection for the vital parts of their mechanism and for the persons they carry and will be equipped with machine guns?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Soldiers on military duty in Ireland travelling in motor cars or lorries have been attacked by rebels on 99 occasions since the 30th June last. In consequence, 30 soldiers have been killed, 90 soldiers have been wounded, and 98 soldiers have been captured or disarmed; and it is believed that heavy losses have also been inflicted on the rebels. The attackers have secured 35 rifles, two Hotchkiss guns, and 4,000 rounds of ammunition. As regards the last part of the question, as I stated on 28th October, in reply to the hon. Member, the question of the provision of armoured cars for use in Ireland is very seriously engaging the attention of the military authorities. Large numbers, armed with machine guns, are already in Ireland, and steps are being taken to effect a considerable increase in these numbers. In addition, large quantities of protective material for motor cars and lorries are being sent.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask why these quantities of technical material were not sent after the first attack instead of waiting till 99 had taken place?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We have steadily increased the number of armoured cars in Ireland and the number of motor vehicles. That has been the policy pursued without cessation during the last five or six months, and, having supplied as many armoured vehicles as possible, we are now supplying sheets of armour to be put on vehicles which are only occasionally used for the transport of men.
    Major O'NEILL: May I ask, apart from the question of giving armoured cars, is it not possible for some better tactical dispositions to be made so as to prevent the constantly recurring attacks upon police, apparently in isolated motor cars, in which in nearly every case they lose their lives?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Odd as it may seem, this aspect of the question has engaged the attention of the military authorities. They have had every possible support from the Government and everything they have asked for we have, to the best of our ability, supplied. We have taught them to ask for anything they require, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made sure that no financial difficulties stand in the way of supplying the troops in Ireland with what they require. On the whole the results are not unsatisfactory.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask for a reply to my first supplementary question as to why this material was not sent after the first attack instead of waiting till 99 had taken place?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as that is a question we have continuously taken the measures which the military authorities thought necessary, and in so far as it is a criticism it can be raised in debate.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the great number of spies in every quarter of Ireland will the right, hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of never issuing orders as to destinations until the morning of the day of the journey?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: After five years of the most terrible war that has ever taken place, I think we might trust the military authorities in the exercise of ordinary commonsense which you would expect from a young captain in command of troops.

    TROOPS IN HIRED BUILDINGS.
    Mr. KENYONasked the Secretary of State for War whether all the troops in Ireland are in barracks or whether some are billeted in private houses; if the latter, what method is followed in the selection of these houses; and what compensation is paid to the owners or occupiers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that some troops in Ireland are accommodated in hired public and private buildings. They are not billeted in the ordinary sense of the word. The buildings are selected according to the military necessities of the situation and with a view to causing as little disturbance to owners as possible. Claims to compensation by owners or occupiers are considered and dealt with on their merits.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Do I understand that these soldiers rent houses and pay rent for them, and if so, is it not rather against Irish custom and sentiment?

    ALLEGED REPRISALS (COURTS-MARTIAL).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Secretary of State for War how many courts-martial have been held for soldiers alleged to be concerned in reprisals in Ireland; and what were the results?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that no trials have been held on soldiers for being concerned in alleged reprisals. Trials have been held, and other action has been taken where soldiers have been guilty of offences against discipline on occasions when such allegations have been made against them, but it has never been proved that any individual soldier has actually taken any part in such reprisals.
    Mr. BRIANT: Is it not the object of the court-martial to find out if there is any proof?

    DESTRUCTION OF HOUSES, TIPPERARY.
    Mr. DEVLIN(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the wilful burning and destruction of five houses in the town of Tipperary yesterday morning by men armed with rifles, and whether he has any statement to make about this latest outrage?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut. - Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I have received a telegraphic report stating that five houses were burned yesterday morning in the town of Tipperary. The local police have no knowledge as to the persons responsible, but they are making inquiries.

    CHILD SHOT (COURT OF INQUIRY, DUBLIN).
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if it be a fact that, in the inquiry on the death by shooting of the 12-year-old girl, Annie O'Neill, in Dublin, a coroner's inquest was refused, and whether, at the military court, the bereaved mother, who wished to be legally represented by her solicitor, was refused this request, and her solicitor denied admission to the court?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: A Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest was held in this case. The court was held yesterday, and the proceedings have not yet been confirmed, and in the meantime I am not in a position to give any information as to the alleged refusal of legal representation or as to the evidence which was given at the inquiry. With regard to the last part of the question, I can only repeat what I stated in the House yesterday, that so long as the armed forces of the Crown are liable to attack by assassins, unfortunate tragedies such as the present one are inevitable.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that the statements which are contained in my question with regard to the refusal to admit the solicitor to the court have been published in practically all the Press of the country, and how is it that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to obtain information about a fact which is known to everyone in the world except, apparently, himself?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I got the hon. Member's Private Notice question just-after 12 o'clock, and wired over at once and asked for a detailed answer; and I have read the answer I have received from Dublin Castle. I regret that it is not the fullest posible answer to the hon. Member, but I have done the best I can.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Are these Courts of Inquiry open to the Press?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The rule about Courts of Inquiry held in lieu of inquest is that whether they are open to the Press or the public is a matter for the discretion of the court, and the reason that moves the court to make them open or to close them is the safety of the witnesses.
    Mr. DEVLIN: How would the safety of the witnesses be involved in a case of this character, where this little girl was murdered—killed—[Interruption.] I am asking the Chief Secretary and not you (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks). May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the safety of witnesses would be involved in the opening of this Court to the Press and the public, so that the public and the Press may clearly understand who was to blame for the killing of this child?
    Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether, in the case of the inquiry with regard to Mrs. Quinn, the other unfortunate victim of these events, in a part of the country where there has, I believe, been some recent disturbance, the public, including the legal representatives, I think, of the husband of the woman who had been killed, were admitted, and what can be the distinction between an inquiry with regard to this girl and an inquiry into the death of Mrs. Quinn, where in most cases all the evidence must be given by persons connected with the unfortunate woman or child who have been killed?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the answer he has just given with the assurance he has already given to the House of Commons, that
    "there is always an inquest into the death of a person found dead in Ireland. I will see that the inquest is held in public, as most inquests are; in fact, as far as I know, all inquests are held in public."
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) raises the question of a military inquiry in lieu of an inquest at Dublin, and the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) raises the question of a military inquiry in lieu of an inquest in Galway. They were two different Courts.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: That was not my point.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I follow your point. My answer is generally that these military inquiries in lieu of inquests are held in public. They can always be held

    1689
    in public at the discretion of the officer of the Court. I cannot and will not interfere with the discretion of these officers if they see fit to exclude the public, but I am certain they never exclude the public without good reason, involving the security of the lives of witnesses.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Are we to understand that when soldiers are charged after killing innocent civilians the only tribunal before which these charges are investigated is a military Court, and the military Court decides that the Press is not to be admitted?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is No.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Does he still adhere to the statement he made in this House three weeks ago that there is always a public inquest into every case of a person found dead in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can only repeat what I have said. In certain parts of Ireland there are still inquests, mainly held by a Coroner with a jury. In other parts, for reasons of disturbance, and the certainty of not getting an impartial jury, we have set up, according to the Act passed by Parliament, military Courts of inquiry. In these I have every confidence.
    Mr. DEVLIN: We do not care whether you have or not.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: But I think the House of Commons cares.

    LEAD MINES (PORTABLE DRILLS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, in consequence of the portable drills that have been introduced in lead mines during the last few years, the vibration of working such drills is such that it creates paralysis of the shoulder muscles; that a number of men suffer from neuritis due to working the hand-drill; that the Non-Ferrous Metal Council agreed that the disease should come under the schedule of industrial diseases, and that compensation should be paid to men suffering from paralysis, beat hand or knee, and silicosis; and if he will take action in the matter?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have no information to the effect suggested in the first two parts of the ques-
    1690
    tion, and as regards the third part I understand that the Non-Ferrous Mining Interim Industrial Committee, to which the hon. Member no doubt refers, have not come to any agreement as suggested, there being a conflict of opinion between the employers' and workers' representatives. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases of paralysis or neuritis attributed to the use of the drills, and also of any cases of silicosis among lead miners, I shall be glad to make inquiry into the matter. Beat hand and miners' beat knee are already scheduled as industrial diseases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906.

    REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Home Secretary whether he will give the figures showing the expenditure on education and construction, respectively, for the reformatory and industrial schools during the years 1917 to 1919, inclusive, and the estimated and actual cost incurred under the new educational and constructional programme suggested in a circular memorandum by Dr. Norris, of which the salient features have been adopted by his Department; and whether he will circulate the said memorandum to Members of the House, and say what reasons have been adduced to prove the necessity for these reforms?
    Mr. SHORTT: With the hon. Member's permission, I will have the answer printed in the OFFICIAL RKPORT. I shall be glad to send a copy of Dr. Norris's letter to any hon. Member.
    The following is the answer referred to:—
    I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend the figures for education and building separately. The approximate average cost per week for each child in reformatory and industrial schools was:—

    s.

    d.

    For the year 1914–15

    11

    0

    For the year 1917–18

    15

    5

    For the year 1918–19

    16

    1

    For the year 1919–20

    19

    0

    The estimated cost for the year ending 31st March, 1921, is 24s., excluding a few schools owned by local authorities where the cost is higher.
    The circular letter to which my hon. Friend refers is presumably that which was issued in December, 1919, and deals with the question of education. The object of the proposals made in that letter is to apply to these schools the new policy prescribed for public elementary schools by the Education Act, 1918. I shall be glad to send a copy of this letter to any Member who wishes to see it. The increase in the cost of schools since 1914 is mainly due to the increased cost of living, the increase of salaries corresponding to the scales which now obtain in public elementary schools, and the increase of staff to give effect to the education scheme.

    POLICE FORCE (MOTOR VEHICLES).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary whether any experiments have been carried out with a view to the institution of a special branch of the police force for road traffic mounted on some form of motor vehicle; and, if so, whether he can yet say whether he considers that the formation of such a branch would be desirable from the point of view of economy and efficiency?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Commissioner reports that he has this matter under consideration, and hopes to submit a report to me. It requires exhaustive consideration.
    Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that experiments have been carried out?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes, experiments have been carried out.

    MOTOR CARS, POLICE CONTROLS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary how many controls were instituted between a.m. 13th November, 1920, and p.m. 15th November, 1920, by the Metropolitan Police for detecting infringements of the speed limit and for detecting cases of dangerous driving, respectively, and with what success; and how many cases of dangerous driving were reported by the officers employed on ordinary or point duty during the same period?
    Mr. SHORTT: During the week-end in question one control was worked for detecting infringements of the speed
    1692
    limit and nine controls for detecting offences other than speed. Three cases of excessive speed and eight other cases were reported. One case of dangerous driving was reported by police on ordinary duty, and six cases by police on point duty.

    SHUTTLE-KISSING.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet had a reply from the employers whether they accept the Report of the Shuttle-kissing Committee; and, if not, whether he will at once take steps, in view of the long delay involved by the employers in dealing with this question, and in view of the unanimous desire of the workers, as expressed by Resolution, that the practice of shuttle-kissing should be abolished, to issue regulations immediately prohibiting such a practice?
    Mr. SHORTT: A conference was recently held between the factory department and representatives of the Employers' Association, at which the latter stated that while in the absence of any definite evidence they objected to the practice being certified as injurious to health and prohibited by Order, their Association would be prepared to recommend its members to provide hand-threaded shuttles for use wherever practicable, on condition that the operatives on their side furnished an assurance that the shuttles so provided would be used by the workers. A further conference is being arranged at which both sides will be represented, and I hope that it will result in a satisfactory settlement. As regards the latter part of the question, I may point out that, as the Act stands, I have no power to propose a Regulation prohibiting shuttle-kissing, unless I am satisfied that it is injurious to health, and that the representatives of the Home Office and the Local Government Board, who were appointed in 1911 to inquire into this question, reported that in no instance had they found any proof of disease having been transmitted by this practice.

    PRISONERS AWAITING TRIAL.
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that in a large number of cases, especially during the Long Vacation, prisoners are kept in custody many months before being brought

    1693
    to trial; whether this means that innocent persons suffer a long imprisonment; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing such reforms as will remove this injustice.
    Mr. SHORTT: I fully recognise the hardship that may ensue from a committal for trial months before the trial can take place, but I regret that I can say no more than that the whole subject will receive consideration.

    JURIES.
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that certain common jurors in Devon and elsewhere have refused to serve on juries; whether he is aware of the serious hardship which service on juries now imposes; and whether he will introduce legislation embodying the recommendations of Lord Mersey's Departmental Committee on the subject?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have not heard of any refusal to serve on juries; but I am well aware that jury service may be sometimes a considerable burden, and I should be glad if it could be in any way lightened without detriment to the public interest. I regret that it is not possible to introduce legislation for this purpose at present.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
    Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the increase in pre-war pensions to Army and Navy and other State pensioners, due as from 1st April last, has not in a large number of cases been paid; whether he is aware that many of these pensioners are suffering great privations; whether it is necessary that each pensioner shall make formal application for such increase; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to ensure the payment of both pensions and arrears immediately?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is still, I am sorry to say, a considerable number of unpaid cases. Forms of application were sent out as soon as available to all pensioners affected,
    1694
    and all unpaid cases are under investigation. Of these, a great number are found to involve inquiries with other Departments, but every effort is being made to deal with them as rapidly as possible.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Have the pre-War widows been paid their pensions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not say without notice.
    Mr. WHITE: In cases where a pensioner has not received an application form, where will he have to apply for it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If he is connected with the Army he will have to apply to the War Office; if he is connected with the Navy, the Admiralty.

    UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF WORK, LONDON.
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Prime Minister if he can now state the response which has been made within Greater London to his offer of half-finance on the initiation of relief work for the unemployed; whether any schemes have been actually started; and what steps he is taking to expedite their inception?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The London County Council have accepted the Government's offer of 50 per cent., and are proceeding immediately with several items of the arterial road programme. Negotiations in regard to other similar schemes have reached an advanced stage, and every possible step is being taken to expedite them.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many boroughs in London there are no arterial roads to be constructed, and will the Government allow some grant for work to be carried out on ordinary road repairs?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid if there no arterial roads the boroughs in question will have to take the consequences.
    Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that if there are no arterial roads those particular boroughs are not to receive any benefit from the grant made by the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Many boroughs have been classified for assistance. It is quite obvious that this is special work, and some special arrangement must be made.

    EGYPT.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government still refuses the formal abolition of the protectorate over Egypt; and what are the estimated reinforcements to the garrison of Egypt which will have to be sent as a result of their refusal?
    Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal, if the Cabinet have under consideration any proposals for conferring self-government on Egypt; if so, by whom were such proposals drawn up and to what territories do they relate; and if the effect of these proposals has been communicated to the leaders of the Egyptian Nationalist party?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject on Wednesday last, except to say that the forces at present in Egypt are considered adequate, and that no increase in their number is in contemplation.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that the Government is very seriously divided over this?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that there is any division. If there is we shall certainly discover it.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep the House informed as to the position of the negotiations with Egypt and will there be an opportunity of Debate before the position with that country breaks out in open insurrection?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There has been, I am sorry to say, something very nearly approaching open insurrection not many months ago, but there is nothing approaching it at present.
    Sir F. HALL: Before anything definite is done, will the House have an opportunity of discussing it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given a pledge that no such serious step
    1696
    as is contemplated will be undertaken without the knowledge of the House?
    Sir F. HALL: Or without discussion in the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course. I do not know if the House will take sufficient interest to want to discuss it.

    GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will state the present position with regard to the proposed Treaty under which Great Britain and the United States of America undertook to support France in case of attack; and if the Government propose to take any action with a view to renewing the understanding between this country and France if America should refuse to come in.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The position is that the United States have not yet ratified the Treaty signed between France and the United States at Versailles on 28th June, 1919. I cannot say what the attitude of the Government may be in the eventuality mentioned in the second part of the question.
    Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that the position of the Government will depend on the decision of the United States, or, on the other hand, are we going to stand by France irrespective of the United States?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Our position under the Treaty is contingent on its being adopted by the United States. If the United States refuse to adopt it, a new situation arises, with which we shall have to deal.
    Major-General SEELY: Are we to understand what seems to be an extraordinary doctrine, that our honourable obligation to protect France against sudden and unprovoked attack—which is obviously more binding on us—is to fall to the ground if a powerful neighbour stands aside?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not say it would fall to the ground. I said at the time the Treaty was made it was depended on its adoption both by the United States and this country. If it is not so

    1697
    adopted, then the decision which the Government will take must depend on an examination of the circumstances.
    Major-General SEELY: On the understanding we shall be as ready as before, or even more ready, to protect France against unprovoked attack?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I really think it is premature to assume that the United States will not ratify it. I should be very sorry to say anything to indicate what we would do in such a case.

  INDIA.

    VICEROYALTY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister when an announcement may be expected regarding the successor to Lord Chelmsford as Viceroy and Governor-General of India?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to be in a position to announce this appointment shortly.
    Captain TERRELL: How many Cabinet Ministers have been offered the post?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not usual to put such a question as that, and when put it is never answered.

    POTABLE SPIRITS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. BETTERTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the quantities of potable spirits imported into the United Kingdom from the 1st January to the 30th September of the present year, giving the different countries of origin, respectively, and the quantities landed at the various ports of the United Kingdom?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): With my hon. Friend's permission, I will have published in the OFFICIAL REPORT statements showing the quantities of potable spirits imported into the United Kingdom from each of the various countries of consignment, and the total amounts brought in at each port over the period in question.
    The following are the statements referred to:—
    STATEMENT showing the Registered Quantities of Foreign and Colonial Spirits (Potable) imported into each Port of the United Kingdom during the period 1st January to 30th September, 1920.

    Port of Importation.

    Tested Proof Gallons.

    Not Tested Liquid Gallons.

    London

    2,137,440

    12,708

    Liverpool

    1,500,188

    880

    Barnstaple

    1

    —

    Blyth

    31,755

    1

    Boston

    1

    —

    Bristol

    195,647

    2

    Cardiff

    38,274

    177

    Colchester

    1

    —

    Cowes

    8

    2

    Dartmouth

    4

    —

    Dover

    153

    94

    Falmouth

    27

    24

    Fleetwood

    —

    1

    Folkestone

    6,887

    412

    Fowey

    —

    1

    Goole

    1,044

    348

    Grimsby

    1,851

    4

    Hartlepool

    6

    5

    Harwich

    13,496

    226

    Hull

    161,137

    78

    Lancaster

    —

    2

    Manchester

    118,913

    3

    Maryport

    —

    1

    Middlesbrough

    141

    1

    Newcastle-on-Tyne

    5,524

    47

    Newhaven

    5,165

    259

    Newport(Mon.)

    22,904

    26

    Plymouth

    199

    3

    Portsmouth

    34

    —

    Port Talbot

    2

    3

    Ramgsate

    1

    —

    Rochester

    3

    12

    Shields, North

    16

    —

    Shields, South

    158

    —

    Southampton

    406,254

    1,190

    Stockton

    501

    —

    Sunderland

    177,785

    1

    Swansea

    12,443

    10

    Weymouth

    35

    1

    Aberdeen

    56,852

    2

    Alloa

    17

    —

    Dundee

    27,204

    —

    Glasgow

    734,996

    138

    Grangemouth

    808

    209

    Granton

    17

    —

    Greenock

    3

    —

    Inverness

    3

    —

    Leith

    425,675

    169

    Wick

    11

    —

    Belfast

    11,527

    1

    Cork

    137

    20

    Dublin

    58,748

    6

    Londonderry

    35

    —

    Waterford

    74

    —

    Total

    6,154,111

    17,067

    STATEMENT showing the Registered Quantities of Foreign and Colonial (P table) imported into the United Kingdom, showing the countries whence consigned, during the period 1st January to 30th September, 1920.

    Country whence consigned.

    Tested Proof Gallons.

    Not Tested Liquid Gallons.

    Russia

    2,470

    —

    Sweden

    31,312

    372

    Norway

    1,966

    439

    Denmark

    2,258

    11

    Danish West India Islands.

    67

    —

    Germany

    938

    9

    Netherlands

    128,998

    514

    Belgium

    3,129

    248

    France

    1,011,327

    3,574

    Switzerland

    230

    7

    Portugal

    3,160

    63

    Spain

    233,537

    21

    Italy

    732

    459

    Austria-Hungary

    982

    3

    Greece

    70

    —

    Turkey, European

    58

    —

    Turkey, Asiatic,

    4,890

    —

    Morocco

    130

    —

    Japan

    246

    —

    United States of America

    944,653

    1,513

    Cuba

    603,282

    —

    Colombia

    1

    —

    Venezuela

    112

    —

    Peru

    3

    —

    Uruguay

    4

    —

    Argentine

    190

    —

    Channel Islands

    77

    2

    Gibraltar

    4

    —

    Egypt

    6,607

    —

    Cape

    370

    8

    Natal

    636,657

    7

    Mauritius

    12

    —

    British India

    22

    71

    South Australia

    37

    —

    Victoria

    101,472

    —

    New South Wales

    60,020

    —

    New Zealand

    3,864

    —

    Canada

    151,350

    7

    British West Indian Islands.

    680,732

    9,487

    British Guiana

    1,537,074

    —

    Miscellaneous

    1,068

    252

    Total

    6,154,111

    17,067

    PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBEECULOSIS) BILL.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an approximate estimate of the sum he is prepared to sanction as a Treasury grant in the event of the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Bill becoming law in its present shape?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave him yesterday. Perhaps I may add that it is only proposed to proceed this Session with so much of the Bill as is essential in consequence of the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act passed in May last, in order to continue the existing provision from the 1st of January next.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is it intended to take the Second Reading of the Bill as it stands now?
    Dr. ADDISON: No.
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of patients suffering from tuberculosis who cannot get treatment to-day?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes; the Bill simply proposes to continue the existing provision, as a necessary consequence of the Bill passed earlier in the year.
    Mr. WATERSON: And still go on with the inadequacy?
    Dr. ADDISON: We are always en-deavouring to overcome the inadequacy under the existing arrangement.

    JUVENILE COURTS BILL.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary whether he has read the remarks attributed to Mr. Disney contesting his opinion that the London magistrates favoured the Juvenile Courts Bill; and, if so, whether he will make further inquiries before putting the Act into operation?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have seen the remarks referred to. I am quite aware that some of the magistrates would prefer not to admit women justices to any share in the proceedings of the Children's Courts, but, admitting the necessity of having women on the Bench. I have the assurance of the Chief Magistrate that the proposals in the Bill meet the views of the majority and no further inquiry is therefore necessary.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion of the Chief Magistrate was hotly contested when that interpretation was put upon it?

    1701
    Does he not think there is a great deal more gallantry than economy in the whole proposal?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.

  SCOTLAND.

    EDUCATION RATES.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the extension of the school age to 15 years will involve the Glasgow education authority in an increased expenditure of at least £500,000, and that the further raising of the age to 18 years, provided for in the Education Act, will increase the charge by about £750,000, the total rates being thereby increased by about 5s. in the £ beyond the present figure for this, the first year of the Act; and will he postpone the raising of the age until Parliament has considered the matter, after ascertaining at a general election the views of the electors?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am informed that a statement prepared at the instance of the Glasgow education authority estimates the additional annual expenditure in their area which would result from the operation of Sections 14 and 15 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, at £499,000 and £523,500 respectively. On the present basis of valuation, these sums together represent a rate of less than 4s. in the £. It may, however, be safely assumed that a proportion of this increase will be met by grants, and that the rise in rates will be much less than the figure stated. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to give the undertaking asked for. Parliament has already fully considered and determined the matter. But it is obvious that, in Scotland as in England, the process of bringing the full provisions of the Act into operation must be more gradual than was hoped for when the Act was passed. I will only add that no steps will be taken to raise the school age without giving such notice as will allow ample time for the consideration and discussion of the questions involved.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that giving notice to people about a thing which he says is already decided is of no value to those
    1702
    people? Are not the parents of the children whose age limit is to be raised the proper persons to be consulted, and ought not they to have the definite issue brought before them?
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the parents were consulted last Monday week?
    Mr. MUNRO: No, I am not aware of that. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend has read the Education Act of 1918. Parliament has decided that the Department shall give notice on the appointed day for this purpose, and that is the question of which full notice must be given.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Have the parents any means of reversing the decision of the Department? There is no provision for it in the Bill.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that by Section 13 of the Education Act, 1918, the sum required from the rates has to be allocated on the parishes in the area according to their valuations in the valuation roll; whether the Education Department has ordered the allocation to be intimated to the parishes before 15th July, 1920, there being then no valuation roll in existence other than a roll bearing to be from Whitsunday, 1919, to Whitsunday, 1920; whether the now valuation roll by the Valuation Act is not required to be published till a date in August, and, in point of fact, few rolls are available till October; whether the effect of these proceedings is that the assessment is made upon one roll and the levy upon another; whether it is the case that rural areas let are largely upon long leases and their valuations practically constant, while the urban areas have had the house rents raised 20 to 25 per cent, within the period of the two valuation rolls; whether the further result is that a grave rating discrepancy is created between urban and rural areas; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy this matter?
    Mr. MUNRO: The date—15th July—for the purpose of the intimation referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, was fixed jointly by the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish Board of Health in terms of Section 13 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, in view of the fact that the Budget Meeting of

    1703
    Parish Councils for the purpose of considering the Estimates of Amounts to be raised by rates is annually held, in accordance with Statute, in July. I have no information as to the relative effect of the Increase of Rents Act in urban and rural areas in the current year, but if it has been as stated by my hon. and learned Friend, it would appear that the rural areas in the matter of rents have an advantage over urban areas which more than compensates them for any disadvantage such as is suggested in the allocation of the cost of education. It does not appear to me, as at present advised, that any remedy—even if practicable—is called for.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a wrong method of estimating the levy for the rates to levy on one roll and make the valuation on another roll? Should not both be done on one, roll?
    Mr. MUNRO: I do not think that on this occasion my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question is either well intentioned or well founded.

    SOCIALIST SUNDAY SCHOOLS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has, directly or indirectly, any control over the Socialist Sunday schools of Glasgow and the industrial district of the Clyde; whether he is aware that the teachers in such schools systematically debauch the minds of the children concerned with revolutionary propaganda; and, if so, what steps he can and will take to prevent such disastrous perversion of the purposes of Sunday schools?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the remainder of the question, if my hon. Friend will furnish me with any information in his possession I shall be glad to consider whether any action on my part is expedient or competent.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman put the common law in motion if he has no other power to deal with this matter?
    Mr. MUNRO: If my hon. Friend will give me any information tending to show that the law has been broken, I shall submit the information to the Lord Advocate for his consideration.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any harm in children in Sunday schools singing "England arise?"
    Mr. MUNRO: I am not acquainted with the song myself, but it does not sound very terrible.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that children are prosecuted for singing Gaelic songs in Ireland?
    Mr. CLYNES: Is there any common law in England to put down Socialist teaching?
    Mr. MUNRO: So long as it is within the limits of the law, certainly not.
    Mr. J. JONES: When is it outside the law?

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    POSTAL SERVICE.
    Major GLYNasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the exact number of old sailors and soldiers permanently employed by the Government in the postal service; and whether the figures given by the Treasury, that the total number of ex-service men employed by the Government was 80,000, of whom 15,000 had been appointed since the War, and of which full total 14,912 were employed by the Post Office, is still substantially correct?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The number of ex-service men employed in permanent capacities in Government Offices on the 1st September last, as shown in the Treasury Return, was 83,415. Of these, 63,257 were employed by the Post Office. In addition, over 14,000 ex-service men are employed on the industrial staff of the Post Office.

    CONCURRENT TREATMENT AND TRAINING.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is able to say how many ex-service men are still awaiting admittance to the institutions approved for concurrent treatment and training; what arrangements have been made for supplying the full accommodation needed; by what date that accommodation will be provided; and what is the amount of public money that has been expended in treatment allowances during the current year to men and

    1705
    their families who, though approved as requiring this form of treatment and training, are, in fact, not receiving it owing to lack of accommodation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): At the end of last month, some 2,000 men had been recommended by Medical Referees for admission to convalescent centres for concurrent treatment and training. Arrangements are now in progress for providing substantial additions to the existing accommodation, and a first instalment of 300 places will be available in the course of a few weeks. I regret the figures asked for in the last part of the question are not available, and I would point out that not all men who have been recommended for concurrent treatment and training are in receipt of allowances.

  POST OFFICE.

    FOREIGN POSTAGE.
    Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Postmaster-General whether any decision has been come to about the future charge for foreign postage following the recommendations of the Madrid Conference?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The Madrid Congress of the Postal Union has not yet come to any decision about the future rates of international postage, and it would, therefore, be premature to decide what foreign postage rates are in future to be charged in this country. I will make an announcement on the subject as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE, HINTON CHARTER HOUSE.
    Mr. HURDasked the Postmaster-General why he has refused the application for a telephonic call office at Hinton Charterhouse, Somerset, although 20 telephone wires pass through the village; and whether, seeing that most of the shopping and other business of the village is done at towns several miles away and that the nearest telephone offices are two miles distant, he will provide facilities in the village on terms which are within the reach of the inhabitants?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The line passing through the village carries busy trunk telephone and telegraph circuits which cannot be broken into. A call office at
    1706
    Hinton Charterhouse has been offered under a guarantee of £23 10s., the annual cost of a connection with the Limpley Stoke Exchange. A guarantee is necessary, as it is estimated that the receipts would be only about £5 a year.
    Mr. HURD: May I ask whether, having regard to the failure of this rural telephone system, the right hon. Gentleman will ask the Agricultural Committee of this House to name, say, three Members who know something of agricultural conditions, to advise him as to how to make the system fall in with the needs of the agricultural community?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    COST OF LIVING.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of general agitation and discontent among demobilised and discharged men in respect of their insufficient pensions and allowances; and will he set up an impartial tribunal to inquire and report on this matter?
    Major TRYON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Paddington (Mr. Perring) on the 1st November, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are ex-service men who have been out of work for 14 weeks and cannot get a job anywhere?
    Major TRYON: The question of being out of work is not a question for the Ministry of Pensions.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (SAPPER W. HEPPEL).
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that two certificates were put in for Sapper William Heppel, No. 285,435, Royal Engineers, one from Dr. Newsted, M.D., Blyth, pointing out that Sapper Heppel was free from tuberculosis before he joined up, and one from Dr. Eaton, M.B.C.M., that tuber culosis had developed during military service; and will he pay the widow and

    1707
    child of this soldier a pension under such circumstances?
    Major TRYON: The medical evidence to which my hon. Friend refers was very carefully considered in connection with the widow's claim to pension; but the medical advisers of the Ministry were of opinion that the disease from which this soldier died commenced after discharge, and was not due to service. Mrs. Heppel has been informed that, should she desire to appeal against the consequent refusal of pension, her local committee will assist her in preparing her case for the tribunal.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this man never lost a day during his apprenticeship, nor before he joined the Army, at his work?
    Major TRYON: We shall be very happy to help the widow to put that evidence before the independent tribunal.
    Mr. CAIRNS: I have his employer's certificate here.

LIQUOR CONTROL BILL.
Colonel GRETTON(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he will lay on the Table of the House a copy of the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations, 1915, to enable Members to understand the Liquor Control (Temporary Provisions) Bill?
Mr. SHORTT: These Regulations are printed as Statutory Rules and Orders, 1915, Nos. 552 and 997, and can be purchased in the usual way at 1d. each. They may also be consulted in the Library, and I will try to arrange for a special supply to be available there for the convenience of hon. Members.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 212.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J),
Sir PARK GOFF reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at Twelve of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to,
Brodick, Lamlash, Loch Ranza, and Whiting Bay Piers Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Lynn; and had appointed in substitution: Major Newton.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Colonel Burdon; and had appointed in substitution: Lieutenant-Colonel Fremantle.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  AGRICULTURE BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [3rd November] on Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee.)
  AGRICULTURE BILL.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 9 of Corn Production Act, 1917.)
    Section nine of the Act of 1917 shall be amended as follows:—
    (ii) For the words in Sub-section (1) from "(b) that for the purpose of" to "as the case may be," both inclusive, there shall be substituted the words—
    "(b) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute the necessary repairs (not being repairs which the tenant is liable to execute) to any buildings on the land being repairs required for the proper cultivation or working thereof,
    may serve notice, in the case of neglect by an owner to execute repairs, on the owner requiring him to execute the necessary repairs within such time as may be specified in the notice, and in any other case on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give for securing that the cultivation shall be in accordance with the rules of good husbandry or for securing such improvement or change as aforesaid in the manner of cultivating or using the land, as the case may be":
    (iii) For the words in the proviso to Subsection (1) "or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of land included in the notice" there shall be substituted the words "or whether the production of food on the land can be increased in the national interest by the occupier by means of such an improvement or change as aforesaid or whether the repairs required to be executed are necessary for the proper cultivation or working of the land, or whether the time specified in the notice for the execution of such repairs is reasonable":
    (iv) The following new Sub-sections shall be inserted after Sub-section (2):—
    "(2A) Where a notice other than a notice under paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this Section has been served under this Section on the occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute some work in connection with the cultivation of the land and
    1728
    that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a further penalty not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues after conviction:
    Provided that—

    (a) proceedings for an offence under this Sub-section shall not be instituted except by the Minister; and

    (b) the Minister shall be entitled, notwithstanding that proceedings have been instituted under this Sub-section, to execute any work specified in the notice, and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default any expenses reasonably incurred by him in so doing, and the right to institute any such proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice":

    "(2B) Where a notice has been served under paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this Section on the owner of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute repairs and the owner fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the repairs, and a tenant so authorised shall be entitled to execute the repairs accordingly and at any time after the repairs nave been executed to recover from the owner the costs reasonably incurred by him in so doing, in the same manner in all respects as if those costs were compensation awarded in respect of an improvement under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908":
    (v) For the words in Sub-section (3) "make such order as seems to them required in the circumstances, either authorising the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding, or determining the tenancy by virtue of the order" there shall be substituted the words "by order determine the tenancy of the holding or of any part thereof":
    (vi) The following new Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (3):—
    "(3A) Where it is represented to the Minister by an agricultural committee that the owner of any agricultural estate or land situate wholly or partly in the area of the committee, whether the estate or land or any part thereof is or is not in the occupation of tenants, cultivates or manages the estate or land in such a manner as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon, the Minister may, if

    1729
    he thinks it necessary or desirable so to do in the national interest, and alter making such inquiry as he thinks proper and alter taking into consideration any representations made to him by the owner, by order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land or any part thereof:
    Provided that—

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

    (b) an order made under this Sub-section shall not, except with the consent of the owner, extend to a mansion house, garden, or policies thereof, or to any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and which is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; and

    (c) the order shall not operate to deprive any person, except with his consent, of any sporting rights over the estate which do not interfere with the production of food on the estate; and

    (d) any person appointed to act as receiver and manager of any agricultural estate or land under this Section shall render a yearly report and statement of accounts to the owner or his agent and to the Minister;

    (e) the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers conferred on the Minister under this Section:

    The Minister may by an order made under this provision apply for the purposes of the order, with such modifications as he thinks fit, any of the provisions of Section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relates to the powers, remuneration and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees, and authorise the receiver to exercise such other powers vested in the owner of the estate or land as may be specified
    1730
    in the order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager:
    Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof except with the consent of the owner or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court":
    (vii) In Sub-section (4) for the words "if within three months after the Board have entered on any land the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires" there shall be substituted the words "if within one month after the Minister has entered on or appointed a receiver and manager in respect of any land the owner of the land so requires"; and for the words "person so previously in occupation" there shall be substituted the word "owner":
    (viii) In Sub-section (9) the words "in respect of which any notice is served or order made under this Section or" shall be repealed, and after the word "section," where that word last occurs, there shall be inserted the words "in that behalf":
    (ix) The following new Sub-sections shall be inserted after Sub-section (10):—
    "(11) For the purposes of this Section the rules of good husbandry shall include—

    (a) the maintenance and clearing of drains, dykes, embankments, and ditches:

    (b) the maintenance and proper repair of fences, gates and hedges:

    (c) the execution of repairs to-buildings, being repairs which are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land, and, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, are required to be executed by the occupier of the land under the contract of tenancy:

    and references in this Section to cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry shall be construed accordingly:
    Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be taken to impose upon a tenant the obligation to maintain or clear drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches where such maintenance or clearance is prevented by subsidence of the land or the blocking of the outfalls which are not under the control of the tenant, or to make a tenant liable for such maintenance or clearance of drains, dykes, embankments, or

    1731
    ditches, or the maintenance or repair of fences, hedges, and gates, where such work is not required to be done by him under his contract of tenancy or the custom of the country."
    "(12) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Sub-section applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a 'notice in writing requiring him to cut down or destroy the weeds in the manner and within the time specified in the notice, and where any such notice is given the provisions of Sub-section (2A) of this Section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply as if the land were land which was not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, and as if a notice had been served on the occupier under Subsection (1) of this Section.
    "The expression 'occupier' in this Sub-section means in the case of any public road the authority by whom the road is being maintained, and in the case of unoccupied land the person entitled to the occupation thereof.
    "Regulations may be made under this Act for prescribing the injurious weeds to which this Subsection is to apply."
    Amendment proposed [3rd November,] in paragraph (ii), in lieu of paragraph (6) left out, to insert the words

    "(b) that the production of food on any land can in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation; or

    (c) that the occupier of land has unreason ably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default; or

    (d) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraph applies."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move, as, an Amendment to the proposed Amendment in paragraph (b,) to leave out the words "and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land."
    This paragraph proposes to give power to the Board of Agriculture to control agriculture in a certain way, but these
    1732
    powers are not to be exercised if they would injuriously affect persons interested in the land. I wish to omit these words because I object in the first place to the words "persons interested in the land." They are vague, loose, and incapable of exact definition. Who are the persons interested in any particular piece of land? They are, of course, the owner and the tenant, but there are many more than that if you have a mortgagee and persons interested in the reversion of land and so on. The Ministry of Agriculture cannot possibly know all these persons, and if they are told they are not to injuriously affect these persons interested, it means that they must start an investigation before they make any order as to who are interested in the particular piece of land. They have not the information available, and to ask them to instigate an investigation of that kind would be, it seems to me, quite absurd. Another point is that these powers are not to be exercised if they would injuriously affect persons interested in the slightest degree, even although the public advantage on the other side is immeasurably greater. Surely this is a question when the balance should be struck between the injurious affection on the one hand and the public advantage that is likely to flow from the control on the other. If this provision is allowed to stay in the Clause, I am certain it will result, to a large extent, in nullifying the effect of the whole Sub-section. There is no desire really to ride rough-shod over the interests of the owner of land, or anyone else, in a matter of this kind. After all, it is a question of the discretion of the Ministry. They are not bound to make Orders when the decision of the matter is within their discretion, and their discretion is only going to be exercised after consultation with the Agricultural Committee. That should be quite sufficient to protect the interests of these people. I hope we shall have a full explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what these words exactly mean and what he hopes to accomplish by putting them in.
    4.0 P.M.
    Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment. This question raises what is to me the vital point of this Bill—the question of control. How vital it is is shown by what occurred in the House yesterday. We were told on the one hand by the Government that this ques-

    1733
    tion of control was the thing in the Bill on which they stood or fell. It was a quid pro quo. They pointed out that their agricultural policy gave guarantees, it gave compensation for disturbance, it gave permanency to the Wages Board, and as against those three gifts on the part of the Government they were taking control. That was the Government's position put yesterday. How strongly they felt on the matter is shown by the fact that the Prime Minister come down on one of his rare and welcome visits to the House in order to make a speech on the question. From the other point of view we were told that this question of control was so vital that if the Government stood by it the Bill was of no value, and that the Third Reading would be opposed by those Members who are principally interested in it. Under these circumstances, it does appear to me that the whole bona fides of the Government rest upon their maintaining this as a substantial Clause. It was said yesterday by the Minister in charge of the Bill that any question of control must depend upon two things. After a decision has been arrived at by those persons to whom control is entrusted it can be defeated if it be shown, in the first place, that the exercise of control will not be in the national interest, or, in the second place, that it will injuriously affect the interests of any person interested in the land. The assumption is that anybody exercising such control will not determine upon its exercise unless he is fully conversant with all the circumstances. Who is the body to be entrusted? The House has been assured, and hon. Members particularly interested in this Bill have been assured, that the exercise of control is not going to be from Whitehall, and that the Department of Agriculture are not going to lay down regulations and enforce them from a distance where the local conditions are not known, but that control is to be exercised by people on the spot who are conversant with the circumstances, who know all about the local conditions, and who have come to the conclusion that the order they make is the proper order to be made under the circumstances. That is what the Government told us.
    Yesterday we were treated to a great display in this House. We had the
    1734
    Minister in charge of the Bill standing at the Box, with his back turned to the Opposition, receiving into his devoted bosom all the shafts being sent at him. The impression intended to be created in this House was that the Government were taking their stand upon a matter of real and vital importance. What is the picture before the country as the result of the Debate yesterday? It is a picture of the Government standing to protect the taxpayer against the irrationality and greed of the landed interests of this country. I am not saying that is the position. I do not believe it. I believe that hon. Members opposite, in their view of the Bill, are as much disinterested and as much concerned with the general interests of the country as any body of Members in the House, and I hope that I shall not be understood as saying, in the slightest degree, that Members opposite are not approaching this Bill in this spirit. I am simply pointing out the effect of the Debate yesterday. That was the effect created in the House, and that will be the effect created in the country, namely, that the Government were standing upon a vital matter, this matter of control.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member cannot review the decision taken by the House yesterday, and I must ask him to confine himself to the Amendment.
    Major BARNES: With very great submission, and no one should show greater submission than a new Member, I suggest that the object of this Amendment is to make the question of control really substantial by withdrawing certain words that exist in the Amendment as proposed. I was endeavouring to show how important it was that the control should be substantial, and, in support of my argument, I was illustrating from the events which occurred yesterday. I will come to the position of those unfortunate people upon whom this great burden of responsibility is to be placed. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman who sits on this Front Bench (Sir K. Winfrey) who pointed out that a subsidy of 5s. would amount to something like £10,000,000 a year. If the difference between the world price and the guaranteed price be 10s., then the amount will be £20,000,000 a year. That is a very serious burden of responsibility laid upon the taxpayers in this country. That was

    1735
    stressed yesterday, and we were told that the sole protection which the taxpayer had was in this matter of control. This control is not to be exercised by the Central Department in Whitehall, but is to devolve upon local committees. In what situation will they find themselves if the Clause proposed by the Minister in charge of the Bill stands? They will find themselves in this humiliating position. Having, with the exercise of all their local knowledge and acting with a full sense of their responsibility, come to the conclusion to put their powers of control into operation, they may be met by the provision in this Bill that the action they propose to take will injuriously affect some person or other interested in the land. It has been pointed out already that there are all kinds of people interested in the land, and all sorts of interests. There is no definition in this Amendment which narrows that exceedingly wide field. It will be the easiest matter possible for any person who is subjected to an Order of this kind, and who may properly and rightly resent it, to stay such proceedings. If this matter is of importance, and if control is to be substantial, then these words should come out.
    If in the exercise of their discretion the responsible authority do something which does injuriously affect some person interested in the land, then there ought to be proper compensation, and that compensation should be provided in the Bill. That is quite another point. It is not, I am sure, the desire of the hon. Member proposing the Amendment to the Amendment that any person should be subjected to any loss through the action of the Committee, but it is one thing to provide against a loss of that kind and quite another to put it in the power of any person, by a mere frivolous objection, to hamper the operations of this Bill. Make such provision for loss or injury as may be necessary, but do make your Clause really substantial by withdrawing these words. I recognise that yesterday, when meeting the opposition to this Clause, the Minister in charge of the Bill did point out these words, and probably, when replying to us, he will rely upon what he said yesterday. He will say that it is because these words were in that the Government got support for the Clause, and that if they were not in they
    1736
    would not have been saved from defeat even by the Members on this side of the House. I would say, in reply, that the Minister in charge of the Bill is now threatened with the loss of the measure He is told that the Third Reading will be voted against, and, if hon. Members do wish to destroy the Bill, they certainly have the power to do it. If they do not do so in this House, they can in the other House. That is perfectly clear. I do, therefore, suggest to the Minister in charge of the Bill that he should make the control really substantial, and should establish the bona fides of the Government in this matter by putting a Clause in the Bill which shall adequately protect the taxpayer, which shall put in an honourable and worthy position those entrusted with the exercise of control, and which shall prevent the plea that this Clause is mere camouflage and is merely intended on the face of it to carry some suggestion of control, with the perfect knowledge, both in the minds of the Government and of Members interested in the Bill, that it counts for nothing.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down said that I took my stand, yesterday on an important Amendment. Yes, and this was an important part of that Amendment. I justified the granting of some measure of control largely by the fact that we were going to take care that the interests of those who were interested in the land were not injuriously affected. In fact, I said that we could not exercise control except subject to an appeal to an arbitrator on this, particular point. I repeat to-day what I said yesterday. I hold that a certain amount of control is necessary, but I also hold that it must be just, and it would be most unjust if these words were omitted. It would be not only unjust, but it would be uneconomic. What are we proposing? In cases where an improvement in the method of cultivation will be a real improvement and where a change of cultivation will lead to greater production, we propose that there shall be an improvement or a change of cultivation, but, if the interests of those who are interested in the land are injuriously affected in the long run, it must prove-

    1737
    that the proposed improvement or change of cultivation will be of an uneconomic character. During the War, no doubt, mistakes were made, and cultivation orders were issued in some cases where the land was unsuitable. We had to get on as quickly as we could, some mistakes were unavoidable. In those cases we paid compensation.
    We are now embarking, not on a hurried policy for a special purpose during a war, but on what I hope may be a permanent peace policy. We do not wish to make these mistakes. We wish these mistakes to be avoided. Therefore, instead of payment of compensation after mistakes, our method is an appeal in the first instance to a single arbitrator on this point: Are the Agricultural Committee right or not? Are they proposing something which will be an advantage or which will not be an advantage? Are they proposing something which will or will not injuriously affect those interests in the soil? If it will injuriously affect those interests, it is clear that the change of cultivation will be an uneconomic change. If, on the other hand, it does not injuriously affect those interests, probably it will be an improvement of cultivation and one that in the national interests should be made. Having adopted this principle of a certain measure of control, having put in the Bill a Clause whereby there will be no compensation payable if a mistake be made, we cannot now, under the Rules of Order, having regard to the Financial Resolution passed by this House, insert compensation. That being so, we must adhere to our principle that before any Order be carried into effect it shall be ascertained by an appeal to an arbitrator whether or not the interests of the persons concerned will be injuriously affected. The Mover of the Amendment raised a point as to what I may call the practical difficulties. Who are the persons interested in the soil? All such matters will be settled by the arbitrator. If a man appeals against a Cultivation Order on the ground that his interests will be injuriously affected, he will have in the first instance to prove to the arbitrator that he is interested in the land. If he is not interested, he has no locus standi, and there will be no question of frivolous objections preventing these Cultivation Orders. If objections are made frivolously, they will not be con-1738
    sidered. I do not see that any difficulty is likely to arise, and, realising the importance of this particular Sub-section, I must say that these words are an essential part of it, and I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (ii, b,) to leave out the words "by any owner to execute repairs," and to insert instead thereof the words "to execute the necessary works of maintenance."
    I promised to make clear the intention of the Government in regard to repairs, and these words are merely put in to carry out that undertaking.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (ii, b,) leave out the word "owner" ["owner requiring"], and insert instead thereof the words "tenant or owner, as the case may be"; leave out the word "repairs" ["necessary repairs within such time"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Mr. E. WOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (ii, b,) after the word last inserted, to insert the, words "giving particulars thereof."
    I understand my right hon. Friend is willing to accept this Amendment, and, unless the House wishes it, I shall not give further particulars, as the Amendment is self-explanatory.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (ii, b,) to leave out the words "such improvement or change as aforesaid in the manner of cultivating or using the land, as the case may be," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the necessary improvement in the existing method of cultivation, or for securing that the land shall be used for arable cultivation, so, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown."
    The first part of this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment

    1739
    which was carried last night, while the last part, "so, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown," is simply to make it clear that although we have acquired by the Amendment inserted yesterday the right to order a change of cultivation in the sense that we can ask for a certain amount of arable land, we do not propose that there should be any attempt to dictate the particular crops to be grown in any particular year. The outside limit of our control is over improvement in the existing method of cultivation or a change of cultivation necessitating the maintenance or the production of a certain amount of arable land, and we wish to guard ourselves, as I promised we would, against any kind of attempt on the part of the agents or the officers of the Agricultural Committee, or the officers of the Ministry, to tell the occupying tenant or cultivator what he is to do in this year or any other year. We leave complete freedom of crops.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (ii), to insert a new paragraph—
    (iii) After the words "suspension of the covenant or condition," in Sub-section (1), there shall be inserted the words "or by reason of the execution by the owner of any works of maintenance."
    This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised in Committee. In the original Act, which we are here amending, if there is a suspension or alteration of a covenant, which benefits the tenant, provision is made for an adjustment of rent so that the landlord may receive his fair share of the benefit accruing from the suspension of the covenant. It was pointed out that we are taking large powers to compel the execution of repairs, and the execution of those repairs by the landlord may in some cases increase the value of the holding to the tenant. We think there should be an adjustment in favour of the landlord in that case also. I am quite aware that the Amendment which I have on the Paper does not quite meet the whole point, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Hope) were here, I should have suggested to him to move certain words which would have made the matter from
    1740
    the drafting point of view rather clearer. I understand that he is not present today, but I give the assurance that the-drafting will be reconsidered in another place, and the point which has been put before me by him and other Scottish Members will be safeguarded.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert a new paragraph
    (iii) After "notice" in the first line of the proviso to Sub-section (1), add "or copy of a notice."
    This is a small point, but it has been represented to me by those interested in the matter outside that it is desirable to make it quite plain that the same right of appeal should follow service of the copy of a notice as in the case of the service of a notice. If a notice is served on a tenant and copy of that notice is-served on the landowner it should be made quite clear beyond any question of misunderstanding that the same rights of appeal to the arbitrator follows the service of the copy of the notice on the landowner as follows the service of the notice on the tenant, and the same thing, should apply in the reverse direction. This Amendment is moved to avoid the risk of any possible misunderstanding.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I will ask my hon. Friend to consider whether this Amendment is necessary. I think it is provided quite clearly in the Bill that where notice is served on a tenant, copy of the notice, shall be served upon the landlord, and vice versâ, and according to my advice it is unnecessary to add this Amendment. Under these circumstances, perhaps my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. WOOD: It is quite clear that copy of the notice is to be served when the notice is served, but it is not clear whether the service of copy of the notice carries the same consequential rights of appeal to the arbitrator.
    Mr. MUNRO: I am advised that it does. If there is any difficulty in the matter we shall have it looked into, and words will be introduced in another place to deal with it.
    Mr. WOOD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (iii), after the word "of" ["portion of land"], insert the word "the."
    Leave out the words "be increased in the national interest by the occupier, by means of such an improvement or change as aforesaid," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "in the national interest be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of the required improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation or whether such improvement or use will injuriously affect the persons interested in the land."
    Leave out the word "repairs" ["repairs required"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."
    Leave out the words "for the proper cultivation or working of the land," and insert instead thereof the words "works of maintenance."
    Leave out the word "repairs" ["such repairs"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I beg to move at the (iii) to insert the end of paragraph words
    "Provided that the arbitrator in making his award on any appeal by the owner of land against a notice to execute repairs shall have regard, inter alia, to the cost of the execution of such repairs."
    The object of this Amendment is to direct the attention of the arbitrator to the question of the cost of the repairs, and to secure that the order shall be reasonable. There are cases in which it might be very unfair to have an order made upon an owner for repairs. For the better working of the Bill it is advisable that the attention of the arbitrator should be specially called to the need for keeping down, as far as he can, any unreasonable cost in any repairs he may order to be done.
    Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I sympathise with the object of my hon. Friends, but I do not think those words are necessary. Whether the appeal is by the owner or the tenant it will be open to the arbitrator to consider whether on account of the cost it is unreasonable for the repairs
    1742
    to be executed or not. That is a material point which he can take into consideration. There is the further point whether the land can be kept in proper cultivation by the execution of other works at less cost. It must be borne in mind that we are only dealing with works which are necessary for the proper cultivation of the land. All the works necessary for the cultivation of the land must be executed, but the arbitrator could certainly take into consideration whether the proposed repairs are really necessary or whether other repairs of a less ambitious character could be executed which would be sufficient in order to secure the proper cultivation of the land. I do not think that it would be well to put in this special direction. There are a great many other matters which the arbitrator will have to take into account, and we know that if you put in one direction it often seems to exclude others. All that my hon. Friends have in mind can he carried out without the insertion of these words.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: What my right hon. Friend has said does meet the case. I think that the word "unreasonably" goes a Long way, and, obviously, the question of cost would be covered.
    Mr. ACLAND: I agree. I think that it is always dangerous to direct attention to a particular thing, because it rather creates the presumption that one should not attempt to do other things. If this Amendment were accepted, I should move to add the words "also accruing to the tenant by reason of the repairs not being executed" and so it would go on.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: This is not only a question between landlord and tenant, but one affecting every tenant farmer who purchases his farm. He can be ordered to do repairs, and when the question of cost is referred to it includes not only the cost of building but the cost having regard to the very high prices at the present time. The cost of repairs at present would be at least 3½ times what they were formerly. This Bill is only a temporary measure. It can be repealed at any time in four years. The conditions under which they will have to execute these repairs apply to every tenant who has bought his farm, so that special attention should be directed to the question of cost.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and the appalling prospect of what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) might do, I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2A) to leave out the words "other than a notice under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section."
    Paragraph (b) refers to this. Where there is any default in the matter of repairs by the landlord it was dealt with differently from the way in which the tenant was dealt with if he were in default in the matter of cultivation. In the matter of default in cultivation there could be summary proceedings in court. In the case of the landlord in default with repairs such proceedings are impossible as the Bill stands, but powers are given to the tenant to execute repairs at the landlord's expense. It was pointed out in Committee that if either landlord or tenant goes into court they should be treated in precisely the same way, and the object of this Amendment is to secure that equality of treatment.
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: These words instead of putting the landlord on the same footing will put him on a different footing. If the tenant is in default he is going to be sent to prison. If the landlord is in default he is not to be sent to prison, and no penalty is to be put on him at all.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There is no question of going to prison.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Some might be very glad to go there when you have got this Bill through.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is only a question of proceeding in Court, and we find that as the Bill stands a tenant in default will have proceedings taken against him in Court and the landlord will not. The only effect of leaving out these words is to obliterate the distinction between these two cases. It is exactly the opposite to what my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Mackenzie Wood) thinks.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2A), after the word "the" ["on the occupier"], insert the words "owner or."
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2A), to leave out the words, "in connection with the cultivation of the land."
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain this Amendment?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: These are all purely drafting Amendments. I realise fully the difficulty of dealing with this matter by reference, and, if I am in order in saying this at this stage, if the matter is pressed I shall be glad to recommit the Bill in respect of the Clause when we recommit the other Clauses, and set out the whole of Clause 9, provided always that I am assured that opportunity will not be taken to rediscuss the whole question. This is simply a drafting Amendment consequential on Amendments already made.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I am quite satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. What he suggests will be a great help to us all.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I re-echo what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. We should like to see the Clause as amended in print. It is impossible, without the assistance of a couple of lawyers' clerks, to go through the Clause and say exactly what it means, but if it comes up again I will engage in no unnecessary discussion unless there are obvious discrepancies between the Clause and what the House really meant. So far as raising the old questions over again is concerned, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not do that.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask whether what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do is to issue on the re-committed Bill Clause 9 of the original Bill in its new form, showing in a different print, in italics or block print, those changes which have been inserted since, so that we may see exactly what the alterations are?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not know how far we ought to insert in print the alterations made in this Bill. The better course, I should think, would be, first, to move to re-commit the Bill in respect of Clause 4; secondly, to move the omission of Clause 4, and, thirdly, to move the insertion of a new Clause, which would be the old existing Sections of the Act of

    1745
    1917, as amended. Whether I should show the alterations in different print or not, that is a matter on which I must consult others.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do that in a separate paper?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will do my best.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2A): Leave out the word "penalty" ["further penalty not"] and insert instead thereof the word, "fine"—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Lieut. Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I beg
    to move, in paragraph (iv, 2 A, b) to leave out the words "notwithstanding that proceedings have been instituted under this Sub-section."
    The object of the Amendment is that when a question is sub judice the Minister shall not be entitled to execute work which might entail considerable expense. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to page 1 of the White Paper he will see that at the bottom it says that where a question is so referred to arbitration, no action shall be taken to enforce a direction by the Board until the question has been determined by the terms of award. By leaving in those words the paragraph seems to me to be contradictory. I admit that if these words are left out it will entail some re-drafting of paragraph (b). But I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should recognise the justice of omitting these words, and in re-committing this Clause would perhaps substitute words which would meet the difficulty indicated.
    Mr. TOWNLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot accept the Amendment. By merely omitting these words we should leave the question absolutely open as to whether these two proceedings are cumulative or alternative. The House must decide which they should be. We do not care to take proceedings as a rule. It is the last thing we want, but in very bad cases when it may be necessary. At the same time we do not want to be held up in getting repairs executed. I do not see any inconsistency between these words and the words which
    1746
    my hon. Friend has read out. To leave the matter quite open, as this would do, would be a mistake.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I do not think that the matter is quite so simple. It is evident that by re-committing it would be necessary to re-draft paragraph (b). That point will arise later. What is suggested by paragraph (b) is that while proceedings are going on and the matter is sub judice and a legal decision against the Minister may be given, the Minister can go ahead and charge any cost that has been incurred against the man who by the decision of the Court may after all turn out not to be liable. May I direct attention to what is actually going to be tried in the Court? At the top of page five of the amended Bill we read that where a notice has been served under this Section on the occupier, and where that person unreasonably fails to comply, he shall be liable. Yet while you are trying him you assume that the thing will be decided against him and you at once carry out the work. That seems to me a very unreasonable thing to do. You need not be afraid of any great delay, for the thing is dealt with in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and in most places such Courts sit every week or every alternate week.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I quite appreciate the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but on further inspection of the Clause I think he will see that this Amendment is unnecessary. What we are trying to do is to get done work which ought to be done. The question of penalties and so on is a side issue. You do not want to relieve the persons from the duty of doing certain work because of the fact that he has incurred some other liability. If we look at paragraph (b) of this Clause, we find that it is declaratory; it says that the Minister "shall be entitled" to do the work. That is to say that side by side with anything else that is going on the Minister shall be entitled to do the work. The fact that proceedings are being taken does not put a stop to the carrying out of the work. The paragraph also contains the words:
    "and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default any expenses reasonably incurred by him in so doing."

    1747
    If in fact it is ultimately decided that the works were unnecessary and ought never to have been asked for or carried out, then the expense of carrying them out will not be reasonably incurred, and there can be no demand made in respect of them. In other words, the Minister proceeds at his peril.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Solicitor General shows a very small regard for what may fall on the taxpayer. If the necessary expense is incurred I do not think it can quite well be excused because it is going to fall upon the public purse rather than on the Government. The Government cannot ride two horses at once here. The real point arises here, from the fact that the word "unreasonably" actually exists in the original Government Amendment on which these words are based—under paragraphs (c) and (d,) as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, which are now added to the Bill. Paragraph (c) refers to the occupier of the land as unreasonably neglecting to execute repairs and paragraph (d) refers to the owner of the land in the occupation of a tenant as unreasonably neglectful. Prosecution under this Clause is to be instituted against a person who has unreasonably failed to comply. If the word "unreasonably" did not occur in Paragraphs (c) and (d) there might be a question as to the Minister having the right to order the work to be done reasonably or unreasonably. But there is the further point that if unreasonably the work is not done a man may be prosecuted, and at the same time it is possible to go on with the original proposal, which may not have been reasonable but which there is a right to carry out. When the Court is having a case tried it does not seem right that at the same time the work should be done. If the case is decided against the Board the work has plainly been wrongly done. I think the Minister ought to wait until the Court has either affirmed or refused to affirm that he is reasonably demanding that the work should be done, or he must let the Court go by and take his powers under the remaining Clauses.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: With great respect to the learned Solicitor-General and his contention that if the Minister
    1748
    unreasonably executed these, repairs he would be liable for the cost of them, I would like to ask under what Clause of this Bill that would occur. The only Clause dealing with the matter says that whatever orders or notices are given by the Minister he shall not be liable for the cost. I do not see how the Minister can be made liable if he does this work even unreasonably. Under the Corn Production Act, if he does work unreasonably he is liable, but under this Bill he is not so liable. This Clause gives him specific power to do these repairs, notwithstanding the fact that proceedings are going on. I think the learned Solicitor-General has possibly confused this with the position of an arbitrator. The tenant or occupier, if ordered to do work, might have appealed to an arbitrator, and then, of course, the Minister would not have power to do the work pending the decision of the arbitrator. Here that is not the case. This is a case where a man is taken before the magistrate and summoned for unreasonable conduct. If the case is dis-dismissed, and the man found not guilty, obviously he has done nothing wrong and the repairs are not necessary. I think it would be better if the Government stated precisely in this Clause that these repairs shall not be done by the Minister while any proceedings are pending in the police court.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think that this question is very important either way. We can look at the matter again when the Clause has been completed, and we shall then be able to follow exactly what the words mean. My own view is quite clear. I have had an opportunity of looking at the Clause in perhaps a more perfect form than some of my hon. Friends. At the same time I should be very sorry to insist that I was right and that hon. Members were wrong. I am quite prepared to look into the matter again. These words are put in in order to prevent delay. Perhaps the best thing would be to let the words stand as they are and then reconsider them when we are dealing with the full Clause which the Parliamentary Secretary has promised. In the circumstances I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think that probably the best, way is to leave the words out. That,

    1749
    at any rate, would put the matter in a form in which it could not be left. What we want to do is to be precise.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that would be the right procedure. We had better settle now what we are going to do and not wait until later to settle it. The Solicitor-General says it does not matter very much. I think it does matter very much. Suppose that the Minister calls on a tenant or a landlord and says that certain works are to be done, and that the tenant or the landlord says "No." The Minister then sends down a surveyor, an official from the Board of Agriculture, and probably an official from the County Agricultural Committee, who all arrive in motor cars, and all discuss whether or not the work is absolutely necessary. It will be very likely that one of the three experts disagrees with the other two. Then there will have to be further consultation and further visits to the site. The Board of Agriculture will say, "We have sent down our representative; we have sent down a builder and a surveyor, and they have sent in an estimate and plan. The county authority have also sent their representative, and the County Agricultural Committee has agreed. Therefore we are going to carry out the work." Suppose the landlord or the tenant disagrees with this decision and the matter is carried to the Court. In the meantime, the repairs are carried out. We will presume that the result is that the repairs or alterations are carried out in a reasonable manner and at reasonable expense. What is going to happen then, supposing the Court said repairs were unnecessary? I am not at all sure that, under those conditions, if the Minister could prove that the repairs were reasonably executed, he would not be authorised under this Sub-section to claim from the unfortunate person the cost of those repairs. Certainly he would be able to obtain all the costs which were incurred before proceedings were taken, that is to say, the cost of sending down all these people to ascertain whether or not all this new work was required. Consider for a moment the tremendous costs and trouble which are going to be put upon farmers and landlords by all these proceedings. It is quite easy to say the law will decide this or that, but how is the farmer to get to the law? He has got
    1750
    to have a solicitor, he has got to have a counsel, and they have to put their case before the judge or the arbitrator, and all these proceedings will have to be carried out, supposing this Sub-section is left as it is.
    We are supposed to be doing something to benefit agriculture. It seems to me we are doing something which will entail needless trouble and expense on the farmer. It must not be forgotten that, under the Corn Production Act, if the Minister did anything foolish or wrong, the injured person had a financial remedy. I availed myself of it and succeeded, but for such a case this Bill does not provide. I raised this very point two or three days ago. There is nothing in this Bill which will provide that if the Minister—I do not use the word offensively—does foolish things, he has to pay instead of the person who is used in a foolish manner. As an economist, I was shocked to hear the opinion of the Solicitor-General. To what does it all amount? A Court proves that the action of the Minister was unreasonable, that is to say, was unnecessary. £1,000 has been spent. It does not matter, says the Solicitor-General, because the taxpayer is going to pay. Really, after the statement of the Leader of the House yesterday, that he was not in favour of unnecessary expenditure, or of expenditure which would not mean a return, it shocked me.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I really think the House has been under some misapprehension as to this Amendment all through. Before the Order can be made, the person in default, whether owner or occupier, can appeal to the arbitrator, who has to say whether or not the Order is reasonable and must be executed. If no appeal has been made to the arbitrator, it is perfectly clear that the person concerned has accepted the Order. Therefore, the only question is what is to be done in the case of his being in default, and of refusing to carry out an Order which has already been established as a final Order. Personally, I think it is better that the Minister should take both courses at once, if he desire, and that he should institute proceedings in order to obviate delay, and, at the same time, be able to execute the work himself. I think the Amendment is inconvenient, because it leaves the matter open as to whether he should take that course or not; but if it

    1751
    is the general wish of the House that the words should be omitted, I do not wish to press my personal view in this matter. I would merely make this remark, that the reconsideration would have to be in another place. If I move the omission of Clause 4, and reprint a new Clause, it must be on the understanding that we do not re-discuss in this House the points we have already discussed. I merely do it for the purpose of convenience. I shall not move, or expect other Members to move, Amendments to the Clause under those circumstances. If it is the general wish of the House, I will accept the Amendment, but I enter a caveat that it will have to be re-considered by the Minister of Agriculture in another place.
    Captain BOWYER: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, when considering what other words should be put in, he will take into consideration such words as "at any time after the conviction." If there is a default, surely the sphere of activity of the Minister is to prosecute, and the Minister, I submit, is bound until he finds out whether or not he has got a conviction. If there is a default after conviction, the Minister can well stop in and say, "I will do the repairs," so that paragraph (b) should read, "The Minister shall be entitled, at any time after the conviction, to execute any work specified in the notice." I suggest that would defend the liberty of the subject, and do all that the Minister can desire to do.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Captain Sir B. STANIER: I beg to move, in paragraph (iv. 2A, b,) to leave out the words "any expenses reasonably incurred by him in so doing" and to insert instead thereof the words "the reasonable cost of executing such work in a proper and workmanlike manner."
    What I want to do is to get at the actual cost of the work, and, to put it as shortly as I can, to exclude the expense of the Minister's officers.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think these words mean substantially the same as the words in the Bill, but it may be that they express the matter rather more clearly. For that
    1752
    reason, I shall be willing to accept the Amendment, and similarly an Amendment on the same subject a little later.
    Mr. ACLAND: This is a matter which is more far-reaching than merely its application to this Bill. The case I have in my mind is the destruction of vermin under the Forestry Act. The Forestry Commissioners may have vermin destroyed, and may recover the cost of so doing against the person who ought to have destroyed them. I think it is only a right protection to the public that they should be able to recover, in cases of that kind, expenses incurred by themselves in doing what the person in default really ought to have done, and not only, as this Amendment proposes, "the reasonable cost of executing such work in a proper and workmanlike manner." It is obvious that when a Department steps in and does work which ought to have been done by somebody on the spot, it very often costs more than if it had been done by the person on the spot, and it is hardly fair on the public that they should be out of pocket by the difference between the two sums. It is only, apparently, when a person on whom an Order has been served, and has every right of appeal, has been in default and contumaciously refused to do the work, that the Minister steps in and orders the work to be done, and it seems to me rather hard, in that case, if the expenses cannot be recovered.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (iv, 2B) leave out the words "under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section."
    After the word "land" ["owner of any land requiring"] insert the word3 "in the occupation of a tenant."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Amendment proposed in paragraph (iv, 2B): Leave out the word "repairs" ["in the notice to execute repairs"] and insert instead thereof the words "necessary works of maintenance."—[Sir A. Boscawen"]
    Mr. TOWNLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is meant by "necessary works of maintenance"? Last night we had a Debate on the subject of ploughing up pasture, and, contrary to the expressed view of most of those representing agricultural constituencies, it was decided that it was desirable to

    1753
    plough up pasture land. The question of maintaining that land under cultivation must include the buildings and the draining of the land, and I should like to ask whether that is going to be included under "maintenance," because this land, which has been ploughed up, will no doubt pay its way for a few years, and, after that, it will begin to cease to pay its way. It will be quite impossible for these buildings and drainage to be paid for in a few years. That is a cost, I now understand, that is to be recovered under this Clause from the owner.
    Mr. E. WOOD: Is not the point raised met by an Amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, later on the Paper, in the same Clause, defining the expression "necessary works of maintenance"?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think my hon. Friend ought to have raised this point earlier, because this is only a consequential Amendment. We have two or three times already used the words "works of maintenance," which is an expression I put in at the request, I think, of Members of the Committee as being clearer than "repairs," and there is no doubt about it that a work of maintenance cannot possibly mean the erection of a new building. That would be a contradiction in terms. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wood) is quite right. By a later Amendment on the Paper I define what "works of maintenance" are, and when we reach that Amendment I shall be willing to discuss any Amendments which may be put down to the definition I have placed on the Paper. I can assure my hon. Friend in general terms that the words "works of maintenance" clearly imply the maintaining of buildings, drains, dykes, and so on which exist at the time, and which must be maintained in a proper state of repair if reasonable cultivation is to be carried out, and they could not by any possibility be stretched to mean the erection of new buildings or works.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HUGH MORRISON: I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2B), after the word "owner" ["repairs and the owner"], to insert the word "unreasonably."
    It is to make absolutely certain that the owner has failed unreasonably to execute any repairs.
    Sir B. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think this word is necessary here. We have got the words "reasonably" and "unreasonably" scattered all through the Bill with great profusion already, and if my hon. Friend will look at the Clause as it stands he will see that the owner already has an opportunity of appealing against the Order, and notwithstanding his appeal it is presumed in this case that the Order has been made and is therefore a reasonable Order, and if he refuses to carry it out after there has been this opportunity of appeal, what can his conduct be but unreasonable? Further, if we insert the words here, it will leave us in a great state of uncertainty. It introduces another opportunity for discussion or arbitration, or something of that sort, and meanwhile we shall not know whether the tenant may be authorised to proceed with the repairs or not, because nobody will be able to state definitely whether the refusal has been unreasonable or not.
    Sir F. BANBURY: To a certain extent I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but it is very difficult always to be able to execute repairs at once, and I would like to put a case of my own before him. Several of my buildings are thatched and the thatch is in a bad state of repair. For the last two years I have tried to get that thatch into a good state of repair. Whenever I have been able to get a thatcher, none of my tenants have any straw, and whenever they have any straw, I have never been able to get a thatcher. This summer I did succeed in finding a tenant who had straw, and also a thatcher, with the result that, having got him, I said: "There are a good many thatched buildings on the farm, and you had better thatch all of them which can by any manner of means be thought to require it." He thatched nearly all of them, but when the hay harvest came on he left with the last but one building only partly finished, because, as far as I can make out, he prefers to thatch ricks during the hay and corn harvest to thatching roofs. The hay and corn harvest has been extremely prolonged, and I have never yet been able to get that thatcher back. He left me some time in June, and I have done my best, without success, to find another thatcher. I have asked all my tenants and have said to them:

    1755
    "If you can get a thatcher, get him, and get the thing done;" but I have not yet been able to get another thatcher. I do not know whether my particular county is unfortunately situated, but an hon. Member below me who is connected with the Ministry of Agriculture (Major Barnston) informs me that his experience is the same as mine. Would it not be advisable, in order to guard against such cases, to put in some word such as that suggested in the Amendment?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my right hon. Friend will look at paragraph (iii) he will see that there is an appeal as to whether the time specified for the execution of repairs is reasonable. Therefore, there is not only an appeal against the order, but an appeal against the time specified within which the repairs should be executed, and I think that meets the point.
    Mr. ACLAND: May I also suggest that if hon. Members will read the Clause, they will see that what is intended is only that the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the repairs. The tenant would not apply to the Minister to authorise this unless the tenant were able to execute the repairs, and therefore the case imagined by the right hon. Baronet would not apply. He only said he came to the point where the tenant had the thatch and the thatcher, until the harvest came on. and if that was the case, a fortiori, the landlord ought to be able to find the thatch and the thatcher, and if the landlord were unable to do something which the tenant could do, the landlord would presumably be in default. Therefore, it seems to me to be quite reasonable that the powers of the Clause should be exercised without the insertion of further words.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I do not think the observations of the last speaker meet the point made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). A notice is to be served requiring the owner to do certain repairs within the time specified. That time specified might in itself be a perfectly reasonable time, but after that time has been specified something might arise—for example, a strike in the building trade—which might make it impossible to carry out that perfectly reasonable order within the time specified. If the Clause stands as it is now, notwithstanding the circum-
    1756
    stances arising which would make it impossible for the owner to carry out the order, he would still, under the strict terms of the Clause, have failed to comply with the requirement, and I think that would be a very unfair state of things. Therefore, I think, after hearing what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that some such word as "unreasonably" is necessary here to provide against a case where the order itself is reasonable but where circumstances intervene such as I have named.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2B), leave out the word "repairs" ["tenant to execute the repairs"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir B. STANIER: I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2B), after the word "repairs" ["tenant to execute the repairs"], to insert the words "in a proper and workmanlike manner."
    I do not think any explanation of this Amendment is necessary.
    Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2B), leave out the word "repairs" ["entitled to execute the repairs"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Major STEEL: I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2B), after the word "accordingly," to insert the words "in a reasonable manner."
    This Amendment was moved in Commitee but withdrawn on the Government inserting the word "reasonably" after the word "costs." That meets the case to a certain extent, but not altogether. It ensures that the costs of repair shall be reasonable, but not that the type or method of repair shall also be reasonable. There are several different methods of repairing a building, and one might be very much more costly than the others, and the object of the Amendment which I am now moving is to ensure that not only shall the costs be reasonable, but that the type and method of repair which is adopted shall also be reasonable. In this particular case the tenant is expending the money of the landlord, from whom he will recover, and I think the owner

    1757
    is entitled to every possible safeguard, not only as to the cost but also as to the method, of the repair which the tenant selects to carry out.
    Colonel Sir A. SPROT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr.Morison): The effect of accepting this Amendment would be to nullify the Order. If the owner does not comply with the notice the repairs may be done by the tenant on the direction of the Court. If the Amendment were accepted, some other body would have to decide as to whether they were reasonable or not.
    Colonel GRETTON: The repairs might be done in a slipshod and unenduring way, so that it might be necessary to have them done again in a short time. On the other hand, the tenant might carry them out too elaborately and in that way incur additional expense. I think the owner really does need some protection to ensure on the one hand that the work is done in a reasonably substantial manner, and on the other that it is not needlessly extravagant.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think the hon. Member has secured his object by the acceptance of a previous Amendment, where it is provided that the work is to be done in "a proper and workmanlike manner."
    Major STEEL: The kind of case I had in mind was, say, the putting on of a roof. There are many different types of re-roofing. You might, for instance, have a roof with projecting eaves which would add a good deal to the expense. The object of the Amendment is to secure that the type of repairs should be reasonable.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2B), leave out the word "repairs" ["after the repairs"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, after paragraph (iv, 2B), to insert the following new paragraph—
    (2c) A notice under this Section shall not require any work to lie executed within a period of less than one month from the date of the notice unless in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary that the work
    1758
    should be executed within some shorter period.
    This is in fulfilment of a promise made in Committee. It was urged that some period should be indicated on the notice requiring the work to be executed. It is quite clear we cannot have any absolutely rigid rule. For instance, you might have a notice requiring the destruction of weeds, and to allow a month in that case would defeat the purpose of the Order. It is reasonable that we should enact that at least a month should be allowed in cases where, in the opinion of the Minister, it is necessary that the work should be executed within a shorter period.
    Mr. H. MORRISON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add the words "specified in the notice."
    The object of this Amendment is to make sure that the tenant shall know exactly what the period is before a penalty is incurred.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hardly think the words are necessary, but at all events they are quite harmless, and I accept them.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (iv, 2B), to insert the words
    "Provided that the owner shall be allowed to deduct from such costs the value of any allowances or benefits given to the tenant in respect of such repairs."
    The owner may have let the farm at a reduced rent in consideration of the tenant doing certain repairs, or he may have supplied certain material, and the object of my Amendment is to make it clear that all those matters will be taken into consideration.
    Sir B. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think I can accept this Amendment. I do not quite understand what it is my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. This is a case of works of maintenance which the

    1759
    owner is directed to execute, and which he has failed to do. Then the tenant is authorised to do them for him and to recover the cost. It is improbable in a case like that that the owner would supply any of the material or labour. If he were willing to do that, the chances are that he would have executed the work in the first instance. But if after refusing to do the work in the first instance, and after the tenant had been authorised to do it, he said, "I will supply, say, some of the tiles for draining," then the fact that the owner supplies those tiles would pro tanto diminish the cost on the tenant, and he can only recover the actual cost of the work executed in a "workmanlike and reasonable manner." Therefore, this proposal does not seem to be necessary.
    Captain BOWYER: I am rather surprised at the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, because he seems to have changed the views which he held on this point in Committee, where he said, speaking of an Amendment in identical words with the exception of one word:
    "I cannot accept these words, but I quite agree cases such as my hon. and gallant Friend mentions may arise and I will under take that the whole matter should be considered before Report. …. I propose first of all to inquire whether cases mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman arise in practice, and, if they do, to see what words are suitable."
    I am sure the right hon. Gentleman made some inquiry.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have made inquiries, and I have come to the conclusion that these words are unnecessary.
    Captain BOWYER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he did not understand this Amendment. In Committee he was sympathetic. An hon. Gentleman asked him was he sympathetically inclined towards the Amendment, and the OFFICIAL REPORT represents him as giving assent.
    Mr. TOWNLEY: I rather regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. Cases may well arise, particularly on small estates, where the landlord would say, "If you execute this work you shall have the grazing of a particular field, or, if you will do these repairs, I have a few horses, and I will plough up your field."
    1760
    That is a sort of case which should be provided for.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There might be a case where the landlord would say if the tenant would carry out the repairs he would have an allowance off his rent.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have already accepted an Amendment provided that under certain circumstances a landlord may have an increase in his rent.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not the same case at all.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir B. STANIER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (iv, 2B), to insert the following new paragraph:
    (v) For the words in Sub-section (3) from "after the prescribed notice may," to "adapting such land for cultivation," both inclusive, there shall be substituted the words "(a) if the occupier is a tenant by order determine the tenancy of the holding or any part thereof."
    The idea is that the owner-occupier should be penalised in the same way as if he were a tenant.
    Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As I understand it, this Amendment and the next one in the name of the same hon. Member are to be read together. They are part of a plan for dealing with what I may call the owner-occupier. In the case where the occupier is merely a tenant the procedure is that the tenancy can be terminated. In the ease of the owner-occupier the procedure under the existing law is that possession may be taken of the land and the land cultivated. The effect of these two Amendments read together would be this. The proper authority may not enter into possession of the land of the owner-occupier but may only appoint a receiver. What position have we reached? In the case of a tenant if he is a thoroughly bad tenant the tenancy can be terminated. In the case of the owner-occupier all we can do is to appoint a receiver. We cannot enter into possession. I think that would be a quite inadequate remedy. I do not think it would be suitable to such a case as this. It is quite true that when we get a badly-managed estate the whole question of estate management comes in, and there we suggest, in the Sub-section, we should have a right to appoint a receiver.

    1761
    I think a receiver is the proper person to deal with such an estate. But in the case of the ordinary owner-occupier, where perhaps only a few acres are involved, the appointment of a receiver is not an appropriate way of dealing with it, and therefore I think the present plan which is the law to-day that we may in such cases enter into possession is the proper way to deal with it. I submit to the House it would be very much better we should adhere to the law as it stands to-day and not adopt the plan of receivership which is inappropriate in this sort of case.
    Sir B. STANIER: May I ask in regard to the second Amendment if the receiver or manager there to be appointed will have power to sell the land?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not propose to accept that Amendment and therefore the question will not arise.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That disposes, I take it, of the two Amendments.
    Mr. E. WOOD: May I ask whether it will be possible to have a short discussion on the second Amendment, because one or two of us have some observations which we wish to make on the point? I did hot like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was only going by what the Minister himself said. I confess I do not understand why the two Amendments necessarily go together. The second one, I think, can be moved and discussed separately.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no desire to prevent discussion, but I do not think the second Amendment can be read without the first one. The first divides the occupiers into (a) the tenant and (b) the occupying owner, and it seems to me it would be difficult to read the second Amendment into the Clause unless the first was carried.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The position is that the House has negatived the first Amendment, and it would seem that the second Amendment cannot stand by itself.
    Mr. WOOD: I would suggest that there are two distinct points. The first Amendment dealt with the question of the occu-
    1762
    pier who is a tenant. The Amendment I am asking the leave of the House to discuss deals with the case of the owner-occupier, and I wish to raise a question of assimilating the position of the owner-occupier to that suggested for the owner of a large estate.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman claims that the Amendment can stand by itself, I will allow him to move it.
    Mr. WOOD: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (iv, 2B), to insert the following new paragraph:
    (v) After the word "tenancy" in the last line of Sub-section (3) there shall be inserted the words "and
    (b) if the occupier (hereinafter in this provision called "the owner-occupier" in default is not a tenant by order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the land or of the holding of which it forms part. Any such order of the Board may authorise the person appointed to act as such receiver and manager to do all such things as appear to the Board necessary or desirable for the cultivation of the land in respect of which the order has been made or for adapting such land for cultivation, and the Board may, by an order under this provision, apply for the purposes of the order, with such modifications as the Board thinks fit, any of the provisions of Section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relate to the powers, remuneration, and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees and authorise the receiver and manager to exercise such other powers vested in the owner-occupier of the land as may be specified in the order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager.
    Provided—

    (i) that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon, the land or any part thereof except with the consent of the owner-occupier or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court; and

    (ii) the owner-occupier may at any time after any change in the ownership of the holding, or after the expiration of one year from the date of the order, apply to the Board to have the order appointing the receiver and manager revoked; and if on any such

    1763
    application the Board refuses to revoke the order, the owner-occupier may appeal against the refusal to the High Court in accordance with rules of court.

    This is a point which should be discussed. If we are to have the power which is suggested in the following Sub-section to be applied to agricultural estates which are mismanaged, I think it worth while considering whether we should not also apply it to small farms hold by occupying owners. It is very desirable to have as far as one may one law for all cases, and more particularly for this reason, that I cannot believe it is a sound plan to deal with cases of bad farming in different ways. There are mismanaged estates of which the proper authority will have power to take possession and carry on farming operations themselves, and if we are to have a receiver or manager appointed in the case of such estates, I suggest it might be worth considering whether the same plan could not be applied also to a farm held by an owner-occupier. I would have preferred to have seen the last Amendment carried, as that would have helped my point. T would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this point, the object being to assimilate the position of the owner-occupier to that of the owner of an agricultural estate. We had considerable discussion on this in Committee upstairs, and no very satisfactory reasons were given why different treatment should be meted out to two classes that are in substantially the same position, seeing that the action is justified in the national interest from the point of view of food production.
    Sir B. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am still of opinion that the Amendment cannot stand by itself, and that is one reason why I ask the House to reject it. I will certainly, however, reply to the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend. The reason why we object to this is quite simple. Where we propose to put in a receiver or manager it is with a view of managing the estate. We have, say, got an estate so mismanaged that the theory is that the tenants on the estate cannot reasonably cultivate their farms. That is quite different from the case of the owner-occupier, where there is really
    1764
    only one holding. He is the owner, it may be the holding consists of 50, 100, or 200 acres or more. He is farming his own land. He is the one and sole occupier, and in that case if no other remedy is possible, it seems to me that for us to enter into possession of the farm ourselves is the only possible procedure. I am not in favour, generally speaking, of such a course, but in this case I think it is necessary, and I submit that to put in a receiver or manager would be both futile and an utterly inappropriate proceeding. A receiver put in in the case of a large estate which is badly mismanaged practically becomes the agent. He does not become the cultivator. The mismanagement of the estate is generally due to the fact that there is no agent, or, if there is one, that he is incompetent, and, therefore, in such a case the appointment of a receiver would be an appropriate remedy. That is a matter we shall have to discuss later on, but it does not appear to me to be appropriate in the case of a single holding, and, therefore, on the merits of the case, I ask the House to accept the Bill as it stands in this respect.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does the argument of the right hon. Gentleman amount to this, that Sub-section (3) of Clause 9, which we are proposing to amend, authorises certain procedure which will give power to the proper authority to themselves step in and take possession and see that the land is properly cultivated? In the next Sub-section which we are coming to presently, there is another procedure laid down, and it lies at the discretion of the Board of Agriculture, which procedure they shall adopt; it will depend mainly on the size of the estate. If that is so, I do not think it is unsatisfactory.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is so.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I want the position to be made perfectly clear. There are two alternative procedures, and it would be at the discretion of the Board which they take in the case of a holding which is owned and occupied by the same person—it may be a holding of 3,000 or 4,000 acres, or it may be one of 100 acres only. There are two alternative procedures, one under the old Bill, which is to stand, and a new one which we are coming to directly. These alternatives are at the discretion

    1765
    of the Board, and they will exercise them according to the circumstances of the case. That, I understand, is the real position.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think my right hon. Friend has accurately stated the position. The Ministry will have to decide whether it is an estate in the ordinary acceptation of the term comprised of several tenancies—
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I point out it is specifically stated in the Clause we are coming to that the question of the tenant does not arise at all.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I quite agree. The Sub-section covers the case where the whole estate is in one man's hands. That is so, according to the Clause. The hon. and gallant Member is quite right in saying that it would be within the discretion of the Ministry to decide whether we should utilise the powers given by this Bill or the existing provisions under the Corn Production Act. We should probably use the new provisions in the case of large estates, and when dealing with small occupying owners we should probably use the other powers.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Then there is no responsibility for loss upon the Ministry of Agriculture, but if they actually went into occupation, then I understand the Ministry would be responsible. I think this point should be clearly understood. If you appoint a receiver under the Clause, he spends the money of the owner, and he has no responsibility at all, but if the Ministry go into occupation, and they will probably lose, then they have to pay the money.
    Mr. WOOD: What is the position now? I have been in great difficulty in following all the White Papers which have been issued relating to this Bill, and I want the position made clear. Am I to understand that you have got two alternative procedures, under one of which you enter into possession of the farm and under the other you appoint a receiver? In the one case I understand you are liable for the loss, and in the other you are not. I think that is a most amazing proposal. I hope my right hon. Friend will say where we are, and if that be so I hope that he will not consider that we are in any way departing from any pledge we have
    1766
    given if we insist upon a careful examination of this question when Clause 4 is recommitted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (v), to insert the words: "on the yearly day customary in the district, not being less than three months after the making of the Order."
    It is obvious that there will be great loss in other directions if a tenant happens to be turned out at any date except the ordinary statutory date for the termination of tenancies in that particular district. I think there ought to be three months' notice. Under ordinary circumstances a tenancy can only be terminated by 12 months' notice, but it might be that in a particular case of very bad cultivation it would be advisable to get rid of a tenant earlier, and I am suggesting that where notice is given it must be within three months of the next term day.
    Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I sympathise with the object of my right hon. Friend which is that a suitable day should be selected for terminating the tenancy, but I very much doubt whether the words he has proposed really meet his point. The yearly day customary may not be the day on which a particular tenancy is terminated, and it might be customary generally in a district that the tenancy should terminate at Lady Day, but it might be Michaelmas Day. I suggest that the words "at the expiration of the current year of the tenancy" would meet the point of view which has been raised. With regard to the latter part of the Amendment, "not being less than three months after the making of the Order," I do not think I could accept those words, because they might mean that a very bad tenant, who had been cultivating his land badly, might be allowed to go on for another 15 months, and that would not be in the national interest or the landlord's interest or in the interest of food production. I suggest that it would be better to leave out those words, and substitute the words "at the expiration of the current year of tenancy."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think there is great force in what my right hon. Friend

    1767
    says, but I think those words would enable a landlord to turn out a tenant at a week's notice, and that would create great inconvenience. I think, therefore, there must be some term, and I suggest three months. If the right hon. Gentleman will make it two months I will not object. I do not think you could possibly turn out a tenant within less than two months.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that is reasonable, and I will accept two months.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At the end of paragraph (v), insert the words "at the expiration of the current year of tenancy not being less than two months after making the Order."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert the words
    "Provided that where a tenancy is so determined the tenant shall have no claim for disturbance under the provisions of this Act or otherwise against the owner or the landlord."
    Where the tenancy is so determined the tenant has no claim for compensation for disturbance under the Act, and that is what I desire to provide for by this Amendment.
    Major WHELER: I beg to second this Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I quite agree that in such a case the tenant would have no claim for disturbance, but my hon. and gallant Friend will see, if he looks at Clause 7, that compensation for disturbance is only payable where there is notice to quit given by the landlord.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Clause 7 is in the second part of the Bill. Part 1 deals with Amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the other part deals with the Corn Production Act.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The claims for compensation for disturbance only arise under the second part, and, inasmuch as under this Bill compensation for disturbance can only be paid where notice to quit is given by the landlord, I think my hon. and gallant Friend will see that this Amendment is unnecessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In paragraph (vi, 3A) leave out the words "such a manner" and insert instead thereof the words "a manner inconsistent with good estate management and so."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir B. STANIER: I beg to move, in paragraph (vi, 3A), after the word "thereon" ["production of food thereon"], to insert the words
    "and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister by the said committee that not less than six months' previous notice in writing has been given by the said committee to the owner of their intention to make such representation, and that such notice contained sufficient directions as to the manner in which such cultivation or management should in the opinion of the said committee be improved, and that notwithstanding such notice the cultivation or management of the estate or land has not been adequately improved."
    This Amendment is to provide sufficient time for notice to be given to the owner in reference to making representations, and I think that is only fair. Many things may happen on a farm or land, and it is not often easy, indeed it is very often impossible, to do certain things in a very short time, and this would give a sufficient time to carry out the work and would provide for proper notice being given.
    Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are now dealing with the Sub-section which deals with the case of estates which are grossly mismanaged, and we are following the recommendation of the Selborne Report, which suggests that power should be taken to deal with these cases by putting in a receiver or manager. The conditions under which we can do that are already very carefully safeguarded. In the first place the matter has to be considered by the Agriculture Committee. After they have made a representation there is to be an inquiry by the Minister, and he has to consider any representations made to him by the owner.
    Thirdly, there is the further delay of six months before the order can take effect, during which period the owner can appeal to the High Court. The House, I think, will therefore see that the Clause is very carefully surrounded by safeguards, and that plenty of time is given to the owner to state his case and to

    1769
    appeal to the High Court against the order, if he so desires. My hon. and gallant Friend and those who are associated with him in this Amendment now propose in addition to that that the Agricultural Committee must inform the owner not less than six months before that they are going to take the condition of his estate into account. That will add another six months. The result will be that probably nothing can be done in the case of an estate of this character for about eighteen months. I think that is really imposing an unreasonable delay. I hope that this Sub-section will be utilised in very few cases. It is only applicable where an estate is so mismanaged that proper cultivation cannot be carried on. It is only, I say, in such cases and after giving the owner an opportunity of stating his case and appealing against the order that the Clause will be brought into operation. I happen to know one or two estates in the whole country of which complaint has been made. I do not believe there are any more, but of course cases may arise.
    Sir F. BANBURY: They may be made.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If they are, surely, after giving reasonable time for consideration, we ought to act without unreasonable delay. I think there are sufficient safeguards. There will be quite long enough, as it is, properly to consider the matter without introducing this additional delay—additional safeguard, if you like so to call it. I would, therefore, ask the House not to accept this Amendment. I tried in Committee, as my hon. Friends remember, to introduce various concessions extending the time and giving greater safeguards to the owner. I thought that was only right. I do not think, however, that this really is necessary, as we have sufficient safeguards.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has only heard of two cases. He is, therefore, legislating in this matter for two estates—
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Oh, no!
    Lieut. Colonel ROYDS: I understood the right hon. Gentleman—
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I said I only knew of two, and I did not think there were many.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Quite so!
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: But cases may arise in the future.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Quite right. My right hon. Friend does not know any more cases, but if a Government introduces legislation of this character, they naturally have, or one would assume so, more material on which they have formed their opinion. Therefore the Clause, it is perfectly obvious, is introduced by the Government because they know of two estates which might come under it at the present time. I think it is very important that that has been mentioned, because the introduction of this legislation will undoubtedly affect the credit of the whole land of this country. There are only two estates that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government know, or possibly there may be more, and they have introduced this legislation, at the suggestion of someone, to apply to every estate in the country, and that, naturally, affects the credit—this Clause combined with the other Clauses of the Bill.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are following the Selborne Report.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I do not find any fault with the concessions the right hon. Gentleman made in Committee; but I think this is very absurd legislation under conditions which are totally unnecessary, and a waste of time, and it will affect the credit of the land. What did the Selborne Report say? It recommended that three years' notice should be given before any steps were taken. The right hon. Gentleman is not following the Selborne Report. If that Report were followed and three years' notice was given, I have no doubt even those two estates to which reference has been made—and of which I have no knowledge whatever—would be put in order. The right hon. Gentleman now says that the Amendment introduced extending the period to a further six months would make it eighteen months before the Clause began to operate. The Selborne Report suggested three years should be given before it began to operate, and this Bill is said to be founded on the Selborne Report. Therefore, I really trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment which is only asking for an extension of six months instead of three years.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, said that this Clause safeguarded in many ways the interests of those concerned. He said that you have to go to the High Court, and that you have to wait six months, and that if he accepts the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend the delay will be eighteen months. But this is a most extraordinary Clause, and one which I venture to say has not been introduced into our legislation—certainly for the last two hundred years. Appeal to the High Court! Of course, the owner of property, before it is taken from him, ought to have an appeal to the High Court. I very much doubt whether a Clause of this sort ought ever to have been introduced. Even supposing there are numerous cases of bad management, to introduce a Clause like this and to say that the right hon. Gentleman is to have the right, because you have safeguarded the matter by an appeal to the High Court; to say that you must even wait eighteen months before the agricultural committee—agricultural committee forsooth! What do they know about this thing, how can they be trusted in this sort of manner? An agricultural committee can come down and take away a man's property, which he has either purchased with money he has himself made or has inherited. To say that it shall be taken away because, forsooth, in the opinion of some practically self-constituted committee backed by the Minister of Agriculture—who may be no one knows who!—to say that the property is not managed in the best interests of the country, and, therefore, has to be taken away from the owner, and that if the High Court chooses they can order its sale—well, I never heard of such legislation in my life!
    I cannot conceive of a Government in which there are some so-called Conservative Members ever introducing a Clause of this sort. I should like to have seen my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General (Sir E. Pollock), if the time had been, say, six years ago, and we had been sitting on the opposite side of the House, and the then Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) had introduced words to this effect. I can conceive myself cheering the scathing criticism which my right hon. and learned Friend would have passed upon such a measure
    1772
    as this. We are descending into the depths of Socialism. A man can no longer call his property his own if some other body chooses to say that he is not managing it in a proper manner.
    The credit of agricultural estates would, said my hon. and gallant Friend, be affected by this legislation. Undoubtedly it will. Who will be fool enough to invest his money in agricultural property when he knows that a Clause of this sort is in an Act of Parliament? It is all very well to talk about the High Court, but there is the expense of going to the High Court, which may be £1,000, £1,500, or £2,000, and this when possibly all that the owner has done has been to affront one or two members of the Agricultural Committee. These one or two members of the Agricultural Committee, in order to score off this particular owner, send up to the Minister of Agriculture a detailed statement—probably very much exaggerated. It does not follow that the Minister of Agriculture will know anything about agriculture, and he, in order to save himself trouble, or because he does not want to offend the one or two members of this particular Committee, or because they have influence with the Labour party or some other party, does what? He takes action, so that the owner of this estate has his property taken away from him, and somebody else is put in to manage it for him.
    If the estate be managed badly the Board of Agriculture is to give it to another person. The Government, which has never managed any single enterprise in the last five years with any success or with any common-sense, are going to put in one of their representatives, and this man, so put in, is to spend the money of the owner, whether the owner likes it or not, in managing his property. Supposing, as is probable, that the receiver put in does not understand his business, or supposing he has ideas upon the best method in which to manage an estate. Supposing he thinks that grass land, which will fatten bullocks, will be better for being ploughed up; and supposing, in an estate consisting practically entirely of grass land, and capable of fattening bullocks, supposing, I say, he ploughs up the whole of that land and then finds that he can do very little with it. Supposing he finds that the result of it all, owing to the expensive implements, and

    1773
    so forth, brings about a heavy financial loss. Will the owner have to bear it? Nobody in their sane senses outside Kussia ever heard of anything like this. No one in his senses will ever invest money in the land if this Clause becomes law. Those of us who are unfortunate enough to possess land and property will be very much tempted to sell that land if we can find anybody foolish enough to buy it. The idea of supposing that this sort of thing is likely to encourage production is absolutely absurd. All it will do will be to discredit land and to prevent capital being attracted to it. It may probably, if it is ever put into operation, result in serious loss to the unfortunate owner of the land. I really do trust that in another place the Government will agree to withdraw altogether this proposed Clause. As my hon. and gallant Friend says, this is put in in order to deal with two cases.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is a complete misrepresentation and the right hon. Baronet ought to know it. I have already explained that I am personally aware of only two eases at the present moment that this Clause might under any circumstances be applied to. I pointed out, however, that there might be other cases. It is quite unfair on the part of the right hon. Baronet to twist the words I have used. I always endeavour to treat the right hon. Baronet fairly, and to state the case fairly.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think it is most unfair to twist my words and put upon them a meaning which I certainly did not intend.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have no wish whatever to misrepresent my right hon. Friend or to put upon the words he used any meaning which he did not intend to put upon them himself, but I understand that there are only a few cases, as I understand, which have arisen to the knowledge of my right hon. Friend. If you put a Clause of this sort into a Bill you invite cases to arise. You invite busybodies to go about and see whether or not they cannot find out that, say, my right hon. Friend here (Mr. Pretyman) is managing his estate badly. You certainly invite people to do that. It may bo that my right hon. Friend has not given an order to some member
    1774
    of the Agricultural Committee, and he in return, points out that there is some defect in the management of the estate of my right hon. Friend. Clauses of this sort invite this kind of criticism. It is very dangerous to legislate for a small number of cases, and the fact that hard cases make bad law is well known everywhere. I do not know whether it is possible to do anything in this House, but I earnestly hope that the Government, before this Bill goes to another place, will consider whether they are not doing a serious injury to the agricultural interest by putting in a Clause like this, and will see that it is necessary, not to drive capital from the land, but to attract capital to the land. At the present moment capital can be profitably employed in a large number of ways, but there is not as much of it as there was before the War, and, therefore, anything which drives capital from any given industry is bound to injure that industry. Apart from any question whether it is in accordance with English law to say that a man's property is not his own, and that somebody else shall decide for him whether he manages it well or badly, the inevitable effect of a Clause like this will be to injure and depress landed property.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think that if the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) had spent a little time in getting to know the general lines of opinion in agricultural counties, he would not have made the speech which he has just made. The danger is that it may be taken to represent agricultural opinion outside this House. I do not think it does. I do not think that anyone who knows, as many of us do, how these Committees are going to work, would dream of thinking that further delays must be imposed before anything can be done under a Clause of this kind. I think that, if it goes outside this House and is quoted in some of our big urban centres, that that speech has been made on behalf of British landowners, it will do the cause of British landowners infinite harm, and will lead very much more quickly than need be the case to demands for land nationalisation.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I would much sooner have nationalisation. This is confiscation.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think it shows that the right hon. Baronet is out of touch

    1775
    with the general body of reasonable landowning opinion. Those of us who know our local districts, and live and work there, know that these agricultural Committees, in the main, as set up lately, consist of the most noted and trusted landlords, land agents and farmers in the counties. The work of these Committees will not be done in Committee; it will be done through the talk in the market town which takes place on market day, and, long before the Committee gets to the stage of sending a representation to the Minister that an owner is managing,his estate "in such a manner as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon," the whole public opinion of his neighbours and of the people with whom he will come in contact will have been bringing pressure to bear upon him to get his estate into order, so that action of this kind may not be neenssary. In country districts, people know and talk to their neighbours, and they do not like this kind of official action being taken by Committees unless a man has been given every chance, by private representations in a friendly way, to get matters put right. No one who knows the respect in which landowners are still held in rural districts would dream of unjust action being rapidly taken against a landowner in this manner. I think it is inconceivable that a Committee, of which the majority can be members of the County Council, which the farmers can entirely dominate because they have the opportunity of dominating the County Council, and which has a number of persons added to it—mostly, after all, fairly reasonable men—by the Ministry of Agriculture, will really need to have its action stayed by a further six months in addition to all the safeguards that are put in the Bill. I venture to repeat what I said a few days ago with reference to another Amendment. Do not let us try to make out in this House that the landowning interest in this country is worse than it is. It has its faults, I daresay, but surely it is ten thousand pities that we should get up a further protest here against a Clause which seems to me so reasonable as this will be, which will only be put in operation through the general public opinion of our friends and neighbours, and which, we may be sure, will not be put in operation unless there is ample ground for it.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I hardly think that the criticism of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is justified. We are, perhaps, apt to lose sight of the light hon. Baronet's agricultural knowledge, because we all sit at his feet in regard to matters of finance. I believe, however, that no one takes a greater practical interest in agriculture than he. I remember his coming to me on one occasion and telling me that he had lost his shepherd, and asking me if I could get him another one, while, in the meantime, he was carrying out the functions of a shepherd to a lambing flock. I very much doubt whether my right hon. Friend opposite, with all his knowledge of agricultural matters, has gone so far as that, and, therefore, I think that in future he should rather defer to the right hon. Baronet's knowledge of agriculture than criticise it. So far as I understand the Amendment, I think that my right hon. Friend opposite has rather lost the point, that what is asked for is not an extra six months after the local committee have reported a case to the Ministry. It is that the local committee must themselves have been cognisant of the matter for at least six months, and must, at least six months before they report the case to the Ministry of Agriculture, have written to the owner of the estate concerned to remonstrate with him. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request. I listened with attention to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I rather gathered that he thought that this was going to be settled by the gossip of the market-place rather than by hard facts. I had not intended to oppose this Clause very strongly, because I feel that in some ways the Government would derive great advantage from it. Paragraph (d) of the Clause states that any person appointed to act as receiver and manager of any estate or land shall render a yearly report and statement of accounts to the owner or his agent and to the Minister, so that there will really be an opportunity for the Ministry of Agriculture to understand something about the accounts of agricultural estates, of which, I am sure, they have hitherto had no comprehension. That will be a great advantage, and, in fact, I think that gome owners might be almost tempted to mismanage a small portion of their estates in order that the

    1777
    public authorities may step in and show them how the work should be done, because they will have the privilege themselves of seeing the accounts of the receiver and manager, and these will also go to the Minister.
    I do not think that my hon. Friends have taken any too strong a point in commenting upon the Parliamentary Secretary's remark that he only knew of two of these cases, because I presume he does not introduce the Bill on his own personal knowledge, but on information in the; possession of the Ministry of Agriculture, for which he speaks. I hardly think that a Clause of this drastic kind ought to be introduced without some wider knowledge of the necessity for it. If the Government came to me and said that they had information showing that a large area of land in this country was being grossly mismanaged and was not producing the quantity of food that it ought to produce, and that, therefore, a Clause of this kind was necessary in the interests of the country, I, for one, should be the last to refuse it to them; but they have not said so. They say that they know of two eases where this Clause may be applied, and they think that some others might occur in the future. That really is not a sufficiently strong ground for their asking the House to consent to the application of a totally new feature of legislation—involving the taking of a man's property and the putting in of a receiver and manager of his business—to agriculture, the poor Cinderella of all the industries in the country. It is not to be applied to banks nor to any other industry, but only to agriculture. I can quite understand that it may have more applications in the future than it has had in the past, because the position of agricultural owners at present, with the burden of taxation which they have to bear, makes it impossible for them to carry out on their estates the improvements that they used to carry out. Parliament now comes down upon the owner of an agricultural estate and takes away from him every penny which he has available for improvements on his estate. For thirty years I have owned an agricultural estate, and, until this taxation was imposed, the whole of the income available, after paying necessay outgoings, went for improvements. The result is that now not a single cottage more is required within that area under the present housing legislation. No one asks for
    1778
    cottages, because they were already built before this legislation was passed on general grounds. Now, however, the whole of that money which used to go for improvements is taken compulsorily from me by the State in rates, taxes, and other burdens. In future, therefore, it may be that owners will be unable to carry out the necessary improvements on their estates, and, if that be so, it will be better, perhaps, that the State should come in and do the work; for then they will know what it costs, and what money there is available to meet the cost, while the owner will have the privilege of seeing the accounts and of knowing how much better the estate is managed. Speaking on behalf of owners of land, I would not descend to object to this Clause. If the Government like to introduce it, very well, I will accept it. I do not think it would be the opinion of landowners in this country that they should object to a Clause like this. We do not think we deserve it; we think we have done our duty to the best of our ability, and that we are more sinned against than sinning; but if, in the interests of the country, the Government say they want to take the power of managing our estates better than we can manage them ourselves, I say, "Take the power; I will not deny it to you."
    Mr. TOWNLEY: I think the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that very few estates are badly managed puts an entirely new complexion on this Clause. No such statement was made to us in Committee. We naturally supposed that, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) has said, the Government were acting on information from the Ministry of Agriculture. I can only suppose, from the position of this Clause in the Bill, that the Government realise that the provisions which have already been passed will be so detrimental to agriculture that the estates of this country will gradually fall back, and that they are now making provision for the management of those estates which they anticipate will practically go out of cultivation. There is much in this Bill which I do not think hon. Members, and certainly not the farming community of the country, have the least idea of. Few hon. Members probably realise that farmers in the future are to be liable to have individual Acts of cultivation forced upon them. They

    1779
    are to be told what fields they are to plough, and at what date they are to plough them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot take this opportunity to make a general review of the Bill.
    Mr. TOWNLEY: I apologise for transgressing the rules of the House, quite unintentionally, but I urge the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, if he persists in this Clause, to give us adequate protection in the amount of notice we receive before the Clause is put into force.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in paragraph (vi, 3A, (b,) to leave out the words "garden, or policies thereof" and to insert instead thereof the words "or the garden or grounds attached thereto."
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he is making this change? In Committee he accepted the words moved by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hope). Will he now explain why he is altering them. In Scotland "policy" is a word we understand well. The other I am not quite so sure about.
    Mr. MUNRO: I think this Amendment has a bearing upon the following Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hope), which it would not be in order for me to discuss at the moment. I think this Amendment is moved inter alia for the purpose of making it quite clear that an Order shall not extend to the grounds of a mansion house.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major STEEL: I beg to move, in paragraph (vi, 3A, b,) after the word "thereof" ["mansion house, garden, or policies thereof"], to insert the words "or to woodlands."
    The Ministry can appoint a receiver at present to take over a mansion house or a garden or a park, and the object of the Amendment is to include woodlands amongst those parts of an estate which he cannot take over without the consent of the owner. The whole object of the Bill is to increase the production of food, and, as food is not grown in woodlands, the question of food production does not seem
    1780
    to arise. In the second place, if the Ministry did decide that it is necessary in the national interest to put in a receiver to manage the agricultural land, he would no doubt appoint a man whom he would deem to be an agricultural expert. But it would not necessarily follow that the man whom he appointed, and who was an agricultural expert, would also be a forestry expert, and, although the arable land might be better managed, it does not necessarily follow that under this gentleman the woods would be better managed. I quite realise that there might be a proviso to give the receiver or manager power of access to the fields through the woods, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he could see his way to accept this Amendment to include woodlands, subject to a proviso giving to the receiver the power of access through the woodlands to the fields if he considers that is necessary.
    Sir A. SPROT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment. It was moved upstairs, and then the question was considered from two points of view. It was suggested that shrubberies ought to be excluded from an estate of which possession is taken by a receiver under the Clause, and in the second place, it was suggested that woods, properly speaking, should also be excluded. As regards shrubberies, after the Amendment to which I have just referred, moved by my right hon. Friend, it is abundantly clear that shrubberies are excluded from the operation of the Clause, indeed, I am so advised, and therefore I think no further question arises with regard to shrubberies. When one comes to deal with woods, however, that is quite a different matter, and I suggest for the consideration of the House that there is no good reason why woods should be excluded from the operation of the activities of the receiver. My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Steel) said the object of the Bill was food production, and food is not grown in woodlands. That is absolutely true, but he knows—none better—that on the other hand there is a direct connection between woodlands and agricultural development, and that agricultural development is very often

    1781
    seriously retarded, and food production might be largely impeded by the ravages of the rabbits and game which inhabit the woodlands. Speaking on the information which I have before me, I should be very sorry if this Clause were to exclude the receiver altogether from the management of the woods upon an estate. Nothing is more common in ordinary practice than that a whole estate, including woodlands, should be under the management of one man, and I think it might lead to undue complication, and very difficult questions might arise, if the management of the woods were in the hands of one person, and the management of the rest of the estate in the hands of a second. Accordingly, I suggest that the main argument upstairs has been met, and shrubberies are clearly excluded from the ambit of the Clause, but there is no reason in the world why the woodlands of an estate should be under different management from thee rest of the estate. In these circumstances, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friends may see their way not to press the Amendment further.
    Major WHELER: Would this Receiver have full power to sell any timber and do just what he likes? If that is so, it is a very serious situation. There may be certain reasons why timber should not be cut down, and if this official who is put in takes a different view, you may see an estate absolutely ruined. Therefore the woodlands should be kept entirely distinct for that reason alone. I agree that there may be shrubberies and game preserves round about which might injuriously affect the arable land. But I am thinking more of the growing timber, which some people might say should be cut if it is eight years old, while others might say it should be standing if it is 100 or more. It might seriously affect the future of the estate if the Receiver, who might be a cery competent man in supervising the general management of the estate as far as the arable side was concerned, had preconceived ideas about timber which might seriously damage the estate.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I think the fears of my hon. Friend are perfectly certain to be realised because the Receiver would have no capital other than the money he gets out of the estate. Naturally, therefore, he would cut down timber in order to
    1782
    get money, and in doing that of course he only has regard to the management of the estate for the time being and not for the future. If my hon. Friends wish to preserve their woodlands from being cut down on an improper occasion, they should certainly insist on these words being inserted because it is the only source from which the Receiver can get cash.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration to this point. The object of the Bill is to further the production of food, and not to interfere with the timber on an estate. I think the point that has been made is a very good one. There is a danger that an estate may be deprived of timber without securing any increase in the production of food at all.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I think the attack on landlords from the Opposition earlier in the day was far-fetched, but if the Clause is to be passed at all increasing the production of food, it is an absolutely ridiculous proposition for the Government to ask for powers to deal with woodlands. Forestry has nothing to do with the production of food. I hope the Government will reconsider this Amendment. I think the whole Clause is likely to be inoperative, but for the Government to ask for authority to cut down timber because a certain amount of corn is not produced on an estate seems an impossible proposition.
    Mr. ACLAND: I join in the appeal to the Government to give a little more consideration to this. It is not altogether an easy question. I quite see the point that probably these estates will be derelict, or at any rate very badly managed, and the woodlands will very likely be in as bad a state as the agricultural land. Probably they will be little better than rabbit warrens, and I quite see that unless the authority who was to come in and make himself responsible, for agriculture had some control over the woodlands also, at any rate to the extent of getting the rabbits killed down, it would be an extremely difficult thing to carry out the functions the Clause gives them. On the other hand the officer put in by the Department of Agriculture will not be primarily a forestry expert, which is a very different line of country of its own, and I think, althought I have not any particular sympathies with an owner who

    1783
    allows his estate to get into this condition, there ought to be some prospect that the person put in would not fell all the woodlands in order to provide capital for running the rest of the estate. For instance it would not be unreasonable to consider whether in the management of the woodlands at any rate there might not be consultation with the forestry authority, who at any rate would come in from the point of view of the desire to preserve the timber and get it replanted, and to keep the woodlands managed in an efficient way. At any rate I hope the Minister responsible will not turn down the Amendment altogether, but will give further consideration to it.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have been rather impressed by the arguments used with reference to the question of woodlands. The House must realise, however, that we are dealing with a difficult case. The chances are that whenever these Clauses are in operation it will be because there is either no agent at all or a very bad agent. What is really wanted is a good agent that will look after an estate. In most estates that I know of the agent is responsible, not only for the agricultural land, but also for the woodlands. The woodlands, as a rule, are so mixed up with the agricultural land that to nave one man managing the arable land and another man responsible for the woodlands or, as would be the result of this Amendment, to leave the woodlands to the management of the owner who was managing the estate before, and to allow the receiver or manager to look after the agricultural land, would lead to great difficulties.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: It is very often done.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are dealing with an estate that has been grossly neglected. The Clause will not be put into operation except in such a case. Under these circumstances, are we not going to handicap very seriously a receiver or manager who is put in if we allow an owner, who has mismanaged the estate before, still to look after the woodlands? Those woodlands might be mere rabbit warrens, and the damage done on the agricultural parts of the estate by
    1784
    the excessive game in the woodlands might be most prejudicial to the good management of that estate. Therefore, the question is not so simple, and I cannot accept this particular Amendment, as the Secretary for Scotland has already intimated.
    We are confronted with what does sound a difficult problem, namely, whether the receiver or manager shall have the right and the power to fell and sell timber on an estate. I do not think that that difficulty is quite as great as it appears. The terms and conditions of the Order would be settled by the Minister after representations by the owner, and under the Clause the owner can not only appeal against the Order, but he can appeal to the High Court against any particular provisions or conditions of that Order. The question whether or not the manager should have the right to fell timber and to sell it, therefore, is a matter to be settled when the Order is arrived at, and one on which the High Court would have a word to say. So I think that the difficulty in that respect is largely met. I cannot accept the Amendment, which would be fatal to the Clause, as it leaves an owner who has mismanaged his estate with the right still to manage the woodlands. I will, however, give this undertaking, that in another place the Minister will fully consider the point, in view of the possibility of the present arrangement not being satisfactory. We will further look into it, and if it does not supply sufficient protection for what, I agree, is a serious point, I will undertake to see that the matter shall be rectified in another place.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: So far as I can make out, the main contention here is that there may be ravages by ground game from the copses in the woodlands. Why could we not give power to deal with that, though surely we ought not give power to cut down a man's trees and to sell them. Let an owner be compelled to give access to his woods for the purpose of destroying any excessive ground game, but do not let his trees be cut and sold.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I would like to put this point to my right hon. Friend. There is a proviso in this Clause which states:
    "Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any

    1785
    charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof. …"
    He must know, as we all know, that there are a great many estates where the capital value of the timber is by far the larger part of the capital value of the whole estate. What is true as regards land, if the object be to protect the capital value of the owner's property, is still more true as applied to timber. Therefore I would ask whether he cannot extend the protection of that proviso to the case of timber?
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendments made: In Paragraph (vi, 3A, c), after the word "estate" ["rights over the estate"] insert the words "or land."
    After the word "estate" ["food on the estate"] insert the words "or land."
    In paragraph (vi, 3A, d): Leave out the word "agricultural."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (vi), to insert the words:
    "The owner of any estate or land in respect of which an Order has been made under this Sub-section may, at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the Order, or after any change in the ownership of the estate or land, apply to the Minister to have the Order appointing the receiver and manager revoked, and if on any such application the Minister refuses to revoke the Order the owner may appeal against the refusal to the High Court, is accordance with rules of court."
    I have put down this Amendment to meet an undertaking I gave in Committee with a view to the revision of an Order where such an Order would be made in the case of such an estate. The proposal is that at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the Order or of the change of ownership of the land, application may be made to the Minister to have the Order appointing a receiver or manager revoked. In the event of the Minister refusing to revoke the Order, the owner is given power of appeal against that refusal to the High Court. It has been pointed out to me that after a reasonable period an estate may develop into perfectly good order, and the owner may be willing to give an undertaking that he would keep the good estate in good order in future. As we do not wish in any way to interfere unreasonably with a man's property, we
    1786
    thought it right and proper that after three years we should take any such undertaking into account, and if we thought reasonable, revoke the Order and hand the estate back to the owner. If there is a change in ownership, then the original cause of trouble will have disappeared with the old owner, whether by death or by the sale of the estate. There, again, we thought an opportunity would arise for the revoking of the Order. I undertook, in Committee, to consider these points, and I have accordingly put down this Amendment. It does not go quite so far as some of my hon. Friends wish to go in respect to the change of ownership. If they move their Amendments I will then give my reasons why I cannot accept them. I think, however, that my Amendment reasonably meets the situation.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or after any change in the ownership of the estate or land."
    There are two Amendments standing in my name to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, which only authorises an application to be made to the Ministry three years after the estate has been in the hands of the receiver, or after a change of ownership. If the Minister refuses, the owner may appeal to the High Court. One of the Amendments in my name, and in that of the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Sir B Stainer), provides that, ipso facto, on any change of ownership an order shall be made revoking the receivership. That seems to be only reasonable. I take it that there is no desire on the part of the Ministry to retain possession of an estate any longer than is absolutely necessary. Such an estate is taken possession of because a particular owner has managed it badly. This particular owner "might die or sell his estate, and then it is only reasonable that the new owner should have an absolute moral and legal right to be put in possession of the estate at once. Otherwise, if a now owner is not to be entitled to go into the estate at once, how is that estate to be sold to advantage? It will still remain in the dead hands of the Government. That is what it comes to, because, although the estate may be in the hands of the Government, the owner is the only person who

    1787
    would still have the power of selling it. If it were in the hands of the receiver, I imagine he would naturally wish to deal with it to the best advantage. But if the owner sold it to a purchaser, he could not sell with any arrangements whatever for putting that purchaser in possession. All that the purchaser could do would be to apply to the Minister for permission to take possession of the estate for which he had paid hard cash. It seems a remarkable state of affairs, but that is what is provided by the Bill. My right hon. Friend talked a very great deal about the Selborne Report, and I am sure he thinks very highly of it. The Selborne Report says that one thing we ought to do is to attract capital to the land. I do not know how you will attract capital to this class of estate if you leave it for an unlimited period in the hands of a Government manager. Certainly, if a son should succeed his father, it is only right and reasonable that he should be put into control of the estate, and then you could see how he got on. I therefore propose to move both Amendments standing in my name. They work in together, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept them.
    Sir B. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I think the object of my right hon. Friend and of the hon. and gallant Member for Grantham is the same. The only difference is one of the method by which it should be carried out. The hon. and gallant Member for Grantham does not seem to have considered all the cases which have to be provided for in exceptions of this nature. He put the very legitimate case of a son succeeding his father. That is a case that people always have in mind and wish to provide for. Has he considered the case of a perverse owner, who wishes to get rid of his property, and who might take this sort of step to get rid of it? He might offer the estate to his son, and in that way through his son, exercise a certain amount of control once more; or he might make it over to an infant son, and act as his guardian. One could give other illustrations, but these are two which the House will do well to bear in mind before coming to a conclusion as to what is the better method of dealing with this question. It is because my right
    1788
    hon. Friend has felt that there may be some cases where mere change of ownership cannot operate in the method that the hon. Member for Grantham suggests, that he has thought it better to leave the matter in this way, that there can be an application, after any change of ownership, to the Minister. If it is a bona fide change an order would be made, no doubt, cancelling the order. If, on the other hand, it is not a bona fide change, then no order will be made. If we were to go as far as the hon. Member suggests, and to say that in every case when any change of ownership in the land takes place, there should be a revocation of the order, the effect might be that you would give an opportunity to an owner, against whom an order had been made, and rightly made, and who was anxious to get rid of the order, to take steps which had not been contemplated by my hon. Friend and to which probably the House, would not agree, the result of which would be to discharge the order and thereby discharge him from the order. In the circumstances, inasmuch as one cannot make a complete catalogue of all the cases in which there may be a change of ownership, and yet not an effective change of ownership, it is better to leave the matter in this way that an application can be made to the Minister, rather than to say that in any case if a change of ownership takes place a particular result must follow, and must follow without any possibility of conditions being imposed.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I am sure that it would not be the desire of the Government to prevent the sale of an estate, assuming that the owner grossly neglects his estate.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: Hear, hear!
    Mr. LAMBERT: The sooner that owner is out of the management of the estate the better.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: Quite so.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Then surely it would be wise for the Government to enable that owner to sell with the greatest possible expedition and with the least possible formality.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: Quite.
    Mr. LAMBERT: It would not be the desire of the Government to put in receivers.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: No.
    Mr. LAMBERT: The House must remember that there may not always be as reasonable Ministers as we have now. There may be other Ministers who may come in who may be of a very reforming character, and who may think they can change the cultivation of the land to the great advantage of the community. I have always had great doubts about that kind of Minister. The Solicitor-General says that there may be collusion on the part of an owner and another person to effect a spurious sale.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: Hear, hear!
    Mr. LAMBERT: Could not my right hon. Friend bring forward an Amendment to meet that case? Bather than have this Clause, I would go so far as to give power to the Government that where an owner mismanages his estate he should be compelled to sell it. Then you would have no responsibility for that owner. That would be a far better method of approaching this question. Assuming that I am a very recalcitrant owner and my right hon. Friend wants to buy my estate, he would not like, first of all, to go to the Minister. We know what delay there is involved in going to a Government Department. He might go to the High Court. I will leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend to imagine what would be the difficulties there. Surely the Government could meet this difficulty. It must be in the national interest that if you have an owner who is unpro-gressive and will not cultivate his land to the best advantage, that that owner should be got rid of quickly and another owner put in his place. If the Government can meet that case, and I am sure that, with my right hon. and learned Friend's ingenuity, he could do so, it would be much better. Do not make it difficult for an owner of an estate to sell his estate, when in the national interest it would be advisable for the owner who is unprogressive to get rid of the land to an owner who would be more progressive and would manage it well.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The real difficulty is a financial one, because what would occur normally would be that the estate would be mismanaged for want of money. It is hardly conceivable, and I hardly think it is likely, that where an owner has ample funds and where he is warned he would not spend the necessary money to put the estate in order. It is rather
    1790
    want of means than any other cause which would bring the estate under this order. Presumably the receiver in managing the estate would have to spend money. I do not know whose money it would be. The owner has not any money, and I do not know who is to supply him with money, or where it is to come from. There is nothing suggested in the Bill. I do not know whether under this Clause a would be purchaser of the estate, who had money and who would put the estate in order, could be approached by the Ministry of Agriculture, who would say, "We will hand it over if you pay us for everything we have done." I do not know whether that would be a very desirable state of things. The financial difficulty is very great, if it comes to making application to Ministers I would rather suggest that between now and when this Bill goes to the other House the Minister should consider whether it would not be as well to allow the owner of an estate, even where the Board of Agriculture or the local committee do not want to take it, to apply in the first instance for the appointment of a receiver and manager to take over the estate and to manage it better than himself. In that case the initiative would come from the other side. I do not see why that should not be put in the Bill. It would be better to make the release from the order automatic. If the Minister likes to satisfy himself that the new purchaser is a man competent to put the property in proper order I should not object, and if the Minister is satisfied that the new purchaser has the necessary means the estate should be handed over to him automatically, without application being made to Court, where financial terms may be made which would be unfair to the estate and to all concerned.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I agree that the actual effect of this Clause will be that in practice these derelict estates will have to be sold. There will be no money to run them, and the Clause with its conditions really will not come into effect. The Solicitor-General has spoken of cases where there might be evasion. In many cases the owner is not a person who is deliberately neglecting the estate through wickedness; he is very likely some old, incapable person who has got into the hands of a very slack agent. He is a man to be pitied, and he is the last person who would be liable to go into all sorts

    1791
    of legal forms to hand over his estate in a fraudulent manner in order to evade this Clause. It is to the advantage of the country and everybody concerned that the estate should pass straight away and be sold.
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I am glad the Government have refused to accept this Amendment, because had they done so it would have enabled a carriage and horse to be driven through the whole Sub-section. If you had a perverse owner with several sons all he would have to do would be to transfer his estate periodically to his sons and to go round in a circle and he would prevent anything being done by the Ministry of Agriculture, even though they decided to take over the estate. There is another case. Supposing a manager had been conducting an estate for several years, and had got to know the estate, which he had been conducting very well, and suddenly the owner died and the estate devolved upon a minor. Would it be fair to that minor to say that, although he and his friends desired that the manager should remain in occupation and to carry on as he had been doing, that he should be compelled to give it up and hand it over to someone else? The minor is not able to carry on the work himself, and the transference might take place at a very inconvenient period of the year. If this Amendment is accepted it would compel the manager to retire, and to hand the estate over to a minor who has made no preparation for running the estate, and is probably quite incapable of doing so. To accept this Amendment would be to create a very great hardship, and to do great harm to the minor in that position. Other examples of the sam" kind could be brought forward. I am sure it is not the intention of the supporters of the Amendment to do anything which would have that effect, but that would be the effect, because three months after the death of the owner ths manager who had been appointed by the Board of Agriculture would have no power at all to deal with the estate, and would be powerless to do anything to safeguard the rights of the minor, who is the new owner.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: The hon. Member who has just spoken and the Solicitor-General are perhaps concentrating their
    1792
    minds too much upon the exceptional cases, and are not considering what are likely to be the most general cases which will arise. We shall be legislating from the wrong point of view if we allow the exceptional cases to obsess our minds to the exclusion of the ordinary cases. That being so, from the business point of view the right thing to do would seem to be to make release automatic on change of ownership. It seems to be admitted by everybody that what will commonly be the case will be that everybody will desire, and it is right that they should desire, sales of these derelict estates at the earliest possible moment. You have two parties to a sale, the seller and the purchaser, and the course which the Government propose will discourage purchasers from coming forward. Who is going to buy a law suit? It is a very common expression in business, and one which has a very real effect on the minds of possible purchasers. The proposal of the Solicitor-General really does put every single man who wants to buy one of these estates in the position of buying a law suit of whose result he will be quite uncertain. That is contrary to public policy. The Government can get all they want without going so far as they are doing to try to prevent these imaginary cases of fraud from occurring. Surely it does not pass the wit of man to introduce words which convey the idea of bona fides. Let a sale be upset afterwards if it can be shown to be not bonâ fide, but let it be assumed that such sales are really, as they probably would be in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, bonâ fide, and let the release be automatic. That is the businesslike course to pursue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to promise to consider the matter further, and have it dealt with in another place.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that the two Amendments are put together. I understand the objection of the Government to accept a release. There might be a fictitious sale. I do not consider that it is at all likely, but I cannot deny that it is possible. It is possible in certain circumstances that an owner, having the receiver appointed and not being able to manage his own estate, might endeavour by some such method as this to get rid of the receiver, but after all I presume that it is the desire of the Government not to put this Clause into operation

    1793
    unless there is some great necessity for it. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that A has an estate and the Minister puts in a receiver under this Clause. Suppose A sells to B and B manages badly, what is to prevent the Government taking possession? That seems to me to be a remedy which would be in the hands of the Government. If the Government were obliged to investigate every case with the possibility that it might be taken to the High Court it would be very difficult to do, but the simplest thing would be to accept this Amendment, and, if it should turn out in any given case that the now purchaser did not do his duty, put in a receiver again. I agree thoroughly with the right hon. Gentleman who represents one of the Divisions of Devonshire that, if a man mismanages his property and it is considered that in the national interest it ought to be managed in a different way, the only proper course is to say in the national interests, "We are going to acquire your property and we will give you a fair price for it." I believe in the long run if anything of this sort happened, even if only in two or three cases, the Government will be compelled to take over the property. There is one point T would like elucidated. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Protyman) asked if the owner has not any money, where is the money to come from? Am I not right in thinking that if the owner has got money it will come from him. If he has not got any money, they will take away from him that which he has. In any case the unfortunate owner, if he can scrape together, beg or borrow, will be compelled to do that by the Government, and the whole of the expense and loss, if there is loss, will be borne by the owner and not by the Department. I would be obliged if my right hon. Friend would say "Yes" or "No" to that.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURROUGH WILSON: I beg to move, at the end of Paragraph (vii) to insort a new paragraph—
    "(viii) In Sub-section (5), after 'notice,' insert 'and with the consent of the owner.'"
    The object of the Amendment is to find out why they are restricting the consent. Why restrict the consent to the cases in which only a portion of the land is let,
    1794
    and why should it not be asked for when the whole is let?
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The effect is this: Already the consent of the owner is necessary if a part of the land is sold. It is a matter of ordinary estate management. The result of the Amendment would be that the owner could insist on the central authority farming all the land. That is not the object of my hon. Friend. We desire that the estate should be managed in the ordinary way by the lessee.
    Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member made a point which has not been answered. Under Sub-section (5) as it stands already the consent of the owner has to be obtained before part of the land can be leased, and he only proposes that the consent should be necessary if the whole of the land is leased. It is not a question between leasing and selling. It is a question between leasing a part of the land and the whole of the land. On the merits I think that it would be difficult to deprive the Board of any chance of leasing the land, but one does not see on the face of it why the owner's consent is necessary before part of it is leased while consent is not necessary if it is leased in its entirety.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: Tbo right hon. Gentleman has referred to what is difficult to understand in the original Section 5. My reading of it is that you may let the land as it has been let before, or when it is all the subject of one holding. If you are going to split it up so as to make a different set of holdings, and instead of making one holding let part thereof, then you have got to ask for the consent of the owner, because in the previous case you are carrying out the ordinary estate management, and in the next case you are doing something contrary to the practice which has been hitherto adopted. For this you require the consent of the owner. I think that that is the explanation of Section 5, but I am far from saying that it does not offer a considerable, number of questions such as those which have been referred to.
    Mr. ACLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it could be made clear in another place?
    Amendment negatived.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDShad given notice of an Amendment to leave out paragraph (viii).
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amend-mont would impose a charge.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: In what respect?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It would impose a charge in this respect, that by leaving out out paragraph (viii) of this Bill the operations of Sub-section (9) of the Act of 1917 with regard to compensation for the ploughing up of land would come into force. That would mean that in future Section 9 in the Act of 1917, which is being abrogated by this Section, would be enforced, and would give compensation in the case of ploughing-up Orders. There is no provision in the Resolution which was passed by this House providing for such compensation.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in paragraph (ix, 11), to leave out the words
    "the rules of good husbandry shall include—

    (a) the maintenance and clearing of drains, dykes, embankments and ditches:

    (b) the maintenance and proper repair of fences, gates and hedges:

    (c) the execution of repairs to buildings, being repairs which are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land, and, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, are required to be executed by the occupier of the land under the contract of tenancy:

    and references in this Section to cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry shall be construed accordingly:
    Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be taken to impose upon a tenant the obligation to maintain or clear drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches where such maintenance or clearance is prevented by subsidence of the land or the blocking of the outfalls which are not under the control of the tenant, or to make a tenant liable for such maintenance or clearance of drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches, or the maintenance or repair of fences, hedges, and gates, where such work is not required to be done by him under his contract of tenancy or the custom of the country."
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the expression 'necessary works of maintenance' means such of the following works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed (that is to say)—

    (a) the maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments, and ditches;

    1796

    (b) the maintenance and proper repair of farm roads, fences, gates, and hedges;

    (c) the execution of repairs to buildings:

    Provided that a notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section requiring any person to maintain or clear any drains, embankments, or ditches shall not operate so as to impose on that person any obligation in that behalf if and so far as the execution of the works required is rendered impossible by reason of the subsidence of any land or the blocking of outfalls which are not under the control of that person."
    This Amendment is for the purpose of giving a new definition of "maintenance." My right hon. Friend has put it down in accordance with an undertaking which he gave to make quite clear what is meant by the expression "necessary works of maintenance." It contains words which are at present in the Bill.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Mr. J. GARDINER: I beg to move, as;in Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (b), after the word "fences," to insert the word "stone-dykes"
    Mr. MUNRO: While the word "stone-dykes" are very familiar across the Border, they might mean either a stone wall or a drain in this country. I know that what the Mover of the Amendment means is a stone wall. I would suggest that he substitute the word "walls" for "dykes" in his Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will there be incorporated in the Scottish application Clause a statement that a wall means a dyke?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think that that would be entirely unnecessary.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made to proposed Amendment: In paragraph (b,) after the word "fences," insert the word "stone-walls."—[Mr. Gardiner.]
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (c), after the word "buildings," to insert the words "being repairs which are necessary for the

    1797
    proper cultivation and working of the land."
    I see that the words "farm roads" have been added since the Committee stage of the Bill, and no explanation has been given. It is clear that many of these works, such as embankments, might involve a very large expenditure indeed Everyone will agree that heavy expenditure ought to be incurred so far as it is pocessary for the cultivation of the land, but no further. The guarding words of my Amendment are necessary. It may be necessary in some cases to spend money on farm roads, but I do not know of any case where a landlord has been called upon to spend money on such a purpose. I cannot understand why farm roads are included. They are in quite a different category from fences, gates, and hedges, which are absolutely necessary.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Farm roads were added because cases might arise where the cultivation of the land was rendered almost impossible by the condition of farm roads. I agree that, the matter should be properly safeguarded and I would accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment but for one thing, and that is that this proposal is already in the Bill. If he will look at the Amendment just moved by the Solicitor-General, he will see that the expression "necessary works of maintenance" means "such of the following works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed," and there follow the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Those three paragraphs are governed by the words "necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of farm roads during the time between now and the Bill reaching another place?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will, certainly; but, inasmuch as a man can be ordered to repair farm roads only in so far as the work is necessary for the proper cultivation of the land, I think the matter is perfectly safe.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (c), after the word "buildings" to insert the words, "(not
    1798
    being repairs in the nature of replacement)."
    This is a necessary safeguard, for under the Government Amendment, if repairs of the nature of replacement are insisted upon, it might be a very serious hardship on the persons concerned.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: My hon. Friend raises a matter which is one of general law rather than a question which concerns this Bill. In every case of repairs there comes a point at which it is impossible to repair, and replacement is necessary. For instance, you can sometimes patch up an old floor, and you sometimes patch it up with a number of new planks instead of repairing the old ones. If these words were inserted they would really be making a very strong breech in what is the system of repairs as well understood at present. Controversy has sometimes arisen as to whether or not atenant occupying a house, fair wear and tear excepted, is bound to make a replacement at all. On the other hand there comes a moment when, instead of patching, he must do something in the nature of a replacement. Replacement does not mean rebuilding; it does not mean attaching new buildings on to old buildings or anything of that sort, but there comes a point at which something which can be called replacement is necessary as incidental to the ordinary system of repairs
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Would this cover the case of a building not being used for the cultivation of the land?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think it would. The advantage of the Amendment I moved is that we get the words, "such works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed" at the head of the Clause. Before it is possible to call for the execution of repairs to buildings, the repairs called for must be such as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed. That is the test which has to be fulfilled. For these reasons, it is impossible to accept the Amendment as it stands. It is perfectly well understood that at times a certain amount of replacement, small, it may be, is necessary, but I am sure I can satisfy my hon. Friend that the sort of replace-

    1799
    ment he has in mind is not intended to be, and is not, included in the Bill.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There must be many oases in which floors or rafters have become worn out, and require to be replaced by new ones, but there are in some parts of the country large barns which were used in the past, but the form of cultivation has changed, so that in many cases the barns are not used, and have got into such a state of disrepair that they could not be repaired except at enormous cost. What we want to guard against is the agricultural committee or some persons coming down, and saying, "Here is a building which has not been used for 30 or 40 years, but because we think it is necessary that that building should be replaced, you have got to replace it." Another case is perhaps a commoner one. There is an old road which has not been in use. Some cantankerous person might say that this road must be repaired. I quite admit the difficulty, and I think the Amendment would go a little further than is intended, but I do think some words ought to be introduced to prevent the cases I have instanced. If the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me, will he give an undertaking that he will in another place introduce words to meet these cases? This Bill is creating an entirely novel procedure, and we ought to be very careful that nothing is done which is unnecessary, and which will involve great expense to what, after all, are almost the poorest classes in the community at the moment.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I do not wish to press the Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I would like to ask the Minister a question with regard to the original Amendment as proposed by the Solicitor-General. The point to which I wish to draw his attention is the omission from this Amendment of half a dozen lines which appear in the original Clause, as the Bill left the Committee, from the words "or to make a tenant liable for such maintenance" down to the end. I am not quite
    1800
    sure whether the provision which is made there has been re-inserted in an earlier Amendment. I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary as to why the words were left out, and if I am right in thinking that the substitution of some similar words in paragraph (c) in the first Amendment passed to-night meets the case.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The reason why these words have been omitted from this particular part of the Clause is because they have been in substance inserted already in the original Amendment I moved, which is the first standing on the Order Paper to-day, namely, that in lieu of paragraph (b) to insert the words:
    "(c) that the occupier of land has un-roasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default."
    This particular paragraph with which we are dealing now merely defines the works of maintenance and obligation to repair which has already been made by paragraph (c). My hon. and gallant Friend may say that we have omitted there any reference to the custom of the country. If he will look at an Amendment to Clause 25, which is the definition Clause, he will see I there propose to insert:
    "References to the terms, conditions, or requirements of a contract of tenancy of a holding shall be construed as including references to any obligations, conditions, or liabilities implied by the custom of the country in respect of the holding."
    Therefore, there is another form, and I think a much better form, than that contained in the original Sub-section, and this Sub-section merely becomes a Subsection of definition, and nothing else.
    Captain HOTCHKINhad the following Amendment on the Paper: At the end of paragraph (ix, c) to insert the words
    "(d) the fencing against stock by an occupier where the Minister is satisfied that damage is likely to be caused to ditches and watercourses."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is not this Amendment at a point where it will be cut out, if the Amendment now before the House is carried? Would it not be in order for my hon. and gallant Friend to move the Amendment now, or would it be more in order to do it after?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The words have been cut out. The question now before us is whether the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman shall be inserted. If it is proposed to add anything to them, of course the addition must be made before the whole Amendment is put.
    Captain HOTCHKIN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to insert a new paragraph:
    "(d) the fencing against stock by an occupier where the Minister is satisfied that diunage is likely to be caused to ditches and watercourses."
    The point raised here is the case of a man who has a grass field and a stock field, and on the other side of him a man has an arable field and a ditch or a watercourse. According to the custom of the country, the ditch has to be cleared out by the man who owns the arable field, but the stock of the man who has got the grass land gets into the ditch. The point I am particularly keen about is to have some, powers by which it will be possible, if necessary, to compel the owner of a grass field to put up some temporary fence to prevent his stock getting into the ditch.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot accept this Amendment, because this suggests setting up new fencing. The whole of this Clause deals with maintenance and repairs of existing fencing, etc. This is setting up new fencing It may be a perfectly proper thing, but it cannot be a work of maintenance. If it is repairing anything that exists, it is already covered by the terms of paragraph (b).
    Amendment to proposed. Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. ATKEY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert a new paragraph,
    "(13) This Section shall not apply to land belonging to a local authority."
    The reason for this Amendment arises from the fact that many authorities, particularly water authorities, acquire land for the purpose of their undertaking, and an entirely different object is sought by those authorities from the purpose sought by the promoters of this Bill.
    1802
    Land of that character it would be most undesirable to have cultivated, and I move this Amendment in order to protect local authorities, who have bought land for another purpose, from the provisions of this Clause.
    Mr. R. McLAREN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, farther Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL (BY ORDER).
  Lords Amendments considered.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): On this Bill there are a number of quite, formal Amendments come down from the other House, but there is one particular Amendment that is protested by some hon. Members. I presume, Sir, that following the usual practice we will take the first two Amendments, and if the House will agree to those covering the Amendments down to Clause 41, that will leave the field open for hon. Members to proceed with their Motion.
  Certain Lords Amendments agreed to.

  CLAUSE 41.—(Power of Trustees to invest in mortgages of the Board.)
  "Section 1 of the Trustee Act, 1893 (which specifies the securities in which Trust funds may be invested), shall have effect us though there were included therein mortgages by the Board of their revenue and of the moneys receivable by them from the four Corporations granted after the passing of this Act."
  Lords Amendment: Leave out the Clause.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Before I venture to put my case before the House, I should like to express my disappointment that I have to do it. I have all through my Parliamentary career done my best to support the Treasury in their finance, and I think my

  1803
  right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury are acquainted with that fact. I may mention in particular that during the War I happened to be the chairman of a Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee appointed to deal with the Treasury, and I might perhaps remind my right hon. Friend, who was not Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time—the Leader of the House was then Chancellor of the Exchequer—that there were very delicate negotiations with the Bank of England as to the terms of their remuneration. I had a good deal to do with that, and it ended in a very generous and patriotic offer by the Bank to forego all profit. Having said that, I think the House will see that I move this Motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment with very great reluctance, because I understand my right hon. Friends intend to back up that Amendment. It is an Amendment where the House of Lords struck out Clause 41 of this Bill, and the simple point raised is this: Are the mortgages of the Derwent Valley Water Board hereafter to be regarded as trustee securities?
  I must very shortly state the history of this Board. In the year 1899 the cities of Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester went to Parliament to secure the upper waters of the rivers Ashop and Derwent for their water supply. These Bills came before the late Sir John Brunner and a Committee upstairs, and under his influence very largely the Bills were withdrawn, and the present Water Board was established as a Joint Board representing all the four large corporations and also the County of Derby. Each of the four corporations has representatives on the Board, and the County of Derby has one representative. The sole object was to construct reservoirs to supply water in bulk to these large corporations. The Board have no power to collect revenue for water. Their simple duty was to construct the reservoirs and to apportion the water according to certain percentages, with which I need not trouble the House, and supply the water to the inhabitants of these four large towns. They were authorised by the Bill of 1899 to raise a capital of £6,346,000, either by mortgages, debentures, or stock, and it so happened that the Board decided that they would raise all the
  1804
  money by mortgages, short-dated mortgages, of three, five, and seven years, at varying rates of interest, but I must tell the House at once that this security was considered a gilt-edged, first-class security, and at the present moment the Board have outstanding in these short-dated mortgages more than £3,500,000. I must here refer to a certain Section of the Act which incorporated the Board, which is Section 111 of the Derwent Valley Water Act, 1899, and in our view this Section is most important with regard to this question. I will read it to the House:
  "For the purposes of the investment of trust funds the Board shall be deemed to be a corporation of a municipal borough having according to the returns ot the last census prior to the date of investment a population exceeding 50,000 and the Trustee Act of 1893"—
  which Act I may say in passing gives a long list of trustee securities—
  "shall apply as if the Board were referred to in Sub-section (m) of Section 1 of that Art."
  That means that any investments made by the Board in stock issued by them rank as trustee investments. It places the Board on an equal footing with the corporations as far as investments are concerned. What happened next? A Bill was introduced last year to give power to the Board to make certain alterations in the construction of reservoirs. It was found that economies could be made if those alterations were carried out, and that is the object of the present Bill. The question of trustees did not come in at all. What happened? The Housing Act became law after this Bill was deposited, and the effect of that Housing Act is this: the Government being naturally very anxious to get money for houses, passed a section which authorises local authorities to raise money on housing bonds, which were declared to be trustee securities. Any local authority, even the smallest urban or district council, could issue housing bonds which would be trustee securities. This Water Board saw the four corporations which constituted it placed in a better position because those bodies could issue all their mortgages as trustee securities, whether for housing or otherwise. Therefore the Derwent Water Board applied to the proper authorities in this House and the House of Lords to be put in the same position in order to bring them up to the

  1805
  status in which the Act of 1899 had put them. They consulted the Chairman of Ways and Means of this House and the Lord Chairman of Committees of another place; and introduced a Clause to provide that their mortgages also should be trustee securities. The Bill came before a Committee of this House, and the Clause was passed, but in the House of Lords Clause 41 was, on a Division, deleted. We have got an alternative Clause which will exonerate the Treasury from fearing that this may be taken as a precedent. We are not asking for any extension of the trustee law, but we do ask that this House should abide by the Parliamentary contract which in 1899 placed this Board on the same basis as the four corporations. Would it not be unreasonable that the four corporations should be able to issue all their mortgages as trustee securities, while the constituted body, which is backed up by the rates of those four corporations, should be unable to do so. In my opinion, the matter is not arguable. If the Treasury will not agree to Clause 41 being restored, we have an alternative Clause as follows:
  "The reference in Section one hundred and eleven (as to investment of trust funds) of the Denvent Valley Water Act, 1899, to such corporations as are therein mentioned shall be construed as a reference to or as including any such corporation as aforesaid being a local authority authorised to issue local bonds under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, and Section nine of the last-mentioned Act shall extend and apply to the Board accordingly."
  I feel suiv that that will meet the point. I understand one of the objections to Clause 41 is that no alteration must be made in the law of trustee securities by a Private Bill. I do not wish to lay too much stress on the Private Bill, but what I do want to lay stress on is the Parliamentary bargain made in 1899, which placed this large Board on the same footing as the constituent corporations. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, money will flow into the best securities. For instance, Treasury Bills are the finest investments in the world. They give a return of 6½ per cent, and the investment is absolutely secure. If we do not put this Clause in, this Board will have to pay a higher rate of interest, not- being a trustee security, and if they have to do that it will mean that the four corporations will
  1806
  have to pay more money. The higher rate of interest will attract money from the four constituent corporations themselves and also money which the right hon. Gentleman wants for the Treasury, and therefore, in the interest of the Treasury, I ask him to accept this Amendment. There are precedents in two private Bills which created trustee securities. I have the two here before me. They are the Staines Reservoir Act, 1898, and the Southampton Harbour Board Act, 1903. In these cases debenture stock and redeemable stock were both made trustee securities.
  I have tried to put the case fairly, but before I sit down I want to make an urgent appeal to the right hon. Gentleman below me on the Treasury Bench to leave this question to the House to decide. It is not a question of policy. It is a question of economic law. It will not help the Government, nor will it help the Treasury, and if they will be so good as to agree to my request I shall be glad; it is not an extraordinary request to leave this question to the judgment of the House. The House is quite capable of taking care of itself, and after the experience of the Housing Act, which I may remind the House, allows every corporation, local authority, urban or district council of the very lowest type to make their mortgages for all purposes trustee securities, it would be a shame and a scandal to fail to treat the securities of this large and important Board as well as one of those securities which have not been built upon so sure a foundation.
  Mr. ATKEY: I beg to second the Motion.
  Unlike my hon. Friend I cannot claim either a long acquaintance with the House or any intimate knowledge of the wisdom of the Treasury on previous occasions, but I desire to put forward certain views, first as a Member of this House, and secondly as a member of the Derwent Valley Water Hoard. Speaking in the first capacity, I welcome the opportunity that this Debate offers not merely to consider this particular case upon its merits, but as enabling a wider publicity to be given to the real situation in regard to the conduct and control of this House of Commons. In this as in many other cases the House and its authority has been entirely subordinated, as I wish to show, by the bureaucratic officials who disguise

  1807
  themselves under the name of the Treasury.
  I do not propose to follow the lines taken by my hon. Friend. The House will be well-advised to consider the situation from quite another angle. The question I propose to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the. House is the simple question: What is the object of the Trustee Act, 1893, the benefits of which are to be denied the Derwent Valley Water Board? I suggest the correct reply to that question is that the trustee has to get security for the beneficiaries of the trust, and that the object, and the only object, of the House or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other person whose authority has to be obtained, is to see that the Trustee Act is faithfully applied. The case which has been put to the House by the Mover of this Amendment I feel certain will convince the House, so far as the security offered by the Board is concerned, that it fully justifies every possible encouragement by the Treasury as a trustee security. The House will be curious to know why this Clause has been deleted in the House of Lords and by whom: who are the real people who object to this Clause?
  The only authority we have been privileged to hear on this subject is undoubtodly one whose word ought to go a long way in matters of this kind; that is the Lord Chancellor. He is the only one who has really given any expression to the views alleged to be held by the Government in this matter. I would, therefore, like to draw the attention of the House to one or two statements and reasons given in another place by the Lord Chancellor in support of the action taken by his peers. The Lord Chancellor admits, in the first instance, that his excuse for addressing their Lordships is:
  "that I rest under a special responsibility to this House in the matter of trustee securities."
  For the Lord Chancellor, I believe, is supposed to be the guardian of trustees in taking good care that they shall apply their investments in the right direction. Now during the whole of his speech the Lord Chancellor only appears to be concerned in acting on behalf of the Government in securing money from the people, and not in protecting those
  1808
  who have it to invest. He says, in the first place:
  "I believe it to be absolutely without precedent for a Private Bill Committee to alter the general law."
  Members of this House have had information circulated to them which gives definite information where, that has taken place. So it would appear that so high an authority as the Lord Chancellor himself does not really know what is being done, and is entirely wrong in suggesting that this would be without precedent. Then he regards it as a revolutionary proposal; and it seems very strange that the Lord Chancellor is not aware that these revolutionary proposals have already been made and have been incorporated in Acts of Parliament. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say:
  "The only public authorities who are entitled, under the law of this country, to express opinions to a Parliamentary Committee on the question of trustee securities are the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury."
  It seems, however, that the Lord Chancellor admits that Parliamentary Committees are entitled to have some advice, either from himself or the Treasury. A little later in the same speech he says:
  "It is not convenient or usual for Government Departments to attend before these Private Bill Committees."
  How are Members of the House to be able to form opinions, and to register judgments on facts placed before them, if the only two authorities competent to express an opinion on matters like this find it inconvient to attend such Committees? But as a matter of fact it is not true, because I have had personal experience of these Private Committees, and many Departments of the State, having views to represent, have sent their representatives to these Committees, and have laid before them their views upon the subject for the consideration of these Committees. The Treasury apparently is a law unto itself, and not only declines to appear before these Committees, but when it does take action of any sort takes action of the most drastic character, which admits apparently of no argument or opposition. The Lord Chancellor also makes a further statement. He says:
  "If the case I have attempted to present to your Lordships had been argued before the House of Commons Committee or the Lords Committee I cannot doubt but that they would have reached a different conclusion."

  1809
  All the Treasury have to say has already been laid before the Committee of both Houses. It is difficult to imagine what the Lord Chancellor had in mind when he said that if this information had been before those Committees they would have come to a different conclusion. Those are the only objections with which this House has been made acquainted. I ask who is really supposed to have objected to this particular Clause. We have been told that in the House of Lords ths Government Whips were put on for this Motion, but who is the Government? The Government is made up mostly of the Ministers who adorn the Front Bench, and I want to know how many of them have offered any opinion at all upon this question. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has failed up to now to give the House any expression of opinion and, as a matter of fact, the whole objection really comes from the officials of the Treasury. This leads us to the conclusion that the House of Commons in the long run, and in this particular instance, has not the power to determine legislation according to the views of those who are sent here to represent the constituencies, because their legislation is being dominated and shaped by the views of officials.
  I wish to emphasise the point which has been made, that there were ample opportunities for any objections, that is, any reasonable objections, on the part of the Treasury to be laid either before this House or before the Committee that considered this Bill, but on no occasion were any such representations made. I hope that this House will offer an opportunity for hon. Members to express their unbiassed judgment on the merits of the case which has been so ably presented by my hon. Friend (Sir S. Roberts), and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer to the appeal which has been made to him to withdraw the Whips and let the House express its independent judgment, I have very little doubt as to what the result will be. May I say one or two words in my capacity as a member of the Derwent Valley Water Board? The work of that Board for many years past has been of the most onerous character. Its duty has been to supply water to four very large cities, and, if I may state what its business is in somewhat technical language, it is to construct dams. These may be described as ob-
  1810
  structions. The dams of the Derwent Valley Water Board stop the flow of the stream. There are other kinds of dams which intercept the free flow of traffic, and I could have shown the Minister of Transport how he has perpetuated dams of another character at Nottingham. These dams are described according to their construction. Those of the Derwent Valley Water Board are made of concrete walls of very heavy structure, which are technically described as the dam walls.
  The responsibility lying upon the Derwent Valley Water Board is one which cannot be evaded. A supply of water must be given to those towns, and I cannot understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is disposed to do anything otherwise than to assist this Board in its work. Housing is very important, but I think hon. Members will agree that the supply of water is a first necessity and consideration to which this House should give attention. What would be the effect if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government persist in their attitude for the deletion of this Clause? It certainly will not damage the Derwent Valley Water Board in the eyes of the people of this country, because the mere fact that the Treasury have declined to give this security to this Board will not alter the fact that the security is there and is good, and that it is one which will command the money.
  It may, however, have the result of raising the rate of interest on the part, not only of the Board and its own particular constituent authority, but it may be taken for granted that if the cities of Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, and Derby as municipal authorities have, in competition with the Board, to raise their rates of interest, the same will apply to Liverpool, Manchester, and Glasgow, and all the other large municipalities throughout the kingdom. I urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the wisdom of agreeing to this Clause being reinserted. Finally, I would ask him what is the object sought by the Trustee Act? I assert that its object is not to bolster up Government securities. That act is merely for the purpose of protecting those who have money to invest, and no denial can be given to the statement made that the securities of the Derwent Valley Water Board are, and will always remain, under existing conditions, a gilt-edged security.
  Mr. J. F. GREEN: I desire to say a word or two in support of what has been said, and on behalf of One of the, great towns interested in this measure. There is very little to be added after the exhaustive statements which have been made by my two hon. Friends. Imagine the absurdity of the position which will obtain if we are not allowed to have this Clause in our Bill. Whereas any stock issued by the Corporation of Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, or Sheffield will be looked upon as a gilt-edged security, that issued by the Derwent Valley Water Board, which has the security of all four Corporations behind it, is not to be regarded in the same way. That is absolutely absurd. I want to point out that this Water Board differs from all others in the fact that it does not sell water. It does not deal with the consumer, but it supplies water to the Corporation. I believe it is in the mind of the Treasury that this case might be treated as a precedent. I understand that there is no other water board in the country on the same footing as this, and if we have our way over this there is no fear of it being treated as a precedent.
  I should like to insist, with my two hon. Friends, upon this point. The Lord Chancellor, in another place, stated that there was no authority for putting in a private Bill any alteration as to trustee securities. There was the case of the Staines Reservoirs in 1898, and the Southampton Harbour Act in 1903, under which in private Acts it was provided that their securities were to be regarded as trustee securities, and therefore that objection falls to the ground, beause it is not true to say that it is without precedent for a Private Bill Committee to alter the general law on the question of trustee securities. I only wish to add one other word. The Treasury is no doubt, quite rightly, anxious to preserve the security of Government securities under his control; but I would venture to point out we have not only to think of Treasury securities, but we must also think of the beneficiaries whose trustees have to invest money. When we have a first-class security—and it is admitted by the Treasury that there is no better security in the country than these mortgages or stock of the Derwent Valley Water Board—it is unfair to trustees that they should be unable to invest in it. I venture to
  1812
  add my word for what it is worth to the appeal of my hon. Friend that the Government will not put on their Whips on this occasion, and that the House may be allowed to give an unbiased opinion. I am sure if it is we shall have no difficulty in securing our Bill.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir HARRY SAMUEL: The House might like to know on what the decision of the Committee was founded when they authorised this particular Clause becoming part and parcel of this Bill. We had certain duties to perform. They were performed, perhaps, under some little difficulty because those great Departments which rule us will not condescend to come to earth, like ordinary mortals, and give Members of Private Bill Committees the reasons why they oppose tain Clauses. That may be to the benefit of the legislation of this country or it may not. I cannot say. But having taken the very strong action which they have taken in another place in overthrowing a decision of both Houses, it is only right to say that if they had given us the benefit of their views why this Clause should not be allowed to become law, it would have saved a considerable amount of trouble. A Committee upstairs has certain serious duties to perform. When they come to certain things which may be used as investments by the public, and when it is sought to make those investments Trustee Securities, I think the first duty of a Committee is to see that if they sanction those securities as trustee securities, then both trustees and investors are absolutely safeguarded in regard to the quality of the investment. My Committee went carefully into this matter and came to the conclusion, firstly, that under the Act of 1899 authority had been given to the Derwent Valley Water Board to issue stock as trustee securities. Here I should say the promoters of the Bill acted with the greatest fairness. They told the Committee that the Treasury were opposed to the insertion of this Clause. They did everything they could to put quite fairly before the Committee all that could be said, and therefore they must be exonerated from any charge of attempting to get the Clause through by a side wind. What was the duty of the Committee? It was first to act in the spirit of the Trustee Securities Act, 1893. If we pass this Clause—the Trustees

  1813
  Security Clause—then trustees and investors will be absolutely safeguarded, and will have full and ample security for their investment. I would like to ask the representatives of the Government whether, in the action they are taking to-night, they are animated by a sense of duty under the Act of 1893 to trustees and investors, or whether they are safeguarding their own investments. May I venture very humbly to say that if they are seeking merely to safeguard their own investments they are entirely misreading their duty. If the Government issue securities for the investments of the British public, then the mere fact that they are Government securities should be a sufficient safeguard, and no action should be necessary from the Treasury Bench to safeguard them. It was our duty to see that trustees and investors were safeguarded. We came to the conclusion that they were amply safeguarded, and we also came to the conclusion that it was a contract between this House and the Derwent Valley Water Board that all stock issued under the ægis of the Board should be a trustee security. It was put to us that they were issuing, not stock, but mortgages. My remark upon that as Chairman of the Committee, was that, a fortiori, the stock issued was a security and that a mortgage was an infinitely better security. Therefore, we had no hesitation in including mortgages with stock issue as preference securities. The next point we had to consider was whether the joint aegis of the four great corporations made the security a better security than if it were issued by one corporation only. We came to the conclusion, absolutely unanimously, that the issue by these four groat corporations was of far greater value as a trustee security than an issue by one corporation alone. We therefore decided that there was no doubt whatever that this would be a safe investment for trustees and investors. These were the only motives which a Committee upstairs had to consider in dealing with a question of this kind. I do not desire in any way to associate myself with the interests of either party concerned in this question, but I do desire to say that my Committee came to their decision after due consideration, and after giving due weight to considerations of every kind.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he
  1814
  replies, will not adopt the attitude adopted by the Government in the House of Lords and refuse to reinsert this Clause. If he, does, I am sure that his action will be regarded as a grievous discrimination against the interests of the Board, and, as such, will be widely resented, because the effect of such discrimination must be to raise the rates of the four corporations. I think that such action will not in any way benefit the public interest or serve the interests of which the right hon. Gentleman is the particular guardian. After the exhaustive statements which have already been made, I need not remind the House of what was said in the speeches with reference to this Bill, but I should like to anticipate some of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman may adduce; and my anticipation will, of course, be guided by the fact that arguments were adduced in another place, with which he may or may not agree, but all of which, so far as I have examined them, cannot be supported. In another place the Noble Lord upon the Woolsack said that it was entirely without precedent for a Private Bill to alter the general law on the question of trustee securities. He went on to refer to his great experience at the Bar in such matters, and then he said that he regarded the proposal as "a revolutionary proposal, destructive of the authority and jurisdiction of this House." If this proposal were really revolutionary, and were really destructive of the authority either of this or of the other House, I should be the last to support it. We have only, however, to look at the Act under which this Water Board was constituted to find a complete precedent for what the House is asked to do to-night, and it is, therefore, preposterous to say that we are asking for anything which is either without precedent or revolutionary. As has been stated by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir S. Roberts), Section 111 of that Act specially enacts that:
  "For the purposes of the investment of Trust funds the Board shall be deemed to be a Corporation of a municipal borough having according to the returns of the last census prior to the date of investment a population exceeding 50,000, and the Trustee Act, 1893. shall apply as if the Board were referred to in Sub-section (m) of Section 1 of that Act."
  That is, if anything could be, an alteration, by a private Act, of the general law as laid down in the Trustee Act of 1893, and it is a precise precedent, although

  1815
  the Lord Chancellor said that there was no precedent. When, therefore, the Lord Chancellor said that these proposals were revolutionary and without precedent, he was not only misinformed himself, but, being misinformed himself, he misled the House, and the House gave its vote and registered its conclusion because it had been misinformed as to what was the law. The general law is clear enough. So far as it is relevant to this purpose, it is laid down in a short Sub-section of the Trustee Act of 1893, which says that a trustee may invest in nominal or inscribed stock issued by the corporation of any municipal borough having, according to the returns of the last census prior to the date of investment, a population exceeding 50,000. Therefore, the private Act of 1899, under which this Board was incorporated, not merely altered the general law—which the Lord Chancellor said had never been done—but it did something more. That Act of 1899 was a direct recognition of the principle that this Board being, in effect, a committee of the four corporations, was entitled to the same financial privileges as those corporations themselves. What are those privileges? One was bestowed upon them by this House in the Housing (Additional Powers) Act of 1919. By that Act a bond secured upon the rates issued by any local authority with the consent of the Minister was made a trustee security. Therefore I say that, unless this House reinserts this Clause, it is taking away a right which has already been given, first of all by Section 111 of the private Act of 1899, and then by Section 9 of the public Act of 1919. In another place it was suggested that this Act of 1919 was intended to apply only to the issue of housing bonds, and Lord Hylton, in anticipation of this point, said that it was strictly limited to housing authorities, and that the value of the concession to housing authorities would be taken away if a similar concession were granted to authorities which were not housing authorities. If there were any doubt on this matter, however, it is set at rest by a statement of the Minister of Health himself, in Clause 10 of his Memorandum No. 21. He there states that, under Section 9 of the Act, where a local authority or county council has obtained the consent of the Minister so far as the purposes of the Housing
  1816
  (Additional Powers) Act are concerned, to the issue of local bonds, not only those bonds, but mortgages on any fund or rate granted by that authority or council on the authority of the Act shall rank as a trustee security. It is perfectly clear that, in the view of the Minister of Health himself, these bonds, for whatever purpose they were issued, were to rank as trustee securities. This action by the Ministry of Health was criticised in another place in language which, I am bound to say, was not very civil. The Lord Chancellor said that the Ministry of Health, in so far as this matter was concerned, had no locus standi, that the matter was one which did not concern the Minister of Health, and that he had no right to offer an opinion. I have no desire to interfere in what, perhaps, was only a lovers' quarrel between the Minister of Health and the Lord Chancellor, but I am bound to say that it is quite clear that in that quarrel the Government took the side of the Minister of Health and not of the Lord Chancellor.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. There is nothing inconsistent between the statement in the circular and the statement made by Lord Hylton in the House of Lords. The statement in the circular is a pure statement of fact, and Lord Hylton's statement is a statement of the same fact in different words. Where my hon. Friend has gone wrong is in the inference that he has drawn from the two statements of the same fact.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I do not appreciate for the moment where I have gone wrong, but this I do appreciate, and I think the House will appreciate that there is a direct conflict of opinion between the Minister of Health and the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, no!
  Mr. BETTERTON: Otherwise how could the Lord Chancellor have said the Minister of Health had no right to offer an opinion? We know that the Minister of Health did offer an opinion, and we know that the Lord Chancellor said he had no right to offer an opinion, and as I was endeavouring to show when my right hon. Friend interrupted me, I think I am right in saying the Government has supported the view of the Minister of Health.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is attaching the Lord Chancellor's remark to a circular issued by the Minister of Health. He is mistaken in doing that. The Lord Chancellor was not referring to that circular.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I do not wish to pursue the point, but in the Bill which is at present before the House, the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, there is a Clause—Clause 19—it is one of the Clauses I know which was thrown over yesterday, but still it is in the Bill, and therefore it must be presumed to be in the Bill with the concurrence and approval of the Government. It proposes to give power to trustees to invest in county council mortgages and it enacts that all
  "mortgages granted after the passing of this Act by a county council under the authority of any Act or Provisional Order and secured on the county fund or on any revenues or any part of any revenue of the council"
  shall be trustee securities. I should like to know whether that Clause has the approval of my right hon. Friend, because if it has not, it will certainly encourage me in my opposition to it in Committee. But if it has the approval of my right hon. Friend, how can that be consistent with the contention in the House of Lords that the powers of local authorities with regard to these trustee securities are powers limited in respect of money for housing, for which, of course, there is a dire necessity? So if my right hon. Friend persists in supporting the attitude of the House of Lords, he is discriminating against this Board.
  The Noble Lord on the Woolsack made another point. He said—and I am again possibly anticipating the point which my right hon. Friend will make—
  "There are hundreds and thousands of institutions in this country who could put forward arguments as strong as those put forward by this corporation for making their mortgages trust securities and could contend that it would be equally right to make their mortgages trust securities."
  My right hon. Friend is a master of accurate and precise expression, and I am sure he would agree that this language of the Lord Chancellor is a fantastic and a grotesque exaggeration. Hundreds of thousands! Are there hundreds, let alone thousands, nay, is
  1818
  there one other authority in this country which is in the same position as the Water Board which we are now discussing? If there is, I do not know it. This is an authority which is not trading for a profit. It is an authority whose revenues are secured upon the rates of four of the principal corporations of the country, and therefore to say that there are hundreds of thousands of other corporations in a similar situation is the language of exaggeration. Since my right hon. Friend and I seem to be not quite at one as to the precise meaning of the Minister of Health's attitude, I observed yesterday, with regard to the same Clause 19, that the Minister of Health said:
  "I will mention that group of Clauses which will lead to economy in local government."
  This Clause 19 is one of them.
  "All these are useful Clauses although none of them are vital just now. They are all economical Clauses."
  The first comment I should like to make is that I should have thought any Clause which is an economical Clause at the present time is a vital Clause, and if it is a vital Clause to county councils, which are dealt with under Clause 19, that their securities should be trust securities, it is just as economical and as vital to this Board that a Clause should be inserted, the security being equally good, that their securities should also be trustee securities. I rather suspect the real reason of the opposition of the Government to this Clause is this. They fear that if they extend the range of trustee securities the securities so added will be in competition with Government securities, and will tend to raise the rate at which the Government can borrow. From the speech of the Noble Lord on the Woolsack I gathered that all the rest, of his arguments were really very much by the, way. That was the real argument on which he relied. I suggest two answers to that argument. The first is that the main, and, indeed, the only object of the Trustee Act is, in the first place, to provide protection for trustees, and in the second place to provide protection for the beneficiaries. The second answer is that the effect of borrowing at a higher rate by the Board, which will be the effect if this Clause is not reinserted, will be to put up the rate at which the individual constituent autho-

  1819
  rity can borrow. The effect then will be that other municipal corporations all over the country will have to put up their rates too, because their security is no better, if as good, as the security of the Board, and the ultimate effect will be that the right hon. Gentleman himself will have to borrow at a higher rate than he otherwise would. Therefore, the action of my right hon. Friend is not merely unfair to the Board, but it will not have the effect which he hopes it will have. If he believes it to be in the national interest, he is perfectly right to adopt the attitude I expect he will adopt, but the effect will not be what he thinks it will be, but may be precisely the opposite.
  The only other point is that which was referred to by the Chairman of the Committee. This Clause was passed by a Committee of the House. A few months ago we had a Debate in the House upon the Leith and Edinburgh Boundaries Bill. The House showed some inclination to throw over the findings of its own Committee, and so important was it considered that the principle should be maintained that the House should support its own Committee, that the Chairman of Ways and Means, with all the weight of his great authority, begged the House to consider before it threw over the findings of the Committee. That is a great principle, which we ought to maintain, and so great was the importance which the House attached, not only to the personality of the right hon. Gentleman—of course, that goes without saying—but to the gravity of his arguments, that it followed his appeal to support the action of its own Committee in that particular case. It is significant that Lord Emmott, who for many years occupied the position which the right hon. Gentle man holds to-day, took precisely the same point in another place. He said:
  I do not object to that in any way, but I do think it is rather an arbitrary proceeding to try and upset a decision deliberately come to by a Committee of the House of Commons where the point was specifically raised.
  So we have this case, that both the present and the late Chairman of Ways and Means have been pressing, one on this House and the other on the other House, the paramount importance of maintaining the principle that this House should support the findings of its own Com-
  1820
  mittees. If the Government, on the very first occasion on which it suits them, ask this House, without overwhelming reason, to reverse a decision of its own Committee, they will be doing a great disservice to that principle, for the maintenance of which these two eminent authorities have made so great an appeal. I beg the Government even now to consider whether they can avoid doing a grievous injustice, and whether they cannot now see their way to allow this Clause to be re-inserted.
  Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNG: It dawned upon me, as I imagine it must have dawned on other hon. Members in the course of this Debate, that there is a wide question of general policy of great importance concerned. It will not, therefore, be impertinent that one should say a word upon it, although he has no special knowledge of the action of the great cities concerned, because, unless it is said by such a Member, it is not likely to be said at all. I approach this particular question from the point of view of one who holds strongly the opinion that the list of trustee securities has dangerously increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. It was in listening to the most judicious and temperate observations of the hon. Member who presided over the Committee to consider this Bill that I thought I saw where our policy might be led astray in this matter. He told us that the Committee considered, no doubt most deeply considered and most judiciously decided on, the question of the value of this security. We shall land ourselves in an impossible situation if it is looked upon as a function of Committees of this House to decide upon the values of securities. It will follow from that, as the Committee is only a Committee of the House, that it will cast the burden of deciding the value of securities on this House as a tribunal. That is what hon. Members supporting this Resolution are calling on this House to do to-day. What would the result be if this procedure became established? Here and there, time and again, now this security and now that, new to the list and new to the individual would be proposed through the channel of private Committees. In consequence, sooner or later, and I think sooner than later, all barriers, all defences, and all boundaries to the list of trustee securities will be absolutely broken down.

  1821
  That would be a most dangerous thing, and would entirely destroy the value of trustee securities. As the guardians of trustees in these, matters—and it is given to us to act as guardians of those interests—we ought to hold most resolutely by those rules that alterations in the Trustee Act should always be a matter of the classes of security, decided on general lines as questions of principle. For that decision there must be a unity in authority, and there can only be such unity in authority if it is left very much as a matter of Government principle and decision. We should not do ill to pass a self-denying ordinance in this matter, as in other questions of finance, and to say that in matters of the trustee list we would only move on the Motion of a Minister.
  Major Sir KEITH FRASER: I do not think the Government is likely to support this Motion. I think the objective of the Treasury is to curtail investment, and that that is a very unwise policy. You may curtail Government trust securities and money in charge, but you cannot curtail the terms of a trust. People are getting to understand what Government trust securities are, and they are making their wills to-day. Twenty-five years ago money was left to me in trust. The Government in those days had cornered all trust securities. What is that worth to-day? I am a poor man; I ought to be a rich man. People are learning by experience that they cannot trust the Government with their securities. The Government are trying to corner securities and they are not allowing people to invest money over a wide field. I advocate wider power for trustees, and unless the Government give wider powers people who are making their wills will invest their money in the Colonies and where they like. They are not going to be humbugged by the Government. People are getting a bit uneasy about these Government securities, and the Government must either go with the tide or they must go down. Why do they object to this security being a trustee security? This is one of the best securities. The position of the Water Board is exceptional. How can honest people deny them the right to borrow money on trust security? It is the best security in England. Are you going to say that you wiil not allow widows and orphans to invest money in this excellent security; that while you will allow
  1822
  Leicester, Sheffield Nottingham and Derby to borrow money on their trustee security, you will not when they join allow them to borrow money on trust security? If you do this you will make people distrust the Government when they are making their investments.
  Sir J. D. REES: There was an arithmetical axiom in my school days that, the greater includes the less; but if this Clause is not restored there will be a new political axiom, and that will be that the less excludes the greater. The steel of Sheffield, the lace of Nottingham, the hosiery of Leicester, and the railways of Derby are all good enough on the back of securities to make a trustee security; but when you get all these great products and all these great cities rolled into one at the back of one security, at the back of one body, it is not good enough to be a trustee security. That strikes me as being a very extraordinary state of things, and there is more in it than meets the eye. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Atkey) so very ably and clearly put the case of our joint city that I should not have troubled the House with any observation had I not thought it necessary to emphasise the solidarity of the City of Nottingham in favour of the restoration of this Clause, and their resentment, I might almost say indignation, at the action of the House of Lords in cutting out of the Bill that which was passed as the deliberate act of a Committee of the House of Commons and of the House itself. The hon. Member (Mr. Atkey) is a member of the Water Board as well as a representative of one of the Divisions of Nottingham, and I accept everything he said except his statement that water is the greatest of all amenities. Had it not been for myself as substitute he would have been presiding to-morrow night at the annual banquet of the Licensed Victuallers of Nottingham. In spite of this fact I accept him most fully, and I am sure the House will, as the mouthpiece of Nottingham. If there is one thing that would make one more indignant at the excision of this Clause it would be the fact that it has been done, as I believe, in the interests of the policy of housing, which I only support because it is a Government policy, although I believe it is a bad policy. I believe that housing and all other businesses will go

  1823
  on the better the less the Government have to do with them. I cannot help thinking that the very unusual action which has been resorted to in this case is really due to the reaction and interaction of the housing policy, and as the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir F. Roberts) said, there is a question of parliamentary good faith at stake. There was something very like a bargain. It is extremely desirable to keep the most meticulous and scrupulous faith with local bodies in these matters, because local bodies have, owing to the action of Parliament, been compelled to take action, which I firmly believe they do not think necessary, in the direction of everlasting encroachments of anything designated social reform, which have put up the rates to a desperate and dangerous extent, so that the breaking point has been reached.
  Unless the Government allow a free vote, any hon. Member for any one of the cities concerned will be placed in an awkward position in which he ought, not to be placed. There are several of us who, while we have local patriotism and are inspired by it in regard to our constituencies, also firmly believe that to support the Government at the present time is the duty of a patriot, overriding perhaps even his duty to his own constituents. Consider the position of a Member who is unwilling to oppose the excision of this Clause if the Government presses for it, and puts on its Whips, and who yet firmly believes that in the interests of his own constituency and of all corporate bodies and of the investors in this stock this Clause should be restored. He is in an unfortunate position in which he ought not to be placed, and I appeal to the Government at least to allow us to have a free vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton) devoted a good deal of his speech to a criticism of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor on that occasion was not speaking as a judge. The House of Lords was not sitting as a judicial tribunal, and we might fairly consider the remarks of the Noble Lord on this occasion as being those of one, of God's creatures, and not necessarily inspired. I accept entirely the criticisms which my hon. Friend so temperately, so moderately, and so convincingly laid before the House.
  1824
  It will be most unfortunate if we do not succeed in restoring this Clause. I am not one of those who rave generally against any action taken by the House of Lords. I believe that the House of Lords almost invariably acts in the most patriotic, moderate and reasonable manner. In the 15 years during which I have been in this House never have I thought the fact that the House of Lords took certain action was anything against it, but rather that it was in its favour. Nevertheleess, I do believe that their action in this respect has been unfortunate. They have thrown over the deliberate decision of a Committee appointed in this behalf, which most carefully considered the matter, and the decision of the House of Commons. I beseech the Government if they will not recede from the ground they have taken up at any rate to let us have a free vote on this occasion and not place their supporters in the awkward situation of having to decide between doing what they think right for their constituencies, and supporting the Government which I believe is one of the chief duties of Members of Parliament.
  Mr. ALBERT GREEN: We have had expressions of opinion from three of the great cities concerned in this matter, and I, as one of the representatives of Derby, join in the opposition to the excision of this Clause by the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Norwich (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young) seems to suggest that the reason for Government opposition to this Clause is that, by increasing the number of trustee securities, it will weaken Government ability to borrow money at a lower rate of interest. It was provided by Section 3 of the Act of 1899 that, for the purpose of investment of trust funds, the Board should be deemed to be a corporation of a municipal borough, having, according to the returns of the latest census, a population exceeding 50,000, and that the Trustees Act should apply as if the Board were referred to in that Act. Having regard to the fact that that Clause is incorporated in the Charter of this Water Board, taken in conjunction with the further Acts passed in connection with the housing schemes, it is not increasing the scope of trustee securities. We have to take into consideration, further, the opinion of the Ministry of Health that one of its great duties at

  1825
  present is the provision of houses. The provision of houses is one of the reasons why the Derwent Valley Water Board have to enlarge their scope of operations, and to provide a greater amount of water. If it were not for the development of the different areas of the constituent authorities which compose this Board, there would have been no need for the enlargement of the operations of the Board. All who come from that particular area know how these great towns have developed, especially during the last 10 years, and made it essential that further supplies of water should be provided. In making this provision we are providing for the development of that area, and for the new houses that are being built, and unless the House gives sanction for borrowing this money as a trustee security, the rate of interest which must be offered by these great corporations for their housing funds must be raised. Any increase in the rate of interest which the Derwent Water Board have to offer for that purpose will be reflected in the increased rate of interest which has to be offered by the different corporations carrying out housing schemes, and this will have an effect on the greater call on the Treasury to meet the deficiency which will arise on the housing schemes of the different boroughs.
  In addition to the question of the increased rate of interest and the extra cost to the constituent authorities, and thus to the Treasury, there is also at stake the question of the authority of this House. We have had this question discussed before a Committee of this House and in this House, and never was there any protest or word of objection raised by the Treasury. It went from this House to the House of Lords, and it was not until the eleventh hour that the Treasury officials themselves intervened. It was not really the action of the Members of the House of Lords itself, but the action of Treasury officials, and the principle which is at stake to-night is whether this House of Commons shall be the governing authority in a great matter of this description, or whether we are to be governed by bureaucratic officials, who have no responsibility whatever to the constituencies up and down the country. I hope that this House will see that the Clause is restored, and if the Government cannot see their way to take off their Whips, though I am a supporter of the
  1826
  Government, I shall be compelled to vote against the Government in this matter.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the hon. Member includes me in the class of bureaucrats. I confess I do not recognise myself under such a description. I do not think that that kind of handling of the question will help the House to decide the issue before us. I have sat in this House for 28 years. I do not think I have ever hitherto taken part in a Debate on a Private Bill. The House will realise that least of all in my present position should I do so if there were not a principle of public policy at stake. An hon. Member has alluded to the strong appeal made by the Chairman of Committees the other day for the House to support the Committee. I have always followed that rule myself. It has been decisive for me in almost every vote I have been called upon to give on such an occasion. If this were an issue between two local authorities I should not rise to-night, nor would it be necessary for the Treasury to offer any opposition to the Bill. The case for the promoters was stated with great lucidity and great fairness by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Sir S. Roberts), who moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment. He ended with an appeal, which has been repeated since, that I should leave this question to the free decision of the House, and that I should not use the ordinary machinery of Government influence in order to secure a decision in my favour. I am going to respond to that appeal, but I hope the House does not take me for a fool, and that hon. Members realise that in consenting to that course I know the risks I am taking, I know how handicapped I shall be and already am, and that I am trusting myself to this great Court of Parliament to give a judgment on a great question of public policy uninfluenced by personal or local considerations.
  I shall not put on the Whips, but there has been very assiduous Whipping on the other side. A great many people, with no interest or no previous knowledge, without waiting to hear the other side of the case, have been asked, and have promised, their votes. I have so great a faith in this Assembly that I will take off the Whips. I shall not be surprised if I fail to carry with me the assent of the House, but I will try. I call the attention of the House to the character

  1827
  of the Debate. We have had a great many speeches. Every speech but one has been from an interested party. The voice of the great public, which has no local, but only a national interest, has come only from the hon. Member for Norwich (Lieut. - Commander Hilton Young). He, and he alone, has spoken as a Member of the Commons of England, and not as a representative of an interested constituency. I hope that my hon. Friends who spoke for the other side will not think I am blaming them. It is right that, in a matter of this kind, they should represent, and give to the House, in the strongest possible terms, the local interests of their constituents. There has been nobody for the other side except one spokesman.
  Mr. S. WALSH: We have had no chance yet.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There have been plenty of chances. Only one Member has risen, and that Member spoke against the Motion which has been moved. I beg the House's pardon. My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Samuel) spoke as Chairman of the Committee. As to the attitude of the Treasury, the hon. Member who spoke last complained that throughout the proceedings the Treasury had never made their opinions known. He is under an entire misapprehension of fact, and, I think, under an entire misapprehension of Parliamentary procedure. We made our opinions known to the promoters of this Bill the moment they put their Clause down. What is the complaint, if complaint there be? It is that we did not appear as opponents of the Bill in Committee. We had no locus standi to appear. Sir Erskine May in his work on Parliamentary Practice observes:—
  "Except in cases in which the consent of the Crown may be withheld from a Bill, Government Departments are without any means of enforcing the adoption of their Clauses either by the parties or the Committee, and their relations to the Committee and Parliament are often not a little anomalous."
  We cannot petition; we cannot appear by counsel; we are not parties to the proceedings of the Committee. The Committee were placed in possession of our view by counsel for the promoters, but counsel for the promoters could not and did not argue our case. And when it is
  1828
  said that the Committee considered the case with great care and came to a deliberate and considered judgment, I must remind my right hon. Friend the Chairman that before counsel had got to the Treasury objection, he expressed his agreement with the view of the promoters. I do not think if my right hon. Friend had had the Treasury case, or the case as it was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich, fairly argued before him, that he and his Committee would have come to the same conclusion. I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no discourtesy intended to himself or to the Committee of this House over which he presided, but we, as I say. have no locus standi to appear. We have before us one case in which a request was made to appear before the Committee, and it was resented as an improper proceeding, and as an improper attempt on the part of the Government to influence the proceedings. Is it fair to reproach us then that we, with no locus standi, did not do that which has been reported to the House as an improper thing on another occasion? Had my right hon. Friend expressed to me or my Department a desire that we should give our views to the Committee, although not parties to the inquiry, we should have done so. We had no such indication. We followed the usual course. We give notice in these cases to promoters of our objections. We do not on that account stop the progress of the Bill; we cannot. I do not know of a case where the promoters have not submitted to objections which the Treasury raised.
  What does this Bill propose to do? Why are the Treasury, and why am I interested? Why am I speaking here? The Bill proposes to make that a trustee investment which, under the general law of the land, is not a trustee investment. There are two officials of the Government who have a special responsibility in respect of the list of trustee securities. They are the Lord Chancellor and myself. We cannot release ourselves from it, and it is pursuance of that responsibility that the Lord Chancellor made the appeal in the House of Lords which, fortified by a similar appeal from a great judge, Lord Sumner, carried the House of Lords with him. It is in pursuance of the same responsibility that I make the same appeal to this House. It

  1829
  is to the interest of every borrower to get his obligation within the lists of trustee securities. Borrowers constantly attempt to do it. Is the House going to allow what is and what is not a trustee security to be judged and decided, not on some general principle by a general Act of Parliament, but by the chance majority of a particular night on a particular private Bill in the House of Commons? If so, the list of trustee securities becomes worthless. The added value attached to them by the fact that they are trustee securities is written off. What is and what is not a trustee security is no longer a question of public policy, but a question of the chance majority and of the number of Members of Parliament who, in their representative capacity, are interested in the policy.
  I hope I have said enough to show the House that, be I right or be I wrong in the line I have taken, we are deciding to-night not a small local issue, but a big question of public finance, public policy and public security. If you break down the barriers which have guarded the trustee securities so far, you break faith with the owners of trustee securities. An hon. Member has spoken to-night as if we are breaking faith with the Derwent Valley Water Board or the Derby Corporation if this Amendment be not carried. I cannot follow him. It is alleged that, because their stock was admitted to the class of trustee securities, therefore we are bound to admit any other obligation to them if we admit it in the case of anyone else. No such bargain was made by Parliament, or ever contemplated or thought of at the time, and it is absurd to say the House is not free to judge this question on its merits without being hampered by the decision of 1899.
  If you once admit that, by a private Bill, the list of trustee securities is to be enlarged, you break down the sanctity which has hitherto surrounded that list. Hon. Gentlemen have spoken as if this were a case which stood by itself. That is not so. I have in my hand a list of seven cases, all occurring since 1904, in which great corporations or other public authorities have sought by private Bill to extend the limit of the trustee securities, and in every case but one the Clause has been withdrawn at one stage or another of the Bill, in deference to the objections taken to it by the guardians
  1830
  of that class of security. In every case but one these great public authorities have yielded to the arguments, reasons and objections given by the constituted guardians of these securities, and, mark the exception, and mark the conditions with which that exception was surrounded, because it strengthens my case. It was the case of the Edgware and Hampstead Railway, in which a certain Clause empowered trustees for land situated upon or in the neighbourhood of the company's railways to hold stocks and shares if they considered that the railways would be of substantial advantage to their land; but only on condition that, before so investing, each trustee or trust applied for and obtained an order of the High Court authorising the investment. I think an exception so guarded, where the trustee has to prove to the satisfaction of the High Court that the investment is in the interest of the trust, makes my case stronger than if there had been no exception to my general scheme.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there not the case of the Staines Reservoirs Act, of 1896, and the Southampton Harbour Act, 1903, also?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is rather a misfortune for those who have to speak that our minds do not always travel over the same ground and exactly in the same order as those of all our audience. My noble Friend has invited mo to address myself to a point to which I was coming next. It is pleaded by the promoters that this exception has already been made in their own case by an Act of 1899, and in the two other cases mentioned. Let me say in the first place that I think it was a pity those exceptions were made. It shows how perilous it is. It is a small thing in each case. You will find a great deal to be said in favour of the particular authority, but just as much can be said in favour of a great number of other authorities, and it emphasizes my argument, that if you decide on particular cases in particular private Bills, instead of, as the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich urged you should, in a general Act, you will not do justice even and fair, your law will be partial, you will grant favour to one authority, and refuse it to another in a similar position. But even so, there is a vast difference between those three cases and the case with which I am now deal-

  1831
  ing. Those three cases extended to particular public authorities the provisions of a general law; the Amendment asks the House to vary the general law in favour of a particular body.
  Let me make that plain. Right or wrong, not without grave doubt and anxious consideration, we extended by general Act to all housing authorities the privilege of making their mortgages trustee investments. We did that in order to help them in housing finance. It is perfectly true that we did not, as I would very much prefer to have done if the thing were to be done at all—and indeed, with this experience, as I now bitterly regret that I did not do—we did not confine it to money raised for housing purposes, because it was pressed upon us that the finance of these housing authorities was one, that their credit was one, that you could not separate it into compartments, and that they had large mortgages outstanding which might be affected if the new mortgages for housing were of a different character. The old mortgages might be called in, and the authority, when it was trying to raise new money, might be confronted with great demands for the repayment of old money. Accordingly, we extended this privilege to all housing authorities, not without grave anxiety, but because the problem of housing finance is for the local authorities and for Parliament a most difficult one, and because we felt that we must use every means which would facilitate the carrying through by them and by ourselves of the immense task which lies before us in this matter of housing. It was solely to facilitate housing that we did it. The privilege was confined to housing authorities, though not to money raised by them for housing purposes. This Bill takes an authority which is not a housing authority, which cannot help and cannot injure housing, and proposes to extend to it, among all public authorities in a similar position, the right which by general Statute is given to housing authorities alone.
  My hon. Friend the mover suggested an alternative form of words which he thought did single out the body in which he is interested from any others. I venture to say that he himself, if he came down to this Bench, would make a stand against demands by others in a comparable position. There is a similar
  1832
  authority in my own district in the Midlands, not for water, but for sewerage. Their mortgages, if they have any, are not trustee securities. How could I resist their demand to have that privilege extended to them if the House grants it to this particular body? Water authorities, sewerage authorities, harbour authorities all over the country might come and make the same demand that what we did for housing authorities, because they were housing authorities, and in order to help housing, should be extended to them, though they have nothing to do with housing. Again, I say, I am not asking Parliament to take away any privilege which Parliament has already conferred on the Derwent Water Board. They may issue trustee stock to-morrow if they like, and I do not know whey they do not do it. They cannot, so long as the general law of the land remains unchanged, issue mortgages, and claim that those mortgages should be trust securities. I say I will not use the machinery; I throw myself on the good sense and public spirit of the House, and I beg the House not to deal piecemeal with these great questions in deference to a group of Members who speak under the influence, the legitimate influence, of their local corporations, and not to be led into breaking down, case by case on Private Bills, the general law which regulates the admission of securities to the trustee funds.
  I am not suggesting for a moment that this is not a perfectly good security; it would be absurd to do so. What are the rules as to the admission of trustee securities? You have, in the first place, to admit only securities of which on general principles you approve, and to admit them, not individually, not by favour, but as a class on grounds of principle. In the second place, you require to have a list of trustee securities sufficient to meet the demand for trustee securities. If you go beyond that you do injury to every holder of trustee securities and every authority which is allowed to issue trustee securities. You destroy the value of the list, you do irreparable injury to those who, on the faith of your public policy and on the faith of the rules which you have publicly passed, have invested their money, or directed that their money should be invested in that particular class of security. I have put what I con-

  1833
  ceive to be the great principle of public policy involved. I hope the House will affirm the principle, and not do otherwise by their desire, either to follow my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Samuel), who had not all these arguments before him, or to please the hon. Gentlemen who came from the few constituencies concerned.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer opened his speech by saying that this is the first time in 28 years that he has taken part in a private Bill discussion. As one who is going to oppose him to-night, I can only say that I regret that he has availed himself of this opportunity to take part in Debate, but I think it is only fair to say that no one could have stated the case for the Government more fairly or eloquently than the right hon. Gentleman has already done. I do want, however, to submit to the House that he has stated the case unfairly from the point of view of the Derwent Valley Water Board. I do beg the House to follow the line of wisdom in this matter. The Chancellor has said, in substance, that when in 1899 this House agreed to the Derwent Valley Water Board it merely gave authority to issue stock for trustee securities. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer brushes that on one side, and also says, in substance: Why should this House of Commons be bound by something that was done in 1899? As a matter of fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to admit that the Bill of 1899 did more than that. It authorised this authority to be placed on precisely the same footing that was then existent or might be given to any subsequent authority. It is important that the House should clearly understand that, because it is vital to a fair consideration of the whole case.
  In the second place, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich—who, incidentally, I think, the Chancellor had no right to assume was the only disinterested person in this House, for surely Members representing constituencies that are directly affected by a decision, or may be ultimately affected by a decision, as much represent the public as anyone else in the House—the right hon. Gentleman made certain observations. I do ask the House to observe that if they vote with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night their municipalities will be affected just as we are affected at the moment. It is
  1834
  not a question of creating a new trust as described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a question of taking away a trust already existent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No no!"] Very well, then, if I can prove that it is so—[An HON. MEMBER: "YOU cannot!"]—I am entitled to the support of those who now disagree. Up till now the Chancellor has created the impression that the only object of those of us who are supporting this Bill, and disagreeing with the Lords, is that we are anxious to add—to use his own words—to the list of Trustee Securities. That is the statement made. That is the statement the House is asked to vote upon. It is a reversal of the case. I repeat that in 1899 certain authority was given to this body. There is no doubt or question about that. When, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, the Ministry of Health decided upon a housing policy, they reversed the situation so far as this Board was concerned, as the Chairman of Committee has already explained. This body was then compelled to come to the House of Commons and say, that owing to the action of the Government itself they were adversely affected. The House of Commons unanimously decided that, being adversely affected by the action of the Ministry itself, they would restore the position of the Board. That was done unanimously by Members of this House.
  Mr. HAILWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Ministry of Health existed in 1899?
  Mr. THOMAS: If my hon. Friend had been present during the whole of the Debate he would have understood that the action of the Minis-try of Health was only a few months ago. I think the House generally understands clearly that there was a new housing policy introduced not very many months ago. In 1899 the authority was given and maintained by this body until the Ministry of Health introduced their Housing Bill that gave every local authority the power of a trust security. That immediately affected this body adversely and they came to this House. They then went to a Committee upstairs which unanimously decided that the power should be retained. A Committee of the House of Lords also unanimously decided to give them that power.
  I ask this House to judge this matter fairly on its merits. When we give a

  1835
  Second Reading to a Bill here we send it upstairs to a Committee and it is at least assumed that an impartial and fair consideration is to be given to every aspect of the case. We have heard tonight that every aspect of this case was considered by the Committee. We have heard that they unanimously came to that decision. We have heard that the House of Lords were equally unanimous, and now we have had the statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to why the Treasury itself takes exception. I can understand bankers being anxious over this matter, but what I cannot understand is any hon. Member of this House going into the Lobby saying that he is voting for Derby, Sheffield, Leicester, or Nottingham individually having all the authority and power of a trust, but because they combine in the interests of the people they represent then they are not to be made a trust security. That is the crux of the whole case.
  Strip the whole thing, and it boils down to this: Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, and Leicester, as individual corporations, obtain all the power that is necessary, but because in the interests of the community they combine to give cheaper water and more facilities to the people they represent, this Parliament is asked to say that there is less security by the four combining than if they stood alone. That is the issue before the House which we have to determine. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You will say "No" by your vote, but that will not alter the facts of the case. It will not alter the fact that instead of the House being called upon to vote to extend the trustee security, they are being called upon to vote to take from the trust security power that already exists. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The most remarkable thing is that the most shouting comes from those who have not heard the Debate. Those who have followed the whole Debate will admit that that is the issue before the House. It is because I believe that we are voting in the public interest, it is because municipalities must be encouraged and helped, it is because I believe we have no right to compel an authority of this kind to pay more money than they ought to pay, and which it is necessary to pay, that I believe the House ought to vote for disagreeing with the Lords
  1836
  Amendment. I want to say how much I appreciate the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the Whips off. Incidentally, the agreement was only arrived at a few minutes ago, because when we came to the House we were under the impression that the Whips were being put on. I interpret the right hon. Gentleman's action as at least an indication that it would enable him to know what the feeling of the House is on this matter. I ask the House not to miss the one simple issue it is called upon to decide. It is this: If four municipalities combine together for the advantage of the ratepayers, then those municipalities should at least be as strong as any small one acting on its own.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: During the war the building of houses practically ceased, and at the end of the war there was such a great shortage of workmen's houses that the question deserved and received the immediate attention of the Government. In order to facilitate the building of new workmen's houses the Government passed an Act which authorised local authorities to issue housing bonds as trustee securities, and I feel strongly that the urgent need to increase the number of new houses made it absolutely necessary, however undesirable it may have been from a purely financial standpoint, to give local bodies the power of raising money under the Trustees Securities Act. By doing so we have undoubtedly helped on housing, although it may result in some cases in a considerable loss in the future to widows and children, whose money may be invested in securities of some small local authorities which may not prove desirable. I think the action of the Government in this matter will by general consent be admitted to have been wise. I am personally very pleased that the Treasury is taking a firm stand in the matter and has put before the House and before the country the broad issue. I hope the House of Commons when voting to-night will-realise that they are voting on a big issue, i.e., whether the Trustee Securities Act is to be interfered with by Private Bill legislation. In my view, even at present, the list of trustee securities is so large that it has taken away from the great corporations in this country one of their most valuable possessions, namely, the power of being able to raise money for the benefit of the great masses of the

  1837
  country at a low rate of interest. Gradually Parliament has, by public Acts extending the list of trustee securities, made it so long that it has already materially increased the rates at which big municipalities and other public authorities have to borrow money. It is not all due to the War. Some of it is due to the lengthy list of trustee securities. We are on a very slippery slope to-night, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, and if logrolling in this House is begun and three or four boroughs combine, you will have a large number of Members coming down to speak in favour of extending the list of trustee securities, and the list may
  be extended without much opposition, from other Members not interested in that particular locality. That will lead to this result, that while you may think you are doing good to some particular constituency, in the long run, owing to the further extension of the list of trustee securities, other constituencies will have to pay more for their money than they would if you voted in support of the action which the Treasury has taken to-night.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 159.

  Division No. 363.]

  AYES.

  [10.41 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

  Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Atkey, A. R.

  Green, Albert (Derby)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gregory, Holman

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Burnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Seddon, J. A.

  Betterton, Henry B

  Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')

  Sexton, James

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Hayday, Arthur

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Bromfield, William

  Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Swan, J. E.

  Cairns, John

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Casey, T. W.

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Vickers, Douglas

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lawson, John J.

  Waterson, A. E.

  Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

  Lunn, William

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Morden, Colonel H. Grant

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Finney, Samuel

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Sir Samuel Roberts and Mr. J. F.

  Green.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

  Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Chllcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

  Hailwood, Augustine

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Armitage, Robert

  Clough, Robert

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

  Hinds, John

  Barnett, Major R. W.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Barrie, Charles Coupar

  Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

  Hood, Joseph

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn.W.)

  Bell, Lieut.-Col W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Boles, Lieut-Colonel D. F.

  Foreman, Henry

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Brown, Captain D. C.

  Gardiner, James

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Kidd, James

  Carew, Charles Robert S.

  Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Pratt, John William

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O, (H'tingd'n)

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Townley, Maximillan G.

  Lynn, R. J.

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Waddington, R.

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  M' Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

  Warner, Sir T Courtenay T.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Reid, D. D.

  Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

  Mitchell, William Lane

  Remer, J. R.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Rodger, A. K.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

  Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Morrison, Hugh

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Mosley, Oswald

  Seager, Sir William

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Wise, Frederick

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Stanton, Charles B.

  Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

  Parker, James

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Younger, Sir George

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Sugden, W. H.

  Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young

  and Captain Coote.

  Resolution agreed to.

  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Mr. WHITLEY: I beg to move, in the Preamble, to leave out the words
  "And whereas the moneys required by the Board for expenditure on revenue account are (so far as they are not obtained from other sources) provided by means of contributions payable on precepts issued by the Board by the Corporations of Derby, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield (hereinafter referred to as 'the four Corporations') out of the revenue of their respective water undertakings and the proceeds of the general district rates leviable by them respectively:
  And whereas the Board are authorised to raise either by borrowing on mortgage of their revenue and the moneys receivable by them from the four Corporations or by the issue of debentures or annuity certificates under 'The Local Loans Act, 1875,' or by the creation and issue of stock any moneys which they are for the time being authorised to raise for expenditure on capital account:
  And whereas the Act of 1899 contains provisions by virtue of which any stock issued by the Board is a security available under the provisions of 'The Trustee Act, 1893,' for the investment of trust funds as if such stock had been issued by a corporation of a municipal borough having according to the returns of the last census prior to the date of investment a population exceeding 50,000 and is thus assimilated to stock issued by any of the four Corporations:
  And whereas by virtue of 'The Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919,' any local bonds issued under that Act and mortgages of any fund or rate granted after the passing of that Act by any of the four Corporations are securities in which trust funds may be invested as if they were referred to in Section 1 of 'The Trustee Act, 1893':
  And whereas it is expedient that it should be provided that any mortgages granted by the Board after the passing of this Act shall
  1840
  also be securities in which trust funds may be invested."
  The decision to which the House has just come makes it necessary for me to move this consequential Amendment. The matter has been overlooked in the other House. The Amendment they carried ought to have been accompanied by an Amendment to leave out the words that lead up to the Clause which has been omitted from the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  AGRICULTURE BILL.
  Proposed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on further Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
  Question again proposed, "That the words '(13) This Section shall not apply to land belonging to a local authority' be there inserted in the Bill."
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government. I quite understand that it is moved with a view to protecting local authorities with regard to land for waterworks or something of that sort. Having regard to the position generally, it seems to me that local authorities who have acquired land for any such purpose would be adequately protected. No order could be made upon them which would adversely affect their interests without their having the right to appeal to an arbitrator, and if it was held that any cultivation order would interfere with

  1841
  the powers of the local authority, with regard, for example, to their waterworks, and the arbitrator could not decide that such an order was in the national interests, again, they can appeal on the question whether they, as owners, would not be injuriously affected. Obviously they would be injuriously affected. Therefore, I think that for all purposes in which local authorities require protection they already possess all necessary protection in the terms of the Bill. Apart from that, we cannot make a special exception and give preferential treatment to local authorities over and above the ordinary landlord. There are cases—I will not quote them now—in which local authorities have acquired a large amount of land for perfectly proper public purposes, but in the interval, before they have utilised the land for these purposes, their property has been greatly mis-managed. In these cases they should be liable to receive similar treatment to any ordinary landlord and private owner. For these reasons, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment, and I do not think the local authorities will be in any way penalised.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment to Clause 6, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Grantham (Lieut.-Colonel Royds) is in its wrong place and cannot be taken to-night. It ought to come up as a new Clause.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move,
  "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
  That brings us to the end of Clause 6, and I do not think we ought, at this hour, to enter on a discussion of Clause 7, which is a very important Clause. Therefore, I beg to move that consideration of the Bill be adjourned until to-morrow.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [GRANTS].
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to Housing of the People, Public Health, and Local Government, and for purposes in connection therewith, it is expedient to
  1842
  authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants under Section one of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses completed within two years of the passing of that Act or such further period not exceeding four months as the Minister of Health may in any special case allow.
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

IRELAND.

  INCENDIARISM, TIPPERARY.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. ADAMSON: As a matter of great national importance, I want to inquire from the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can give the House any information Regarding events in Ireland. During this evening it has been brought to the notice of the party with which I am associated, through an official source, that the town of Tipperary is being burned by Crown forces, and that these Crown forces have cut the fire hose and prevented the council firemen, at the point of the revolver, from using the same. If that information is correct—and from the source from which it has come I have no doubt that it is correct—it is a serious matter, and one that ought to be raised and discussed in the House at the earliest possible moment. In the last few weeks we have had our methods of government in Ireland brought again and again before the House, and again and again we have had the Chief Secretary explaining these occurrences from the. Government point of view. In a matter of the kind now under discussion the Chief Secretary will have great difficulty in justifying such a method of government. The telegram from which I have quoted says:
  "Tipperary town being burned by Crown Forces who have cut fire hose and prevented the council's firemen at point of revolver from using the same."
  The telegram is signed by the Town Clerk of Tipperary.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: He will be shot to-morrow.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The hon. Member says the town clerk will be shot to-morrow for sending this telegram. I question very seriously whether he will be shot for sending the telegram. This matter is of so serious a character that we thought it was our duty to raise it even at this late hour with a view to ascertaining whether the Chief Secretary has any information regarding it, and also with a view to seeing what he, as representing the Government in Ireland, proposes to do in order to check action of this character. Again and again the question of reprisals has been raised, and we have had the Chief Secretary defending his officials in Ireland. If this telegram represents the truth, it will be very difficult for the Chief Secretary to represent and defend them now. On the Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, I said that the methods of government that had been brought to our notice within recent times made us positively ashamed of the manner in which we were attempting to govern the people of Ireland, I do not know of anything worse than this that has been brought to our notice to-night. If this town is being burned, and steps are being taken to prevent the Council's firemen from subduing the flames, it means that women and children will be dispossessed of their shelter, and that, as on other occasions, they will be running elsewhere for shelter. It represents a method of government that cannot be justified. I hope we are to have some assurance from the Chief Secretary that steps are to be taken immediately to stop conduct of this kind. The telegram is very specific, and I will not elaborate it. I want to give the Chief Secretary as much time as possible to let us know what information he has been able to secure since I sent him notice of my intention to raise this matter, and the information which had been passed on to us. I hope that he is in a position to give us that information, and to state that effective steps are being taken to prevent the continuance of a policy which makes us in Britain ashamed of our methods of government in Ireland.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before the Chief Secretary replies, may I say that no doubt his defence will be that some foul murders which I deprecate as much as the Chief Secretary have been committed in this neighbourhood. If that is the Government defence it is a
  1844
  defence of anarchy. Murders should be punished with the rigour of the law, but burning houses of innocent people because murders have been committed is the negation of all government.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to prophesy what my defence will be.
  Mr. DEVLIN: We knew.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: My defence will be that there is not a word of truth in the telegram read out. As soon as I got notice from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) I wired to Dublin Castle. Dublin Castle communicated by telephone with the town of Tipperary. The telegram received by the right hon. Gentleman was sent off from Tipperary at four o'clock to-day. The telephone message I received was sent off at six o'clock this evening. I will give it as it came to me from Dublin Castle—
  "I have just been given a telephone message from the District Inspector at Tipperary, who says that he personally and his men helped to extinguish fires last night, and that there is absolutely no truth in the statement that the town is being burned. The town to-day is perfectly quiet."
  I referred to-day in my answer to the destruction of five houses yesterday, but the suggestion that this is a matter of great national importance, namely, that the forces of the Crown cut the hose, and prevented the Council's firemen from using the same, is not true. This telegram which the right hon. Gentleman has received is symptomatic of a great deal of the information that comes from unofficial sources. The reason it comes to certain hon. Gentlemen in this House is because they are only too anxious to make out that the loyal forces of the Crown are guilty of these outrages. I cannot resume my seat without referring to the record of Tipperary county and Tipperary town during the last two years, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman had no word to say about the brutal murders of policemen and soldiers that have been committed in this town and county.
  Mr. ADAMSON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on Thursday last, in speaking upon the Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, I stated

  1845
  specifically here that neither I nor the party I represented had any sympathy either with murders or reprisals.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has no sympathy with them, but the difference between him and me is this: that I think the main question in Ireland is the murder of policemen and soldiers, not the reprisals. The latter is important, but it is consequential. The great issue before the Government and this House to-day is the murder of their servants. In the county of Tipperary since 1st July, 1919, there have been 20 policemen murdered and 34 wounded. In the town of Tipperary itself during that period there have been seven murdered and three wounded, and on Saturday last, within a few miles of Tipperary, there were four policemen brutally murdered (one having his remains charred by reason of the burning of a motor) and two wounded. I want to emphasise to the House that, while I condemn reprisals, or alleged reprisals, as much as anyone, and have taken the most drastic steps to stop them—and I am stopping them, and General Sir Nevil Macready is stopping them in the Army—the best way the House of Commons can help in this matter is to assist the Government to stop these murders, which are the great blot upon that section of the Irish people responsible for them. I wish the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman and the power that he and others in the House have in the country wera used as much to prevent murders as in condemning consequential reprisals,
  Mr. DEVLIN: There is not the slightest necessity for the right hon. Gentleman to work himself into such a white heat of indignation. We are all just as much opposed to murders as he is. The only difference between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves is that the Government is responsible for these murders. lie recited to the House a number of murders which had taken place in Tipperary during the last two years. He did not tell the House that for nearly 20 years there was hardly a murder in Tipperary at all. There were more murders in his own constituency in England in one month than there were in Tipperary in 20 years.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not true.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Therefore when Members of this House come here and listen to the
  1846
  right hon. Gentleman declare that such an enormous number of assassinations have taken place within the last two years it is a strange thing that these outrages run concurrent with all scandals which have been associated with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to make one thing perfectly clear to the House. Is it his claim that because a policeman is murdered in a certain part of a certain county, the forces of the Crown, garbed in all their authority are to go into a peaceful community, burn down houses, hunt the people on the roadside, drive thorn out of the villages, and force them to sleep in the open air on winter nights? Does the right hon. Gentleman defend a policy of that character?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly not.
  Mr. DEVLIN: One would think, from the tone and spirit of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with these cases of reprisals, that it is quite a justification for the uniformed forces of the Crown to organise and wage war upon innocent and inoffensive citizens who an; discharging their duties lawfully to themselves and to the State, and they are to be subjected to this atrocious treatment at the hands of what he calls his servants. [An HON. MEMBER: "Servants of the House."] If there are crimes in Ireland, this Government has been given as rigid and as extreme powers as were ever given to a Government to deal with these things. We spent a whole Session of this House passing a Coercion Act. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman that if he were given fresh powers he would end all these murders and outrages in Ireland. He got those fresh powers—powers greater than were ever given to any Chief Secretary or any Government to suppress anything in the nature of outrage; and I say that this organised conspiracy of governmental anarchists is one of the worst blots upon the escutcheon of the Empire and on the British name. With all the powers which he asked for in the House, and which he has used with a rigour that has not been paralleled in the history of any other Chief Secretary or any other Government, his minions take the law into their own hands, and do not carry on reprisals against those who commit these deeds, but wage war upon the poor people who

  1847
  dissociate themselves from them, and who are in no way responsible for them.
  When the right hon. Gentleman rose to-night he gave a flat contradiction—I think he said it was an absolute falsehood—to the statement of the Leader of the Labour party that this town was burnt down. I suppose what he meant by the town being burnt down was that there was not left a single stick or stone in any shop or building in the town of Tipperary. What we mean by burning down a town is setting fire to shops, and I have here in my hand a list, which the right hon. Gentleman can have, of the largest shops in the town of Tipperary. I know these shops myself, for I knew Tipperary when there were no murders in Tipperary, and it was a great and peaceful community, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman a list, not of one, but of seven or eight shops with the names of the owners, describing the onslaught made upon these buildings by what he chooses to call his servants—the servants of the Crown. One of these shops belonged to Sir Thomas Lipton. The right hon. Gentleman should not be asking me for the names of these places. When I put a question to him to-day, with regard to the destruction of this property, he told us that he had not got any information about it. Yet in a Dublin paper yesterday was published a recital of all these horrible instances, described in all their vividness in the public Press, and the Chief Secretary, who ought to be acquainted with every one of those acts when they are committed, tells us to-night that the first time he sought information upon these matters was when my right hon. Friend told him that he intended to raise the question on the Adjournment. I prefer the declarations of the people whose property was destroyed to the declarations either of the District Inspector or any interested person in the town of Tipperary. I would not believe the oath of a single one of the informants of the right hon. Gentleman who send lying briefs which he can read. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] It is all very good for these light and airy Gentlemen. I wish they lived in Ireland for a while. I wish they had to undergo the treatment to which these innocent people are subjected.
  1848
  I repeat that every one of the statements contained in the telegram which was read by the Leader of the Labour party is perfectly true. Here is what is said by Mr. O'Callaghan, who lived about a quarter of a mile from the town. He says that about a quarter of a mile distant the uniformed men burst in the shutters of his grocery and set the place on fire. As no warning was given, Mrs. O'Callaghan and her children had to escape by the rear. I wonder whether the sneering Gentleman opposite has any children of his own. I wonder how he would like, instead of being a successful profiteer, to be a shop-keeper in the town of Tipperary. Mr. O'Callaghan goes on to say that the neighbours gathered and extinguished the flames. All the windows and most of the contents of the shop had been destroyed, and the neighbours, who went for the fire brigade, were turned back under the threat of being shot. A bomb was thrown into the private residence of Mr. Mortell in the same street, but not much damage was done. At Mr. Frank O'Mara's confectionery shop the door was smashed and the stuff was thrown into the street, and a bomb left inside exploded, but the place did not go on fire and the damage was small. Mrs. O'Mara had only left a few minutes before the occurrence. The door of Mrs. McGarrigle's drapery in the main street was also broken in and a bomb was thrown, which exploded. The damage done was very considerable, the entire stock being destroyed either by fire or water. No one resided on the premises since they were bombed a few weeks ago. Having battered the shutters of the Irish house, and called for admission in vain, the incendiaries moved on to the millinery establishment of Mrs. McGarrigle. Here a shutter was forced and petrol thrown in and set alight. Fortunately the window had been cleared on Saturday night, and the fire did not extend. Three ricks of hay, the property of Thomas Ryan, were set on fire and completely destroyed. Mr. Ryan was absent at the time, the only occupants being his mother and sisters. Tipperary is not a very large town. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was ever there in his life. I know that the geographical position of Ireland is not a matter of close acquaintance with occupants of the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland, but, at all events, Tipperary is not a very large town.

  1849
  These are the only shops we know of at present, but I am confident there were others, and there is a clear and distinct statement by Mr. O'Callaghan that when the citizens attempted to put out this fire they were driven back under threats of being shot if they continued. If this were an isolated case it would be bad enough; if this were simply a sort of passionate outburst of a momentary character that would be bad enough, but everyone in this House who takes the slightest interest in Ireland is well aware that wherever a policeman is shot, wherever an outrage takes place, the whole community and the population of all the surrounding villages and towns are in a state of complete terror. This is war, we are told by the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister, but was there ever war of this character waged in any civilised or savage community in the world, a war on innocent people? Show me a single civilised or uncivilised community in which these things occur. Let me say here, that most of the shooting of policemen by Sinn Feiners is done in the open. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, it is.
  Mr. LANE MITCHELL: In the back.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, a great many of these murders, or whatever you like to call them, have occurred through the operations of fights and ambushes, which have taken place in different parts of the country, but I do not want to go into that. I am not concerned with that. The Government have the power in their hands. They have had all the powers they sought for, everything they have asked for to put down these murders. What I am concerned with is the appalling condition in which innocent people are placed in every parish and town in three and a-half of the provinces of Ireland to-day. Much as an Irishman may feel intense indignation at what is going on in Ireland to-day, the shame does not rest on Ireland, it rests on this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]. Then the Archbishop of York and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and every spiritual leader and every man who has an honest faith in the high-mindedness and dignity and glory of his race in England—every one of them is a liar, and the only true spokesmen of the honour of England are the unintelligent Members of Parliament, who by an accidental process have sneaked their way into this
  1850
  august Chamber. I say here that I would cease to believe in British human nature if I thought those Gentlemen represented it. I do not rise to-night and I do not interest myself in these questions in the House for any sympathy I may get here. We have roused the public attention of all that is honest and sincere and genuine in the national life of England in revolt against these appalling proceedings, and the heart of England has been touched. Great Englishmen and kindly Englishmen believe that all these things are a stigma upon the name of this country. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, finally, that I am glad from the first time that I heard a note sounded in his speech that he was doing his best to put an end to these things. I would say to him that the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland is a very transient position. I have known, even in my short experience of Irish national life, how many Chief Secretaries have sat on that Bench. I have watched them pass, some to obscurity, and others to conversion, but I have seen many of them, when they had to do the dirty work of their masters, cast on one side. The right hon. Gentleman comes from a great, free land of free institutions. Such horrors as these would be impossible in Canada. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, when he has passed along the procession of past Chief Secretaries—I would beg of him to be remembered in Ireland as something more than the apologist of the transactions which we have ventured to describe here to-night.
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: I do not know if it is necessary, when an hon. Member rises, to disavow at once any sympathy with the murders that are taking place. In case one may be charged with lack of sympathy, I should like to take this early opportunity of expressing my disapproval, on behalf of myself and colleagues, with those murders in Ireland. It is not the case that we have any sympathy in that direction when we rise to take part in these discussions. The Chief Secretary generally has one argument and statement to make when these questions are raised, and that is to deny that they took place. To-night he has made a denial. Then, most strange to say, he goes on to emphasise the fact that those in authority who are over the police and military forces in Ireland are taking drastic steps to punish those forces of the Crown who take part in these reprisals. That is the

  1851
  most remarkable position. Why do they want to take steps to punish people who have taken part in things that never existed? It seems strange that these two statements should be made on matters of this kind. Again, one would be more convinced if drastic steps were taken to deal with the culprits, and if we had more information in regard to any punishment that has been inflicted upon those taking part in these outrages. The Chief Secretary himself from that box has admitted that the forces of the Crown do commit murder, yet, so far as I am aware, the only punishment that has been inflicted on the forces of the Crown are a few reductions in rank—at all events, that is all that has been reported in this House—and one or two dismissals. That would suggest that the offences are of a very minor character. When we are told that murder has been committed it certainly does not seem that drastic steps are being taken to punish it.
  But there is one further point. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement to-night, in reply to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson), who raised this question, that we are always receiving information from unofficial sources. I want to ask quite definitely: Is the Town Clerk of Tipperary an unofficial source? Is a man occupying a position of that responsibility to be termed an unofficial source I want to say that we shall be more convinced that these statements are false if the right hon. Gentleman will
  1852
  take steps against the people who make them. He has been asked in this House on several occasions by the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) why he does not take steps against the people who make these false accusations against the forces of the Crown, and the absence of any such steps does not convince as that these statements are false. D.O.B.A. still reigns in Ireland as well as in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman is not lacking in powers to take steps against the people who, he says, are making the false statements against the forces of the Crown. The fact that these steps are not taken does not convince us that these statements are false and are not based upon reliable evidence. It is not sufficient for the Chief Secretary to get up and answer the questions in the way he has done to-night, first of all by denying them, then saying that steps are being taken to punish these people, and then terming the Town Clerk of Tipperary as an unofficial source, who was quoted in connection with the telegram. The whole position is wrapped in mystery, and to some of us it appears that the Chief Secretary is more concerned with camouflaging the position than in any real endeavour or attempt to meet the statements that are made from time to time in regard to these lamentable occurrences.
  It being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October.
  Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  ARMED MERCHANT SHIPS (RE-CONDITIONING).
  ARMED MERCHANT SHIPS (RE-CONDITIONING).
  TRAWLER RESERVES (MEDALS AND PRIZE MONEY).
  TRAWLER RESERVES (MEDALS AND PRIZE MONEY).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. C. J. NOTTAGE'S APPEAL).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. C. J. NOTTAGE'S APPEAL).
  ADMINISTRATION.
  ADMINISTRATION.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MEDALS.
  MEDALS.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  TANK REPAIR BAY, WAKEHAM.
  TANK REPAIR BAY, WAKEHAM.
  MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA.
  MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  POST OFFICE (EMPLOYMENT).
  POST OFFICE (EMPLOYMENT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS).
  SPECIAL SECTIONS, ROYAL ENGINEERS (PETITION OF RIGHT).
  SPECIAL SECTIONS, ROYAL ENGINEERS (PETITION OF RIGHT).
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACT.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACT.
PEACE TREATIES.
  GERMAN GRAVES, GREAT BRITAIN.
  GERMAN GRAVES, GREAT BRITAIN.
  BRITISH ARMY OF OCCUPATION (COST).
  BRITISH ARMY OF OCCUPATION (COST).
  EGYPT (BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).
  EGYPT (BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).
IRELAND.
  TRALEE.
  TRALEE.
  MRS. J. ANNAN BRYCE (ARREST).
  MRS. J. ANNAN BRYCE (ARREST).
EDUCATION.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (PROFESSOR LUDWIG BECKER).
  GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (PROFESSOR LUDWIG BECKER).
INDIA.
  ARMY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
  ARMY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
  LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS (ELECTION RULES).
  LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS (ELECTION RULES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
  EXPORT CREDIT SYSTEM.
  EXPORT CREDIT SYSTEM.
  IMPORTED BASKETS AND BASKETWARE.
  IMPORTED BASKETS AND BASKETWARE.
  IMPORTS FROM IRELAND.
  IMPORTS FROM IRELAND.
TRANSPORT.
  WORKMEN'S TRAIN FARES.
  WORKMEN'S TRAIN FARES.
  S.S. "METEOR."
  S.S. "METEOR."
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  BUTTER.
  BUTTER.
  WHEAT AND BABLEY CULTIVATION, IRELAND.
  WHEAT AND BABLEY CULTIVATION, IRELAND.
  ALLOTMENTS, BINGLEY.
  ALLOTMENTS, BINGLEY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (WAGES).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (WAGES).
  POOR LAW HOSPITALS AND INFIRMARIES.
  POOR LAW HOSPITALS AND INFIRMARIES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order) and passed.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to continue the existing general Early Closing Orders for shops until the end of 1921 so as to give time for the consideration of a permanent measure. During the war the Orders were made under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and therefore automatically lapse with the termination of the war unless this Bill is passed.
Early closing has been in force for four years under these Regulations, and there can be no doubt that it commands the general approval of shopkeepers and assistants and does not interfere with the convenience of the public to any serious extent. It had been hoped that it would be possible for legislation amending the existing Shops Acts and putting general early closing on a permanent basis to be carried this session, but this has not proved to be the case, and it would be most unfortunate and, of course, a great disappointment to the large majority of retail traders and their assistants throughout the country if the existing Regulations came to an end before an amending Shops Bill was carried through.
The Bill that is before your Lordships to-night has therefore been introduced with the object of continuing in force the existing provisions pending the introduction and consideration of a permanent measure which it is hoped will be brought in next year. This Bill does not apply to Ireland. The general Early Closing Orders made for Ireland ceased to be in force in 1919, and the Government are not satisfied that there is any general desire in
264
Ireland for the reintroduction of early closing. In any case, as the Government of Ireland Bill will be before your Lordships shortly it is felt that it would be inopportune to legislate for Ireland in this matter at present.
On Clause 1 I would remark that the general Early Closing Orders, being Orders under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, are at present enforced by the police, and therefore persons offending against them are liable to the heavy penalties provided for in the Regulations. Under this clause the Orders in future will have effect as if they were evening Closing Orders made under the Shops Act, 1912, which means that the enforcement of the Orders will be under the local authorities, and breaches of them will only carry the moderate penalties contained in Section 5 (5) of the Act of 1912. I do not think there is anything further to which I need call your Lordships' attention.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PERSIA.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement on the political and military situation in Persia, and on the responsibilities at present undertaken by His Majesty's Government in that country.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I understand that the Foreign Secretary has unfortunately been detained for a few minutes, but I will not postpone making the few observations with which I desire to preface my Question. I should like to express my thanks to him for his readiness to make a statement on this important subject. Such a statement, I think it will be generally agreed, is fully due, if not overdue. In ordinary circumstances and in normal times the condition of affairs in Persia and the part which this country is playing there would have been the subject of discussion, I have no doubt, in both Houses of Parliament. But in these strenuous and crowded days even a topic like this, involving as it does the employment of not a few thousands of

265
His Majesty's troops, is liable to sink into comparative insignificance.
Perhaps I may be permitted to remind your Lordships of what, in the comparatively recent past, our interests in Persia have been conceived to be. The House will remember that we entered into an Agreement with Russia whereby two spheres of influence were constituted in Persia, the Northern being allocated to Russia down to Ispahan, and the Southern being British; and it was the categorical statement by Governments of both Parties that our desire in entering upon such an Agreement, far from involving any desire to compromise the independence of Persia, was intended to support and maintain that independence. Our direct interests in Persia were of two kinds, and hinged upon somewhat different considerations. So far as Northern Persia is concerned we admitted—fully admitted—that in some respects the Russian interests exceeded ours. The near proximity of the Persian border to what were then the outlying provinces of Russia constituted a reason for a special interest to be taken by Russia in them. But, of course, it has to be remembered that for the best part of one hundred years the eyes of India have been fixed on the Indian North-West Frontier with the feeling that, behind Afghanistan and behind Persia, there rested tile vague and continual menace of a possible advance of Imperial Russia still further east. Some of us thought of late years that the eyes of India were somewhat unduly fixed upon these assumed dangers of a Russian advance and of Russian intrigue dangerous to the Indian Empire. But those considerations have been materially changed by the events of the last five years. As regards Southern Persia our interests may be regarded as more direct. It was considered altogether impossible that the Persian Gulf should become subject to any European influence but ours. We were on friendly terms with the various Arab chiefs and sheikhs of Northern Arabia and up the Persian Gulf to Mohammerah, and we considered that our interests, and especially the interests of India, were definitely concerned with the maintenance of order on the coasts of the Persian Gulf.
Such was the situation up to the time of the outbreak of war. I am not going to attempt to detail all that has happened in Persia since those days. We were actively concerned in the earlier years of the war in Southern Persia, and considerable forces proceeded from India for the maintenance
266
of order in the south. Of late the centre of interest has been transferred to Northern Persia owing to the entirely new condition of affairs which now obtains on the Persian frontier. The change following the Russian Revolution and what it is not an exaggeration to describe as the break-up of Russia led at a quite early stage after the war to the establishment of the independent republic of what had formerly been the Russian province of Azerbaijan. That republic was recognised by the Supreme Council in January, 1919—getting on for two years ago. Its career so far has been somewhat chequered. It has been described as a Bolshevist Mussulman Republic—certainly at one time; and the description that one has heard of the state of affairs at Baku has been deplorable, both from the point of view of this country and from the point of view of the country itself. Baku had been occupied shortly before the conclusion of the war by a joint force of Germans and Turks, hostile of course to us, and prepared to threaten any interests which we have in Persia, and liable, of course, thereby to endanger order in Persia itself.
Since then in that district the situation has been very confused. The knowledge of it that has reached us has been partial and imperfect. The German and Turkish forces, of course, withdrew as part of the terms of the Armistice, but the whole of Azerbaijan, as I understand, has been considered to be under definitely Bolshevik influence from that day to this, and it has been thought necessary to employ a not inconsiderable force of His Majesty's troops from India in guarding the Persian frontier from apprehended assaults from that quarter. That has been the situation until quite recently. But a few days ago —I think it was on November 11—in another place the Prime Minister stated that he hoped for the early withdrawal of our forces from the North-west frontier of Persia. The force has been described as consisting of some 3,600 troops. I am not sure whether they are all Indian, or whether they are partly British troops. They have been under the command of two very distinguished officers, General Ironside and General Dickson, and they have succeeded, as far as we know, in holding their own and performing the duties required of them in that quarter. But no doubt the noble Earl will be able to inform us what the intentions of His Majesty's Government are with reference to that particular force.
Then, as your Lordships know, Persia and ourselves have joined in an Agreement, and upon that also I have no doubt the noble Earl will be able to give us some information. The terms of the Agreement have been published, but it has not so far been ratified, and the Persian Parliament, the Mejliss, has not been summoned in order to ratify it. Whether that was because the Parliament would not ratify it, or for some other reason, I have no doubt again the noble Earl will be able to inform us. That non-ratification has been ascribed by some in part to another incident which has affected the military position of Persia —namely, the disbandment of the force of so-called Cossacks which has for long existed in one form or another in Northern Persia; a force, that is to say, composed, as regards the rank and file, of Persians, but commanded and officered by Russians. That force quite recently has lost its Commander and all the Russian officers, a hundred or so, who were responsible for it. That, I take it, is not a subject of regret to His Majesty's Government, or to anybody else, if they succeed in finding a Persian Commander who is able to manage a force of this kind and a sufficient supply of native officers who can take the places of the Russians who acted as officers before. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether such a conclusion involves, at any rate in the first instance, the employment of a number of British officers to take the places of the former Russians; whether it is contemplated that a certain number of officers should be so lent, and, if so, for what period. It has been assumed, as I said, by some that there is a certain connection between these two things, and that the non-calling together of the Mejliss for the purpose of confirming the Anglo-Persian Agreement was, at any rate in part, due to the break-up of this Persian-Cossack force. I understand, however, that this has been denied. There again I have no doubt the noble Earl will be able to inform us whether there was any foundation for that report.
What we should be particularly anxious to know is, Do the Persian authorities now expect His Majesty's Government to go on affording them regular military protection? What is the aim and intention of His Majesty's Government after the withdrawal of this particular force from the North-west frontier of Persia? Does that mean that the force will be withdrawn altogether from Tehran and the neigh-
268
bourhood, and that we shall once more confine our military intervention, so long as any takes place, to what was formerly regarded as the British sphere. Perhaps also the noble Earl will be able to tell us what in his opinion is the weight of risk of an attack from Baku, or from that side, upon the Persian frontier by the Russian Bolshevik forces; and, assuming such an attack could be made, how far he considers that the resources of Persia unaided can be expected to counter it.
As your Lordships know, there is not an inconsiderable quantity of useful military material in Persia, although it has often happened that the particular Persian forces which have had to repel aggression have failed to come up to the mark. On the other hand, there are tribes such as the Bakhtiari, of whom we used to hear so much a few years ago but whose name has not appeared lately, which constitute a military element in the country that could be relied upon at any rate for courage and some degree of military efficiency. If Persia is to stand alone it is quite clear that the military elements in that country must have a chance of being reorganised and of obtaining a higher degree of efficiency than, so far as we know, they have recently been able to acquire.
I should also like to ask the noble Earl how far our position in Persia and the question of rendering military assistance to Persia hinges upon our position in Mesopotamia? How far does the position which has been assigned to us there, and which we are endeavouring to fill, affect the necessity of our maintaining a material hold upon the situation in Persia? It is of course, clear that just as in a game of chess the advance of one pawn may expose the player to an attack not merely from the immediate neighbourhood of that particular piece but from the distant ends of the board, so it may be that the holding of particular military positions further west in Asia may, in the opinion of those qualified to judge, leave a flank exposed in a manner which needs sonic special guarding and further military occupation than would otherwise be necessary. I say without hesitation that if it be the fact that our position in Mesopotamia makes it more necessary for us to keep a military force in Persia, it is a strong and additional argument against the maintenance of our position in Mesopotamia. I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be able to

269
tell us how far such a supposition is justified.
My noble friend Lord Bryce is not able to be present to-day, and his asked me to invite the noble Earl to tell us something if he can about a matter which is not precisely, I am afraid, within the four corners of my Question, but at any rate is akin to it and has a definite bearing upon it—namely, the present position of the Armenian Republic at Erivan. It cannot be regarded as entirely alien to this question, and if the noble Earl is able to say a few words about it it will be advantageous, because if it should be the fact that a Turkish or hostile Russian influence is to be established over the whole region of the Caucasus the position of Persia and our interests so far as they are connected with Persia must be in some degree affected.
I have, I fear, detained your Lordships at some length. I have ventured to ask a number of questions to which I hope the noble Earl will be able to reply. I trust that he will also be able to repeat that the object of His Majesty's Government is still to secure and maintain the independence of Persia, and so far as possible to relieve us—and in particular thus to relieve India from the necessity of direct interference with Persian administration—of the presence of British troops in that country.
I noticed the other day, in the course of a long statement by the Aga Khan, that this distinguished gentleman, himself be it remembered a Persian and not an Indian, urged His Majesty's Government to enter so far as possible into frank and honest relations with the whole Persian people. I take it that this means that, so far as the nationalist movement in Persia is really a popular nationalist movement and not merely a cloak for revolution supported from outside and conducted not by patriots but by self-seekers—that so far as the Persian nationalist movement is genuine, His Majesty's Government should be able to support it. No one supposes that Persia can become straight off a popularly or democratically governed country in the sense in which Western countries are. But that does not mean that His Majesty's Government ought to rely solely upon the support and the efforts of Persian magnates who are naturally bound up with the old state of things and may be presumed like most people to consider their own interests to a considerable extent, but that they should endeavour to secure the aid of, and in turn support, the best elements of the
270
country who desire to approach more closely to a popular form of government, so far as that is compatible with the general genius and spirit of the Persian people. I beg to put to the noble Earl the Question which stands in my name.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Marquess upon having put this Question and asked for information on several points which have been rather hidden from us during the last few years. In his opening remarks he referred to the Anglo-Russian Convention, and stated that by it the integrity and independence of Persia were safeguarded.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I said that was its intention.
LORD LAMINGTON: Yes. I hold quite a different view, and I know that the Persians themselves take the opposite view to the noble Marquess. It may be that the Convention did something to preserve the independence of Persia, because Russian aggression at that time was very menacing and no one could be sure what steps Russia might not take in Northern Persia. Therefore the Convention may have been a preventive or a modification of what would have been the results of a strong Russian policy. At the same time there can be no doubt that our prestige and the affection hitherto entertained for us by the Persians were very previously affected, not so much because they considered that we had any intention of impairing their independence (so far at least as Southern Persia is concerned), but they regretted that we should be allied in any degree with a country that no doubt many times had the idea of acquiring a strong interest in Northern Persia. The result is there has been an aftermath of suspicious feelings entertained by the Persians towards this country. That I think is very unfortunate.
Last year we had the Anglo-Persian Agreement, which was very happily conceived and put through by the noble Earl the Leader of this House. But unfortunately that has not been ratified. The noble Marquess said that the Mejliss had never been summoned. Technically speaking, that is not correct. They had been summoned, and after the General Election they went to Tehran and remained there six months. But they never met together as a Mejliss. The reason for that I am ignorant of, but I think it is unfortunate,

271
as regards the ratifying and putting into force of this Agreement, that something could not have been done to secure a meeting of Mejliss in order to ratify this Agreement. At all events it would have been better to clear the air so that we might know exactly what was the feeling of the Persian people towards the Agreement. Moreover, it might have been possible to modify it so as to make it harmonise with the general feeling of Persia, and get it ratified. Great expectations have been raised in Persia in regard to what might follow if that Agreement were acted upon. People thought that the reform of justice and of the police would be carried out, and that the whole of their social life would be benefitted. All this has been put aside, and consequently disappointment is now entertained as to the value of that Agreement, and suspicions have been renewed that perhaps we were not disinterested in wishing to secure Persia's independence. I am certain that the object of the noble Earl the Leader of this House is to have a strong and independent Persia. That would be the best bulwark possible for the defence of India. That has been his policy throughout, and I am sorry that better results have not followed from the Agreement that he framed.
There has just been circulated an Agreement with regard to our Commercial Convention of 1903. This Agreement was put through at the beginning of this year. One Article of that Agreement—Article 10 —I saw to-day. In regard to this matter also I think considerable disappointment was felt in Persia. The prices in that country are very high, as they are elsewhere in the world, and it was hoped by the new tariff that prices would be reduced, particularly in regard to one item—sugar. Exactly the reverse has been the case, and this for Persia very important commodity is made more expensive. Therefore the people are greatly disappointed and have taken umbrage at all the clauses of the Agreement which has just been put through. I desire to refer particularly to paragraph 10. This states that an annual sum of 5 per cent. of the total net revenue of Customs should be allotted for the purpose of improving the port accommodation of Persia, there by giving greater trade facilities. I suggest that we might go one step further. Might it not be possible to get the Persian Government to agree to a certain sum being allotted for the improvement of the roads from Bushire to Shiraz?
272
The noble Marquess stated how closely linked up are the fortunes of Persia with Mesopotamia. Our position in Persia depends so much upon what we are going to do in Mesopotamia. No doubt it is advisable that we should withdraw from Mesopotamia after having constituted a Government that can look after the interests of the country. But there is one proviso. Persia is only accessible by three main routes. One is from the north by the Caspian and Resht; the other route is from Baghdad through Tehran; and the other by Bushire to Shiraz. We cannot do much in regard to the Caspian; it is important, therefore, supposing that by any chance the Baghdad and Tehran route were closed, that the other main artery from Bushire to Shiraz should be open, and also, in order to give every facility for trade, that the road from Bushire to Shiraz should be put in good order for traffic. That, I understand, would take only a very small sum. I would ask the noble Earl whether, when this Customs Agreement for the purpose of improving the port accommodation is under consideration, he would not also take into consideration the advisability of asking the Persian Government to allot a definite sum for the purpose of securing proper communication between the heart of Central Persia and Bushire, which is the only real port in the Persian Gulf.
The noble Marquess also referred to the subject of General Starosselsky and his commanders, who had left the Cossack forces. It would be interesting to know what is the intention of His Majesty's Government in respect of this. Personally I hope that they would see fit to appoint British officers, not permanently necessarily, any more than in the South Persian Rifle Force. I understand that there they have now about 5,000 or 6,000 men certainly still under the British officers but the British officers are being gradually withdrawn, also the non-commissioned officers, and Persian officers of quite good capacity are taking their place. I do not see why it should not be possible therefore to extend that system to the Cossack force in the North. I trust that no fear or suspicion of the people here that we are going to organise permanently the military forces of Persia will prevent His Majesty's Government agreeing to this step.
I conceive there is a possibility that we can now at this moment set up a really

273
friendly, strong and independent Persia. What effect the recent developments which have resulted in the overthrow of General Wrangel's Army will have on the Bolshevik forces I do not know. But I understand that all classes of the Persian people at the present time, although they may at one moment have been suspicious of our intentions, have the greatest possible dread of the advance of any Bolshevik force and are quite content that we should maintain troops in Northern Persia to prevent any successful advance on the part of the Bolsheviks. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl will take every possible step to disarm the Persian mind of any idea, that we wish to do anything to injure permanently their independence.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, Persia unfortunately is one of those "Eastern dynasties" of which Gibbon wrote that they "present an unceasing round of valour, greatness, discord, degeneration, and decay." Persia has passed through this cycle, and it is her decay that is the main cause of all our present difficulties and her own. It is very hard to realise now that less than seventy years ago we were at war with Persia because troops of the Shah had taken Herat aryl threatened Afghanistan, with which country we have since been twice in conflict. In 1878, a little more than twenty years later, we were apparently willing to hand over Herat to the Persians. It was quite inevitable, when the Trans-Caspian Railway reached Kushk Post on the Afghan frontier after closely skirting the border of Khorassan, that there was danger of absorption of North Persia by Russia. As your Lordships will remember, Khorassan was the Province from which Skobeleff proposed to draw his main sources of supply for the invasion of India.
Since that time, so far as I have followed the question, it has been our object, and we have done our best, to uphold the integrity of Persia and to safeguard at the same time our special interests at the head of the Gulf and on the Mekran coast. For that reason we have sought by loans, advice, and the organisation of gendarmerie to do all we can to secure the stability of the Persian Government and to maintain internal peace and order in Persian affairs. That was the object of our Agreement with Russia, to which the noble Marquess referred, defining a sphere of influence for Russia in the North and a sphere of influ-
274
ence for ourselves in the South with an intervening neutral zone, which I thought was very badly traced at the time between those two spheres. I am afraid that Agreement has now lapsed as the result of the war, but the effect of that Agreement was necessarily to bring us into much closer relation with Persian affairs and to invest us with many new responsibilities with regard to Persia, and also to give prominence to various railway schemes which were discussed in your Lordships' House on May 25, 1914. I said at that time that I "did not know anything more unsatisfactory and even melancholy than the present condition of affairs in Persia." I am very much afraid that those conditions are even worse to-day than they were then. The railway projects, and even the road projects, have naturally been in abeyance during the war, and our main preoccupation, I take it, throughout the war has been to combat hostile intrigues and to assist in the maintenance of order and in the checking of brigandage which so easily arises in Persia. There was a gendarmerie officered by Swedes which I believe proved unsatisfactory on account of German influences. Then there was the organisation of the South Persian Rifles by Sir Percy Cox, which has done valuable work. Last year there was the Agreement drafted by the noble Earl himself which was intended only to help us in guiding and assisting the Persian Government to a position of strength and stability. I am afraid that Agreement has not been signed.
Now we are face to face with a new and unexpected problem. I imagine that no one or hardly any one realised that one effect of the war would be to cause a ferment throughout the East. That might not have happened but for the great effort of the Germans to strike at the British Empire through our Eastern commitments, and later on the tremendous exertion of the dictators who seized power in Russia and proceeded to flood the East with agents and propaganda and to invade Persia herself. We have little information as to what has happened or is happening in the North-west corner of Persia. So far as I understand the situation, General Ironside with 3,600 men is operating from Kasvin, and he stands alone between the Bolsheviks and Tehran. After the dissolution of the Persian Cossacks no other organised body, I believe, remained at the disposal of the Persian Government to avert the certain anarchy which would

275
be created in Persia if the Red Army and the Red propaganda found their way into the heart of the country. I believe that the ports of Baku and Enzeli are not closed during the winter. Therefore, unless General Ironside can deal effectively with the Red forces, the menace to Persia I am afraid must remain. But if anyone can effectively deal with the situation I believe that General Ironside is that man. Whether, as has been suggested, any other Red forces can be brought to bear in the North-west corner of Persia I do not know, but the appalling catastrophe which has befallen General Wrangel's force will no doubt stimulate the military ambitions of Trotsky Bronstein. Resht, I understand, is the headquarters of the Red force at the present moment. Resht is nearly 300 miles from Kermanshah, which is again about 200 miles from Baghdad, so that our position there is not by any means a satisfactory one from the military point of view. Nevertheless, I feel that it is quite impossible for us to withdraw the protection that we are now giving to Persia in spite of the cost, and in spite even of some measure of risk. Whether or not we ought to have gone so far afield as Baku and Meshed I am not certain; but at the present moment that question does not arise.
We are now placed in the position, as I understand it, of being the sole guardians of the independence of Persia, which is seriously threatened by the Bolshevik Government. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in this House on January 21, 1918—
"We desire Persia to remain neutral during the war and to retain her complete independence after the war."
I am quite certain that that plain declaration of policy holds the field to-day.
There is one other consideration to which I must refer. Our prestige in the East has lamentably declined in late years, and if we were now to abandon Persia to her fate a great deal of what is left might be destroyed. When the prestige of a Great Power declines in the East it is astounding how many unexpected enemies crop up on all sides. I feel quite certain that His Majesty's Government will not leave Persia at the present time to the fate that has overtaken Bokhara and to all that that would involve. There is one feature in the situation which I confess I find it very difficult to under-
276
stand. We are at open war with the Soviet Government in Persia, the most aggressive Government that Russia has ever had, and the Government which has shamefully ill-treated our prisoners at Baku. At the same time we seem to be engaged in interminable negotiations with this very Government in London. If Herr Rosenfeld had never been permitted to come to this country until Persia had been evacuated by the Red troops, or if his successor and the large staff now in this country were to be deported until that event had taken place, it is possible that Persia might be saved from the anarchy which is threatened without the necessity of maintaining a British force so far away from its base as that of General Ironside. If that were possible it would be a very great relief to us in a position which is not free from grave embarrassments.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I do not at all dispute the opening statement of the noble Marquess that a pronouncement by His Majesty's Government upon the question of their Persian policy is due to the Houses of Parliament, and I am grateful to him for having given me the opportunity of making it this afternoon. As usual, we have had in this House a number of speeches on this question of moderation and of authority. The speech of the noble Marquess took the form, in the main, of a number of courteous inquiries. I counted them off as they fell from his lips, and believe that the total was something like twenty. Some of these were conundrums, military as well as political, to which I am not certain that I am altogether qualified to reply. But I will do my best to answer the great majority of his questions and of those put by the two subsequent speakers.
To one question of the noble Marquess I must ask his pardon if I am not in a position to give an answer. Speaking for Lord Bryce, who is not here, he asked me to hook on to this discussion on Persia a statement about the position of the Armenian Republic at Erivan. Greatly interested as we are in that topic its connection with the Motion on the Paper and with Persia is very remote, and I have too much respect for the House to set the bad example, as its Leader, of deliberately violating our Rules of Debate, too often more honoured as they are in the breach than in the observance.

277
The questions of the noble Marquess were put, as I have said, with his customary moderation, but I do not conceal from myself that the same questions have been put elsewhere in tones of ouch greater suspicion. I have seen the question asked, "What is the meaning of our having British forces or Indian forces on or near the Caspian? Why should our Generals and our men be at Kazvin? What is the real story about this Cossack Division?"—a question which was put to toe directly by Lord Lamington. "Why have we forces in Northern Persia at all? What is the interest in these parts of the world of the British taxpayer?" These are, I am ready to admit, quite fair and legitimate questions, to which it is the duty of the representative of the Government to give a reply.
Some critics go even further, and in their anxiety to prove that the Government are guilty of some sinister motive describe our Persian policy as one of wild and reckless adventure and of spread-eagle Imperialism over the wastes of Central Asia. "Have we not enough to do at home?" they say, "Why bother about Persia?" Incidentally I have noticed in some quarters that our policy in that part of the world is described as an act of dementia on my own part, dragging after me a body of reluctant colleagues. I am not at all disturbed at any such reference to myself. For something like thirty years I have been closely connected with the polities of Persia, and if at any time I had been inspired by any lack of regard for the independence or integrity of that country I hardly think I should have been honoured, as I have been, during the whole of that period with the confidence of successive Persian Ministers and statesmen.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: On the contrary I believe—I say it in no tone of vanity—that they regard me as a true and consistent friend of their country. Such I have always endeavoured to be, and such, believe me, my Lords, is the motive which has inspired my recent action
Passing away from that, which is; perhaps, hardly worthy of attention, may I say this? It is unfair to assume at any moment that an important branch of policy, even of foreign policy, is the work of any individual Minister. The respon-
278
sibility for that policy is that of the Government as a whole; and I almost shrink from telling your Lordships the number of hours that have been spent by the Cabinet during the past six months only—and I might extend it over a longer period—in discussing the question of what our political and military engagements in Persia ought to be.
I welcome the opportunity of making this statement to-night. There is nothing whatever to be concealed by His Majesty's Government. I think I can truthfully say that at no time have I ever attempted to conceal anything in reply to Questions which have been put to me in your Lordships' House. It has been my duty to make many speeches both to Parliament and the public upon the matter; and not only to the questions that have been addressed to me to-day am I prepared to reply, but I shall be ready at any moment to give further information to noble Lords on any point which my observations this afternoon may leave obscure.
May I begin by one general observation which underlies the whole situation? It is this. I ask your Lordships to remember that the situation in Persia is the direct and inevitable sequel of war. The war has left upon us its aftermath of obligations, from which we are only slowly extricating ourselves, not in Persia alone, but in other parts of the world. Look at Europe at the present moment. Does anybody imagine that it is the normal or will be a long continued condition of affairs that we have to keep British troops at Danzig, for instance, or in the Rhineland? Does anybody assume for a moment, because we have troops there, that we have designs upon the independence of those countries? Far from it. The House and the public know perfectly well that they are obligations which we cannot escape, that we have not only to seek peace but to make it and to ensure it. Just in the same way as in many parts of Europe we have been provisionally compelled to accept military responsibilities of this character, so in the Eastern parts of the world the same is found to occur.
It has often been my duty in your Lordships' House to point out the obvious proposition that the war did not end automatically with the conclusion of the Armistice in November, 1918. On the contrary, large parts of the world have been almost as actively engaged in war since as they were before. Russia has

279
been and is at this moment in a continuous state of war. We have had ourselves a very troublesome war in Mesopotamia from which we are happily now emerging. France has had her war in Syria; Asia Minor and the Caucasus have been for two years since the Armistice in a state of almost chronic warfare. Two of the principal Treaties—that with Turkey and that with Hungary—still remain unratified. And do let us remember when we discuss the matter that the world has not yet reverted to pre-war conditions. Therefore do not judge us entirely—because you will judge us falsely if you do—by pre-war standards.
These propositions which I submit to you apply to the East even more than they do to the West, and for this reason—that the upheaval there has been, if possible, greater than in the Western hemisphere. The once tranquil East has been shaken with prodigious convulsions. Two great Empires, those of Turkey and Russia, have simultaneously disappeared; and, just as we were piecing together the scattered and disordered fragments, there appeared upon the scene, as indicated by the noble Marquess, the disturbing, the shattering force of aggressive and powerful Communism, known to us as Bolshevism. Is it to be supposed for a moment—it has not, I am glad to say, been supposed in either of the speeches to which I have listened—that we welcome, or would prolong for an hour longer than is necessary, the conditions which I have described? What conceivable satisfaction can be derived either by a Foreign Minister or a War Minister in this country from keeping British troops—or Indian troops, for the matter of that—at Mosul or Kazvin? Every instinct of expediency and of economy points to the reduction, and, as soon as may be, the withdrawal of such forces. But only the smallest knowledge of Eastern affairs and of history is required to know that such a withdrawal cannot be abrupt. These countries are in a state of wild commotion. We have no right to replace commotion by chaos. The highways of the East are strewn and littered with the débris of the recent war. And if there falls upon us, as is too often the case, the task of being the scavenger, at least give us time to carry out that duty. We are doing it much more quickly than some of our critics suppose, and I shall be in a position in the course of my remarks to show you that in the case of Persia, in
280
particular, there has been a curtailment of our commitments and a withdrawal of our forces on a scale which seems as yet to be unrealised by our critics in this country.
I said just now that the present position is really the aftermath of war. And in order to enable your Lordships to understand how it is that we have reached this point you will perhaps permit me to indulge in a slight historical retrospect, in the course of which I shall be able to answer most of the questions which have been addressed to me by your Lordships this afternoon. When the war broke out in 1914 the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1907 was still in existence. That Agreement, which we owe to Lord Grey of Fallodon and to the Government of which he was a member, had been framed with excellent intentions. It was designed to put an end to the incessant friction and rivalry between the British and Russian Governments at Tehran, and to give a better chance to an independent Persia. But I concur with those two noble Lords who referred to that Agreement that, though excellent in intention, it was disfigured by great faults. I remember, almost on the first occasion that I had the honour of addressing your Lordships, I occupied something like an hour of your time in pointing out what in my judgment they were pointing whether the Agreement was good or bad, at any rate it had two unfortunate consequences. In the first place, by dividing up the country into so-called "spheres of influence," it aroused the incurable suspicion of the Persian Government and the Persian people, who saw in it an ill-concealed scheme of partition of their country between Russia and ourselves. And, in the second place, the suspicions were to some extent justified by the policy and action of Russia, who proceeded to act as though she were a dictator in the Northern parts of Persia included within her sphere.
Accordingly when the war broke out and we were found in close alliance with Russia the suspicion and ill-feeling which had been aroused by her action in Persia was, perhaps not unnaturally, passed on to us. Persia was nominally neutral, but her sympathies really lay in the earlier stages with the Central Powers. Her sympathies and weakness were equally exploited by the Persian Government of that day. German agents moved hither and thither in Persia carrying their in-

281
trigues far and wide, even up to the Afghan border. Turkish armies, seizing the opportunity, crossed the western border and invaded large portions of Persian territory. Anarchy and disorder prevailed in most harts of the country. The Tehran Government was feeble and hostile. Persia might at any moment in these circumstances have become an active and dangerous theatre of war. Simultaneously, if you will bear it in mind, our forces were advancing in Mesopotamia to Baghdad, while on the other side of Persia it was part of our duty to protect the Afghan border. We would not afford in these circumstances to let Persia become a new theatre of war. The whole of our policy was devoted to steadying the situation in Persia; hence it was, as one noble Lord mentioned, that we took over control of the South Persia Rifles from the Swedish officers who had signally f tiled in their task, and endeavoured, with the consent of the Persian Government, at least to secure that some measure of order should prevail in the Southern parts of the country.
After a while a new danger supervened. I allude to the period of the war when the enemy forces were in the ascendant, and we were more than doubtful if the victory would ultimately be ours. The Turks and the Germans both appeared in force in the Caucasus. They occupied the entire belt of country from the Black Sea to the Caspian; they held Baku; they threatened the invasion of Central Asia; they menaced Tehran. This was a danger to Mesopotamia, to North Persia, and to Afghanistan. It was in these circumstances, after our occupation of Baghdad, that the first military force under General Dunsterville was pushed forward from Baghdad on what is known as the Hamadan road in the direction of Kazvin and the Caspian. This was done in order to close the North-Western door of Persia, which at that time might have been broken open at any moment by a combined force of Germans and Turks, or by either acting independently.
Simultaneously on the other side of Persia—on the North-Eastern side—the Government of India sent a mission accompanied by a small number of troops under General Malleson to Meshed. They were to guard the North-Eastern door, and, as far as possible, to encourage the Turcomans in the resistance which they were offering to the Common enemy and to keep peace on the Persian border. It
282
seems now to be quite forgotten—I do not know whether it was realised at the time —that there was a serious danger that the Germans and the Turks, either separately or in combination, might cross the Caspian, seize the Trans-Caspian railway, and advance right to the borders of Afghanistan in the neighbourhood of Herat. It was for this object that Colonel Malleson and his men remained for some time in that part of the world. Down in the South of Persia the South Persian Rifles, to which I alluded just now, were confronted with the danger of a formidable rising in the mountain country between Shiraz and the sea. It was with no small difficulty that Sir Percy Sykes, who commanded the force, was relieved, and for that purpose a rather large force was sent, upon the advice of the Indian Government, to Bushire.
Such was the now almost forgotten sequence of events in Persia in the early and troublous stages of the war. This policy of activity on our part, pursued as it was with unwearying patience and with great ability by the various officers and forces who represented us, was successful. The danger was overcome; the Turks and Germans were thrown out of the Caucasus; Khorasan was preserved; the danger to Afghanistan was removed; Persia was freed from her enemies. At this stage she definitely realised what we had done for her and her attitude changed from doubtful amity or open hostility to sincere friendliness. At that time there was in power in Persia a Minister known as Vossug-ed-Dowleh, speaking with great experience and authority for his countrymen. Simultaneously we sent out from Baghdad to Tehran the most capable official with knowledge of the East whom we could supply. I allude to Sir Percy Cox, now grappling, as I think and hope, successfully with our difficulties in Mesopotamia. Be it remembered it was by no means his first experience in Persia. For something like twenty years his life had been spent in contact with Persians in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf. Upon his arrival in Tehran the Minister Vossug-ed-Dowleh addressed overtures to us to enter into a friendly Agreement with the Government he represented.
I need not waste two minutes here in defending the proposition—because I am sure no one will dispute it—that Persia is an important British interest. That has

283
been the policy of every British Cabinet for over a hundred years. It has been the policy that has been announced from this Table over and over again by successive Foreign Ministers—Lord Salisbury and Lord Lansdowne—and, in another place, by Viscount Grey of Fallodon, then Sir Edward Grey. A peaceful Persia, a stable Persia, a friendly Persia, and an independent Persia have been corner stones of British policy. They were the basis of the Anglo-Persian Agreement which we now commenced to negotiate with the Persian Government. One or two questions were asked me about that Agreement. It has been laid before Parliament and its general terms are no doubt familiar to your Lordships. We made no attempt in that Agreement to compromise the independence of Persia in the smallest degree. On the contrary, we categorically and expressly re-affirmed and guaranteed it. What we did try in the Agreement to do was to provide Persia with the means and instruments by which that independence could be secured. We offered to assist her in creating an independent, national military force of her own, giving her expert military assistance in the organisation of that army. We sought to purify her internal administration and to give her a scheme of sound finance. We aimed at opening up communications and developing the resources of the country. At the same time as we were concluding the Agreement we gave to Persia, as a sequel to it, a loan of £2,000,000 guaranteed upon the Customs and other revenues of the country, and we provided also for a revision of her tariff, certain to be very greatly to her advantage. That, in a sentence or two, was the pith and substance of the Anglo-Persian Agreement, and I recall—I do not think any of your Lordships will dispute it—that that Agreement was received with general interest and sympathy in this country.
There was no attempt to suggest anything in the nature of a British Protectorate over Persia. We never thought of going to the League of Nations to ask for a Mandate for Persia. We preferred to treat her as a friendly and independent State in a position of equality with ourselves, and I remember very well that at the time the distinguished gentleman whose views have been quoted to-night, the Aga Khan—who has expressed himself in the newspapers in some doubt as to our present Persian policy—told me that
284
he regarded the Anglo-Persian Agreement as a model of what such an Agreement between a great European Power and an Eastern State should be. It was said at the time that this Agreement ought to be sent to the League of Nations for its approval. We were under no obligation to do this, because the Agreement had been concluded before the Treaty of Peace had been ratified and before the Council of the League of Nations was in concrete existence. Nevertheless, I was entirely willing from the start to act upon Article 18 of the Covenant of the League. There was nothing we had cause either to be ashamed of or to conceal, and from the start I pressed the Persian Government, and the Persian Foreign Minister in particular, most earnestly to take early steps to submit the Agreement to the Persian Parliament in order to obtain that support of the popular elements in the country to which one of the previous speakers referred as so necessary. If the Persian Parliament rejected the Agreement there would be no need to go to the League of Nations. If, on the other hand, they accepted and ratified it, clearly it would go to the League of Nations with redoubled strength.
Soon after the conclusion of the Agreement the Shah came to England, and your Lordships may recollect that lie more than once gave expression to the most cordial acceptance of the Agreement. We then proceeded to take steps, at the instance of the Persian Government, to put it into execution. A Military Commission, under General Dickson, who was chosen by the Persian Government for the purpose, was sent out to examine, along with Persian colleagues, the military situation in Persia, and to prepare a scheme for the creation of the uniform Persian military force which both of us had always had in view. They spent some time upon this work in Persia, and their Report was presented in April of the present year. Again, in pursuance of the Agreement we sent out to Persia an able Treasury official, Mr. Armitage Smith, to act as head of the Financial Commission for the reorganisation of Persian finances. Two consulting engineers went out to Persia in an advisory capacity, and a Persian railway syndicate was formed for the survey of essential railway lines in different parts of the country.
At this juncture, on the return of the Shah to Persia, there occurred one of

285
those political vicissitudes to which even more stable countries are sometimes exposed—I mean there was a change of Ministry. Vossug-ed-Dowleh, the author of the agreement, fell from power, and a new Ministry under a Minister known as Mushir-ed-Dowleh, representing what I suppose may be called the Opposition, perhaps the more nationalist party, came into power and decided upon a somewhat different line of policy from their predecessors. They preferred to treat the Anglo-Persian Agreement, the initial steps in the execution of which I have just described to your Lordships, as in suspense until the consent of the Mejliss, or Parliament, had been obtained. I thought myself that it was rather a pedantic and foolish policy on the part of the Persian Government to deny themselves the enormous advantages of the Agreement by which they had already begun to profit. But that was their business, rather than ours; and so anxious were we to obtain the approval of the Mejliss that we acquiesced in the policy, provided only that the Parliament was itself summoned at an early date and the Agreement submitted to it. We wanted this, both because it has been our constant desire, to reduce our commitments in these parts of the world and to start Persia with alt independent military force to defend her own frontiers and also because we wanted to ascertain clearly and definitely whether Persia desired the assistance proffered to her in this Agreement. If they preferred to stand alone, we had no objection but if they decided to accept and ratify the Agreement, then we were prepared to join them in loyal co-operation. Accordingly we declined to continue our financial assistance for more than the four months which we were told was required for the summoning of the Mejliss, and we pressed that the Parliament should be convened and the Agreement submitted to it within that period. Moreover, hearing that the Persian Parliament was not unlikely to suggest certain modifications in the scheme of the Agreement—for instance, the introduction of a time limit—we expressed our ready willingness to consider any such proposal. That is the situation until the other day when a fresh and independent crisis, to which I will allude in a moment, occurred.
Let me revert to the military position in Persia, because all the while you have two facets of the Persian problem, no doubt closely connected but each moving on
286
rather independent lines. You have the political aspect of the case and also the military aspect, dictated partly by political but much more by military considerations. I spoke just now of the two forces that in the early stages of the war we had been compelled to send to Persia in the South and in the North-east corner at Meshed. If these forces had been sent or were kept there in any spirit of hostility to the Persian Government, that Government would assuredly have petitioned for their removal. But over and over again it was the Persian Government that pleaded for their retention, these pleas being urgently backed up by our representatives in the country. Nevertheless, so anxious were we to diminish our expenses and to accelerate the moment at which Persia could stand alone that we decided to withdraw by stages the whole of our forces from Southern Persia and also from Meshed, leaving only a Consular escort which existed at that place for our representative in the days before the war. We ran some risk in doing so, but nevertheless we decided to incur the risk because we did not feel justified, in a state of peace, in an indefinite continuance of responsibilities which had been thrown upon us in time of war. Therefore both of these forces were withdrawn.
Meanwhile, as I hinted just now, a new and different situation had arisen in Northwest Persia. Had Germany or Turkey been the only enemy, as they were at the early stages of the war, we might, after the defeat of these two enemies, have retired altogether from North-west Persia, just as I have described our withdrawal from Bushire and Meshed. But with the defeat of General Denikin a new power appeared in the Caucasus and upon the Caspian. These were the armies of Bolshevist Russia. They appeared against us in the Caucasus; they threatened Batum, they descended on Azerbaijan and set up a Soviet Republic there, to which the noble Marquess referred, incidentally imprisoning in circumstances of great and unpardonable cruelty our unhappy nationals, who have only within the last few days been rescued from that imprisonment by our efforts. The ice having melted in the mouths of the Volga they also came down with their ships and acquired the naval mastery of the Caspian. They at once proceeded to initiate a propaganda for setting up a Soviet Republic in Northern Persia. They landed at Enzeli and occupied Resht. They en-

287
deavoured to organise a local rebellion against the Persian Government at Tehran. Here was a new and unforeseen menace. At the very moment when we were looking forward to the acceptance, or, if they so preferred, the rejection, of the Anglo-Persian Agreement by the Persian Parliament, we found the Persian capital, the Persian throne and State, menaced by a new foe, and our small force of some 3,600 men at Kazvin the sole effective barrier against this Bolshevist menace, and, if it were persisted in, the disappearance of the Persian State.
The Bolshevist menace had this further reaction. The noble Marquess asked me whether I could make a pronouncement upon the degree to which the military position in Mesopotamia is dependent upon the military position in Persia; in other words, whether for the security of our position in Mesopotamia it is essential to keep forces on the line from the Persian frontier to Kazvin. That is a question on which I have not the military knowledge or authority to enable me to reply, but on the general proposition I can say this, that at the moment that this Bolshevist invasion occurred the fear that if they broke through there would be a serious and dangerous reaction upon our position in Mesopotamia was widely and authoritatively entertained, and undoubtedly one of the reasons for which we were compelled at that stage to retain our forces in Northwest Persia was the peril that would have ensued to our Mestopotamian position had they been withdrawn.
I am drawing near to the present position. But here again only a few weeks ago, in this theatre of incessant and recurrent surprises, occurred another change unforeseen by any of us in this country. I have stated that our forces on the line from Hamadan to Kazvin were there for the general defence of the situation in its broadest aspects. They had never been sent there by us to fight the Bolsheviks in Persia or anywhere else. That was neither our policy nor our intention. The defence of the Northern Province of Persia against Bolshevik invasion was entrusted to the Cossack Division to which more than one speaker has referred, a force some thousands strong—consisting of Persians known as Cossacks because they wore something similar to a Cossack's uniform—organised many years ago, and officered ever since by Russians. This
288
force, which was engaged for some time in resistance to the Bolshevik movement on the Southern shores of the Caspian, was under the command of Colonel Starosselsky. We suddenly heard that this officer and his colleagues had, in their military operations against the Bolsheviks, retired before greatly inferior Bolshevik forces without any attempt at sustained resistance; that the commanding officer was himself engaged in a violent anti-British propaganda in Persia, and that he was more than seriously suspected of very extensive peculations at the cost of the Persian Government. It was impossible to regard the continued presence of this officer and his Russian colleagues, representing, as your Lordships know, the old régime, as anything but a menace both to Persia and to ourselves in that part of the country, and it was these considerations that only a few weeks ago decided the Shah to dispense with the services of so dangerous an ally.
This decision on the part of His Majesty was strongly supported by General Iron-side, who had only recently gone out to Persia with a great reputation for clear-headedness and capacity. He was at the time in command of the British forces at Kazvin, and he earnestly recommended that the opportunity should be taken of getting rid of these incompetent and treacherous men, and of reorganising the Cossack Division under the British officers belonging to the Military Mission who had been for some time in Tehran, and were still waiting for the further stage of the proposals resulting from the Anglo-Persian Agreement. The noble Marquess, I think, spoke of General Dickson as being either in command or in partial command of the British forces at Kazvin. That is not so. General Dickson was the head of the Military Mission, and he and some of his officers being available on the spot were put in control of the Cossack Division, which had lost its Russian officers in the circumstances that I have described. The Prime Minister, however (Mushir-ed-Dowleh), was unwilling to act upon the advice of the Shah and resigned, being succeeded by another Ministry, which has only been for a short time in Office. This narrative, which I thank your Lordships for having listened to so patiently, brings us down to the present day.
The position, therefore, at this moment, is as follows. Following my division of

289
the subject into its political and its military aspect, let me in a sentence try and tell your Lordships how I view it in both respects. Firstly, as regards the political aspect. The Persian Government has been told by us that, tired with these long delays, we expect the Mejliss, the greater portion of the members of which have been elected and are I believe available in or near to Tehran, to be summoned in the ensuing month, and the Anglo-Persian Agreement to be submitted to it before the commencement of the new year. If the Persian Parliament accepts the Agreement, subject to such modifications as I indicated a little while ago, we shall do our best to help them through. I confess that for my own part I regard this as the sole possible guarantee for the continued stability of Persia, and I can scarcely imagine any Persian Government, Parliament, or group of men, acquiescing in any other position. But that is not for me to say. In that ease, if the Agreement be accepted, it will be presented by us under Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to the Council of the League, and the provisions which I described earlier, and which were in course of coming into operation six months ago, will have a renewed existence. If, on the other hand, the Persian Parliament declines to accept the Agreement, the Persian Government must take its own course. We shall have done our best to help them, and if they are unwilling to accept our assistance the responsibility must be theirs.
The military aspect of tie case is this. Having acquiesced in the dismissal of the Russian colonel and his fellow officers, we have accepted temporary responsibility for the officering and organising of the Cossack Division in the manger that I have described, subject to repayment in clue course by the Persian Government. This force is the only Persian force that we can look to for the protection of the Northern Provinces and the North-west frontier of Persia. It is the only force capable in existing circumstances of providing a nucleus for the new Persian Army which we desire to create. If it succeeds, we shall have done our best to enable the Persian Government to escape the blow that has been aimed by the Bolsheviks at both its capital and its national existence. If it fails, we shall have done our best and must relinquish the task. As regards our own forces at Kazvin, the Persian Government have been told ex-
290
plicitly that they cannot rely upon the indefinite continuance of our forces in that part of the country, and that we shall be surprised if we are able to prolong our military position there beyond the spring. That is the present situation.
I think that I have demonstrated to your Lordships that on the military side we have already withdrawn our forces from Southern and from North-eastern Persia, and have placed a limit to the continuance of our military responsibilities in the North-west. On the political side we have made our position equally clear. The new Persian Government is, I believe, one of advanced liberal tendencies. It represents those popular elements to which the noble Marquess referred. I think its members belong to the party of what are called the Young Democrats in the Persia of to-day. They have our sympathy and support because, grave as are the difficulties of Governments here, believe me, my Lords, they are not to be compared, as any of your Lordships with Eastern experience will know, with those that arise in Eastern countries in a state of internal convulsion and weakness as a result of war. They have our earnest sympathy in their endeavours, but it rests with them to determine the orbit in which Persia desires that she shall henceforward move. If they desire the faithful execution of the Anglo-Persian Agreement they may rely upon us to play our part; but if they prefer to pursue their own course and to trust to their own resources, we cannot place any obstacle in their path. The responsibility will be theirs and not ours.
I hope that in these remarks I have at any rate convinced your Lordships that in our Persian policy there has been no element whatsoever of wild and reckless adventure such as has sometimes been ascribed to us. On the contrary there has been a deliberate and carefully-thought-out plan, in a position of constant and kaleidoscopic change, to solve the Persian problem in a manner consistent, not so much with British interests—though naturally we have not forgotten them—as with the continued national existence and independence of Persia herself. I do not grudge the responsibilities that have been entailed and the heavy expenditure that has been incurred by this country if, in the chaos that menaces the whole of the Eastern world, we can enable a single Mahomedan State of great traditions and possessing

291
a long and friendly connection with Great Britain to maintain its integrity, its frontiers, and its independence. But, my Lords, it must be a. two-sided and not a one-sided obligation, and if Persia is unable or unwilling to play her part we cannot out of mere altruism indefinitely continue ours. It is in fact for Persia herself, always with our help and assistance, to decide her own destiny.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have no desire to detain the House, but I do not like to let the debate close without thanking the noble Earl for the very full and lucid statement which he has made in reply to my Question. I can assure him that we are most grateful for the pains he has taken to cover the whole ground; and I think I may say that, generally speaking, what he has said will be taken as reassuring by many of those who, from ignorance of the facts and of all the circumstances, have felt some doubt as to the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter. Perhaps I may say that it seemed to me that the noble Earl made out a thoroughly strong case in favour of the Anglo-Persian Agreement, but I thought that he regarded with some anxiety the prospects of that Agreement in the Persian Assembly. I sincerely hope that when that body meets it will give to this contract friendly consideration, even if there may be criticism on some minor points such as those which the noble Earl has mentioned. What I venture to hope is, assuming some difficulties are made and certain points which the noble Earl and the Government flay consider material are the subject of
292
comment and possibly of objection, that His Majesty's Government will not be too prompt to close the discussion altogether, but will endeavour to persuade the Persian Government to carry on negotiations, to suggest modifications, and to arrive if possible at some definite conclusion. For us to break off altogether with Persia on the ground of even material objections to this particular Agreement and to wash our hands of the affair altogether and say, "You must look after yourselves," might have the effect, one would fear, of driving Persia into the arms of some of her least desirable advisers. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will exercise the patience which the occasion may demand in pursuance of those objects which we were so glad to hear him categorically state, namely, the maintenance, by our advice and where necessary by material asistance in money, of the independence and the integrity of Persia.
[From Minutes of November 15.]

FORTH CONSERVANCY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Forth Conservancy—Was presented by Lord Stanmore; read 1ª; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7) deemed to have been read 2ª and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at eight minutes past six o'clock.