Sitting of 18 November 1920

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (BOMBARDIER E. W. MELLOR).
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the grant of £60 per annum from the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Commission to the wife of Bombardier E. W. Mellor, No. 144676, of the Royal Garrison Artillery, has ceased from 31st July, 1920; whether he is aware that Bombardier E. W. Mellor has been in hospital, Ministry of Pensions Hospital, Knotty Ash, Liverpool, since 1918, and that the cessation Of this grant has imposed the greatest hardship on his family; and whether he will state what relief is now available for this and analogous cases?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montagu Barlow): I have been asked to reply to this question. The conditions under which temporary supplementary and special grants were given during the War to the wives and families of men on military service had to be reconsidered in view of the introduction of improved conditions and rates of pay, and the scheme under which the grant was paid to Bombardier Mellor was brought to an end on the 31st July, 1920. It was almost inevitable that a certain number of hard cases would result from the closing down of the scheme on a fixed date, but its continuance after the 31st July, when all men compulsorily retained under the Military Service Acts would normally have been released, could not be justified.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Is there any fund from which a case such as this can be relieved?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am not quite certain, but I appreciate the point of my hon. Friend's question, and if he will allow me, I will inquire.

    ROYAL WARWICKSHIRE REGIMENT (F. WATKINS).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Pensions whether F. Watkins, late No. 23376, Royal Warwickshire Regiment, and now residing at 7, Charles Street, Gol-borne, Lancashire, has appealed for a pension, and when; and what is the cause of the delay in not granting him a medical board interview?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr Macpherson): I regret that it has not been found possible to identify this case from the particulars given. I am, however, causing further enquiry to be made and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  IRELAND.

    ALLEGED REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he now has information as to whether Charles Lynch, of Miltown Malbay, Michael Ryan, of Curraghduff, Thurles, and Thomes Egan, of Coshir, Athenry, were dragged from their beds on the night of the 24th October last and shot dead by servants of the Crown; whether Charles Lynch was a man of 70 years of age; whether Michael Ryan was the only son of a widow, and was seriously ill in bed when the party of men arrived; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I regret that I have not yet received copies of the proceedings of the courts of inquiry in the cases of Lynch and Ryan. As regards Egan the evidence given at the court of inquiry was to the effect that he was murdered by three men dressed in policemen's capes and with caps like those of the police except that they had no peaks, that Egan was very friendly with the police and that a short time previously a party of police had been surrounded in the neighbourhood and de-

    2051
    prived of their capes. I may add that in March last, as a result of an agrarian dispute, a Mr. Shaw Taylor, a well-known Galway landlord, was murdered at 7 a.m. within 30 paces of Egan's door and he was commonly supposed to know who the murderers were.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in Egan's town declare positively that this man was killed by the servants of the Crown; and may I further ask why after three weeks he has not had any report about those other horrible murders?
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not the fact that before those occurrences of which the hon. Member complains two policemen and one sergeant were foully murdered?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am afraid that does not exhaust the crimes in that neighbourhood. If there are persons in this neighbourhood who have knowledge of how this man was killed they could have come as witnesses and given evidence at the hearing, but no such men appeared.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee the safety of witnesses—[HON. MEMBERS: "From whom?"]—who do come forward before these Courts, and can he say why he has not reports as to the other cases which occurred three weeks ago?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Irish Administration is very busy Just now.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain which suggestion he desires to be taken seriously—that Egan was friendly with the police, and was therefore murdered by Sinn Feiners, or that Egan lived near the scene of Shaw Taylor's murder, and therefore knew who committed the murder. Which suggestion does he adopt?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered both.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: One is contradictory of the other.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think so.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he now has information as to whether, on the 25th October last, a band of armed men, who described themselves as Secret Service agents, entered the house of William Gleeson, Moher, county Tipperary, in search of his son James, whom they stated they had come to kill; whether they threatened the father, and on his son William offering his life for his father, they took him, the son, outside the house and shot him dead; whether any form of inquiry has taken place, and what was the evidence and finding?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I have not yet received the report of the inquiry in this case.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps on this question, of which notice was given a week ago, to hasten the report or to get a telegraphic report, or is murder such a small thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of police!"]—of police or aybody else—it is left to the ordinary bureaucratic channels of his office?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I consider murder a most horrible and serious thing.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Whoever does it?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: You have not said that before.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have done my best to get reports in these cases. I repeat that it is impossible, with all the will in the world, for the Irish Administration to get reports as quickly as some hon. Members desire.
    Mr. E. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the case of these military inquiries into the deaths of persons the solicitor for the next-of-kin will always be allowed to appear as heretofore at inquests?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot give that assurance.
    Mr. KELLY: Why not?
    Mr. KILEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what will be the composition of the court which will try the nine constables who are under arrest in

    2053
    Ireland charged with murder, looting, felony, and conduct prejudicial to good order?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The trial in each of these cases will be by court-martial, constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 48 of the Army Act.
    Mr. KILEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived when he might usefully set up a tribunal at which all these matters could be inquired into?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an attack was made on 18th October last on Abbeydorney, county Kerry, Co-operative Creamery, by about 20 men wearing police uniform; whether the attack included assaults upon the manager and his assistant by one of the Black and Tans, as well as a determined attempt to burn the creamery; whether the attack was preceded by the removal of large quantities of butter and cheese to the lorry which conveyed the policemen; whether on the same date in Moycullen, county Galway, a mixed force consisting of police and military visited the co-operative stores there, ostensibly in quest of information respecting the disappearance of a Mr. Joyce, a school teacher of Baina, seven miles distant, when they were assured by the manager and his assistant that they knew nothing about Mr. Joyce's disappearance; whether the two assistants were flogged by forces of the Crown and the manager fired at with a shot gun and wounded in the hand and neck, and has any protection been promised to these employés of such-like organisations; and can it be stated what steps are being taken to prevent the servants of the Crown from carrying out attacks on the person; will compensation be paid by the Crown for these assaults, and if he will now grant a public inquiry?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: As the reply is rather lengthy, I propose to have it published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the reply:
    According to a report which I have received, the storehouse of the Abbeydorney Co-operative Creamery was burned down on the night of the 18th October, but no clue can be obtained as to the identity of
    2054
    the persons who committed this destruction. The manager of the creamery alleges that he was assaulted, but the police have no information as to this beyond his own statement or as to the alleged removal of quantities of butter and cheese. With reference to the Moycullen incident, I am informed that a mixed force of police and military visited that town on the 18th ultimo, while searching for a schoolmaster who had been kidnapped on account of his being friendly disposed towards the police. The kidnapping party were reported to have halted near the Cooperative stores in Moycullen, but the manager and his assistants on being questioned refused to give any information and the manager ran towards the back of the premises. The suspicions of the police were excited by this movement and on his refusing to stop a shot was fired from a shot-gun wounding him with pellets on the head and neck. His assistants were not flogged. The missing schoolmaster has not yet been found and grave fears are entertained for his safety. I am unable to agree with the hon. Member that the people in the locality stand in need of any guarantee of protection from the servants of the Crown, or that the incident which I have related calls for further inquiry.
    Mr. WATERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the reason why within a few hours from the tabling of this question the manager's house was ransacked and burned by armed forces of the Crown; and, further, what protection has been given according to his promise on 28th of last month to a deputation that met him on this important subject?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was not aware of the first allegation made by the hon. Member. As to the second, I had a complete answer to a previous question by an hon. Member who was not in his place, but it will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. WATERSON: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the case of the manager's house, as this is a very important matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it affects many managers who are doing their work under extraordinary difficulties?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will have that case inquired into.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire into the case of the engineman Toomey, whose house was burned down the same night because, apparently, a question was tabled by my hon. Friend and myself on this matter?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not see any connection between the two.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an official report of the burning of the creameries at Tub-bercurry and Achonry was issued from Dublin Castle to certain press representatives on or before 6th October; whether this Report was drawn up by a senior police officer at the request of the Chief Secretary's Department; whether it was admitted in the Report that these creameries were destroyed by constabulary; and whether this Report was presented to him before 20th October, when he stated that he had never seen a title of evidence to prove that the servants of the Crown had destroyed creameries?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: This question only appeared on the Paper for the first time on Tuesday morning, and it is not possible to give an answer to-day. I would ask my hon. Friend to postpone it.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any official inquiry has been made into the attacks made by uniformed servants of the Crown, accompanied by wrecking, looting, arson and, in some cases, murder, on the following towns: Fermoy in September, 1919; Kinsale and Cork in November; Thurles in January, 1920; Thurles, Cork and Dublin in March; Burladuff, Kilcommon and Limerick in April; Limerick, Thurles, Bantry, Kilcommon and Killmallock in May; Middleton, Limerick, Bantry, Fermoy, Lismore, Newcastle West and Kilcommon in June; Limerick, Union Hall, Middleton, Ballylanders, Tralee, Arklow, Galbally, Cork, Ballagh, Emly, Tuam, Enniscorthy, Ballina, Leap, Caltra, Upperchurch and Tipperary in July; Castlerea, Doon, Rosegreen, Tralee, Kildorrey, Enniscorthy, Swords, Limerick, Tralee, Templemore, Castleiny, Loughmore, Killee, Bantry, Oranmore, Glengarine, Dundalk, Kill, Knocklong, Shanagolden, Naas and Cove in August; at Ballaghaderin, Inniscarra, Tullow, Galway, Salthill, Carrick-on-Shannon, Tuam, Balbriggan, Drumshambo, Ennis-
    2056
    tymon, Lahinch, Milltown Malbay, Ballinamore, Athlone, Killorglin, Trim, Kilfenora, Silvermines, Cork, Mallow, Liscarrol, Dunkerrin, Clonmore, Bally-shannon, Listowel, Ballygar, Drimo-league, Tuam, Galway, Roscrea, Tubbser-curry, Ballyara, Achonry, Kilshenane and Gort in September; at Ballymote, Cullen, Ballingare and Galway on 2nd October; at Lacklagh, Turloughmore and Tuam on 4th October; in Cork on 5th October; in Meelick, Mount Bellew, Gort, Cloondara, Tuam, Sheverie, Ballyboy, Ballymoe, Castlereagh, Williamstown and Ballintober on 8th October; in Kilhimo, Pallashenry, Pike, Cork, Dublin and Drum on 9th October; at Clifden on 10th October; at Clifden on 13th October; in Athlone and Dublin on 16th October; in Corofin, Cummer, Anbally, Ballin-tubber and Tralee on 17th October; and in Tipperary and Mallow on 18th. October; by whom were such inquiries conducted; whether any Reports have been made; and whether signed Reports will be called for and embodied in a Parliamentary Paper
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have nothing to add to my reply to this same question put to me by the hon. and learned Member so recently as the 11th instant.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: The question which I have put several times has not been answered. I wish to know whether signed reports will be called for and embodied in a Parliamentary Paper?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer which I gave on a previous occasion was that a number of such inquiries are still proceeding, and I am not in a position to give a complete and detailed account. I hope to do so at a later date.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will that contain all the evidence of the inquiries in the cases in which there has been sacking and looting of towns?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will consider that.
    Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the inquiry into reprisals in Ireland which has been set up in the United States; whether the British Ambassador at Washington has received any request for evidence from the promoters of the inquiry; and, if so, what reply has been given?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): My attention has been called to the inquiry in question. So far as I am aware, His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has received no request to give evidence.
    Mr. WATERSON: Has the Cabinet decided now to go in for an inquiry?
    Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what it has to do with America?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the Prime Minister aware that these reprisals have shocked the whole civilised world?
    Mr. R. McLAREN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this inquiry is only asked for by the Germans and the Irish-Americans?

    CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY, ARDFERT.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Ardfert Co-operative Society's premises have been searched, and under what authority; and for what purpose was one of the horses shot?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The premises of the Co-operative Creamery at Ardfert were searched for arms and ammunition and for persons evading arrest. On the 5th instant a party of police were ambushed at Ardfert. Some of the attackers were seen to run towards a stable, and it was thought that they had taken cover within. The police approached the stable and fired through the door and on entering found that a horse had been shot.

    MURDERS OF POLICE AND MILITARY.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has yet been successful in securing the arrest, conviction, and execution of more than one murderer of police and soldiers stationed in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: As this question involves many separate inquiries and only appeared on the Paper for the first time on Tuesday, it is not possible to give an answer to-day. I would ask the hon. Member to put it down again.
    Mr.MOSLEY: I will do so.

    AMBUSHES (PROTECTION).
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland which manual of military training advocates the method of firing in anticipation of an ambush; whether any competent military authority has advised him that firing down hedgerows is likely to deter assailants composing an ambush who, presumably, remain under cover until they can five upon the troops at short range; whether the only protection against such ambush is a properly armoured car or, in the case of troops on horse or foot, the ordinary method of protection adopted by a cavalry patrol; and whether either of these two recognised methods of protection involve haphazard shooting in the countryside?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot enter into a discussion on tactics with the hon. Member. I can only say that the police and military, after several bitter experiences, have at times adopted the method of firing into dense clumps of hedgerow at corners where am bushes are likely to be placed in the hope of either dislodging any assailants who may be lying in wait or causing them disclose themselves before they come to short range. I would willingly supply the police with armoured cars if it were possible to do so, and if such cars would perform the work required of a police lorry.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that to despatch troops or police through a hostile country in open lorries is courting disaster, and that firing in anticipation of an ambush can only have the effect of injuring innocent people and not the guilty, who are either entrenched or lying behind hedges?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must accept the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland in reference to this matter, and the opinion as to police protection of General Tudor, who commanded with great glory the 9th Division at the front for four years.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: As there are some hundreds of tanks now occupying spaces on village greens throughout the country as mementoes of the great War, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is quite possible to put those at the disposal of the police in Ireland?
    Mr. J. JONES: Why not send for General Ludendorff? He would show you how to do it!
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: He is no friend of mine.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Answer?

    WOMAN SHOT, GALWAY.
    Major MACKENZIE WOODasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government Chief Constable was asked to take a statement from Mrs. Quinn, who was killed by a shot from a military motor lorry at Kiltarton on 1st November before she died; and why the Chief Constable refused to take such a statement if the authorities desired to get an accurate account of the cause of Mrs. Quinn's death?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no information to the effect stated in the question, but I will make further inquiry. I have a report from the Head Constable, from which it appears that he twice visited Mrs. Quinn's house after the injury was received. On the first occasion Mrs. Quinn was being attended by the doctor, and on the second occasion she was unconscious.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement published by the parish priest that he himself twice asked the Head Constable to take a statement from the dying woman, and that the Head Constable refused?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I read a letter to that effect in the "Westminster Gazette" taken from the "Irish Bulletin," and if it is so that the priest made the request to this Head Constable, all I can say is that none of the constables take their orders from priests.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Father Considine condemned the murders of police from the pulpit the Sunday before this occurrence, and was he called as a witness at the Court of Inquiry?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Major M. WOODasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether at the military inquiry into the death of Mrs. Quinn,
    2060
    at Kiltarton, on 1st November, the officer in command of the military lorries from which the shot was fired was called to give evidence; whether neither the head constable nor any of the local police were called; whether the doctor who attended Mrs. Quinn was called; and, if none of these material witnesses were called, whether he will institute a new inquiry which will make an adequate investigation into the cause of this woman's death?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not yet received the full report of the Court of Inquiry in this case but from the report which I have received it appears that four police witnesses, including the officer in charge of the lorry from which the shot was fired and six civilian witnesses including the priest and two doctors who attended Mrs. Quinn after her injury until her death were called. No military witnesses were called as the military were in no way concerned in the matter. There would appear to be no reason for a new inquiry.

    AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS AND CROPS (INSURANCE).
    Major BARNESasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has bee-n called to the fact that insurance companies and underwriters at Lloyd's refuse to insure agricultural buildings and crops in the South and West of Ireland against wilful destruction by the Government; and, if so, whether he will issue Orders to safeguard such property from destruction?
    Mr. H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to a somewhat similar question asked by the hon. Member for the Rath-mines Division of Dublin on the 25th October.

    RAILWAYS (STOPPAGE).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the present munitions' strike and the Orders issued thereon by the Government threatens to bring about a stoppage of the railways of the South and West of Ireland, the Government intend to take no steps to maintain the economic life of the country, seeing that this decision involves the abdication of one of the primary functions of civilised government?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the question asked on this subject by the hon. Member for Seaham on the 11th instant.

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether he has declined to receive a deputation appointed to convey to him the resolutions passed by the Irish Peace Conference, an assembly widely representative of moderate opinion in Ireland, which met in Dublin on 24th August, in response to his invitation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I have not declined to receive such a deputation.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive the deputation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It might be desirable, but I should not like to pin myself to a date. I do not think much would be gained by receiving it at the moment.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not important at this juncture to give due weight to the expression of moderate opinion in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I quite agree with my Noble Friend, and I did ray best to encourage those gentlemen to find—
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Especially at Carnarvon.
    The PRIME MINISTER: —to find out whether there was such a thing as moderate opinion in Ireland at all. I am not sure that they discovered any.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell the first deputation that they should gather further moderate opinion around them, and come and see him again?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.
    Mr. DEVLIN: And having done so, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to see these gentlemen?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is covered by the answer I have given to the Noble Lord. I thought it advisable to
    2062
    get down to moderate opinion in Ireland, and although I will see these gentlemen I do not think any advantage is to be gained by receiving them at the present moment.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a statesmanlike policy to allow things in Ireland to get worse instead of better?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think they are getting much better.
    Mr. DEVLIN: No, I think they are getting worse.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the general desire both in Great Britain and Ireland for peace; and whether he will take into consideration the declaration of opinion by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam that an immediate Truce of God is possible if the first move is made by the Government, and that if the Government will introduce a full measure of Home Rule, including full fiscal control forthwith, serious strife will cease?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that there is a general desire for peace both in Great Britain and Ireland—which the Government fully share, but the first step towards peace must be the cessation of the attempt to overthrow the reign of law by the use of murder and assassination.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the reign of law is established by a conspiracy to destroy property and the lives of innocent civilian citizens in Ireland? Is that what is meant by the reign of law or of Bonar-Law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any conspiracy of that kind, except the conspiracy of extreme people to form murder gangs for the purpose of attacking and killing the agents of the law in Ireland—
    Mr. J. JONES: Why not have a gramophone record of that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: —a conspiracy which we are breaking up.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no later than to-day a declaration signed by 20 Protestant bishops in this country was given to the

    2063
    Press expressing their horror and indignation at the manner in which the reign of law is carried out by servants of the Crown?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that fact. If it is accurate, these gentlemen cannot possibly know the facts.

    LARCENY CHARGE, KILKENNY.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a special Court in Kilkenny, on Tuesday, 9th instant, before Mr. P. D. Sullivan, Resident Magistrate, Major Ewan Bruce, formerly a member of the auxiliary police force stationed in Innistioge, County Kilkenny, was charged in custody at the suit of District-Inspector Baynham, Callan, with larceny of £75 from Kell's Creamery, on the night of the 10th October; whether the case was originally before the Court on Thursday, 28th October, but after evidence had been gone into that day the Intelligence Officer at the military barracks, Kilkenny, communicated with the Press and informed them that they would not be allowed to publish the details of the evidence; whether he is aware that at the subsequent sitting of the Court, Mr. Sullivan, the Resident Magistrate, said he had been handed a note from the Press asking if the proceedings might be reported; to this he replied that it was a public Court, that there was no censorship so far as he was aware, that there was nothing whatever to prevent the Press reporting anything they might think fit, and that the proceedings of a Court of Justice were always public except in very exceptional circumstances; and whether, in view of this statement, the right hon. Gentleman can state on authority the military officer acted in forbidding the publication of this important case in the Press?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire on the 11th instant. I am informed that the officer in question did not purport to prohibit the publicity of the proceedings, but pointed out that as the accused was awaiting trial by court-martial it would be undesirable to publish the proceedings before the Resident Magistrate.
    Mr. DEVLIN: As this is a case of larceny, why did not this trial take place before an ordinary civil tribunal, and why is there a special advantage given to a military officer who is guilty of larceny over any ordinary citizen who is guilty of a similar offence?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no privilege given. A military tribunal will be much more severe on an officer on any charge, especially a charge of larceny, than a civilian tribunal. The law in this matter takes its usual course, and I am glad to see this example of the independence of the Irish judiciary.
    Mr. DEVLIN: After the case was first tried before a military tribunal, why was it then handed over to a civilian tribunal, and why is it now handed back to another military tribunal?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The law has taken its course. There is nothing unusual.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what authority this military officer acted in going to the local newspapers and telling them that they were not to publish the evidence showing that this officer was guilty of theft?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered that question.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of the question and answer to the bench of Protestant Bishops who have uttered a protest against the Government being carried on by these men in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Gentleman can send it.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is it not usually the case that before a creamery is burned they load a lorry with a ton and a half of butter and cheese?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not the case.
    Mr. DEVLIN: How do you know?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It is the case. They steal the butter and cheese.

    MISS A. MCMAHON (COURT-MARTIAL).
    Major WATTS MORGANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Miss Anita McMahon, of Achill, has been sentenced by court-martial for having Sinn

    2065
    Fein literature in her possession together with notices in connection with the holding of a Sinn Fein government; whether any other ladies have been sentenced by court-martial; whether the sentence on Miss McMahon has been confirmed; and what prison treatment is being extended to her?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. The documents in respect of which Miss McMahon was convicted definitely connected her with the organisation of the so-called Irish Republican Army. Miss McMahon is being treated in accordance with the ordinary rules for the treatment of persons sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has this lady been prosecuted for being a member of the Sinn Fein party, and does the right hon. Gentleman still say that he does not prosecute people for their opinions in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not what I said.

    CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY, LITTLETON.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the result of the inquiries into the origin of the burning of the co-operative creamery at Littleton, following the capture of the Littleton police barracks on the 31st ultimo, when the police were not maltreated in any way; and what steps are being taken to bring the persons concerned in the destruction of this creamery to trial?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not yet in a Position to give any further information regarding this matter.
    Mr. WHITE: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give some further information?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: At the earliest Opportunity.
    Mr. DEVLIN: When is the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. JONES: You ought to have your answer set to music.

    WARNING NOTICE (LONDON).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary
    2066
    of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on the night of the 16th of November a printed notice was dropped into the letter-box of Mr. Art O'Brien of 3, Adam Street, W.C.2, warning him to leave London within 24 hours or death would follow, and signed Black and Tans; that two Royal Irish Constabulary in uniform were seen on the landing outside his office at 6 p.m. on the 16th; that the housekeeper's keys were stolen on the same day; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the life of Mr. O'Brien while he is in London.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My attention has been drawn to the notice referred to, and I am having inquiry made.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon Gentleman take steps to see that these acts which may be done in Ireland are not done in his own domain?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not know to what my hon. Friend refers.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Black and Tans—

    TYPHOID AND GLANDERS (INFECTION).
    Mr. PENNEFATHER(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a Press report that evidence has been obtained of a Sinn Fein plot to infect the milk of the military with typhoid, and to convey glanders to cavalry horses, and if he can give the House any information on this matter?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The following document was found in the papers be longing to the chief-of-staff of the Republican Army, which were captured during recent raids. Then follows a series of remarkable and, I think, horrifying statements which refer to the spread of typhoid fever among the troops and glanders among the horses. I think the answer is so long that perhaps the House would prefer me not to read it, but to publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read!"]
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It is a forgery, so it does not matter.
    Mr. DEVLIN: A German plot.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Who is the chief-of-staff?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The chief-of-staff is on the run. So is the commander-in-chief. These papers were captured a few days ago.
    Mr.MacVEAGH: Where?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The following document was found among the papers belonging to the chief-of-staff of the Irish Republican Army, which were captured during a recent raid:
    "From the Commander-in-Chief of the Irish Republican Army to his chief-of-staff.
    Troops themselves.—How about spreading typhoid fever among them? I know of no other ordinary disease that could be spread among them with safety to the rest of the population. They might retaliate, but that is for consideration.
    To get typhoid fever one must eat or drink the typhoid bacillus (or microbe). It is easy getting fresh and virulent cultures. The best medium of conveying it is through the milk. They multiply rapidly in the milk. They can also be conveyed in the water, but through the water is difficult unless there are special cisterns or tanks near each place into which a pint or so could be poured.
    The milk is far the best medium, but is milk used? It can be investigated.
    Caution.—There is no danger to the operator unless he gets the microbes on hands or clothes. The cans would have to get special attention after the infected milk had been emptied. They could in turn convey the disease to the civil population. If these ideas are of any use you will need expert advice, so I need not go into the matter further.
    If those are thought practicable let me know, and I will study other things on same lines in the hope of discovering possibilities. At the moment I can't think of anything else in that line.
    Give my regards to all, and hope the success will continue. I enjoyed my visit and will now feel in personal touch more than ever. God bless you all.
    Glanders in Horses.
    It should be possible to give horses glanders. I know they can be inoculated, but that method would be impossible. The disease is got from harness and by putting a horse in a stable from which an infected horse has been removed. Therefore it should be possible to pass the infection by means of doctoring the oats, and it should be possible to get the oats at railway stations, and so forth.
    Method.—Any doctor or veterinary surgeon will be able to tell you how to grow the microbes. If they don't know they can look it up in any text-book on bacteriology. Assume you have half-a-pint of active microbes, then take a hollow stick or piece
    2068
    of piping, get another stick to fit in this like a ramrod of a gun, put this stick down in the sack of oats, withdraw the ramrod, then pour in the microbes while you at the same time withdraw the hollow stick or piping. In this way you can distribute the microbes from the bottom of the sack to the top without disturbing the oats, and it can be done quickly.
    Caution.—Operator must not allow any of the fluid on his hands or clothes. The stick and bottle should be burned after use.
    A couple of thousand horses infected would make a sensation. Saddles, etc., would have to be burned and stables disinfected."
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the Chief Secretary tell the House whether one policeman or one soldier has been poisoned in Ireland, or whether one Army horse has been infected?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Was not the whole thing concocted in Dublin Castle? On the face of it the thing is a lie.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The document, along with a number of other important documents, with covering letters from the alleged officers of this Irish Republican Army, were captured the other night in a raid.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It is a sheer invention. You got Pennefather to put the-question. It is a put-up question.
    Mr. SEXTON: How is it that such voluminous and extensive information can be given on a Private Notice question within a few hours, it takes days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Weeks!"]—to get information on other subjects?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Because these important documents were brought over to me by courier specially.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: How did Penne-father know what to ask? It is an invention from beginning to end.

    ESCAPING PRISONERS (SHOOTING).
    Mr. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked whether it is true that four men were killed and two wounded at White-gate, County Clare; whether the reason given for the killing of these four men was that they were trying to escape from an escort near Killaloe; what are the instructions given to police and to military escorts in reference to prisoners under arrest, and is the order given to kill before there is any warning or any attempt to recapture?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Four men were arrested at Scarrif and two at Whitegate, County Clare, on the 16th instant for offences against Regulation 9 A.A. of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The four men arrested at Scarrif tried to escape from their escort at Killaloe at 12.30 a.m. on the 17th and were shot dead. I have no information as to the wounding of two men. The police and military are entitled to fire on such prisoners if they attempt to escape and refuse to halt when called upon to do so.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How many more prisoners will be killed in this way? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. O'CONNOR: In the Report of the right hon. Gentleman about this tragical incident is there any statement that the prisoners wore handcuffed?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, that is not in the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. DEVLIN: They were all handcuffed.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot answer without notice.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman the information about it?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I have not got it.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I shall repeat the latter part of the question, and shall supplement it by asking whether the fact that the men were handcuffed is not sufficient guarantee for their ultimate arrest without shooting them on the spot.

    INCENDIARISM, TIPPERARY.
    Mr. DEVLIN(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the published account to-day of the burning and destruction of house property in Tip-perary town involving one private dwelling-house, one boarding house, one house and shop, and five shops, as well as the smashing of the windows and the looting of a jeweller's store, or whether all the business places in the town were compelled to remain closed until midday yesterday, and in view of the later accounts to hand does he still persist in his statement that there is not a word
    2070
    of truth in the telegram from the town clerk of Tipperary that the town was being burned?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have received a similar question from the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), and I propose to answer both questions together. I have not seen any statement in the Press of the burning of property in the town of Tipperary on Tuesday. I have seen an account of the burning of a house in James Street on the evening of Monday, in which it was stated that the hose had been cut, and the fire was beyond control when the military fire brigade arrived. I stand by the statement I made in the House on Tuesday last, that there was no burning of property on that day. Last evening I received fresh reports confirming the previous report that there was no trouble of any kind in the town on Tuesday. As regards the closing of shops, I am informed that at the suggestion of the local police authorities, the shops in the town closed voluntarily out of respect to the murdered policemen whose funerals were being carried out. No threats or compulsion of any kind was used to induce this act of respect.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Arising out of the reply, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the town clerk of Tipperary has confirmed the absolute truth of his previous telegram, and in view of the contradictory statement from Dublin Castle that on Tuesday Tipperary was perfectly quiet, will he have further inquiry made into this matter?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will inquire, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, but the town clerk's telegram was that Tipperary was being burned down on Tuesday last. Tipperary is still there.
    Mr. ADAMSON: In view of the fact that the town clerk of Tipperary says that only part of Tipperary is there, and that that statement is in contradistinction to the information he has received from Dublin Castle, will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not know what further inquiry I can make.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I will help you.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I shall be very glad to have the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman in maintaining the pre-

    2071
    sent position of Tipperary, which, with the exception of four or five houses, is still there.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not a fact that when the right hon. Gentleman said that the statements made in the telegram were deliberate lies—
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I did not say that.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Deliberate false hoods—
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I did not say that.
    Mr. DEVLIN: —I rose immediately afterwards, and recited to the House a list of nearly 10 shops either looted or burned, although the right hon. Gentleman slated that there was not a word of truth in the statement?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The speech the hon. Member made on the Motion for the Adjournment on Tuesday night dealt with burnings on Monday. The allegation made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson), in speaking on the Adjournment, was an allegation based on a telegram from the Town Clerk of Tipperary, to the effect that Tipperary was in flames and being burned down on Tuesday.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: He did not say that at all.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman got a copy of the telegram I Sent to him, and will he read it to the House? We can then see who is telling the truth about this matter. There was not a single word in it about Monday.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is nothing in the telegram about Monday. The telegram dealt with Tuesday.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It did not; it was sent on Tuesday.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must leave it to the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that we had better not continue this controversy.

    DISTURBANCE, BELFAST.
    Mr. MOLES(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at midday on Wednesday,
    2072
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have just received the following wire from Belfast, in reply to the hon. Member's question, which I sent to Ireland immediately on receipt of his question:
    "Twenty roughs, who marched from Lepper Street to Antrim Road about 12 noon yesterday, on reaching Edlingham Street threw stones at people at the corner of that street. A man fired a revolver shot and the crowd retreated, but soon returned with reinforcements and fired shots ax the opposition crowd, who are alleged to have returned fire. No one was injured. The damage consisted of the breaking of a street lamp, and a plain glass window in the house of one Unionist and one Nationalist. No injury was done to the school. No arrests were made. Military with armoured car and police hurried to the scene. No further trouble. Police did not hear anyone repeating the words, 'Up the rebels,' 'Up the Fenians.' Strong police patrols remained in the vicinity."
    Mr. DEVLIN: It is a mare's nest.
    Mr. MOLES: May I ask whether the police were not upon the spot at all when the original attack took place and when these cries were raised, and that they could not have heard them, and whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the published statement of two teachers, who have pledged their word as to the truth of what I have stated?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It was in your own newspaper.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not seen the statement, and do not know whether the police were there at once. I have read to the House the telegram I have received.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Did anything occur there at all?

    OFFICERS CAPTURED.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he had any information to impart relating to the four officers taken by force out of a train at Waterfall, County Cork, the day before yesterday, and carried off in rebel motor cars, and whether, in view of this further proof of the assistance to crime afforded by privately-owned motor cars, the Government would at once prohibit their use in the disturbed areas?
    Mr. DEVLIN: What is a "rebel motor car"?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The only information which I have at present is that two Education Officers, Captain M. H. W. Green, Lincolnshire Regiment, and Captain S. Chambers, Liverpool Regiment, and an officer of the Royal Engineers, Lieut. W. Spalding Watts, were captured by the rebels. I understand that Captain Green and Lieutenant Watts might have been witnesses of a murder of a police sergeant and that Captain Chambers was the principal witness against Father O'Donnell, who was arrested in October, 1919, for seditious speeches. Presumably, these are the reasons why they were kidnapped, but I do not know the circumstances of their capture. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's question, I think ample powers already exist under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations. Certain restrictions regarding the use of motor vehicles are already in force, and I understand that further drastic restrictions will come into operation on 1st December.
    Mr. TERRELL: Have these officers been released?
    Mr.CHURCHILL: No.
    Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman brings in the trial, and the statement that Father O'Donnell was arrested for seditious language. For what reason ho dons that, I do not know. Will he state that the court-martial acquitted him of that charge?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not attach importance to that. I have given the answer specially framed for me in answer to this question.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Who framed it for you?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I had no communication whatever with the hon. Member (Mr. Pennefather), and there is no ulterior design behind the framing of the answer.

  RUSSIA.
    TRADE RELATIONS.

      STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
      Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been taken as to the Trade Agreement with Russia?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Cabinet have decided that a draft agreement to carry out the July arrangement for trade with Russia should be prepared, and will, I hope, be ready for submission to the Russian Government in a few days.
      Mr. RAPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the terms of the proposed agreement will be submitted to this House before it is signed, and, if not, will it be signed without the unanimous approval of the Cabinet?
      Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether one of the terms of the agreement will provide that it shall not function until all the British prisoners have returned to this country? Is that one of the conditions, and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman make it so?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The agreement, as I have already stated, will not be entered into until we are satisfied that the undertaking given by the Soviet Government about our prisoners is being carried out.
      Mr. RAPER: Can I have a reply to my question?
      Sir W. DAVISON: Will it be one of the terms of the agreement that the Russian Government gives an acknowledgment of her debt to this country, although at the moment she may not be able to pay?
      Mr. ADAMSON: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing the terms of the agreement?
      The PRIME MINISTER: If the House desires to have a discussion on this

      2075
      subject, I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to make arrangements.
      Sir F. HALL: Will that be before the contract is entered into, or after?
      Major NALL: Will there be any safeguard in the agreement to prevent the Russian Government replenishing her arms and ammunition for further aggression?
      Sir W. DAVISON: May I have an answer to my question, whether the Russian debt of £500,000,000 will be acknowledged?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members ought to give notice if they attach importance to their questions, in order to give an opportunity to the Minister to examine them.
      Sir W. DAVISON: It seems to me very germane to ask whether such a very important matter as the acknowledgment of £500,000,000 of debt, or part of it, will be contained in the Treaty?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The more important the question the more necessary it is that it should appear on the Paper, in order that the Minister may see it.
      Sir F. HALL: Owing to the answer we have received, that the House will have an opportunity of discussing this matter, can we not be informed whether the discussion will take place before the agreement is ratified or not?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It cannot be ratified before Monday, and there is, therefore, plenty of time to put a question down.
      Sir F. HALL: How do we know that it will not be ratified before Monday?
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether ho will publish the communications which have recently passed between the British and Soviet Governments on the question of reopening trade with Russia?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received two further notes from the Russian Government en the subject of peace and trade between the British Empire and Russia; when these notes will be communicated to this House; whether His Majesty's
      2076
      Government has authorised any form of statement to the Press describing these notes as hostile or offensive in tone; whether any reply has been sent to these two Russian notes; and what is it?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The communications referred to have been received, but it is not proposed to lay these two communications by themselves. The answer to the second part of question No. 37 is in the negative.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say if there is any further statement to be made about the new agreement?
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When is it intended to publish these notes, and can he give the House any information in view of the sensational newspaper reports on this subject?
      Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the British prisoners have been released from Russia?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I shall answer another question on that subject later on.

      BRITISH PRISONERS.
      Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether British naval and military officers who have been retained as prisoners of war in Russia will be entitled to any special leave on their return and to full compensation for loss of money and effects?
      Mr. HOGGE: Before we take the Prime Minister's questions I wish to point out that three or four days ago I put down a question to the Prime Minister, asking him whether the Attorney-General for Ireland, the Solicitor-General for Ireland—
      Mr. SPEAKER: I ruled it out, and that question does not now arise.
      Mr. HOGGE: My question has been interfered with—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Time is very short, and if the hon. Member wishes to raise a question, he knows that he can do it at the conclusion of Questions, just as well as in the middle of them.
      Mr. HOGGE: It is a question of principle.
      Mr. SPEAKER: A question of principle can be raised at the end of Questions, and I must ask the hon. Member to defer his point of Order till then.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Compensation for loss of kit is admissible within the scale laid down by Regulation. In regard to money, there is a well-recognised rule in both services; I am sure a generous interpretation would be given in these circumstances. Special conditions of leave have been framed to meet these cases.
      Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal if arrangements will be made to obtain evidence from the British prisoners at Baku who have been released as to their treatment at the hands of the Soviet authorities; and if, pending the publication of such evidence, the Government will postpone further friendly negotiations with M. Krassin and the other Russian delegates?
      Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 16th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy).
      Mr. RAPER: Is it now the settled policy of the Government that we should sell British honour for stolen gold?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No.
      Mr. RAPER: Is the foul murder of that valiant British officer, Captain Cromie, and the disgraceful treatment meted out to our officers at Baku to be avenged by shaking hands with the murderers?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Nobody needs to shake hands. The hon. Member's question implies that, there is to be no trade with Russia as long as the Soviet Government exists. That is a very serious proposition.
      Mr. BILLING: May we take it that we have now abandoned the British prisoners in Russia?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The House may take it as certain that we shall make sure of their release.
      Sir F. HALL: When the right hon. Gentleman gets the replies from these prisoners as to ill-treatment does the Government intend to take any action in the matter at all or is it going to be left alone?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be as well to wait and see what the information is before we give an answer about something on which we do not know the facts.
      Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statements which have been made by the British prisoners, and does he believe them, and if the evidence is correct are any measures going to be taken against the representatives of the Russian Government?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid this is a subject which cannot be dealt with by question and answer. If we have no trade I know of no method by which we can compel Russia except by war.

      BLACK SEA (BRITISH SHIPS).
      Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the number of ships which are stationed in the Black Sea; whether any others have been ordered to that sea; and what duties they are performing there?
      The PRIME MINISTER: At the present time the following British men-of-war are in the Black Sea:

      1 Light Cruiser,

      2 Destroyers.

      These, ships are not permanently stationed in the Black Sea, but are detached from the main forces at Constantinople, and are changed at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief. No other ships have received orders to proceed to the Black Sea.
      With regard to the last part of the question, the duty performed by ships stationed in the Black Sea is to carry out a patrol for the purpose of preventing illicit traffic in arms to Turkish Nationalist forces in Asia Minor.

      ALL-RUSSIAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
      Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the All-Russian Co-operative Society have been acting on behalf of the Russian Trade Delegation; and whether it will be a condition of the proposed trade agreement with Soviet Russia that organisations of a purely Communist nature, such as the company referred to, shall be allowed to operate in this country?
      Mr. WATERSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he

      2079
      considers it to be in the public interest to give an answer, seeing that at the moment delicate negotiations are proceeding, and especially in view of the fact that such questions are, apparently, put in the interests of competitive trade?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that there is anything in my answer that will disturb anybody. I understand that the All-Russian Co-operative Society have acted for the Russian Trade Delegation in respect of certain commercial transactions for the proposed supply of goods to Russia. I am not in a position to say what commercial agencies Soviet Russia might wish to employ in the event of a trade agreement being arrived at.
      Mr. RAPER: May I ask whether, in view of the great importance of the pro posed trade treaty from a political stand point, quite apart from the economic point of view, he proposes to give this House full particulars as to the terms of the treaty before sending it to be signed; and further, if the answer be in the negative—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.
      Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister on what grounds His Majesty's Government permitted the registration on the 11th June, 1920, of the All-Russian Co-operative Society, considering that the three directors are notorious Communists, the one, M. Kryssin, having been arrested in September, 1918, for reasons similar to those which led to M. Litvinoff's deportation, another director, M. Rosovsky, having been deported from this country a few weeks ago on the same grounds, and the third director, Mme. Polotseva, being an intimate associate of both M. Kryssin and M. Rosovsky?
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—[Interruption.]
      Mr. SPEAKER: It will be more convenient to let the right hon. Gentleman answer first. If there be any matter requiring elucidation, the hon. and gallant Member can ask a supplementary question about it.
      Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply. The All-Russian Co-operative Society, Limited, was registered on the 11th June, 1920, and according to the return on the company's file the directors bear the names mentioned by my hon. Friend. There are no provisions in the company statutes under which the registrar would have been entitled to refuse registration of the company on the grounds mentioned.
      Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether this delegation did not come here at the request and invitation of His Majesty's Government; and whether they cannot do something to prevent their supporters from making personal attacks on the delegation in this country?

      BOLSHEVIK PROPAGANDA.
      Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that large sums of money have been sent into the United States and France for the purposes of Bolshevik propaganda; and, if so, if he can state what was the method of the Governments of these countries adopted in dealing with such funds?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information on this matter.
      Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that large sums of money have been sent into this country from Russia for the purpose of Bolshevik propaganda; whether of those funds it has been ascertained that a definite sum of £40,000, derived from the sale of precious stones sent over by the Soviet Government, was invested by Mr. F. Meynell in Government bonds; and whether it is the intention of the Government to attach or confiscate these funds?
      Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It has been ascertained that a sum of rather more than£40,000, derived from the sale of precious stones sent from the Soviet Government, was invested by Mr. F. Meynell in Exchequer Bonds. There is no legal power which, on the facts known to the Government, would authorise the attachment or confiscation of the Bonds.
      Mr. BILLING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the time has come when the Government might take power to confiscate money which is sent to this country purely for the purpose of revolutionary propaganda?
      HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
      Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wants an answer, the proper way is to put a question down.
      Mr. DEVLIN: They think they are in a music hall.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The whole matter requires consideration before reply.

      BRITISH OIL COMPANIES, BAKU.
      Major BARNETTasked the Prime Minister whether it will be made a condition precedent of any resumption of trade between this country and Russia that the English officials of the British oil companies at Baku shall receive full compensation for the loss and suffering entailed by their recent imprisonment; that the properties of the shareholders shall be returned to them intact; and that the oil stolen from their reservoirs shall be paid for?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The issues raised will certainly be considered when the question of including a formal peace with Russia comes to be negotiated. I may point out further that Baku is situated in Azerbaijan, which claims to be an independent Soviet Republic.
      Major BARNETT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 11th Soviet Army Corps occupied Baku on 27th April, and is in occupation of it to-day?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, I am not aware of it.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have an army of occupation in Ireland.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    HEDJAZ.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether kingdoms, as such, are entitled to representation on the League of Nations, without regard to their being national as well as political units; and whether the new kingdom of the Hedjaz
    2082
    can claim to represent the Arab nation more than the other principalities or Chiefships in Arabia which entertain no political or other relations with that kingdom?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Kingdoms as such are not referred to in Article 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which deals with the conditions of admission to the League. If the suggestion is that a self-governing State cannot be regarded as a potential member of the League if it does not comprise all political units of the same nationality, the answer is in the negative. The claim of the Hedjaz or any other fully self-governing Arab State to represent the Arab nation could only be decided by the choice of the Arabs themselves.
    Sir J. D. REES: May several Arab States be represented on the League of Nations?

    GERMANY.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that if application is made by Germany to the Assembly of the League of Nations for admission to the League such application will be supported by the British representatives?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have no knowledge that an application will be made by Germany.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it has been freely stated that Germany hesitates to apply for fear of a rebuff, and will the Government consider what steps they can take in view of that fact?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the reason assigned in the German Reichstag.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether instructions have been given by the French Government to its delegates at the Geneva meeting of the League of Nations to oppose for the present the admission of Germany to the League of Nations; if this course has been adopted by France largely on the ground that Germany has persistently evaded her obligations under the Peace Treaty as to the punishment of Germans guilty of unspeakable crimes against French soldiers and civilians; and if, in view of the deep interest which this

    2083
    country has in the same matter, he will state whether any instructions on the subject have been given to the British delegates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no knowledge of any instructions which may have been issued by the French Government in the sense indicated in the first part of the question. The second and third parts of the question do not therefore arise.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it the intention of the British Government to permit Germany to enter into the League of Nations before any reparation is being made by Germany in consequence of the criminal manner in which our prisoners were treated by Germany?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a different question.
    Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, if they are not dealt with before they enter into the League of Nations, there will be no reparation or any criminal proceedings taken at all?
    Mr. RAFFAN: May we take it that there is no truth in the statement that we have come to an agreement with France to oppose the inclusion of Germany into the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question has not arisen yet.

    CHINA.
    Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say whether Japan objects to China appointing delegates to the League of Nations, suggesting that the Japanese delegates would represent China; and, if so, whether this is the reason why China has taken no definite steps in the matter of appointing representatives to the Assembly of the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not heard of any such suggestion. I understand that China is represented in the League by delegates now at Geneva.

    GREECE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MORDENasked the Prime Minister whether Greece will be allowed to remain a member of the
    2084
    League of Nations if ex-King Constantine returns to the throne?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Under Article XVI of the Covenant, the expulsion of a member of the League is a matter for the decision of the Council.

    PERSIA (COSSACK DIVISION).
    Mr. JAMES BROWNasked the Prime Minister whether a subsidy has been paid from British sources for the Cossack Division in Persia; against what Vote this subsidy is charged; whether it was included in the estimates of any Department, and what is the amount spent so far in this direction?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The British subsidy paid to the Cossack Division in Persia since the conclusion of the War amounted to £392,600. The Indian Government made a similar contribution. Provision for the British expenditure was made in the Miscellaneous War Services Estimate presented by the Foreign Office.

  EGYPT.

    MARTIAL LAW.
    Captain R. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the announcement of the new Government policy with regard to Egypt, he will recommend the immediate withdrawal of martial law in that country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There has been no announcement of a change of policy in Egypt, so that the last part of the question does not arise.

    CONSTITUTION.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Prime Minister if the arrangements proposed for the constitution of the future of government of Egypt include separate representation of Egypt to the Governments of foreign countries?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the promise given on Tuesday by the Leader of the House that an opportunity will be given of discussing any proposals which the Government may formulate with regard to Egypt in the light of the recommendations of Lord Milner's mission. Mean-

    2085
    while, it is premature to make a statement on any particular one of these recommendations.

    ARMISTICE DAY.
    Sir BURTON CHADWICKasked the Prime Minister (1) if he is aware that on Armistice Day, as there was no prearranged signal whereby the public throughout the country were warned of the exact moment of commencement of the two minutes' service, the service was seriously interfered with by the unavoidable irregularity where people depended on their watches or the clocks in their immediate neighbourhood; if, in future, the exact moment of the commencement of the two minutes' service on Armistice Day may be notified throughout the country by some signal controlled from Greenwich, which will be generally heard, in order that this beautiful service may be a universal tribute of the whole nation and which is only possible if the precise moment is indicated by Greenwich mean time;
    (2) if he is aware that during the two minutes' service on Armistice Day there was again a great noise from running motor engines in congested areas, not only in London but in other towns throughout the country, which seriously marred the solemnity of the service; and will he therefore cause an urgent request to be publicly made in good time before the service takes place next year in order that this very trying inconvenience to the public at such a solemn moment may he avoided?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestions of my hon. Friend have been noted, and will be considered when this question comes up next year.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDI- TURE.
    Major Sir KEITH FRASERasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Leicester County Council recently passed unanimously a resolution protesting against the practice of Ministers of Departments forcing upon the Council schemes which seriously add to the heavy burden of the rates without previously consulting the Councils concerned;
    2086
    and will he take the necessary steps to comply with their wishes?
    Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that resolutions have been passed by the Mountain Ash and Aberdare District Council protesting against non-statutory grants being withdrawn and against further burdens being placed upon local authorities without those local authorities having a voice in the matter, and calling upon the Government to take steps to put an end to extravagance and waste, urging the necessity for retrenchment in public expenditure, and of a reduction of the financial burdens thrust upon local authorities by continuous additional legislation; and whether any action can be taken in this direction?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that resolutions to the effect indicated have been passed by local authorities, and the Government are fully alive to the importance of economy in local as well as in national administration. As was indicated in the Debate upon the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Grant last Monday, the Government propose to set up a Select Committee to consider in what way control can effectively be exercised in the case of Bills involving expenditure out of local rates.
    Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Select Committee will have a right to examine into all methods of raising money for local purposes, and whether ground landlords have a right to escape taxation for local purposes?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers—
    Mr. JONES: May I first have an answer to my question.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that local authorities are complaining of the expenditure forced upon them by the legislation of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I know. That is an old story—the conflict between local authorities and the Imperial Exchequer. I made full inquiry into that during the time I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were constant demands for further contributions from the Exchequer, and it was always a question whether the

    2087
    taxpayers or the ratepayers should pay. As a matter of fact it comes very largely out of the same pocket. The difficulty is this: If the reference to the Committee is too wide you will not get the Report in time for this particular Bill, and therefore it is far better to circumscribe the reference.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great corporations like Glasgow, Manchester and Cardiff have passed resolutions by enormous majorities in favour of power being given them to impose rates on land values? Will that be considered by the Cabinet as a separate question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is an absolutely different question. This is a question of purely Parliamentary procedure, but my hon. Friend is raising one of great magnitude in regard to the subject of taxation.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that to collect a sovereign for Imperial taxes costs about 11s., where the cost of rate collection is only about 1s. in the £? Would it not be better to leave it to local taxation, therefore?

    ANTI-DUMPING BILL.
    Sir K. FRASERasked the Prime Minister if the Government propose to introduce anti-dumping legislation during the present Session; and, if so, will he consider the question of re-introducing the Import Restriction Clauses of the Defence of the Realm Act until such time as legislation can be framed to prevent dumping, or to equalise the difficulties created by the exchange?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): I have been asked to reply. Owing to pressure on Parliamentary time, it will not be possible to introduce legislation dealing with dumping during the present Session. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. Prohibitions of importations were imposed during the War, not under the Defence of the Realm Act, but under Section 43 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. The Courts have since decided that this
    2088
    Section cannot be utilised for the purpose in question.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not the fact that many of our industries, notably the glass industry, are suffering terribly from this delay? Can nothing be done to expedite the delay?
    Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. This has nothing to do with dumping.

    BATTLE OF JUTLAND.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister who was responsible for sending the naval signal regarding the result of the Battle of Jutland, upon which the first official communiqué issued to the public was based; what was the exact wording of the signal; the name of the officer who received the signal at the Admiralty; the name of the officer or official who was responsible for issuing the communiqué to the Press; the exact wording of such communiqué and whether such communiqué, together with such signal, was submitted to the First Lord of the Admiralty for his approval before being issued?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. As regards the first and second parts, I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the forthcoming Paper on Jutland, in which he will find the source and the exact wording of all the naval signals relating to the battle. I am unable to say what officer at the Admiralty received in the first instance the particular message referred to. The then First Lord of the Admiralty was responsible for issuing the communiqué to the Press. For the exact wording of the communiqué, and for a full statement by the then First Lord of the circumstances in which it was issued, I would refer the hon. Member to the morning newspapers of the 3rd June and 8th June, 1916.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand from that reply that the then First Lord of the Admiralty personally wrote the despatch which was issued to the public, and that it was based on the naval signal received from Admiral Jellicoe?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I think that is rather different from the question on the Paper,

    2089
    as to which I have given the fullest possible information. Perhaps if he requires details the hon. Member will put a further question down.

    FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (BAKEHOUSES) BILL.
    Mr. HALLASasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among operative bakers at the delay on the part of the Government in proceeding with the Factories and Workshops (Bakehouses) Bill; and if he can give the date when it may be expected that the Second reading of that Bill will take; place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) on the 3rd November.
    Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee, after a considerable number of meetings, made a compromise recommendation expressing the hope that legislation would be introduced; and will he give the reason why the Bill is not going to be introduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that question.

    GREECE.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if ho can make any statement as to the policy of the Allies should there be any attempt to reinstate ex-King Constantine on the throne of Greece?
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the Allied and Associated Powers will agree to the ex-King of Greece resuming the throne of Greece in any eventuality?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement regarding the new political situation in Greece and the attitude of the new Greek Government to this country and to the carrying out of the provisions of the Treaty of Sèvers?
    Mr. WINTRINGHAMasked the Prime Minister whether there will be a revision of the Turkish Treaty, in view of the results of the general elections in Greece?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not desirable to answer questions on the effect of the Greek elections as the foreign policy of the Allies, until the situation has further developed.
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask if there is any information with regard to the Greek Army? Is it evacuating its positions, or is it still remaining in position?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have no information as to that.

    STATE DOCUMENTS, PUBLICA- TION.
    Major-General Sir N. MOOREasked the Prime Minister (1) if his attention has been drawn to the fact that in more than one volume of personal memoirs and reminiscences recently published copies of secret State documents and despatches and the alleged views of members of the Government have been published; whether such action comes within the scope of the Official Secrets Act; whether he proposes to take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent further disclosures in future;
    (2) Whether, in view of the anxiety existing as a result of the recent disclosures in certain volumes just published, he will assure the House that the practice reported to have been followed in divulging the vital and confidential business of the nation by members of the Cabinet with others outside has been discontinued; and whether he can indicate that safeguards have been instituted to prevent the recurrence of such reprehensible and unconstitutional practices?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not read the works which I understand are referred to, and I am therefore not aware of the disclosures referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. It is, of course, an obligation upon Ministers, Admirals, Generals and officials not to disclose confidential State or official papers or information without the previous approval of His Majesty's Government for the time being, or, in minor matters, the approval of the head of the Department to which they relate.
    Sir N. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman peruse the two volumes if I send him a presentation copy?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that this understanding, that Cabinet Ministers should never disclose what takes place at Cabinet meetings, is carried out by Cabinet Ministers themselves?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly what I have said—not merely Cabinet Ministers, but others as well. There is nothing which is more open to objection than the publication of secret Cabinet decisions.
    Sir N. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that documents such as resignations of Cabinet Ministers have been disposed of for personal gain?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is he a wave that there will be no further letters from Cabinet Ministers resigning as long as this Government is in power?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his confidence.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister whether he has received the Report of the Select Committee on the opening and closing hours for licensed premises on Sundays; and, if so, if he is in a position to state what these hours will be in future?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have received the Report in question, which is being circulated to the Cabinet with a view to consideration by the Government.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee heard no evidence of any kind, and that its Report was adopted by a majority of 7 to 5; and under these circumstances, does he consider that it really throws any light or the situation?
    Colonel GRETTON: Is it not a fact that this Committee was not appointed by the House, but was a private Committee appointed by the Prime Minister?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is so. It was a private and an informal Committee, and as such it was appointed; and all these facts will be duly considered by the Government.
    Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the new hours are going to come into operation [Interruption.] This is creating a considerable amount of dissatisfaction throughout the country. Even the Church Councils in various parts of the country have passed resolutions in favour of the extended hours of 7 to 10. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In Essex, for one.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make a speech at this moment.
    Mr. RAPER(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he will cause an order to be issued giving immediate effect to the general demand for the opening of licensed premises between 7 and 10 p.m. on Sundays?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative, but the Majority and Minority Reports of the Committee of this House appointed to consider this question are now under consideration.

    PEACE CONFERENCE HANDBOOKS.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister how many of the Peace Handbooks which were prepared for and used by the Peace Conference, and which deal with the history, geography, and the political and economic conditions of the countries affected by the Peace Conference, have now been published, and how many more will be published; how and where and at what price those books can be procured; and what steps are being taken by the Government to inform the public that such books are in existence and are procurable?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The series of Peace Handbooks consists of about 160 separate handbooks, forming 25 volumes. 120 handbooks have already been published; the others are rapidly being issued from the Press. Review copies of the handbooks are sent to the Press, as and when the parts are issued, and many notices concerning them have appeared in the newspapers. Particulars of the series are also given in the various catalogues issued by the Stationery Office monthly, quarterly, and annually. These catalogues are distributed to the trade and to likely purchasers.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Has any information been given to Members of the House as to when and how these Peace Conference books are to be purchased by them?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know of any better method than this.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to think that any of these handbooks were read by the Peace Conference?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Oh, yes; and I hope they will be read by the general public too.

    LIQUOR CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
    Colonel CRETTONasked the Prime Minister when it is intended to take the Second Reading of the Liquor Control (Temporary Provisions) Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present name a date, but it will be taken as early as possible.

    FINANCIAL SITUATION.
    Sir GODFREY COLLINSasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that the present national financial situation, both as regards revenue and expenditure, is viewed by the nation with concern; and will ho afford facilities for an early Debate on the whole subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am well aware of the anxiety referred to in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, and the Government will gladly find time for the discussion of the subject. As to the form which the discussion will take, I presume that the Opposition will desire to put down a Motion in regard to it.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Before the discussion takes place will it be necessary to issue, as was issued last June, a revised Budget, or can we have some more information as to the expenditure caused by the commitments of the Government in Mesopotamia and elsewhere?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall discuss that before the time comes with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Sir G. COLLINS: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that he will be able to give a day next week?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, we cannot give a day next week. Probably the week after.

    GOLD STANDARD, RESTORATION.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of re-summoning the Cunliffe Committed and of requesting them to review their report of about two years ago; and whether, as the report was drawn up before the country had actually experienced the difficulties through which we are now passing, it might be advantageous that the committee themselves should reconsider their own findings so as to judge whether the experiences of the past two years suggest the adoption of methods till now untested, for example, among other expedients, using, as a temporary addition to our gold reserves, bills payable at maturity in gold countries, and/or a small proportion of the finest commercial bills in lieu of Government securities, in order to assist our return to an effective gold standard and a free gold market?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I do not think it would be desirable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. The final Report of the Committee was published less than a year ago, and the Committee then reaffirmed the conclusions reached in 1918. The general principles of the Committee's Report have, moreover, recently received the approval of the representatives of 39 nations assembled at Brussels for the Financial Conference of the League of Nations. As my hon. Friend is aware, the particular suggestion referred to in the last part of the question was carefully examined and rejected by the Cunliffe Committee.
    Mr. SAMUEL: In view of the effect of the unforeseen and extreme oscillations in the American and French exchange since the Committee sat, will the right hon. Gentleman himself authorise a small and cautious experiment with these two expedients of bills of exchange in order that we may leave no avenue

    2095
    unexplored by which we may approach a re-establishment of the gold standard?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not quite see how that can be done, and certainly, speaking on the spur of the moment, I am not prepared to attempt it.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what legislative enactment British officers serving in Mesopotamia and receiving Indian rates of pay are charged with British Income Tax, which is many times greater than Indian Income Tax; and whether British officers serving in India are liable to British or to Indian Income Tax?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I informed my hon. and learned Friend, in reply to his question of the 4th November on this subject, officers of the British Army, wherever serving, are assessable to British Income Tax at British rates upon their pay out of Imperial funds. For the relevant law on this matter I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the subjects of charge under Schedule E of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and in particular to the provisions of Rule 6 (e) and Rule 18 (2) applicable to that Schedule.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In framing the Budget next year will the right hon. Gentleman make provision for removing what appears to be a very serious hardship to British officers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot admit the assumption that underlies the question that it is a very serious hardship to a British officer to be taxed like any other British citizen.

    CIGARS (CLEARANCES FROM BOND).
    Mr. HURDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the quantities of cigars cleared from bond for the 10 months ended 31st October, 1920, as compared with the corresponding periods of 1913–19; and upon what proportion of those clearances has the 50 per cent,ad valorem duty been paid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will have the figures published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following are the figures referred to:
    The figures asked for in the first part of the question are as follow:—

    10 months ended 31st October.

    Quantity, lbs.

    1913

    1,025,000

    1914

    796,000

    1915

    817,000

    1916

    613,000

    1917

    261,000

    1918

    522,000

    1919

    811,000

    1920

    464,000

    The ad valorem duty has been paid on approximately 116,000 lbs.

    EMPIRE BANK.
    Mr. HURDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal submitted to the Chambers of Commerce Congress at Toronto by Mr. T. F. Darling, a director of the London Joint City and Midland Bank, supported by Sir Edmund Walker, president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, for the setting up of an Empire bank which would hold the balances of the 125 banks and kindred institutions in the Empire, and provide a new basis for the Empire's currency by means of commodity bills of exchange; and whether he will invite a few representatives of British and Overseas banking and business interests to advise him as to the feasibility of such a proposal?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I have given some considertaion to the scheme, but I think that my hon. Friend is mistaken in saying that Sir Edmund Walker supported it. If I found that such an inquiry as is suggested was generally desired in banking circles I should be ready to appoint a Committee for the purpose, but as far as I have ascertained, this is at present far from being the case.

    NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum has been sanctioned by the Treasury for the erection of a spirit room at the back of the Natural

    2097
    History Museum; and is he prepared, in view of the many calls on the taxpayer, to request the director of the museum to do without a spirit room for the present?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I understand the hon. and gallant Member's question to relate to the proposed new building for the accommodation of the specimens preserved in spirits forming part of the Natural History Museum. Provision was approved by Parliament in the current year's estimate (Class I Vote 6) for the expenditure of £10,000 on commencing this work. The matter was again considered by a Cabinet Committee during the summer with a view to seeing whether it was not possible to postpone it. It was decided that it should proceed. The existing accommodation is not only so inadequate as greatly to reduce the value of the Natural History Museum collections for the purposes of scientific study but also involves a grave risk of fire to the museum and adjoining buildings. The necessary building has already been delayed for several years, during which the position has got steadily worse as the collections accumulated. I fear it is really not practicable to postpone it further.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the housing of the spirits would cost more than £250,000.
    Mr. BALDWIN: My information is that the provision of this spirit room would cost £75,000.

    MAIL SERVICE, STORNOWAY.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the subsidy paid to Messrs McBrayne for carrying the mails between Kyle of Lochalsh and Stornoway is a separate contract for that special service or whether the payment is part of a general arrangement with the company for mail services to various parts of the West Coast of Scotland?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The service is between Kyle of Lochalsh and Stornoway is part of a general arrangement.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that if the service were loft to open competition it would pay for itself as it did for 40 years?
    Mr. BALDWIN: If it would pay for itself no one would be more pleased than I.
    Dr. MURRAY: You have not tried.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the settlement of the coal strike, he will now take steps to restore the daily steamer services between Stornoway and the mainland, which have been carried on for 40 years?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply to this question. The decision as to the subsidised steamer services to Stornoway during the winter months was arrived at before the coal strike, and is not affected by its settlement.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is there any reason why the Government, having doubled the postal and other charges applicable to that part of the country, as well as to other parts, should have reduced the steamer service there by 50 per cent, below the service we have had for the last 40 years?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I regret as much as anyone that it is not yet possible to go back to the service which was given before the War, but the subsidies are very heavy, and, in our opinion, as heavy as we feel we are entitled to charge at present. To give the service through the winter that the hon. Member requires would cost a great deal more money than we have allocated for the purpose.
    Dr. MURRAY: Could not the Government save a little of the money that has been squandered in Mesopotamia to help these people, who were in the War from the first week?
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 30,000 people in the Island, of Lewes who depend on this steamer?

    BRITISH FLOATING DEBT (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of our floating debt in the United States of America; and has it been reduced during the last 12 months?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The floating debt outstanding in the United States on the 17th of this month consisted of

    $

    3 months' Treasury Bills amounting to

    28,815,000

    12 months' sterling Treasury Bills with option to holder to receive payment in dollars at $4.765 to the £ amounting to

    28,590,000

    Making a total of

    $57,405,000

    A year ago the total was $150,914,000.

    UNIVERSITY TEACHERS' SUPER- ANNUATION.
    Lieut.-Colonel MORDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his atention has been drawn to the difficult position of superannuated university teachers who, under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, do not enjoy pension privileges accorded to teachers in primary and secondary schools; and whether he is prepared to make any concessions in this matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention was drawn to the question of the superannuation of university teachers by a deputation from the university authorities and the Association of University Teachers, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and I received on 17th June. I have undertaken to consider the possibility of proposing to Parliament a special non-recurrent grant next year to assist the universities in meeting the difficulty of dealing with senior members of their staffs who, by reason of the recent date of its introduction, derive little or no benefit from the Federated Superannuation Scheme.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ADAMSON: Would the Leader of the House tell us what business is to be taken next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall start with the Agriculture Bill, which, I hope, will be finished on Tuesday. Until we see how it progresses, I shall be obliged if my right hon. Friend would defer till Monday any question as to the business on Wednesday and Thursday.
Mr. DEVLIN: When will the right hon. Gentleman give a date for the discussion of the Irish question?
Mr. BONAR LAW: If it be generally desired, we shall try to do it next week. It must be by agreement. A discussion is far more useful to the House and the country than any desultory kind of talk.
Mr. ACLAND: Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the Third. Reading of the Agriculture Bill, supposing we finish the Report stage and Recommittal stage on Monday evening? Is it the decision to take the Third Reading on Tuesday if we finish the other stages only on Monday night?
Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely that the Agriculture Bill will be the first. Order on Monday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be the first Order, and, of course, whether we take-the Third Reading on Monday will depend on the time. If by any chance the previous stages are completed early, then we might do so.
Mr. ACLAND: That docs not leave any interval between Re-committal and Third Reading.
Mr. BONAR LAW: We intend to go right on until it is completed.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Sir M. DOCKRELL: Can I raise a point of Order now, Mr. Speaker, in reference to Question No. 33? In consequence of the uproar, it was impossible to hear the answer. It is a very important question for the part of Ireland I represent, and I would certainly like to know what the answer is.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry the hon. Member did not hear the reply.
Sir M. DOCKRELL: It was impossible owing to the uproar, and I have as good hearing as the next man.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow.
Mr. HOGGE: In reference to what occurred earlier in the day regarding a question of mine, I understand that there

2101
was some dislocation of the work of the Clerks at the Table, and that that prevented notice reaching me that the question was not to be allowed.
Mr. SPEAKER: I regret that the hon. Member was not told. It was owing to the absence, through illness, of some of the Clerks at the Table. The procedure is that whenever a question is handed in and not allowed, the Clerks at the Table inform an hon. Member. Owing entirely to the unfortunate incident I have mentioned, this was not done in this particular case.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Sir PAEK GOFF reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee Had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In dealing with a Bill of this kind the House not infrequently asks, as it is well entitled to do, two questions. The first is, whether there is a grievance to be remedied, and the second is, whether the remedy proposed is an appropriate remedy or is, at any rate, a step in the right direction. With regard to the first question, I apprehend that there can be no doubt at all, for as we stand upon the threshold of the winter months none of us can say that a problem more grave, more urgent, or more menacing than that of unemployment can be conceived.
  As dimensions unfortunately are still very large, and despite the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour—and we all know, if I may say so, how unremitting and whole-hearted they are—the fact remains that even at this moment there is a very large number of ex-service men who are still unemployed. Any Government would obviously be lacking in foresight and would be failing in its duty did it not endeavour to grapple with the problem from time to time. Such is the intention of this measure. It is not only a social and economic problem with which we have to deal. It goes much further than that. We have often heard it said that nothing one can do can fully repay the debt we owe to those ex-service men. It is not only trite but true, and surely when an opportunity presents itself of making at least a small payment to account of that debt then we ought to seize the opportunity with both hands. I submit to the House that such an opportunity is afforded to-day in connection with this measure. I do not think then that I need say more with regard to the evil which this measure is designed to alleviate.
  If there be a grievance which requires remedy, I next proceed to inquire whether the remedy provided in the Bill is a proper remedy or at least a step in the right direction. I cannot make it too
  2146
  clear to the House that this Bill docs not and could not profess to solve the problem of unemployment. On the other hand, I do claim that it is a sincere and honest attempt to make a contribution to the solution of that problem. What docs the Bill do? The Bill contains two operative provisions which I shall endeavour to explain as briefly as may be. The first provision enables local authorities and any appropriate Government Department to acquire and enter upon land compulsorily for the purpose of executing works of public utility with a view to finding immediate employment for those who are unemployed. If I am asked what are works of public utility, I would ask the House to be good enough to refer to the definition of these works which is contained in Clause 3, Sub-section (1) of the Bill which is now before the House. These works mean:
  "construction or improvement of roads or other means of transit, the widening or other improvements of waterways, the construction of sewers or waterworks, the reclamation or drainage of land and any work connected with the aforesaid works."
  Major-General SEELY: Does it include harbours and sea defence works? That does not appear. I presume it does.
  Mr. MUNRO: That is a legal question on which I should not like to give an answer straight away. I have read the provision, and the words are, "connected with the aforesaid works." I will look into it. I agree it is of great importance. These are the works, roughly speaking, included in the term "public utility." If I am asked what is the appropriate Government Department, I do not know that I can give an exhaustive answer, but I will give an illustrative answer. I should think that in the case of construction and improvement of roads, widening or improvement of waterways, the Ministry of Transport would be the appropriate Department. I have no doubt that if one were dealing with sewers and waterworks the Ministry of Health, and with the reclamation of land the Ministry of Agriculture would be the appropriate Government Department. The House will see that if there is any doubt or difficulty as to which is the appropriate, Government Department, then by Clause 3, Sub-section (2) of the Bill, the Treasury decides the matter. There are many precedents for follow-

  2147
  ing that course. The Bill then enables public authorities and the appropriate Government Departments to enter compulsorily on land for the purposes I have defined. Then an important question arises. How is the Government Department or the local authority to acquire or enter on possession of the land which is required? The scheme of the Bill is perfectly simple. It is that powers corresponding to those which are enjoyed by the Ministry of Health and which enable the Ministry of Health to enter by compulsion upon land required for housing are conferred by this Bill upon the appropriate Government Department and upon local authorities throughout the land. I do not mean to detain the House by narrating to the House what that procedure is. It is very familiar to every hon. Member in connection with the Housing Bill passed in 1919 That procedure according to my information has been found to work exceedingly well in practice, to function with a reasonable amount of speed and to secure the end desired expeditiously and well.
  May I make three observations before I leave this Clause? The first is that powers of compulsion are conferred by this Bill, though I do not by any means suggest that it will be necessary on all occasions to exercise these powers. Practice has taught all of us that if you possess the power of compulsion you may very often be excused from the necessity of using it. The great thing is to possess it. The fact that this power of compulsion is conferred upon the appropriate Government Department and local authorities will result, I hope, in many arrangements being made voluntarily for entering upon the land without the necessity for using this power. But that that power should be conferred is very obvious. If it was necessary to confer that power on the Ministry of Health to deal with the urgent question of housing I should have thought it was even more necessary to confer that power upon Government Departments and local authorities which are called upon to deal with the even more urgent question of unemployment among ex-service men. The vital point with regard to this Clause is that it enables the public department or the local authority to get upon the land at once without any delay. That is the purpose of this Bill. There is no appreci-
  2148
  able delay in getting on the land, and compensation and all further arrangements can be made at a later stage. The Clause is framed to enable the local authority to secure the land and to get the work put into operation on the land at the earliest possible moment.
  It would be a mistake to suppose that we have to wait for the Royal Assent to this Bill in order to start all the operations which are contemplated by it. I will take an example from the Ministry of Transport, and my hon. Friend beside me will correct me if I am wrong. I think I am right in saying that there are schemes, road schemes, which the Ministry of Transport has in hand which it has difficulty in carrying out for the simple reason that you want to sec where you will be at the end of the road as well as at the beginning. Under existing circumstances the Ministry of Transport has found on occasion that there are difficulties ahead of it in regard to the land which it would like to secure in order to complete the roads, but which under existing circumstances cannot be secured expeditiously. These schemes are already in being. I hope the Royal Assent will be given to this Bill at an early date. The Ministry of Transport will then be enabled to carry out and complete these schemes with an expedition which is of importance under existing conditions to-day.
  The House will notice that there are two safeguards to the first Clause. It is no doubt a strong Clause. The first of these is that the Clause shall not be put into operation except after a certificate has been granted by the Minister of Labour to the effect that having regard to the exceptional amount of unemployment existing in any area it is desirable that it should be put into operation. The second is to be found in Clause 1, paragraph (b), that
  "no order authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose shall be made under any enactment ns applied by this Section, unless fin order authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land for that purpose could have been made under some enactment in force at the commencement of this Act."
  That means that the power to acquire land is not extended by this Bill. What this Bill is intended to secure and will secure is that operations will be facilitated and very much greater expedition will be secured. That is the

  2149
  purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the paragraph I have quoted is to make clear that we are not proposing to confer upon the Ministry of Health or any Government Department or any local authority new powers to acquire land, but to ensure that that land shall be secured expeditiously in order to cope with a problem which is exceedingly urgent. That is the first of the two proposals to which I have referred, and I do not propose to say anything further with regard to it.
  There is another exceedingly important provision contained in the second Clause, which provides that local authorities may contribute to works of public utility which are being executed outside their own area, and further, that two local authorities may combine in the execution of these works upon terms owhich may be adjusted between them. At present a local authority has no power, as I understand, to contribute to the cost of relief works which may be proceeding in any other local authority's area. Even though unemployment may be rife in area A, the authority in that area has no power to contribute to relief works which would relieve unemployment, if they are in area B. This will enable area A to contribute to relief works in area B, subject to the safeguard that a decision to that effect must receive the approval of the Ministry of Health in England and the Secretary for Scotland and the Board of Health in Scotland. The House will observe it is a permissive Clause, and empowers the local authority to take that course with the authority and confirmation of the Ministry of Health.
  Let me give an illustration. I am told, that in the case of the London County Council, which is most willing, I understand, to proceed with works of this kind, a very large number of the works they propose to assist lie outside the County of London, and without some provision like this it would be impossible for them to attain that object. I therefore suggest to the House that the Clause is under the circumstances a reasonable one, seeing it is discretional and subject to the approval of the Ministry of Health. The safeguards there I should have thought were ample. No doubt the Clause may involve an increase in the local rates, but surely we are
  2150
  entirely outside the ambit of discussions we have recently had in this House with regard to the soaring rates, when we are discussing a question of this kind.
  Mr. SEXTON: Only at election times.
  Mr. MUNRO: Whether at election times or not, no ratepayer I should think would grudge a rate required to provide employment for ex-service men. Altogether apart from that, may I put it that this is a good investment, even assuming that the rate is raised. The reason I say that is that this rate will relieve the taxpayer of what he might otherwise be called upon to pay in unemployment doles which these unemployed men would be drawing in the area in which they are. More than that, it would relieve the local Poor Law Guardians from the liability which they now incur to provide for those who are destitute and out of work. If I may add this, I would say further: it will relieve the minds of those men who are keen for work and cannot get it, and who are haunted by day and night by the spectre of unemployment. If it relieves the Exchequer, the ratepayers, and the minds of those men to whom we owe so much, then I do venture to say that this proposal is a good investment and may be so regarded with safety by the House of Commons.
  Mr. WATERSON: May I ask one question. Is it the intention of the Government to recommend the Ministry of Labour to pay what it would have to pay if the man was out of employment, and to hand the 15s. over to the local authorities to assist the rates?
  Mr. MUNRO: I should not like to answer that question without consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. But I will see that the question is borne in mind, for it is a very important question. This is quite a simple measure, and I venture to think that it will meet the case to some extent, although it does not profess to solve the problem of unemployment. Some hon. Members may think it goes too far. On the other hand others may think it does not go far enough. I venture to think that the Bill is an honest endeavour to steer a middle course between the extremes on both sides, and, as such, I venture to commend it to the House of Commons for Second Reading.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is not quite clear in the Bill, and, therefore, may I ask: Is it contemplated to give any sort of Treasury assistance to these local authorities under the Bill?
  Mr. MUNRO: Yes, Sir. That, of course, does not appear in the Bill, but my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Neal), representing the Ministry of Transport, tells me that the Ministry is contributing 50 per cent, of the expense of the local authorities on arterial roads.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend has said that the problem with which the country is confronted at the present moment, in the matter of unemployment as it now exists, and as it shortly will be, is a matter very grave and very urgent. I only just say in passing that the unemployment we have and what unemployment we may have is by no means dissociated from the policy pursued at home and abroad by His Majesty's Government, If we were doing, as we might well be doing, sound and proper business with Russia and other countries, and the policy of the Government in regard to extravagance was at once reversed, the necessity for this Bill would not be anything like the proportion it is. Unfortunately, we have to take the consequences of these things as they stand. I agree it is necessary to pass some such measure as this. I only hope that the point put by my right hon. and gallant Friend (Major-General Seely) will be noted, and that the definition of works of public utility will receive the proper consideration of the Government, because my right hon. and gallant Friend reminds me the Government seem to have forgotten the fact that this country is an island, and that the works to be undertaken need by no means be confined to inland portions of the country. The main purpose of the Bill will no doubt be efficiently debated by other speakers on both sides of the House. I conceive it to be my duty to invite the House to pay careeful attention to this, which is one of the very worst examples that oven this Government has yet produced of legislation by reference.
  This matter must be one of instant and most careful consideration by nearly all the local authorities in the country. There is no need at all, I suggest, that this should be unduly hurried in the matter of days. There has been ample time, and
  2152
  there is now ample time for a measure to be laid before the House dealing with the complicated series of a most important problem, in a Bill which is not drawn in the way of this Bill—as I am going to indicate to the House—but is drawn in a manner which will convey on the face of it to any intelligent layman who has had anything to do with local matters, or public affairs, a fair idea of what the Bill means. May I ask the attention of the House for a moment in looking at Clause 1. Very likely many hon. Members have not paid close attention to it as it stands. What Clause 1 says is:
  "Subject as hereinafter provided the enactments relating to the compulsory acquisition of land for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, by the Minister of Health and local authorities and the enactments relating to entering on land acquired for those purposes shall apply to the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of works of public utility."
  What are these enactments? I have had an opportunity of looking them up. There are three of them. There is the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, and the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919. They follow one after the other. With very great care and particularity they were examined in Committee upstairs and on Report stage in this, House. The most important of these enactments is the Act of 1919. My right hon. Friend has dealt with Section 10 of that Act. It deals with the power of entry upon land—a very necessary power which will come in this Act. But Section 11 also must come into this Act. Section 11 winds up in this way:
  "(4) The Amendments to the said schedule—"
  That is in the Act of 1890—
  "effected by this Act shall apply to that schedule—"
  Therefore the Act of 1919 shall apply to that schedule of 1890
  "as originally enacted but not as applied by any other enactment."
  meaning thereby, that it should be most carefully safeguarded, and that the powers under Section 11 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919, shall not be applied to any other object without the most careful consideration as to how and in what manner it should be applied. The House, therefore, will see—of which it has had little intimation—the com-

  2153
  plicated body of statutory mechanism to which I have referred the wording here. There is no schedule to this Bill. There is on indication at all to Members of this House of the Acts and what parts of them apply and what are repealed, if any. It is perfectly clear that part of the Amendment of the law which the House will enact, and which ought to have been in a schedule, is repealed by Subsection (4) of Section 11 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, to which I have just referred. It is all very complicated, and will need very careful study. The protest has been raised in the House on more than one occasion that thin is not the way in which legislation should be laid before this House at all. It is impossible for anybody who does not apply himself with concentration, legal knowledge, and public experience, to undertsand what is really meant. I suggest that that is not fair to the House of Commons or to any party.
  Acts of Parliament should be drawn in such a way that on the very face of them any person of average intelligence who applied himself to them could, at any rate, understand the drift of what is meant. I will not put it higher. But I defy anyone looking at the Clause to which I have endeavoured to direct the attention of the Committee to get in any way near what will be the real operation of it. Here is another most important matter to bring before the House of Commons. If hon. Members will look they will see that these enactments to which I have referred in Clause 1 are to be so incorporated as if they were herein re-enacted, which—and I do ask the attention of the House to these words—"the necessary adaptations and modifications and with the substitution of the appropriate Government Department," and so on. "With the necessary adaptations and modifications." What does that mean? That these Acts of Parliament to which this Clause refers are to be brought into operation behind this Bill! What are the necessary modifications and adaptations? Who is going to make them? Not this House. We are going to pass the Bill, and the powers that are going to make the adaptations and modifications are in the hands of the Government Departments. They are taking away from us the power to adapt this Act of Parliament; the House is not doing it. If we want to alter an Act of Parlia-
  2154
  ment this is the place to do it; not in the Government Departments. I say again that this is the worst example of legislation by reference, and it is, I believe, or so it seems to me, part of a deliberate attempt of the executive, and the Departments linked up, to take away power from Parliament. Over and over again we have brought before us Bills which are going to be brought into operation by rules and orders, on which we have the very scantiest parliamentary opportunity of discussion. I take this parliamentary opportunity of lodging this further protest of the strongest kind I can make. I agree that something has got to be done, but the Government have had plenty of time to think it out and there is time now. I hope when the Committee takes up this matter in detail it will try and get this Clause re-drawn in such a way that the normal man, not the expert lawyer, can have some chance of understanding what the particular legislation is. At the risk of wearying the Committee I must, give another instance. My right hon. Friend refers to Sub-clause (b):
  "(b) no order authorising the compulsory acquisition of any land for any purpose shall be made under any enactment as applied by this Section unless an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land for that purpose could have been made under "some enactment in force at the commencement of this Act."
  If we were at war it would be a different thing. I had the privilege during the War of being associated in the work of the Chair in a minor capacity. At that time it was very necessary to have swift legislation, but as far as I can remember there was nothing in the legislation of that time comparable to this. I do hope that the Committee will take some precautions to protect the power of Parliament over legislation laid before it by the Executive at the present moment.
  A rather smaller point than the one with which I have been dealing is that the work is to be carried on by substituting "the appropriate Government Department" for the Ministry of Health. You start with the generic term, "Minister of Health," but if he does not happen to be the right one then "the appropriate Government Department." The House really ought to know whither it is going and what are the Government Departments likely to be involved.
  Sir H. CRAIK: There are so many they cannot name them.
  Mr. J. JONES: Leave it to the universities.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I come to Clause 2. I had not had the opportunity to study it with such care as I should have done, but it occurred to me in reading the Clause about an hour ago—I confess for the first time—that there are some financial obligations of very large dimensions which the State is undertaking, and the House ought to know what the cost is likely to be. None of us in this House would grudge the necessary money for dealing with a matter of the most vital urgency, but we ought to know to what we are committing ourselves. This is one of the real duties of the House of Commons. I am certain hon. Members on that side of the House do not dissociate themselves from that doctrine. Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of what the financial obligations lie behind the immense powers of Clause 2? The whole Bill confers immense sweeping powers, and the House is entitled to know under what existing Acts of Parliament the Government asks the House to give it those powers. I hope the House will insist that when the Bill emerges from the Committee it shall be something fairly readable to the ordinary expert, not a trained lawyer on a particular topic. But although it seems futile, I make my protest against this real attack on the power of the House of Commons over legislation which is constantly going on. Unless we re-assert our power and carry out our duties, I say that for Parliament to invest Departments with such bureaucratic powers will only add to the existing numbers of wholly unnecessary and expensive Government Departments.
  Sir HENRY HARRIS: I think the all-important question before us is to get the necessary powers for enabling the unemployed to be employed. I have been asked by the London County Council to raise what I think is the very practical point that the powers contained in this Bill are not sufficiently expeditious, and that unless more expeditious powers can be provided it will not be possible for the London County Council to begin its work on arterial roads untl after Christmas. As far as the London County Council is
  2156
  concerned the position is this. They have approved a considerable number of schemes and are only waiting for the necessary legislation to begin. The Special Committee on unemployment of that body passed the following Resolution, to-day:
  "On the faith of undertakings given by the Government to promote legislation to secure the prompt acquisition of the necessary land, the Council undertake to assist the Government in carrying out its schemes to provide employment by the construction of arterial roads, but the Bill as introduced completely fails to achieve this object, and unless altered radically will render nugatory the Council's desire to proceed with the work in question."
  That, I think, is a strong Resolution—one which must receive the urgent consideration of the House. When one comes to the procedure under this Bill, which is procedure under the Housing Act, one certainly sees that a very considerable time must elapse before the Council can get possession of any of the land necessary for the scheme, and I understand that it requires these powers in connection with all its schemes. I have here a description of the procedure which is to begone through under this Bill, and it certainly involves a very considerable expenditure of time. In one very simple case in connection with the housing scheme it took 11 or 12 weeks before the Council was in a position to get possession of the land. I think the Government ought to try to devise some simple emergency powers to deal with what is really a serious emergency. Then we should get rid of all this difficulty about legislation by reference, and I hope before the Bill gets to the Committee stage the Government will consider whether they cannot devise some more simple powers which will enable bodies like the London County Council to get in possession of the land and begin the necessary work. At any rate, I hope it will be clearly understood that there is no delay on the part of the London County Council. The work cannot begin until the Government have provided the necessary legislation, and I hope there will be more expeditious procedure than is contained in this Bill.
  5.0 P.M.
  Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: I am going to support this Bill. I believe, in view of the the large amount of unemployment, it should not be held up as has been suggested. This Bill is another stop-gap measure of which we have had too many this Session, and I deprecate it for that

  2157
  reason. To-day the labour of every working man and woman should be an asset to this country. This Bill proposes to find employment of a non-productive character, employment that is not going to bring the wealth that is so needed at the present time. We have in this country to depend on the profits of commerce and industry to meet our great debt incurred during the War, and I think that this House should consider very seriously the contributory causes which have made necessary such a Bill as this. I think we must consider in the first place the action of the Treasury, which has had a direct bearing in causing unemployment—I refer to the imposition of the Excess Profits Duty tax. This tax has done more to cause unemployment than any tax that has ever been put on the industry of this country. I believe that originally the Chancellor of the Exchequer was against the tax, but he changed his mind. I am not complaining that he should change his mind, but I regret that when he found out that he had made a mistake the second time he did not have a little more courage and change his mind again. This tax has had the effect of restricting instead of encouraging production in this country. It has prevented capital going into enterprise. The industrial interests of the country have not expanded. They would not take the risks abroad that in ordinary conditions they would take, because the Government took most of the profits and they had to face all the loss. The result has been that production has decreased. It has had an even worse effect than that. It has caused great extravagance in industry. It has hit at the basic principle that is so essential to the success of all industry, and that is economy, which is just as important to the employer as to the employed. Firms have not insisted on the output of their employés as they would have done under normal conditions, because they have had no encouragement to do so, as their increased profits have gone to the Government. That has established a very serious principle. It is impossible for many of our manufacturers to quote fixed prices for goods delivered abroad, with the result that foreign firms with fixed prices have been able to capture the world's markets. Another contributing cause of unemployment is the continual threat of dear
  2158
  money. Everyone in commercial life knows the stifling effect on trade and commerce that dear money has. We have to-day a Bank Rate of 7 per cent., and threats of an increase. I submit that this is an artificial rate, and money is being freely loaned in Lombard Street at 5½per cent. The result is that every manufacturer and trader is afraid to extend his credit, and it is also forcing well-established industrial firms to pay exorbitant rates for their money. Worse than that, other firms have been unable to obtain money at any rate. It seems to me that the Treasury officials, who live in watertight compartments, and, like moles, cannot see outside, apparently, only consider one thing, and that is how they are going to get so much revenue and what they have to pay out. They never consider for a moment how the money is to be earned from which they get their taxes. Until we get a banker or a financier at the head of the Treasury, a Chancellor of the Exchequer who understands industrial conditions, I am afraid we shall continue to have unemployment Bills in this country. American trade is encouraged and assisted in every way. Only a few weeks ago in New York, a billion dollar fund was provided for the purpose of financing American export trade, and I believe that within the last, two years over three and a half billion dollars have been provided in this way for American foreign trade. I wonder if this House or the country realises the fact that American foreign trade has increased from 2 billion dollars in 1913 to probably 7 billions this year.
  While every other country has been supporting and assisting their industries in every way, the Treasury here by their policy are closing down the works of this country and forcing this House to pass an Unemployment Bill to take care of those who otherwise would be employed on work that would be bringing wealth into the country.
  Another thing which, I think, has a great effect on unemployment in this country is the high transport rates. I leave railway rates to other hon. Members who have more experience in railway matters. But there is one point on which I can speak with some authority, and that is water transport and harbours and harbour equipment, which are sending up the

  2159
  cost of raw materials so much that many works have had to close down, and this has caused unemployment. In the leading ports of this country the average discharge per charter party is 500 tons per day. Last summer one of our Canadian ships discharged 13,800 tons of ore in 2¾ hours, and loaded in 23 minutes, yet the other day on the Clyde the best discharge of iron ore was 500 tons a day. The ships coming into our ports are held up for days and weeks at a time, with the result that the cost of freight is doubled and trebled, so that the food of the country is costing that much more, and higher wages must be paid, because you cannot reduce wages until you reduce the cost of living, and the raw material for our manufactories is costing so much that it makes it impossible for many of our industries to compete for foreign trade. Steps, therefore, should be taken at once by the Government to inquire into our harbours, because our ports at the present time are a disgrace to the nation. Take, as an example of the position of unemployment to-day, the iron and steel trade. In 1870 this country had the supremacy of the world in this great basic industry. We produced that year over 286,000 tons, against America's 68,000 tons. What were the figures last year? The United States produced something like 42,000,000 tons. Germany the year before the War produced over 19,000,000 tons, and the output of this country last year was only about 8,000,000 tons. To-day we are not able, owing to the cost of our raw material, to make iron or steel at a price at which we can compete against other countries. Our manufacturers are willing to do it at a loss, to keep the works going. At the same time, we have within our own Empire the greatest deposits of ore in the world, and all the natural resources necessary, provided we instal proper facilities at our ports so that those resources can be brought to this country at a nominal figure. If that is done, I am certain it will have a great effect upon unemployment.
  Then the control which is exercised by the Government of so many commodities has had an effect in making necessary the introduction of this Bill. If the Treasury question, the question of transport and the question of control, were looked into by the Government, and if my hon.
  2160
  Friends on the Labour Benches would use their influence with their unions, it would be a great advantage. I personally have a great belief in the British working man. I believe in his stability, his loyalty, and his skill. Labour has certain members and officials in its ranks who talk a lot, but it is usually the empty cans that make the most noise, and I believe the great bulk of Labour is sound and loyal and able to produce. But Labour understands when its masters understand their business, and when the Government have control of so many businesses they know-that the Government does not know its business. If the Labour unions will relax their rules in connection with ex-service men, and if they know serious efforts are made by the Government and employers, they will also do their share, and will realise that the only economical system in the world is payment by results. Manufacturers in this country to-day, I am sure, are willing to play the game with Labour, and I believe Labour will play the game with them. Therefore, given a banker or a financial man at the head of the Treasury, given Labour making a fair deal with the employer, with the great natural resources of the British Empire, and with control abolished, I am quite certain we will not have again to consider an Unemployment Bill in this House. I would earnestly beg the Government to consider the words which Lord Macaulay uttered in 1830:
  "Our rulers will host promote the interest of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its own most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment; by preserving peace, by protecting property, by diminishing the price of law and by observing the strictest economy in every Department of the State. Let our rulers do this; the people will assuredly do the rest."
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I be allowed to express the pleasure of this side of the House in seeing the Secretary for Scotland in charge of a Government Bill, although I dare say we all regret, from our particular point of view, that it is not a stronger measure which he is promoting at the present time? On the broad facts of unemployment, I think I state the position accurately when I say that, unfortunately, the numbers of unemployed are increasing in the skilled unions, that there is a considerable amount of unemployment among un-

  2161
  skilled classes, and that, unhappily, a very fair proportion of the 3,000,000 women who entered industry during the War are finding it very hard to obtain an opportunity to earn their living at the present time. These are the facts which confront us in the labour situation. But I personally do not take a gloomy view. I think the arrears of work everywhere are so considerable, and the possibilities of this country are so great, that if only we properly organise our forces, build up our industries, give all sections of the community a fair chance, we can provide a place on remunerative lines for every man, woman, and young person. If that is the basis of our claim, the necessary basis of optimism, in dealing with unemployment, the next question to ask is whether a Bill of this kind is likely to help the solution of the difficulty, or merely to hinder it.
  Let me say at once—I may be old-fashioned economically in these ideas—but I have very great hesitation indeed about any Bill which carries on its face the expression "Relief Works." We are all perfectly familiar with the fact that in nine cases out of ten, in the past, relief work has had very little relation to ordinary economic practice of the right kind. They have been stop-gap enterprises in some cases, not necessary to the community in which they were undertaken, and, in many cases, merely adopted in order to provide an excuse for paying certain doles—nothing more than that—to men and women who happened to be out of an occupation for the time being. This Bill proposes easier acquisition of land for public purposes, and certain stops in order that we may more readily embark upon works of public utility, and I think it is only fair to admit that, while we are going to support the Bill, with perhaps a very large measure of criticism, in so far as these works may be necessary and required by the community, perhaps the economic error of this Bill is not so pronounced and so plain as the economic error of many of its predecessors.
  That does not rid me of the other difficulty. I am still obliged to ask whether it is necessary or desirable to introduce a Bill which is going to enable us to take certain stops while, at the same time, we know that the local authorities have vast arrears of work to be overtaken. If we require to simplify the procedure regarding the acquisition of land, by all
  2162
  means do it, and let us take every possible step we can to bring people into association with the raw materials. Let us look at the situation to-day in the average urban or rural authority. There is a vast accumulation of work urgently necessary and of an economic character which requires to be done. The question of roads is mentioned in connection with this Bill. We have town planning schemes under the Housing and Town Planning Act, in which areas have been marked out by the local authorities and in which a great deal of work requires to be done in reconstruction, but we cannot secure the approval of those schemes to enable us to proceed with the work, because there is terrible delay by the public Departments. That is one of the difficulties which surely could be removed, and which, if it had been removed, would have enabled a great deal of work to be undertaken in the average locality, and which would have avoided the necessity for Bills which are not strictly economic in their character. Let me make it plain that it is never to the advantage of labour in this or, indeed, in any other country to support non-economic or uneconomic schemes. After all, they fall with terrible emphasis on the masses of the people, and the great body of the people have to pay for the mischievous enterprise which, in many oases, has been undertaken. I am, therefore, all in favour of trying to give the local authorities a fair chance to overtake work which they must overtake, rather than to embark upon schemes or relief work in this or any other measure.
  In the second place we know perfectly well, especially in the large urban areas, that a very large amount of work remains to be overtaken and which is delayed by a few causes. There are certain difficulties regarding labour, and I personally would willingly go a long way to remove them. There are many difficulties regarding high prices which have placed, temporarily, raw materials beyond the reach of local authorities. From investigations it is abundantly clear that prices have been artificially raised against local authorities in many parts of the country simply because they were local authorities, and because they could not enter the market under those conditions of secrecy as regards bargaining open to private individuals. I think it is the duty of the Government to try to do

  2163
  all in its power to bring down the prices of the raw material, whether in housing or in other enterprises, upon which the local authorities depend. I have no hesitation in saying from the industrial investigations made in recent times that if the local authorities got a fair chance to do the arrears of work which must be done there would be no necessity for this Bill, with the exception perhaps of the provision making land more accessible. I submit that will be the better and more economic course for all concerned.
  I do not want to conclude without making one practical suggestion to the Government in dealing with unemployment. We know that they have not handled this situation properly from almost any point of view. The most tragic feature beyond all question is the unemployment of ex-Service men and women because of the sacrifices they have made and of the disablements which in many cases they have incurred. But unemployment spreads beyond them, and I am thinking of all classes in the community. As a plain criticism of the Government policy I would ask, have they presented up to the present time any comprehensive scheme. Does anybody suggest that there is not a tremendous volume of work to be done in Europe, if only we went about it in the proper way. Let me give one or two illustrations. It was pointed out recently in in economic review that Russia alone, if she were again on her legs under some stable Government, could absorb probably not less than £100,000,000 worth of machinery. Amongst the Eastern Powers of Europe there is a very great shortage of raw material, and in Western Europe in the areas recovering from the devastation of the War, they are literally shrieking for many of these commodities which this country can produce, and that is being hindered by a certain failure in response on our part. I do not think personally you can deal with unemployment on broad general principles. I think it would have been far better for the Government to have taken industry by industry and to find out if possible the extent of the demand in any particular industry, and then ascertain, equally definitely, the causes which are hindering our efforts to meet that. Take the great sphere of machinery, engineering and the output of those commodities which are
  2164
  necessary in the manufacturing enterprises of this and other countries and there is no doubt that a very large market lies at our hands in Europe. If it is hindered by high policy, then let high policy be remedied. If it is hindered by causes of capital and labour in this country, let us face them and find a solution.
  If the Government had taken industry by industry on those lines I have no hesitation at all in saying that they could have absorbed all the unemployed quite easily, and the chances are that we might be confronted in this period of post-war shortage with something like the difficulty of obtaining labour, which was true of at least part of our War experience. These reasons lead me to the conclusion that we are only tinkering with unemployment in Bills of this kind. Personally I intend to support this Bill for one plain and simple reason, which I dare say is the reason why the great majority of Members support it, I am going to support it because I shall support anything which will provide work and will help to give people employment and keep them away from starvation and from doles and all manner of mischievous enterprises of that kind. I sincerely trust, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make a note of this, that this Bill is not going to be used for non-economic schemes, which are going to hinder and delay the local authorities in legitimate enterprises, and which, so far from contributing to the solution of the difficulty, are only going to aggravate it.
  Major-General SEELY: I tried to shorten discussion on this Bill by asking the Secretary for Scotland why it was that the most urgent of all the arrears of work was omitted from this Bill, namely, all those arrears of work connected with, the sea by which alone we live. Had he said that it was included I should have been surprised, or had he given me any clear indication that it would, I would not detain the House. I think what has probably happened is this, and I shall be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman or by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Transport if I am wrong, that in attempting to legislate in a short Bill by reference you have got so tangled up that you cannot do the very thing which is most urgently required. What we want to do is to make up the arrears

  2165
  of work, to which my hon. Friend has just referred in his very able speech, and what we want to avoid is doing relief works, of which there are many remnants still in existence and which do no good to anybody and bring no revenue to the Exchequer or to the local authority, and which are monuments of folly for the days to come. We want to make up the arrears of work. Where are those arrears most required? Those arrears are to be found all round our coast. It is quite true, as the Prime Minister told us, that we must endeavour to grow more wheat, but the fact remains that we live by the sea and that four-fifths of our imports come over the sea, and everything we can do to facilitate them is worth doing. Every harbour in our country wants dredging, and all round our coasts there are wrecks which impede navigation. In a channel I know very well there are two wrecks in the outer fairway and two in the inner fairway, and that is one of the most important channels in the world. There is not a single part of our coasts where the sea defences have not been neglected owing to the War, and yet under this Bill this most obvious and urgent thing which everyone realises is not included.
  Clause 3 says, "the expression 'work of public utility' means the construction or improvement of roads or other means of transit." I fear that sea transit would not be included in that. Then we have "the widening or other improvement of waterways," and I fear that would refer only to inland waterways or, at any rate, inner harbours. There is also mention of "the construction of sewers or waterworks, the reclamation or drainage of land, and any work connected with any of the aforesaid works." I think we must go a little further to find out the reason for this. The local authority is to have power to spend money together with the appropriate Government Department. I fear that the local authorities who deal with our sea defences and harbours and main waterways are not included in the local authorities as meant, and as would be understood, by the drafting of this Bill. I submit that the matter goes further than the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), who said that this is a bad example of legislation by reference. It is that of course, but I believe that in order to shorten your Bill and legislate by reference you have ex-
  2166
  cluded the most vital and important of the works which require to be done in order to get this country fully going again. I would urgently ask the Secretary for Scotland to take all this into consideration. I am quite sure that the whole House will agree that if we are to mitigate unemployment and not do foolish things, but only those which are necessary, we must not exclude the most vital of our needs, such as the repairing of our harbours, sea communications, external waterways, and the deepening and straightening of our channels. If these things cannot be done under this Bill then I ask the right hon. Gentleman to introduce such Amendments as will enable the authorities to utilise the surplus labour, which it is feared there will be during the coming months, in this most vital of all our needs.
  My hon. Friend (Mr. W. Graham) said he himself would be glad to co-operate in any way in securing that all who want work shall have it. We are told this Bill is to enable ex-service men to obtain employment, and this has been described as the most tragic part of unemployment. It is, however, idle to be blind to the fact that in many cases where work is to be done, even after consultations between trade unionists and the Minister of Labour, the very men who are asked to help are precluded by trade union rules. By every post I received in my official capacity in connection with a position I hold in the Isle of Wight, letters from public authorities, and individual letters pointing out the case of men who want to work, who are on good terms with their fellow men, but who are procluded by the trade union rules. In all that correspondence I do not see the least trace of bitterness or hostility on the part of trade unionists, but the fact is they are simply tied up by their own rules, although they are anxious to help in this matter. If we are going to start works of public utility, may I plead that there should be a frank consultation between the Ministers responsible and the trade union officials, so that these ex-service men shall not be excluded by obsolete trade union rules. With these few remarks I earnestly beg the Secretary for Scotland to make some effort to deal with this most urgent problem.
  Captain ELLIOT: In connection with this matter I desire to mention one or two points of the greatest importance.

  2167
  I have much sympathy with what has been said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) in his well-informed speech, especially where he protested, in the name of the labouring classes, against any tendency to spend money upon unproductive work. In this Bill we are setting out on a programme of unproductive work, and it seems to me that we run the gravest risk not of mitigating unemployment, but of increasing it. For every pound taken out of the pocket of the private individual in order to put it into unproductive schemes, you cause 30s. worth of unemployment, and you enter upon a vicious circle. I was astonished at the mild reception this Bill has received, when one remembers the vigorous attacks made upon a previous Bill of this character. I do not wish to bring down the thunders of the Conservative revolters upon the head of the Secretary for Scotland, but I am astonished that he has escaped attacks so long from those hon. Members. After all there are productive things that are urgently needed in this country which we desire to possess here and now. I have looked up the work of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland to see what it was he had been asking for recently, and I find that in the House of Commons on the 26th October in reply to a question, he said:
  "There are 32,000 men necessary to complete in a year the 16,000 houses for the tenders which have been approved."
  That is in Scotland alone. Therefore if the right hon. Gentleman could get ahead with his housing scheme he could employ 32,000 men. I looked to see what he wanted to got ahead with this work, and I find that on the 2nd October, 1920, he said that he was not getting enough cement; he was getting it at the rate of from 300 to 400 tons per week. That is enough for some 2,500 houses, but that is a very great deal short of the number required to employ 32,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the output of bricks was sufficient for the erection of 3,000 houses in a year, but that is lamentably insufficient for the needs of Scotland. Here is something of which we are in urgent need. Bricks could be put to immediate productive use in the building of houses for the people, and this would reduce expenditure and make labour mobile, because at present it is held up owing to this shortage of hous-
  2168
  ing accommodation. In place of this, however, we have a proposal to spend money upon roads, the reclamation and drainage of land, and such things, it seems incredible to reflect that at the moment when we are proposing to take the labour of the people of Great Britain and use it on unproductive employment we are at the same time being urged to shut down the building of factories because the bricks are wanted for housing. It would be more sensible that the building of factories should be carried on with the utmost speed, and if there is a shortage of bricks, let us make bricks. Why make roads which nobody wants instead of bricks, for which everybody is clamouring. [HON. MEMBERS:"State Socialism!"] Could there be any worse state of State Socialism than using the labour of the people upon work which they do not want to do, which they have not been trained to do, and which will be useless when it is done. Surely that is the worst form of Socialism you could conceive.
  If we could produce things which are wanted by the public, that would be very much better than producing things which are not wanted. There is a very great shortage of building material in the country. I know the Labour party have a simple solution; they say that you should erect State and municipal brick works. That, however, would take a long time. It would take a year or two before those brick works could enter into production, but surely it would not be impossible to get ahead with some constructive scheme for increasing the brick and cement production of this country by increasing the output of existing factories. If local authorities are to be empowered to borrow money for the purpose of making these roads which are enormously expensive and often perfectly useless, why could not this money be used for producing building materials? Some of the roads constructed in Scotland on this principle are now growing grass. At this very moment the shortage of building material is so great that we are proposing to buy cement from Belgium and bricks from Denmark and Denmark is not an Ally but a neutral country. Therefore we are using the taxpayers' money to dump foreign produce into this country at a time when it is being proposed to employ labour on works of public utility such as the construction of sewers, waterworks, the re-

  2169
  clamation and drainage of land. At a time when you have this shortage, which is so severe and heavy, we are actually proposing to go not even to our Allies but to neutral countries, and use the British taxpayers' money to dump goods here.
  I think it would be worth while to utilise some of the credit under this Bill, and some of the financial and labour support proposed under this Bill, to help works of real public utility such as works for the making of bricks. This is not a temporary shortage of bricks, they will be needed in increasing numbers for years to come. If we took every brick made in Scotland, not allowing one for the building of factories or repairs, or any of the multitudinous purposes for which they are needed beyond the erection of houses, we could only build 6,000 houses a year from bricks made in Scotland. There are 900,000 houses in Scotland, and allowing a liberal life of 100 years for a house, that is a wastage of 9,000 houses a year. If we take every brick we make in Scotland, and use them for building houses, we shall still be wasting at the rate of 3,000 houses a year. In spite of this state of things, we propose to use labour and credit, getting people to make roads and doing unnecessary relief work, thus wasting the greatest asset we have in the country, that is the bone, muscle and brain of the people.
  It can scarcely be believed that we are suggesting a programme of works of public utility at a time such as this, when the greatest need of the country is houses, and yet these works of public utility do not include either brick works or cement works. It may be said that we in Scotland must buy our bricks from England, but if you use every brick made in England for houses they would only build 125,000 houses in a year, and I understand that estimates have been arranged for 160,000 houses. If every brick made in England is used in building houses, there will still be 35,000 houses which will need to be built out of card-board or paper. [HON. MEMBERS:"What about stone?"] England is not a stone-using country. We in Scotland will buy all the surplus bricks England can send us, but we cannot get enough because Englishmen are now using all their own bricks. Surely the provision of an article like bricks is one of the most useful and practical measures of relief. After all, the making of bricks is by no
  2170
  means skilled labour, because a great deal of it is already done by female labour.
  There is a great shortage of cement, and a good deal of cement is at the present time being exported. I know there are proposals to stop the exportation of cement in order that it can be used for houses. Could anything be more futile than that. You would be cutting down our foreign trade and you would be sending our money to foreign countries, and that would be taking no steps to increase production at home. It has been said that we hope to raise the manufacture of cement in this country by 8 per cent, next year, but that is not nearly enough for the housing schemes which have already been arranged.
  I see the Bill is backed by the Minister of Transport—when one considers the burdens that are to be paid upon public authorities under this Bill one may well say that the little finger of the Minister of Transport is likely to be thicker than the loins of the Minister of Health. When there is a thing which is needed, and which can be produced by unskilled labour, surely it is better it should be produced rather than an article such as roads, which are not wanted, which will not be productive, and which, when constructed, will prove vastly expensive, and possibly inefficient. If the Minister in charge will give us some assurance that the definition of "public utility" may be somewhat extended when the Bill comes into Committee, then I think he is more likely to get the support of those who are anxious that the resources of the State should be used for productive rather than unproductive expenditure.
  Mr. ACLAND: I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the last speaker. I do not think he went so far as to condemn all the categories of the work on which it is proposed to spend money under this Bill. He only referred, I believe, to the expenditure on roads, and he expressed a desire, which is shared by the House, that there should be a real justification for any expenditure in that direction, and proof that it is going to be productive, and not, as has been too often the case in the past, unproductive. I should like to see, among the purposes on which this money is to be spent, reclamation and drainage schemes, and I hope that the Ministers in charge of the

  2171
  various schemes which are to be promoted will cause to be explored certain schemes lately before the Ministry of Agriculture and the Afforestation Commission with regard to joint schemes of reclamation in different parts of the country. It is desirable to get the Ministry of Agriculture and the Afforestation authorities to work together upon these schemes. There was formerly a scheme for reclamation of land for the joint purposes of agriculture and of forestry on the Bodmin Moors in Cornwall, and it was deferred only owing to the lack of money. It may be that such a scheme could not be made definitely economic in the sense of bringing in a prompt 6 per cent, return on the money expended. But such schemes are economic in the sense that they do transform a country previously desolate, waste and useless, into a country which may become a source of wealth to the community.
  When I was in Ireland recently on afforestation business I saw an extraordinary example of that in the South of Ireland where, in the midst of a great stretch of desolate brown hillside land, there was a big patch of green. It was land which had been reclaimed by the Trappist Monks who had set up an institution there. I do not suppose the work was economic in the ordinary sense. It was done by the Brothers themselves who did not receive a market wage for their labour, but still there it was and one suddenly came across a great stretch of country green and productive in the midst of a wide area of brown moorland, and it was supplying food for a community of two or three, hundred persons and for the school they were running, thereby constituting a permanent increase of wealth and prosperity for the community, and yielding food where previously none was produced. I think the same sort of thing in a smaller way perhaps might be done by reclamation schemes of a joint agricultural and afforestry nature on the Bodmin Moors and in other places. Anyone who knows the desperate state of unemployment in Cornwall just now, and how difficult it is for Cornishmen to adapt themselves to the ways of other parts of the country, will, I think, agree as to the desirability of promoting these schemes. In Cornwall the coalminer has killed the tin mines. The price of coal is such that the tin mines cannot now be
  2172
  worked at a profit, and it is very probable that in a few months many more of them will be closed. Surely that creates a presumption in favour of trying to revive these joint reclamation schemes in that county, and I have only risen in order to make sure that these matters will be explored by the Ministry of Agriculture and by the Afforestry Commission.
  Mr. JESSON: Although I have hopes of this Bill, I also share the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham). Some years ago I was a member of the Central Unemployed Body for London. When I read this Bill I was reminded of the schemes which that body had to deal with at that particular time. It was a period when we had no work that we could give out—no work of an economic nature, and what the Committee did was to approach the local authorities in London and inquire of them if they had any work which they could hand over to the Central Unemployed Body. The reply invariably was that they had no work, except such as, could be done by their own ordinary workers in the ordinary way, or by the staffs of their contractors. We pressed them further, and asked if they had any work which was likely to be taken in hand within the next few years. The reply came back that there was certain work that would have to be done in years to come, but that it would still be work which would be done by the ordinary worker in the ordinary way. The Central Unemployed Body suggested that that work should be handed over to them, and, after a great deal of pressure, much of this work was handed over. It was carried out in the most uneconomic manner possible to conceive. Men were put to work for which they were totally unsuited. For instance, an unemployed actor was given heavy work on the land—wheeling earth from one, place to another. When we came to reckon up the cost it was found that the Central Unemployed Body had paid three times more to get this work done than it would have cost if carried out in the ordinary way by the men fitted for it. The Central Unemployed Body only received from the public authorities one-third of the amount they spent; the remaining two-thirds was obtained from the ratepayers through other sources, and it meant that the public authorities were borrowing money to do unnecessary work.

  2173
  It seems to me that there is a danger in this particular scheme of repeating that kind of thing. As far as I am concerned I hold that there is no way out of the unemployed problem except by the organisation of industry by trades as recommended by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh. What is the difficulty we are in to-day? We want more wealth produced. What is wealth? Wealth consists of goods and commodities of all kinds—not money. A good many people in the Labour movement today are suggesting that the only solution for unemployment is to decrease the hours of labour, increase wages and restrict production. If that is the solution for unemployment we ought not to stop at a six-hour day. Why not work only one hour a day, or why work at all? Why not have our money sent home to us every week without working at all?
  Mr. SEXTON: It was the House of Lords suggested that, not we.
  Mr. JESSON: I agree that if you can introduce machinery to do work now done by labour it is all to the good of the community. There are some people who say that the only solution is to increase wages and decrease production. Obviously, if that is the case why should we not ask the Government to at once pass a law forbidding any employer to pay any one less than £20 a week? But if we restrict output, I would like to know how a man is going to purchase goods which have not been produced, even if his pockets were bulging with money. Looking at the matter from that point of view, I think everybody should demand an increase in production. If we get that what are we going to do with the extra floods we produce? I have never charged employers of labour with being in business for their health's sake or for purely philanthropic purposes. The employer has to find the money with which to finance production while the goods are being produced. Obviously he must find a market for those goods in order to recoup himself, otherwise he is going to be left with them on his hands. We may then ask ourselves, Where are those markets to be found, and who are the buyers? The answer is that those markets are everywhere, and the buyers are the general public.
  2174
  If we look into the matter more closely we find that 99 per cent, of the general public are the workers themselves and their dependants; that being the case, it is obvious that we must have some understanding with our employers, who-ever they may be, whether the State or public authorities or private individuals—we must have an understanding with them as to the wages we are to receive for the work we do; otherwise the workers will be unable to buy the goods which their joint labour produces. That brings me to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. We must have organisation in every industry, and once you got that, once every industry is thoroughly and scientifically organised, we should, I believe, be able to absorb every man and every woman in want of employment in useful and remunerative work. What the world is hungering for at the present time is goods of all kinds, and I thoroughly agree with the last speaker (Captain Elliot) in condemning the unproductiveness of the kind of work suggested in this Bill. We want to utilise capital on productive work. It would simply be wasted, for the time being, at any rate, on the schemes suggested in this Bill. We want to develop our trade organisations. The world is absolutely starving for goods at the present time.
  6.0 P.M.
  I am going to vote for the Bill, because there may be something useful in it, or, at any rate, something that may be useful later on, although I repeat I have serious misgivings as to what the result is going to be. We have the unemployed with us now and we have to do something for them. As for the problem of unemployment, it seems to me that the cause of it in the past has born not overproduction but under-consumption. In the past, particularly before the War—and the War has altered our outlook a very great deal—in the past what we suffered from was disorganisation in practically every industry. The philosophy of laissez faire in every business led to a position in which every employer tried to get as much work out of the worker as he possibly could for as little wages as possible in return. The result was that the workers did not receive sufficient wages to enable them to purchase the goods which their joint labour produced, and, as a consequence, we had the paradoxical position of men starving

  2175
  because they had produced too much to eat, and shivering with cold because they had produced too many clothes, and so on all round. Some thorough system of organisation must be applied to every industry before we can solve the problem of unemployment. Organisation is really the key to the future as regards industrial matters. For the time being I shall vote for this measure, but, as I have said, I have very grave misgivings as to what its results will be.
  Mr. J. JONES: I cannot speak with the same amount of knowledge of the problem of unemployment as some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken before, me. I can only claim that I have walked the streets of this great City for weeks at a stretch looking for someone to employ me, and that was in the days when no one was talking about increased production, and there was no question of want of capital or of a plentiful supply of labour. The economic arguments that we are hearing to-night are simply an attempt on the part of some of our modern politicians to justify their own existence. Unemployment is not a new problem; it is as old as the system under which we are living. I want to re-echo one of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member who spoke last, when he referred to the fact that the problem was not one of under-employment, but of under-consumption. If the people who produce the work of the nation had the purchasing capacity to buy back the things they produce, there would be no problem of unemployment. I have been out of work when I have had a few pounds in my pocket, and I did not trouble, because I could last as long as my pocket was lined. The only time when unemployment feels bad is when you have nothing to spend. The rich unemployed do not suffer, and they are always out of work. We only discuss the problem in the House of Commons when we have to deal with the poor unemployed—the man who is knocking at the door and only has one thing to sell, that is to say, his labour power, his physical and mental capacity, which he must sell before he can live. Then it becomes a great national and international problem, and we have to have Bills of this character—sticking
  2176
  plasters on wooden legs, or pills for earthquakes.
  What does this Bill say? Whilst ostensibly pretending to deal with the problem of unemployment, it says to the poor, "The poor must keep the poor." It tells the local authorities that they have to borrow money—at what rate of interest? Ask the banker Members of this House and they will probably tell you. I am a member of a local authority as well as a Member of this House, and we have the problem of unemployment brought home to us in a very exemplified form. Ten thousand men and women in our district are clamouring for the local authority to come to their assistance, because they cannot find work in the factories, which are disbanding a large number of their employés. The various people who employ labour find that they cannot go on in the same way as they did during the War. We have a large number of men returned from the Services, and they are clamouring also, because they say that the allowances which they are receiving from the Government are not sufficient to maintain them. They are asking that we shall carry out public works in order to give them an opportunity of maintaining themselves. When we approach those in authority, we are told that they cannot do anything for us except provide machinery whereby we can borrow money—with rates at 22s. 4d. in the £, we can borrow money to find work for our own unemployed. I venture to suggest that that is feeding the dog on its own tail, or parts thereof. So far as trying to deal with the problem of unemployment is concerned, this is a mere patchwork arrangement. I will give the Government credit for good intentions, but I hope they will never reach the place where good intentions generally end.
  When we approach the Government in connection with this matter of unemployment, we are told that they are prepared to give assistance in the matter of arterial roads. It is no good talking to the people of, say, West Ham, about reclaiming land, because there is no land there to reclaim; nor about foreshore or afforestation work, which, again, is absolutely impossible for us. We have a big population of unemployed people. All our people are poor people, and therefore the expense becomes a purely local ex-

  2177
  pense, for which we have to borrow money. Where do we find ourselves when we approach the appropriate Government Department whom we are told to approach under this Bill? They tell us that they cannot give assistance for any kind of work except arterial road work. The roads leading to and from the docks, however, are not considered to be arterial roads, so far as we have decisions up to the present. I hope that that will be altered during the time that this Bill is going through Committee. The consequence is that, although the docks have been improved and the waterways have been improved, the roads are still in the same congested condition in which they were before the establishment of the authority which now controls the waterways and the docks.
  The hon. Member opposite referred to bricks and cement. I happen to be a member of a trade union which has in its membership a large proportion of men and women who are employed in the manufacture of bricks and cement. There is no question of trade union rules here. There is no question of men and women being stopped from working in brick works and cement works because of the red-tape regulations of trade unions. I am one of those trade unionists who regret the narrow-mindedness of some trade unionists as much as any member of this House. I believe that the more you perfect the methods of production the better it is for the people as a whole, and I have always advocated that policy whenever I have had the opportunity of doing so. But there is always the fear in the mind of the average trade unionist that if he allows his trade to be flooded, the future is going to be very black for him, and so he establishes rules and regulations which, if it were not for the existence of this very problem, he would be able to relax, and which he would gladly relax. It is the fear of unemployment which makes a large number of trade unions carry on upon their present lines. So far as concerns the manufacture of raw materials for building, however, these things do not apply, because most of the men and women employed in those trades belong to what are called the semiskilled and unskilled sections of labour. There is nothing to stop the further employment of labour here. We are willing to welcome any man or woman
  2178
  into these particular trades, because we claim that the more people there are at work the better it is for the industry as a whole, and, therefore, in that particular respect those arguments do not at all affect the Members sitting on these Benches.
  This Bill, however, places us in this position; With the demands that are being made upon us by 10,000 men and women for employment, even if we started at our council meeting next week, I venture to suggest, although I do not understand the technicalities of the Bill, that, from the standpoint of the time it would take to put it into operation, and judging by our previous experience, it would be at least 12 weeks before we could put a man or woman into work. Then we have to borrow the money, and we shall only be able, of course, to take a small share of the responsibility. Therefore, I hope that during the Committee stage we shall be able so to amend the Bill that it will not merely give the local authorities power to start schemes and ask for the opportunity of borrowing money, but that it will give us some time to enable us to adopt such methods of finding employment as will be really to the advantage of the people in the district. I object altogether to the argument which has been advanced here this afternoon that improvements to roads in congested areas such as the East End of London will not be for the good of trade. One of the greatest difficulties we have had in the development of the trade of London has been the congestion on the roads and in the traffic to and from the docks and the railways. Although we are spending a great deal of public money for the purpose of improving our dock, waterside and river accommodation, we have spent practically nothing upon our roads, and why? Because the road authority, in the main, is a very poor authority, and has not the means to provide the essential methods whereby proper communication may be established. This Bill should be amended in the direction of providing proper Government assistance for that. After all, so far as the East End of London is concerned, you are not dealing with the trade of the East End, but with the trade of Great Britain and of the Empire. Goods are being sent from the London docks to all parts of the world, and surely it is just as essential that the roadways to and from the docks should be fit to

  2179
  bear the traffic as it is that the docks should be big enough to hold the ships that bring the goods into them.
  I therefore support this Bill as a temporary proposition, regretting the fact that the problem of unemployment has not been tackled more from a national point of view. We all regret that. We thought that during the period of the War the great statesmen and geniuses who now conduct our public affairs would have been sitting with towels round their heads, more or less watered, for the purpose of trying to discover means of dealing with these problems, which we all knew would arise as soon as the War was finished. There is not a Member of this House who did not believe that these after-War problems would be pressing upon us, and therefore it ought to have been the duty of real statesmanship to consider what should be done to meet them as they arose. What are we doing now? We are legislating in a panic, because great numbers of men are clamouring all over the country. Town halls are being seized, and we are being threatened. I wish that some of our Cabinet Ministers were sitting upon our local council, and had to meet the deputations that come along. I wish they had to come to our public meetings and hear the wives of men who had been killed, their dependants, and men themselves asking, "After we have fought as we have fought, why are we placed like this?" and asking the local authority to do what they are unable to do. Yet this Bill says to them, "You must keep on patching up in the same old way." We venture to suggest that, while we are supporting this Bill, it is not because we love it, but because we hope to do something to assuage the present situation, hoping that in the future some Government, if not the present one, will tackle the problem of unemployment in reality, and introduce legislation that will really give us an effective means of dealing with it.
  Mr. BILLING: I oppose this Bill, because I consider that it is a piece of political engineering and official whitewashing to deal with a very acute problem. Unemployment in this country rests in the main with three great industries, namely, those of building, engineering and the production of food. If you
  2180
  destroy those three industries in this country, practically every other industry automatically goes by the board. It was not my intention to refer intimately to the building problem. Hon. Members may know quite well that during the last two years I have identified myself pretty closely with it. Some might think that that ought to prevent me from addressing the House on that question; others might think that the knowledge which I have gained in my two years' intimate association with the building trade should qualify me to speak on the floor of this House in this connection. Two years ago, on the floor of this House and in the columns of the Press, I advocated with all my power the mass production of houses, and for two reasons. One was that the munition factories, which throughout the country were discharging men—or rather, transferring men from the pay roll of the factory to the pay roll of the unemployment bureau, from where they had produced something to where they were going to produce nothing—that those factories were capable of being transformed into factories producing the essentials of the component parts of standard houses. Instead of that another principle was adopted. The result has been that the Government has created what is an essential and artificial boom in houses, and like all artificial booms it is to-day followed by a real slump. That real slump has been caused by throe things. It has been caused in the main by the Government's own method of dealing with the problem, but the actual method of the downfall has been the two things that their act brought into being.
  The artificial boom brought into being two great combines, one great combine of capitalists, who cornered all the essentials of house production immediately they knew the Government were their buyers, and the other a great combine of trade unions who, seeing that there would be a demand for skilled labour in excess of supply, very cleverly engineered a complete corner in building labour. Hon. Members who have studied the question of the rise of building essentials know quite well how it has been engineered. We all know how the cement combine was engineered. We all know how cement was raised from 14s. 9d. to £5 8s. 6d. a ton, which I am paying to-day. Labour has only gone up from 200 to 250 per cent.

  2181
  There is no reason for cement to have gone up 300 or 400 per cent. We know quite well that there is a combine in cement and we know quite well that cement is being held up for the purposes of this combine and therefore it is hard to blame the trade unions for copying such an admirable example. They see that the capitalists' method of making money is always to keep the supply a little short of the demand, and so long as you can do that he can gradually work up his prices and make a vast fortune. Some of the more intelligent trade union members have tumbled to how this is done and they have pointed out to the workers that so long as you keep the supply of labour in any given trade a little below the de mand you can work a corner in labour, and that is what Labour has been doing, and the result of it is that work is stagnating throughout the country, and instead of reducing unemployment by very substantial figures, they are in the main injuring their own class by their own action. Two years ago if you wanted a bricklayer to build a wall you had one bricklayer, and possibly one or two labourers to help him. Not so to-day. One knows that the leaders tell the men, "See that the skilled men do as little as they possibly can—
  Mr. WATERSON: Where do you get your information from?
  Mr. BILLING: "And if it is possible to put two skilled men on it instead of one, do it." You can go into carpenters' shops to-day where before the War one labourer would help one skilled man, for example, to put window frames together, but one, joiner will not do it now with one skilled man. Ho wants another to help him.
  Mr. WATERSON: They do it by machinery.
  Mr. BILLING: Where you find bricklayers laying bricks or blocks, one will not work by himself with a labourer, but wants another skilled man to help him. By his action in not working by himself hi; is throwing three unskilled men out of, work. Is that the way labour is going to hang together? I know it is unsound politically to attack trade unions. That is why the Government is frightened to do it. If the Government had any courage at all the Bill they would be introducing to-day would be a dilution Bill
  2182
  and not a relief Bill. I can speak with a certain amount of experience. A fortnight ago a factory in which I am deeply interested was producing good work. To-day we have not a skilled man in our employment, simply because we introduced several ex-officers into the factory to learn the trade. We put them to making bricks. We put them to heavy unskilled work—ex-lieutenant-colonelis of His Majesty's Army shovelling concrete, and shovelling it very well, and learning well. What was the immediate result? The skilled men come and say, "Either these men leave the factory or we do. We will give you till to-night to make up your mind." It was the skilled men who left the factory. To turn these ex-officers and men away at the dictation of a trade union might be commercially sound, but there is no other claim for such action.
  Trade unions to-day are being filled with poison, which is going, not only to ruin the commercial life of this country, but to ruin the whole industrial welfare of their own community. In every factory the reason for unemployment can be easily traced. You will find one or two or three in each trade, gradually placed there by that extraordinary organisation which is working from within, bitterly opposed to the best of their leaders, preaching this policy of low production as the solution of all our economic troubles. Where are we going to stop? They have brought it down to 42 hours a week. I do not consider that 42 hours is an honest amount of labour for any man, whether he is working with his brain or his hands, to put in. Next they will bring it down to 30. But if this thing is capable of practice, why not bring it down to none at all? Where should we stand then? Let no one produce anything. That is the one reason why we are in trouble, and the Government is to blame. The Government could deal with the trade unions on this question tomorrow if it had the courage, but in this, as in every problem it has approached, it lacks courage. It stands in the middle of the road and trembles and wobbles and does not know on which side to jump. If there is the fear of a general election, and they think they can rely on the Conservatives, for any reason best known to themselves, they jettison the Conservative interests. Until we get a courageous Government we shall have unemployment and all its necessary ills. The Government has been

  2183
  promising for two years to make dilution possible. We are still in the same position to-day. The Government should introduce a Bill forthwith telling trade unions that dilution shall be carried out by them, and if they wish to strike against it let them strike now. Let us get that question settled once and for all. What is the good of talking about the manufacture of bricks by unskilled men? The skilled union of bricklayers objects to the type of people who are employed in making those bricks, and they strike work on a job two hundred miles away.
  Mr. JESSON: What punishment do you suggest for those who are cornering cement?
  Mr. GUEST: What factory is the hon. Member referring to?
  Mr. BILLING: If one has to be quite personal, I speak of a factory of which I happen to be Chairman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name?"] It is a factory in the county of Hertfordshire carrying my own name and it was started for the purpose of mass production of houses. All the skilled men have left that factory because they refuse to train ex-officers and men. We offered wages up to £8 a week, which I think is equal to what a Member of Parliament is entitled to. In nearly every case it was refused. I go to the Ministry of Labour and I say, "I am going to fight these men. I think it is an outrage that trade unions should be able to throw ex-officers and men to starve on the streets because they refuse to allow their trade to be interfered with." The Ministry of Labour says, "For Heaven's sake do not interfere. We are hoping to come to some solution of this matter soon," and for two years they have been flirting with the trade unions and have come to no decision at all and the trade unions calmly ask for a guarantee of five or ten years' full pay, rain or shine, employment or no employment, if they are going to allow anyone else to learn their trade, if they are going to allow ex-soldiers and officers to become apprentices. It is a crime that the Government of an Empire such as this should be browbeaten by a number of trade unionists who are injuring the best interests of their own class. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the production of cement and other bricks. So as to prevent the large body of unskilled labour that will
  2184
  remain in that factory from being thrown out of work. I offered to make any number of bricks or tiles of any description for any housing scheme that wanted them. If those orders were not given, naturally the unskilled men must be dismissed, and instead of drawing £3 a week for doing honest work they would draw 38s. unemployment dole, which would come out of the rates A very well-known Government Department, which I am quite willing to mention if it is necessary, says, "we are sorry, we could not take one of the bricks which you produced from your factory because it has come to us that your skilled men have struck against the ex-officer and the ex-soldier, and if we use one of your bricks, every job upon which we are engaged, that runs into £3,000,000, would be stopped." Is that courage on the part of the Government? It is playing into the hands of these trade unions who are carrying on that work steadily, but surely, in every factory in the country.
  The hon. Member (Mr. Jones) told us that firms were closing down all over the country. They are closing down on account of Government extravagance on one side and stupidity on the other. Excess Profits Duty is responsible for the closing down of half the factories which have closed in the last six months. Can you expect men to-day, with the present unsettled state of labour, to take on large contracts with all the unrest and the ever-intensified risk attaching to vast contracts? If it is a loss they go bankrupt. If it is a great success the Government takes the profit It is unreasonable; to suggest that such a thing can be done. In the last six months I have offered big engineering firms in Birmingham, Manchester and London contracts running into over £100,000. All that I have asked has been a price for the contract. They refused to give a price. These are firms which four months ago were willing to take it on at time and line and 10 per cent. Now they will not give any figure or any time for delivery, because they cannot trust their labour. They never know when their labour is going to strike. They could not have a penalty Clause. They could not give a price for the reason that if your profits are going to be taken as they are made, it does not pay to give a price. You know that at the best you are only to be allowed to make 10 per

  2185
  cent., therefore you say "I will do it for you at 10 per cent, over cost," safeguarding yourself against subsequent loss. If you give a price something may happen in the industrial position and you find you have lost on the transaction. Therefore no firm of standing will enter into any contract where a firm price is asked. No reasonable person, if they are at all careful, can be expected to give an order for anything unless they know the cost. How can business be conducted on those lines? When a firm places an order for anything they must be able to have arranged their market previously. In order previously to arrange your market you must know what your costs are, and if you cannot get your costs you cannot place your orders, and if you cannot place your orders, you cannot provide employment.
  If the Government would abolish the Excess Profits Duty which has proved a criminal failure, and which was only put in as a sop to labour. Does any hon. Member suggest that it was a sop to the capitalists? Was it a sop to the capitalist telling him that he was going to have practically no profits? It was a sop to labour, and labour swallowed it. This Bill is another sop to labour, and they are going to swallow it, but they will be no bettor. If labour thinks that it is going to find salvation in taking in its own washing, then I am very sorry for the intelligence of labour in this country. The Government needs to be a little courageous. There are fine workmen in this country, the finest workmen in the world, and they are not in agreement with the attitude of the trade unions. I have one old carpenter, 60 years of age, who had to leave me. Ho told me he dared not remain with me. For 24 years he had paid into his union £4 a year. He was willing to train ex-service officers and men and he would have worked all night to train them, but he said he dared not do it. There are hundreds and thousands of men in the trade unions to-day who are in the same position. Let me give the Government a bit of advice. Do you know how to deal with trade unions? I will tell you. The trade unions in the past did great work. Were it not for the work of the trade unions in the past labour would be as down-trodden to-day as it was ten years ago; but even good things can go too far, and the action of the trade unions in trespassing into constitutional administration
  2186
  has gone too far. The better class man in the trade unions have no time for the hot heads who are driving them into one in industrial crisis after another. If they were in the position of—
  Mr. J. JONES: Horatio Bottomley.
  Mr. BILLING: You keep your alcoholic remarks for later in another place.
  Mr. JONES: Advice from an expert.
  Mr. BILLING: The Government has a perfect right to introduce a Bill to deal with the crisis in the trade union position to-day. Why should it not have something to do with the making of laws which govern the trade unions, which, to a very great extent, have created the position with which we are faced to-day in regard to unemployment. If the Government insisted that a trade unionist should have one vote for every year that he had been a member of his union, you would not have another strike in this country for 10 years. The old workmen who have wives and children and responsibilities do not want strikes. It is the young hot-heads who have been attracted into unions by the still more hot-headed, ignorant leaders, who have bought a 6d. edition of Karl Marx, and have ill-digested it. These hotheads, who think that salvation will come to them by demanding that that which they have never worked for should be divided between them, are in the majority to-day. They are driving the old trade unionist before them because the old man possibly is not an orator, and cannot keep his end up, and is frightened of losing the savings of a lifetime. Can you blame him? The result is that he is rushed into one crisis after another. If the Government laid it down that every trade unionist should have one vote for every year he has been a member of his union, you would not have any industrial crisis in this country for 10 years. You would have the unions throwing open their arms to the ex-service officers and men, and willing to train them, willing to help them to re-establish order, to reestablish the commercial existence of this country, and the commercial fabric of this country which the War has torn asunder. If the Government have not the courage to do that, I suggest that they should state that every member of a trade union who desires to capitalise the sums that he has paid in should be able to go to the nearest post office and capitalise that sum out of a Treasury grant, and let the Trea-

  2187
  sury reimburse itself from the trade union funds, if necessary by confiscation.
  Mr.JONES: Bravo!
  Mr. BILLING: You would find that half the men would leave the trade unions to-morrow. That might be an emergency measure. The power of the trade unions of this country to-day is as great for evil as it was for good before the War. I appeal to the Government to take its courage in both hands and to realise that to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, this fight must be a fight to a finish. It is a fight to combat the trade union right to control all industry in this country, a fight against the trade union right to deny to one man the living which it demands for itself. That is the fight which is coming along, and I ask the Government not to delay one moment, but to make up its mind on the policy which it is going to take up. Even if it does lose a seat or two even if it does lose a vote or two—every man who stands up to the trade unions must expect to do that—oven if it does so injure itself, the injury that it will suffer will be nothing compared to the blessing which it will confer upon the trade and commerce of this country.
  Mr. SEXTON: I have no objection to this Bill. Though somewhat feeble, it is travelling in the right direction. I have, however, a decided objection to any piece of legislation introduced into this House being used as a peg upon which to hang an attack upon organised labour.
  Mr. BILLING rose—
  Mr. JONES: He is going now.
  Mr. BILLING: I will be back in a moment.
  Mr. SEXTON: We have just listened to a tirade not only against organised trade unions—but against the Government—a tirade of a most extraordinary character, from the Admirable Crichton, the Member for Hertford. This modern Columbus has actually discovered how to treat trade unions. I would advise him not to be too previous in his attempt to do anything of the kind. The whole of his speech has been directed as a tirade against and an attack upon trade unionism. He has condemned them of crimes of which they have never been guilty. What is his
  2188
  foundation for the charges? His experience is limited to two years, according to his own words, and to seven ex-officers and one old carpenter, 60 years of age. Upon this slender evidence he builds up an infamous attack upon the whole trade union movement. I am sorry he is not present. If he were here, I would take this opportunity of, I trust, convincing him how absurd and ridiculous he is in the eyes of sensible thinking men. He spared nobody. He stated that every factory in the country was infected by the horrible disease of which he complains. The House knows that to-day there are factories crowded, with the walls bursting, with over-production of material, and although the people want that material, those who own the material are holding it up to get their own price, with the result that thousands of men are unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill said that it was largely intended to relieve the ex-service man. That is a very commendable operation for a very commendable object. Like the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) I am not going to attempt to justify on the part of any trade union or anybody else, any inexcusable action which would prevent ex-service men being employed where there was a dearth of labour in that particular industry. That such things have been done I frankly and freely admit. It is a mistake to do it, but the hon. Member has made a general accusation, directed against the whole of the trade union movement in every factory in the land. Outside of one or two industries the ranks of the unemployed are being increased every day, and it is not only the ex-service man who cannot get a job, but it is the ex-service man who was in a job, who has been thrown out of employment owing to the economic conditions that exist to-day. Now that the hon. Member is present, I hope he will take note of these things.
  Mr. BILLING: What I said was that labour in the building trade was trying to corner labour, and that in every factory unemployment was taking place on account of the Excess Profits Duty and the desire of the men to reduce output, and thereby, as they thought, to increase employment.
  Mr. SEXTON: I should be sorry to misrepresent the hon. Member, but I have

  2189
  a definite recollection that what he said was that the methods of ca' canny, and the practice of reducing output, and the practice of preventing men getting employment, was carried on in every factory in the land.
  Mr. BILLING: I did not say that the practice of refusing employment to men who served in the Army, but that the practice of ca' canny was being preached by a very small section in every factory, and that in the building trade they had decided to make a corner in labour.
  Mr. SEXTON: I accept the correction now that it is made, but it was required, for those were not the words which the hon. Gentleman used. That relieves me of the necessity of educating him a little bit more, as I originally intended. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Heading of the Bill spoke sympathetically of the spectre of unemployment which haunts us to-day. It has gone further than haunting. It is here, and we had the awful example only yesterday of answers given by Members of the Government describing the condition of ex-service men who have no employment, and have actually to apply to the workhouse to take them in. Ye Gods! And this is the nation that is supposed to be fit for heroes to live in. Unemployment is here. It is no longer a spectre, but is a body clothed with flesh. This Bill is introduced with the hope of finding employment by one Member of the Government, and we had the awful irony last Monday of another Member of the Government consenting to drop thirteen Clauses of a Bill which would produce employment for men in this country. [HON. MEMBERS:"How?"] We know that the Ministry of Health Bill is having a bad time now, and that it will not come back to us in its original state. It has been shorn of some of its Clauses that would very materially assist employment.
  Will this Bill in any way abrogate or abolish the provisions of the Unemployment Act, 1905, which lays down that where work is found for unemployment wages less than the district rates should be paid. Here I am accused by the hon. Member below the Gangway who has discovered a way to deal with trade unionists which, if put into operation, would be very painful for him, but I would like to know, are the wages to be
  2190
  paid to be less than the district wages in view of the fact that we are dealing with useful productive work? An hon. Member opposite spoke of the enormous cost of local bodies entering into work of this kind as compared with the cost under private enterprise. I admit that that is a fact. I happened to be Chairman of an Unemployment Committee, but the conditions are entirely different to-day. The men employed then were the flotsam and jetsam of the industry, men not physically capable of doing an ordinary day's work. To-day this Bill is meant to provide work for ex-service men. No men are more fit or physically capable of doing that work than the men who have been digging trenches for four years and defending our country against invasion. So the same conditions do not exist as existed then. Therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to this point and inform us whether this Bill is to carry with it the conditions of the 1905 Act that less than the district rate is to be paid particularly as the work is going to be of a useful and productive character.
  I quite agree with the hon. Member below the Gangway that this is a question not so much of more production as of under-consumption. That is the astounding fact to-day. But there are other men unemployed to-day besides ex-service men. There are ex-service men in employment to-day who are only getting two days a week. Here again is an extraordinary example of the ignorant who talk glibly about trade unions' interference. In my own industry to-day there are six men looking for one man's job. There are ex-service men only getting one or two days' work, men who have been through the whole four years of horrible war. In my own industry, and other industries as well, there are sons of dead soldiers, some of whose bodies were never recovered, who are almost on the verge of starvation for want of employment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not confine this Bill to the narrow scope of finding employment only for ex-service men. I agree that they should have the first chance, the preference. There are other men, sons of dead soldiers, who have grown up, who have mothers, brothers and sisters depending on them, who require sympathy equally with those who served their country in the War. If employment was found to-day for every

  2191
  ex-service man, there is a big army of men outside of them who are seeking for work, who are sons of soldiers who have dependants, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not narrow down the application of the Bill. If not, we can apply to the whole position what the Scripture says of the Scribes and Pharisees: "You are like unto the whitened sepulchre, beautiful to look uopn without, but within a thing of dead men's bones.'
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: I welcome the speech of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) in its comment on the difficulties of a plain person like myself in understanding Acts of Parliament because of the reference to other Acts, but I did not think that our Debate to-day would have gone over the whole scheme of unemployment. In my simple way I assume that this Bill was for the purpose of giving compulsory powers to local authorities for the acquisition of land to carry out works of public utility, not the old relief works on which men were employed on work of no value to the community, but works which the public authorities were intending to do, such as the making of roads and streets, the building of sanatoria, etc., and that these public authorities should have for these works the powers which were given in connection with the housing scheme of entering on land, and compulsorily acquiring land so that they might be facilitated in carrying out those public works at the earliest possible moment. That is the principal feature of the Bill, and I am bound to say, in connection with the housing scheme, that the Acquisition of Land Act has worked very well. I know from my own personal knowledge of many cases in which the local authority were enabled, not by exercising their compulsory powers, but because they had them, to obtain land at a very moderate price, and use it for the purpose of housing schemes. But since the whole question of unemployment has been raised, one might ask why there should be such a great amount of unemployment in the country. We have spent from four to five years in the work of destruction, and one might have thought a couple of years ago that, in view of all the wastage that had taken place during the War, when peace came this country was in for
  2192
  a period of great employment in making up that wastage.
  7.0 P.M.
  I have been told that in Germany today people realise so well the tremendous beating they have got and how far they have been crushed out of the world competition that there is a spirit among them to do their very best in order to bring about commercial and industrial prosperity once more But here at home we have had a period of spending extravagantly from the highest to the lowest in the land. The Government has been to blame in not more seriously cutting down drastically and ruthlessly the whole of the public expenditure in the various public departments. The same thing applies to every citizen in the State. We have all been spending far too much and wasting far too much with every kind of extravagance in the pursuit of pleasure and luxury, with the result that we have been spending our resources, and the money that was so plentiful during the War is not now available, and people have not now the same purchasing power today as they had some time ago. The one big factor in unemployment is the gready increased cost of production. Every article we are producing in this country has gone up to an enormous price, with the result that many of them are unsaleable. We have had shorter hours, higher wages and restricted output. In almost every industry where you have had shorter hours and increased wages there has been a greater fall in the output in proportion to the shortening of the hours. The more wages that are paid the less the work done. The consequence of this is that the cost has gone up to such a pitch that the ordinary purchaser cannot afford to buy. Shipbuilders have not been able to give a price to owners who have been ordering ships. The shipbuilder has had no knowledge of what the ship would cost until it was completed. The other day, when a ship was launched on the Clyde, the owner informed the company who had assembled that in former years the cost of it would have been one-fourth of what it had cost to-day. This means an addition to the cost of freights on food and on raw materials, and it has the consequence that we are faced with a dearth of goods in the world and the need for production of every kind of commodity. The cost of producing things, however, has reached such a pitch that the makers cannot sell them,

  2193
  purchasers cannot buy, and men are thrown out of work.
  If this Bill meant that the Government were seeking schemes to start relief works in the old evil sense of the old days I would be opposed to it, but I do not so regard it. It think the Government are quite right to come forward with this Bill and give powers to local authorities to carry out works of public utility for unemployed men, and to give them powers for acquiring land similar to those that have been granted under housing schemes, and that, I understand, is the dominant feature of this Bill. A Member who has left the House suggested to me that I might ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if this was meant to be a permanent or only a temporary Bill, but I assume it is a permanent piece of legislation, meant to stay on the Statute Book, and that when the depression passes and unemployment ceases the Bill will still remain as an Act to be taken advantage of on any future occasion, should it unfortunately arise. Several Members have referred to this as a Bill for the purpose of dealing with ex-soldiers and sailors. I do not assume that it is that. I think the Bill is meant to deal with the whole question of unemployment, whether the men be soldiers or sailors or ordinary persons. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will get this Bill, and I am quite sure that the powers sought to be conferred upon local authorities for carrying out work of public utility will be strengthened if they have the power for the compulsory acquisition of land given them in this measure.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I hope it may meet with the general convenience of the House if, at this stage, I venture to add some observations on behalf of the Government, first in acknowledging, cordially and sincerely, the extremely helpful discussion which we have had upon this Bill, and, secondly, in seeking to elucidate those matters which have been raised s being obscure. The temptation to follow the Debate into the economic inquiry as to the causes of unemployment is a great temptation, but I do not intend to yield to it. To inquire into the causes of unemployment is to undertake the task of inquiry into the whole political and
  2194
  economic situation. I intend to essay the humbler task of dealing with the particular phase of unemployment which is new, and which makes this matter an urgent and a very important one. There is very great danger that we may exaggerate this question of unemployment. The figures as to general unemployment, so far as they are available at the present time, are not alarming. I am informed by the Minister of Labour that before the disturbance in the conditions of employment caused by the coal strike, it was estimated that some 750,000 more persons were employed throughout the United Kingdom than were employed before the War. If you take another view, it is in my opinion a matter for congratulation and thankfulness when we consider the enormous number of ex-service men who have been re-absorbed into industry since demobilisation. Some 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 ex-service men have been replaced, or have found situations, since demobilisation, and the number that is left (again subject to the adjustment of the figure rendered necessary by the temporary disturbance of the coal strike) is something like 200,000. So I submit to the House that, although the problem is one of urgency, it is not one of panic, or for the creation of a general impression that our conditions are such as to cause undue anxiety.
  The ex-service man does present a totally new view in unemployment. A large number of men were taken away at the period when they would have commenced their training in industry, and they find themselves back in the homeland without that skill and training which normally would have been theirs. Many of these men are totally different from the old class of the unemployed. The old class was largely composed of the physically unfit, or those who for other reasons were not the most desirable persons to be employed. The ex-service man, ranging up to 26 years, is a man who is fit and who is well-endowed, but yet finds himself to-day without a place in the labour market. The Government recognise that he has a special claim upon the nation, and it is very largely, if not exclusively, because of that, that a Cabinet Committee was appointed some months ago, and has been sitting very continuously, to explore the avenues whereby it may be possible to get rid of

  2195
  this state of unemployment. The schemes outlined in this Bill are not permanent schemes which we regard as ideal by any means. We want those men trained. We want them, as has been expressed by many hon. Members, absorbed in the great national and normal industries. We look to housing to absorb a great number of those men, and hope that they may be trained and brought into use in connection with the building problem, which is connected with so many of our troubles to-day. But all those matters take time, and although I am very hopeful that we are getting much nearer to a solution of those problems, we cannot afford to lose days, not to say weeks, in dealing with this matter. Let there be no mistake about it. This is only the first instalment of the Government proposal, but it is extremely urgent and extremely important that it should become law at the earliest possible moment.
  The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) devoted the greater part of his speech to a criticism of the drafting of the Bill. Although I regret that he did not assist us upon the more important problem of the merits of the Bill, I am not oblivious to his criticism of the drafting, and as far as it is possible to deal with it at a later stage his observations shall receive the most careful and cogent attention. In particular, I think it should not be found difficult to schedule in the Bill the Acts of Parliament which are referred to in Clause 1 as "other enactments." He suggested also that words in Clause 1 of the Bill give power for legislation by the Departments. If my right hon. Friend will look at that matter a little more closely he will see that that fear is totally unfounded. The words to which he directed attention were
  "with the necessary adaptations and modifications."
  I think if that had boon put in the familiar Latin phrase which all lawyers use and recognise, mutatis mutandis, he would have soon that there was not concealed under these words any sinister design of legislation by bureaucracy instead of by Parliament.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Will my hon. Friend read his words in—"If those enactments were herein re-enacted mutatis mutandis"?
  Mr. NEAL: Personally, though speaking subject to further consideration, and consultation with the draughtsmen, I should not object to those words, but I can imagine that the man who is not familiar with our legal jargon might find a greater difficulty in understanding them than the words that are in the Bill. My right hon. Friend raised the question with reference to finance. The advantage of the present schemes, so far as they are being worked out, is that they do not call for any immediate claim upon the Exchequer. The main schemes which are in view are the 90 miles of arterial roads in and around London, and similar schemes which are ripe to be brought into operation wherever they are required in other parts of the country. This is an anticipation of works that have long been thought to be urgently necessary, and we hope we may be able to bear the charges with respect to those works. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston (General Seely) laid stress as to whether we could enlarge the objects of public utility in the definition clause of the Bill. In particular he called attention to coast works, harbour works, and the like. He will realise that some of them are not works connected with land. This is a Bill which deals with the speedy acquisition of land, and although it may be possible, and I hope will be possible, to enlarge this number of works of public utility within the Bill, there is a practical limitation and a real limitation to dealing with this class of works for existing unemployment, because you have to deal with the unemployment locally. It is no use to the London unemployed, who are not unnaturally pressing for consideration to tell them that somewhere in some district of the country there are other works which can be done, because there will be immediately raised the question of taking people away from their homes, and that would create difficulty.
  Major-General SEELY: I hope that will not be taken as an answer as to the possibility of enlarging the Bill because there is great unemployment or unemployment is apprehended in many of the great sea ports.
  Mr. NEAL: I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will not take my answer as indicating any disinclination to enlarge the scope. I hope he will take it as being a hint as to the practical difficulties of immediately putting into ope-

  2197
  ration schemes of the nature which he has indicated. Schemes for the immediate relief of unemployment must be local. One of the difficulties to-day is that labour is less mobile than ever it was, largely because of the housing problem. Another difficulty is that there has been a redistribution of labour. You have got new towns created in certain parts of the land round works which were used for the purpose of making munitions, and people are housed there with whom it is difficult to deal in the matter of unemployment. One of the problems we always have to face is that the work must be such as is within the reach of the unemployed. The main schemes for the London district have that advantage Some criticism was directed that arterial roads were not works of general utility. I join issue with that. From the days when Mr. John Burns was President of the Local Government Board and when he established a Committee to consider the question of arterial roads, the matter has been one of the greatest national importance. This work is totally different in kind to the old class of relief work to which many hon. Members referred, which were not of public advantage, which discouraged the men who were called upon to work on them, which were mere makeshift, a waste of money and energy. I hope that in the schemes under this Bill that will be avoided.
  A criticism was directed by one of my hon. Friends representing the London County Council with reference to the delay which would occur as to the acquisition of land under the Bill. May I say a word or two with reference to that. The London County Council have in the fullest way risen to a sense of public duty in this matter which is quite praiseworthy. They have undertaken to assist by contributions these great arterial road schemes, and they had made a condition when they gave that consent that they should have legislation to prevent unnecessary delays in taking possession of land which was acquired for the roads. The experience of the Ministry of Health of the procedure which we are incorporating for this purpose is that a limited time is necessary, an average of 28 days. What they really want to know is that the powers are secured by law. The moment they know that there is no reason why they should not proceed with their works.
  2198
  Before they commence work upon a large road, it is obvious that they want to know that they will not be held up at a given point by a delay of six or eight months while all the legal formalities are carried out with reference to the acquisition of land But local authorities have already acquired a large area of the land required. There are only pieces of land here and there, and if they are satisfied that Parliament has invested them with the powers they need for the acquisition of the remaining land, there seems to be no reason why they should not proceed with their work at once. Another objection was that this Bill had gone too far, but as that has not been elaborated I do not propose to say more about it.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) asked questions with reference to standard wages. May I say a word about that. The men who have been largely employed on these works are men of good physique and of good character and there is no reason to believe that they are not industrious men who are anxious to do their duty in the national work and there is no intention to cut down reasonable remuneration for the work they do. One other question was raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens as to whether these works were exclusively for ex-service men or whether other citizens would be brought into use. The Government do desire that everyone who is connected with the administration of this problem will deal specially as a special problem with that of the ex-service men. We do regard and the whole country regards these men who have lost their opportunity through their patriotism and their loyalty to the State, we do regard that they shall have preferential treatment. We do not say and we hope no local authority would say that bars the others if and when the opportunity serves for finding them employment.
  In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the fact that the real object to be gained is a state of confidence which will enable industry to proceed with its greatest vigour that there may be a maximum amount of employment in our midst. The measures which we are contemplating and submitting have that object in view. The one under the immediate consideration of the House is an emergency Bill, to which I ask the House to give its assent. If hon. Members are now satisfied as to the real merits of this Measure, if the points which

  2199
  they might raise in further discussion are points which can be dealt with either in the Committee or Report stages of this Bill, we should be grateful if they would give it a Second Reading now.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Clause 1? My submission is that under the terms of Clause 1 a money Resolution is required for the finance of this Bill, and I found it on the words which are in Clause 1. The first five lines of the Clause give the powers which are in the Acts relating to the housing of the working classes from 1890 to 1919, which, Sir, the House and you will recollect a power to acquire land in a much more summary and business-like fashion than before. Under the Housing Bill, there was a Resolution giving power to the. Executive to finance the acquisition of land which was necessary. Those powers are, by the words of this Clause, brought within the ambit of the authority under this Bill. Sir, I suggest to you that clearly a Government authority is indicated in this Clause in these words. It says:
  "As if those enactments were herein re-enacted with the necessary adaptations and modifications and with the substitution of the appropriate Government Department for the Minister of Health."
  That, to my mind, clearly indicates that some Government Department is going to operate these powers for the acquisition of land, and will be financed obviously by the Treasury. What my hon. Friend has just said in his speech indicated, in his opinion, as I gather, that for the present no funds from the Exchequer would be used, but in the future funds from the National Exchequer would be brought into operation in connection with the Bill. Whatever that may be, it seems to me that there is clearly indicated the intention of a Government Department to use national funds for the purchase of land for the purposes of this Act. If my assumption is correct, it would seem to me to be necessary that the Government should clothe itself with the usual powers from a Committee of this House and with a money Resolution, if necessary.
  Mr. MUNRO: I do not know whether I may say a word or two on the point which my right hon. Friend has raised rather late in the day. I suggest to you,
  2200
  Sir, that the point is clear. If you look at paragraph (b), I think there is a complete answer to my right hon. Friend. It says:
  "No order authorising the compulsory acquisition of any land for any purpose shall be made under any enactment as applied by this Section unless an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land for that purpose could have been made under some enactment in force at the commencement of this Act."
  In other words, nothing can be done in practice under this Bill which could not be done in the way of acquiring land at the commencement of this Act. No new powers to acquire land have been conferred. The only alteration which this Bill makes upon the existing situation is that what formerly could be done, can now be done more quickly. That is my interpretation, which I submit to you of the Subsection I have read, and if that is so, no new charge is laid upon the Exchequer.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The matter, I think, is not very clear in the Bill itself, but, as far as I understand it, the effect of it is this: that the enactments which at present relate to the housing of the working classes, comprising the enactments for the compulsory acquisition of land, and which are in the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, are, by this Act, to be employed for the purpose of the compulsory acquisition of land for purposes of public utility; that is to say, that the money which is at the disposal of a particular Government Department, and which is now applicable to the Housing of the Working Classes Act, will, under this Bill and its enactments, be available for that Department—or other Government Departments, if necessary—not for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, but for purposes of public utility. The amount of money we have voted will not be employed for the purposes hitherto specified, but for another purpose which is here stated. There is no fresh money involved, and no demand for fresh money. I do not, therefore, see that the case put by the right hon. Gentleman is made out.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I, Sir, submit one other point? As you stated very clearly—and I respectfully agree—while it may be that no new money will be required, money hitherto specifically voted by Parliament to one object,

  2201
  namely, the purchase of land for houses, is to be devoted without specific Parliamentary authority from that purpose to another purpose; I submit very respect-fully that that change of allocation of the money to another purpose other than that for which it has already been specifically voted requires the authority of another financial Resolution.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no fresh grant of money involved, but, as I understand it, simply that money involved for one purpose is to be devoted by this Bill to this present purpose. That is the specific Parliamentary authority.
  Mr. WATERSON: I rise for the purpose of making one or two remarks upon Clause 1. I notice that when the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said that this piece of legislation might be regarded as legislation in panic that hon. Member opposite rather cheered that expression. The present Government, which is at the moment adopting this principle, has had some opportunity since hostilities ceased to bring in a Bill that would have prevented unemployment and saved us from a Bill of this kind. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Billing) made some very drastic statements, and some certainly of a scurrilous character, to which, at any rate, I feel bound to reply, lie referred to the official whitewashing that this Bill presents. I only want to suggest to the House that there is no individual Member here that can do more official whitewashing than the hon. Gentleman himself. As to his considerable tirade on the courage of the Government it is significant, we consider the Division lists of this House, to see that the hon. Member who takes the opportunity of utilising his sword against the Government for not being sufficiently courageous is, in about 90 per cent, of the Divisions, found with the Government that has not got the courage that he desires it should have. He referred to hotheads. I say to the Government in which he takes particular pride that it is the hotheads that he now condemns who were the very men that saved the country from disaster; now simply to call them hotheads after they have done their work for their country is not playing a fair and honest game.
  Let me come to the Bill. The Government, I think, stands self-condemned. It is a year last March since one of the first
  2202
  private Member's Bill of this House was introduced. That Bill gave the Government the opportunity to deal with the question, and to prevent unemployment. No one imagined that the Bill was an absolute protection, but it did lay down the basis, the fundamental principle, and a definite structure upon which the Government could have built a scheme that would have solved the question with which to-day we are faced. Repeatedly the House has been told that after the War we would have this matter to contend against. The right hon. Gentleman below me (Sir D. Maclean) dealt with the question of Russia. I speak with some experience on this question so far as the unemployed are concerned, that if we can at once open up trade relationships with that great people we shall immediately solve, to a great extent, this question of the unemployed. So far as my constituency is concerned many of the men who are looking for work are engaged in the boot industry. It is not the inland trade but the export trade which has diminished. Owing to our failure to have any common-sense policy in opening up trade relationships, and owing to the Government's attitude, these men find themselves walking the streets week after week with very little to live upon. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) endeavoured in his opening remarks to try to find, I think, quite honestly, he did find, some objections to the Bill as a whole.
  He began by telling us how it would cross with various other statutes and Regulations. I am not here to accompany him in that challenge, but I do submit that the problem before us is so acute, so exacting, so important that this is not the moment to criticise overmuch, so far as any other statutes are concerned, but to endeavour to deal with this accentuated problem which will become more difficult to deal with as the days roll swiftly by. Some hon. Members watched that procession some weeks ago when the deputation went to see the Prime Minister at Downing Street. One will never forget the feeling that came over one to see honest men, even some in frock coats and tall hats, men only anxious to get employment to relieve the anxieties of life, walking there and waiting. To endeavour at this stage to try and raise objections which are merely minor, and matters of detail, to delay until statutes

  2203
  can be altered, is in my humble judgment not doing what we really ought to do to those who are at present walking the streets. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport gave us some information for which I think the House will feel grateful. He spoke of the Cabinet Committee which was set up a couple of months ago to deal with the question of that new phase of unemployment which has been created by the War.
  Mr. NEAL: Not to deal with that new phase alone.
  Mr. WATERSON: I accept that. These young men are unskilled, but that is the Government's liability! I want to say that these men were working at the bench serving their apprenticeship. I have one in my own mind at present. I was privileged to have him in my house. In early days he came to me an orphan. I took him in as a friend. That young man was taken from the bench, from his apprenticeship, sent into Flanders, served his country, and now, having returned, finds himself in the ranks of the unskilled workers. To endeavour at this stage to blame the trade unions for all the difficulties that have arisen is not altogether honourable. The Government ought to give these men the opportunity necessary for that full training that they would have had had the War not taken place. As soon as they came back to civil life the Government ought to have appreciated the patriotism of these men, and to have given them the necessary training which they would have got in this country had the War not intervened. If that were done, we could go some way to solve this question of the unskilled man. The Secretary for Scotland in introducing this Bill said, speaking on Clause 1, that the question of compensation for land was a matter of detail. I agree.
  Mr. MUNRO: May I correct my hon. Friend? I do not think I said compensation was a matter of detail. What I did say, or what I intended to say, was that when we got the Bill compensation and other matters of that kind would follow.
  Mr. WATERSON: I quite agree. That is really what I intended to express, it is a matter of a secondary nature. We want the Bill first, and other things can come afterwards. I suggest when we deal with this matter of compensation, that we should take into consideration, when
  2204
  paying the money, the question of the rateable value of the land. It is a duty pressed upon the Government upon all hands to economise. We are told that the way in which we are travelling is the way to complete financial bankruptcy. If that be so, I say to the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced this Bill that when this land is taken compensation should be based upon the rateable value of the land. We ought not to have to pay or to pay those extortionate prices demanded from the Government because the Government take over land in the interests of the people. Everyone will admit that there are scores upon scores of places that need to be altered in the interests of public safety. Referring to the question of exceptional employment, I would like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman can give us any estimate or idea of what he would regard as exceptional unemployment? Is it to be on a basis or percentage of the population, or will the local bodies decide this matter? Will Government representatives be sent down to deal with it, or will it be decided upon the number of the men who are upon the Labour Exchange books. This, too, is a serious point.
  If this is going to be left entirely to local authorities it is just possible that we might have a local authority that is prejudicial towards the Bill, and we want some safeguard to see that a fair deal is made and that there is an honourable carrying out of this important Bill. As far as relief work is concerned, I think there is more than the matter of arterial roads to be taken into consideration. I have the honour to represent an agricultural district. In the Government's policy of reconstruction, in which they were going to create a land fit for heroes to live in, one of their plans was the advancement of the agricultural industry, and I venture to submit to my right hon. Friend that if we are to develop agriculture upon right lines, we have also got to give the necessary facilities to transport the produce when that produce has been grown, and thousands of these agricultural roads are unfit for modern transport, and to transport all the good things that we should get from the Agriculture Bill when it becomes law. These are one or two thoughts that I felt I ought to express in the interests of the community that I represent, namely, that agricultural areas should have every

  2205
  facility given to them in order that modern transport can be used; secondly, that the question of compensation for land should be based upon rateable value, for if people are not prepared to pay the necessary rates for the value of the land, that is their responsibility; and, thirdly, that we should do something, not merely in the shape of making larger roads, but to try and set up some relief works that will give facilities for people to work who are engaged in normal circumstances in trades that make them unfit for the hard and laborious work of heaving stones, etc., for the necessary development of our roads.
  Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I am very sorry to stand in the way of the Government getting a division at once, but I am afraid I cannot apologise, as I am the only Irish Member who, as far as I can see, purposes to intervene in this Debate, and I think I am entitled to a few moments of the time of the House in setting forth my opinions in regard to the Bill and the particular industry which interests me and a great many operatives in Ireland. We have reputations in Ireland, good, bad, and indifferent, as I think the House will agree, but I think that the reputation that the Irish linen industry has is a good one, as it is worldwide, and I think it my duty on this occasion to ventilate the position so far as that industry is concerned. We are very proud of that industry. I remember very well when, during the War, I saw some of those marvellous aeroplane fights, I could not help feeling proud of the part of the country to which I belong, because the; workers of my part of the country were able to produce the material by which those aeroplanes were made to fly. I remember once an American individual, who thought he would buck us up a bit by delivering a lecturo out at the front, trying to tell us all that America was going to do, the ships she was building, the men she was sending over, and above all, the Liberty engines of the aeroplanes she was delivering, and again I felt that even the great America could not get very far with her aeroplanes were it not for the operatives of the linen trade of Ulster.
  The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Bill asked the question: "On the question of unemployment, is there a grievance?" So far as our industry is concerned, there is a very
  2206
  distinct grievance in regard to unemployment, and the question is immediate, because it is practically at this moment a case of starvation for many of the workers in the linen industry, but I regret very much, on perusing this Bill, to find that the Clauses scarcely pretend to deal with unemployment in our industry, and for this reason, that 90 per cent, of the workers in the linen industry are women, and I see that the third Clause of the Bill refers to works of public utility as meaning the construction or improvement of roads or other means of transit, the widening or other improvement of waterways, the construction of sewers or waterworks, etc., so that, so far as our industry is concerned, this Bill will be of very little use. I regret that. Naturally, to some extent, there are a number of men employed in that industry, and I hope so far as they are concerned, at all events, it will prove of benefit, but I would like those who are in charge of this idea of trying to deal with unemployment to try and deal with it in a more wholesale manner than this Bill proposes. I do not intend, in the few minutes at my disposal, to go into the causes of unemployment in Ireland. I largely agree with something that foil from the hon. Member opposite who spoke last (Mr. Waterson), and I say that if you want to improve our industry, get Russia going. To a large extent our supplies for the manufacture of our linen come from Russia, and the sooner we get Russia going, the sooner will we get our supplies of flax in, the sooner we shall get cheaper materials, and the sooner then America, our largest market for this industry, will purchase.
  There is another matter I would like to refer to, and that is the question of the ex-service men. Some three or four weeks ago one of the representatives of one of the urban districts wrote to me in connection with employment for ex-service men, and this third Clause of the. Bill practically deals with that subject. They wrote to the Local Govern-Board in Ireland concerning the question, and they also wrote to the Transport Ministry and to the Ministry of Labour, and they were shuttlecocked about between these three Department. The question was with regard to the employment of ex-service men on roads, and the council was prepared to supply all the materials necessary, but they wanted the assistance of the authorities to enable them to pay the wages of these ex-ser-

  2207
  vice men. Eventually, they had a reply from the Ministry of Transport to the effect that the Ministry of Labour was responsible for supplying the Ministry of Transport with the names of districts where unemployment was most intense, and that this particular district was not one of those on the list, so the matter ended there, but I hope that, with the help of this Bill, that matter will be taken up again and that when I assure the House there is real necessity for this Bill in connection with my constituency and others in Ulster, something will be done to assist them, because, as I say, where the linen industry is concerned, women are largely employed, and this Bill will not help them. Therefore, we must depend on the Government to give all the employment they can to the men of that province.
  There is one other matter that I would like to refer to. Some time ago a grant was given for the purpose of widening a bridge over a river in my constituency, and the work is being proceeded with, ex-service men largely being employed, but lately a communication has been received from the authorities by this urban council to the effect that the grant that remains unexpended at the 31st March next will go back to the Treasury. I would like the House to realise what that means. This work is proceeding, and the money cannot all be spent in a week, or in a month, or in three months, or in six months, and the money that is unexpended at the 31st March goes back to the Treasury. Surely there can be some means adopted by way of a credit system by which the money will lie at the credit of the Treasury at the end of that period and still be available for that work. Is it possible that this work must be stopped, and that these ex-soldiers, who are being weekly employed, shall be put out of employment simply because the financial year ends on the 31st March, and there is no other method of dealing with it? I would recommend those who are responsible for the carrying through of this Bill that some other means should lie taken of dealing with unexpended balances when such work is proceeding. T hope this Bill will have a safe passage. It is badly needed, no matter what the causes of unemployment are. We have all our ideas, I presume, as to what are the causes of unemployment, but the great point is that unemployment exists, and
  2208
  I beg of the Government to proceed as quickly as they can in this matter.
  Mr. MUNRO Mr. MUNRO rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  AGRICULTURE BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [17th November] on Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
  AGRICULTURE BILL.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Compensation for Dis- turbance.)
    (4)The compensation payable under this Section shall be a sum representing such lose or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding us the tenant may un avoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods or his implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding, and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation), and also a sum equal to one year's rent of the holding, or, where the notice to quit is given without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, such sum, not being less than one year's rent nor more than four years' rent of the holding, as the arbitrator may think proper.
    (5) Compensation shall not be payable under this Section—

    (a) in respect of the sale of any goods, implements, fixtures, produce or stock unless the tenant has before the sale given the landlord a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation thereof; or

    (b) unless the tenant has before the termination of the tenancy given notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Section;

    (c) where the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit; or

    (d) if in a case in which the tenant under Section twenty-three of the Act of 1908 accepts a notice to quit part of his holding as a notice to quit the

    2209

    entire holding, the part of the holding affected by the notice given by the landlord, together with any other part of the holding affected by any previous notice given under that Section by the landlord to the tenant, is less than one-fourth part of the original holding, or the holding as proposed to be diminished is reasonably capable of being cultivated as a separate holding except compensation in respect of the part of the holding to which the notice to quit related; or

    (e) where the holding was let to the tenant by a corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other undertaking, and possession of the holding is required by the corporation for the purpose for which it was acquired by the corporation; or

    (f) in the case of a permanent grass park which the landlord has been in the habit of letting annually for seasonal grazing, and which has since the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen been let to a tenant for a definite and limited period for cultivation as arable land, on the condition that the tenant shall along with the last or waygoing crop sow permanent grass seeds supplied by the landlord, unless the Minister is of opinion that in the national interest the ground should continue to be cultivated as arable land.

    (6) In any case where a tenant holds two or more holdings, whether from the same landlord or different landlords, and receives notice to quit one or more but not all of the holdings, the compensation for disturbance in respect of the holding or holdings shall be reduced by such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the reduction (if any) of the loss attributable to the notice to quit by reason of the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings.
    (7) The landlord shall, on the written application of the tenant of a holding to whom he has given a notice to quit which does not state the reasons for which it is given, furnish to the tenant within twenty-eight days after the receipt of the application a statement in writing of the reasons for the giving of the notice, and if he fails so to do the notice shall be deemed to have been given without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management.
    (8) If any question arises as to whether compensation is payable under this Section or as to the amount payable by way of compensation under this Section the question shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under the Act of 1908.
    (9) Compensation payable under this Section shall be in addition to any compensation to which the tenant may be entitled in respect of improvements, and shall be pay able notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.
    Amendment proposed [17th November]: In Sub-section (4), after the word "sum"
    2210
    ["shall be a sum representing"], to insert the words "not exceeding one year's rent."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: From the farmer's point of view, so far as one aspect is concerned, there is no doubt that the larger the amount of compensation that is fixed by this Bill, at first flash the better. Therefore, I can understand many taking the view that it is better that there should be compensation as provided by the Bill than as provided by the Amendment. I do not think that is by any means conclusive. The reason for giving compensation at all is, as I understand it, that the landowner, exercising one of the powers given to him by the contract of tenancy, determines the tenancy in the interest of the State, where the production of food is concerned, and it is held that, to deprive a tenant of his holding and of his home, he should receive compensation for being so turned out. If ho is to have that compensation—and it has been decided that he is—it is clear that the expenses of his removal would be naturally one of the items which would be included in the amount of compensation. Then we go further, and provide that he is to have any cost he has sustained owing to the removal, that is to say, ho may be obliged to have a forced sale You are then to fix a method of compensation that is uneven in its incidence, more difficult to estimate and may be very far-reaching in its results. I have nothing whatever to say against the principle of compensation. It was given some years ago in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, but I do think the House should bear this in mind, that we have never hitherto appreciated what the figure may amount to. All the time that Act has been in operation we have had steadily rising values and rising markets, and it is by no means certain that the full limit that would be awarded to a tenant who receives notice in this way has been arrived at. To my mind, it has not, and when on the top of all that it is now proposed to give a further year's rent, it does seem to me to the interest of tenant farmers themselves to consider whether it is desirable to ask Parliament to fix such large sums in contemplation as this does.
    I repeat, we are not dealing with capricious eviction, which stands on a

    2211
    totally different footing, and I want to make it perfectly clear that that is not entering into our consideration at the moment at all. If that is so, and the, compensation is greater than is necessary, is it desirable that we should provide it in this Bill? It can only have one result. I said before, and it will bear repetition, that you cannot have a tenant unless you have a landlord, and you ought to take care that you do nothing to make people give up the business of landowning. One of the greatest calamities to a tenant, in my experience—and I am old enough to have seen the old system of yeoman farmer give place to the new class of tenant farmer—is that a tenant farmer should be compelled to buy his own holding. It cripples him and his capital, which would be better employed in tilling the land. Very few tenant farmers can pay off the mortgages on the land they are compelled to buy, and bring up their families and leave the land clear for one of their children when they die. I am anxious really, from the tenant farmer's point of veiw, to see that we do nothing more than is necessary to secure him reasonable security in his holding. I have no objection to landowners selling, so long as you do not cripple the use of the land, but if you are making it inadvisable to invest their money in land for the purpose of letting it to tenants, you are crippling the use of land, and you are limiting the number of persons who will buy it, which, I think, is a very undesirable thing, and I cannot help thinking that in some way or other the compensation provided in respect of reasons inconsistent with good estate management is too high and unnecessary to secure the object we have in view.
    I am aware that there are several different ways of limiting this compensation. I am not quite prepared to say at the moment that the present Amendment is the best. I am rather inclined to think it is, because it has the advantage of making a certainty, and making the people know what the time will be and what the liability will be. They can calculate within a reasonably definite sum how much they will have to pay if a landowner does wish to exercise what is his right, and what is desirable in the public interest, to change a tenant for reasons consistent with good estate management. If that is so, the question really for us to settle is whether the
    2212
    limitation of a year's full rent is sufficient. I, personally, am inclined to think it is, having been a tenant farmer for over 30 years, and had to pay rent.
    Major WHELER: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment further on the Paper of a somewhat similar character. Supposing this Amendment is negatived, will all these other Amendments be cut out or not?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think so. The Committee, I believe, spent four and a-half days on this matter, and the House has already spent a day on it. I think that should be quite sufficient, and that we should pass on to something else.
    Mr. C. WHITE: I have an Amendment down to leave out "one year's" and insert "two years'." Will that be ruled out also? It raises a new issue, that is, to increase the compensation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better join in the Debate now.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Might I ask if you would preserve my Amendment, namely, that the words in reference to one year's rent should be omitted. I should not propose to discuss it, because it has been fully discusesd already, but I should like it negatived or divided upon.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that would be only waste of time.
    Mr. ROYCE: I have an Amendment down which proposes, in the case of a man possessing many farms—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a long way off.
    Captain HOTCHKIN: My Amendment raises an entirely different question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we have had a discussion on the year's rent compensation, which, as I have said, has taken four and a half days in Committee and a day on Report. We shall have had quite enough of it when we have disposed of this, and must pass on to something else.
    Mr. G. EDWARDS: We are told, on one hand, that this Amendment, if passed, will increase the burden on agricultural estates, and in the next breath we are told that it will make very little difference, and will confer no benefit on the farmers, because there are so very few cases of eviction. I have gone very carefully

    2213
    through this, and in my own judgment, if this Amendment is passed, it will make the Bill absolutely useless so far as the tenant farmer is concerned, and especially the arable farmer. It is well known, I think, by those who understand arable farming that no man who invests his money in land can get any return for it, under the four-year system, for four years. Therefore, if there is to be a danger of his rent being raised, or of his having to leave his holding, I think one year's rent is not sufficient compensation. I take quite a different view from some hon. Gentlemen opposite. If agriculture is to be put on a proper footing, if the land is to produce the food that it can and ought to do, then a man who invests his money, the tenant farmer, must be given some encouragement and some security that he will get a proper return for the money he invests. During the Debate last evening some hon. Members were very anxious about the agricultural labourers, especially those who might become farmers in the near future, and as to what their opinion of this particular Amendment was. I think I know something about the agricultural labourer and his feelings and wishes on this matter. The agricultural labourer who is anxious to become a farmer or smallholder would, I am perfectly satisfied if he had the opportunity to express himself, say that the adoption of this Amendment would make this Bill useless to him. The one thing he would want when he became a smallholder for his little capital and labour would be security of tenure, so that if he had to leave he would be amply paid for the capital and labour he had put into the land. Therefore, in the interests of the farmer, and particularly the small farmer, this Clause must be passed as it stands or very nearly so. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reject this Amendment at all costs so that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will do something for the tenant-farmer and those engaged on the land, so that the land may be able to produce the food which is necessary and to employ labour.
    Major HOWARD: I think the House should not lose sight of the fact that what is underlying this Clause is increased production. It is believed by the country and by the Government that the production of cereals can be increased. They have put the farmer under certain con-
    2214
    trol. Whether that is right or wrong is beside the question. The State has come forward and guaranteed the farmer certain prices. The House, I am sure, will agree that under those circumstances the farmer is entitled to receive from his landlord security of tenure or compensation for disturbance. I do not think there is much in this Clause as it is which the good landlord has to fear, because it will be very seldom, probably not more than once in a lifetime, that he will want to take a farm into his own hands, and it is only on that occasion he will have to pay compensation. At the same time, speaking as a farmer, I think we ought to be fair. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) who moved this Amendment has a subsequent Amendment to leave out the words "also a sum equal to one year's compensation." If the Amendment under discussion and that Amendment were carried, the farmer would only get one year's rent for the removal of all his implements of husbandry and tho quitting of the holding and the losses which he might incur in sales. I do not think that would be quite fair, and the farmer would be in very little better position as regards compensation than he is at present, but if my right hon. Friend would limit the compensation which is to cover the cost of removal and loss on safe to one year's rent, and preserve a sum equal to one year's rent for disturbance, I would not object to the Amendment. I think landlords are entitled to know what they are likely to be called on to pay. As the Clause stands it is very indefinite, and the land lord might be called upon to pay a very heavy sum, and one out of all proportion to what I think the framers of this Bill or its supporters thought he would be likely to be called upon to pay.
    Mr. JAMESON: The hon. Member for Norfolk South (Mr. G. Edwards) reiterated a very old fallacy, and I would ask the House to disabuse its mind altogether of that fallacy. He said that we were discussing here the question of compensation to a tenant farmer who has put money and capital into the soil, and who finds himself at the and of his tenancy, a contract tenancy, deprived of that money in capital. That is not the question we are discussing in this Clause. He gets that in the first part of this Clause, to some extent, and he gets it

    2215
    under his right to compensation for unexhausted manures and improvements under the other Agricultural Holdings Act. So that it is drawing a red herring across the track of this discussion to represent the holder of this Amendment and those who support it, as wishing to deprive the agricultural tenant of his right to compensation for money and capital that he has sunk in the soil. "What we are discussing now is whether at the end of his tenancy, contract tenancy, he is entitled, not to compensation for his monetary loss in capital and his loss for disturbance, but whether, in addition to that, he is entitled to a premium or bonus to be paid out of the landlord's pocket. I do not apologise for intervening at this late hour and after a full discussion, because I do wish to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture not to adopt the line that he himself and those who support him had to close their ears to the voice of reason and justice, because they had come in some other place to an agreement between the parties. I am still rather vague as to what that agreement is, and where it was made. According to some poeple it was made in Committee. Some of the Members of the Committee got up and indignantly denied that they were any parties whatsoever to the agreement. This was carried against their opposition, and that at least nullifies the idea that there was agreement. As far as the Committee was concerned, this was a contentious Clause carried against opposition. The lion's share of agreement seems to have been taken by the National Farmers' Union. It is quite right for the Government to consult the various interests concerned, but it is out of the question for the Minister in charge of this Bill to come down here and say that after a pow-wow with the National Farmers' Union the discussion in this House-is to be rendered nugatory because an agreement has been come to with that union. There is too much tendency on the part of the Government to fix up matters with some outside body and then come down to this House and say that an agreement has been fixed up, and all they want is that the House shall register the agreement. That is not our conception of the duty of Parliament. I do not think the Minister in charge of this Bill
    2216
    ought to take up the position that he is precluded from listening to our arguments on account of an agreement of this sort.
    I am not a landlord now, thank goodness, but I am acquainted with a number of landlords, and I know they have had nothing to do with this agreement. The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) has represented this Bill as a sort of eironicon which is going to make peace in this matter for ever. I am no longer a landlord, but I am a lawyer, and I say that this Bill bristles with beautiful legal points which are bound to open a wide vista of litigation, and ft will provide a magnificent battle-field on which landlord and tenant will go on fighting and fighting. As for this Clause being a message of peace and goodwill between landlord and tenant, it is nothing of the kind, and such a statement seems to me to be nonsense. This House ought not to allow itself to be intimidated into any sort of agreement by reason of any alleged arrangement that has been come to either with the Farmers' Union or with any other body.
    You have fixity of tenure provided because the landlord is already intimidated by a threat which must be effective against him. In order to fix a fair rent which is the actual corollary you have set up arbitration. Personally I think even one year's rent is an injustice, but four years' rent, apart from compensation altogether, that is a four years' premium at the end of a tenant's lease, is quite out of the question. I do not believe this Clause will make a single blade of corn grow where it did not grow before. I object to any such phrase as "whittling down compensation" because you are giving the tenant farmer an enormous right which he had not before. I do not want to be too severe in my criticism of this Clause, but I do think that as it stands it will inflict a very great injustice upon the landlord. I think that is admitted by the Government Amendment which has been tabled to a subsequent Clause, where it lays down that the private landlord shall be mulcted in this compensation while the local authority or the Government Department shall not be so mulcted.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): No.
    Mr. JAMESON: I know the answer will be that that only occurs when the land is taken back.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. and gallant Member is now roaming over the whole Clause. I think there was a long discussion yesterday on the Clause, and we are now dealing only with this particular Amendment. I hope the hon and gallant Member will be good enough to adhere strictly to the Amendment which is before the House.
    Mr. JAMESON: My point is that one year's compensation at the termination of the tenancy is sufficient injustice to inflict upon the landlord and that four years is too much, and accordingly I think it should be limited to one year. Under this proposal it might go on for any amount of years, and I shall support the Amendment which limits and fixes the landlord's liability.
    Mr. TURTON: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has rather implied that, on the one side, you have those who shut their minds to reason and justice, and, on the other side, you have those who support the Government, and who suggest that they do so because some compromise has been arrived at. I have been no party to any compromise. I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary that certain discussions took place before the Committee upstairs. We have also heard it stated that if the National Farmers' Union were prepared to support the Ploughing up Orders they would get the support of the Government with regard to Clause 7. Whether it was a compromise or not that was come to does not matter to me. I support the Government in regard to this, and I oppose the Amendment on grounds of reason and justice. There is no Clause in the Bill to which I attach more importance than Clause 7 now under discussion. It is far more important than any of the other Clauses which have been passed, because, unless you give the farmer security of tenure in his holding, it is utterly unreasonable to expect you are going to get any increase in the production of food. We have on our estates farmers who have been on the same land for a great number of years, and I cannot imagine anything more harrassing to a farmer than the present unrest and insecurity which he has on the land. A recent speaker alluded to the four-shift
    2218
    system. Not only in regard to that system, but practically in every other relation of farming, you are bound to take the long view. You cannot possibly go on farming from year to year or from hand to mouth. You must look ahead. What has been happening all over the country? Fanners and their forbears, who had been on the farms for generations, are now turned out, and there is a feeling of insecurity all over the country. I can speak for Yorkshire. It is a great hardship on the farmers who have been turned out practically without any compensation whatsoever.
    The question of course under this Bill is, how are you going to get it? My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury (Major Howard) said you would get no increased production and would not attract farmers with capital and with a knowledge of farming pursuits to remain on the farm unless this Clause is passed, and that men who have made a certain amount of money on the farms would retire from the business. That can only be avoided by giving compensation as proposed under this particular Clause. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman), who proposed this Amendment, to say that no compensation whatever should be given.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not say that.
    Mr. TURTON: On all sides we are merely discussing what amount of compensation should be given, and I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if his Amendment is carried it will be an entirely retrograde move and will mean in fact setting aside the Agricultural Holdings Act.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No, no.
    Mr. TURTON: Yes, and if the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me I will endeavour to make that point clear. Under the law as it is to-day, if you discharge a tenant, unless you want the farm for yourself, or unless he is bankrupt or has not paid his rent, he is entitled to compensation for disturbance. Hon. Members apparently do not agree, but I repeat that if you discharge your tenant, unless it be for the reasons given—that he is a bankrupt, or has not paid his rent, or is not farming properly, or that you want to occupy the farm yourself, you have to pay compensation. Cases of that sort have already gone through the

    2219
    different courts and have been before the arbitrators, and my point is this. In those cases where compensation has been given the compensation for disturbance for the tenant's removal has amounted to more than one year's rent. It is perfectly well known that if you pass this Clause in its present form the tenant will get one year's rent, and, in addition, the costs of removal, which will make it a year and a half or two years' rent. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury (Major Howard) suggested that there should be a maximum amount fixed, and I anticipate that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he gets up to reply, will not turn a deaf ear to that suggestion. It is not unreasonable that there should be a maximum amount fixed. The hon. Baronet who seconded the Amendment referred to some very extreme cases. But it would not be fair that because of one extreme case the landlord should be under an unlimited liability. It seems to me that the amount suggested, one year's rent, is totally inadequate for the purpose for which it is intended, namely, for the purpose of giving security of tenure. I am not discussing any question of fixity of tenure, but I am going to support the Government in regard to this matter. Personally, I think my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has not shown that amount of backbone which one would have liked him to show in connection with this Bill. I am sorry he has given way on several points. I am sorry he did not agree to fight out the question of the ploughing up order. I am extremely sorry that those tenants who received notice on the 6th of April last are to get no compensation under this Clause. But, be that as it may, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to be firm on this occasion. I believe it is one of the very best Clauses in the Bill, and if the Amendment is carried then the sooner the Bill is thrown over and no further proceedings taken the better.
    Mr. J. GARDINER: I will try to confine myself to the Amendment. The first thing I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) who moved this Amendment is this, that his statement that the landlord desires to know the exact sum he is to be liable for is not given effect to by the Amendment, which merely provides that the amount shall not exceed one year's rent.
    2220
    The sum may be very much smaller, and therefore the landlord does not know the exact amount of his liability. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment desires to do what is fair both for landlord and tenant, and that the expenses directly attributable to the quitting of the holding when assessed properly by a competent body should be paid; the right hon. Gentleman would not desire that any man entitled to a greater sum than one year's rent should be defrauded of it. Take the case of removals. The other day I had a number of things taken a considerable distance on the railway, and when I got the account it was over £7—considerably more than I had expected. I can therefore imagine it would be quite easy for the cost of removal to exceed in many cases one year or even two years' rent. Of course, in many other cases it would be a much lesser amount. I do not think it would be fair, however, that the tenant farmer should be limited to one year's rent. He only asks what is fair, just and reasonable. He desires to be paid his actual loss in this respect, and it has always been agreed that any loss sustained by a tenant farmer in virtue of his quitting his holding should be recouped to him. In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson), who referred to the Agricultural Holdings Act, and to the possibility of getting some recompense under it, I have said before in this House, and I want to repeat, that the only class of persons who are benefited by the Agricultural Holdings Act are the members of his profession. The sums that have been paid have not been paid to the tenant farmers who made the claims, but to the legal gentlemen who acted on the one side or the other in the references. If this Bill is to be as productive of litigation as the hon. Member suggests, it will be a windfall to the lawyers and a bad business for all agriculturists. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to the position which he took up in Committee. Although many things have been said against the compromise that was there arrived at, I want, as one who happened to be present, to pay a tribute to the Gentlemen on the other side who took part in the negotiations, and to say that I am absolutely certain that they had the best interests of landlords and tenants at heart, and at that time made a compromise which was

    2221
    essential if this Bill was to go through. Although the tenant farmers did not receive by the arrangement all that they expected or would like, the compromise was a fair and honourable one, and I, for one, will do my best to maintain it.
    Captain HOTCHKIN: I think we are all agreed on one point, namely, that one year's rent is a fair and reasonable compensation. The reason for the present Amendment is the fact that the compensation payable on quitting is an unknown quantity. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point very carefully, and see if he cannot make the amount definite. It is suggested that it should be limited to one year's rent, which I think would be fair. We have been talking about big landlords, but at the present moment there are hundreds and thousands of small men who are landlords. I, personally, am much interested m smallholdings, and I could give instances in which smallholders have saved sufficient money to buy land, and have let it. These men have had sons come back from the War, or sons growing up, and they wish, perhaps, to get back their farms for their own use or for their sons. It cannot be said that this is an unreasonable desire, on their part. If they know that they have only to pay one year's rent, they know where they are, but on the top of that there is an unknown quantity, and that is not satisfactory. In the case of a smallholding, say of 20 or 30 acres, where a man has gone in for pigs or prize poultry or some other speciality, a year's rent may, perhaps, be somewhere about £50; but when you come to the unknown quantity of compensation you do not know what that is, and that little man, in order to get back his holding, might have to pay £200 or £300. That is not fair. We are talking about hitting the big landowner and the big farmer, but do not let us bother about them. Let us look after the little man first, and then we shall get what is wanted in this Bill. T do press upon my right hon. Friend that he should consider the question of definitely fixing an amount to represent the total compensation that can possibly be paid in any of these cases.
    Colonel Sir A. SPROT: This Amendment, so far as I understand it, relates only to the first and most justifiable case in which an owner desires to resume possession of a farm; it docs not refer to
    2222
    those cases in which his action is unjustifiable or capricious. That being so, I wish to impress upon the House how severe is the penalty imposed upon the owner. Under the present law, when the tenant gives up his holding, he has to receive compensation for unexhausted manure, and for feeding stuffs used upon the farm within a certain period. Let me try and put a figure upon that. In a case that came to my notice quite recently it amounted to rather over a year's rent of the farm. That has to be paid to the tenant in any case. There is also, under the present law, the expense of removal, which, of course, is a very indefinite sum. It is now sought, in this, the most justifiable case, to impose upon the owner an additional penalty in respect of loss on the sale of stock and so forth, as set forth in this Sub-section, and also one year's rent. If we try to put a figure upon the loss on theo sale of stock, there also we are met with the difficulty that it is too vague and indefinite. I think, however, that I may assume—and I am supported in this by what has been said by the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Gardiner)—that you can put that also at a year's rent; and on the top of that the owner would have to pay a year's rent in addition. That is to say, in this, the milder and more justifiable case, the owner would have to pay, in all, three years' gross rent in order to get back possession of his own farm.
    I have the authority of some of my colleagues opposite from Scotland for saying that they would not entirely approve of all the provisions of this Bill, and would not be satisfied with the provisions of this Section. I shall, therefore, leave them alone. I represent, however, a good many small owners. The County of Fife has very few large landowners, but it has a largo number of small owners—men drawing an income from the ownership of land of £1,000 or £1,200 a year. Those people own the land, and the rents they receive amount to a very small return upon the expenditure which has been incurred in the erection of farm buildings, the drains, and the fences, and other equipment of the farm. What are we asked to do under this Sub-section? What is the justification for the extra year's rent which is being put upon the top of those two other items, each amounting to a year's rent? There is a justification for the claim for unexhausted manure,

    2223
    because the tenant has put that value into the soil, and it remains in the soil. There is a justification also for his claim for the expenses of removal. But what is the extra year's rent going to be paid for? That is what I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain to us. I am asking the Minister in charge of the Bill, and I challenge him to give me an explanation of this. What is the justification for imposing the penalty of an extra year's rent? It is all the more unjustifiable when we consider that the rent itself in almost every case amounts to less than the ordinary interest upon the capital expenditure which has been put into the building and equipments of the farms. That is to say, under this Clause you are asking the owner to give to the tenant a year's interest on the buildings which the tenant has occupied during the whole of his tenancy and has made use of, and you oire now asking the owner to pay him back the mere interest upon the expenditure. This is entirely unjustifiable, and the penalties which are being imposed in this, the minor case, are far too severe, and for that reason I shall support the Amendment.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. C. WHITE: I have two Amendments further down the Paper, but Mr. Speaker says I had better take part in the general discussion without moving them. My first Amendment was to increase the compensation for one year to two years' rent. My second was that in the case of a capricious eviction the minimum compensation should be the two years' rent. So far as compensation is payable at all, I support the Bill, except that I want to get that increased. Yesterday we had two Amendments on the Paper to which my name was attached, which were ruled out of Order because of the Motion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) to delete Clause 7 altogether. So that it is somewhat difficult for me to speak as I might have been able to do had I been allowed to move my Amendment yesterday or these two to day. I am not a practical farmer. I know very little about agriculture. The right hon. Baronet, I heard yesterday, in the autumn of his days can act as a shepherd. I should have liked to see him advocating the deletion of Clause V in his shepherd's dress. It would have had a very great effect on the House. In my younger days I did a little bit of farm-
    2224
    ing, and that is all I know about agriculture. The point I wish to make is that there is no security of tenure in the Bill itself. I have heard so much about Caxton Hall that I dare not mention it again, but this was promised by the Prime Minister in October of last year, and it is no good saying, as one hon. Member said, that this was a speech of a Welshman who, in his exuberance and natural flow of oratory, really did not mean exactly what he said. It is not often that one hears the Prime Minister repudiated by his own followers. We who read the speech took it textually and literally, as we used to take the Prime Minister's speeches, and looked upon it a3 a promise that there should be real security of tenure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Fitzroy) yesterday said the Prime Minister, through the hard work he had been doing, was somewhat confused in his meaning.
    The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen), in the Committee upstairs, of which I was a member, advised us to oppose fixity of tenure, but to vote for adequate security for capital. There is no real adequate security of capital for the farmer as the Bill stands at present. In my constituency there are many hundreds of small farmers with small holdings, from £20 to £50 a year. It does not give them the security they expected, after the speech of the Prime Minister last year. They get their £50, I know, if they move across the road, and they get the other small advantages which are to be obtained under the Bill, but surely it will not be contended that £50, if he is paying £50 a year rent, in addition to the other advantages, is adequate compensation or real adequate security for the capital which he had invested. That is the crux of both my Amendments, that this is not sufficient security of capital, especially for a small holder. It is not a sufficient set-off to being deprived of that security of tenure which was promised to him and which he expected to get under the Bill. The foundation of the Bill itself should be based on that speech of the Prime Minister in October last at a place which I will not mention again. This compensation has already been whittled down in Committee. There is a combined effort again downstairs to whittle it down again to the very narrowest possible margin,

    2225
    and in that I was pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary last night take up the position he did and say it should not be whittled down any further than it had been up to the present.
    I should like to say a word about the arrangement which was come to by the National Farmers' Union and some other gentlemen sitting on that Committee. The Committee itself never really got all these discussions before them which had taken place between the Fanners' Union and the other gentlemen representing the landed interest on that Committee. We were told the arrangement had been come to and we discussed the arrangement when it had been made, but I am sure the doorstep of the Board of Agriculture was almost as much worn as the Downing Street steps are in the course of Labour disputes sometimes. I objected upstairs and I object now that we never had a fair discussion until things had been settled between the two interests upstairs. Again I have the evidence of hundreds of smallholders in my constituency that they are entirely dissatisfied with what the National Farmers' Union have done in this matter. I cannot move my Amendments, but I sincerely hope the Parliamentary Secretary will stand by the attitude he took up last night and not allow this to be whittled down, as it is intended to be, by the combined effort that is being made opposite. I do not often vote with the Government—I do not suppose they lose very much by that—but I shall vote with the Government for once, for about the second or third time in two years, because I cannot get anything better, to keep the position as it is and not be whitled down by these Gentlemen opposite who seem to be making a determined effort to render Clause 7 nugatory as far as possible and not to give adequate security of capital to make up somewhat for the security of tenure which has been denied to the tenant farmer in this Bill.
    Major WHELER: The hon. Member who has just sat down said he was not a practical farmer. It is a pity that he did not hear the words of a practical farmer a little earlier in the Debate, who took a much broader view of the situation and admitted that the burden put upon the landlord was likely to be, especially in the case of the small man, a very heavy and crushing burden. Being aware of the hon. Member's past
    2226
    record I knew that landlords would get no mercy at his hands.
    Mr. WHITE: Hear, hear.
    Major WHELER: I think we can discountenance his remarks, because he has admitted that he is not a practical farmer. Having an Amendment of my own on the Paper, which I should liked to have moved, I am in a difficult situation, but I realise that this is the only opportunity we shall get of voting against the Clause as it stands with regard to the question of compensation. I am not at all satisfied with the settlement as to compensation, and as I was not called upon to agree to the compromise which was made upstairs by hon. Friends of mine, who were perfectly justified in doing what they thought best, and I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). We are not dealing with cases of capricious disturbance, but with cases consistent with good estate management, and there are cases to which I should like to call attention of the House. Take the case of the email owner who wants to bring his son on to a farm on his estate. An hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Cornwall said last night that the universities are getting many young men, more than they have ever had before, who are anxious to take up farming, to learn farming, and to be able to take a part in the management of the estate. Therefore, you will have more and more a desire by the owners of small estates to give their eons a chance of putting their knowledge to practical use. What will be their position? If the land is taken possession of they will have all these heavy and indefinite burdens to bear, and on the top of that there is this one year's rent fine, for it is nothing less than a fine. That will be an enormous deterrent to the owners of these small estates in getting their sons into agriculture.
    While we are considering the case of the farmer, and what compensation he should got, we have here a case of a type of landowner who did his duty well throughout the War, who has not, in most cases, had any increase in rent, and who may have a perfectly genuine reason for wishing to get his son on the land, but who will have to pay this heavy burden of compensation before he can get possession of a farm. I do not believe

    2227
    that the vast majority of tenant farmers in this country agree with that. I do not believe that the action of the National Farmers' Union and its Executive represents the feeling of a vast number of the tenant farmers on this matter. I have in my possession resolutions, not on this point, from branches disapproving of action that the Executive in London have taken. Here is a case where the negotiators on behalf of the National Farmers' Union who negotiated this compromise, to which they are standing so firmly, do not represent a very large number of the members of their union, who, I am sure, want to see justice done to the type of man I have described when he wishes to put his son on the land. This young man who may wish to go back on the land, very likely has returned from the War and has gone to the University to be scientifically trained, and he has just as much right to be put on the land as any of the ex-soldiers whom you are trying to settle on the land to-day. Yet you are treating him in quite a different way. The estate is to be penalised to this very heavy extent if the landlord desires for perfectly legitimate reasons to get the land and put his son on it. I urge the Solicitor-General to consider that point. It is a genuine case, which will be an increasing case on account of the increased interest taken by a large number of young men in scientific agriculture, and the desire they have to take possession of a portion of their father's estate and put their knowledge to practical use.
    There is also a hardship from the knowledge that this one year's rent has to be paid as a fine, and its effect upon the owners who are compelled to sell their estates. There are a large number of estates which have to be sold because they cannot be carried on owing to the difficult time. The owners are forced to sell, and they will have to take a decreased value for their estates, because the people who buy them will realise that if they want to get rid of the farmers on the land, they in their turn will have to pay this heavy compensation. Many of the people who are selling estates are doing so not because they wish to do so. I know of estates the owners of which are parting with them to their bitterest regret because they cannot carry on. These people will have a loss of at least 8 or 9
    2228
    per cent, of the capital value of their land because of this one year's rent which has to be paid for compensation. I hope hon. Members will have some sympathy for the small type of men who have done their duty in the past, and who under the operation of this Clause are going to suffer in ways which are very unfair. I should have liked to have moved my Amendment, but I understood from Mr. Speaker's ruling that this is the only opportunity we have of registering our protest. I trust that those who agree with me, that the hardships which certain classes of individuals will suffer under this Clause are very severe, will take the opportunity of registering their protest, and support the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I wish we had a few more Members present to hear the excellent arguments that have been put forward. I regret the action taken by the Minister last night. It is most unfortunate that when the Government introduce a measure of this sort they should ask Members to curtail their criticism. After all, Members representing agricultural constituencies were not fully represented on the Committee which discussed this Bill, and in that Committee things were done which were not known to this House and the House should consider fully such an important question as this. I am glad to see the Solicitor-General in his place. I hope that he will give attention to what has been said on all sides, and not take up the line which was taken up last night by the Minister in charge of the Bill that we are to sit down and accept whatever the Government offer. I am not in any way averse to a settlement of this point, but Members are not to be told simply because a thing has been agreed to elsewhere, and that the Government looks upon this as a fair and just agreement, that we should accept it.
    An hon. Member has said there are many small men in his constituency with a rent, say, of £50 who did not think they were going to get enough security if they were only to get the cost of quitting and £50. Theirs is one of the cases which prove the difficulties which arise under this Bill, because I rather agree with the hon. Member that when a man who has got a small holding and is working it well is turned out a much larger amount of compensation might be paid. But we must not judge this case as an exceptional case. In framing legislation

    2229
    such as this we are going to inflict hardship if we lay down the compensation which is going to be paid under this Bill. While I agree largely with my hon. Friend on that point, I trust he will be equally ready to agree that it would he very hard lines on the small landlord to have to pay three years' rent on a farm of, say, 500 acres. That is £l,500, which would be a very big item out of a man's income if he wishes to regain his own property. Perhaps the Government will give some reasons to show that they have thought out these different instances. I have listened to nearly the whole of this Debate and the arguments from the farmers' representatives. I believe it is not on the big estates that the insecurity of tenure is most felt. I am quite willing to admit that legislation already passed by the Government, and which was called for from the most extreme sections of this House, has added greatly to the insecurity of tenure. That is not the fault of the landlords. Personally, I should support anything that would add to the security of the tenant without putting an immense handicap on the landowner, who in the past has done as much for agriculture as any other section of the commuuity.
    As regards security of tenure, I believe that the good tenant has very little fear of disturbance on estates. The trouble is that by giving this compensation under the Bill you are blocking the way of many men who at present are being educated to agriculture and you are also stopping the promotion of men who started as agricultural labourers. The Minister has told us that ho is anxious to get men back to the land, and the best way is that the man who starts as an agricultural labourer should have the prospect of becoming the tenant of a farm. The best method would he for him to start as an agricultural labourer, learn the work thoroughly, then find himself foreman on a farm, and in that way arouse the interest, very possibly, of the landowner, who would put him on a farm. In that way we could give encouragement to men to go on the land. At present there is an absolute block under the existing system with the very high minimum wage—I do not say it is high in comparison with other occupations—with the result that a man sees that he is in a cul-de-sac, and this does not tempt people to go on the land. Therefore, we do want to be
    2230
    very careful in giving security to the bad tenant or even to the indifferent tenant I do not wish to see anybody turned out I wish to see a man get ample remuneration for anything which he has put into the land. Under the present compensation, there is nothing to prevent a man, if he is turned out of his farm, from getting what he has put into it. You are imposing on top of that a fine, but why the landlord should pay the fine, I do not know. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to give us a considered speech as to why he wishes this compensation, and not simply to say, as was said last night, that he wishes to stand by it and will not listen to argument.
    Brigadier-General WIGAN: I shall support the Amendment, because it clears up the vague and indefinite wording at the commencement of this Sub-section. It is vague wording of that sort which almost invariably leads to litigation. How are you possibly going to compute the expense to which tenants may be unavoidably put owing to the cost of removal? And I should like to ask what limit there is as to how far a tenant may move? Presuming that he is disturbed owing to the exigencies of good estate management, may he remove from the South of England to the North of Scotland, and will the landlord be liable for the expense? Is the move confined to the United Kingdom, even? Why should he not go to New Zealand or Canada? There is no limit whatever. It is wholly unbusinesslike, and it is not equitable, to make anybody liable by Act of Parliament for an unlimited liability. On these grounds I shall most certainly support the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) in the Division Lobby. I should, however, like to say that I am not able to agree with him that the Amendment to delete the words "and also a sum equal to one year's rent of the holding" is in the least consequential upon the present Amendment. That altered sentence seems to me clearly to define the amount of compensation which a tenant will have for disturbance, and, whether the tenant is disturbed for reasons of good estate management or otherwise, the fact remains that he is interfered with in his means of livelihood, and I am, therefore, of opinion that he is entitled to the substantial compensation which he gets under the Sub-section. I believe other Members beside myself

    2231
    are in favour of the Amendment now before the House who would disagree with the so-called consequential Amendment, which seems to have for its object the reduction of compensation for disturbance, and with that I do not agree.
    Mr. ACLAND: I listened to the discussion of this Amendment last night and for three-quarters of an hour this afternoon. At first I thought it was intended only as a demonstration, a light skirmish, but the discussion has been so prolonged, and the Members taking part have shown such earnestness, that I think a section of the House does clearly intend to press it, with all the consequences that must be involved if it were carried. I agree with those who have argued that we are not bound here by any agreement come to upstairs, especially behind the scenes upstairs, but it seems to me that the position of the Bill on this matter is quite critical. I think the strength of the Bill and its weakness rests in this, that the different parts of it are very closely inter-related and that you cannot go far either in whittling away or increasing the force (in operation) of one part of the Bill, say with regard to control or guarantees, or this Amendment in regard to compensation, without doing away with the balance of it and the inter-dependence of it.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: The first part of the Bill is a temporary measure, and the second part of the Bill is for all time.
    Mr. ACLAND: No, that is not so. The Bill now hangs together. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes. Parliament cannot now present a petition against the guarantees unless they are also willing to present a petition against the Agricultural Wages Board, against control, and against the other parts.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: That is our point. That is Part I. This is Part II.
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, I beg your pardon. To that extent, at any rate, we have not got what we started with, that Parliament can get rid of the guarantees and leave the other parts of the Bill. They are related. However, I do not think that argument comes to much. Hon. Members know well enough—they are doing it quite deliberately and perfectly legitimately—that if this Amendment is carried, this part of the Bill giving compensation to the tenant will not be worth
    2232
    the paper it is written on. The balance of the Bill will be wholly destroyed from the tenant's point of view. Though I supported control, I am very doubtful whether control is anything more than a handmaiden and a help, and an indirect help, for it is quite impossible to do much through control unless you have got other provisions in the Bill with regard to the guaranteed minimum price and compensation which will make the farmers feel they have got a real interest in putting all their money and effort and work into their farms, and it is no use trying to hide from ourselves that if this compensation Clause were largely cut down, as is proposed by this Amendment, instead of having, let us say, the modified goodwill of the farmers behind this Bill, you would have their distinct illwill. In this matter we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that an arrangement was come to, and that the only thing which is really going to give the Bill a real chance of helping agriculture is that there should be the goodwill of the great bulk of our farmers behind it. People say that the Farmers' Union is not representative. I think they would jolly soon find out how representative it was if this were torn up, this arrangement that has been made with their representatives. Nothing could more enormously increase the power of these unions than for us to try to break away from arrangements made with them on the ground that they are not representative. Therefore I can echo what was said by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Walton (Mr. Turton), that this must be regarded as a Second Reading point, and that Members who support the Government, and even I, who do not support the Government, but want to give a reasonable chance to the Bill, must feel absolutely bound to support them in this matter.
    On the merits, of course, there is a very great deal to be said against it. As the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) said last night, you can argue a great deal on this line, that it is rather indefensible that you should hit the landlord so hard without giving the farmer anything that he can really call security, because undoubtedly, in spite of his year's rent, land will change hands. Owners will be bound to sell, and in many cases

    2233
    farmers will continue to feel that they have not got real security; and the alternative to this is to go much further, and the next thing would be rent courts, and dual ownership, and nationalisation. You cannot get away from that. I feel that hon. Members who are still in the main supporters of the general policy of the Bill will realise that this is an absolutely vital point, simply because the Bill will have no chance whatever unless, when it is passed, you can get, not all perhaps, but a large majority of the farmers, to say, "Well, that was a genuine attempt, lot us try to work it, let us see how we can get along even with control, let us try to make the county agricultural committees at any rate working bodies expressive of the best farming opinion in our counties, and let us see whether we cannot help the nation in general to get a really high standard of production and to realise that we are doing our best, as citizens of the country, to help it in the need that is before it." If it went forth that compensation had been practically halved, as this Amendment would make it, it is absolutely good-bye to any feeling of trust on the part of the agricultural community and of willingness to try to make the Bill a success.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I wish to add my vote in support of the Government against my right hon. Friend who is moving this Amendment. I do not attribute very much importance to this Clause. I think Clause 4 is far more important and drastic. There has been a certain amount of exaggeration about this particular provision. The Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton), who is a keen supporter of the Government's policy, talks as if thousands of farmers were being dispossessed in Yorkshire from their farms. He knows perfectly well that farmers who are leaving their farms in Yorkshire will be accelerated by this. In spite of that there is no doubt that the House is perfectly free to repudiate any arrangement, especially such as has been made. It is perfectly clear that at the time and even now the arrangement constituted what seemed to be a fair settlement between the parties. I would like my hon. Friends to cast their minds back to the time when the Bill was a very much worse one than it is now. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said that all that happened was that four or five wretched little words were taken out, but those
    2234
    wretched little words meant thousands of pounds loss, endless years of litigation and huge fees to the counsel of the country. A great deal was given up when the farmers agreed to that and a very considerable change took place in the Bill.
    The particular arrangement emanated from the Surveyors' Institution, and was agreed to by the great majority of the members. I agree there is no special merit in a hard and fast sum like, one year's rent. It is illogical, may mean injustice, and may be thoroughly unsatisfactory, but the farmer is not a very clear thinker. He likes something ho can see and get hold of. He knows a year's rent is something definite. Everything else represents to him possible litigation. That is the reason for which he is prepared to give up much larger possibilities. This does give a possibility of some sort of satisfaction for both sides. I regreet we in the agricultural interests appear before the community as being unable to settle our differences. I would like to see a lasting agreement. There is a tendency in some branches of the Farmers' Union to talk of this as an instalment. That was not the attitude of their leaders, but of some of them, and it does more harm towards the cause of peace than anything else they can do. After all, this Bill dons do a great many things for those of us who are landowners. In the case whore the landlord has a fair claim to make against his tenant, it gives him more opportunities than he had before, and I think it is a settlement.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman for Camborne (Mr. Acland) alluded to Part I and contradicted my hon. Friend. In Part I it is laid down that unless both Houses agree there can be no alteration unless the Wages Board goes, something else goes, and the guaranteed prices go. He believes that the guaranteed prices must remain according to the conditions of this Bill if it should become an Act. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He knows perfectly well, supposing this Bill becomes an Act, and supposing in a year's time the guarantees are operative, and supposing hon. Gentlemen representing town constituencies say, "We do not choose to be taxed for the benefit of the farmer. We do not

    2235
    choose to have our food indirectly made dearer for the benefit of the farmer," that all these safeguards are merely waste paper. There is nothing to prevent any Government coming down and passing an Act and repealing part of this Bill.
    Mr. ACLAND: I did not mean that Parliament had not power to repeal any Act or any part of an Act.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Of course it has. What is the use of saying it has not, and that if the Bill becomes an Act that part which is supposed to be an advantage to the farmers will remain and the others will not? Everybody knows that should these guarantees become operative, it is ten to one that in six months they will be reduced. Even if they become operative, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well they apply only to wheat and oats, and the majority of the oats grown on a holding are consumed on the holding and, therefore, the price does not matter in the least. The only thing which is going to be attained under this Bill is a price for wheat which in the majority of cases is only grown once in four years.
    I should like to say a word upon the suggestion that because the Government has made an arrangement, everybody is bound to act by it. Supposing the Government made an arrangement in the House of Commons with this House itself, it does not follow by any means that everybody is bound to agree with it. How can it be said that an arrangement made with the Committee upstairs, where there are probably 30 or 40 out of the 700 Members, and very likely 20 out of the 30 or 40, binds all of us who were not members of the Committee, who knew nothing about it and were not in any way parties to the arrangement. An arrangement was made by three hon. Members. These hon. Members only represent themselves. I am a Member of the Agricultural Committee of this House. I knew nothing whatever about it, I never heard anything about it. I did not attend every meeting, but I attended a good many of them. I did not attend every meeting because I found my hon. Friends had no courage whatever. All that they desired to do was to go cap in hand to the Farmers' Union and say that," Can we have a little left
    2236
    of what belongs to us and which never belonged to you, and ought never to belong to you?" Under those circumstances, I thought it was no use going when tactics of that sort were going to be carried out. That is the position. It is equally as ridiculous to say that this House is to be bound by what three or four Members choose to think was the right thing to do. Possibly I am wrong and they were right. It is equally absurd to say that we should be bound by anything they did as to say that the Farmers' Union in any kind of way bound the farmers. I do not believe the majority of farmers know anything whatever about this. It is human nature, that if you offer somebody something belonging to somebody else, he would like to have it. He gets it for nothing.
    What it seems to me we are considering at present is whether it is right or wrong that property belonging to A or B is to be handed over, say, from A to B to conciliate—as it is termed—B, and so prevent him endeavouring to take more of A's property than he might otherwise be disposed to take in a given period. Some farmers, it is said, regard this as an instalment. Of course they do! The history of this kind of legislation shows that it is always considered as an instalment. Look back to the Irish Land Acts. Go back to 1870. Mr. Gladstone said then: "Nothing further will be done." This was in those days considered a matter on which it was supposed the Irish farmers could be conciliated and so the thing make for peace. But did it? Wore the Danes conciliated when they came over to England, and the English kings bribed them to go away? They came back again, and again, until King Alfred rose, a king who had a little courage and backbone, who said: "I am going to stick up for what belongs to me." That, is the kind of courage we want at the present time.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Before the House gives its decision on this point—and after the long debate we have had I hope we will go to a division shortly—I should like to say one or two things In the first place exception has been taken to some observations of mine yesterday in regard to the agreement, and the advice I ventured to suggest to the House—that they should follow the lines of the agreement that had been made. It may be that

    2237
    I expressed myself badly. Certainly I did not for a moment desire to suggest that the House was in any way bound by that agreement—certainly not bound by any agreement made privately. It is not bound by the decision of the Committee. The House is perfectly free to review the decision of the Committee, and to come to any decision it likes. At the same time, having regard to all the circumstances, and the history of this question, I do hold, and I hold now very strongly, the view that the House would be wise to confirm the arrangement which was come to in Committee.
    What happened? When this Bill was originally introduced, it went much further than this Clause goes to-day. Certain negotiations took place, first of all, without my knowledge, between certain Members of the Agriculutral Committee of this House, and certain members of the National Farmers' Union. A suggested arrangement was made, a compromise. It was brought to my notice, and I gave the fullest consideration to it, and I thought it was a fair compromise. Amendments were put down, and the matter was discussed at great length in Committee, considered fully from every point of view, and at the end of the Committee adopted the proposed compromise. It was adopted following one of the principal divisions, by a majority of 56 to 4—a very large majority in a Committee of that kind. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that this matter was thought out carefully, talked over and considered from every point of view, I ventured, and I see no reason whatever why I should vary the opinion that I then formed, to think that this was a fair and equitable compromise, and one I subsequently recommended the House to adopt. That is all I wish to say upon that point, but if I in any way led the House to suppose the House was bound by that agreement, or that I had turned a deaf ear to any argument, no doubt it was due to the fact that very often when one is working at rather high tension, as I have been doing of late, one possibly expresses oneself not exactly in the way intended.
    The gist of this Amendment is to substitute for an indefinite charge for the cost of removal a fixed sum of one year's rent. It has been argued that this is fair, because the cost of removal is intended, and it has been suggested by
    2238
    some hon. Members to-night that it would not be possible to estimate it. That is not the case at all. It is done now. Under the Act of 1908, where there is capricious eviction, the costs of removal are granted in each case. It has been done over and over again. Only this morning I was going through a list of cases where compensation for the cost of removal had been obtained under the Act of 1908. When my right hon. and hon. Friends think this will be an enormous charge, let me tell them that certainly in nine cases out of ten the cost of removal awarded under the Act of 1908 has been considerably less—often very much less—than one year's rent. Out of about 30 cases I was going through to-day, there was only one where the cost of removal amounted to more than the rent. If you put in one year's rent as a figure to average the cost of removal, I think it is very likely that the maximum will become the minimum, that it will become so in every case, and that one year's rent will be paid. In that respect the tenant farmer will get rather more than under this particular Amendment. I realise the Amendment is intended to go further. It is confining the whole compensation to one year's rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes," and "No."] Yes, if it is read in connection with the other Amendments. I think my right hon. Friend will say I am not misrepresenting him.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is my intention.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is the intention of my right hon. Friend. If, then, that is the case, I say, having considered the matter very carefully I consider, under the circumstances, that would be totally inadequate compensation. Because of the various circumstances I have stated, I do not see my way at this stage to agree to any further reduction. I hope, therefore, the House will confirm what the Committee decided upstairs. One word further. I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Lane-Fox) put forward the importance of making this a real and lasting and final settlement, so as to get rid of the difficulties involved, and the trouble which might arise between landlord and tenant. I entirely agree. We want this to be a lasting settlement. If it is proved that certain branches of the National Farmers' Union have taken the line that this is only to be regarded as an instalment, then, so far as I am concerned, I condemn their attitude

    2239
    quite as strongly as I condemn any attempt on the other side to whittle away the compensation. I hope this may tend to a lasting settlement. I believe it is a fair and equitable settlement. I believe what my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Acland) said is perfectly true, that unless we, under this Bill, pay substantial compensation based upon what I believe to be a fair principle for disturbance, we shall be up against very much bigger demands for fixity of tenure, Land Courts, and so on, to which, so far as I am concerned, the Government are entirely opposed. I agree that this is really the solution which is necessary under the present circumstances of unrest which prevails owing to the land sales and other causes, and I certainly do not turn a deaf ear to reason, but having considered the matter over and over again, and having consulted all the persons interested in this question, I have no hesitation in asking the House to reject the Amendment and confirm what was settled in Committee upstairs.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. BILLING: On the Second Reading I moved that the Bill should be taken in Committee of the Whole House, and I think about 20 Members supported the Motion in the Lobby. I personally regarded this Bill as a matter of such great importance that I considered it should be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House, and, indeed, very important decisions were taken by majorities such as 26 to 4 in Committee upstairs. That only represents half the Committee, which consisted of 60 Members, but there are 707 Members of this House, and are 707 Members to be swayed by the decision of 26 Members in the Star Chamber upstairs? If every Member of this House had a right to attend in one of these Committees upstairs, then I should say that we as a House should be bound by their decisions, but it is only the privileged Members who are allowed to attend these Committees. Personally, I have had the honour of being a Member of this House for a number of years now, but on no occasion have I ever been invited to attend any of these Committees upstairs. Possibly the Government have a very good reason for taking that position, but that in no way debars me from taking every opportunity I can of trying to have the interests of the farmers of Hertfordshire discussed on the floor of
    2240
    this House. I consider that unless security of tenure is guaranteed to a farmer you will never get good farming. I do not make any suggestions as to how you are going to do it. I do not want to stir friction between farmer and landlord, but what commercial proposition would be possible under the conditions under which the average farmer lives? Farmers, unlike the Government, have to look ahead. Farmers, unlike the Government, cannot afford to be opportunists. Take the question of manuring a farm over a period of five years. What politician ever thought five years ahead? But on a farm, in between the first and the fifth year, there are all sorts of occasions which have to be considered before-hand and dealt with. A good farmer has got to look ahead, and you cannot tell me that any farmer who holds a farm at the caprice of a landlord can possibly seriously look ahead, or ever become a good farmer. I am not suggesting that all the landlords of this country should hand over their farms to the farmers in the interests of good farming, but I suggest that everything that tends to make it more difficult for a landlord to remove a tenant makes it more difficult to sell the farm over his head. If a farm tenant could be got rid of as quickly as the tenant of an ordinary shop, the farm would be more readily saleable, but when a man is going to buy a farm he wants to know when he can get possession, and if he cannot get immediate possession the proposition does not attract the gambler in land so much as if he could get immediate possession. The Government have taken power in this Bill to do everything possible and, I may say, a good number of things which will prove utterly impossible. They can make a man plough his grass land, they can make a man keep cattle when he does not know how to keep cattle, and if he does keep cattle they can make him grow corn. They can do everything by the medium of their committees, and if you are going to do that, how much more necessary is it to tell the farmers of this country that they have certain security of tenure, and anything that tends to do that should, I think, be strongly advocated by hon. Members of this House. You could not float a farm as a commercial proposition. Who would subscribe for shares for 100

    2241
    acres of corn land? There is no money forthcoming from the public, and farming as it is to-day is not a commercial proposition. I suggest to the Government that you must make farming a commercial proposition. It cannot be done by a Government subsidy, because all forms of Government subsidy are unsound and uneconomical, but you can make farming a commercial proposition by giving security of tenure, and anything that tends to give that, even by the instalment principle, will have my support and, I trust, the support of all the Labour Members and all those people who work by the sweat of their brow.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: The speech to which we have just listened approaches the subject from a point of view which certainly appeals to me. The hon. Member said you cannot improve farming unless you make it a business proposition, and with that I entirely agree, but my hon. Friend confined his remarks to one branch of the subject, and what he seemed to forget was this, that the capital side of it is at least as important as the farming side. What I am afraid of is, as has been pointed out with great force by my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Prctyman), that the tendency of this proposal for this very heavy compensation to the farmer will be to prevent capital being at the disposal of the farming industry at the old rates of interest to which they have been accustomed in the past. The tendency of what is being done is going to be to compel further sales of land on a greater scale than we have been accustomed to, and it is going also to restrict the supply of capital which in the past has been placed so freely at the disposal of tenant farmers. We are told that farmers must Have security of tenure if the object of this Bill is to be carried out; but this Bill does not give security of tenure at all in the sense in which it has been asked for. This is an attempt, by some sort of cash dole of an uncertain character to induce them to stay on, and also to frighten the landowners from giving notice to their tenants. It might also have the effect of permitting largo numbers of tenant farmers, who are not good farmers, to he left in possession of holdings they had much better not be left in. I understood all through this Bill that the test of any particular proposal contained in it was.
    2242
    Is it, or is it not, likely to increase the production of food in this country? I have been very much surprised that in the discussion of this Amendment a wholly new issue has been introduced. It seems to me that the discussion has ranged round an assumed state of ill-feeling between landowners and tenants throughout the country which it is necessary to allay. It has not been until the last two days that one has heard anything about that. I doubt very much if this feeling of ill-will does exist throughout the country, but if it does exist I do not believe this excessive corn pensation, which has been arranged in a sort of hole-and-corner way upstairs, is going to get rid of it.
    I ask myself, as a business man, what is going to be the effect of this particular proposal for compensation? It is a matter of degree. What we have to decide is, is it too much or is it too little? If too much, then, in the interests of the industry, we ought to reduce it, because it may have the effect of frightening capital away. That is the test I apply to this proposal, and I think that the full year's rent, plus full compensation for removal, and so on, is too high. I think it would have a very bad effect on the industry, and would frighten capital away. For that reason, I prefer the Amendment, the intention of which, I understand, is to pay one year's rental, and, if it is really going to be a fixed sum always payable, so much the better. I do think that is a sufficient deterrent, if a deterrent is needed, to prevent land-owners from disturbing tenants lightly, with the further deterrent that, if they act capriciously, they will have to pay even higher compensation. But I think, in ordinary cases, the deterrent of a year's rent will prevent them from removing a tenant who ought not to be removed, so that in those circumstances it seems to me that the proposal of my right hon. Friend is a business-like and proper proposal. Ws have not to go further and consider this question of allaying ill-feeling, which I do not believe exists. For these reasons, I shall support the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words 'not exceeding one year's rent' be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 165.

    Division No. 364.]

    AYES.

    [10.9 p.m.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Wheler, Lieut.Colonel C. H.

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Jameson, J. Gordon

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lorden, John William

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Morrison, Hugh

    Wintringham, T.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Mr. Pretyman and Lieut.-Colonel Royds.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Parker, James

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Gregory, Holman

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Perring, William George

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Grundy, T. W.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Barlow, Sir Montague

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

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Purchase, H. G.

    Barrand, A. R.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Rae, H. Norman

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Billing, Noel Pemberton-

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Hinds, John

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hirst, G. H.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Royce, William Stapleton.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hood, Joseph

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Seager, Sir William

    Bruton, Sir James

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

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Cape, Thomas

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

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

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Sugden, W. H.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Swan, J. E.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Edge, Captain William

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

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

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lawson, John J.

    Turton, E. R.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

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

    Waddington, R.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Waterson, A. E.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

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

    Whitla, Sir William

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Finney, Samuel

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

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

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Forrest, Walter

    Moles, Thomas

    Wise, Frederick

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

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

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Gardiner, James

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Murchison, C. K.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Neal, Arthur

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Amendment made: In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "or his" ["or his implements"].—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir A. SPROT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words, "and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his
    2244
    claim for compensation (not being costs of an arbitration to determine the amount of the compensation)."
    I do not see any justification for this charge. There is no corresponding charge on the other, and as it is an arbitration, the two parties should

    2245
    share the expenses. I chink the words ought to be omitted.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words, "sum equal to one year's rent of the holding; or, whore the notice to quit is given without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, such sum."
    By the Bill as drafted the tenant must get one year's rent and if he is the subject of capricious eviction it can be increased to a sum limited by four years' rent. The definition of capricious eviction is so wide and vague that it is almost impossible for a farmer to prove that he has been evicted in that way. We can judge from the Act of 1908 how often it is that a farmer is able to prove that he has really been capriciously evicted. It is one of the rarest things possible to find a farmer getting compensation for that reason. Capricious eviction is defined by that Act and in this Bill as eviction without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. There are many cases where the landlord has exercised his powers of eviction partially and needlessly which do not come under the category of a capricious eviction as thus defined. In these cases the farmer might well make up a good case for getting more than the minimum amount of compensation which is given to a farmer by a landlord who has not been at fault in any way. This Amendment seeks to make out that the farmer shall get his one year's rent, but he may get any sum between that and four years' rent, as the arbitrator may think fit, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the particular case. Then he will be able to give consideration for any element in the case which makes him think that more than the minimum is necessary.
    We have had some experience already in Scotland, and it was held in one case that was heard in the Court of Sessions that it was consistent with good estate management if a landlord gave notice to a tenant merely for the reason of putting up the rent. If that is so, and if that is held to have general application, it means that a landlord can always keep himself out of the category of capricious eviction by merely saying that he wanted a higher rent. That case is well known to all the
    2246
    farming community, and so long as it stands without being overruled, it means that the farmer dare not come forward to make out a case for capricious eviction because it seems to him an almost impossible task to undertake. I move this Amendment in the belief that it will lead to a fairer adjustment of compensation than is possible under the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The effect of this proposal would be that in all cases, as well as capricious evictions, the compensation would not be merely one year's rent, but anything from one to four years as the arbitrator might decide. I think that is going much too far, and, as far as my knowledge of the National Farmers' Union and farmers generally goes, they have never asked for this provision. Therefore, I cannot see my way to accept it. We hold that there should be a distinction of an ordinary case of a notice to quit and a capricious eviction, and in the latter case we think there should be additional compensation which is really in the nature of a penalty or a deterrent. My hon. Friend justified his proposal by saying that it is so difficult to prove a capricious eviction. I do not think it is. I have been going through a large number of cases where capricious evictions have been proved, and where considerable sums have been paid by way of compensation for removal. Therefore, I do not think that this difficulty does exist. If my hon. Friend really considers that the cases are few in number, then the answer is that where capricious eviction really does take place there has been no difficulty in proving it. I therefore cannot agree to extend the higher form of compensation to the class of non-capricious cases.
    Mr. GARDINER: May I ask the Secretary for Scotland whether or not the decisions referred to by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment as having been given in the Court of Sessions have laid it down that it is consistent with good estate management to get rid of a tenant merely because it is desired to secure a higher rent?
    Mr. MUNRO: Speaking from recollection of the decision to which my hon. Friend refers, I think it turned on the circumstances of the particular case in

    2247
    the Court of Session, and did not establish any general principle.
    Mr. GARDINER: In reference to this Amendment, in view of the fact that the words immediately before those suggested to be deleted are "Without good and sufficient cause," someone might suggest that this is quite sufficient to differentiate between one year and four years' compensation. The words "For reasons inconsistent with good estate management" have been constantly used in this Debate, and I should like to know what they really mean. The "rules of good husbandry" and "good estate management" seem to be very flexible terms, and most difficult to distinguish, but, after the explanation I have received from the Secretary for Scotland personally, I do not propose to make any move in support of the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir A. SPROT: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "year's" ["sum equal to one year's rent"], to insert the word "free."
    In this Amendment I propose that the expression "rent" shall be read to mean such rent as the owner receives after deducting the proportion which is paid to the Church. I have another Amendment later on to meet the case of Scottish rents which are subject to local rates payable by the landlord. The object of this Amendment is that the year's rent payable to the tenant on quitting his holding shall be the gross rent of the farm minus the proportion paid to the Church. In Scotland the stipend of the parish minister is payable by the landowners in the parish. If we assume that an owner of an estate has three farms, that he has to pay £300 a year to the clergyman of the parish, and that the farms are all of equal value, that would mean that he would pay £100 a year to the clergyman in respect of each farm, and my argument is that, where he is to be mulcted in a year's rent on his tenant's quitting, that should mean the rent minus what is paid to the clergyman of the parish.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think that, if the Government accept it, it will have to be modified slightly.
    2248
    As far as I know, there is no such provision in England. Sometimes the tithe is redeemed, but in the majority of cases the landlord has to pay tithe, and it does seem rather hard that the tithe should not be deducted from the rent in considering what is an actual year's rent. I think my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Pretyman) said that a year's gross-rent was equal to four years' actual rent. I do not think that that was the intention of the Government, and therefore, if they are prepared to accept the words moved by my hon. and gallant Friend, other words would have to be inserted rendering the Amendment applicable to England as well as to Scotland.
    Mr. MUNRO: I think it would be exceedingly difficult for the Government to accept this Amendment. As the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) appreciates, the Amendment as moved would apply to England as well as to Scotland, and I am not aware of any justification for that proposition. But I am looking at it from the Scottish rather than from the English point of view. Probably my hon. and gallant Friend may think proper to renew his Amendment upon the Scottish Clause, and if so I shall deal with it at that stage. But, as I understand his proposal, he suggests that the additional compensation which is to be paid shall be based on the free or net rent, that is to say, after deduction of tithe or other burdens, rather than upon the gross rent. I think I am right in saying that the gross rent has always been accepted, roughly, as the basis upon which the farmer's profit should be calculated, and if that be so, it seems, primâ facie, to be a fair basis upon which to calculate his loss. I would point out a further difficulty in the way of accepting the Amendment, namely, that its administration in practice would, as I am assured by those who are familiar with such matters, be exceedingly difficult. Even under Schedule A, the definition of net rent would be a subject of constant disagreement and argument, and I do not think that is a desirable prospect to which to look forward. What my hon. and gallant Friend really has in mind is the Scottish case. In Rule IV of Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are directed to give relief to a landlord in Scotland in respect of certain burdens which fall upon him and

    2249
    which do not fall upon the English landlord, such as public rates, taxes, or assessments. These, as I undertand, fall upon the occupier in England, but in Scotland they fall half upon the owner and half upon the occupier. I think that that is the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I would point out, however, that that relief is given rather by way of deduction from the assessment or by repayment of the tax, and that being so, it does not reduce the assessable rental. So that my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment would not achieve the result he desires. I would therefore suggest to him that between now and the time when we reach the Scottish Clause he should reconsider the matter in the light of the observations I have addressed to him, and if he puts his Amendment down again, I shall be prepared to consider it at that stage.
    Mr. HOHLER: I do not pretend to have any knowledge of Scotch law, but I am going to support the Amendment, and to move an Amendment to it to insert the words "one year's rent of the holding, less the tithe, or, in the case of Scotland, the free rent of the holding as the arbitrator may think proper." I did not gather from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Munro) what the law of Scotland is. In our law, I think it is under an Act of 1880, the whole law of tithe was altered. At or about that date the provision that existed in English leases, that the tenant should pay the rent and the tithe, was abolished in regard to new leases created after that Act. But in regard to then existing leases, the tenant had to pay the tithe. The result is that in England at this moment, I suppose I am right in saying, there is probably no lease under which the tenant pays the tithe at all. The landlord has fixed his rent on the assumption that he, the landlord, pays the tithe, and we know what an important charge that is. Out of the rent the landlord receives he has to pay the tithe. It would be grossly unjust that the landlord should be saddled with paying compensation to the tenant upon the basis of tithe, which probably is now, something broadly, about 4s. 6d. in the £ on the original value of the tithe. I do not think anyone proposes that the landlord should pay as compensation that which in fact he does not, and never can, receive.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot move a second Amendment. The Question is to insert the word "free."
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDSI think it is quite understood by all my hon. Friends that any compensation which is payable should be clear. We pointed out that one year's rent is the equivalent to the owner of land of four years' income. Therefore, if the owner of land was to pay to the tenant in England what is called a free rent he would only pay £25 out of every £100. That would be the total sum. But that would be misleading altogether. I quite admit it is grossly unfair to insist on such heavy compensation. It is not compensation, it is fines and penalties. The point is whether, by the imposition of these fines and penalties, you will get security of tenure. We consider that if the tenant is removed a moderate fine is reasonable to pay the cost of moving. That is the object of the Amendment. If that is whittled tdown to the free income of what the owner gets, it will be very misleading. The tenant may in some cases get a large part of it, but in the bulk of cases he would not get one quarter of what he expects. We ought to know quite clearly if we are to pay anything what we are going to pay. It is only fair to the owner and to the tenant,
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HOHLER: I should like to move an Amendment, in Sub-section (4), to insert after the word "rent" ["one year's rent of the holding"], the words "less tithe." I have already given my reasons, and I submit that the Amendment is in order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House has just decided that they will not have anything to do with "free."
    Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management."
    The objection I have to the definition of capricious eviction is that it is so vague and wide, and that it is almost impossible to prove that it took place in any particular case. If we leave out the words "and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management," it will be up to the landlord to prove that he has good and sufficient cause for turning out a tenant

    2251
    in order to bring him within this category. The Sub-section without these words is wide enough for all purposes, and the intention of the Bill would be fully met.
    Mr. ACLAND: I beg to second the Amendment. I am afraid these words will be difficult in interpretation. I think my hon. Friend has made out a case for leaving the matter rather more free to the arbitrator, without putting down a phrase which will be difficult to interpret and may lead to litigation in regard to the exact meaning.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I cannot help thinking that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have overlooked the fact that the words which they propose to leave out are at present in Section 11 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. The present Bill amends that Act, and it would be very unwise to try to alter words which are at present working, and which have held the field, so to speak, for twelve years. To suggest now that there is any particular difficulty in understanding the words or using them is to overlook the fact that they are part of Section 11 of the Act of 1908. Further, by Sub-section 7 of this very Clause, the landlord has to give his reasons for which he is giving the notice, and, therefore, any difficulty in ascertaining what are the reasons inconsistent with good estate management disappears.
    Major M. WOOD: My information is that these words have not worked without difficulty in the Act of 1908, and because of that fact I have put down this Amendment. I have already referred to a case in which it did not work well, and the Secretary for Scotland said that that particular case was not of general application. But no case is. Every case is decided on its merits. But in this case the Court held that to give notice to a tenant merely in order to raise the rent made that case come within the category of giving notice for reasons consistent with good management. If that is to be the case, the landlord often will be able to bring himself within this category merely by saying that he has decided to raise the rent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not aware that
    2252
    this point was the subject of very long discussion in 1908, and that these particular words were put in by the Government, I think, after we had a whole day's discussion. I think I can see the Attorney-General of that day writing out the Amendment on the blotting-pad on his knee, while we of the Opposition, on the other side waited for the words to be produced. As far as I know, these words have operated well. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that there was one case in which they have not operated well, if he means that they prevented a tenant receiving compensation to which he was not entitled, I do not agree with him.
    Major WOOD: I did not say that there was one case in which they did not operate well. I said I knew one case m which the court held that to give notice merely to raise rent was giving notice for reasons consistent with good estate management.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is quite possible that the Court was right. Many people, during the last few years, have said that one of the causes of bad farming was low rents. It is quite probable that rent is so low that, in the interests of the community, it should be raised so that the farmer should be obliged to take a little more trouble to farm his land better in order to pay his rent. If the Court held that view, I am inclined to think that the Court was right. Because of that one cause the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to make a change in the law, which has been in operation for twelve years. I am very glad that the Government refuse to accede to his suggestion.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "four" ["four years' rent"], and insert instead thereof the word "two."
    Four years' rent, in addition to all the other things granted, is a very large sum, and if we accept the standard that the House, has generally accepted it would be 16 years' income in respect of that particular farm plus the year's rent for the compensation which has already been decided upon. I do not think that anyone wants to stand up for capricious eviction, and where we could be certain that

    2253
    the case was wholly capricious and unfair, I do not think that it would matter much what penalty was imposed. The Selborne Report which dealt with this question recommended one year, and my right hon. Friend has founded himself very frequently upon that Report. In this case double the compensation suggested by the Selborne Report is proposed in my Amendment. It seems to me that two years' rent, plus the other compensation, is sufficient to meet a case of this kind.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The mover of the Amendment did not make it clear that this four years' rent is only a maximum. There is no suggestion of four years' rent in every case; it may be anything from one year's to four years' rent. I agree that capricious evictions are very rare, and that it is very unlikely that the arbitrators will, in the majority of cases, go up to the maximum, but I do not think that that is a particular reason why we should reduce the maximum. I must ask the House to adhere to the arrangement proposed in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: There is one aspect of this case that has not been brought with sufficient clearness before the House, and that is how far a provision of this character, which may impose a fine of four years' rent, in addition to other payments, may affect the credit of land, and the borrowing power of the owner of land, which is a most important point. I would like to read a letter I have received from a firm of solicitors in the East of England.
    "We fear the supporters of the Bill do not thoroughly appreciate the practical effect it will have upon investments and the free markets in land. Within the last few years our firm, as country solicitors with a large experience in farms in East Anglia, has conveyed several hundreds of farms, and nine out of ten of those who have purchased have required financial assistance in the shape of mortgages, usually to the extent of two-thirds or more of the purchase money. This has probably been the proportion of borrowers and amount advanced throughout the Kingdom. The moneys have been advanced by way of mortgage either by trustees (under the Trustee Act) private individuals or/and banks.
    The position of trustees and mortgagees is a most serious one and likely to entail heavy loss, as they, in case of default by borrowers, will not be able to realise their securities without paying the borrowers' tenants the suggested two to four years
    2254
    rental, plus compensation for disturbance and removal, thus materially depreciating the value of the security. This may not be all, as their securities (unless they increase their loan by moneys paid in compensation to tenants) will be unrealisable, as no one would be willing to purchase and wait four years or more to get possession. We do not think the members having charge of the Bill realise the position of mortgagees, who are ns numerous as the farmers, and others who have taken mortgages and invested their savings or funds to assist farmers in buying their farms, and it is unlikely that any such assistance will be forthcoming in future.
    Unless the Bill is modified in such form as will protect the interests of mortgagees we shall be reluctantly compelled to advise those whose financial interests are safeguarded by us to take immediate steps to call in the moneys advanced. This step will inevitably be simultaneously taken by every firm who have financed the purchasing farmer and the results therefrom must entail disaster to those of limited capital."
    The House are passing this Clause for the benefit of farmers—it does not matter whether they are tenant farmers or farmers—who have purchased their farms. It is notorious to everybody that a large number of tenant farmers have now become occupying owners. A large number of them have borrowed money on mortgage of their lands. Is it not a matter for this House to consider in the interests of these people whether by making it possible to impose a fine of such a heavy amount as four years' rent we shall not be alarming the mortgagees and causing the money to be withdrawn? Here, at any rate, is the opinion written to me quite impartially by this firm. I myself have been in the habit of advancing very large sums on mortgage of land—several millions being on loan at one time.
    I do not think it has been sufficiently appreciated by this House that if you once hit the credit of agricultural land you are doing more to damn and injure the industry than by any other step. It is simply imposing heavy fines on "occasions"; whenever a particular thing occurs, or notice is given, you impose a fine, it may be big or small. If these fines and penalties are unfair and hit the credit of land, the owners of that land, be they great or small, will not be able to attract capital to it and borrow money on its security.
    Look at what happened in the case of the land values. You there put fines on "occasions," exactly the same thing. You

    2255
    thought that houses were going to spring up. Exactly the reverse took place. The sum available for building houses was withdrawn, credit was destroyed, and you are now having to pay hundreds of millions of money because of the Act. You have dealt with urban land in that way. You have had that experience, that lesson, and now what is the House of Commons doing? In a minor degree you are attempting to do the same thing with regard to agricultural land. I would ask this House to pause before they inflict this blow on the credit of agricultural land, which ought to be the finest security in the world.
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, PURSUANT to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.
  LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  ASYLUM INMATES.
  ASYLUM INMATES.
  PEE-WAR PENSIONS (WIDOWS).
  PEE-WAR PENSIONS (WIDOWS).
  ROYAL AUMY VETERINARY CORPS (PRIVATE J. W. HENRY).
  ROYAL AUMY VETERINARY CORPS (PRIVATE J. W. HENRY).
  REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.
  REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (T. MOFFETT).
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (T. MOFFETT).
  NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (PRIVATE J. DUNN).
  NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (PRIVATE J. DUNN).
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR PENSIONERS.
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR PENSIONERS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  TROOPS IN IRELAND, 1913–14.
  TROOPS IN IRELAND, 1913–14.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  TERRITORIAL FOKCE (WAR SERVICE).
  TERRITORIAL FOKCE (WAR SERVICE).
  WAR GRAVES.
  WAR GRAVES.
  HAY, GRANGE COURT.
  HAY, GRANGE COURT.
  LANCASHIRE FUSILIERS (PRIVATE T. HOLLAND).
  LANCASHIRE FUSILIERS (PRIVATE T. HOLLAND).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  RE-SETTLEMEXT GRAXT (MR. H. J. GARDINER).
  RE-SETTLEMEXT GRAXT (MR. H. J. GARDINER).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  NAVAL, COLLEGES, DARTMOUTH AND GREENWICH (WAGES).
  NAVAL, COLLEGES, DARTMOUTH AND GREENWICH (WAGES).
  BATTLE OF JUTLAND (OFFICIAL RECORD).
  BATTLE OF JUTLAND (OFFICIAL RECORD).
IRELAND.
  PRINTING WORKS, NEWCASTLE WEST.
  PRINTING WORKS, NEWCASTLE WEST.
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (CLAIMS).
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (CLAIMS).
  DEATH SENTENCE, COURTS-MARTIAL.
  DEATH SENTENCE, COURTS-MARTIAL.
  "WEEKLY SUMMARY."
  "WEEKLY SUMMARY."
  INQUESTS ON CIVILIANS.
  INQUESTS ON CIVILIANS.
  TYPOGRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION (ARRESTS).
  TYPOGRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION (ARRESTS).
  PRESS (OFFICIAL INFORMATION).
  PRESS (OFFICIAL INFORMATION).
  RELIEF, BALBRIGGAN AND BANDON.
  RELIEF, BALBRIGGAN AND BANDON.
RUSSIA.
  BRITISH EXPORTS.
  BRITISH EXPORTS.
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
  EGGS.
  EGGS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  TRADE WITH CANADA.
  TRADE WITH CANADA.
  GERMANY (EXPORT PRICES REGULATION).
  GERMANY (EXPORT PRICES REGULATION).
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  EXPORT DUTIES, PORTUGAL.
  EXPORT DUTIES, PORTUGAL.
  IMPORTED ARTICLES (PRICE).
  IMPORTED ARTICLES (PRICE).
  GOVERNMENT TIMBER, SALES.
  GOVERNMENT TIMBER, SALES.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  PRIME MINISTER'S ATTENDANCE.
  PRIME MINISTER'S ATTENDANCE.
PEACE TREATIES.
  REPARATIONS.
  REPARATIONS.
INDIA.
  ARMY RE-ORGANISATION.
  ARMY RE-ORGANISATION.
  DEPARTMENTAL AND WARRANT OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  DEPARTMENTAL AND WARRANT OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  ARMY PAY.
  ARMY PAY.
  ROYAL INDIAN MARINE.
  ROYAL INDIAN MARINE.
GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION.
  SUGAR COMMISSION.
  SUGAR COMMISSION.
  CIVIL OFFICERS, INDIA OFFICE.
  CIVIL OFFICERS, INDIA OFFICE.
  PERSIA.
  PERSIA.
  BAKU.
  BAKU.
  EGYPT.
  EGYPT.
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
  PASSPORTS (GERMAN SUBJECTS).
  PASSPORTS (GERMAN SUBJECTS).
  ALGECIRAS AGREEMENT.
  ALGECIRAS AGREEMENT.
  DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS.
  DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS.
HOUSING.
  REPAIRS.
  REPAIRS.
  BKICKS AND CEMENT.
  BKICKS AND CEMENT.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  EPIDEMICS, LONDON.
  EPIDEMICS, LONDON.
  MILK PRICES.
  MILK PRICES.
EDUCATION.
  DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, BHENTFORD UNION HOSPITAL.
  DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, BHENTFORD UNION HOSPITAL.
  CHIEF INSPECTOR, WALES.
  CHIEF INSPECTOR, WALES.
  SCHOOL INSPECTORS (SUPERANNUATION).
  SCHOOL INSPECTORS (SUPERANNUATION).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SCHOLARSHIPS).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SCHOLARSHIPS).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE GUIDE.
  TELEPHONE GUIDE.
  TEMPORARY STAFF (PAY).
  TEMPORARY STAFF (PAY).
  LETTERS LOST IN POST.
  LETTERS LOST IN POST.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY SERVICE, IRELAND.
  RAILWAY SERVICE, IRELAND.
  PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.
  PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.
  PROPOSED RAILWAYS, MIDDLETON-IN- TEESDALE AND WEARHEAD.
  PROPOSED RAILWAYS, MIDDLETON-IN- TEESDALE AND WEARHEAD.
  ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT COMPANY.
  ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT COMPANY.
  PASSENGER FARES, LONDON.
  PASSENGER FARES, LONDON.
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (RECEIPTS).
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (RECEIPTS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES, EXPENDITURE.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES, EXPENDITURE.
  PENSIONS COMMUTATION.
  PENSIONS COMMUTATION.
  CENSUS, 1921.
  CENSUS, 1921.
KENYA COLONY.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  NATIVE LABOUR.
  NATIVE LABOUR.
  BRITISH GUIANA.
  BRITISH GUIANA.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (DETEC- TIVE DEPARTMENT).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (DETEC- TIVE DEPARTMENT).
  ST. SIMON'S CHURCH INSTITUTE, BETHNAL GREEN.
  ST. SIMON'S CHURCH INSTITUTE, BETHNAL GREEN.
  AILSA CRAIG MOTOR COMPANY, CHISWICK.
  AILSA CRAIG MOTOR COMPANY, CHISWICK.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.
  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.
  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
DUMBARTON BURGH AND COUNTY TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª(according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed.
GLASGOW TRADES HOUSE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed.
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª(according to Order).

WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT IN LEAD PROCESSES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, this is a very short Bill to give effect to certain recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference which met at Washington in November last under Part XIII of the Treaty of Peace. Under Article 405 of that Treaty each Government is required to bring the recommendation adopted by the Labour Conference before Parliament for action, and among those recommendations are those in the Schedule of this Bill which deal with lead processes. The recommendations do not set up a maximum standard, but they lay down a minimum standard which every country should at least attain. This, however, does not prevent any country from imposing a higher standard than the minimum laid down here. The Bill of
332
which I move the Second Reading carries out the full recommendations, but so far as this country is concerned we are complying, and more than complying, already with the recommendations in all the important lead industries. It is, however, necessary that we should pass the Bill as soon as possible in order to carry out our obligations to the Labour Organisation of the League of Nations.
Turning for a moment to the clauses I may point out that Clause 1 of the Bill prohibits the employment of women and young persons under eighteen in certain processes involving the use of lead which is specially dangerous. In some of the processes mentioned—for example, the manufacture of white lead and of electric accumulators—the employment of women and young persons is already prohibited by Home Office Regulations. In others there is very little employment of women and young persons at present, and therefore the clause will not make any considerable alteration in the existing arrangements of the industry.
Clause 2 prescribes certain precautions which must be observed in lead processes when women and young persons are employed. These precautions follow the methods which have been adopted in this country for many years in regard to all the important industries. There is a number of industries, mostly minor industries, which have not yet been brought under Regulations—for example, those in which lead paints are used—and it is desirable that the precautions should be extended to them. I do not think I need say anything on Clause 3, which is an amendment of the former Act. The penal clause, Clause 4, and the other clauses are merely formal.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.— (The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I regret that the noble Earl has not indicated that the Government intend to propose any amendment of this Bill in Committee. It has come to us having passed through the House of Commons without amendment. The Bill is one of those instances of the danger of legislation being carried out word for word in the exact terms or almost the exact terms of a small Committee of Englishmen and persons from other countries, engaged in the turmoil of a Conference, without Acts of Parlia-

333
ment and without books before them, where they had to decide upon the course that legislation should follow in this and other countries. The legislation or the schemes that have been put into effect during the last few years have elaborated a system by which insoluble lead can be used practically without danger. It was stated at the Conference at Washington that there should be Advisory Committees before these Conferences took place which should collect information and bring up a well prepared proposal, so that the final Conference might endorse it. At Washington they passed a resolution suggesting "that an Advisory Committee on which Governments, employers, and the workers should all be represented, be appointed to act in an auxiliary capacity and keep in touch with the activities of the health department of the International Labour Office." I shall be glad to know from the noble Earl whether any such Committee has been appointed, because at the next Conference in March or April questions like anthrax and carbonic oxide poisoning will come up, and these will certainly require some previous investigation. Experience shows that previous investigation is necessary, because this Bill as drafted, in the wide terms in which it is drafted, would deal not only with soluble lead, with which it was the object of the Committee to deal, but also with insoluble lead silicate.
The whole essence of this lead poisoning lies in the presence of dust. About a score of years ago a Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of a member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord James of Hereford, and a as result there commenced a series of rules by which it was intended soluble lead poisoning should be stopped. The manufacturers put their heads together and found a method by which the presence of dust could be eliminated. The effect has been quite startling. With regard to such a trade as china and earthenware, in 1900 there were 200 cases of poisoning; in 1918, 11; while as to white lead poisoning, in 1899 there were 399 cases; in 1917, 17 cases; and in 1918, none. Doctor Legge, the Chief Inspector of Factories, has reported that "on the practical side little more is to be learned as to how lead poisoning is caused, and it can be taken as axiomatic that all risk lies in inhalation of dust and fume. These removed or prevented, there will be no lead posioning."
334
As drafted this Bill is so wide that it would prevent potters who have been using insoluble lead compound from pursuing a trade that they have been pursuing during the last ten years without any detriment. It would have effects, too, in an extraordinary way. It would prevent pouring varnish from one receptacle to another, where lead was used as a drier. It would also prevent girls using lead in matchmaking, and I am told that it would also prevent boys from being employed inputting lead into the heads of golf sticks. A wide definition of this character is, absolutely unnecessary. It does not fall in with the intention of the Committee which went into the matter, and goes beyond what the Conference could have intended. I hope before the next Conference that the Advisory Committee will be set up, and that proper steps may be taken so that legislation should not slip through without proper and due care. At this last Conference I hear that the question of anthrax came up and had to be withdrawn, when it was found that without the knowledge of those who were engaged in suggestions, for some period of months, if not years, the Indian Government had given great attention to this matter, and had studied it thoroughly, and that the delegates on the Committee at, the Conference knew nothing whatever about it. Before the next Conference the steps that should have been taken before this Conference might well be taken with regard to such cases of poisoning. I have a sheaf of Amendments, which I propose to put on the Paper.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a Bill founded on the Report of the Town Holdings Committee, which in 1889 recommended "that it is most desirable on public grounds that all religious bodies should be enabled to obtain a secure tenure of places of worship and schools," and they considered that the freeholder who had granted land for such a purpose

335
had no good reason to object to its being so held in perpetuity on his receiving the value of his interest. They therefore recommended that all religious bodies to whom land has been granted on lease by the freeholder for the erection of their places of worship and schools should be empowered to purchase the fee subject to the payment of fair compensation.
The principle enunciated in this Report has received the approval of the House of Commons and of your Lordships' House on many occasions, and nothing but a singular series of accidents has prevented a Bill, containing a principle with which I think almost everyone is agreed, from passing long ago to the Statute Book. A Bill with the same object was read a second time in the House of Commons in 1891 by a majority of 108, with support from both sides of the House. In 1892 the Second Reading was carried by a majority of 119. It was again introduced in 1893, and passed without a Division. It was passed without a Division in this House in 1910, and passed through all its stages in this House in 1911 and 1912.
The reasons are apparent which produce so striking a degree of agreement in both Houses. It is not thought to be decent or consistent with the respect which everyone must feel for the circumstances of these religious denominations that their tenure of their premises should be made dependable upon the caprice of those who own the freehold. Arrangements which are fair and reasonable, and which both Houses of Parliament have on previous occasions approved, are made for dealing with the claims which may be put forward on behalf of the landlord. I shall be quite ready to give any explanation that may be required, but in a matter which has been so often discussed by your Lordships I do not think it would be useful to take up any more of your Lordships' time. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, this is not a strictly religious measure, but even though the scope of the Bill is small, as has been indicated by the noble. Lord on the Woolsack, I am sure that one or other of the most rev. Primates or the Bishops would have been present here to support the Second Reading had it not been that they are all engaged close
336
by in one of the early meetings of the National Assembly of the Church. Although it is not a religious Bill I cannot help thinking that if some of the official members of the Nonconformist bodies had been present they would have wished to express themselves on the subject, and I feel certain that they would not regard it amiss if a Bishop of the Church of England ventured to say, on their behalf, the kind of thing they would have said had they been present in this House.
We have heard from the noble Lord upon the Woolsack how frequently this Bill has been accepted and the vicissitudes that, unfortunately, have hitherto prevented it from being passed. It is an eminently fair Bill, and no one can suppose that it could raise any question of religious controversy. I cannot believe that anyone in the Church of England could be so unreasonable as to try to hinder the obvious convenience which the Bill offers to the Free Churches. I hope the day has long gone by when the Church of England stood for privilege. The Church of England stands to-day for service, and in all its methods wherever it rightly can I believe that in the minds of the overwhelming number of its members it delights to co-operate with the Free Churches in the country in all points where no direct question of Church order can be raised. To-day the relations between the Church of England and the Nonconformists are, I think, becoming more and more friendly, and if I may trouble your Lordships for a moment I would point out the kind of thing I have in mind. Only last week I had the privilege of joining in a meeting summoned by the Lord Mayor of Norwich at which some forty clergy of the Church of England and some forty Nonconformist ministers were present to discuss the opportunities of civic service together and also the opening opportunities of greater religious co-operation.
When I left in haste the National Assembly just now the very same subject was being dealt with by one or other of the most rev. Primates and Bishops who were speaking, and I must say for myself that, coming straight from the National Assembly and from that meeting in Norwich, I should think I was playing a very poor part did I not add my word in cordial support of this reasonable proposal put forward on behalf of the Free Churches, many of the members of which I am privileged to number amongst my friends.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, before the Second Reading of this Bill is taken, I should like, as one who for a great number of years has been interested in this measure in another place, to acknowledge and thank the right rev. Prelate for the very gracious words he has just spoken of the Nonconformists. As a Welshman and a Nonconformist I have, of course, such a knowledge of the conditions in Wales as enables me at all events to assure your Lordships that the passing of this Bill, though long delayed, will give the greatest satisfaction and relief from anxiety to the Nonconformists throughout the Principality. There is no purpose now in going back into past history or in trying to explain why so many years have elapsed before a measure designed to remedy grievances acknowledged by both sides and by both parties in both Houses of Parliament has been passed. What we have to do to-day. I think, is to rejoice at the changed condition of public opinion upon this point, and to express the hope that the passing of this Bill will be a very important means of further increasing those bonds of co-operation and union, to which the right rev. Prelate has already referred, between the members of the Episcopalian Church and the Nonconformist Churches throughout the country. I cannot refrain from expressing my very great personal satisfaction that at last this Bill is soon to become the law of the land.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGH MORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1
Power to dispose of land free from restrictive covenant.
1.— (1) Where land which, or an interest in which has been acquired under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), was immediately before its acquisition subject to a restrictive covenant, and the land or interest therein
338
is disposed of in pursuance of the powers conferred by section five of that Act, it may be disposed of free from the restriction imposed by the covenant, and shall be deemed to have been so disposed of, if expressed to be disposed of in pursuance of the powers conferred by the principal Act and this Act but not otherwise.
(2) Where any such land or interest is disposed of free from such restriction, no person shall have the right of enforcing the covenant against the person to whom the land or interest is disposed of or his successors in title, but if at any time after such disposition any person who, but for this section, would have had a right to enforce the covenant, establishes such right, there shall be paid to him compensation to be determined in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Act as modified by the principal Act and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, with respect to interests in lands which have been omitted to be purchased, and upon payment of such compensation the right shall, as against him and all persons deriving title through him be absolutely discharged:
Provided that in assessing the compensation, the official arbitrator shall taken into consideration any compensation which may have been paid or be payable in respect of the covenant under section four of the principal Act.
(3) In the application of this section to Scotland "restrictive covenant" shall mean any obligation imposed by way of real burden or reservation or condition running with or affecting the land, whereby any restriction on the alienation or transfer of possession of the land, or on the use or enjoyment thereof, is effected.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (1), after "restrictive covenant," to insert "which before the fourth day of November nineteen hundred and twenty had lawfully been contravened in pursuance of the powers conferred by section four of that Act."
The noble Earl said: Unfortunately I was unable to be present on Monday, and therefore I am at a disadvantage in not having heard the speech delivered by the noble Viscount the Under-Secretary of State for War, but I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT, and if the noble Viscount will allow me, to say so I hope the motive in which I move the Amendment will be taken to be the same as that in which he moved the Bill in your Lordships' House.
With regard to the Amendment standing in my name, I propose to insert in Clause 1 a qualifying expression which will strictly limit the application of the Bill to such restrictive covenants as have been contravened previous to the 4th of November last. My object in doing that is this. During the war the Government had for special reasons to break restrictive covenants

339
governing the occupation of land. But I suggest that there is some uncertainty in the wording of this clause, because as we read it we see that the Government shall have power to break all the restrictive covenants before they dispose of the land or they shall continue to break the restrictive covenants from now on. I am sure that was not the intention of your Lordships' House the other day. If this clause is passed without the Amendment it will give the Government unlimited control over the lands which they have acquired solely for the purpose of the war.
The Amendment would allow the Government to be free to dispose of lands without regard to restrictive covenants which had been contravened during the Government user and at any time before the date of the introduction of the Bill. Without such an Amendment you will be inflicting a very great hardship on the landowner himself and upon neighbouring owners, and in this respect it is quite impossible to measure the damage inflicted in terms of money. It would establish a precedent, and it would also give another example as to the unimportance attached to the keeping of contracts. After all, the landlord himself was bound and is bound to maintain those contracts and those covenants, not-withstanding the fact that he himself might very often have added considerably to the value of his land by overriding those covenants. I have known cases in which landowners could have obtained a very much larger sum for their land had they been able to override certain covenants. They have not been able to do so, and therefore I submit that in dealing with Clause 1 you should insert in the Bill such an Amendment as I have suggested, or that the noble Viscount should give an undertaking that some limit would be imposed on the manner in which the Government can deal with this land, now that the war is over.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("covenant") insert ("Which before the fourth day of November nineteen hundred and twenty had lawfully been contravened in pursuance of the powers conferred by section four of that Act").— (The Earl of Malmesbury.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): I should like to call your Lordships' attention, first of all, to the object with which this
340
Bill was introduced. It was introduced for the purpose of quietening certain doubts which have arisen, sonic of which, to my mind, need never have arisen, as to the interpretation of the Act of 1916, and of settling points which, to my mind, were perfectly plain, but which the ingenious mind of Lincoln's Inn seemed to think possessed a possibility of being interpreted in some other way than what seemed to me to be the perfectly plain, ordinary and common sense way.
The great object of this Bill, therefore, is to quieten doubts. And why to quieten doubts? In order that the Government may be able to dispose of the lands that they have taken and of the buildings they have put up— buildings of great value and erected at the cost of the taxpayer—that they may be able to dispose of them (subject, of course, to justice to private rights) to the best advantage of the taxpayers. I say this particularly because the noble Earl in one or two general observations was alluding only to the question of the rights of landowners. The rights of landowners must, of course, be properly observed, like those of any other class. But I am asking your Lordships not merely to confine your attention solely to the advantage which the landowner may get, but to the advantage which the State and the taxpayer may get, and to the enormous losses which the taxpayer must suffer if certain timings are not done in this Bill. Your Lordships have on various occasions very vigorously asserted your determination that money should not be wasted; and in looking at this Bill I ask your Lordships to remember that attitude which you took up, and to remember that large sums of money are involved in this Bill, and that it is not merely a question of the meticulous interpretation of certain points of law.
I will say at once that certain hardships have been inflicted— part of the necessary hardships of the war—on those who possess this land. Because it may seem very hard, in my opinion, that land should be taken for the purposes of the war, and that then, when the landowner may hope to have his land back, he should find that a building worth half-a-million is put upon it, and he cannot have his land back because the Government say "We are now going to sell your land, as that is the only way in which we can reap the advantage of the great sums spent upon it." I agree. I

341
would only ask your Lordships, in discussing this and other Amendments, to weigh one consideration against the other: on the one hand the hardship to the owner, on the other the loss to the State and the taxpayer. The noble Earl said that there were certain damages inflicted by the taking of land which could not be assessed in money. Everybody would agree to that, but that is rather a general objection to the taking of any land for any public purpose. We have all got attached to our own land, and it has a certain sentimental value, which, of course, cannot be assessed in money.
The specific point to which the noble Earl Las addressed himself is that of restrictive covenants, which have been infringed during the occupation of the land, and which, now that the land is disposed of, should, it is suggested, not revive, or, if they do revive, the landowner should be compensated. The noble Earl would restrict the abolition of these particular covenants to those which have been lawfully infringed before November 4 and in pursuance of powers conferred under Section 4 of the principal Act. I am afraid it would be quite impossible to accept that Amendment, and (for one reason that must be very plain to your Lordships) because a great many of these powers were not taken under the Act of 1916 at all but under the Defence of the Realm Act. Therefore, if you confine it, as the noble Earl wishes to do, to land bought under the principal Act, it would apply only where the land has been acquired and there has 'been Government user of tie land. But there are two classes of cases excluded, to which the Amendment of the noble Earl would not apply at all, that is, where the land has been bought and net used by the Government—that is to say where it has been acquired for the purpose of re-sale; and the second where land was taken and used under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. These cases are left out, and therefore I would urge the noble Earl not to press the Amendment.
I am going, however, to make a suggestion to the noble Earl and I hope it may be acceptable to him. There are, as he knows, a great many varieties of restrictive covenants, and I would be prepared, if he would accept the suggestion, that we should limit the covenants which are to be abolished under this clause to those restrictive
342
covenants which have been already lawfully infringed prior to the noble Earl's date or to any particular date that is fixed upon. That would perhaps go a long way to meet the noble Earl, although it would not abolish all restrictive covenants, but only those which have been infringed properly when the land was taken by the Government, either under the Defence of the Realm Regulations or under Section 4. I should be glad if some proposal of that kind commended itself to the noble Earl, but, anyhow, it is impossible to accept the present Amendment.
LORD SUMNER: It is disappointing to hear from the noble Viscount that on the discussion of the first of the Amendments put down lie should consider it necessary, first of all, to renew the same intransigent attitude with regard to the whole Bill which, I venture to think, characterised his speech on the Second Reading; and, secondly, to oppose this particular Amendment, which I must say, when I considered it, seemed to me so natural and obvious that I too optimistically hoped that the Government would accept it. Nor do I understand the alternative which the noble Viscount suggests, and therefore, being unable to understand it, I forbear to discuss it.
I should like, however, to make it quite clear how the noble Earl's Amendment strikes me. The Government is asking by this Bill to be allowed to dispose of land discharged from all restrictive covenants even although while they were in the occupation of the land themselves they have not found it necessary to break any of these covenants. That is to say, having acquired land for the purposes of the war, and found that the use of the land was quite consistent with the observance of the restrictive covenants in existence, they want, nevertheless, to be in a position to say to a purchaser, "We are able to sell you something with no restrictive covenants on it at all." In other words, not having had to break the covenants for the purpose of waging the war, they want to be able to get rid of the covenants altogether for the purpose of making a better bargain.
It is quite true that under the other part of the clause the owner who thus loses the benefit of the covenants is entitled to get

343
compensation in the manner provided by the Bill. Any one who has examined the Schedule of the principal Act, which applies to this manner of getting compensation, will see that it is less favourable to owners than the Lands Clauses Act would have been in cases to which they apply. I am not making any complaint or grievance, and the Amendment is not moved with the object of increasing the compensation that landowners are to get. The noble Viscount will do well to observe that the tenor of the Amendments is not for the purpose of getting bigger compensation. Under Clause 2 the landlord would be told that he can get his money as he did under the Lands Clauses Act, that he can get money for the extinction of his covenants, and then the Government will be free to make a profit out of the transaction by going to a purchaser and saying that they have land free from restrictive covenants altogether. That is not a transaction connected with the waging of the war. It is a transaction connected with making a remarkably good deal after the conclusion of peace, and the defence of the Realm is not a fair description of a process of that kind. The noble Viscount will have an opportunity upon Report, if these words should be inserted, of moving any further Amendment that he and his advisers may think of in the meantime, but as far as I am concerned it appears to me that your Lordships will be well advised in giving hearty support to the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: May I ask the noble Viscount one question in reference to the speech he made? I do not wish to controvert in any way the general principles he laid down, but he said that the object of the provision we are now dealing with was to quiet doubts; doubts which have their origin in Lincoln's Inn, and which he as a man of common sense did not appreciate.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that I was a man of common sense.
LORD PARMOOR: I am fairly familiar with Compensation Statutes, and I do not know of any one which allows a purchaser who has bought land subject to restrictive covenants to make a title from himself as though these restrictive covenants had
344
been bought and paid for; in fact, to make a title for a subject-matter of which he is not possessed. That is really the object of Clause 1. I will not go into the actual terms of the Amendment. I am not sure whether the proposal of the noble Earl or of the noble Viscount would be the more effective as I have not considered the words sufficiently, but I should like to know what doubt he is quieting. I am quite unaware of any such principle in compensation law as seems to be suggested here.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the noble Viscount will see his way to make some concession.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have offered one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount offered a concession but, as an exceptional case, he failed to make it quite clear what exactly the concession was. If I alone had failed to understand it I should have thought nothing of it, because I do not understand matters of law, but both Lord Sumner and Lord Parmoor failed to understand what the concession was, and it is not therefore my own comprehension that is at fault. If it is merely a question that the words do not go far enough (that is one of the noble Viscount's objections) or that other words would be better, it would be quite easy at a further stage to put it right, and I am sure he would have the co-operation of all your Lordships in putting the Amendment into the best possible form. If it is only a question of form I do not think we should hesitate. All we can do is to ask the Government to accept the Amendment. It has been carefully drafted by a competent person, and we feel that in accepting it no mistake will be made, and at a further stage the Government will be able to extend or modify it as they think fit.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord on the cross-benches said he did not understand the Amendment that I suggested. No doubt it was my fault that he did not give a fair account of what the Government intended to do. He suggested that the aim of the Government was to make as good a bargain as they could, to make a better bargain than they ought to make. No one would object to the Government making a good bargain. But he seems to think, and it is a misappre-

345
hension I should like to deal with at once, that by the abolition of some of these restrictive covenants the Government would get a better price for the buildings they have to sell.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? If advantage is taken of the abolition of restrictive covenants it must come from someone. Who is robbed under the Government's proposal? I could, of course, easily put a case.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I must object to the word "robbed." It is quite clear in the clause that full compensation is payable. Does the noble Marquess mean that if a man gets full compensation he is "robbed"?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If there is not full compensation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If there is not full compensation I agree, but t he compensation under the Lands Clauses Act is generally considered to be good compensation. But do not let us get on to side issues as to whether the compensation is enough. I am dealing with the point as to how far the abolition of these particular conditions will affect the deal of the Government. That is to say, is it only a question of the Government making a better bargain or not? It is nothing of the kind. It is a question of the Government being able to make a bargain at all. Take a case that arises. You have a large factory worth half a million pounds put down on ground which is subject to a restrictive covenant that you must not put houses within a certain area of more than a certain size. Unless that restrictive covenant it is abolished it is not a question of getting a good price; it means that you will not get a price at all. It means that one of two things will happen. Either that this large and valuable factory will go back to the landowner, who did not pay for it and did not contribute except as a taxpayer one penny towards the cost, or that the Government will have to pull the whole thing down. It is not a question of the Government getting more or less; it is a question of the Government not getting anything. I must really differ as to it being a question of the Government getting a little more or less.
The noble Lord made another point, as to the infringement of these covenants.
346
Noble Lords are aware that it is only when the titles are investigated that the question of these covenants is thoroughly known. During the war and the disturbances of the war people were not going to inquire very carefully into what the particular restrictive covenants were that were being infringed. They have been infringed all the time, although possibly they have not been knowingly infringed. When the question comes to be investigated it is then found that these are restrictive covenants, and that they have to be dealt with also on a basis of fair compensation. The point of doubt which was mentioned by the other noble and learned Lord as having arisen was that they understood when this land was disposed of in this way that these restrictive covenants did not revive. They were under that impression on the construction of the Act, but they are now advised that they very probably do. As to the other point, I think the noble Marquess said I had not explained carefully what was suggested.
LORD PARMOOR: Would the noble Viscount again state his suggested words?
VISCOUNT PEEL: My suggested words are drawn out at very great length, and I do not think I could give the whole of them. I will tell you generally that it is suggested that only those restrictive covenants which had been infringed before a certain date should be taken away, compensation of course being given for them. As the noble and learned Lord knows very well, there are many classes of restrictive covenants. The classes of restrictive covenants which had not been infringed should be left as they were, and only those that had actually been infringed should disappear, and, if necessary, compensation paid. That is the general line of my Amendment. The Amendment itself has been drafted, but it would be very difficult for your Lordships to follow if it were read out, so that I propose to put it down. That is the general line followed.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS

Portland, D.

Chaplin, V.

Lawrence, L.

Somerset, D.

Finlay, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Sutherland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Parmoor, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ampthill,

Queenborough, L.

Askwith, L.

Ranfurly, L.(E. Ranfurly.)

Avebury, L.

Rotherham, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Barrymore, L.

Sackville, L.

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

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

St. Levan, L.

Clinton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Grey, E.

de Mauley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lindsay, E.

Ebury, L.

Strachie, L.

Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Sumner, L.

Midleton, E.

Sydenham, L.

Roden, E.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Wavertree, L.

Selborne, E.

Hindlip, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Wicklow, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Reading, E.

Ernle, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Islington, L.

Bradford, E.

Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.)

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Devonport, V.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Craven, E.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Eldon, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lucan, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (2), after "establishes such right," to insert "in case of dispute to the satisfaction of the Railway and Canal Commission." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to try to make the clause clearer. A few minutes ago the noble Viscount said that the chief object of the Bill was to quiet doubts, and as the clause reads it is not clear to me, in the case of a person who ought to receive compensation for being deprived of certain rights in connection with land, to what authority he should apply to prove his case. By my Amendment he would have the right to enforce the covenant and in case of dispute to establish his case to the satisfaction of the Railway and Canal Commission. That Commission is the body which has dealt with these cases in the past under the Act of 1916, and I ant informed has given universal satisfaction by its decisions. It may be urged against the Amendment that the aggrieved party who sought to establish his right would go to the Courts, but I am inclined to think that under the clause as it stands some Government Department would be possibly concerned as to admitting whether
348
the person had any right to claim or not. If the aggrieved party said, "No, I cannot accept your decision; I have suffered loss and ought to have compensation," he would be put to the expense and delay of going to the Courts. I am informed that the Railway and Canal Commission would be the better body to deal with the question, and I think my Amendment should be inserted to effect what the noble Viscount desires— to quiet doubts and make the question easier to understand.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after ("right") insert ("in case of dispute to the satisfaction of the Railway and Canal Commission").— (The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl raises as a question of doubt a point which I confess had also occurred to me when I read the Bill. But I have taken advice on the subject, and am told that it is perfectly clear that the clause as it stands would mean that the individuals concerned would have their ordinary rights to go to the ordinary Courts to get their disputes settled. If the words proposed were put in I understand they would take away that right from the individual, who would be compelled to go to the Railway and Canal Commission.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: He has done that under the 1916 Act, I understand.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I would suggest to the noble Earl that it would be better that the individual should have the right of going to the ordinary Courts, because, after all, these questions of restrictive covenants are very often matters concerning real property and law, and would probably be better decided by those Courts which are always dealing with these rather difficult questions. He knows the composition of the Railway and Canal Commission, and though there is a Judge sitting upon it I do not think the members are so versed as the ordinary Courts in these particular questions. I would ask whether the noble Earl does not think it unwise to take away the right of going to the ordinary Courts.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am not well versed in reading an Act of Parliament, but I suppose that there is no doubt he would have the right to appeal to the Courts in question, because if it were left to some Government Department to decide whether he had the right it would be a very different question. I think some words ought to be put in to show that the individual has the right of appeal to some body, and that the question is not settled by a Government Department.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I quite agree that if there is any doubt it ought to be settled. I have made inquiries and am informed that there is no doubt at all but in order to meet the noble Earl's suggestion, I will again make careful inquiries and, if necessary, produce some Amendment on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Then I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SUMNER LORD SUMNER moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "Provided further that this section shall not apply to any restrictive covenant entered into for the protection and maintenance of any building scheme or for the preservation of the amenities of any dwelling-house in the occupation of a person entitled to enforce such covenant."
The noble and learned Lord said: The object of the Amendment is, if not to quiet
350
doubts, at any rate to remove disquietude. Your Lordships will see that it deals with a quite limited class of persons whom I want to except out of the clause altogether. I think there is a distinct class of persons to whom restrictive covenants are not a matter of money but go to the whole root of their comfort and satisfaction in life, and those persons ought not to be made the victims of this Procrustean clause which the noble Viscount proposes. It is familiar to all of us that land is laid out on a large scale for building purposes, some of those building schemes having been already carried out; and some of them being in process of completion, with probably many years before they will be complete, and the amenity, peace, quiet, and comfort of those who take part in that scheme by purchasing or leasing houses entirely depends on a system of mutual restrictive covenants, whereby each person covenants with the landlord not to use the building except for a private dwelling-house, not to do this and not to do that— your Lordships are familiar with the kind of covenant— and upon the maintenance of that entirety of covenants the whole of the separately interested persons are protected for years in the enjoyment of that which was originally erected.
An extreme instance—I do not suggest that it is one that will arise under the noble Viscount's Bill— is that of a West-end square in which one house has been acquired for the purpose of some Government Department and then sold under this Bill, free from all restrictive covenants which bind the other people owning houses in the square; and thereupon you would have, at the corner of the square, an owner who was entitled to erect a factory if he chose, there being no restrictive covenants binding upon him. It is plain that no money could be compensation for a case like that; certainly no money paid to the owner of the particular land which is having its restrictive covenant swept away. What is to happen to the other people who rely, as the general protection for their amenities, upon the entire system of covenants being maintained on the entire building scheme? There is a similar class in the case of persons whose dwelling-houses are protected by similar restrictive covenants, who have, for example, sold off portions of their parks for building purposes but have taken restrictive covenants from the persons from whom the land is sold, and the amenities of whose house and its

351
surroundings entirely depend upon the maintenance of those covenants.
Your Lordships will notice that I have not extended this except to the case of a person who is in occupation, so that it may be truly said that it is for the protection of an occupying owner in preserving those amenities without which the house may be of very little value to him. I have no doubt there may be very few such cases in fact. We have not the advantage of knowing, and I do not invite the noble Viscount to tell us the particular negotiations or schemes he has in hand, for that would be giving away the essence of his position. Therefore I cannot tell, though he may be able to tell, to what extent such a case is a real case. But if there be very few such cases I submit that the noble Viscount can have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment.
On the other hand, if there are many such cases— and I am sure there well may be such cases—what a grave injustice is inflicted upon people whose property, in which they were living and designed to continue to live, becomes converted into property in the neighbourhood of an eligible factory or something of that kind. You are then told that they must be content with the money value got under the compensation clause. But there are some things in this country that are not for sale, and among them are the amenities of our private houses. I think that whatever sacrifices were rightly demanded of people in war, this is not a case in which sacrifices of that kind can be demanded in time of peace.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("Provided further that this section shall not apply to any restrictive covenant entered into for the protection and maintenance of any building scheme or for the preservation of the amenities of any dwelling-house in the occupation of a person entitled to enforce such covenant").—(Lord Sumner.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord is dealing to some extent with the question that we have already discussed—that is to say, the restrictive covenants connected with building claims, and also affecting the amenity of houses. In regard to the amenity of houses, I would remind your Lordships that gardens and parks were exempted from the principal Act, so that that matter would not
352
come in at all. Here it is really a question of the balance of advantage. The noble and learned Lord said that he did not invite me to give particulars, and one does not give particulars of definite names and places. But I have here a number of cases where, if the Amendment were carried, the result undoubtedly would be that the factory, which had been erected contrary to the restrictive covenant stating that only houses of a certain size or of a residential character were to be erected, would have to be pulled down. It is for your Lordships to decide which you will do. It is not a question of getting something for the factory, but of pulling it down and getting nothing. The loss will fall entirely on the taxpayer.
I have a number of cases which illustrate clearly what will happen. There is the case of land occupied by a factory on part of an estate which had been devoted to a housing scheme. There are possibly 200 houses on the estate, and many of the occupiers of those houses object to the retention of the factory. It is alleged that the use of the land is restricted by covenants permitting it to be used only for housing purposes. If those covenants were insisted upon the factory would have no saleable value, because it would have to be pulled down. That is a typical case, of which I have a number. The issue is clearly this. Are you to leave the factory there and compensate the owners of the houses, or are you not to compensate? Are you to say, "The people who would buy the factory shall not do so, and the people who would be employed in it shall not be employed there; it does not matter whether there is unemployment or whether there is not; it does not matter whether there is a loss to the State or whether there is not." That is the question to be decided.
I have another instance which is of a somewhat different kind. In this case the vendors to the Government were under restrictive covenants to preserve the existing character of the estate. The vendors to the Government released the land from these covenants so far as they are concerned, but there are probably owners or residents who are entitled to the benefits of restrictive covenants and who would raise objections to the continuance of the factory there. Here, as your Lordships see, was a case where the vendors released their rights to compensation. Your Lordships will realise that

353
out of forty people there might be thirty-nine who would not object, to the continuance of the factory, but the fortieth might be a cantankerous person who would insist on his right, and have the building pulled down. That is the issue, and on behalf of the Department which I represent I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
If the Amendment is accepted, it is obvious what will be done. The factories will have to be pulled down, and there will be great waste of money. On the other hand, if the factories remain it would be hard upon a certain number of persons who will lose the advantage of the amenities of the neighbourhood, but they will be compensated, as far as compensation can be given in money. I would point out that if a great deal of damage were done to the character of a neighbourhood by the existence of a factory the compensation to be paid would be so high that it would not be worth the while of the State to retain the factory, for it would be cheaper to pull it down than to pay the compensation. That is how the matter stands, and I must leave it entirely to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not for a moment suggest that the noble Viscount has said what is unreasonable. One would not expect him to rise unless he had something to say in favour of his attitude. But it is not sufficient to put the hard case of the State. The Government must meet the hard cases which were put by the noble and learned Lord on the cross-benches. It is quite clear that the noble Viscount has not attempted to meet them. He really has said to your Lordships, There are certain cases where a factory has been erected, and where under the terms of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment it would have to be pulled down, and we ought to protect that case." I think a great many of your Lordships might have listened very sympathetically to the noble Viscount's plea and have considered that there might he a reason for some modification in the words of the clause, but as the Government Bill stands, and as the noble and learned Lord has explained it, hardships may occur which are not at all necessary, and which are only insisted upon by the Government in order to make their property of a little greater value.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Not value.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In some cases it may be so, but not in all cases. Let me put the case of an ordinary building estate. A man before the war is developing a building estate. He has erected upon part of it a good class of residential house. Then comes the war and the Government say, "We want this vacant land." Quite right. No one in your Lordships' House or anywhere else would stand in the way of the interests of the country. Everything was put at the disposal of the Government. Nothing could exceed the patriotism with which owners put everything in the way of the Government when the critical moment came. They said, "It may be that we are going to lose money or lose conveniences, but everything shall he put in the hands of the Government in order to defeat the enemy." Those persons who acted in that patriotic way are entitled to the most careful consideration afterwards. There should be no question of the Government making a little more money out of the concession. The question of a little more or a little less ought not to be taken into consideration at all in face of the patriotic action of these people. The Government ought to be willing to make every possible concession, short of what is obviously unreasonable, in order to preserve these rights.
But let me return to the building estate. The vacant land is taken by the Government for the war. The war comes to an end and the Government say, "We are not going to put in any restrictive covenants in respect of this estate. We are going to put up rows of shops." That of course would destroy the residential value of the estate. But it is not altogether a question of value. There are amenities which cannot be calculated in the form of money.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not wish the idea to go forth that this is a question of putting up rows of shops. It is a question of selling factories.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not necessarily factories. The Government may well go from restrictive covenants, and the result might be that shops could be erected upon laud which formerly was subject to restrictive covenants, and upon which only residential houses could be erected. That is the effect of the Govern

355
ment clause, and that is what we protest against. It is not sufficient for the noble Viscount to throw his factories at me. He must meet the difficulties which arise under the clause in all respects. The noble and learned Lord on the crossbenches gave the case of a London square, which was an extreme case. He put it that one house might be taken for a Government office during the war and that house might be used afterwards, because it could be sold to greater advantage, to destroy the amenity of the whole square against the restrictive covenant which was on the land. The noble Viscount must meet this case if he desires to convince your Lordships. He says there are certain cases where it would be eminently unreasonable to ask the Government to have a factory pulled down because there are restrictive covenants on the land, and that is a matter which I am quite sure your Lordships will sympathetically consider. But he has not attempted to meet the hard cases that we have put to him, such as that which will befall the man who has acted with the greatest patriotism and whose rights ought to be most carefully considered by the Government. They ought not to come to us, if I may respectfully say so, and say that the Government is entitled to make as much money as they can out of a bargain of that kind. They ougth to say, "In those circumstances the restrictive covenants ought to be protected, and we will draw our words so as to protect them."
LORD SUMNER: The way in which the noble Viscount has met this Amendment—though I admit that he put up a very game fight for the Bill—is, I regret to say, one which impresses me very unfavourably with the whole attitude of the Government in proposing this measure at all. He put the case of a number of persons entitled to rely upon restrictive covenants who had waived their right, and then he spoke of the one outstanding person as a cantankerous person who stood upon his rights. What are his rights for? What are legal rights for except that one may stand upon them, and to say that it is cantankerous to do so is to beg the question. It is a matter for the owner of the rights to consider.
Then the noble Viscount says that he must leave it to the House from the point of view that it is a balance of advantage and disadvantage between the State and
356
the individual. Underlying that is this proposition, that so glorified is the State nowadays in its collective capacity that if it is more convenient for the State in time of peace to take away the property of private individuals who do not want to part with it, it must be done. I recognise, we all recognise that principle in time of crisis, but we are supposed to have won a victory and to be engaged in liquidating the remains of a successful war. Is it to be put to your Lordships as a proposition that you are asked to act upon, that as it is much more convenient for the State to sell its factories to the disadvantage of people thereabouts who are merely going to lose their houses which they have lived in all their lives, the State must triumph and the individual must decay? I trust such a principle will not be laid down by your Lordships, and willingly as we should have accepted any practicable provisions to deal with actual cases, if we are to be faced with a general principle of that kind I fear that nothing remains for me but to stand by my convictions.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: It appears to me that the Government is asking for a wholesale privilege that would never be granted to a private individual. If in the exceptional cases which were referred to by the noble Lord opposite a private individual would have to bring in a private Bill, why should not the Government bring in a special Bill applying to special circumstances, and not ask the House to sanction by Statute a wholesale alteration of conditions because exceptional cases might arise. On that ground I feel inclined to support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I regret that the noble Marquess should think I am too unyielding on a point of this kind, but the fact is it is an extremely difficult thing to establish any principle (and it is very difficult to deal with these things except on principle) by which you can divide the harder cases from the easier cases. The noble and learned Lord spoke of specific cases. We can hardly have special laws to deal with special cases; they must, I think, be dealt with on principle. I admit that there might be hard cases, such, for instance, as a factory that had been put down hastily in the course of the war and may have infringed these restrictive covenants, and where it may be something of a hardship, no doubt. Although

357
I must admit that these infringements are compensated, in the sort of extreme cases the noble Marquess takes tie compensation would be so high that obviously it would not be to the advantage of the State to insist upon them; it would be better perhaps that the factories should be pulled down. It is a very difficult issue, and I will try between now nod the Report stage to see whether there is any way in which to draw a distinction in such cases. I have already gone into it fully, and I think it is a very difficult thing to do. I think the only possibility would be to have some kind of independent tribunal—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: — which might say when cases were so hard and the damage was so considerable that it would be better that the State should lose its factories, because that is what it comes to, and that the private owners should have their special advantages. I could not, of course, accept the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, which would sweep away so many cases and inflict a very considerable loss on the taxpayer.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble friend has put his finger on the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
spot. The fact is that there is no reason why we should trust Government Departments in this matter. Government Departments have not been famous for the consideration or tact with which they have exercised their powers during the war, and there have been some notorious cases in which the Courts have found them wrong and entirely reversed all the decisions given by them acting under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. Therefore I think if my noble friend can find some other tribunal which may be more impartial than a Government Department— which, after all, is a principal in the matter— it would go a long way towards satisfying our difficulty.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl must not lead the House to suppose that the Government Department settles these questions of compensation. That is done by a Court quite independent of the Government Department. But I appreciate the point.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:— Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS.

Somerset, D.

Finlay, V.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Sutherland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hindlip, L.

Linlithgow, M

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Salisbury, M.

Lawrence, L.

Ampthill, L.

Monteagle, L.(M. Sligo.)

Dartmouth, E.

Askwith, L.

Parmoor, L.

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

Avebury, L.

Ranfurly, L.(E. Ranfurly.)

Barrymore, L.

St. Leven, L.

Grey, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Strachie, L.

Lindsay, E.

Clinton, L.

Sumner, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Sydenham, L.

Roden, E.

de Mauley, L.

Wavertree, L.

Selborne, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Wrenbury, L.

Wicklow, E.

Ebury, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Reading, E.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lee of Fareham, L.

Bradford, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Ranksborough, L.

Craven, E.

Devonport, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Peel, V.

Rotherham, L.

Eldon, E.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Va entia.)

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Clause 2:
Provisions as to rights of pre-emption.
2.—(1) The right of pre-emption conferred by section five of the principal Act on any person other than a person entitled to the lands from which the land proposed to be sold was originally severed shall cease to have effect, and accordingly in subsection (3) of that section the words from "or if such person refuse" to the end of that subsection shall be repealed.
(2) The right of pre-emption conferred by that section on a person entitled to the lands from which the land proposed to be sold was originally severed shall be exerciseable only if the person entitled to those lands was entitled thereto at the time of the original severance or has become entitled thereto by devolution under a settlement or testamentary disposition or an intestacy.
(3) Where the land from which land acquired under the principal Act was severed is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, the tenant for life, or person having the powers of a tenant fur life under those Acts with respect to that land, shall, for the purposes of section five of the principal Act and this section, be deemed to be, and always to have been, the person entitled to the settled land.
(4) The person by whom the right of preemption conferred by the said section five as amended by this section is or would for the time being be exerciseable in respect of any land if a Government department were offering that land for sale shall have power at any time to release that right so as to discharge in perpetuity the land or any part thereof to which the release relates from all such right of pre-emption.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Duke said: This subsection is apparently intended to do away with any rights of preemption enjoyed by those who have land contiguous to lands acquired by a Government Department. In the Act of 1916 the procedure is apparently based on the ordinary procedure in those cases, and on the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act dealing with superfluous land. I have no doubt it was carefully considered at the time. It is a procedure which has generally been adopted, and I think that your Lordships will consider that it is desirable to stick to the old Act. I presume that the reason for the alteration made in this clause is that the Government may be able to get the land more cheaply, and obviously some one will suffer a loss, because something will be taken away front them which has value, and for which they will receive no compensation.
I think that the argument of the noble Viscount in favour of this subsection in his speech on the Second Reading was purely that if the subsection were not in there might he some delay caused. The
360
Government during the war, as the noble Marquess said just now, were extraordinarily well treated, but if they had exercised their powers somewhat more moderately probably people would not be so suspicious. It is perfectly well known that in many cases— I think we may say the majority of cases— when they had an opportunity they treated people harshly. Anyhow, they have not shown the consideration which was expected. In this case, however, if my Amendment is not accepted, these people who have the right of pre-emption will have it taken away from them. I do not know what value that right will have; in some cases, I suppose, it may be very considerable. At all events, they are having certain rights taken away front them which it was thought quite reasonable in the original Act that they should retain, and these rights are taken away without any compensation being paid.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 13 to 18, leave out subsection (1).— (The Duke of Buccleuch.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I should be glad if your Lordships would allow me, in dealing with subsection (1) to refer also to subsection (2), on which the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, has an Amendment. This clause deals with the rights of pre-emption. When land has been severed from other lands and that land is to be sold then, under the principal Act, the land must be offered first to the original owner and then to the contiguous owners. The proposal here is that that right should be taken away from the contiguous owners, and that it should be limited as regards the original owner. I was about to suggest, if that would meet noble Lords, that the right should be taken away from the contiguous owners, and that it should remain with the original owner and with any person now holding— that is to say, who had purchased front him or taken it in any other way. That preserves not only the rights of the original owner but also the rights of the persons who may have bought from him and given money for those rights.
If that Amendment were accepted I would agree to the Amendment of Lord Ancaster to leave out subsection (2), but I ant afraid I cannot accept the Amendment moved by the noble Duke, and for very practical reasons also. Let me say a word as to the history of this right.

361
It conies under Section 5 (3) of the principal Act, which was adopted from the corresponding provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, mainly designed to apply to railway companies. These companies acquire strips of land for railway purposes, and it was reasonable that if any part of this land became surplus it should be offered to the landowners on either side. But this particular provision is really—I will not say out of place, but entirely different; because the land so acquired is often an area of considerable extent, and may a different points touch the land of various landowners. These lands are also subject to leases and sub-leases, and it is difficult to find out who are the people who have the right of pre-emption. I have one case where there were twenty-two adjoining owners. Very often these adjoining owners do not answer the letters sent to them, and it therefore may take years before the Government is able to deal with such land. It practically stops the Government from dealing with the land at all. A prospective buyer comes along and offers so much, but the Government have to offer it first not only to the original owner, but to the adjoining owners as well, and the transaction may take two or three years. It is a preposterous right to be enjoyed, and I think your Lordships should accept that portion of the Bill which takes away this right from contiguous owners leaving it with the original owner. I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not wish to press the Amendment now although I may perhaps have to bring it up again on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: It is hardly necessary for me, after what the noble Viscount has said, to do anything more than move my Amendment. I am pleased that he has intimated his willingness to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 19 to 25, leave cut subsection (2).—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: I should like to ask why this sub-
362
section is put in. It wants a little explanation. As it reads it is not quite clear; but apparently it gives the heir the right of pre-emption, but does not extend it to trustees. It might very often happen that the owner is a minor with no money of his own. A great many minors are in that position; and it may be most desirable that the portion of the estate taken by the Government should be bought back. The trustees by the original Act of 1916 would be able to do so, but this subsection, as I understand it, appears to cut out the trustees altogether.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 26 to 32, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am obliged to the noble Earl for raising this point, but I think it is already covered. He will see that the words "tenant for life, or person having the powers of a tenant for life" are in the clause and I am advised that they include trustees.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I was a little suspicious of the subsection being there at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provision as to acquisition and possession of land under the principal Act..
3.—(1) It is hereby declared that—

(a)the power of acquiring land or interest in land conferred by section three of the principal Act authorises, and shall be deemed always to have authorised, such acquisition for the purposes of resale, in cases when such resale is required with a view to the realisation to the best possible advantage of the value of buildings and works erected or constructed wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or of any State which acted in alliance or in naval or military co-operation with His Majesty during the war, or when for any other reason it appears to the Railway and Canal Commission expedient in the financial interests of the State or of such State that the acquisition for such purposes should be authorised;

(b)the expressions "Government department in possession" and "occupying department," where used in the principal Act, and this Act, mean, and shall be deemed always to have meant, the Government department for the time being in possession of land, notwithstanding t hat the department so in

363
possession is not the department by which or on whose behalf possession was originally talon, but is in possession by virtue of a transfer from the said department or from some other department to which possession has subsequently been transferred;

(c)where the occupying department has created or purported to create any tenancy or other interest in the land of which it is in possession in favour of some other person, or has allowed any other person to use or occupy that land, the occupying department shall, for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, be deemed to have continued in possession of the land, notwithstanding the interest therein of, or the use or occupation thereof by, such other person;

(d)the possession by an occupying department shall be deemed not to have been affected or prejudiced by reason of the land or any part thereof at any time ceasing or having ceased to be used for the purpose for which possession thereof was originally taken, or otherwise being or having been used for any other purpose;

(e)subsection (4) of section one of the principal Act shall not be construed as limiting the power of one Government department to transfer possession of land to another Government, department during the continuance of the present war.

(2) A Government department in possession of land under a lease or tenancy granted or created prior to the commencement of the present war shall have the like power of removing any building or other work which, for purposes connected with the present war, has been erected or constructed on, over, or under that land wholly or partly at the expense of the State as is conferred by section two of the principal Act on an occupying department, and this power shall be exerciseable notwithstanding any provision of the lease or tenancy under which the land is held, or anything in paragraph (b) of the first proviso to subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP moved to leave out paragraph (a) The noble Lord said: This is a most important clause; in fact, the noble Viscount on the Second Reading said that it was the most important in the Bill, and that under it there was a sum of something like £10,000,000 involved. I am sure that no one in moving the omission of this provision, neither myself nor any noble Lord who supports me, wishes to hamper or harass the Government in any way in obtaining some of the money due to them for the buildings and properties they have required for the war. When the noble Viscount expresses such fears regarding the interests of the taxpayer I hope he will not forget the fact that there are persons who own land an some form or
364
other and that they are not exactly a fortunate class.
This clause gives the Government power to acquire land not as under the Act of 1916 for purposes connected with the war, but for purposes of re-sale, and its object is to enable them to do certain things which they tried to do during the war and which they found themselves unable to do because they had not the legal power. This clause asks for entirely new powers, and for purposes which are not connected with the war. The noble Viscount referred earlier to the ingenious minds of Lincoln's Inn, but there are ingenious minds in the Government, and in framing this clause they have done so in order to enable the Government to get hold of something at a low price in order to re-sell it at a profit. Under this clause they can come down and any person interested, apparently, has no appeal except to the Railway and Canal Commissioners when it appears to the Commission that it is in the financial interests of the State that the acquisition of the land should be authorised.
I do not understand whether there is any appeal under this clause. I cannot see that there is. If the Department concerned is in possession of a factory they can conic down on the owner of the adjoining land and say that they want to re-sell the factory. They can say, "We have an offer from such and such a firm, but to enable us to carry through the sale we want to take a certain amount of the area adjoining the factory." They propose to do that by compulsory power, and, I suppose, will pay a price probably under its market value. If they are going to take such land in order to enable them to sell an existing factory there ought at least to be an appeal to some tribunal, and they should really pay a higher price than they do when land is acquired under compulsion.
Take a rather exaggerated illustration. Suppose a Government Department had a few acres of land in the middle of a farm where they had erected an anti-aircraft gun with officers' and men's huts. The War Office and Ministry of Munitions can go to the Board of Agriculture and say, "We have a few acres, or one acre, with a nice little collection of huts on it." Under this Bill the Ministry of Agriculture can step in and acquire this one acre of land, go on and take the "eve" out of the farm, perhaps another five or ten acres, by compulsion, under the market price, and

365
then resell the whole at a large profit. There seems to be no end to the purposes that this clause can be adapted to, not for the purpose of the Department which originally bought the land but for any purposes which any other Department might be likely to acquire property for.
If the Government or Department had leased or purchased one building connected with a large factory comprising several buildings, because it was in possession of that one particular building there is nothing, as far as I can see, to stop the Government going to the company Owning the whole factory and saying, "Because we are in possession of this building we cannot sell this building unless we secure the whole of your factory and the whole of your works." I cannot imagine that the manufacturers of this country would sit down under anything like that. No business would be safe; there would be no continuity for five minutes. I see nothing in the clause which would prevent or check any action of that kind if any Government Department chooses to take it. I hope the noble Viscount will say he will bring up a new provision on the Report stage with less drastic powers, and will allay some of our fears and misunderstandings, giving an appeal to some independent person as to whether the other pieces of property are to be compulsorily acquired in order to enable the Government to sell that of which they are already in possession.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 2 to 16, leave out paragraph (a)(Lord Hindlip.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is, as I said, from a financial point of view the most important clause in the Pill. It will be my duty to say, and to say quite clearly, what will be the effect upon the taxpayer and how large will be the present made to landowners out of the taxpayers' money if this clause is defeated. The noble Lord who has introduced this Amendment I do think dealt quite fairly with the clause itself, because he drew a very gloomy picture indeed of the extent to which Government Departments were going about acquiring a large amount of extra land because they had some small portion of a farm or small building, without any control or any check, in order to make a better sale. I am afraid the noble Lord has not read the clause itself, because if
366
he had he would have seen that it is all subject to the Railway and Canal Commission, a body whose praises I heard sung by noble Lords on that side only a few minutes ago. No doubt he may enjoy himself by suggesting that Government Departments will act with injustice and unfairness and without any regard to equity, but he is not really going to suggest that about the Railway and Canal Commission. When I tell your Lordships that these things are subject to the judgment of the Railway and Canal Commission, I shall be very much surprised if any noble Lord will again levy those charges that he has levied against the justice and equity with which the Railway and Canal Commission act. Therefore I do not think I need deal further with a point of prejudice of that kind.
This clause settles what I call the Lincoln's Inn doubt. The noble Lord rather suggested that the Government were trying to acquire fresh powers. All they are doing is trying to make sure that they have the power to resell property they acquire which has been used, of course, under the Defence of the Realm or in other ways, and recoup the taxpayer for the large expenditure that has been made. I confess that on reading the Act of 1916 it seemed to me amply clear that the Government could purchase for the purpose of resale. Apparently some persons of great legal distinction have doubted that, but I should like to point out to your Lordships that Lord Elphinstone, who was I believe in charge of the Acquisition of Land Bill 1916, made it perfectly clear to your Lordships at that time that the Government considered under the Bill as drawn that they could acquire land for the purposes of resale. The Amendment of the noble Viscount would very largely defeat one of the main objects of the Bill by making it impossible for the Government to purchase land for resale and thus get back part of the enormous expenditure they have incurred. It was felt by your Lordships on that occasion that it would be very wrong to prevent the Government from purchasing land for the purposes of resale, and therefore that Amendment was withdrawn. Your Lordships' House is a continuous House, not like another place which is subject to periodical elections, and when it was perfectly plainly laid down when that measure was passed through your Lordships' House that the Government d id intend to use that Act

367
for the purpose of purchasing land for the purpose of resale, your Lordships acquiesced in it. I do not think von can really raise the doubt now that the Government were not quite certain they bad at that time the power to do it.
The noble Lord went further. He said that the Government now want to get fresh powers to do a thing which had been done before. The noble Lord is quite wrong. They had been acting because they thought they were acting perfectly bona fide under those powers. That has the additional result that while there will be a tremendous lot of fresh cases if they are not allowed to act in that way, there is also a great danger of past cases being reopened as well. The noble Lord opposite asked me, when we discussed this matter a few days ago, if I could state something a little more definite than the large round sum which I gave him as what the Government considered they would lose if they were not able to use their powers of purchase and resale in order to get the best value they could for the very large factories and buildings that have been put up. I have done my best to get some very salient examples. The noble Lord, of course, would not expect me—no noble Lord would—to quote names and cases and so on, but I have very large figures here showing the advantage to the Government and the taxpayer if they possess these rights. I shall be perfectly ready to show these to any noble Lord in confidence, because I do not want to keep anything back; it would be unwise in the public interest to do so. I can only assure noble Lords that very large sums, millions in fact, are involved in this.
A NOBLE LORD: Cannot you explain the kind of difficult case that arises, without giving us the names?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am going to give one special case, but I want to explain what will happen if this is not passed. Either one of two things will happen. These large buildings erected at heavy cost at the expense of the taxpayer will go back to the landowner and you will be making an immense present of millions of the taxpayers' money to landowners. I am sure that your Lordships will feel that this would be an impossible proposition. The other alternative is that these great buildings should be sold merely at their scrap value which is very small, and the
368
State would have to incur very large sums in many cases for reinstating the ground into the condition in which they took it. There again you would see what large losses would be incurred.
The noble Earl asked me to give a general indication of one or two cases. I would like to give one specially in reference to that right which the Government has, subject to the Railway and Canal Commission, to acquire certain land in order to facilitate the sale of the factories and land they have already got. I dare say your Lordships will recognise it, but I do not think it very much matters, because it is to some extent public property. It is a case where the sale of the corpus is estimated to bring in about £2,000,000, but the would be purchasers are insisting, as a condition of the purchase, that they should have a certain amount of other land acquired for and conveyed to them in order that they may make this corpus a working property. If that cannot be done, of course, it is not a question of getting a smaller price; it is a question of getting no price at all. That is what I want to insist upon in these cases. It is not a question of getting a little more, as the noble Lord suggested, or making a better bargain for the State; it is a question of being able to make a bargain at all. It leads to that disagreeable alternative of making a considerable loss or of giving large properties which they have not earned to the landowners.
I have here a long list of cases, but I do not know that it would be an advantage to your Lordships if I went through them. They are all really of very much the same character. I can only say again that it is entirely a matter for your Lordships. It may be considered a hardship in some cases when a man's land has been taken under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for the purposes of the war and he expected to have the land back at the end of the war. But, meanwhile, large buildings have been erected, the situation is changed, and the question is how it should be dealt with. I am asking your Lordships to deal with it as is proposed in the Bill—that the Government should have the right to acquire the land on which these large buildings stand and be able to re-sell it in order to realise the fullest value for the taxpayers' expenditure. If that is not done, as I said, a large sum of money, amounting to £9,000,000 or £10,000,000,

369
will be lost, and I must leave that issue entirely in the hands of: Jour Lordships who can judge the matter as you think best.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I ask a question? I do not quite understand. How was it the Government were able to use these factories and were them without this additional piece of land, while nobody else can?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think there are two answers to that. First of all, they were used during the war in many ways that war not quite legal. Secondly—I can only give this general answer—the commercial purposes for which they are needed do require this addition for means of access, or area, or possibly a place for housing.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I can understand that a new use might require other facilities, but there are other cases in which I rather gather the Government have been using land which they have not acquired.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In some cases that is so.
LORD SUMNER: think the conclusion that will be drawn from the Noble Viscount's speech is that the right way to deal with this clause is to strike it out and let something be properly drafted directed to the matter that is really sought to be obtained. It is a very good instance of a Government Department spoiling its proposals by casting its net too wide, We not only appreciate, we sympathise, with the desire of the War Office, or whatever other Department may be concerned, to dispose of large undertakings to the best advantage, but here are cases in which, when the Government took the land and when the surveyors and other people whom they employed considered what the site should be, they did not take enough. Here are cases where they have taken sites quite adequate for the purpose in hand but now contemplate their being employed for some other and different, purpose, They propose to cast this net in a general form at a width which I have never seen exceeded in proposed legislation of this kind.
Not only do they begin by saying that the principal Act is declared to authorise and shall be deemed always to have been authorised acquisition of land for re-sale—that
370
is to say, to patch up sonic mistakes that have been made in the last three or four years by people who have not taken proper legal advice—but go on to ask from Parliament two powers of purchase for re-sale—that is to say dealing in somebody else's land. They are two separate purposes. The first that they are entitled to acquire land "for the purpose of re-sale when it is required by the Government with a view to the realisation to the best possible advantage of the value of buildings and works"; and the only test of their being entitled to do that is that they require it with that view, and the Railway and Canal Commission has nothing to do with that. There is no appeal. The Department says, "We are going to drive a bargain, or somebody else is going to drive a bargain, and for the purpose of re-selling this land we ask Parliament to give us powers to take it on the modest compensation terms of the principal Act in order that we may sell it again to somebody else."
As if that was not enough this applies not only to buildings erected at the expense of His Majesty's Government, but by any State which acted in alliance or in naval or military co-operation with His Majesty during the war, so that if any of the Governments who fought with us had erected any sort of warehouse, works or what not, and its financial advantage is consulted, it also is entitled to require somebody's land to be taken. Then you come to another branch of the sentence—and it is true the Railway and Canal Commission come into it, but only for the purpose, if I may be permitted the expression, of making respectable a proposal which would not be tolerable otherwise—
"or when for any other reason it appears to the Railway and Canal Commission expedient in the financial interest of the State or of such State that the acquisition for such purpose should be authorised."
There is only one question to be put to the Railway and Canal Commission—"Does it appear to you to be expedient in the financial interest of Great Britain, or of the United States, or Belgium, or whatever other Power it may be, that the acquisition for such purposes should be authorised?" If the answer is "Yes," there can be no doubt about it, the power then applies. I do not doubt that the noble Viscount, even if lie accepts my interpretation of the clause (which perhaps he is not willing to do) would say at once that he shrank from

371
contemplating the application of Parliamentary powers to that extent.
I was a little puzzled by the noble Viscount's appeal to the debate in 1916. What I understood him to say was that it was clear that the original Act gave this power. Then he said, Your Lordships must have thought so too, because Lord Elphinstone told the House, that it was contemplated by the words he was proposing that these powers should be enjoyed, and the House did not object. We did not object too much in 1916. Since then the Government has consulted its legal advisers—I suppose, the Law Officers, not, as the noble Viscount seems to think, members of Lincoln's Inn, but both of them ornaments of the Inner Temple. And they have been told that they were quite wrong, and not only was the House wrong but the Government was wrong in 1916. We had accepted in the wrong sense the words put forward by the Government under no advice, or wrong advice, and now we are told that it hardly becomes us to go back upon what was said then. That is an argument which the noble Viscount on the Report stage will perhaps not bring up again.
As the clause stands the Government can do these things. Let a Department say, "We did not think of it in time; we did not acquire as much land as we should have done in the first instance; but we will acquire it now," and they will get the land for the purpose of resale of the buildings and works to the best possible advantage. Or alternatively let them say to the Railway and Canal Commission, "Don't you think it would be expedient in the financial interests of the State that this land should be acquired and sold, because manifestly it would be a benefit to the State," and they will get the power. Surely that is not the right way to deal with these specific instances. I daresay the noble Viscount has perfectly good cases which could be dealt with one by one, as would be the case if it were private Bill legislation. But to deal with these instances by general methods like this, by taking general powers applicable to whatever ease the words may happen to fit, is I submit, the wrong way to deal with it. The words are made as wide as possible, and I submit to the House that whatever else can be done this really is not good legislation. It is not following good models to proceed in that fashion
372
I would again say to the noble Viscount that the House is anxious to help him. We are not dividing in order to crab the Government Bill. We are interested as taxpayers as much as anybody else in the best realisation of these properties, and I do not think that any word has been said in the course of this debate which warrants an appeal such as the noble Viscount has made. The noble Viscount asks, Is it possible to think of the landowner being presented with all buildings left upon his land? "No single speech and no single Amendment has taken that line.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Which presumably he could not sell either.
LORD SUMNER: Which he could not sell either, because he has not a Naboth's vineyard belonging to somebody else. If the noble Viscount would go to his advisers and direct their attention to submitting specific proposals, I am sure such proposals would receive the most favourable consideration from the House. I feel, and I think most of your Lordships also feel, that it is positively alarming to see a clause like this put before us with the object of turning it into law—a clause which may regulate very large undertakings for we do not know how long, and which may live in the acts of other and less moderate and self-restrained Governments and officials.
LORD PARMOOR: We are dealing with a difficult matter, which I want to see adjusted if possible. I wish to know whether I understood the noble Viscount. Did he say that, whatever may be the construction of the clause as it stands, there was to be an appeal to an outside body, the Railway and Canal Commission, to decide whether land should be taken for purposes of resale or not in all cases?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: He did say that.
LORD PARMOOR: If that is to be carried out, I for one should not vote against this clause. I think you must have something. I do not agree as regards the 1916 Act. I think yon must deal with this in some way, but if you are to exercise the right which the subsection purports to grant in all cases, subject to an appeal to an outside body like

373
the Railway and Commission, I think that would be one way of safeguarding against the difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, has referred. Perhaps the noble Viscount will make clear what he did say.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think that in all cases there is an appeal.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You did say in all cases.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was a slip if I did say so. I was referring to the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite, that this additional land might be acquired for the purpose of selling an undertaking without anybody considering it. It was with that I was dealing. I thought that I carefully limited myself, but I should be very glad to consider the suggestion that in all cases there should be a reference to the Railway and Canal Commission.
LORD PARMOOR: It is a very important point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do lot think it is possible to deal with it as the noble and learned Lord suggested—that all these cases of purchase should be carried out by means of a private Bill. That would mean a waste of time, and the expense would be tremendous. I should like to refer to two other points. I will not go back to the argument regarding the 1916 Bill; nevertheless I think my argument on that is sound, and I am ready to repeat it on Report if necessary. Criticism was made upon a point to which. I referred at some length on Second Reading. That was as regards foreign and allied States. I said then that the object of these words was to deal with certain aerodromes which have been put up by our Allies the United States, and which we have promised
that we would realise to the best advantage. I stated that one of the powers in this clause was to enable us to do that. If we were not able to secure the land for the purposes of resale it would be impossible to do that.
LORD SUMNER: That can be clone under the existing law. It does not involve taking fresh powers.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have said again and again that the Government were quite clear until lately that they had the power; that they were asking for these powers not as new powers but to quiet the doubts which had arisen, and that they had proceeded all along on the supposition that they had the power to purchase for re-sale.
LORD HINDLIP: The noble Viscount certainly said that there was an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has said that if there were such an appeal he would not vote against the clause. With all due deference to the noble Viscount I am not sure, in spite of what he said, that under the clause there is an appeal to anybody. It says "when for any other reason it appears to the Railway and Canal Commission expedient in the financial interests of the State or of such State that the acquisition for such purposes should be authorised." If a Government Department goes to the Railway and Canal Commission and says, "We can find a piece of land for £100, and can re-sell it for £150," of course it would be in the interests of the State to purchase that, or any other property which could be re-sold at a profit.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ancaster E.

Reading, E.

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E.

Vane, E (M. Londonderry.)

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Craven, E.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Riddell, L.

Eldon, E.

Annesley, L.(V. Valentia.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Avebury, L.(V. Valentia.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Avebury, L.

Stanmore, L.[Teller.]

Lytton, E.

clwyd, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Linlithgow, M.

Ampthill, L.

Hindlip, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Lamington, L

de Mauley, L.

Lawrence, L.

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

Denman, L.

Monteagle, L.(M. Sligo.)

Ebury, L.

St. Leven, L.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Lindsay, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sumner, L.

Roden, E.

Faringdon, L.

Sydenham, L.

Selborne, E.

Harris, L.

Wrenbury, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, at the beginning of paragraph (a), to leave out "authorises and". The noble Duke said: I understand that the effect of leaving out those two words will be to restrict the operation of the clause to purchases that have already taken place; it will not affect those which take place in future. I hope the noble Viscount will see his way to accept it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it must be obvious to the noble Duke that I cannot accept his Amendment, because it would have the effect of abolishing all those cases for which I am asking power. I doubt whether the Amendment would have any effect at all, because I think even without it the words would be sufficient to authorise new cases.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in paragraph (a), after "Railway and Canal Commission," to insert "after hearing all persons appearing to the Commission to be interested who apply to be heard." The noble Earl said: T he object of this Amendment is to give other persons besides the Government an opportunity of stating their case to the Railway and Canal Commission. It appears a little hard that there is nothing in the Clause—so far as I can see, at any rate—enabling the parties concerned with the sale or resale of this land to have any hearing at all, and I think it is only fair that they should at least have a hearing. Whether it will do them very much good is a little doubtful, because I find that the Railway and Canal Commission are to judge whether it is expedient in the interests of the State, but perhaps a party interested might offer to put up some money in order to state a case.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, after ("Commission") insert ("after hearing all persons appearing to the Commission to be interested who apply to be heard ").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am much in doubt whether the noble Earl's Amendment is really necessary. He suggests the insertion of the words "after hearing all persons appearing to the Commission to be interested who apply to be heard." First of all, therefore, the persons must apply to be heard, and then if the Commission think they are interested the Commission is ordered to hear them. Surely it is almost incredible that the Commission, after deciding that certain persons appear to have a right to be heard, should not hear them? Is not the Amendment almost a reflection upon the wisdom of the Railway and Canal Commission? I suggest to the noble Earl that it is hardly necessary.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the noble Viscount, as he is dealing with these words, will bear in mind before the Report stage what he said as regards the Commission under paragraph (a) generally. I do not want to refer to it again. I was one of those who did not vote against the clause because I understood that there would be some amendment on that point. I am not pressing it to the full extent, but I understood that there was to be some amendment, or some consideration.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will deal with that later.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not propose to persist with the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: At this late hour of the evening I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, but I should like to have some clear understanding from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill as to what the paragraph exactly means. Under this Bill unrestricted transfers of land from one Department to another are permitted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is limited under the principal Act.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Now I think it is to be unrestricted. Many of your Lordships, I believe, would be very glad to know exactly for what purpose this alteration of the law is made. For instance, land which has been acquired purely for war purposes may now he transferred to other Departments for purposes of housing, land settlement, the building of Government offices (although we hope they will soon be greatly reduced in number), and so on. There are already on the Statute Book Acts giving facilities for the acquisition of laid for these purposes, and therefore perhaps the noble Viscount will tell us exactly the reason for the alteration made by the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It arises from the fact that during the last part of the war Departments were formed and re-formed and re-shaped, and one branch split off from one Department to another. As a consequence in certain cases land and buildings may have been transferred to a Department which was not authorised under the Act of 1916, that is to say, it was not limited to the War Office, the Air Ministry, or the Admiralty. Then under paragraph (e), which the noble Earl proposes in a later Amendment to leave out, the limitation of the power of the Government to transfer possessions from one Department lent to another is taken off. I will give a particular case. I think there was general joy in your Lordships' House over he imminent dissolution of the Ministry of Munitions. The Ministry of Munitions, of course, had certain possessions, among which, we will say, was a certain building scheme with houses. The idea is that I hat should be transferred from the Ministry of Munitions to the Board of Works, because I believe that is the appropriate Department in that particular case. That could not be done without paragraph (e), and I am sure the noble Earl will not wish tie Ministry of Munitions to be maintained in life.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, heir.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, and I do not propose to proceed with this Amendment or with the two following Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Consent under section six of the principal Act
4.—(1) It is hereby declared that the consent—

(a) of a local authority under the proviso to, subsection (1) of section six of the principal Act to the use of a railway or tramway across a roadway on the level being continued after the-expiration of two years from the termination of the present war; and

(b) of the commission under subsection (3) of that section as to keeping a public highway closed beyond the expiration of twelve months after the termination of the present war,

may be given at any time before the expiration of those two years or those twelve months as the case may be.
(2) If any person considers that the consent of a local authority under the said proviso to subsection (1) of section six has been unreasonably withheld he may appeal to the Minister of Transport whose decision shall be final and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority:
Provided that the Minister may before considering any such appeal require the appellant to deposit such sum, not exceeding ten pounds, to cover the costs of appeal as may be fixed by rules to be made by him.
LORD SUMNER LORD SUMNER moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble and learned Lord said: The clause deals with the case of level crossings, railways or tramways across a roadway on the level which have been made in the course of the war. The original Act provided that they were not to be continued after the expiration of two years from the termination of the war if the local authority did not give its consent. Clause 4 (2) contains this singular provision, that—
"If any person considers—"
—whoever he may be—
"that the consent of a local authorty under the said proviso of subsection (1) of section 6 has been unreasonably withheld he may appeal to the Minister of Transport, whose decision shall be final and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority."
Now surely there can be no reason for doing that. In 1916 it was recognised—and I should have thought quite rightly recognised—that the question whether there should be a level crossing (a most inconvenient thing on a roadway) in its jurisdiction was a matter to be settled one way or the other by the local authority which represents the locality. That certainly was the view of Parliament then. It is, of course, perfectly obvious that the local authority may endeavour to make a hard bargain—probably a harder

379
bargain than they really ought to make— when their consent is applied for, and there would be no difficulty in introducing a clause to deal with a ease like that. But to take away from the elected local authority the original protection, which the original Act gave, seems to me to be a thing which requires a great deal of justification. Surely to appeal on the motion of anybody, whether lie is concerned or not, to the Minister of Transport, who is not told how lie is to inquire into the matter, who may do it by any official that he likes to send down, who is not bound to hear the parties, and who simply has to say, as though he were the local authority itself, "This shall or shall not continue," is a wholly unreasonable piece of bureaucratic officialism. After all, all that is in dispute is the cost of an under-bridge or an over-bridge to somebody. The evil that can be done by having level crossings on public thoroughfares—and this clause applies to all public thoroughfares —is, as your Lordships know, very great, and I submit that subsection (2) ought to be left out, and that the right of decision should rest with the local authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33 to page 5, line 2, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Sumner.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Your Lordships will realise that these level crossings are of very great importance, because they connect in various places the railway with the factory. Unless, therefore, the factory can possess this means of access to the railway or the siding it will make all the difference as to whether the factory can be sold or not. The noble and learned Lord says that it is very hard that the local authority should not be left as the final arbiter of the question whether the line should or should not run across the road. Some of your Lordships may possibly take that view, but it is through experience that the Government are asking that the matter should be referred to the Ministry of Transport. I will take one or two actual, concrete cases, without mentioning names. In one case the local authority has refused altogether to give any assent, without giving any reason at all, and as the result it will be impossible to sell the factory. In another case one of these small local authorities—they do not always act under the dictates of the
380
highest wisdom—is trying to get the level crossing placed on another side of the road, for various reasons which I need not go into. Where there is definite obstruction, as there is in some cases, ought the local authority to be allowed to override the advantage of the taxpayer, and is there anything very hard in making the Ministry of Transport the arbiter? Because, after all, the Ministry of Transport looks after all kinds of transport, road transport and railway transport. It may therefore, I think, be considered a pretty fair arbiter between the relative demands of road and railway transport, which is the only thing which arises. I would urge the noble and learned Lord not to press the Amendment. I cannot think of any cases in which the Ministry of Transport is likely to be an unfair judge, or to have any particular interest in deciding unfairly.
LORD SUMNER: I do not think I can accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount. The Ministry of Transport has not as yet won the confidence of the country on a very large scale, and I have pointed out that it is perfectly clear it is not a question of not being able to sell the factory. You have only to carry the tramway over or under the road at an expense not fatal to the sale of the factory, and the thing is done.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is quite plain that this easy way out cannot be accepted. We have to get on to the main line at particular levels, and to go over or under is not a practical engineering feat in many cases.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to
Clause 5:
Provisions as to retention of possession and acquisition of land belonging to railway companies, etc.
5.—(l) For paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section thirteen of the principal Act, the following paragraph shall be substituted:—
"(a) land belonging to any company or corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, other than—

(i) land which having before the commencement of the present war been used for the purposes of the undertaking, had before that date ceased to be so used; and

381

(ii) land which had never been so used before that date, or which has been acquired by the company or corporation by agreement without statutory powers for the purpose, not being in either case shown to the satisfaction of the appropriate department to be and required for the purposes of the undertaking."

(2) Where under the sail subsection the consent of the appropriate Governments department to the retention of the possession of land mentioned in the said paragraph (b) is requested by the Occupying department, the first-mentioned department, in determining whether consent shall be given, shall take into consideration the expediency of such retention for enabling the realisation to the best possible advantage of the value of buildings and works erected or constructed on the land wholly or partly at the expense of the State.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (1) (b) (ii), to have out "appropriate Department" and insert "Railway and Canal Commission." The noble Earl said: This clause is looked upon with grave suspicion by the railway companies. It has been their custom in the past, and a sensible custom, to acquire land by the side or in the vicinity of their lines which inlay possibly at some future occasion be required for the working of the railway, and by this means they have obtained the land at considerably less price thin they would have paid for it if they had bought it at the last moment in a hurry. As the clause stands the Government would have, practically, control over land which had not been used by a railway company, and the "appropriate Department" might be the very Department who would wish to deal with the land and say whether the railway company should be deprive of or not. If the Government require to take possession of such land it should certainly come before an impartial tribunal such as the Railway and Canal Commission, and should not be decided by the "appropriate Department."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("appropriate department") and insert ("Railway and Canal Commission").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not want to be more intransigent than is necessary, and if the noble Earl desires to press for this change I will not oppose it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I had intended to move the omission of Clause 5,
382
but as the noble Viscount has made this concession I will not do so now. I may have to move that on the Report stage.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Temporary continuance of certain orders for the early closing of shops.
1.—(1) The order made by the Secretary of State dated the twenty-fourth day of April nineteen hundred and seventeen, under Regulation Ion of the Defence of the Realm Regulations as amended by any subsequent orders (which order as so amended is sot out in Part I of the Schedule to this Act), shall continue in force notwithstanding the expiry of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, and shall have effect in the area of any local authority as if it were a closing order made and confirmed under the Shops Act, 1912, and subsection (5) of section five and sections thirteen and fourteen of that Act shall apply accordingly.
(2)The said order shall, as from the passing of this Act, cease to have effect as an order made under the said regulation.
(3)In the application of this Act to Scotland this Act shall have effect as if for references to the said order there were substituted references to the order made on the twenty-sixth day of April nineteen hundred and seventeen by the Secretary for Scotland, as amended by any subsequent orders (which order as so amended is set out in Part II of the Schedule to this Act).
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "Provided that the Secretary of State may for such days as he thinks fit suspend the operation of the said order during the Christmas season, or in connection with any other special occasion." The noble Earl said: It has been customary to suspend the general early closing order at Christmas for a few days, and this suspension has been effected by a special order of the Secretary of State. It will no doubt be desirable to suspend the order at Christmas this year.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert:
("Provided that the Secretary of State may for such days as he thinks fit suspend the operation of the said order during the Christmas season, or in connection with any other special occasion").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is consequential and comes at the end of subsection (3).
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 24, at end insert ("and as if for references to the 'Secretary of State' there were substituted references to the Secretary for Scotland").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the House adjourns I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he has any announcement to make as to the sittings of the House next week?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, on Monday next it is proposed to take the Report stages of the Shops (Early Closing) (No. 2) Bill and of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill, and the Committee stages of the Women and Young Persons (Employment in Lead Processes) Bill and of the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill, which were read a second time this afternoon. On Tuesday the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill will be begun, and continued on Wednesday, and concluded, I hope, on Thursday. On Wednesday and Thursday it will be necessary to give precedence to that Bill over other Motions or Bills upon the Paper. Whether your Lordships will desire to sit after dinner on those days we cannot settle now, but I hope that on Monday it may be settled by your Lordships whether the final Division on the Bill shall be taken on Thursday before dinner or after dinner. It will probably be for the general convenience of all concerned that the hour should be fixed approximately, but the number of Peers who desire to speak is large, and it looks as though it will be impossible to conclude the Second Reading on Thursday
384
unless your Lordships sit after the dinner interval on Tuesday night and Wednesday night. That estimate I make from the large number of names already announced of Peers who mean to speak.
On Monday, November 29, Questions, Motions, and further stages of small Bills will be taken. It is expected that the Agriculture Bill will reach this House shortly, and from this point onwards may I observe that the programme is quite tentative—that is, for the week after next. It will probably be convenient to suggest taking the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill on Tuesday, November 30, and, if necessary, on Wednesday, December 1, as well. On one of those days we also hope to get the Resolutions relating to the Government of India Act standing in the name of Lord Lytton. I believe them to be uncontroversial. Probably on one or more days during the later part of that week the House should enter upon the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill. Beyond that I think it is probably undesirable to speculate at the present moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, you will have heard the announcement of the Government with much satisfaction. I quite agree, speaking for myself and others, that the House will probably think it right to sit after dinner both on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week in connection with the Government of Ireland Bill. I understand from the noble Earl that he does not propose to take the Agriculture Bill before Tuesday, November 30. That, I think, would be quite an appropriate arrangement. But I should like to say one word of caution as regards those days. If my noble friend Lord Lytton's Motions are really quite uncontroversial, there would be no reason why they should not he taken, but I expect to find—and I think your Lordships will find—there will be a very large number of noble Lords who desire to speak on the Agriculture Bill, and it would be a great pity, if I may say so, to spoil the flower of the evening on Tuesday or Wednesday if the Motions are likely to take any time at all. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Lytton will appreciate that, and I can leave it absolutely in his hands.
As regards the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill it is a little difficult to say, so far as we know about

385
it, how long an interval it would be necessary to have between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill. A good deal will depend upon the course of the debate on the Second Reading. So far as I am concerned and as far as my knowledge on the subject goes, prima facie a week's interval would seem to be enough, but it might easily turn out when your Lordships hear the debate on the Second Reading that it will be found not to be enough. I only desire to put those words in, so that it should not be thought I agreed to such an arrangement as I am not in a position to agree to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Indian Resolutions cannot come first in order on the Tuesday, and they need not
386
on the Wednesday; and if, as I hope, they prove uncontroversial they can probably be taken at the conclusion of the debate on the Agriculture Bill. On Monday I shall take means to ascertain your Lordships' desires as to the actual hour on Thursday at which the Division, if any, shall be taken on the Government of Ireland Bill.
[From Minutes of November 17.]

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

PAISLEY CORPORATION (INCHINNAN OPENING BRIDGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read lª; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2ª(Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee.
[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, Nov. 19.]

BARONIES OF BOTREAUX, HUNGERFORD, DE MOLEYNS AND HASTINGS.
Petition of Edith Maud, in her own right Countess of Loudoun, the wife of Reginald Mowbray Chichester Huddleston (now Abney-Hastings), and of Elizabeth Frances, the wife of John Wynford, Viscount St. Davids, praying that they may be allowed to refer in the evidence and in the printed case to the proceedings in the case of Edith Maud, Countess of Loudoun, claiming the said Baronies of Botreaux, Hungerford, De Moleyns and Hastings, upon which a resolution and adjudication was made by this House upon the first day of August, 1871; read, and ordered as prayed, subject to all just exceptions and a liberty to all concerned to take objections hereafter.
BARONIES OF STRANGE, OF KNOKIN AND STANLEY.
Petition of Edith Maud, in her own right Countess of Loudoun, the wife of Reginald Mowbray Chichester Huddleston (now Abney-Hastings), and of Elizabeth Frances, the wife of John Wynford, Viscount St. Davids, praying that they may be allowed to refer in the evidence and in the printed case to the proceedings in the case of Edith Maud, Countess of Loudoun, claiming the said Baronies of Botreaux, Hungerford, De Moleyns and Hastings, upon which a resolution and adjudication was made by this House upon the first day of August, 1871;and to use for the purposes of their case such evidence as may have been admitted by this House in the Petitioner's claim to the said Baronies of Botreaux, Hungerford, De Moleyns and Hastings; read, and ordered as prayed, subject to all just exceptions and a liberty to all concerned to take objections hereafter.