Sitting of 23 November 1920

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

  24.—(Deposit of Plans, Books of Reference, and Sections with Clerk of the Peace, etc.)
  and a copy of the said Map, with the said Boundaries delineated thereon, shall also be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "Board," and insert the word "Ministry."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  26A.—(Deposit in case of Bills affecting Fisheries in England and Wales.)
  Where, under the powers of any Bill, it is proposed to make, extend or enlarge any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary in England or Wales, or any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, a copy of so much of the Plans and Sections as relates to the proposed dam, weir, obstruction, or sewer shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and at the office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "Board" ["Board of Agriculture and Fisheries"], and insert the word "Ministry."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  30.—(Deposit of Plans in certain cases with Home Office and Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.)
  Where by any Bill power is sought to take any churchyard, burial ground, or cemetery, or any part thereof, or to disturb the bodies interred therein, or where power is sought to take any common or commonable land, as the case may be, a copy of so much of the Plans, Sections, and Books of Reference required by these Orders to be deposited in the Private Bill Office in respect of such Bill as relates to such churchyard, burial ground or cemetery, common or commonable land, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November, be deposited at the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and a copy of so much of the said
  188
  Plans, Sections, and Books of Reference as relates to such common or commonable land shall, on or before the said day, be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "Board" ["Board of Agriculture and Fisheries"], and insert the word "Ministry."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  33.—(Deposit of Private Bills at Treasury and other Public Departments.)
  (4) Of every Bill relating to railways, tramways, trolley vehicles, canals, gas, water, patents, or electric lighting, or for incorporating or giving powers to any company at the office of the Board of Trade;
  (7) Of every Bill whereby it is proposed to authorise in England or Wales the making, extending, or enlarging of any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary, or of any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, or the abstraction of water from any river, at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and at the office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary.
  Amendments made: In paragraph (4), leave out the word "water."
  In paragraph (7), leave out the word "Board "["Board of Agriculture and Fisheries"], and insert the word "Ministry."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  253.—(Committee of Selection to choose Parliamentary Panel.)
  The Committee of Selection shall select and propose to the House the names of not more than 15 Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners under the Procedure Act.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, to leave out "15," and insert instead thereof "25."
  Standing Order 253 refers to the appointment of Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. Under this Order the Committee of Selection is instructed to form a panel of not more than 15 Members to serve on Commissions in Scotland to deal with Private Bills. It has been found by experience that 15 is rather too limited a

  189
  number. It has been found frequently that a number of the Members on that panel are disqualified, by reason of interest through their constituencies, from serving on particular Commissions, and it is thought that it would be wise to increase the number from 15 to 25. I hope also, by means of this Amendment, to increase the number of Members who will be interested in the efficient working of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act.
  Amendment agreed to.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Fords],
Considered; to be Read the Third time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LANARKSHIRE TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lanarkshire Tramways," presented by Mr. MUNRO; Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be Read a Second time upon Wednesday, 1st December, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH MINISTERS (BRAZIL AND POLAND).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the cause of the delay in appointing a British ambassador to Brazil and a British minister to Poland?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The appointments are now under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement if I put the question down again this day week?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot say for certain, but I hope so.

  RUSSIA.

    GENERAL WRANGEL.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government's refusal to recognise or support General Wrangel was due to the fact that Wrangel was the instrument of the Russo-French Society for the exploitation of South Russia and the Crimea in which no British financial interests were involved?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative. As has been repeatedly stated, the decision of His Majesty's Government to give no further support to General Wrangel was made in June last upon his assumption of the offensive outside the Crimea.

    BRITISH PRISONERS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Ford Privy Seal whether the Government has given a promise that those responsible for the ill-treatment of our prisoners should be brought to justice; and whether, if there is no method except by going to war by which the Russians who were responsible for the atrocious treatment of the prisoners in their hands at Baku, it is now the intention of the Government to forego the promises they had made, and that, therefore, no punishment is to be insisted upon, but that, on the other hand, trade negotiations are to be reopened with Russia without demanding reparation for the sufferings which were borne by our prisoners of war in the hands of the Russians?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am not yet able to add anything to the replies which have already been given on this subject.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the reply which he made last week that it was impossible, unless we go to war, to get any reparation for these prisoners? Is it the intention of the Government to turn these people down altogether, and to turn our backs on the agreement that was previously made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of no agreement that has not been fulfilled. Unless by means of a trade agreement or an arrangement of the kind, there is no power to put pressure on them except by going to war.
    Sir F. HALL: Would not it be possible to put a Clause in the agreement that those responsible for this state of affairs should be brought to justice?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will give a full opportunity of dealing with these questions if the House desires it, and that will afford the proper opportunity of debating them.

  VISAS (UNITED STATES).
  Mr. R. McLARENasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the sum charged for visas in this country to go to the United States of America, and from the United States to this country; if a head tax is charged before entering the United States, and, if so, the amount; and if any tax is levied on persons leaving the United States of America, and, if so, the sum charged?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Visas to enter the United States of America are granted in this country by United States Consular officers, and the fee charged by the United States Government for such a visa is at present ten dollars. The fee charged by His Majesty's Government for a visa issued by a British Consular Officer in any foreign country to enable a foreigner to enter the United Kingdom is 10s. for a single journey or £1 for a number of journeys within a period of one year. British subjects require no visas to enter this country. I understand that a tax of eight dollars is levied on every alien entering the United States, subject to refund in certain cases, as laid down in the United States Immigration Regulations. I have no information as to any tax being levied on persons leaving the United States.
  Mr. McLAREN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this excessive charge of about £4 4s., according to the present rate of exchange, is causing great dissatisfaction among people who have to go to America; and will he see that the matter is looked into and the balance adjusted, or, better still, the whole system abolished?
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any possibility of this subject in its entirety being brought up at the Conference at Geneva?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As my hon. Friend knows, it has been considered recently in Paris by a Committee of the League of Nations, and their recommendations are now under consideration.
  Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that citizens of this country visiting the United States, if they do not stay so long as 60 days, are entitled to a refund, and that, when that refund is paid, it is only about one-fourth of the amount taken from them?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I was not aware of that, but I will make inquiries.
  Mr. JONES: I have had that experience myself.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that representations have been made through the British Ambassador at Washington with regard to this very high charge made by the American Government for visas?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I did not say that.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ACTING RANK.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering that acting rank is granted in areas in which active operations are in progress, and is at present given in Waziristan, he will favourably consider the question of granting it with retrospective effect to officers of the Army serving with troops in Mesopotamia, Palestine, Turkey, and the Black Sea?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): Acting rank is granted to officers serving in Mesopotamia, Palestine, Turkey, and the Black Sea under the conditions laid down in Army Order 286 of 1919, which Order came into force as from 1st August, 1919. The question whether the same measure of acting rank which is granted to officers serving in Waziristan should be extended to Mesopotamia and the Black Sea is at present receiving consideration.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask how much longer it will be under consideration?

    OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War why an officer who, before the War, commanded a battalion for four years, and who rejoined and served as a brigadier throughout the Great War, is not allowed to count the latter service for increase of pension?
    Major MORRISON-BELLasked the Secretary of State for War if officers who have served for many years before the War, some of them in command of battalions, and have then immediately rejoined on the outbreak of the War, and have served in some cases continuously throughout the War, are not allowed to count this war service towards the assessment for pension; and, if not, if he will reconsider their position?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: These officers were, I presume, in receipt of retired pay, and drew it while serving in addition to their ordinary pay. They cannot count the period of war service for an increase of retired pay, though that service entitles them to re-assessment of their retired pay on the new scale under Army Order 324 of 1919. I might add that the rank of Brigadier-General does not carry any special rate of retired pay.

    WARLIKE OPERATIONS.
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Secretary of State for War the number of wars or warlike operations in which British troops are now engaged?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): At the present moment British troops are engaged in warlike operations in Mesopotamia, Persia and on the Indian frontier. Very disturbed conditions also prevail in Ireland. Entire peace has not been restored in the neighbourhood of Constantinople.
    Mr. E. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he considers the state of affairs in Ireland to be a state of war or a state of rebellion?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a state of rebellion, but it involves the hardships of warfare on the troops.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask when the Supplementary Estimate caused by these operations to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is likely to be laid?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know for certain, but it is really a matter for my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) to settle with the Leader of the House. I should think, however, that it will be when the legislation which is now being disposed of in this House has gone up to the House of Fords—as soon as that is got out of the way. That is my opinion.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask again, as the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the hardships of war are entailed on the troops in Ireland, whether it is not a fact that if the troops had been under service conditions, the lives of those unfortunate officers who were killed the other day would have been saved?
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the trouble on the Indian frontier?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like notice of that question, but operations of a minor kind have been in progress on the Indian frontier throughout the last few months—the usual disturbances with the Pathan tribes
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: As there is no state of war in Palestine, why is it necessary to keep so many troops there?

    CAIRO (GENERAL HEADQUARTERS).
    Captain R. TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War what was the cost of transferring General Headquarters in Cairo from the Savoy Hotel to Abbassia; what further sum it cost a few weeks later to move it back to Cairo and place it in the Eden Palace Hotel; and what rent is now paid for this hotel?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have now received a report from Egypt, which goes to show that each move was made from motives of economy. The move was made from the Savoy Hotel because the rent was raised to £700 per month. The cost of the alterations at Abbassia Barracks necessitated by the transfer was £360. Besides the rent of the hotel other considerable savings were effected. On the other hand when at Abbassia charges for transport to and from Cairo were heavy. When therefore the Eden Palace Hotel became available, the opportunity was at once taken to save these charges by returning to Cairo. The rent is just over £200 a month, with three months' notice after 12 months.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How is it these hotels are still required in view of the fact that they were used for ordinary tourists before the War, when we had a considerable force there?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should require notice of any details, but obviously there are a number of troops at headquarters at Cairo much beyond the ordinary.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But is it necessary to take large hotels?

    MONTHLY EXPENDITURE, NEAR EAST.
    Major HAYWARDasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any capital expenditure for military purposes in Constantinople which was not included in the estimate recently given of the monthly rate of military expenditure there; and, if so, what is the estimate for this capital expenditure in respect of the present financial year?
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any capital expenditure for military purposes in Mesopotamia which was not included in the estimates recently given of the monthly rate of military expenditure there; and, if so, what is the estimate for this capital expenditure in respect of the present financial year?
    Mr. KENYONasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any capital expenditure for military purposes in Palestine which was not included in the estimate recently given of the monthly rate of military expenditure there; and, if so, what is the estimate for this capital expenditure in respect of the present financial year?
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any capital expenditure for military purposes in Egypt which was not included in the estimate recently given of the monthly rate of military expenditure there; and, if so, what is the estimate for this capital expenditure in respect of the present financial year?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; the rate of current cost given to the hon. Member for Wigan on 26th October was exclusive of capital expenditure on works and land. The latest estimate of expenditure under these heads during the current financial year is:—

    Mesopotamia and North-West Persia

    £1,000,000

    Constantinople

    125,000

    Egypt

    90,000

    Palestine

    900,000

    I may add that the total of these figures is considerably less than the amount provided in the current year's estimates for these services.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will these figures of capital expenditure fall upon the British taxpayer, or will they be charged upon the revenues of the countries concerned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In the first instance they will fall on the British taxpayer. Some arrangement must be made to shelter the British troops from the sun and from the cold. I cannot avoid it. I put it off month after month and greatly reduced the expenditure which was contemplated this year. As to the expenses, some day it may be these Dependencies will assume the burden.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Why should the British taxpayer be burdened with a cost of something like £900,000 of capital expenditure in Palestine?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is not the £900,000 largely on account of the railway connecting the Egyptian State railways with Jerusalem, and will not the eventual cost be charged to the Egyptian State railways and the Palestine State railways respectively when the whole matter is wound up?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope it may be so.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Do the particulars The right hon. Gentleman has given of Mesopotamia include any expenditure for sheltering troops in Northern Persia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A certain amount of hutting has been provided to enable the men to survive the winter in Northern Persia.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will any of this capital expenditure be recovered from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

    WAR GRAVES (WIDOWS' VISITS).
    Mr. JESSONasked the Prime Minister if, having regard to the fact that thousands of widows whose husbands fell in France during the War are unable to visit that country to see their husbands'

    197
    graves, owing to their pecuniary position, he will consider the possibility and the advisability of the Government granting the necessary funds for these unfortunate widows to be taken to France and provided with the necessary accommodation as the guests of the nation; such widows to be selected after consultation with local war pensions committees?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to my answer on this subject generally on 18th November last in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, to which I am yet unable to add anything.

  IRELAND.

    TROOPS (WAR FOOTING).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now considered the question of placing the soldiers serving in Ireland on a war footing; and what decision has been arrived at?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 15th instant in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. Higham).
    Colonel YATE: May I ask whether, if the troops had been under service conditions, the lives of those unfortunate officers who were killed the other day would have been saved?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot answer that.
    Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Will the widows of soldiers killed in Ireland be entitled to the same pensions as the widows of soldiers killed in the Great War?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There is a question on that subject further down on the Paper.

    MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary of State for War whether the estimate given of the present monthly rate of expenditure on the forces in Ireland, namely, £1,150,000, covers the cost
    198
    of the compensation given in respect of public buildings and private houses which have been hired for the use of the troops; and, if not, what is the estimated expenditure on this compensation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, the figure given is estimated to cover expenditure on these services.

    SOLDIERS (PENSIONS).
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to give the House an assurance that soldiers wounded in Ireland during the present troubles will have exactly the same pension rights as soldiers wounded in the late War?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Until 30 days after the official end of the War, which has not yet been announced, soldiers are fully assured of the same pension rights as though they had been wounded in the late War. The position which may arise in the event of cases occurring after that date is receiving careful consideration.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Will the same privilege be extended to the police?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: That ought to be addressed to another Department.

    OFFICERS' QUARTERS.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, owing to the conditions at present existing in Ireland, officers are compelled to live in barracks in numbers greatly in excess of that for which proper quarters are available; and if, as a solatium for the consequent discomfort, he will consider the advisability of authorising the issue of field-service allowance, or, alternatively, having the value of each officer's quarters assessed, and returning to each officer the balance of the lodging money to which he would be entitled if living outside barracks?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am aware that the increased number of officers in Ireland must involve restricted accommodation, but officers know, and the Regulations provide, that special exigencies may render it necessary to allot quarters of less extent than usual. I regret it is not possible to grant field or other allowances, nor to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's alternative suggestion.

    MUNITIONS (CAPTURE).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War how many field guns, aeroplanes, machine guns, and rifles, and how much ammunition, have been captured by the rebel forces in Ireland from the military since 1st January, 1920?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The following munitions have been captured by the rebels in Ireland since 1st January last: Machine guns, 1; Hotchkiss, 2; rifles, 199; revolvers, 142; ammunition, 66,385 rounds; rifle-grenades, 2; Mills grenades, 2. No field guns or aeroplanes have been captured.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Do those figures include those we have recaptured?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know whether they are gross or net.

    GALLANTRY (POLICE AND MILITARY).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if it is proposed to issue any special medal or decoration in recognition of the many acts of signal devotion and courage performed by members of the military and police forces in Ireland in resisting the campaign of murder and assassination in that country instigated by the Sinn Fein leaders?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The gallantry and devotion of the troops and police in Ireland are gratefully recognised both by His Majesty's Government and the nation, but it is not considered that the issue of a special medal, as suggested in the question, is desirable as a mark of that recognition.

    CROKE PARK, DUBLIN.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any further information about the killing and wounding of about 80 civilians, including women and children, at the Croke Park Football Ground last Sunday; how many volleys were fired into the crowd; how long the firing continued; and whether any inquiry will be held, and by whom?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): Following account has been compiled from report made by police
    200
    and military, after very careful investigation.
    The round-up and search of spectators attending a football match at Croke Park, Dublin, on Sunday afternoon, was carried out by the authorities according to a preconcerted plan with the object of securing Sinn Fein gunmen, who had taken part in the assassinations of that morning of 14 British officers and who, in some cases, were believed to have come into Dublin under cover of attending this match in the afternoon. Events at the football ground go to show that this belief was well-founded; that a considerable number of men among the football crowd were carrying arms is proved beyond doubt. Their presence and their efforts to escape had effects of fatal consequence to a number of innocent people, and police were detailed to surround the ground, and to search. It had been arranged that after the military had surrounded the field, an officer should announce to the crowd through a megaphone that a search was to be made by the police, and that no anxiety need be felt by innocent persons.
    The police force approached the neighbourhood of the field while the military were encircling it, but before the military cordon was complete the police were observed by civilians, who had evidently been specially posted to watch the approaches to the field. The police were fired upon from two corners of the field. Simultaneously, men rose from their places on the grand stand, and fired three quick shots with revolvers into the air. Of this there is indisputable evidence. It seems quite clear that these shots were a pre-arranged signal of warning to certain sections of the crowd. A stampede was caused not by the firing alone, which caused considerable alarm, but also by a rush of men seeking to make their escape from the field. They hurried mostly to one side of the field, where a corrugated iron railing was the only barrier to be surmounted. Through its fall a number of people were crushed Meanwhile, the armed pickets outside joined, no doubt, by gunmen escaping from inside the ground, were maintaining a fire in the direction of the police, who returned the fire. The firing lasted not more than three minutes. About 30 revolvers, thrown away by men who had formed part of the spectators, were picked up on the ground. Twelve per-

    201
    sons lost their lives, 11 were injured seriously enough to warrant their detention in hospital, and about 50 persons sustained slight hurt. These casualties include perfectly innocent persons, whose death I deeply regret. The responsibility for them, however, rests entirely upon those assassins whose existence is a constant menace to all law-abiding persons in Ireland.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many eye-witnesses are pre pared to swear that no shots were fired at the police? Is he also aware that the so-called pickets were men selling tickets outside the field? Does he justify firing into a struggling mass of people, including women and children—
    Mr. MOLES: What about the "so-called" revolvers?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:—in an attempt to pick out a very small minority of armed men?
    Mr. E. KELLY: Can the hon. Gentleman explain at what stage of the proceedings it became necessary to turn a machine gun on the people, and how it happened that a little boy ten years of age was bayoneted to death? Was that done by gunmen?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware that any machine guns were used, nor do I believe that a boy of ten was bayoneted. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU never do!"] I have stated, in answer to the question, the facts which have been put before me. I believe they are accurate. It is impossible for the Government to lay down rules governing the action which the police and military are compelled to undertake in the necessary duty of searching for arms.
    Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry into the statement just made, and ascertain if it is true, and will he report the result in the House?
    Major BARNES: When the right hon. Gentleman says that these proceedings were carried out as a result of a preconcerted plan, may I ask whether that plan was formed after the murders in the morning, and in the period which
    202
    elapsed between the murders and the carrying out of the plan?
    Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the condition of the officers who were wounded? Are they going on all right?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will answer that question at once. My latest information, I am glad to say, is that none of the gallant men who were wounded are other than improving.
    Major BARNES: May I have an answer to the question I asked?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Obviously the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, as the official statement issued declared that revolvers were taken from persons at Croke Park, no persons in possession of them were arrested?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain his statement to the House that the Government were aware that attacks were to be made on these officers, from information received, by men under the cloak of a meeting at Croke Park? If that be so, can he explain why the officers were allowed to remain in private houses and hotels? May I also ask whether any shots were fired from the aeroplane which was hovering over Croke Park?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will ask my hon. and learned Friend to put down those questions.
    Viscountess ASTOR: It is impossible. (Cries of "Order!") May I ask then if the right hon. Gentleman will look into the terrible allegation that a British soldier bayoneted a boy ten years of age? No one can believe it. It is a terrible thing for anyone to say it has happened.
    Mr. KELLY: What about the shooting of pregnant women?

    MURDER OF OFFICERS (ARRESTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the murder of many British officers in Dublin during the week-end, he will take steps to arrest a similar number of known leaders of Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Volunteers,

    203
    and will forthwith bring them to trial for high treason as the initiators of rebellion and assassination in Ireland?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: A large number of arrests of leading Sinn Feiners have been made since the massacre of Sunday last. Continuous searches are being made for the instigators of the recent murders and for the actual assassins themselves.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I will raise this question to-morrow in the course of the Debate.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: How many arrests have been made in connection with the murders during the week-end?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: A very large number of arrests have been made. I cannot at this moment give an analysis of the charges that lay against the many scores who have been arrested.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in nearly every case these outrages have followed the arrest of innocent people in Ireland, because of their political opinions?

  POST OFFICE.

    INTERNATIONAL POSTAL CONVENTION.
    Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIESasked the Postmaster-General when the decisions of the International Postal Convention will be announced and when the new rates for postcards and circulars in this country will come into operation?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The International Postal Congress will probably complete its revision of the Postal Union Convention by about the end of the present month or early in December. I will make an announcement on the subject of both inland and foreign postal rates as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    WIRELESS NEWS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES.
    Mr. HURDasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made with the wireless system which the Government is developing for news and commercial services?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: A series of experiments were recently made to test
    204
    the feasibility of distributing news messages from a central distributing station by means of wireless telephony. The general result of the experiments was satisfactory as far as audibility of speech was concerned; but, owing to the slow rate of transmission, due to the necessity for frequent repetitions, and to the fact that the messages could be easily intercepted, the news agency on whose behalf the experiments were made has not seen its way to adopt the use of the system. It was also found that the experiments caused considerable interference with other stations, and for the present the trials have been suspended. Experiments are, however, being made to test the practicability of using high-speed wireless telegraphy for news and commercial services, and promising results have been obtained. The development of the system is receiving the special attention of my technical advisers.
    Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what interest the Government has in this matter—exactly what is the purpose of this?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The development of the Service.
    Mr. MOLES: Are the representations which have been made with reference to the extension of greater facilities for a Press service to Ireland receiving attention, or does the right hon. Gentleman take up a non possumus attitude in the matter?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will consider that.

    LABOURER'S DISMISSAL, NORWICH.
    Mr. G. EDWARDSasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. C. Ready, recently employed as a labourer at Norwich; whether he is aware that this man is a discharged soldier who was badly gassed in the War; and whether, in view of this fact, he will have inquiries made into the case of his dismissal, and, if possible, have the man reinstated in his old position?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: This case has received full consideration in connection with memorials on his behalf which were submitted by the Post Office Engineering Union. His employment in the Post Office was terminated for good reasons,

    205
    and after giving full weight to his Army service. I regret that I cannot see my way to authorising his re-employment.
    Mr. EDWARDS: Is it not a fact that a great deal of correspondence has taken place between the Postmaster-General and these people—
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read a supplementary question?
    Mr. EDWARDS: I was not reading it. The hon. Member is a little too previous.

    TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether he can give the House the name of the official responsible for the admitted blunder in printing the index letters in the telephone book close to the binding instead of at the head of the outside columns, and thereby causing the public the greatest inconvenience?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The current Telephone Directory is the first to be issued under new printing arrangements, and the error in question is the result of a misunderstanding between the Post Office and the printers. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the subject further.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: With all deference, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not consider that a somewhat poor excuse? Surely the Post Office possesses officials of some kind to revise work that comes from the printers, before it is passed?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: A mistake has been made, and all I can say is that it is not a Post Office official who is responsible.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Post Office cannot change its printers?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is there no official who is responsible for supervising documents before they are issued to the public?
    Mr. MOLES: Is it not a fact that this issue was made by a State-owned printing office.
    Sir W. DAVISON: May I have a reply to my question?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: They are supervised as a rule, certainly, but in this case I do not think the book was supervised after it was bound.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: I shall put this question again in a week's time.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SELECT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increased cost of living, the Government will reconsider the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Pensions, on page 19 of their Report, to the effect that pensions should be readjusted yearly to meet variations in the cost of living?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full reply which I gave upon this subject on the 16th June last to the hon. Member for the Western Division of Derbyshire.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that a large number of Members of this House are anxious to press economy on all sides on the Government, and do not wish to see any increase in Government expenditure?
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the cost of living has risen considerably?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid my hon. Friend must have forgotten what happened in the House when the recommendation of the Committee was strongly opposed by those who spoke in the name of the pensioners themselves.

    MENTAL CASES UNIDENTIFIED.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Pensions whether a photographic gazette of all unidentified ex-service men who are inmates of mental hospitals is being prepared; if so, when it will be ready; and how it will be distributed?
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Minister of Pensions whether it is a fact that a number of unidentified ex-service

    207
    men are at the present time inmates of lunatic asylums and mental hospitals; and, if so, will he at once arrange for the publication of a journal containing photographs of these men and issue it to the general public in the hope that some of these men may be identified by relatives and friends?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I will answer these two questions together. I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting the unfortunate impression, which seems to be prevalent, that there are many unidentified ex-service men in mental institutions. The fact is that of all the male patients admitted since the 1st August, 1914, to county and borough asylums in England and Wales, only four are at present unidentified; and of these two are over 60, one over 50 and the other is about 16 years of age. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wigan on the 17th November, stated that there is no unidentified soldier in the mental hospitals under the control of the War Office; and, so far as my Department is aware, there is no unidentified ex-service man in any other mental institution.
    Dr. MURRAY: Does that apply to Scotland or only to England and Wales?
    Major TRYON: I have not had the whole of the returns from Scotland, but there is little hope that any such cases will be found in Scotland.

    GLUTTON BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the statement of the clerk to the Clutton guardians to the effect that it was only after a correspondence extending over 19 months, during which he, the clerk, wrote 40 letters respecting the case, that the Ministry of Pensions accepted liability for payment of the sum of £7 13s. Poor Law relief granted to an ex-Guardsman whose pension was reduced and who was certified as being unable to work; and what steps are being taken to expedite matters of this kind in the future?
    Major TRYON: The circumstances of this case were quite exceptional, but, nevertheless, my right hon. Friend agrees that the final settlement of the guardians'
    208
    claim was unduly delayed. My right hon. Friend has satisfied himself that in the unlikely event of a similar case arising in the future, it will be dealt with promptly.
    Mr. HURD: May we know what steps have been taken to prevent that sort of thing recurring?
    Major TRYON: We are at the moment making inquiries to find out who is responsible for the mistake that has occurred.

    CHESHIRE REGIMENT (SERGEANT B. W. MEE).
    Dr. M'DONALDasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Acting-Sergeant Bernard W. Mee, No. 26453, 3rd Cheshires, was accepted by the Army on 25th May, 1915, in category A1, that he was discharged from the Army on 18th May, 1917, as unfit for service, and that he died on 2nd December, 1918, leaving a widow and one child, who have no means of subsistence, owing to the widow's delicate health, and that she has been refused a pension, and will he in quire into this case?
    Major TRYON: This case was very carefully considered by the medical advisers to the Ministry, who found that the disease which caused this soldier's death commenced after discharge, and was not connected with service. The widow appealed against the consequent refusal of pension, and the Pensions Appeal Tribunal by which the appeal was heard, confirmed the finding of the Ministry and disallowed the claim.

    MEDICAL BOARDS, ULSTER.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to transfer the medical boards in connection with the Ulster region of the Ministry of Pensions from the Grand Central Hotel, Belfast, their present headquarters, in the centre of the city, to Hilden Convalescent Hospital, which is on the out skirts of the city; whether it would be most inconvenient for the disabled men to have to travel so far to be examined, as the long journey would cause unnecessary suffering, and the expense in tramway fares would be very great; and whether, as there has been no complaint regarding the present arrangement, he will take steps to cancel the proposed transfer?
    Major TRYON: The Commissioners of Public Works are responsible for the provision of accommodation for this Ministry in Ireland, and I understand that in the interests of national economy the Grand Central Hotel, which at present accommodates both the Ulster Regional Headquarters and the Ulster Medical Area Boards, must be vacated as soon as possible. As the medical boards are not likely to continue indefinitely at their present strength, the heavy capital expenditure necessary for the purchase of a building or site in the centre of the city cannot be justified, and as I am informed that suitable premises cannot be obtained on a short lease the provision of temporary hutting upon a vacant site offers the best solution.
    It was first proposed to place the huts on the Old Asylums ground, which is centrally situated, but the Belfast Corporation declined to let the site, and in default of a more central site the Commissioners of Public Works have the Hilden Convalescent Hospital grounds under consideration as an alternative. I will inform my hon. Friend as soon as a definite decision has been reached by the Commissioners. My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that compensation for loss of time and travelling expenses may be claimed by the pensioners.
    Major O'NEILL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this convalescent hospital is several miles from the railway stations, and cannot he take some steps, in the interest of men who perhaps have great difficulty in walking, to obtain some kind of accommodation for these boards nearer in?
    Major TRYON: That is what we are hoping to do, to get some site, and we shall be glad of any assistance that either hon. Member can give us, by the use of their influence in order that we can get suitable sites offered, as I entirely agree that we want a site which will avoid this difficulty, but I would remind both my hon. Friends that if these men were seriously ill and under treatment, there would be no question of a medical board.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the City Council of Belfast to give a grant of land or some building for this purpose—a lease of land?
    Mr. MOLES: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it is not a fact that a deputation of Ulster Members waited on him three weeks ago suggesting to him an alternative site and that consideration of it was then promised? Has nothing been done since?
    Major TRYON: We want to get a site, and we are doing all we can to get one. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friends on the matter.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    MONTHLY RATE OF EXPENDITURE (NEAR EAST).
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Mesopotamia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Mesopotamia is approximately £82,000.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Constantinople?
    Mr. CHURCHILL.The present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Constantinople is approximately £4,000.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any hope of reducing this Air Force expenditure at Constantinople?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am entirely in the hands of the Great Powers in the matter. We have a certain force there which must be provided with its quota of aviation.
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present monthly rate of expenditure on the Royal Air Force in Egypt?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Egypt is approximately £80,500
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Palestine?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Palestine is approximately £18,250.

  QUARTER SESSIONS APPEALS (COSTS).
  Major BARNESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what, if any, remedy remains for a person winning an appeal to Quarter Sessions to whom costs are not awarded; and, if no remedy, is it proposed to amend the law on this point?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The law allow Courts of Quarter Session discretion as to whether a successful appellant shall be given costs or not, and I do not contemplate proposing any legislation to interfere with that discretion.

  CRIMINAL TRIALS (DELAY).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Home Secretary whether he has had under consideration the hardship, long-continued imprisonment, and pecuniary burden which may be imposed, under the present procedure, upon persons committed for trial upon what is found to be insufficient evidence; and whether he pro poses to submit to the House any legislation which would give compensation for such hardship?
  Mr. SHORTT: I do not see my way to propose any such charge on the public funds as the right hon. Member suggests.

  CHILD ADOPTION.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary how far progress has been made in drafting proposals dealing with child adoption; and when he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to them?
  Mr. SHORTT: I understand that the Committee which I appointed in August to consider this question are now drafting their Report, and hope to present it before very long. I cannot make any statement as to legislation at present.

  ALIEN REGISTRATION (SAMUEL LEVITT).
  Mr. CAPEasked the Home Secretary if he will inquire into the case of Samuel Levitt, who was brought up at the Thames Police Court on Monday, 27th September, 1920, for failing to register as an alien and not being in possession of an indentity book; and whether, in view of the influential petition from the Tottenham Hebrew congregation which has been laid before him, and the fact that this young man was not under any obligation to register as an alien, seeing that he is still liable for service in His Majesty's forces, he will order his release from Brixton Prison and allow him to surrender to his unit to be dealt with by the military authorities?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am inquiring into the case and consulting the War Office with regard to the position of Levitt, who has been a deserter from the Army for more than two years, but until my inquiries are completed, I cannot accept the view that the prisoner was under no obligation to register and set aside the magistrate's order for his detention in custody.

  MOTOR CARS (POLICE CONTROLS).
  Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary how many controls were in operation in the Metropolitan police area between a.m. 20th November and p.m. 22nd November for the detection of offences against the speed limit for motor vehicles; how many controls were in operation for the detection of driving to the common danger; how many police officers were employed and with what success in each case, respectively; and how many cases of dangerous driving were reported by the police on ordinary or point duty in the same period?
  Mr. SHORTT: During the week-end, a.m. 20th November to p.m. 22nd November, two controls were in operation to detect infringements of the speed limit, six officers being employed, and five cases were reported for prosecution. Nine controls were operated to detect cases of dangerous driving, etc., eight officers being employed, but no such cases were reported. Two cases of dangerous driving were detected by police on ordinary duty, and one by police on point duty.

  MOUNTED POLICE, LONDON.
  Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary what are the duties upon which mounted police officers are employed in the main thoroughfares of London?
  Mr. SHORTT: The principal duties on which the mounted police are employed in the streets are in escorting processions, regulating and supervising traffic generally, and seeing that slow-moving vehicles are kept to the side of the roadway. Their services in this connection are particularly useful at busy crossings, where they are in a better position than the foot police to keep the traffic under observation and to ensure that the various bye-laws and regulations are observed.

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether Treasury Regulations have been issued under which loans have been made to small holders under Section 29 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The Treasury have not so far issued Regulations, but the periods of repayment and rate of interest for loans made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under Section 29 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, have been prescribed by the Treasury and are operative.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Regulations will be issued, and is not delay to the disadvantage of smallholders?
    Mr. MUNRO: I hope there will be no avoidable delay.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the progress that has been made in building up district institutions under Section 16 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919?
    Mr. MUNRO: The Board of Agriculture are forming a district credit institution in the North of Scotland for the principal crofting counties. Such an institution will have to be built up partly of co-operative societies, which will be formed on the
    214
    new settlements. It is apparent, therefore, that it cannot come into being immediately. There will, however, be no avoidable delay in the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that credit facilities are equally desirable in other parts of Scotland as well as the crofter counties, and can he say if steps will be taken to introduce them there as well?
    Mr. MUNRO: I shall bear that in mind.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland how many land settlement schemes have been inaugurated in Scotland during last year, and how many schemes have been abandoned during the same period?
    Mr. MUNRO: During the last year the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have had under consideration 102 land settlement schemes. Of these, 51 have been sanctioned and 43 abandoned.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for the abandonment of those 43 cases?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think probably lack of funds.
    Major M. WOOD: May I ask when the Cabinet Committee which is considering this question is likely to finish its deliberations?
    Mr. MUNRO: The draft Report was under consideration yesterday and I hope that the Report will be presented to the Cabinet at an early date.
    Dr. MURRAY: Could not some of the money which is being used to settle Jews in Palestine be used to settle Highlanders in the Highlands?

    TEMPERANCE ACT (POLLING).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the recent voting under the Scottish Temperance Act the town and county clerks, instead of issuing the requisition forms to bonâ fide electors demanding the same in terms of the Act, issued such forms to sundry associations believed to be financed partly by American extremists and partly by one or two war millionaires who deem it right and a set-off to their continued retention of their war-created wealth to endeavour to

    215
    limit the liberties and pleasures of their poorer fellow citizens; whether the officials and canvassers of these associations then engaged themselves in securing signatures to such requisitions and to that end indulged in misrepresentations of the issues to the voters whose signatures they sought; whether cases of forgery and unauthorised attachment of other people's signatures have occurred; and whether, in view of these irregularities, tending to defeat the true purposes of the Act, he will instruct local authorities to issue requisition forms only to bonâ fide electors and to refuse to issue forms to associations and others who merely borrow their names as a disguise to enable them to enforce their own extreme views?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no information which supports the vague and, at the same time, serious allegation contained in the second part of the question. As regards the third part, I understand that a conviction has been obtained in one such case. Whether there have been others, I am unaware. As regards the last part of the question, I have no reason to suppose that local authorities are in need of any instructions from me of the nature suggested.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with the names of municipal authorities who have issued requisition forms to those associations, will that satisfy him that the first part of the question is correct?
    Mr. MUNRO: I shall be very happy if my hon. Friend will make the question less offensive and more precise.
    Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask if it is not the fact that the trade also had some of the best and principal speakers for the trade in Scotland imported from America?
    Mr. MUNRO: I believe that is so.
    Viscountess ASTOR: It is so.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the head of the "dry" movement in Scotland was not a very distinguished officer of the British Army?
    Mr. MUNRO: That is so.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it possible to have Members of Parliament imported from America?

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICIALS).
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the total number of officials employed by municipal and county authorities in Scotland; what was the total number in April, 1914; and how many and what proportion to the whole of these officials have been appointed to administer schemes concerned with housing and education since January, 1919?
    Mr. MUNRO: I regret that I have not the information necessary to enable me to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question.
    Major GLYN: Will these figures be made available in the next census?
    Mr. MUNRO: The Return which the hon. Member desires would be a very elaborate one and would involve a great deal of trouble and time.

    EDUCATION ACT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Education (Scotland) Act will be so amended as to grant relief in respect of the excessive assessments of parochial rates on country districts for the sake of urban secondary schools, the parents of children in which are generally able and willing to pay?
    Mr. MUNRO: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, this is a matter on which I am at present in conference with my colleagues in the representation of Scottish constituencies.
    Mr. D. M. COWAN: Is it not the case that, as a rule, the rates in rural districts are lower than in urban districts, and that the want of educational facilities up to now has led to rural depopulation; that the object of this Act is to give something like equal opportunity; and further is it not the case that the community, as taxpayers and in other capacities, have contributed to, and are now supporting, universities, at which many Members of the House, including the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir. J. D. Rees) and myself, have received a large measure of free education?
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether a rejoinder and a surrejoinder will be allowed after that speech?
    Mr. MUNRO: I hope my hon. Friend will put down his question, and I shall then be able to give a more satisfactory reply.

    STEAMER SERVICE, STORNOWAY.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Rural Transport (Scotland) Committee appointed by him in February, 1918, reported that increased steamer accommodation was required on the route between Stornoway and the mainland, and that, in addition to the daily services instituted 40 years ago, an additional steamer was required for coastal services in Lewis; whether, instead of increasing the steamer services as recommended by the Committee, the Government have reduced the existing services by one half; and whether he can state when the Committee's recommendation is to be carried into effect?
    Mr. MUNRO: The Committee recommended that the services mentioned in the first part of the question should be instituted in place of the services existing when they reported. The latter were below the pre-War level, and, after consideration of the recommendations, some improvement has been effected by restoring the six-day service by the mail steamer during the summer months. The reduction of the pre-War services, there-for, only applies to the winter months. For the reasons stated in the answers given to my hon. Friend on the 26th of October and on Thursday last, I regret that the restoration of the six-day service during the winter months cannot be contemplated at present. It is not possible for me in present circumstances to give any undertaking with regard to the suggested coasting steamer.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is it not the fact that the Committee advised this addition in addition to the previous daily services, and not in addition to war services?
    Mr. MUNRO: The Report of the Committee speaks for itself.
    Dr. MURRAY: I shall call attention to this matter on the Adjournment to-morrow night.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Did not the Committee make other recommendations which have not been carried out?
    Mr. MUNRO: It is impossible to carry out all the recommendations in two months.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that from December to the middle of March Stornoway is the centre of an extensive herring fishing in which hundreds of boats from various ports in England and Scotland are engaged; whether he is aware that when the daily mail service between Stornoway and the mainland was instituted this great winter fishing was non-existent; and whether, in view of the greatly increased business of the port due to the winter fishing, he will take steps to have the daily service restored immediately in order to avoid great inconvenience to the community?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question asked by him on the 26th October.
    Dr. MURRAY: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this subject on the Adjournment to-morrow night.

  TEMPORARY CLERKS, GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that temporary clerks in various Departments of the public service who never served in the recent War, and who are over 21, have been receiving 11s. a week, and are now receiving 13s. 6d. a week, more than temporary clerks under 21 who served in the War, and who are doing precisely the same work as the clerks over 21; why a man under 21 who served in the War should be less well paid for the same work than a man over 21 who never served; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of things?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The arrangement under which the rate of pay of temporary male clerks (whether they served in the War or not) rises at certain ages was reached by agreement with the Staff Associations concerned, and I am not prepared to disturb it.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Should not some advantage be given to those who have served in the War and have taken up

  219
  temporary clerkships under 21 over those who have never gone to the War at all?
  Mr. BALDWIN: It is a very complicated matter, but I think that the settlement that has been arrived at, after long discussion with the Staff Associations, must be maintained. If we begin to make exceptions we shall get into difficulty.
  Mr. J. JONES: Will the legal Members of the Government be paid on the same principle?

  HUNGARY.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether any steps are being taken to prevent the execution of the Hungarians who had served as commissaries under the Soviet Government of Hungary, and who remained in Hungary after the fall of that Government on the assurance from Allied representatives that they would be protected?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is no part of the duties of His Majesty's Government to interfere in the conduct of judicial proceedings in foreign countries, and I would earnestly deprecate the attempt to impose on His Majesty's Government responsibilities in such matters which they have neither the desire nor the power to assume. The hon. Member is aware that His Majesty's Representative at Budapest has instructions to watch carefully proceedings in political trials in Hungary, and that more than one occasion has been taken to impress on the Hungarian Government in a friendly way the importance of proceeding with proper moderation.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is because of an arrangement at which Sir Charles Cunningham was present that these people stayed in Hungary and that it was agreed that all political prosecutions from either right or left should cease?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No actual undertaking was given by His Majesty's High Commissioner or on behalf of the Allies, but representatives in a friendly way have had a very useful effect on more than one occasion.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was not a very specific promise given by the representatives of the government in
  220
  Hungary that these people should be safeguarded?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have gone into it very carefully, and no specific undertaking was given.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Another scrap of paper.

  ARMENIA.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether any further subventions by the British taxpayer on behalf of Armenia and the Armenians are contemplated?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday on this subject by the Prime Minister.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the remarks in this behalf of the Noble Ford the Member for Hitchin (Ford Robert Cecil)? If so, do the Government govern the delegates, or the delegates govern the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have read the remarks of my Noble Friend. As to the last part of the question, my experience is that everybody thinks he governs the Government.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin is not a delegate of the Government at all, but of South Africa?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course that is so, and obviously my Noble Friend has every right to express his views.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is not the word "delegates" quite wrong? Are not they representatives, and not delegates?

  SERBIA (BRITISH LOANS).
  Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether over 20 millions have been lent to Serbia; and, if so, what were the terms upon which such loan was made, when that sum is repayable, and what, if any, securities are held in respect thereof?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The Serbian Government received loans amounting to approximately £21,000,000 during the War, for which they have undertaken to deliver obligations, dated the 1st January, 1920, and bearing 5 per cent.

  221
  interest from the date. The Serbian Government have further received advances for relief, since the Armistice, amounting to approximately £1,500,000, for which they undertake to deliver 6 per cent. Bonds as from the dates of the advances. The above obligations have not yet been actually deposited.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is any security offered to Montenegro in this matter?

  FLOATING DEBT (REDUCTIONS).
  Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is still of the opinion that a proportion of this year's revenue will be available for the reduction of the floating debt; and, if so, how much?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I see no advantage in attempting a fresh estimate of the exact amount at the present time.
  Sir F. HALL: Is that after taking into consideration the reduction that will be recoverable from excess profits?

  AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
  Mr. HAYDAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any representations have been made by the Agricultural Organisation Society in respect of the decision of the Development Commission to stop the special allotments subsidy to that society; if so, what action has been taken regarding these representations and whether any deputation has been or is proposed to be received from the society on the matter; and for what reason the Development Commission decline to receive any deputation from other bodies to protest against the continued payment of public funds to the Agricultural Organisation Society?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The Development Commissioners have not at any time recommended any special grant from the Development Fund towards the allotments branch of the Agricultural Organisation Society, but special grants which have now been discontinued, were
  222
  made during the War by the Board of Agriculture. In July last the Commissioners considered an application from the society for a grant in aid of the branch, and hear representatives from the society. They were unable, however, to recommend a grant, and after considering further representations from the society they have decided to adhere to their former decision. The society did not ask that a deputation should be received regarding this further application. With regard to the last sentence of the question, I am informed that the Development Commission have not declined to receive any deputation to protest against grants being made to the society. They received deputations of the kind from the National Union of Allotment Holders in April, 1920, and the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants in March, 1919.

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. McDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue instructions to the collectors of Income Tax to the effect that they must render a complete statement of all amounts due by Income Tax payers at one time, and not, as is the present custom, extending the notices over a period of weeks?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I assume that the case which my hon. Friend has in mind is the case in which a taxpayer has several sources of income—possibly in different parts of the country—and therefore receives a number of demands for the payment of Income Tax. The issue of more than one demand in such circumstances is a necessary corollary to the system of taxation at the source which, as my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, is the vital factor in maintaining the yield of the Income Tax.
  Mr. McDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while in many cases, one envelope with two enclosures would be quite sufficient, on the other hand, no fewer than three envelopes and six enclosures have been sent to different individuals? If that were avoided, there would be a great saving to the country?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I will note what my hon. Friend proposes.
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased amount of income that is exempt from Income Tax, employers in industries in which the standard rate of wage is below the amount exempted from tax are still called upon to make quarterly returns of the amount earned by each employé?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, from which he will see that, following upon the new Income Tax graduation, Section 105 (1) (b) of the Income Tax, 1918, has been amended, £150 being substituted for the previous figure of £130. The employers' ordinary returns of their employés' earnings are now not required to include cases in which the remuneration does not exceed £150 for the year or, in the case of the quarterly returns of weekly wage earners is less than £37 10s. for the quarter.
  Mr. WILSON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and make it quite clear that a married man is entitled to certain abatements?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think that that is generally known.
  Mr. WILSON: Could there not be stated on the return the amounts that married men are entitled to?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think that that would throw a great burden of work on the employer I will consider it.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN AGREEMENT.
  Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of the financial commitments which the Government will undertake if the Anglo-Persian agreement is ratified by the Persian parliament?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The agreement which was laid before Parliament in 1919 (Command 300) provides for a loan of £2,000,000 at 7 per cent., of which one moiety will be provided by the Government of India.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by being "laid before Parliament"? We were not asked to ratify this agreement.

  LOANS TO ALLIES.
  Mr. G. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether any amount additional to the £18,000,000 voted in Vote 10, Unclassified Services, Sub-head A, has been granted to any ally since the publication of the Estimates; (2) whether he can state the names of the allies to whom loans are made, Vote 10, Unclassified Services, Sub-head A, and the amount which is paid to each?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The advances made from Sub-head A of the Vote for Loans to Allies are in respect of remanets, or adjustments, arising out of the War. The actual advances in the current year to date are as follow:—

  £

  To France

  4,318,492

  To Italy

  110,000

  To Belgium

  13,000

  To Serbia

  414,744

  To Roumania

  5,214

  Total

  £4,861,450

  Further advances will be necessary before the close of the year, but I anticipate that the total will be well within the voted sum.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any contribution has been made to the Greeks in Anatolia?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I must have notice of that question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Food whether in numerous cases in recent weeks the Sugar Commission has sanctioned the cancellation of orders for sugar; whether the Commission refused to allow Messrs. George Mellis and Son, Limited, of Aberdeen, to cancel an order for 100 bags of sugar; whether on this firm insisting on cancellation the Commission intimated that it was instructing refiners to make no further deliveries to them; and, if so, whether the Commission can justify their unfair and oppressive treatment of Messrs. Mellis?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, to the second and third parts in the affirmative. I see no grounds for the suggestion that the action of the Sugar Commission in compelling the performance of a contract was in the circumstances of the case either unfair or oppressive.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend say that the Sugar Commission has not sanctioned cancellation?
    Mr. McCURDY: No. I say that the fact that in some cases the Sugar Commission may see fit that the contract should be cancelled is no ground for making it a rule to cancel all contracts.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Minister of Food if he can make a statement as to sugar de-control?
    Mr. McCURDY: I am unable at present to make a statement on this matter.
    Mr. WATERSON: When may we expect a statement?
    Mr. McCURDY: The matter is at present under consideration, and I hope to be able to make a statement at no distant date.
    Mr. WATERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Cabinet discussed this matter?
    Mr. McCURDY: Yes.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May we expect that sugar will be de-controlled within a reasonable time?
    Mr. McCURDY: Oh, yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that sugar will not be de-controlled for an unreasonable time.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us think that he has unreasonably controlled sugar up to now, and is he aware that the public consider that sugar would be cheaper if his activities were to cease?
    Mr. McCURDY: Yes. My attention is constantly being called to criticisms of the character indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that most careful attention is paid to those criticisms, and I trust that where they are well founded we profit by them.
    Captain TERRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman no idea at all when his Ministry will be closed?

    REGIONAL ORGANISATION.
    Major BARNESasked the Minister of Food what was the average monthly cost of maintaining regional food controllers and their staffs in the year ending 31st March, 1920; and what is the average monthly cost to-day?
    Mr. McCURDY: The average monthly cost of the Regional Organisation in the year ending 31st March, 1920, was £100,000. The average monthly cost to-day is £30,000. Every effort is being made to effect further economies, and as a result of these I hope to reduce further the monthly cost to £10,000 by February, 1921.
    Captain TERRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the figures which he has just given us include the cost of the buildings which these regional food controllers occupy?
    Mr. McCURDY: If my hon. and gallant Friend wants particulars, I shall be glad of notice, but I am under the impression that I am giving the entire cost.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Minister of Food how many divisional food Commissioners there are in existence; the total cost of the same; whether there has been any reduction in the number of such officers during the last 12 months; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. McCURDY: The Regional Organisation of the Ministry of Food originally comprised 10 divisions in England, three in Scotland, and two in Wales. The three Scottish divisions are at present grouped in one, and a reduction of one division in England has been made by the combination of the London and Home Counties divisions. There are at the present time 12 Commissioners in all, at a total annual cost of £11,900. Certain changes are in contemplation during the next three months, which will enable me to effect further economies, but while the staffs can be, and are being, progressively reduced, the areas cannot, in my opinion, be usefully enlarged.

    CHINESE FLOUR.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Minister of Food whether he can state the amount of Chinese flour in. this country and also

    227
    the amount due to arrive; if the Scottish Association of Master Bakers in a letter to the Ministry, on 27th October last, declared that this class of flour had been tested and a microscopic examination of the starch cells show that the flour was made from unsound wheat; in view of this declaration is he prepared to consider professional millers' opinion on such matters as affects the staple food of the country; and, if not, what methods is he prepared to adopt to safeguard the health of the community?
    Mr. McCURDY: In reply to the first part of the question, the quantity of Chinese flour held to the account of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies in this country is 36,600 tons, and a further quantity of 48,400 tons is due to arrive. With regard to the remainder of the remainder of the question, I may state that in accordance with the regular practice of the Wheat Commission this flour was subjected on arrival to expert examination, and the results were satisfactory. It is true that an insignificant quantity arrived in damaged condition, but no part of that quantity has been allocated for use for human consumption.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this flour is condemned by every miller in the country?
    Mr. McCURDY: No, I am not.

    BREAD.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Food whether there is any prospect of a reduction in the price of bread this year?
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Food whether the price of the loaf will be reduced in view of the fall of wheat prices; and, if not, whether this is due to the refusal of the Wheat Commission to cut its losses?
    Mr. McCURDY: In reply to these questions, I can only refer the hon. Members to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Hurd).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  IRISH DEBATE.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has
  228
  agreed to the postponement of the Irish Debate fixed for to-morrow, and, if so, what business he proposes to take instead?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware that there was any agreement for the postponement. The day was given by me because it was asked for. We did not ask for it, and obviously if it is no longer asked for, we do not press it. It is not our business. If the right hon. Gentleman, and those with whom be acts, do not wish the question to be pursued in this House, then—as nobody would desire to have a late sitting to-day if it can be avoided—I propose not to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule for the Agriculture Bill, but if it be not finished, to make it the first Order to-morrow, and to take subsequently some other small Orders, including the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, and the Public Works Loans Bill.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only reason which has actuated those who desire not to have the Debate to-morrow is that the present moment does not offer a really suitable atmosphere for debating this grave subject, and that it is desired to have the Debate next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not wish to have any unnecessary controversy with my right hon. Friend, but I do not in the least agree. As a matter of fact, I think that the reality which has now been made plain to the House and the country makes this a suitable time for the discussion. I would remind my right hon. Friend also that I read in the papers this morning that the Irish Question is to be discussed at Birmingham by Sir John Simon and by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and if it be suitable for the platform plainly it is equally suitable for discussion here.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I may tell my right hon. Friend that, under the circumstances he has indicated, we ask for the day to-morrow.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On the whole I think my right hon. Friend has taken a wise decision. I presume that notice of motion will be given.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not customary, before a day is fixed, that the convenience of the parties asking for it should be consulted? Is he aware that I asked for the day, that I did not ask for it to be postponed, and that I am delighted the Debate is coming on?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There seems to have been some misunderstanding. My Noble Friend near me (Ford E. Talbot), who has been in communication on this subject with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, was led to believe that that hon. Member was speaking for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was informed by the Chief Whip that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division had a public engagement in the country long since entered into, and that I had stated that the day was not suitable? However, we are now prepared to have it, no matter whom it suits.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. No such reason was given to my Noble Friend for the postponement.

  AGRICULTURE BILL.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I just ask a question about a notice of Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House relating to the Agricultural Bill for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule to-night? May I ask him not to sit late to-night—certainly not after twelve o'clock—since most important Amendments, especially in the Schedule, relating particularly to Scotland, would otherwise come on in the small hours of the morning, and those Amendments were not debated in Committee. Under these circumstances, will
  he agree that the House shall not sit after twelve o'clock to-night?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I am sorry I could not agree to that. I understand the Scottish Clauses will be reached quite early. In any case, I think it is essential that this Bill should pass through all its stages in this House this week, and go to another place next week. There is no other way of finishing the Bill this Session.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: I assume the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill will be taken first Order on Thursday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is the intention.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the Agriculture Bill goes late, is it the intention of the Government to take the contract for the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown? There is a matter of controversy on that, and several are interested in it.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am told it is necessary to get that this week, and in that case we must take it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it the intention of the Government to take at an early hour in the morning the Motion to set up a Committee to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament? It would be an inopportune moment to do so.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not understand my right hon. Friend's question. I should have thought, with his knowledge, he would have known that if it be objected to, we cannot take it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Agriculture Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
  The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 72.

  Division No. 370.]

  AYES.

  [4.5 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Briggs, Harold

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

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

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

  Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Atkey, A. R.

  Bennett, Thomas Jewell

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

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

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Blair, Reginald

  Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

  Barnett, Major R. W.

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Barrie, Charles Coupar

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Casey, T. W.

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Clough, Robert

  Jesson, C.

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

  Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Pratt, John William

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Purchase, H. G.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

  Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

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

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Reld, D. D.

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Curzon, Commander Viscount

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

  Davidson, J.C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

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

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

  Rodger, A. K.

  Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

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

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Donald, Thompson

  Lonsdale, James Rolston

  Seddon, J. A.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lorden, John William

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Edge, Captain William

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

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

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.

  Simm, M. T.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Elveden, Viscount

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Starkey, Captain John R.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

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

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Stewart, Gershom

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Gardiner, James

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Taylor, J.

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Mallalieu, F. W.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Gould, James C.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

  Matthews, David

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Grant, James A.

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

  Moles, Thomas

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Turton, E. R.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

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

  Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Morris, Richard

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Hall, Captain Douglas Bernard

  Morrison, Hugh

  Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Wason, John Cathcart

  Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

  Mosley, Oswald

  Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

  Neal, Arthur

  Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

  Higham, Charles Frederick

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

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

  Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

  Hinds, John

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

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

  Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Winterton, Major Earl

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

  O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

  Wise, Frederick

  Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

  Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

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

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

  Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Parker, James

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Pearce, Sir William

  Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Perring, William George

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

  Cape, Thomas

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Donnelly, P.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Briant, Frank

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  232

  233

  Hallas, Eldred

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Hayday, Arthur

  O'Grady, Captain James

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

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Tootill, Robert

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Waterson, A. E.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Wignall, James

  Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, East)

  Robertson, John

  Williams, Col. p. (Middlesbrough, E)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

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

  Sexton, James

  Wintringham, T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sitch, Charles H.

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

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Spencer, George A.

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Swan, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Myers, Thomas

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

  Mr. Hogge and Mr. A. Short.

IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.
Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the imprisonment of a Member:
Police Court, Bow Street, W.C.2,
19th November, 1920.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that I have this day convicted Cecil John L'Estrange Malone, Member of Parliament, of an offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment in the second division.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear "and "Hurrah!"]—Notice of appeal has been given against this conviction, and a recognisance entered into by the defendant with sureties for the due prosecution of such appeal, and the defendant has accordingly been liberated pending the appeal.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
CHESTER JONES.
The Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  LITTLE LONGSTONE CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL,
  "to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charity consisting of the Congregational Chapel and Trust-Property in the parish of Little Longstone, in the county of Derby," presented by Sir GODFREY COLLINS; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 237.]
  HULME TRUST ESTATES (NON-EDUCATIONAL) CHARITY BILL,
  "to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application and management of the charity called the Hulme Trust Estates (Non-Educational)," presented by Sir GODFREY COLLINS; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]
  BAPTIST CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL,
  "to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of certain charities," presented by Sir GODFREY COLLINS; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 239.]

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 215.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 240.]

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee E.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No 216.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]

MESSAGE FROM THE FORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the port and harbours of Greenock." [Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill [Fords.]
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee E (in respect of the Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee E (in respect of the Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill): Sir Montague Barlow, Sir William Bull, Sir Eric Geddes, Mr. Frederick Green, Sir Henry Harris, Captain Moreing, Mr. Munro, Mr. John Murray, Major William Murray, Mr. Neal, Captain O'Grady, Lieut.-Colonel Pinkham, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, and Mr. Tyson Wilson.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee E: Mr. Charles Edwards, Mr. Myers, and Colonel Wedgwood; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Graham, Mr. Hallas, and Mr. Hayday.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  AGRICULTURE BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  AGRICULTURE BILL.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Compensation to Landlord for Deterioration of Holding.)
    Where a landlord proves, to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under the Act of 1908, on the termination of the tenancy of a holding, that the value of the holding has been deteriorated during the tenancy by the failure of the tenant to cultivate the holding according to the rules of good husbandry and the terms of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator may award to the landlord such compensation as in his opinion represents the deterioration of the holding due to such failure.
    Mr. HUGH MORRISON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, after the words last inserted, to insert the words
    "Provided that no compensation shall be awarded where the landlord has failed to satisfy the arbitrator that he drew the attention of the tenant in writing during the tenancy to such failure on the part of the tenant to cultivate the holding according to the rules of good husbandry and the terms of the contract of tenancy, and that he gave the tenant a reasonable opportunity of remedying such failure."
    The object of this Amendment is to protect the farmer and ensure that the landlord only gets compensation if he has warned the tenant and satisfied the arbitrator that he has warned him as a tenant in writing that he has not farmed according to the rules of good husbandry or has broken the contract of tenancy, and the tenant has been given some reasonable opportunity of remedying such failure The Amendment is one of substance. It is necessary to protect the tenant farmer in this way, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept this Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): In the discussion on this Clause we have shown that we wish to make it as far as possible correspond with Clause 10. Clause 10 compels the landlord to pay compensation for continuous good farming to a tenant. This Clause com-
    266
    pels the tenant to pay compensation to the landlord where by continuous bad farming he has deteriorated his holding. In Clause 10 there is no such provision as the one which is now proposed by my hon. Friend, and I do not think, therefore, any such provision could be of service in Clause 13. I realise it is intended to protect the tenant, but it might be very hard on the landlord. The landlord might not be aware, and therefore might not have a chance of giving notice, and if he had a chance of giving notice there might not have been time for the tenant, between the notice and the termination of the tenancy, to remedy his bad farming. I think we must stick to the principle that the Clauses should correspond as far as possible, and therefore I cannot accept this Amendment.
    Mr. ACLAND: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to answer his question. The principle that the two provisions should coincide is, I am sure, the right one. Does he mean to carry that out by accepting the next Amendment on the Paper?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, I do.
    Mr. ACLAND: That would put it on all fours.
    Amendment negatived.
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move, at the end of Clause 13, to insert the words
    "Provided that this Section shall not apply in any case unless a record of the condition of the holding has been made under this Act or in respect of any matter arising before the date of the record so made."
    Mr. ACLAND: I think there will be some Amendment needed to bring it into practical conformity with the Act of 1908. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the words were inserted in the other Clause.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think my right hon. Friend is right, but it would be rather difficult to devise the proper words here, but I will make a note of it and, if possible, get it put right in another place.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider whether he could put in the Act of 1908?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is what I said. I accept the Amendment as it stands, and undertake that the application of these words shall be reconsidered elsewhere.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Provisions for expediting and reducing costs of arbitrations.)
    (2) On an arbitration under the Act of 1908 the arbitrator may, if he thinks fit—

    (a) make separate awards in respect of the several claims referred to him; and

    (b) make an interim award for the payment of any sum on account of the sum to be finally awarded.

    (3) A rule made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to his Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent thirty days on which that House has sat next after any such rule is laid before it praying that the rule may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under.
    Major STEEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "fit," to insert the words "and shall if required by either party."
    The object of this Amendment is that, if either party to one of these arbitration cases wishes it, the arbitrator shall be compelled to make a detailed statement. I know that an Amendment on similar lines was proposed in Committee stage of the Bill, and it was not accepted by the Government. But I do hope that, on consideration, the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to accept this Amendment, because it is only fair that, when claims which are lodged under various heads, those claims should be dealt with by the arbitrator in a detailed manner, and that the arbitrator should not simply award a lump sum, but say how that lump sum which he has awarded is arrived at by giving the various details.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment. It seems to me a most reasonable request that the arbitrator, when he has several claims referred to him, should make an arbitration in respect of each claim. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment. I think it is quite reasonable and quite in accordance with the ordinary practice of a Court of Law.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I think the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have overlooked the powers the arbitrator has under the Schedule to the Act of 1908. It must be remembered that under Clause 10 of the Schedule to the Act of 1908 it is provided that the arbitrator shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or any particular matter subject to the award. All that the Amendment does beyond what is already provided for is in substance this: to require that the arbitrator shall make a statement.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not possible that if these words are not put in this Clause, and it is left as it is, that it may be held that this Clause over-rides the Act of 1908, and that therefore the Act of 1908 does not apply so far as relates to the proceedings of the arbitrator under this Act? That is what I am afraid of. If it is as my right hon. Friend suggests, it would be better to leave these words out altogether and rely on the other Act.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Before making up his mind on this my right hon. Friend might consider the words of the right hon. Baronet, and if it does not over-ride it, it can be left as it is. Do not let him give a hasty answer to it now.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I am prepared, in response to the question of the hon. Member opposite, to count ten before I give my decision lest it should be too hasty. Having counted that number, I am prepared to give my answer. These two Acts are to be read together, and there is no question, therefore, of one overriding the other. We have provided that the arbitration shall take place in accordance with the Act of 1908, and in accordance with this Schedule. Therefore as the matter stands at present, we have got the benefit now of Clause 10 of the Schedule of the Act of 1908, under which, on the application of either party, the amount is to be specified. What is felt is this: with regard to some of these claims which are to be made by the landlord or tenant, it may be that some matters are very easy to decide, and on which there can be an immediate award, and the arbitrator would no

    269
    doubt adopt this procedure. But where an award in favour of one party might, on the whole, on balance be wiped out by an award in favour of the other party—in such a case it would be unwise to make such an award. This power to make separate awards may be of use in particular cases, but in general inasmuch as there is power already to ask for specific items to be dealt with, and that power still exists, I think it would be unwise to try to alter this Clause in the manner suggested in the Amendment and to insist upon separate awards being given. The Bill leaves it a matter of discretion.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I know it is not the practice of arbitrators to specify the different items in their awards to the great inconvenience of those concerned. As I read the Act of 1908 it says that the arbitrator on the application of either party shall specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or any particular matter under his award. As I understand the position the arbitrators take up, it is that they only give these particulars after they have made their award. The Amendment of my hon. Friend would require the arbitrator at the request of either party to specify every item in his award which would be most useful. I do not think it is done under the Act of 1908. The arbitrators do not give the particulars much to the annoyance of the parties concerned. I should support most strongly the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It would give us a much better system of arbitration.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Resumption of Part of Holding by Landlord.)
    Where after the commencement of this Act the landlord of a holding gives notice, in pursuance of a provision in that behalf contained in the contract of tenancy, of his intention to resume possession of some part of the holding, the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section twenty-three of the Act of 1908 (but not including the proviso thereto) shall apply as if the notice were such a notice to quit as is mentioned in that Section.
    Mr. TOWNLEY: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert the words
    "Provided that in assessing the compensation payable to the tenant the arbitrator shall take into consideration any benefit or relief allowed to the tenant under the contract of tenancy in respect of any land resumed in pursuance of such provision."
    270
    This is merely an Amendment that the arbitrator should take into consideration any benefit which has been allowed to the tenant under the contract of tenancy in respect of land resumed in pursuance of such provision. Sometimes when the land has been taken away, further compensation has been given by the landlord for the benefit of the tenant, and that matter should be taken into consideration when the award is made. I beg to move the Amendment,
    Captain FITZROY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept it. Under the existing system hitherto with regard to these notices to quit, when a landlord gave notice to quit a portion of the holding for whatever purpose, the tenant had a right to claim that the whole of the holding should be taken. The Government have introduced into this Bill in Sub-section (a) of Section 5 of Clause 7 a provision under which, if a landlord gives notice to his tenant up to 25 per cent. of his holding, he will only have to compensate him for that amount of the holding which he takes.
    I am quite clear in my own mind that the bargain of which we have heard so much in regard to compensation paid to tenants included the proposal that any notice to quit part of the holding, let us say for the purpose of establishing allotments or small holdings, in which there was an agreement in the lease, and such arrangement existed between the landlord and the tenant that the landlord should be able to take part of the holding, that under these circumstances the landlord should not have to pay compensation. I am quite certain in my own mind that was part of the agreement made which has been mentioned with regard to compensation to be paid to tenants to whom notices to quit have been given. That being so, this particular Clause, Clause 16—if that was part of the agreement, and the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me—Clause 16 appears to me not to be necessary, because it is only putting into the Clause what we agreed should not be in the Clause, and this Amendment is necessary unless the right hon. Gentleman agrees to omit the Clause altogether. That is my recollection of what took place.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The question of leaving or not leaving out this Clause, to

    271
    which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred, hardly arises on this Amendment. It would have been open to my hon. and gallant Friend to move his Motion a little earlier on the Paper to omit Clause 16, or the same point practically would have arisen if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) had been moved. In this case, if that Amendment had been moved, I should have been very glad to say something about it, but we are now dealing with the matter of taking into consideration the allowance in assessing compensation and any benefits or relief's which have been allowed to the tenant under the contract of tenancy. That Amendment I am willing to accept, subject to reconsideration of the actual wording in another place.
    Perhaps now I may be allowed to reply on one or two other points. There was a certain arrangement made in respect of Clause 7, in which Clause there is power taken for the payment of compensation in cases where, under the Act of 1908, the land is resumed for certain specific purposes, allotments, small holdings, and so forth. There was a difference of opinion in this. Under that Clause part of the holding, and only part, is taken. It was agreed that under those circumstances compensation for disturbance should be paid. There was not a full record kept of that particular meeting at which this arrangement was come to, and there was a perfectly honest and perfectly bonâ fide difference of opinion as to what really was decided My recollection was that under the circumstances compensation for disturbance was to be paid. My hon. and gallant Friend and others think the decision was that it should not be paid. I cannot at this stage say for certain which it was. Several hon. Members who are present are of an opposite opinion to my hon. and gallant Friend. At all events, however that may be, Clause 7 has been passed in the form that compensation for disturbance shall be paid. That being so, it seems only reasonable that the same plan should be adopted in respect to this Clause. This Clause refers to the case where part of the holding is taken under the contract of tenancy. Clause 7 (5, d) refers to the case where the part is taken under the provisions of the Act, but not under the con-
    272
    tract of tenancy. If you pay compensation for disturbance in the one case, it seems to me only right and proper that you should pay it in the other.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: One is a contract, the other is not?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am merely explaining the Amendment, which would have excepted payment for disturbance under the contract of tenancy, which has not been moved.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if the Amendment we are discussing were withdrawn, it would be in order then to put in a proviso similar to the Amendment standing the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood). There is an impression, and an erroneous impression, among a good many Members of the House that on the Report stage they can not move an Amendment which is not in their own name. Possibly it was owing to that that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon was not moved. As there appears to be some doubt as to whether the undertaking was or was not given by the Government—in regard to that Amendment may I suggest, subject to your approval—
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: May I briefly say that no undertaking whatever was given by the Government.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There was a misunderstanding, and may I suggest, with your approval, that if this Amendment is withdrawn the earlier Amendment could be moved.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the Government are prepared to accept the proviso standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood), I shall raise no objection to the Amendment which is now before the House being withdrawn, and then we might go back. But I feel very strongly against this Amendment being withdrawn, and then going back to another, if it is going to be a contentious Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I could not accept the earlier Amendment. I have good reasons for that, but I am not in a position to state them now. Even if this Amendment, which I am prepared to accept, were withdrawn, and the other proviso were moved, I could not accept it.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This is a very important point. It was through a misunderstanding that the point was not raised a while ago. The matter is very important. Of course, it can be raised in another place, but it is very much more desirable to have it discussed here. It is not only a question of whether a notice causes a breach of contract, but it is a question of a great deal of land which is now temporarily let for development purposes at short notice, on the distinct understanding that it may be resumed for development purposes at short notice, and this under the existing agreement. Exactly where we stand in this Bill is a matter of reference. It is very difficult to know. I certainly desire to raise the point, and I understood it would have been raised on this Amendment. We do not want to have two discussions on the same Clause.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I understand from my hon. Friends that the discussion that has taken place on this Clause has been taken on the Amendment that is now before us. I only rise now because I am told by my right hon. Friend behind me that the reason—
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: May I interrupt my hon. Friend for one moment? I have no objection whatever to discussing the Amendment. In fact I accept discussion. I do not want to burk it. You said, Sir, that you were prepared to go back if I were prepared to accept the withdrawal of the Amendment. That is another matter. I cannot accept the earlier Amendment, but I am perfectly willing it should be discussed.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: On this actual Amendment may I raise a point which it is important should be raised? It is practically universal that where land is let in the manner described it is expected to be taken at short notice, and can be taken at short notice under agreement for purposes of development, and when that consideration is given; and because of that it is let at a lower figure than it would otherwise be let for continuous and ordinary tenancy. It is a temporary letting, and as such is often let at a very low figure. A consideration of that kind would be a consideration which would come under this Amendment, and I suggest that that point might be raised upon it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the Government are willing to accept the Amendment what is the use of prolonging the discussion upon it?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I wanted to ascertain exactly how far consideration could be given in this Amendment. If it met the point I should be perfectly satisfied. If the Minister will tell us, in this Amendment we are now discussing, if he can give us an assurance in accepting the Amendment that the arbitrator would be able to take into account the whole of the conditions, and whether the land was let at something below its full economic rent for the full tenancy, that would go a long way to meet my objection.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is difficult for me to say exactly at the moment; but I rather think the relief would be covered in the way my hon. Friend has just said. Might I, however, suggest that we should accept these words, and then leave the matter for the consideration of my Noble Friend in the House of Lords. As a matter of fact, I quite expected it would be raised on Clause 7. It has not been so raised, and there is a difference of opinion as to what the agreement was. That is my view. Personally, I think the whole matter should be considered in a perfectly open manner, and the Government are in no way bound. Meantime, I propose to accept these words, and I will draw the attention of my Noble Friend to the matter, and tell him there was a difference of opinion as to what was the arrangement.
    Colonel Sir A. SPROT: May I ask the Secretary for Scotland a question or two with regard to the application of this Act to Scotland? In my experience it is quite a common thing that a farm near a town should be let with this proviso, that if any portion of the farm is required for building—that is to say, if what we call feting in Scotland shall take place, the farmer shall receive in respect of the small portion of the farm which is resumed, in addition to the compensation for unexhausted manures, and so forth, the reduction of his land to a certain figure which is mentioned in the lease. It is usually a figure higher than the rate per acre he is paying. That is a very common arrangement in my country. I should like to ask

    275
    the Secretary for Scotland to tell us the application of this particular Clause in such a case. It is a very common case.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think we can deal with the application Clause now, because that question can be discussed when the Clause comes up. We are now dealing with an Amendment to the Clause.
    Sir A. SPROT: I think this Amendment, if it is adopted, would clear up the point which I have tried to put before the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to give an answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question, because we are really in a fog in this matter.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro)It is quite impossible for me to be in two places at the same time, and I cannot reply to a question which I have not heard.
    Sir A. SPROT: My point is that in Scotland farms are often subject to the proviso that if a small portion of the farm is taken for feuing there shall be given to the tenant when that is done, in addition to compensation for unexhausted manure, a reduction of his rent at a certain rate per acre, which is usually rather higher than the rate he is paying per acre for the farm. My question is whether the compensation for disturbance would apply under such a contract, and whether the Amendment which is now proposed would relieve the owner from the payment of compensation for disturbance in addition to the other things which he would have to pay for.
    Mr. MUNRO: As far as I understand the question, it seems to me that a complete answer to it is given by the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend. Under that proviso the arbitrator is bound to take into consideration any benefit or relief under the contract of tenancy. That seems to me to entirely cover the case raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. If the hon. and gallant Member thinks there is any Scottish peculiarity involved, I shall be happy to discuss the point on the Scotch Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: At the end of the Clause, to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(2) This Section shall not apply in relation to a contract of tenancy made before the commencement of this Act."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite understand what this Amendment means, but I think we might have some little explanation of it.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think it is a little unusual, when I move an Amendment which is a concession, that I should be asked to explain the Clause. Honestly, I think my right hon. Friend ought to make himself acquainted with the meaning of the Clause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have tried to, but I cannot.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In a case which was decided not long ago, there was a holding where the tenant on a farm could not recover compensation for improvements because the whole of the property leased did not come within the definition of a holding under the Act of 1908. Where there is a holding, part of which is not agricultural and does not come within the Act of 1908, the tenant cannot get compensation for the part which is agricultural. The decision in this recent case has put the matter in a worse position than it was before. The Clause provides that provision as to compensation now applies to a part of the agricultural holding as if it were a separate holding, but it does not apply to anything which is not agricultural. We are covering, by this particular Amendment, cases where there has been a previous contract of tenancy arising.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Record of holding.)
    If the landlord or tenant of a holding at any time during the tenancy so requires, a record of the condition of, and the rights and interests of the parties in, the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the holding shall be made by a person to be appointed in default of agreement by the Minister, and in default of agreement the cost of making any such record shall be borne by the landlord and tenant in equal shares.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the words, "and the rights and interests of the parties in."

    277
    Here we are dealing with the record of the holding, and it is one really under Clause 10 to enable us to have a record of continuous good farming or continuous bad farming. In Committee it was found convenient, in addition to putting down the condition of the farm, such as fences, cultivation and so on, that there should also be specified the rights and interests of the parties in the farm. That is to say, if the tenant holds certain properties they should be specified in the record. At first I resisted the Amendment, but I finally accepted it, subject to it being re-drafted. All I am now proposing is to leave out the words, "and the rights and interests of the parties therein," and I shall afterwards propose the addition of further words which are on the Paper. Then I think we shall have a clear and comprehensive definition of rights and interests.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but I would like to know is he quite clear that this will really cover the rights and interests of the parties.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have taken the best advice I can, and I am told that the words I am proposing is a really exhaustive definition.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: After the word "holding" ["the cultivation of the holding"], insert the words
    "and if so required by the tenant a record of any existing improvements executed by the tenant or for which the tenant is, under Section seven of the Act of 1908, entitled to claim compensation, and of any fixtures or buildings which, under Section twenty-one of that Act, the tenant is entitled to remove."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

    CLAUSE 21.—(Repeal of Section 4 of the Act of 1908.)
    Section four of the Act of 1908 (which relates to agreements as to compensation for improvements comprised in Part III of the First Schedule to that Act) shall be repealed:
    Provided that this Section shall not affect the operation of any agreement entered into before the commencement of this Act.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move to leave out the words
    "Provided that this Section shall not affect the operation of any agreement entered into before the commencement of this Act."
    278
    I desire to remove what would be an injustice in this Clause. Under Section 4 of the Act of 1908 it is provided that where any agreement in writing secures any improvement under the First Schedule for fair and reasonable compensation, having regard to the circumstances existing at the time of making the agreement that compensation shall be substituted for the compensation under this Act. What I suggest is that the circumstances at the time of making the agreement under the Act of 1908 cannot be compared with the circumstances of the present day. The cost of everything has gone up to such an extent that the schedules substituting compensation are grossly inadequate, and they should not be confined to agreements made after the passing of this Act. For these reasons I move this Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it.
    Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment. Not only have many of these valuable manures gone up in price, but a great number of them are practically unobtainable.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think it is possible for the Government to accept the suggestion which is made in this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will observe that this Clause is founded upon a paragraph in the Selborne Report. I can understand an argument that you might leave out the Section altogether, but what the hon. and gallant Member is proposing to do is to make this repeal retrospective. Supposing landlords and tenants have made agreements with one another under which the landlord has consented to certain improvements being undertaken by the tenant and they are effected on certain terms. Under those circumstances could the hon. and gallant Member go so far as to say that such an agreement should be made inoperative in order that the tenant may get a great deal more than if he carried out his improvements on the certain basis, and that he should receive so much compensation and more. It seems hard that the landlord should have put upon him an increased burden of this kind. The hon. Member might say that if the Amendment had not been made there would be a possibility of getting a great deal more out of the landlord, but, on the other hand, the landlord might have said, "I would never

    279
    have agreed unless I had some idea as to what my liability would be." There is a possibility of a very much larger claim being made, and I think we should keep in these words in order to safeguard the position of the landlord. It is quite impossible to leave out these words because they are necessary to maintain the status quo under the fresh system which is coming into force.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Notices to quit.)
    (1) Notwithstanding any provision in a contract of tenancy to the contrary, a notice to quit a holding, including an allotment garden, shall be invalid if it purports to terminate the tenancy before the expiration of twelve months from the end of the then current year of tenancy; but nothing in this Section shall extend to a case where a receiving order in bankruptcy is made against the tenant.
    (3) This Section shall not apply to—
    (b) any notice given by a corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other undertaking in respect of any land acquired by the corporation for the purposes of their undertaking where possession of the land is required by the corporation for those purposes; or
    (c) any notice given in pursuance of a provision in the contract of tenancy where such resumption of the holding or any part thereof is for the purposes defined in the said contract in respect of which resumption of any part of the holding may be obtained; or
    (d) any notice given before the com men cement of this Act.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "including an allotment garden."
    5.0 P.M.
    The words "including an allotment garden" are unnecessary in view of an Amendment to tb.3 first Schedule, which I propose to move later. Then, when we get to the Re-committal, there will be a Clause dealing with allotments as a whole, and I hope that that will be dealt with later on in the evening. When we reach it, other changes will have to be made, but this particular Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, b), after the word "undertaking" ["purposes of their undertaking"], to insert the words "or by a Government Department or local authority."
    When we were dealing with this question in Committee, I indicated that some further exceptions would be necessary beyond those already stated in the Clause, and the present Amendment, with the next two on the Paper, deal with those further exceptions. I have tried to follow the lines laid down in Clause 7, and have included, with public companies statutory bodies, and so on, local authorities and Government Departments who have acquired land for a specific purpose, and who, having temporarily let the land, when they require it for the purpose in question, must have it without having to give twelve months' notice.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I take it that it will be more convenient that we should discuss these three Amendments together. On the whole I raise no objection to them, but I do not follow the last words of the third Amendment. That Amendment proposes to insert the words
    "authorising the resumption of possession of the holding or some part thereof for some specified purpose, unless that purpose is the use of the land for agriculture or the sale of the land."
    Where land is resumed for building, or for the use of a local authority, or for any development purpose, it is usually sold, and the land will be resumed for sale, for which purpose it will have been reserved. That is quite a common and ordinary thing, and, in fact, it will be so in most cases; and if 12 months' notice is required because the land is sold, the whole purpose of the proviso will be vitiated. The Clause very properly says that all notices for the quitting of agricultural land in the ordinary sense shall be for 12 months, but after that a proviso is inserted which is absolutely necessary in order to prevent the use of land for purposes of development being held up by the requirement of 12 months' notice, when the case is already covered by the contract of tenancy. In nine cases out of 10, when land is taken for purposes of development, it is sold, and it is obviously impossible that you should have to give 12 months' notice in that case, while, if

    281
    you were building the house or making the railway, or whatever it is, yourself, you would only have to give the notice for resumption provided in the contract of tenancy.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Unless you put in the words "or for sale," I think you are opening the door very wide. The principal cause of the insecurity which has been felt in recent years by tenant farmers has been traceable to the innumerable sales that have taken place. In many cases a great grievance has been felt, and disturbances have even occurred in the saleroom, because the notice has been so short. My right hon. Friend and I both know cases in which that has happened. If you are going to say that, in the case of a sale, the notice shall be less than 12 months, you really strike at the principal object of the Clause. I remember a case in which a landowner had the right under his agreement to give only one month's notice to all his tenants if he wished to sell the land or any part of it, and that might be possible here if the exception which my right hon. Friend desires is made. Surely that would be most undesired able. As a matter of fact, in that case there was so much trouble in the neigh hour hood that the notices were with drawn. If we are going to allow 12 months' notice to be unnecessary if there is a sale—
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not suggest that at all. If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I said that I entirely agreed with the Clause itself, which covers the point which he is now making. What I wish to point out is that it is for the Government to reconcile these two evils, which have to be met. Where the notice is given for the purpose of sale, it should certainly be twelve months, and, as a matter of fact, it must be more because of the Cautley Act. There is the case, however, in which there is a special provision in the contract of tenancy where the land is required to be resumed for development purposes; and in that case, when the land is resumed, it is usually sold. Although I understand, and fully sympathise with, the excellent object of these words, I think it is for the Government, who have introduced this Bill, not to obstruct or hamper development by enabling a tenant, who has agreed to vacate the land at one week's notice where it is urgently required for develop-
    282
    ment purposes, to say that, simply because it happens to be sold, he is therefore entitled to twelve months' notice. My right hon. Friend must meet that point. It is impossible to make the words apply to all cases in which a sale takes place; what he wants to prevent is the giving of notice where the object is merely to sell.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I agree with my right hon. Friend that what we do want is to obviate the giving of a very short notice simply for the purpose of a sale. It may be that these words go too far, and I shall be quite willing to leave out the last words of the Amendment, on the understanding that we shall consider the the insertion of some words to meet the point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3, b), leave out the words "for those purposes" and insert instead thereof the words "Government Department or authority for the purpose (not being the use of the land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation, department or authority."
    In Sub-section (3, c), leave out the words "where such resumption of the holding or any part thereof is for the purposes defined in the said contract in respect of which resumption of any part of the holding may be obtained," and insert instead thereof the words "authorising the resumption of the possession of the holding or some part thereof for some specified purpose, unless that purpose is the use of the land for agriculture."
    At the end of Sub-section (3, c) insert a new paragraph, "(d) any notice given by a tenant to a sub-tenant; or."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

    CLAUSE 23.—(Minor Amendments of 8 Edw. 7, c. 28.)
    The Ampendments in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act (which relate to minor details) shall be made in the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, specified in the first column of that Schedule.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
    "Sub-section (a).—(2) Compensation shall be payable in respect of any of the improvements specified in the Amendments referred

    283
    to in the preceding Sub-section, whether these improvements have been executed before or after the commencement of this Act."
    The right hon. Gentleman may say that this makes the Act retrospective, but if it is right that compensation should be paid in respect of the items which it is now proposed to add to the Schedule of the Act of 1908, surely it is also right that such compensation should be paid whether those improvements were executed before or after the passing of this Act.
    Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I am afraid that I must give the answer which the hon. and gallant Member expected. It does make the Act retrospective. It may be that in the past we have left undone things which we ought to have done, but now we are endeavouring to do the things which we ought to have done. It is, however, quite impossible to go back and say that all these things are to be brought forward. I am afraid that the answer which my hon. and gallant Friend has already given is the answer on which I shall have to rely.
    Mr. J. GARDINER: I think that we ought to give the Solicitor-General the opportunity to make atonement for the past, and to do what we consider would be fair justice to the tenants in these cases. I hope that the word "atonement" will appeal to him, and that he will do something for us.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Interpretation.)
    In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
    (3) The expression "agricultural committee" means the agricultural committee established for a county or borough under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919.
    Captain FITZROY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (3), to insert the words "The expression 'rules of good husbandry' means the rules of good husbandry generally recognised as applying to holdings of the same character and in the same neighbourhood as the holding
    284
    in respect of which the expression is to be applied."
    I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept this Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The forms of husbandry might be worse in one district than in another, and I think this is a very dangerous Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think so. I think that it makes the Bill a little more precise. There are certain established rules, varying in different districts—largely because the character of the farming is different—which are generally recognised as carrying out what are known as the rules of good husbandry, and I think that what is applicable to one district should be made the standard for that district.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(6) References to the terms, conditions, or requirements of a contract of tenancy of a holding shall be construed as including references to any obligations, conditions, or liabilities implied by the custom of the country in respect of the holding."
    This is the Amendment to which I made frequent references during the course of a Debate, and which makes it necessary to bring in the words "custom of the country." Custom of the country is understood to apply in all cases where reference has been made to the terms of a contract.
    Mr. TOWNLEY: Has it been made quite clear that "custom of the country" will be meant in all cases where there are no agreements and no contracts?
    Sir E. POLLOCK signified assent.
    Mr. TOWNLEY: It appears to me that the Clause requires at the end, "implied by custom of the country in the absence of an agreement," or words to that effect. The point is, if there is no contract of tenancy existing, as there is not in many cases, that custom of the country should apply in the future as heretofore. I am sure that is the intention, but I want to make it quite clear that that is the case.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment,

    285
    after the word "of" ["contract of tenancy of"], to insert the words "or of an agreement relating to."
    The hon. Member has drawn attention to a point which ought to be met under this Clause. I think it quite necessary to put in a word or two to deal with the point. It might be met if I might move to put in, as an Amendment to my right hon. Friend's Amendment, after the words "contract of tenancy of," to add the words "or of an agreement relating to."
    The Clause would then read:
    "References to the terms, conditions or requirements of a contract of tenancy of or of an agreement relating to a holding shall be construed."
    When a tenant is holding a farm, although he may not have got a form of contract he is holding under some form of agreement. If you bring in some wording to show that the custom of the country applies to the agreement my hon. Friend's point would be met.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: There is some little misunderstanding. A contract of tenancy does not mean a written contract. Every tenant of a farm who is tenant of a farm or of a house is under a contract. It does not matter whether it is written or not, the rent is fixed, the terms are fixed. It does not matter whether they are governed by the custom of the country. I think this term "contract of tenancy" is quite clear. Many farms have no contract at all.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I am ready to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I hope hon. Members will make up their minds. When we refer to an agreement, as we do in another Clause, I think it better to put it in, so that we should have no doubt at all about it. If the hon. Member for Grantham (Lieut.-Colonel Royds) objects to my Amendment, I am willing to withdraw it. I carefully considered the matter this morning, and it occurred to me that it would be necessary to move those words. If it in any way disconcerts any of my hon. Friends, I am willing to withdraw it.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I do not understand why this Clause is necessary at all, and I should be glad if the Solicitor-General would tell me. Wherever you have a contract of tenancy the custom of the country is imported except where the terms of the written document exclude it. I should
    286
    also like to ask the Solicitor-General what is the difference between the "custom of the country" and the "rules of good husbandry." In my view of the law there is imported to every contract to farm according to the custom of the country which is according to the rules of good husbandry appertaining to that particular locality, and I have not the slightest doubt that that is the law on both these points.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I have no doubt my hon and learned Friend is quite right that the custom applies in all the cases he suggests, and there is no difference between us on a point of law. The reason why this Clause has been moved is that from time to time during the course of the Bill the suggestion has been made that where we have used the word agreement or contract, or so on, in order to safeguard any doubt we should have put in the word "custom"; and we were asked to by a great number of Members to put it in. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler) was very insistent the other day that we should put it in. In my opinion and the opinion of the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) is that it was quite unnecessary. The Member for East Grinstead is making a point that it is quite superfluous; but at the same time in order to avoid doubt we are putting in this Clause because we wanted, if possible, to make the Bill such that those who are not experienced in the law, as the hon. Member is, might have no doubt on the point. Therefore my right hon. Friend moved this Clause. It is really moved in pursuance of an undertaking already given to this House.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to know whether, if under the peculiar conditions of some particular farm, there was a contract of tenancy which was outside the custom of the country for some particular reason, and both parties agreed to it, in the event of an arbitration there would not be a conflict on this point?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: No, because the agreement would exclude the custom of the country.
    Mr. TOWNLEY: I hope the Solicitor-General will stick to what he has said, and put in some form of words to safeguard these tenancies which have neither contract nor agreement We have tenancies in the country which go on from

    287
    generation to generation which have absolutely no written contract of any sort. The legal mind is much more subtle than mine, but I hope it will be clearly shown by the Solicitor-General, because this will be discussed by the farmers without legal assistance, and I hope he will insert those words.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg then to adhere to the proposal which I have made.
    Major M. WOOD: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the word "country" should be replaced by the word "district"? In many cases you may have a custom recognised all over the country but not—
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is really quite unnecessary. Custom of the country is a well known expression. It always refers to the custom of a locality.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Application to Scotland.)
    This Act shall apply to Scotland, with the following modifications:
    (1) Unless the context otherwise requires—
    (c) The expressions "the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," and "the Act of 1908," mean the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, and references to Section forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to Section twenty-nine respectively of the said Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act:
    (3) In the application of Sub-section (3) of the Section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance "five years" shall be substituted for "two years."
    (4) For references to becoming bankrupt or compounding with creditors there shall be substituted references to becoming not our bankrupt or executing a trust deed for be hoof of creditors; and for references to a receiving order in bankruptcy there shall be substituted references to an award of sequestration:
    (5) The Sections of this Act relating to extension of tenancies under leases for a term of years and to notices to quit shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—

    (a) Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the Act of 1908 shall, in the case of a lease granted for a term expiring after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, have
    288
    effect as though for the words "three years" and the words "six months" there were substituted the words "two years" and the words "one year" respectively;

    (b) The provisions of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, relating to removings shall, in the case of any holding to which Section eighteen of the Act of 1908 applies, have effect subject to the provisions of that Section as modified by paragraph (a) of this Sub-section:

    (9) For Sub-section (1) of Section eleven of the Act of 1908, there shall be substituted the following Sub-section:—
    (1) All questions which under this Act or under the lease are referred to arbitration shall, whether the matter to which the arbitration relates arose before or after the passing of this Act, and notwithstanding any agreement under the lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, be determined, if the parties so agree, by a single arbiter agreed to by them in accordance with the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, and, failing such agreement, shall, upon the application of either party, be determined by the Scottish Land Court, which, for this purpose, shall have the like powers and jurisdiction as they have for the purposes of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919. References in this Act or in the lease to arbitration or to arbiters shall be construed accordingly:
    (10) The Section of this Act relating to the constitution of a panel of arbitrators shall not apply, and references in this Act and in the Act of 1917 to arbitration or arbitrators shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the immediately pre ceding paragraph of this Section.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The first Amendment standing on the Order Paper is out of order, because it may involve a charge.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I very respectfully suggest that this need not necessarily involve a charge, and, if that be so, it is in order to insert it in the Bill?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: On that point of Order. I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that although the proposal of the Amendment may lead to an increase of expenditure, it does not lead to a new charge. If I might respectfully refer you to a ruling of the Speaker on the Agriculture Bill on the 2nd of November when the question of the Welsh Wages Board was introduced. It is quite

    289
    obvious that to introduce any fresh machinery of that kind would inevitably increase the expenditure, but my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill said this to Mr. Speaker: "May I say that there is a charge already for the payment of the expenses of the Agricultural Wages Board? I anticipate that the charge may be increased, but there will be no fresh charge." Then Mr. Speaker said, after hearing what had been put to him by my right hon. Friend on these grounds: "I think that disposes of the difficulty of a fresh charge." On this particular Amendment there is such a differentiation between a cost that may fall upon the Exchequer in giving a subsidy to the Scottish farmer in dealing with wheat and oats other than might fall upon the Exchequer in dealing with the farmer farther south of the Tweed. I quite agree that there may be some fresh machinery invoked in ascertaining what this difference was. As far as that is concerned, whatever it might be, it would not be a fresh charge, and such an increase as there might be would be a very small one, because such statistics as they want can be got from the "Return of Market Prices," issued by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which gives, on page 5, the whole of the necessary details. Having stated that, may I emphasise the distinction which I respectfully suggest to you you might take on this occasion, in accordance with the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that, although if as the result of the operation of this proposal there would be some added expenditure there will be no fresh charge within the meaning of the Standing Orders of the House which you have' to administer?
    Sir F. BANBURY: As I raised the question which my right hon. Friend has alluded to, when I pointed out to Mr. Speaker that the Amendment would involve increased expenditure not only my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) admitted that there would be increased expenditure, but my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that though there would be an increased expenditure, which even might run up to some considerable amount, that would not involve a fresh charge, and on that Mr. Speaker ruled that the Amendment was in order. It does not seem to me that that differed in any kind of way from the point of Order which is now before you. I sup-
    290
    pose it would not be in order to say I was rather surprised at the ruling, but it is a ruling which was given, and it seems to me it bears upon the present question.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not base myself in any way on the case to which the right hon. Baronet has referred of any increased cost of administrative expenses. I talked the matter over a short time ago with Mr. Speaker, and I have his notes in front of me. It is solely on the ground that it might, and probably would, increase the charge on the guarantee, because the purpose of the Amendment clearly is that if you fix the price of wheat in Scotland below the price in England a special arrangement should take place which would involve an increase on the guarantee. On that ground Mr. Speaker ruled out an Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Antrim when he wished to propose a precisely similar differentiation in the case of Ireland.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in paragraph (1, c), to leave out the words "Section forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to Section" and to insert instead thereof the words "Sections twenty-one and forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to Sections twenty and".
    This is a purely drafting Amendment, consequential upon an Amendment made to Clause 20, which has reference to Section 21 of the English Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. This Amendment substitutes for Scotland a reference to the corresponding Section of the Scottish Act of 1908.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J. GARDINER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (3), to insert the words "and paragraph (c) of Sub-section (5) of that Section shall apply to yearly tenancies only."
    The reason for this suggestion is to make sure that the custom and law of Scotland shall continue in the future as in the past, and that yearly tenancies only shall be affected by the Clause.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. The paragraph to which it relates is that which provides that compensation for disturbance, shall not be payable where the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit. This matter was very fully discussed both in its English and Scottish aspects, not only in Committee upstairs but on the Report stage of the Bill. A division was taken on each of those occasions and the principle of the matter was then definitely settled. It is now proposed, for a reason which I do not fully understand, to restrict its application, as regards Scotland, only to the case of yearly tenancies. It is in such cases no doubt that the provision is most likely to operate, but I do not see why the Clause should not apply in England and in Scotland both, or should be excluded from operation in England and in Scotland both. I do not see any reason for applying this provision to Scotland, and not applying it to England, where yearly tenancies are much more numerous than they are in Scotland. The provision as it stands exactly echoes the provision in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, which deals with compensation for disturbance in the very same manner as this Section deals with it.
    Major M. WOOD: Capricious disturbance.
    Mr. MUNRO: I said disturbance. The principle is really the same, and I am not aware that there has been any difficulty whatever found in the operation of the Act of 1908. I should be sorry to disturb the principle which was then established, particularly having regard to the solemn decision to which the House and the Committee came after full debate, in the course of which both the English and the Scottish case were thoroughly debated. I hope the House will adhere to the decision already come to if my hon. Friend does not withdraw his Amendment.
    Major W. MURRAY: I am in agreement upon this Amendment, for practical reasons, with the hon. Member (Mr. Gardiner). When a lease in Scotland comes to an end after the death of the tenant, there are very sound reasons for allowing that lease to go on. At the close of the lease the landlord has two important questions to consider. He has to consider whether the dispersal of
    292
    the tenant's property is such that he cannot continue the tenancy to the widow, because it would be against reasons of good estate management, and he has to consider likewise whether he can put in the son. These questions sometimes take some time to decide. They are very often rather better if not decided in a hurry. It is the custom of the country in Scotland at present to decide them at the close of the lease, and for that reason, the reason really of good estate management, it would be very much better that the decision in these matters should be allowed to rest until the lease comes to an end, and the present custom be adhered to, and paragraph (c) of Sub-section (5) only applied in the case of yearly leases.
    Amendment negatived.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move, after paragraph (3), to insert a new paragraph—
    "(4) In the application of Sub-section (4) of the Section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance, 'rent' means rent after deduction of the county and parish and other local rates payable by the owner."
    It has been decided that it is the gross rent which is to be taken as the standard in computing whether one year's rent is to be paid for disturbance in accordance with good estate management, or two to four years' gross rent in the case of capricious disturbance. There is a slight difference between gross rent in Scotland and gross rent in England. In England the landlord does not pay the rates. The tenant pays the whole of them. In Scotland, on the other hand, the landlord and the tenant each pay half. The consequence is that though nominal rents are higher in Scotland than they are in England, the actual rent for similar land is practically the same. A farm which would, perhaps, be let in England for £100, is charged £120 in Scotland, but in England the farmer pays all the rates. The landowner in Scotland would get £120, but he would have to pay away £20 in rates, and the tenant would have to pay £20 less in Scotland than he did in England. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the compensation for disturbance will be considerably greater in Scotland than in England. It will be greater by the extent of half the local rates. The object of the Bill is to put Scotland

    293
    and England in precisely the same position, as far as possible, with regard to the provisions under this Bill.
    Sir A. SPROT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The subject may be described as one of international importance, and if this be not adopted, it may be said to be another injustice to Scotland, because the Scottish landowner will be mulcted in a greater sum than his English confrère, whose circumstances are similar. If a landowner lets his farm in England at £100 a year, and gives notice to quit under these circumstances, he will be called upon to pay £100 compensation, amongst other things, to his tenant, but in Scotland, supposing the rates amount to £20 on a farm which is rented at £120, and if the Scottish landowner was called upon to pay £120 to his tenant, he would really be paying more than in a similar case in England, because £20 of it is represented by the rates which he has to pay. There is a precedent for this. Under the Budget of 1909 the Mineral Rights Duty was imposed, and when it was first passed it was charged upon the gross, both in England and in Scotland, notwithstanding the fact that in Scotland mineral rents are assessed to local rates. About two years afterwards, when the subject had been ventilated a little, an Amendment was introduced into the Budget of that day, and from that time the Scottish mineral rent owners have only paid on the net and not upon the gross. I trust the Minister in charge will adopt the same proceeding in this case.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY.I am not sure whether the Amendment as drafted will carry out what the mover and seconder of it have in view, but I certainly think there should be no differentiation between English and Scottish landlords, and that a Scottish landlord should not pay more compensation than the English landlord is called upon to do, though under the Bill as it at present stands the Scottish landlord has to pay more. I certainly think some such Amendment as this should be introduced to make it fair as between the two countries.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I say as an Englishman, I should be very loath to see another injustice to Scotland, but I do not know of any injustice on Scotland at pre-
    294
    sent. It does seem to me that the Amendment is most reasonable. I rather object to the allusion by the seconder to what took place in the 1919 Budget. There is very little left of that and whatever was in it was wrong. I hope the Scottish landlord will be put in the same position as the English landlord. My general experience is that he is in a better position
    Mr. MUNRO: Like the right hon. Baronet, or perhaps even more so, I should be sorry to be a party to doing any injustice to my native country. The Mover of the Amendment raised this point on Clause 7. While I quite appreciate there is a Scottish aspect of this matter, yet there are one or two considerations which I think the House should bear in mind before coming to a decision. The present Amendment is based on this, that in Scottish counties owners pay, broadly speaking, one half of the local assessments, including rates, which in England are payable by the occupier. That is no doubt true. That feature is also reflected in the Scottish farm rents, because in order to obtain the same return as English landlords the Scottish owner must charge a higher rent, and accordingly the Scottish tenant pays through the landlord in the form of rent a certain sum which in England he would pay direct to the rate-collector. The Seconder of the Amendment has suggested a precedent which after the remarks of the right hon. Baronet I hesitate to refer to. He mentioned the Mineral Rights Duty. I do not think that is as appropriate a precedent as that which is to be found in Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, where rent is taken as the measure of a farmer's profits and the farmer is allowed no such deduction as this. That case is really more analogous to the present case. Payment under this Bill is made by way of compensation not of fine. There are obvious advantages in taking the gross rent as the measure in this case. The amount is well known and definite. Local variations which would require special investigation in every case would be extremely difficult in administration. Therefore I suggest these two considerations should be borne in mind, but if there be a general wish that the matter should be again reconsidered, I shall be happy to look into it again before the Bill goes to another place.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not at all convinced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a very good Amendment, nor do I think the Income Tax analogy is at all applicable. Everybody knows that under the Income Tax there are all sorts of charges made which are neither fair nor just, but which are supposed to be allowed under the existing law. We have often been told we shall never have a fair system of Income Tax until there has been a reconsideration of the whole situation and a special measure passed. Surely it seems perfectly fair where the landlord pays a sum in rates that that ought to be allowed in paying compensation. I cannot really see any argument against this Amendment. I do not think the reason he has given is at all apposite, and I hope some further consideration will be given to the matter.
    Sir J. HOPE: I am not at all satisfied, with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. This Bill was in Committee last July, and the point was brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, so that he has had plenty of time to consider it. With regard to the difficulties of deduction, the right hon. Gentleman referred to Income Tax, but he knows that in assessment for Income Tax there is a deduction allowed for local rates. As to the objection that under the Amendment there will not be a precise sum, I would point out that the compensation can never be precise, because it must vary according to the decisions of the arbitrator or the Land Court in Scotland.
    Mr. MUNRO: What I said was definite gross valuation, not compensation.
    Sir J. HOPE: I think the right hon. Gentleman objected to accepting the Amendment, because it would put on an indeterminate sum, instead of a definite sum. My reply to that is that the sum for compensation is always dependent on the arbitrator's decision in England, as I hope it will be in Scotland, or on the Land Court in Scotland. Therefore, the fact that there is not any absolute fixed amount is not of any great weight. There is approval on both sides of the House for this proposal, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can give me some guarantee that he will consider sympathetically before it goes to another place, I shall have to press the Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: May I say that I have really given the undertaking that the hon. and gallant Member asks for. The hesitation I feel in accepting the Amendment here and now is because of administrative difficulties which I fear will attend its acceptance, and the further difficulty that I am very doubtful whether this particular Amendment would achieve the object aimed at. On those grounds I hope the hon. and gallant Member will rest satisfied with the assurance I have given.
    Sir J. HOPE: On that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (4), leave out the words "and for references to a receiving order in bankruptcy there shall be substituted references to an award of sequestration."—[Mr. Munro.]
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in paragraph (5, a), to leave out the words "and the words 'six months' there were substituted the words 'two years' and 'one year' respectively," and to insert instead thereof the words "there were substituted the words 'two years'."
    Paragraph (5) of this Clause consists of two parts. The first requires notice of not less than one year and not more than two years before the determination of a lease of two years and upwards, instead of three years, as the law stands to-day. The second part of paragraph (5) increases the notice which is required in leases from year to year or for any other period less than two years from six months to one year. My Amendment proposes to eliminate the second part and leave the first part standing. One of the chief objections to the second part is that it would or might require in the lease for a year that notice should be given on the day of entry, in order to avoid possible expense. That seems rather an absurd condition, and the Amendment proposes to alter it. So far as I know, there is no demand for the extension to which I have referred. An Amendment was moved on this subject in Committee, and I said that the matter might be reconsidered if there was any general feeling in the agricultural community that the period of notice should be enlarged. From that day until now I have not received any representation of the

    297
    kind suggested, and accordingly I proposed this Amendment.
    Major M. WOOD: I also in the Recess made it my business to get the opinion of farmers or anyone likely to be interested in this question, and I found that there was no demand for the change proposed. Therefore, I think that it is right that we should leave the law as it stands to-day.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move to leave out paragraphs (9) and (10) and to insert instead thereof a new paragraph—
    "(9) In Sub-section (1) of Section fifteen of this Act for the words 'the Lord Chief Justice of England' there shall be substituted the words 'the Lord President of the Court of Session,' and in Sub-section (2) of the same Section the words 'Auditor of the Sheriff Court' for the words 'Registrar of the County Court.'"
    May I say that, in moving this Amendment, I do not do so because of any particular feeling I may have expressed in the past in connection with some decisions of the Scottish Land Court. I have nothing of that kind in my mind. I say quite frankly that I think it is an excellent Court as part of the machinery for dealing with small holdings and rent and matters of that kind. I hope it will be particularly noted that any objections I have to the proposal of the Clause have got nothing to do with any feeling as to the Land Court, which is presided over by a very able and impartial judge. I object to the proposal for two different reasons. I object mainly, because I do not think it is possible for the Land Court, as constituted in its present size, to discharge the duties proposed to be imposed upon it by this Bill. We recently placed some new duties on their shoulders in connection with the Amendment of the Scottish Landholders Act. Everybody knows that there is very considerable congestion of cases before the Land Courts. I am told that they are gradually getting through the arrears, but many have been standing over for an unconscionable time. It is the essence of these questions that they should be decided promptly. The whole of those cases will arise either at Martinmas or Whitsuntide, and there would be considerable congestion in con-
    298
    sequence of the periodic times at which these changes take place, and there might be considerable delay on the part of the Land Court in settling the very difficult questions that arise.
    These questions can only be settled with reasonable fairness by arbiters who understand the local conditions, who are conversant with climatic conditions and general farming arrangements practised in the district and know exactly the circumstances with which they are dealing. Members of the Land Court do not know anything about that. They have no experience and they would be taken away from what they are dealing with to a much wider and more difficult class of question. It would be impossible to discharge these duties in their own person. They could not break themselves up in sufficient numbers to go about the country and inquire on the spot. Whoever settles these questions can only do it by inspecting the farm and understanding the question. The cost appears to me to be very considerable. I understand that it will be a charge on the taxpayer. I understand that the Secretary for Scotland when he asked the farmers, I think in the Chamber of Agriculture, whether they preferred to pay for arbitration of this kind or leave it on the taxpayers, they said that they would much prefer to pay for it because they thought that it would be worth the money, and I am informed that the farmers in Scotland are against this proposal and desire the existing system of arbitration to continue. No doubt under this Clause if there is agreement they can have arbitration. If not they must go to the Land Court.
    The Clause for England provides a wholly different system, a panel of arbiters, men of experience and knowledge, in various districts who will deal with those questions and can be relied on to give a fair and impartial decision. I cannot see what difference there should be between a Northumbrian farmer and a farmer in Dumfriesshire or Berwickshire. We do not want the crofter principle applied all over Scotland. It is very suitable for the Highlands. Although the old Liberal Government passed the Crofters Act it was a Tory Government that provided all the money to carry it out. So both parties have an interest in it, and deserve some credit for it though my party never receive any credit, although

    299
    they are the people who made the Act effective. We do not want to see that all over Scotland. Farmers much prefer arbitration. My right hon. Friend is very fond of the Land Court because it is an easy way out. Governments and hon. Members who draft Bills always take the easiest possible way out, and they say, "As there is a Land Court why not use it?" I have given reasons why I think they should not, and, therefore, with some confidence, I submitted this Amendment to the House.
    Mr. MUNRO: I desire, at the outset, to acknowledge the moderation of the speech of my hon. Friend and the handsome tribute which he has paid to the existing Land Court. The subject was discussed in other days in a very different manner. I hope that I may be trusted not to import the smallest heat into the Debate to-day. There are two preliminary observations which I wish to make. One must bear in mind that the Bill, according to its present structure, provides for arbitration if the parties are agreeable that that course should be adopted, and it is only in the event of their differing as regards going to arbitration that the good offices of the Land Court are to be railed in. In the second place, you are dealing with a very different situation in Scotland from that in England. Here there is no Land Court and the phrase, I understand, is not by any means a popular one on this side of the Border. In Scotland, on the other hand, you have a Land Court which has been in existence since 1911. In England, in the absence of a Land Court, it was thought proper to select a small panel of arbiters. In Scotland you have ready to hand a panel of arbiters ready to enter upon the duties and fit to perform them. This course will make for economy, which is an important consideration. Arbiters have to be paid by the parties. I do not remember the interview to which my hon. Friend referred, in which I met the farmers, who said that they preferred to pay for arbitration rather than go to the Land Court. One gets information in different ways, but my information, as against that of my hon. Friend, is that the farming community as a whole in Scotland desire that the Land Court shall adjudicate in this matter.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I have a letter in my hand from Sir Isaac Connell, Secretary to the Chamber of Agriculture for Scotland. That is my authority.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have the greatest respect for Sir Isaac Connell and the Chamber of which he is Secretary, but there are other agricultural societies in Scotland as well and their opinions must be considered. So far as the agricultural community is concerned, opinion may be divided. I do not represent it as entirely unanimous. On the question of economy, arbiters have to be paid by the parties and the Land Court is paid by the State. The course which is suggested in the Bill, which was not chosen as an easy way out, will cost the State no more, for you will have a Land Court in any case, and it will cost the farmers less. The machinery and officers are all there and can be utilised without any additional cost so far as my information goes. Therefore this course would make for economy. It will also make for uniformity. If you have arbitrators deciding cases up and down the country you will have irreconcilable and conflicting decisions which would be very undesirable. Take our experience under the 1911 Act. We had arbiters who thought that depreciation in selling value which resulted from the constitution of small holdings was a fair claim which ought to have some value put upon it and they did so, while other arbiters thought that the claim was wholly inadmissible and refused it every time. The result was confusion. There would be precisely the same thing if you are going to have arbiters in every county in Scotland without any consultation with one another pronouncing judgments which are wholly irreconcilable. Uniformity will disappear and one of the chief desiderata in connection with a matter of this kind will be lost. That is recognised in England under this Bill, and the panel is to be a small one. You are not dealing with a proposal that should have arbiters up and down the country. The proposal is that there should be a panel.
    Sir J. HOPE: Our proposal is to put Scotland in exactly the same position as England under this Bill.
    Mr. MUNRO: A small panel is suggested in order to secure uniformity of decision. You can obtain it to a certain

    301
    extent perhaps by a small panel, but not so well as by one court which is to deal with every case and will give uniform decisions. I go further and say that the proposal which has been adopted not only makes for economy and uniformity but it makes also for efficiency. I would remind the House of the constitution of the Scottish Land Court. It differs in many respects from any other Land Court which I have known. The Chairman to whom a handsome tribute has been paid by my hon. Friend has the status of a judge of the Court of Session, which corresponds to the status of a judge of the High Court in England. That is a very good start. When you talk about local knowledge being required for agricultural matters it is necessary to remember that agricultural matters are decided every day in the High Courts in Scotland and in England and in the House of Lords by gentlemen who have no special agricultural knowledge, but who decide the matter in virtue of their experience upon the evidence submitted to them. Therefore, I think that the argument based upon expert knowledge or local knowledge may be pressed too far.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: What about the cost of it and of all the evidence? We propose to avoid that.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have some experience of the Land Court and of arbitration. I have been an arbitrator and have appeared before arbitrators. I know something of the cost of arbitration, and as a rule before you are out of an arbitration, even of a small character, you put your hands very deep into your pockets. I have referred to the Chairman of the Court. What about the other members? Three members, I think, are farmers. One of them is an ex-chairman of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, to whom fitting reference has been made. I should have thought that some confidence might have been placed in his judgment. The next member, as a Chairman of a county council and convener of the county, has had administrative experience as a publicist and a man of the world. The third has special experience of the north and west of Scotland and possesses a knowledge of Gaelic, which is a very important matter in dealing with questions arising in many parts of Scotland.
    Major Sir KEITH FRASER: Who represents the proprietors?
    Mr. MUNRO: There is a vacancy in the Land Court. I am not sufficiently acquainted with my hon. and gallant Friend's aspirations to know whether he desires to fill it or not.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I made no attack on the Court. I tried only to show what is the method of procedure.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have not forgotten my hon. Friend's speech, and I am proposing to deal with it. We are dealing with the kind of tribunal to which the Government propose to submit this matter, and I am entitled to describe to the House the standing and the qualifications of that tribunal. Such is the Land Court to which we propose to submit questions which arise under this Bill. There is a vacancy which I propose to fill at an early date, and I shall bear in mind all relevant considerations in making the appointment. What are the objections to this Court discharging these duties? I understand three objections were taken. It was said, first of all, that they have no time for the work. I must ask hon. Members to remember that under the Land Settlement Act the Land Court was relieved of many duties which formerly it had had to perform, and those duties were placed upon the Board of Agriculture. Prima facie, I think that the Land Court would be well able to cope with this work under this Bill. The Chairman of the Land Court assures me that the Court is well able to do the duty, and he ought to know. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) spoke about local knowledge. What has the Land Court been doing for ten years? It has travelled from end to end of Scotland times without number, and it is better acquainted with local conditions in every part of Scotland than any arbitrator of whom one could think. There is nothing about the land which the members do not know. It is suggested that the Land Court is more fitted to perform the duties laid upon it by the 1911 Act than those imposed by the Bill now before the House. I differ from that view. It is relevant to remember who the Chairman is. Surely a gentleman with the status of a judge of the Court of Sessions, accustomed to hearing evidence and to giving decisions upon it, may be trusted to tackle a Statute like this with some hope of success. Then, are not farmers

    303
    just as well adapted to deal with land taken from farms as any other class of the community? It has been said that they deal only with small matters, crofts and the like. That is true, but the principles are identical, whether you are dealing with a small holding or with an estate. Let me give an example. They have to deal with rents under this Bill. They have to deal now with rents and also with valuations in the case of resumption. Compensation is another matter with which they have to deal. Such questions arise again and again. Compensation and rent are two of the matters to which they are applying their minds every day of the week and every week of the year. I submit, therefore, that the proposal which the Bill makes is a reasonable proposal, and inasmuch as my hon. Friend has fairly stated that he has confidence in the Chairman of the Land Court and that he approves of the Land Court, I submit that he has not succeeded in establishing that there is such a wide divergence of the duty imposed upon that Court by this Bill from that imposed by the Act of 1911 as to disable the Court from performing their hard duties properly.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I am certain that Members sitting immediately behind me are in entire accord with the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, for he speaks on this question not only with the experience of his own particular year of office, but also with knowledge of the controversy which preceded the Act now on the Statute Book. The speech as it stands, to my mind, is a complete and final answer to the arguments adduced in favour of the Amendment. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) uses his wholly exceptional gifts of geniality, not as a cloak for any insidious attack, for his geniality is a part of himself, but he has all through these long years been a determined opponent of the Land Court. With his usual frankness to-day he has declared that there is a good deal to be said for it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: As at present constituted.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: We are dealing only with things as they are, and I am giving the go-by to the past. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir J. Hope) let the cat
    304
    out of the bag as to what he thinks about it. He says it is a superfluous Land Court. Let me remind him and others who agree with him that, whether he likes it or not, these Land Courts have come to stay, and are an integral part of the development of Scottish agriculture, whereby smallholders can get on the land and the land will have a chance at last of development.
    Sir J. HOPE: I said it was superfluous only with regard to large farms and not with regard to small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to twist my words.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I must be more careful, then. One of the strongest arguments which can be adduced in favour of the proposal of the Government is that this Court has an amount of accumulated experience which is at its disposal to-day, and that it is administered by men in whom the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) has a degree of confidence which he could not accord to the Land Court as previously constituted. Anybody who has had anything to do with disputed questions in agriculture knows what an immense advantage that accumulated experience is. It has been suggested that the best way to deal with these matters is by arbiter. Are you going to give the go-by to the whole of that accumulated experience possessed by men who are now trusted by their former critics? Into what hands will you place their duties? The arbiters would be selected from a panel. There could not be a greater waste of public money and of experience. You would lose uniformity, and uniformity is an immense advantage. You would undoubtedly add to the expense. There is no lawyer here who will not confirm me in that statement that if you get a regular Court, dealing with this work with efficiency and speed, that is in the vast majority of cases infinitely preferable to private arbitration. Then there is the question of delay. It is no unusual thing, in going to arbitration, to have a case postponed for days and even for weeks at a time, whereas if that case came before the Court the Court would get on with it and settle it. Once the Court gets hold of a case it finishes it. Arbiters have so many adjournments, and there is such dilatoriness that there is an immense amount of personal inconvenience added to the greater expense. I think that those

    305
    points alone should dispose of the Amendment.
    Sir HARRY HOPE: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland will cause grievous disappointment in that country when the people read it. My right hon. Friend made absolutely no attack on the personnel of the Land Court. We all quite recognise that that Court is doing quite good work in carrying on its duties, but we have to devise means now for providing machinery whereby this Bill, if it become an Act, will work in the smoothest manner, and command the greatest confidence of everybody concerned. Let us see what the position is. It will be open for the parties to come to an agreement. If they do not the question at issue will be referred to arbitration. We see what the machinery is in England for similar cases. We recognise that in Scotland pretty well the same conditions prevail and we are therefore bound to ask ourselves why not carry out the English method. We recognise that local knowledge is of primary importance. The right hon. Gentleman held up the Land Court as an excellent means for carrying on this Bill. If the Land Court is indispensable in Scotland why not have a Land Court for England? If the Land Court is so absolutely indispensable that the Bill will not work without it in Scotland is it not equally necessary to have it for England? Conditions in Scotland are pretty much the same as those in the South, and when we have local bodies appealing to us to get the Government to appoint a panel of arbitrators to carry on this work I think we should hesitate before taking any other course. Custom goes a long way when once set to work, and the farmers in Scotland have always been accustomed to arbitration. Every extension of the 1908 Act has been a success because the arbitration system has been adopted. And if that is the case I think we are entitled to press the Government to adhere to the old method. The Secretary for Scotland told us that the great advantage in having a Land Court would be that there would be uniformity of procedure. The Land Court is a body composed of farmers. How can such a body go into all parts of Scotland and do its work when it has absolutely no local knowledge of the value of land in the, different districts? I think on the whole the Government would be doing
    306
    an unwise thing at the present time in refusing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. Undoubtedly, if the Bill is to be a success, it must carry agricultural opinion with it in Scotland. It may only be prejudiced, but prejudice goes a long way in this world. There is prejudice against the Land Court at the present time, and when it is without local experience and without local knowledge we may be sure its decisions will not be trusted. Under the circumstances I have the utmost confidence in supporting my right hon. Friend.
    Colonel GREIG: We have been told that this Amendment would commend itself to opinion in Scotland. Representing as I do a good many farmers, I take leave to say that it does not represent Scottish opinion as a whole in that respect. I have had no representations which show that agricultural opinion in the part of the country I represent is opposed to the Land Court. What is the fact about the Land Court? Would it be necessary for it to travel into different agricultural districts? Of course not. The arbitration can be held in Edinburgh if it is of sufficient importance. If people want arbitration they can get it under the Bill as it stands, providing they can agree between themselves. But they know, and this should be an additional incentive to them to agree, that if they do not agree to arbitration they will go to the Land Court. We have had decisions of this Court for four or five years recorded in a series of very able reports from the different judges, and anyone who has taken the trouble to read those reports must have come to the conclusion that there has never been a body of decisions which show more precision and a more active grasp of the principles of law they have to administer. The same characteristics will surely distinguish their decisions when they come to deal with questions of valuation and so on, which will arise under this Bill, and which are in every respect absolutely similar to the question upon which they have to decide to-day. The only difference will be in the size of the holdings, and that is not of much importance.
    Mr. J. GARDINER: I was deeply interested in the statement made by the right hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger), to whom I listen at all times with respect, because I know he is one of the best informed Members

    307
    that this House possesses. But it is evident that even he occasionally has not perfect information, for on the question whether or not the farmers of Scotland desire to have a Land Court I must differ from the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet quoted as his authority a speech delivered by the Secretary of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. I happen to be a member of that body, and know what took place when this subject was being discussed. There was a majority of one against the Land Court and in favour of arbitration, and I mention that fact to show that the Chamber of Agriculture itself was very evenly divided. When it comes to the Scottish National Farmers' Union I find they are unanimous on the subject, and agree that the Land Court is desirable rather than the old method of arbitration. So far, therefore, as Scotland is concerned, in its agricultural representative bodies, I claim we have the support of Scottish farmers for our plan. The Secretary for Scotland made it perfectly clear what the position of the Land Court is. I am delighted to think that we have at last a common view that the effect of the present Land Court in Scotland is beyond reproach. We have perfect confidence in its component parts, and I have no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland will be wisely guided in the selection of the additional member that is required. If this Bill is going to effect the purposes for which it was introduced, I suggest there will not be nearly so many opportunities for arbitration as there are for decisions of the Land Court. If we are to have the security that the Bill is supposed to provide there will not be frequent opportunities to decide questions of difference between landlord and tenant. I hope the Bill will succeed in the direction not only of giving security of capital, but also security of tenure. Although I speak possibly from a farmer's point of view, I should like to say I have interviewed one or two of the largest landowners in Scotland, men whose names are known almost everywhere and are respected most highly, and these noblemen are absolutely in favour of the Land Court, the reason being, as they say, that it will give uniformity, which is a most desirable thing. Everybody, no matter on which side he sits, whether on the side of arbitration or of decision in the Land
    308
    Court, wants to feel that there is some standard that they can trust to to ensure that all the decisions will be equitable and fair. So far as the old method of arbitration is concerned, I am sure that anybody in close touch with agricultural life in Scotland will admit that in the markets and everywhere where agriculturists meet and discuss questions of arbitration, there is constant complaint of the decisions given by arbitrators simply because of the lack of uniformity which the Land Court will bring into being. I hope that my hon. Friends opposite who represent Scottish constituencies, and who talk about there being no Land Court in England, will recognise the fact that Scotland has not always been second in the race of progress from an agricultural point of view, and possibly, after all, the example we are giving England in our Land Court will be one which in a few years' time that country will be only too glad to follow.
    Mr. FORD: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. I represent in a small way the taxpayers of the country. My constituency is an urban constituency, and I have no brief either for landlord or tenant, but it does seem to me that if the Land Court is brought in for this purpose, we are bound to have a very large increase in the personnel and establishment and charges of the Land Court to the taxpayer, and at this time, when our minds are somewhat justly agitated about national economy, I do not think we ought to embark upon a scheme like this. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Gardiner), who everyone concedes is somewhat of an authority on agriculture, has said that we are not behind England in our country in agriculture, but I should like to point out that the system of arbitration has been one of the systems most enwrought in the whole fabric of Scottish life, especially in agriculture, and I do not think we are conceding anything to England when we ask that we should be allowed the same economical treatment that England is getting. If these intensely interesting subjects such as unexhausted manures come up, as a taxpayer, I say, let the gentlemen interested fight it out by arbitration, and do not ask us to pay the cost of keeping up a large court for their benefit. My hon. Friend opposite said something about complaints of lack of uniformity in de-

    309
    cisions, but complaints with regard to decisions in courts of any kind are always to be found, and I have hardly ever met a man yet who did not think there had been a miscarriage of justice and a lack of uniformity. In the interests of agriculturists themselves and of the general taxpayer, I would urge that we should avoid unnecessary expenditure and carry on in the way that has worked extremely well and has not put fresh burdens on the taxpayers for a generation or more.
    Sir J. HOPE: The Secretary for Scotland has not really dealt with the crux of the difficulty. He praised and defended the Land Court, which had not been attacked; what we say is merely that the Land Court is quite an unsuitable body to carry out the additional duties proposed for it under this Bill without a huge expense and increase of establishment. What we asked the Secretary for Scotland was a definite answer to the question "How does he propose to work the adjustment of rent by the Land Court?" We have never had a satisfactory answer to that. There are only two ways of doing it, either by enormously increasing the number of members so that they can hold sittings in various parts of the country, or by appointing paid officials who will go and visit the farms on which the rent is to be adjusted, and report to the Land Court the result of their visits; and either course will enormously increase the cost to the ratepayers. As the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford) has just said, we have had no answer to this. I asked the same question in Committee, and I got no answer, and I believe it has not been fully considered. I acknowledge that the Land Court are an excellent body individually, but they cannot do impossibilities, and at the present time it is well known that they have not overtaken their work in connection with small holdings.
    Rents have to be fixed in Scotland at two particular times, namely, in May and in March, and at those times there will be a huge amount of work which it will be quite impossible for the Land Court to overtake. The arbiters, I submit, will be much cheaper, and in most cases if you leave the arbitrator as the final court of appeal in case of a difference of opinion there will be very little recourse
    310
    to arbitration. If you let them alone, landlord and tenant in most cases will not go to arbitration, but if you put in the Land Court over the head of the landlord and tenant, you are setting up a whole lot of officials who will be there in case they are wanted. They will have to find work for themselves in order to keep their job going, and it will be to their interest to force landlord and tenant to go to the Land Court to settle their differences. The Secretary for Scotland also made a considerable attack on the general principle of arbitration, and there he was attacking the English Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture did not speak on the Scottish Clause in Committee, but he spoke the following day in opposing the Land Court for Wales, and he said:
    "Fixity of tenure really renders necessary a Land Court; the two things practically go together. If you have anything in the nature of dual ownership, you must have somebody to decide on the respective properties of the landlord and the tenant, and the obvious way to do it is by a Land Court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee, 22nd July, 1920, col. 719.]
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the conditions in Wales were the same as in Scotland and in England, but that they were not comparable to the crofting counties of Scotland, for which the Land Court was originally set up, and for which we say it is not superfluous, but because it is doing well the work for which it was set up, you are proposing to put upon it additional work which we say it cannot do, and which, if it does do it, will interfere with the work it is at present doing. Do English Members realise that the Land Court has to do with setting up small holdings throughout Scotland? The Prime Minister, in his Caxton Hall speech, had to go out of his way to tell agriculturists that he did not intend to impose a Land Court on the farmers and agriculturists of Great Britain. He said that what was proposed was that when notice was given, the tenancy should not be affected, but the new rent should be fixed either by agreement between the parties, or, failing agreement, by an arbitrator appointed in the usual way. Then there was applause from all the farmers present, and the Prime Minister added, "That, I need hardly tell you, is not a Land Court." All we ask is that the promise of the

    311
    Prime Minister shall be adhered to and that we shall not have a Land Court for this purpose.
    I hope the Secretary for Scotland will reconsider his attitude on this matter. Does he mean to increase the members of the Land Court in number, or does he mean to have officials all over, or does he propose that the four men should sit in Edinburgh and decide the rent of a farm without seeing it, or without having the information from officials as to whether it is good or bad land? Perhaps also the Parliamentary Secretary will explain exactly why he opposes the Land Court for Wales and supports it for Scotland.
    Dr. MURRAY: It is very distressing to a benevolent onlooker on this side to watch the break-up of the Coalition over this question, and I find that when the Government sticks to some line of progressive legislation they have always got to rely on this side of the House to save them from their friends. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down made a very ill-considered speech, if I may say so, and referred to the speeches of the Prime Minister, particularly his Caxton Hall speech. My hon. and gallant Friend should have remembered that the last time the Caxton Hall speech was mentioned here, the Prime Minister was standing behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, and when he heard the phrase, turned tail and ran away. "Caxton Hall" is now as dangerous a term as "Limehouse," and it is very ill-natured of the hon. Baronet opposite to have mentioned it. I also listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), who had some differences with his Liberal colleagues upon that Bench, and his object was to show that the Tory Codlin was the friend of people who want land, and not the Liberal Short. The Tories fought the Act of 1886 tooth and nail, led by the present Lord President of the Council. I do not deny that the Tories by themselves
    produced good social legislation of this sort, and so did the Liberals by themselves, but we find that when the Liberals and the Tones come together to produce legislation, such as we have had in the past two years, it is all futile and sterile, and does no good to anybody.
    I am going to support the Government, as usual when they are in difficulties, on this question of the Land Court. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs said the Land Court has been doing splendid work in regard to smaller holdings. In the old days the motto of the Tory party used to be, "For beer and the Bible," but they are now doing without the Bible. The old Book says: "He that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much," and if the Land Court have been faithful in the smaller matter of small holdings and croftings, I think it is reasonable to argue that they will be faithful in this respect too. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument that the work of the Land Court is at present congested, and there is certainly a great deal of arrears of work in the Highlands. They want gingering up and strengthening, and I should be sorry if these additional duties which it is proposed to put upon them made the machine work with more difficulty and more slowly than at present; but I think it is a healthy development of land legislation that there should be an ad hoc authority of this sort to settle these questions, and after all, those hon. Members who are afraid of the Land Court need not go to the Land Court. They have the power of arbitration. I hope the Government will see to it that if this work is imposed on the Land Court, it will not in any way interfere with the present work in connection with small holdings and croftings, and with that reservation I support the position of the Government.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 74.

    Division No. 371.]

    AYES.

    [7.0 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Barrand, A. R.

    Briant, Frank

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Briggs, Harold

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Bromfield, William

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Cairns, John

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Cape, Thomas

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Casey, T. W.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Perring, William George

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Pratt, John William

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Purchase, H. G.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jesson, C.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

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

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Robertson, John

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Rodger, A. K.

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Duncannon, Viscount

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edge, Captain William

    Lawson, John J.

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

    Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Simm, M. T.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Spencer, George A.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Finney, Samuel

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Foreman, Henry

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Swan, J. E.

    Gardiner, James

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

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

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesborougb, West)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Maddocks, Henry

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mallalieu, F. W.

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

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Tootill, Robert

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Turton, E. R.

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Moles, Thomas

    Vickers, Douglas

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Waterson, A. E.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Wignall, James

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

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

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

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E)

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

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

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Neal, Arthur

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

    Wintringham, T.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Wise, Frederick

    Hayward, Major Evan

    O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

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

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Parker, James

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Pearce, Sir William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Captain Guest and Commander Eyres-Monsell.

    NOES.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Lorden, John William

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vera

    Remnant, Sir James

    314

    315

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Stanler, Captain Sir Beville

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Rlpon)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Younger, Sir George

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

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

    Seddon, J. A.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Hope and

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Mr. Hugh Morrison.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Application to Ireland.)
    This Act shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:—

    (1) References to the Minister (except where they occur in relation to the appointment of Commissioners), shall be construed as references to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland (in this Section referred to as "the Department"):

    (2) Part II. of this Act and the provisions amending Section nine of the Act of 1917 (other than the provisions of the new Sub-section to be inserted therein as to the rules of good husbandry) shall not apply:

    (3) The Third Schedule to the Act of 1917 shall be amended as follows:—

    (a) An order of the department under the said Schedule prescribing the minimum tillage portion of holdings may, in addition, prescribe the date or dates before which the sowing of that portion or any specified operation preliminary thereto is to be completed, and if in any year in which such order is in force the occupier of any holding to which the order applies does not complete the sowing of the minimum tillage portion or any other operation preliminary thereto which is specified in the order before the date prescribed in that behalf by the order he shall be deemed to have failed to cultivate the minimum tillage portion of the holding in that year, and the provisions of the said Schedule shall apply accordingly, with this modification, that any amount payable by way of penalty in respect of such failure shall be payable by the person who is occupier at the date aforesaid, notwithstanding any subsequent change of occupiers:

    (b)The proviso to paragraph (a) of Article 8 of the said Schedule is hereby repealed.

    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I am very glad to see the Prime Minister on the Bench, because I hope he will listen to our reasons for moving this Amendment. Clause 27 applies to the part of the Act relating to the guarantee of prices to Ireland, but only a very moderate part dealing with control. I do not intend to say one word about the future relationship of this country with Ireland, but from the purely English point of view I do sub-
    316
    mit to the House that we are extremely ill-advised in this Act to guarantee certain prices to Ireland for a definite number of years, without any control, as compared with the control that we have for agriculture in this country and laid down in the Bill. We have passed a Home Rule Bill through this House, and the future relationship between this country and Ireland, we contend, is somewhat indefinite. In these circumstances I think it is our duty to the British taxpayer and to the British eater of bread, in other words, the whole British public, not to guarantee this high price for a definite number of years without some quid pro quo which is not provided in the Act. The amount of the control which the Irish farmers will have is nothing in comparison with the amount that the English farmers will have, yet they are guaranteeing these prices. In these circumstances I think it is extremely foolish to give this guarantee. Of course, the hon. Members from Ireland naturally are very pleased, but they are not in their places either to oppose or to support my Amendment. They are quite happy to take our money, whether from the north-east of Ulster, or from any other part of Ireland, especially when they get it without the control. To guarantee this price to Irish agriculturists is simply extraordinary, and I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
    Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I am really surprised at my hon. and gallant Friend twitting hon. and gallant Members at being absent from the Report stage seeing that he himself was a member of the Committee and I am informed did not attend any stage.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I particularly asked to be taken off the Committee, as I have been on the sea all my life and do not know anything about agriculture.
    Mr. HENRY: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend, judging from his past, that that would not be any obstacle in his way. The proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend amounts to this: Ireland has been under the Corn Production Act during the War and has been on precisely the same footing as England and Scotland. This provision simply continues that state of affairs. That is the short proposition.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether some member of the Government is able to give some information whether they expect the Home Rule Act to pass or not and, if it does, what happens then? Are we to continue this guarantee and to give this subsidy to the new Irish Parliament when it is set up? What object is there in passing an Act which will never be put into operation because, presumably, the Home Rule Act will come into force concurrently with this Act. I do think this is a question upon which we ought to have some more definite reply than we have already received.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: The hon. and gallant Member has moved his Amendment very largely on the ground that the Act would give to Ireland a guarantee without any control. That is the more reason why we should let Ireland have it, because without control she is much more likely to produce more crops. If she is free from control, then I think she will have a very much better chance of doing well in agriculture. It is control which I think brings the condemnation of agriculturists.
    Major O'NEILL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is under a misconception, as was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull, who moved the Amendment. As a matter of fact, there is considerable control in Ireland over the matter of cultivation under the Corn Production Act.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said so.
    Major O'NEILL: Possibly that it is not quite so extreme a form of control as is introduced in this Bill in England and Scotland.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: They do not enforce it in Ireland.
    Major O'NEILL: Yes, they do. Control was certainly in force during the War
    318
    Quite apart from that I really do not see why the hon. and gallant Member for Hull who, on most questions, votes as a friend of Ireland, should come forward now in absolute contradiction to the wishes of the farming population in Ireland, who, after all, compose the great mass of the people in the South and West. I do not know why he suggests, for an unknown reason, that they should be deprived of the advantages which would accrue from this subsidy if it ever became payable. During the War—whatever may have been Ireland's contribution in regard to men and whatever may have been her feeling towards this country—at any rate so far as the production of food was concerned a larger proportion of extra crops were grown in Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I do not think there is great enthusiasm for this Bill among the Irish farmers, but in so far as it does guarantee minimum prices for wheat and oats I think we are entitled to have it. I shall vote against the Amendment.
    Mr. ACLAND: I have always understood that guaranteed prices and control went together. I do not believe there will be any control worth twopence under this Bill in Ireland. I cannot imagine any Irish Parliament doing anything it is told to do by any English authority at the present time, and I do not think there is any chance of their doing that while the present Government is in power.
    Mr. MOLES: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has an astounding opinion about an Irish Parliament when he suggests that it would not know on which side its bread was buttered An Irish Parliament will be just as sound on this matter as any other bodies. The right hon. Gentleman can take it that the Irishman knows which side his bread is buttered as well as anybody else when he is aware that he is going to be quoted a good price for the commodities which he produces. I did not hear the arguments of the mover of the Amendment, but if they were the customary type put forward in moving Amendments in that particular quarter, I do not think the House will take long to come to a decision on the matter. Throughout the War you depended, in great part, on Ireland for your food supply. You may have another war, and it will be good sense to take care that you endeavour to pre-

    319
    serve and conserve the source of supply, which you may again have to call on, and that you should endeavour, therefore, to include Ireland in the Bill.
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: We are entitled to ask for some reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan). What is going to happen if the Home Rule Bill becomes law, as we have reason to suppose it will, within the next month? How long is control going on, and who is going to pay the subsidy? Are we still going to guarantee Irish wheat; are we going to pay the subsidy, and is the control to pass into the hands of the Irish Parliament? It is a point of very considerable substance, and, in not replying, the Government are not treating us with that respect and courtesy we are entitled to receive from them. It is quite true we are only a small minority here, but when we put a point of some importance, we are entitled to an answer. I quite admit that Ireland did very well in supplying food during the War. It must be remembered, however, that the incentive was the high prices obtainable in this country. If they here had been below the pre-War prices, Ireland might not have done quite so well as she did.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Commencement, Repeal, and Short Title.)
    (1) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty."
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "September nineteen hundred and twenty" and to insert instead thereof the words "January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
    When the Bill was originally brought in the hope was that it might be passed before the Adjournment of the House, in which case the 1st of September, 1920, would have been the date for the commencement of the measure. Owing to the delay of carrying the Bill through the House, however, it was found necessary to postpone that date, and to fix January 1st of next year as the time of coming into operation.
    Major M. WOOD: I am very sorry that this Amendment has been put down. It will deprive a large number of farmers throughout the country of the compensation which they expected. I do not want to discuss the point at length, because I have already urged it in Committee upstairs and in this House. After the Caxton Hall speech a year ago, a great number of notices to quit were served on farmers all over the country, because landlords thought they would probably be able to make their notices effective before this Act come into operation. In nearly every case those notices were to become effective on the 28th November; at any rate, that is the case in Scotland. If this Amendment is to go into the Bill it will mean that all these farmers are going to lose the advantage of the Bill. If that is the case, they have been tricked by the Caxton Hall speech. I protest against this holding out of a promise to the farmers and then taking it away from them.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is really in error in thinking that that result would follow. By an Amendment, already carried in this House, no notice will be effective unless it is given after the 20th May. That means it will not be effective as regards quitting, in the case of twelve months' notice, until the 20th of May next year. Therefore, the alteration in date would not in any way have the effect he suggests.
    Major WOOD: That is drawing a distinction between a tenant who is to receive six months' notice and a tenant who is to receive twelve months' notice. Why draw that distinction? Is not the one tenant as much entitled to notice as the other?
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there were a large number of notices which will not now come within the Act. I merely wish to remove a wrong impression that might be conveyed outside this House by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has conveyed the impression that the Bill has not been passed by 1st September owing to the delay in passing it through this House. That is not the cause. The real cause is that the Government did not introduce the Bill early enough in the year. If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman remains, as adducing the only reason for this Bill not

    321
    having passed, then next it will be suggested that some hon. Members have purposely delayed its passage. Of course, that is not so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(2) Part 1 of this Act shall he construed as one with the Act of 1917 and the Corn Production Amendment Act, 1918, and those Acts and Part 1 of this Act may he cited together as the Corn Production Acts, 1917 to 1920."
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is right to leave in this Amendment the words, "the Corn Production Amendment Act, 1918," because that is repealed by this Bill. The Amendment says that this Bill shall be deemed to be consequent on the Act of 1917, and the amending Act of 1918. In the Schedule you repeal the Amending Act of 1918, and I do not see, therefore, how it can be consequent upon it.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: Unless there be some reason for keeping those words in,

    FIRST SCHEDULE.

    MINOR AMENDMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1908.

    Enactment to be Amended.

    Nature of Amendment.

    Section one

    …

    …

    In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act," where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "whether the improvement was or was not an improvement which he was required to make by the terms of his tenancy"; and in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) there shall be inserted after the word "crops," where that word first occurs, the words "grown on and."

    Section fifteen

    …

    …

    In Sub-section (1), after the word "expended" there shall be inserted the words "and of all costs properly incurred by him in obtaining the charge."

    Section sixteen

    …

    …

    After the words "Act shall" there shall be inserted the words "where the charge is obtained by the landlord."

    Section twenty-three

    …

    In paragraph (iii) the words "for labourers" shall be omitted.

    Section thirty-one

    …

    …

    After the word "compensation" there shall be inserted the words "For disturbance or."

    Section forty-eight

    …

    …

    For the words "cultivated as a market garden" there shall be substituted the words "cultivated as a market or allotment garden."

    First Schedule

    …

    …

    In paragraph (26) there shall be added at end thereof the words "in so far as the amount of the temporary pasture laid down exceeds the amount of the temporary pasture on the holding at the commencement of the tenancy for which the tenant did not pay compensation."

    Second Schedule

    …

    …

    In paragraph 10, for the words "sooner than one month or later than two months," there shall be substituted the words "later than one month."

    in respect of matters which have already accrued and in respect of which the Amendment of the Act of 1917 by the Act of 1918 is necessary, I think the hon. and gallant Member is right, and there is no sense in keeping the words in. We are much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, and perhaps he will move to leave out the words, "the Corn Production Amendment Act, 1918."
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I am afraid I cannot move it in that form, because I have a subsequent Amendment which says that the words shall not be deleted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (1) insert:
    "(2) Part I. of this Act shall he construed as one with the Act of 1917, and that Act and Part I of this Act may be cited together as the Corn Production Acts, 1917 to 1920."
    At the end of Sub-section (1), after the words last added, insert
    "Part II of this Act shall be construed as one with the Act of 1908, and that Act and Part II of this Act may be cited together as the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 and 1920."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

    323
    In the application of this Schedule to Scotland, the references to Sections fifteen, twenty-three and thirty-one of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, shall not apply; for the references to Sections sixteen and forty-eight of that Act there shall be substituted references to Sections fourteen and thirty-five respectively of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908; and Subsection (1) of Section thirteen of the Agri-

    Section five

    …

    …

    …

    The words "in respect of any improvement comprised in the First Schedule hereto" shall be omitted.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in the paragraph beginning "Section fifteen," after "(1)" ["in Sub-section (1)"], to insert the words"
    "after the word 'hereto,' where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or in respect of compensation for disturbance,' and."
    This is only to enable the landlord who has to pay compensation for disturbance under this Act to obtain the same charge on his land that he now is able to obtain under the Section in the Act of 1908. Hon. Members will remember that in respect of compensation that has to be paid by the landlord who has a limited interest, such as a tenancy for life, as between him and his successors in title, he is able to make a charge that stands good against those who succeed in the title. These words are necessary for the purpose of enabling a similar charge to be made in respect of compensation in this Act. It really is a matter of machinery to carry out a principle already embodied in the Act of 1908.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph beginning "Section forty-eight," to insert the words
    "After paragraph (17) there shall be added '(18) The special cleaning of unduly foul and weedy land.'"
    I do not want to waste the time of the House in going into this matter, but I submit this is another reasonable subject for full compensation.
    Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I think the Mover and the Seconder will agree with me, upon more careful consideration of the Amendment, that it would be rather unfortunate to insert these words. If the land was foul when the tenant took it, then probably that would be a matter
    cultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, shall be amended by the insertion after the words "or any part thereof," wherever occurring, of the words "and of the expense of executing and registering the same."
    Amendment made: After the paragraph beginning "Section one" insert a new paragraph—
    that would be taken into consideration when fixing the rent. If, on the other hand, he himself allowed the land to get foul after he took it the probability is that that was due to neglect of his duties. When you look at the Amendment and consider the words "special cleaning of unduly foul and weedy land" and try to give expression to the meaning of the words, and as to what is special cleaning and what is unduly foul and weedy land, I think you are up against a difficulty. Under the circumstances I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, at the beginning of the paragraph "First Schedule," to insert
    "After '(16) Erection of wireworks in hop gardens,' there shall be inserted:—

    (16a) Provision of permanent sheep-dipping accommodation;

    (16b) Removal of bracken, gorse, tree roots, boulders or other like obstructions to cultivation; and"

    If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will see a number of Amendments which are directed to the purpose we have here in view. My right hon. Friend was asked to consider this matter very carefully, and he has chosen the words which I have here, and I think they really cover what I may say is the greatest common measure of agreement upon this matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the length he has gone in this matter, but there are one or two of the provisions in the Amendments standing lower on the Order Paper which I should like to have been able to move. I presume, if this Amendment is passed, it will not be in order to move them, as they will be cut out. If that is so, all I can do is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will not specially consider the points I desire to see put forward. If the right

    325
    hon. Gentleman cannot provide now, I trust he will consider what may be done in relation to these several important matters in another place.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman says is too indefinite to be accepted. What the words of the Amendment endeavour to deal with, or are meant to effect, are ordinary farm operations. I find the words very difficult to construe, and if they are placed in Statute, it is by no means easy to say what their effect will be. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be content with having achieved a success, and not ask for a triumph.
    Major M. WOOD: I am very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the length he has gone, but there is one important point which has not been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment. These particular improvements which have been selected have been put not into Part III of the Schedule as was proposed, but into Part I. There is a great difference between Part I and III, and no mention was made of this by my right hon. Friend in moving the Amendment. It means a great difference in the value of the concessions made, because had they been in Part III the improvements would have been compensated for whether the consent of the landlord had been given or not. As they have been put in now, the consent of the landlord is required, or in the event of no consent being given, the tenant has to go to the agricultural committee and ask them to give a decision against the landlord. That is very unfortunate, because it places the tenant in a difficult position. He is compelled to appeal to an outside body against his landlord. That will not make for friendly relations between the tenant and the landlord. I very much regret that when the Government went so far to meet us in the selection of improvements they did not see fit to put them into Part III.
    If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to speak on this Amendment, I shall be glad if he will explain to us the reasons he has for not accepting some of the improvements we have named in our Amendments. Some of them I think are very good. I think we are entitled to some explanation as to these special improvements which have been rejected by him. Finally there is a very small point,
    326
    but I think it is perhaps more important than it looks. It is always desirable that these Acts of Parliament should be made as intelligible as possible to all those most vitally concerned. There is in this Amendment a reference in (16, b) to bracken, gorse, etc. Gorse is quite unknown in Scotland. No Scottish farmer reading that particular Sub-section would know what was meant by it. Gorse in Scotland is called whin, and it is a pity you should drive the Scottish farmer to a dictionary to understand your meaning. It would be well worth while to put in the words "gorse or whin" so as to make it a little more intelligible. With regard to the Amendment about haulage or other work done by a tenant, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) referring to the question in Committee said: "I think it is a most convenient arrangement that the tenant should do the haulage, for this system has been carried out for so long" and so on.
    Mr. GARDINERM: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what has been the custom in the past in respect to haulage. If houses or buildings have been erected on a farm it has been customary for the farmer to provide the haulage labour for that purpose and it has been found very, very helpful that the landlord should have this service. If you do not arrange for it the helpful work done by the farmers in the past will not continue in the future, and I would like if possible to have the Amendment referred to included, as everything which conduces to good relationships between farmer and tenant should be maintained.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in the paragraph beginning "First Schedule" to leave out the words "the amount of the temporary pasture laid down exceeds the amount" and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the value of the temporary pasture on the holding at the time of quitting exceeds the value."
    Pasture land varies very much in its value, and this Amendment seeks to estimate the pasture at its true value and not by its amount.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: This is a very valuable concession, and I desire to thank the Government for it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph beginning "First Schedule," to insert the words "Special regard shall be paid to the sowing out of natural grasses and clovers."
    This an important Amendment. Experiments have shown that the sowing out of natural grasses and clovers effect a very great improvement, and I hope the Government will be able to accept this proposal.
    Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think these words are necessary. You want to have something that will grow well, and, so far as you can grow natural grasses to that extent, you increase the pasture and its value. We have already accepted words to the, effect that we are to estimate the pasture which is grown by its value; and, incidentally, one of the features which makes the pasture valuable is that it is composed of natural grasses which are likely to thrive on the land. Any arbitrator with knowledge would pay attention to the sowing of natural grasses as being far more likely to be successful, and, therefore, any compensation in respect of it would be calculated on that basis. With regard to the actual words of my hon. and gallant

    SECOND SCHEDULE.

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

    Session and Chapter.

    Short Title.

    Extent of Repeal.

    7 & Geo. 5, c. 45.

    The Corn Production Act, 1917.

    Sub-section (1) of Section two; in Sub-section (1) of Section nine the words from" (b) that for the purpose of" to the words "as the case may be," both inclusive, and in the proviso to that Subsection the words "or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of the land included in the notice"; in Sub-section (3) of that Section the words "make such Order as seems to them required in the circumstances, either authorising the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding, or determining the tenancy by virtue of the Order"; in Sub-section (4) of that Section the words "If within three months after the Board have entered on any land, the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires"; in Subsection (9) of that Section the words "in respect of which any notice is served or Order made under this Section or"; Sub-section (2) of Section nineteen.

    8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 35.

    The corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918.

    The whole Act.

    Friend's Amendment, I find great difficulty in ascertaining how the arbitrator is to pay "special regard" to the sowing out of natural grasses and clovers, or what the effect of "special regard" really is. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will recognise that we have in reality covered the point already in the Bill.
    Mr. GARDINER: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having looked at the matter in such a fair and reasonable manner. When you ask that special regard shall be paid to any particular matter in a valuation, I am afraid you are doing something which is not always desirable. So far as the sowing of natural grasses and clovers are concerned, I think that in the past there has not been sufficient value placed upon the improvements which have been made in this way. If the right hon. Gentleman can possibly consider the suggestion which is contained in this Amendment, I hope he will do so.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: After the word "amended" ["shall be amended by the insertion after the words 'or any part thereof'"] insert the words "by the insertion after the word 'hereto,' of the words 'or in respect of compensation for disturbance and.'"—[Sir E. Pollock.]
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move at the beginning of the Schedule to insert the words:

    14 & 15 Vict., c. 25.

    The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851.

    In Section one, the words from "Provided always," to the end of the Section.

    It is necessary to eliminate the words which stand in Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851. As we are dealing in this Bill with the notice to quit, in order to clear up any ambiguity, it is necessary to remove the words which I now move to omit.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of paragraph beginning "7 and 8 George V., c. 46," insert the words "in the Third Schedule, the proviso to paragraph (a) of Article 8."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the last paragraph of this Schedule. The Bill proposes to repeal the Corn Production (Amendment) Act of 1918, and I wish to leave out the repealing of that Act. The ploughing up Orders have been made under the Defence of the Realm Act, and they will continue under that Act, and compensation will be awarded under the provisions of the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918. If you repeal the Corn Production (Amendment) Act I do not quite see where a person will have to go to claim compensation. I am referring to the ploughing up Orders in respect to claims which have already arisen, and they do not know what the loss is at the present time.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Would this Amendment involve an increase in the charge? I would like the hon. and gallant Member to say who would be responsible for the compensation under his proposal to continue the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, which provides for compensation in certain cases. Who is going to pay that compensation?
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: There is no suggestion that the compensation will be taken away, but I want to know under which Act will the claims I have mentioned come, whether under this Bill or the old Act?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: If the hon. and gallant Member will turn to Clause 28, Sub-section (2), he will see the following provision:
    330
    "(2) The enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule."
    That is what we are dealing with at the present moment. The same Clause, under Sub-section (c) provides:
    "The right of any person to recover compensation in respect of anything done or suffered under the said powers before the commencement of this Act."
    These are provisions which the repeal does not prejudice or affect.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: If the right hon. Gentleman says my point is already covered, then I am satisfied.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: It is.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee and on Consideration, be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of Clause 4 and the Clauses 'Application of Act to cottage on holdings under Act of 1908,' and 'Dwelling-houses occupied by workmen employed in agriculture,' and in respect of the Amendments and new Clauses standing in the name of Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, and that in Committee on the re-committed Bill the Chairman in respect of Clause 4 do put forthwith, without Debate, the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' and that in respect of the new Clause,' Power to enforce proper cultivation,' he shall put only the Question, 'That the Clause be added to the Bill,' which shall be decided without debate."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. ACLAND: I understand that on this re-committal Motion only one speech is allowed for and against. I do not oppose this Motion, because I think it is on the whole quite reasonable. I have been in the House for fourteen years, and I do not remember any case in which a recommittal Motion has stated before that no discussion may take place on a new Clause which is moved. I do not think it is an unreasonable proposal on this occasion, because I think it is for the convenience of everybody that the Clause,

    331
    as amended, should be substituted for what we have already got in the Bill. But it would seem to me, but for the special circumstances of this case, to be rather a strong order to have a recommittal Motion which could only be discussed to a very limited extent.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I could not take this Motion as a Motion for re-committal such as was contemplated by the Standing Order. This Motion contains a variety of important matters, and therefore I could not take it as one coming within the ten minutes Rule.
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s. 9 of Corn Production Act, 1917.)
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I am doing this for the purpose of inserting later the whole of Clause 9 of the Corn Production Act as amended—
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, by the terms of his own Motion, cannot make a speech.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE INSERTED ON CONSIDERATION.—(Application of Act to Cottage on Holdings under Act of 1908.)
    Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies is occupied by a workman employed by the tenant of the holding in agriculture on the holding, whether it is so occupied under a contract of tenancy or not, the provisions of Section seven of this Act shall (subject as hereinafter provided and so far as the same are capable of application) apply as if the dwelling-house or garden were a holding and, where there is no contract of tenancy, as if the person allowing the dwelling-house to be so occupied were the landlord and the occupier were the tenant and the weekly rent were a sum equal to the difference between the rate of wages paid to the occupier and the rate of wages which would have been payable if the occupier had not the benefit of the occupation of the dwelling-house.
    Provided that—

    (1) compensation shall not be payable under this Section if notice to terminate the tenancy or occupation is given on account of the employment of the workman having been
    332
    terminated by reason of his misconduct, and such reason shall be substituted for the reasons specified in Sub-section (1) of the said Section; and

    (2) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section seven shall not apply; and

    (3) where the tenancy or occupation of the workman is terminated by reason of a notice to quit given to the tenant of the holding and compensation for disturbance is recoverable by him from his landlord, the compensation payable under this Section to the workman by the tenant of the holding shall he recoverable by the tenant of the holding from the landlord as part of the compensation so recoverable.

    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, after the word "Where" ["Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding"], to insert the words "the occupation of."
    This is the first of a series of Amendments to this new Clause, which was put in on Consideration, which are entirely verbal.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "is occupied by a workman employed by the tenant of the holding in," and to insert instead thereof the words "has been allowed by the tenant of the holding to a workman employed by him."
    Mr. RENDALL: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay a little attention to this word "allow." In the original Amendment put down by the hon. Member on my right (Mr. Royce), the word "occupied" was used. The right hon. Gentleman makes the word "allowed," and that seems to me to limit the force of the Amendment. If a farmer lets a house to a labourer for money, that would take the labourer and the cottage out of the benefit of this Amendment, and I think, therefore, the word "occupied" ought to be used there instead of "allowed." You have got the word "occupation" before and "occupation" after, and if you have the word "allowed" here it is not consistent with the word "occupation" elsewhere, and, I think, limits the force of the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not see how I can insert the word "occupied." It would read "if the occupation of a house…. has been occupied." We have already inserted it in line 1, which reads

    333
    "where the occupation of a house," etc. We are discussing purely verbal points and I have taken the best draughtman's opinion, and I am informed that this is the proper form. We have already used the word "occupation," and the hon. Member will see, therefore, that there is no fear of cases being cut out which he thinks may be cut out. Certainly it is not the intention of the Government that they should be.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think the fact that later on the phrase is used "whether under contract of tenancy or not" makes it clear that this refers to all cases.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "it is so occupied" ["whether it is so occupied under a contract"], and insert the words "the occupation is."
    After the word "not" ["under a contract of tenancy or not"], insert the words "and the occupation is terminated on account of the termination by the tenant of the holding of the employment of the workman."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "or garden" ["if the dwelling house or garden."]
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Why leave out "or garden"?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not know why the words "or garden" ever got in, because the Clause begins, "Where a dwelling house." There is nothing about garden. Had there been "or garden" at the beginning, there would have been some reason for putting in "or garden" here. But as there was no "or garden" at the commencement of the Clause, it really has no meaning.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words
    "weekly rent were a sum equal to the difference between the rate of wages paid to the occupier and the rate of wages which would have been payable if the occupier had not the benefit of the occupation of the dwelling-house,"
    and insert instead thereof the words "notice to terminate the occupation were a notice to quit."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words "notice to terminate the tenancy or occu-
    334
    pation is given on account," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "(a) the notice to terminate the occupation is given before the expiration of six weeks from the commencement of the occupation; or
    (b) the tenant of the holding has before giving the notice obtained from the district wages committee, or a sub-committee to which power in that behalf has been delegated by the committee, a certificate that the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient to enable the holding to be cultivated properly; or
    (c) the employment of the workmen is for a year, half-year, or other definite period; or
    (d) the notice is given by reason:"
    We come now to the really important Amendments. It may be remembered that when I accepted this new Clause, which was moved by my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce), I stated that the Government accepted it in principle, but would have to reconsider the details, and suggested that that process might be done in another place. However, the House was anxious that the reconsideration should take place here, and for that reason I agreed to recommit the Bill in respect of this particular Clause. We do not for one moment deviate from the principle that, so far as it can be applied Clause 7 of the Bill should apply to a case of a tied cottage, but we have to bring the case of the tied cottage into line with the rest of the Bill, mutatis mutandis. In the Clause as moved by hon. Members opposite they had only one exception, and that was where the workman had been guilty of misconduct, but it is clear that there must be some other exceptions, and I have put down certain Amendments dealing with those exceptions. The first is where a man has only been in occupation for a period of less than six weeks. It would really be unreasonable if a labourer were allowed to occupy a tied cottage, and it was discovered, after a few days or a week, that he was not equal to the work he had undertaken, that he should get this full compensation, and the idea of inserting a period of six weeks is to impose what I may call a probationary period. This is eminently desirable unless abuse is to take place. The question of whether he is competent to do the work may also arise within the six weeks in the case of a new man, or it might arise at a later period. We consider that his competency should be subjected to some kind of test, and it is as to whether he

    335
    is necessary to enable the holding to be cultivated properly. That is a very similar condition to that in Clause 7 with regard to a farm tenant, and as to whether he is or is not cultivating the farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. In the case of the tenant we introduced an arbitrator as judge, but we do not wish to introduce arbitration here, because it is very expensive, and would be a very big burden for a working man. We find that there is another body which is quite competent to deal with these cases, and which does already deal with similar cases, namely, the wages committee of the district, on which both employers and employed are represented. You have a wages committee in the district, and you have sub-committees who, in the case of exemptions from the standard rate of wages through the physical inability of the man to do the work, are permitted to give certificates to that effect. We propose, therefore, that the body which grants those certificates at the present time shall be the body to say whether this certificate should or should not be given in respect of a particular workman. I observe that the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) has put down an Amendment to my Amendment, proposing that the workman shall have the opportunity of appearing before the Wages Committee in person, and that under certain circumstances, if the certificate is refused, and if, in fact, it is held that there was no ground for asking for it, his expenses shall be paid and he shall be entitled to recover them from the tenant. When we reach that Amendment I shall be prepared, subject to certain verbal reservations, to accept it.
    Then there is a third exception, which is put in to meet the case, which is common in Scotland and also in some parts of the North of England, where a workman is engaged for a definite term. It may be a year—which is very common in the case of Scottish farm servants—or half a year, or some other definite period. In such a case the workman has no expectation that he will remain in the cottage beyond the period for which he is engaged. He enters the employment for a definite period, and he occupies the cottage for that period.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: How short a period would be covered by the word "definite"?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is rather a conundrum I should say that it would be any period which is definitely laid down. I will, however, take an opportunity of looking into that matter. Then there is a further Amendment on the Paper, to which I had better refer now, although, of course, we shall have a discussion upon it later. The difficult question arises as to what the compensation is to be. In the case of a farm tenancy we say that it shall be one year's rest plus the cost of removal. The one year's rent, although, no doubt, it is higher on some farms than on others, is a fairly definite thing to understand. We are dealing here, however, with a case where occupation of a cottage is allowed really as part of the remuneration of the workman, and in such cases the rent varies largely from farm to farm. I know of cases where the rent is 6d. per week, and others where it may be 3s. or more. Therefore we have sought to fix a definite sum, and we have taken the amount which is allowed by the Wages Board of the District for the benefit of a cottage. I believe that that is usually, although not invariably, 3s. per week, and the compensation, therefore, would be 52 times 3s., or whatever is the amount allowed by the Wages Board for the benefit of the cottage. Those are the Amendments which I desire, on behalf of the Government, to move to this Clause. I believe that they will be generally accepted, and I think that they will make the Clause a workable Clause, while they will confer a great benefit upon the workmen in various parts of the country, and will, so far as is possible under the very difficult conditions existing, apply the principle of compensation for disturbance which is contained in Clause 7 to the case of tied cottages which arises under this Clause.
    Mr. RENDALL: With regard to the proposed paragraph (c), I think that the words "or other definite period" are very dangerous words. It seems to me that they enable practically everything that is now being done to go on being done. It is true that in the South of England the ordinary tenancy is a weekly or a monthly tenancy, but there will be nothing to prevent an ordinary employer of agricultural labour from making a definite

    337
    arrangement for a definite period, say, of one month or fourteen days. If he should do that, he would be given the legal right, under this Bill, to obtain possession of that house, and, therefore, the value of this Bill would be gone. If the right hon. Gentleman must use these words, I would suggest that he should define them and lay down a definite period, which certainly should not be less than three months. I think it would be fair to leave it as it generally is in those cases in which farmers engage labour for a term, that term being generally a year or half a year. If the right hon. Gentleman would leave out the words "or other definite period" he would be doing all that is necessary to protect those farmers in the North of England and in Scotland who have been accustomed to these long hiring arrangements.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I agree that these words as they stand would enable a coach and four to be driven through the Clause. Any farmer anywhere can make a yearly agreement with a man if he chooses, and if, by the mere fact of making a yearly agreement, he avoids liability to pay compensation under this Clause, I cannot see what is to prevent him from doing it. When a man hires a labourer he can always say, "The condition of my giving you this tied cottage is that we shall have a yearly agreement." If the man misbehaves, he can always terminate it before the year is up, but the fact remains that it is a yearly hiring. I do not say that it will occur in all cases, but it seems to me that it is exactly the same as moving an Amendment proposing that the liability to pay compensation might be voided by agreement. The promoters of the Bill have set their faces against anything of that kind, and it is evidently quite outside the spirit of the Bill. I do not see why a labourer should be allowed to contract out of the Bill. He is just as liable as a tenant to have pressure brought to bear upon him. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to some Amendments further down the Paper. Will it be in order for me to discuss those now, or ought I to wait until they are put?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it will be better to wait until we get to the further Amendments, although I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to explain them as a whole.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point of view, because I think that these words might make the Clause quite nugatory.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think that these proposals are on the whole considerable improvements, but there are two points that I should like to make. I think that it will be a good deal safer to leave out, as has been suggested, the words "or other definite period." I do not know of any periods to which this proviso would relate except the yearly or half-yearly periods, and it would be fatal to the whole purpose of the Clause if there were any chance of its being held that employment for a period such as a week or a fortnight is a definite period which would really make the Clause of no effect. I do not go so far as to think that it would be better to take out paragraph (c), because I think that in the main the worker, in districts of England and Wales where employment by the year or half-year is not customary, is in a strong enough position to defend himself against any proposal of the employer to make the employment yearly or half-yearly, and thus to exempt himself from the operation of this Clause. After all, I suppose the thing would work both ways. If you had contracted with the workman to make his employment for a year—that he should be given so much wages for a year's work—and then without good and sufficient cause terminated his employment earlier than a year, you would be liable to give him the whole of the wages you contracted to give him, so that I do not think any farmer would lightly try to drive a coach and four through this Clause in districts where it is not customary to employ men by the year by trying to make the employment by the year or the half-year the customary employment.
    The other point I want to make is that the powers possessed by the District Wages Committees are delegated to them by the Agricultural Wages Board. This proviso gives the District Wages Committees definite powers without any reference at all to the Board. I am not surt that that may not be quite reasonable. It has certainly been found that in a parallel case, where the District Wages Committees are by delegation from the Board the authority to deal with permits of exemption, the Board has been quite

    339
    safe in allowing that matter to be dealt with by the district committees on their own authority without any appeal or supervisory jurisdiction being possessed by the Wages Board itself, and this seems to me a parallel case which ought to be decided on local knowledge, and probably will be decided quite well by the subcommittees. In some cases this work of granting these permits of exemption to men suffering from physical or mental infirmity has been quite satisfactorily dealt with by sub-committees of one, and the whole District Wages Committee is perfectly willing to delegate to one man, a worker or an employer, the duty of deciding on these permit questions, which shows that there must be very good feeling between the two sides of the District Wages Committee. I am sure Government does not want to do anything which looks like going behind the Wages Board, and no doubt this matter will come up for consideration at the next meeting of the Wages Board, and the Government will, perhaps, inform them officially that they propose this. There will be a meeting of the Wages Board, as it happens, before the Bill comes back from another place, but just so as to save, I do not say the dignity, but the position as it at present is, that the powers of district committees are only possessed by delegation of the Wages Board, I mention the point now.
    Sir J. HOPE: I understand that the compensation which the workmen may claim in lieu of the rent is provided for, but will he not be able to claim under this proposal compensation for forcible removal of furniture?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes.
    Sir J. HOPE: That being so, supposing there is agreement, he will go to arbitration on a claim for cost of removal in England, and he will not in Scotland. I think that is correct.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is that so?
    The CHAIRMAN: Will not that come better on the next Amendment but one? In order not to mix things up we had better take it there.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In answer to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) has said, we have not the slightest desire
    340
    to go behind the Agricultural Wages Board and to dictate to them what they ought to do, but we think this is a proper use to be made of the Agricultural Wages Committees, and I will certainly follow the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and give notification to the Wages Board of this proposal.
    Mr. ACLAND: There is a point as to whether the Wages Board itself ought not to have a supervisory jurisdiction to see that the committees are doing what we want them to.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly, I will take that course. With regard to the words "or other definite period," I quite agree. I think that is far too vague, and therefore I am willing to leave those words out, and there are some other words which I think could be added which will go some way to meet the point of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman), "and the occupation is terminated at the end of the period." That, I think, will prevent the contracting-out which he has in mind. It means that a man will not be able simply by saying, "I engage you for a year or half-year," to escape compensation and give notice at any time. The compensation will be payable always, except when a man has moved out of the cottage at the end of this definite period of a year or half a year. That, I think, will be a very great improvement and will make the Clause much more watertight than it was before.
    The CHAIRMAN: May I point out that I have not yet decided the question to leave out the words at present in the Clause? The insertion of the right hon. Gentleman's words will come a little later.
    Captain FITZROY: Sub-section (1) says, "the employment of the workman having been terminated by reason of his misconduct." Who is going to be the judge of the workman's misconduct? In this Clause it does not give any authority who is to state whether misconduct has been committed. Is it to be purely on the word of the farmer who says he has discharged him because of misconduct? There must surely be some authority to whom he will have to apply to give him a certificate entitling him to give this notice because of misconduct. I think that wants clearing up.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The question of misconduct will be one for the arbitrator.
    Captain FITZROY: Ought it not to be put in?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, because it is laid down in Clause 7 that where there is a dispute all questions shall be settled by an arbitrator. Therefore, when it is a question of misconduct, it will be an arbitrator. In the other case, where it is simply a question whether or not it is desirable in the interests of good farm management that a man should no longer be employed, the question will be settled by the Agricultural Wages Board.
    Mr. RENDALL: The right hon. Gentleman's last speech has really made the whole Clause of very little value. The farmer has only to say the dispute is one of misconduct and apparently the advantage of the Wages Board coming in as arbitrator disappears altogether. It would be much fairer if you put the whole matter before the Wages Board, which is a perfectly impartial body composed of farmers, labourers, and representatives of the Board of Agriculture, and which is perfectly capable of making wise and just decisions. It is local and it is easy for all the evidence to be brought before it, and it seems to me to allow this particular matter, which is going to be the most contentious of all matters—alleged misconduct—to be brought before an arbitrator, and therefore to make it a most expensive method of deciding this point will be the method which will have to be adopted when there is a case of alleged misconduct. Therefore, it would be an Amendment disadvantageous to the labourer. It seems altogether unfair to put this particular matter into the hands of the arbitrator. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will leave the matter to the Wages Board.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think there is something in what the right hon. Gentleman says. There is, of course, a great difference between a question of misconduct and the question as to whether the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient so that the holding should be cultivated properly. I agree it is a difficult point, and I am quite prepared to undertake that the point which my hon. Friend has put shall be reconsidered.
    Major M. WOOD: If the words "definite period" are left out men who are employed for a broken period of three months or nine months are going to be outside this provision. It seems to be very dangerous if a farmer is to be prevented from taking on men between terms, as they say in Scotland. It would be much better to leave the words in and add "not greater than one year."
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I have already expressed my views on the question of compensation as between landlord and tenant and I think it is equally ridiculous for farmers and labourers to have to indulge in this sort of question. I cannot imagine the House of Commons discussing a greater piece of perfect nonsense. But as the Government have brought the proposal in let us discuss it and let us understand what we are going to do. I understand no compensation is payable if the employment of the workman is for a year or half year and the man goes away at the end of the particular period. Then in that case no compensation will ever be payable at all because the man will be engaged for a year or half year. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I think so. Other hon. Members will have the opportunity of putting their case. The man will go away at the end of the time not of his own free will but because he is not re-engaged. If you refuse to keep on a tenant of an agricultural holding you have got to pay compensation and to give a year's notice. Here is a man taken for a definite term and you are going to get out of compensation merely by this provision as to being taken on for a year or half a year. He goes away against his wish and no compensation is payable. It is perfectly nonsensical putting a compensation Clause down and a provision of that character into it. I am astonished that the Government have consented to any such proposal knowing that it is not worth the paper it is written on and is simply a sham and a fraud.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot agree that the arbitrator is a more suitable person to settle the question of misconduct than to settle the question as to whether the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient. I should think the arbitrator would be the more suitable man to say whether there were advantages in terminating the application to enable the holding to be properly culti

    343
    vated than to decide on a question of misconduct as between employer and employed. I think that the whole of this Clause is most difficult and muddling. I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has just said that the Government have entered on a path of trying to compensate everybody all round at somebody else's expense. It is difficult to stop that when you once begin and we are not going to stop here. There will be lots of people left out who will think that they have just as much right to compensation as other people. They will put in a claim and we will go on until we are all living on compensation. It will be a sort of vicious circle. It really is more ridiculous than anything one could conceive. Still I suppose we must try for the credit of this House to see that the provision is intelligible and does what it professes to do. I thought when a year and half year were put forward that that would meet the case, but I do not think it will because what difference does it make whether a man is engaged by the week or the month or the year or the half year because he will not be asked to leave his house until his engagement is terminated. There are annual hirings where employer and employed make a perfectly free arrangement on the understanding that each party at the end of it shall be perfectly free to go or stay as he likes. That is exactly the case of the lease. Two free Englishmen make an arrangement under contract and sanction of the law, one to hire a farm and the other to let it, and they agree that at the end of that period each shall be free to go or stay as they like. That is no longer allowed and the farmer is to get compensation and the lease is to be broken in his favour although both had agreed to it. I have here a letter which shows the awful hardship that this will inflict on many small owners.
    Mr. ACLAND: That is not the point here.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is absolutely on the point. The lease is broken and one of the parties is made the recipient of compensation to which he had no title and in defiance of the contract into which he entered. Here again are two men, this time farmer and labourer, who enter into a similar contract for a period of one year, with the understanding that at the end of that time they should be free.
    344
    What is the difference. If the compensation is right in the one case it is right in the other, and if wrong in the one it is wrong in the other. I express no opinion as to whether it is right or wrong. If the House is professing to give some compensation and desires to carry out the principle of the Clause then let us do it, but this is not doing it.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: One word as to the tribunal. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider this with the Secretary for Scotland.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I said that I would consider the point.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The hon. Gentleman knows what is in my mind?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I generally know.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: What I suggest is that the case instead of being brought before the arbiter should be brought before the sheriff. Was that what the hon. Gentleman thought I had in my mind?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The arbiter would not be a good tribunal, and it would be much better to have the matter brought before the sheriff.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am quite satisfied with my right hon. Friend's statement that he will have the question of the double tribunal considered. I have been thinking it over. I think there is a great deal to be said for not having two different tribunals, one where it is a case of misconduct and one where it is a case of being incompatible with proper cultivation. It is desirable to have as much simplicity and as little argument as possible between employer and workman. It would be a pity, for instance, if one week the employer were to appeal to the arbitrator on the ground of misconduct, and be turned down on that, and the following week to appeal to the District Committee on the ground that the man was too old. I think that the Committee is likely to be a fair tribunal, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend is going to consider whether there should not be a similar tribunal for both classes of cases.
    Mr. GARDINER: Under Sub-section (c), so far as the employment of workers

    345
    by the farmers is concerned, given a farm labourer who does his work well, I can assure him security of tenure, not of compensation. Our men stay with us year after year. Our only complaint is that they leave of their own accord. We do not send them off.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that my hon. Friend quite understands the Clause. The man may give notice himself, but under this Clause if he has notice for the house, quite apart from whether the notice is from the employer or he has given notice himself, he gets compensation all the same.
    Mr. GARDINER: My point is that the question of compensation does not arise if there is security of tenure. No compensation asked by the farmer from the landlord will give such security of tenure as will be given to the farm labourer. These questions will not arise.
    Mr. T. DAVIES (Cirencester): In our part of the country, in Gloucestershire, all the bargains are made for a yearly contract between the 11th October and the following 11th October. Suppose, in the middle of that time, there is a dispute between the man and his employer.
    Possibly the employer comes home, as they say down there, half screwed, and quarrels with the man. They cannot make it up, and the employer says, "You have to go." Has the man to pay a fee to the arbiter before he starts as provided under the National Insurance Act, or where the arbitration goes against a man, has he to pay the arbiter's fee, and how much is it going to be? It is quite possible that the fee would swallow up all the compensation.
    Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendments made to proposed Amendment: In paragraph (c), after the word "year," insert the word "or."
    Leave out the words "or other definite" and insert instead thereof the words" and the occupation is terminated at the end of such."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Question put, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 20.

    Division No. 372.]

    AYES.

    [8.55 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Dcyle, N. Grattan

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Edge, Captain William

    Hinds, John

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Edwards, G.(Norfolk, South)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

    Atkey, A. R.

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Elveden, Viscount

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Farguharson, Major A. C.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vera

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

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

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Finney, Samuel

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Foreman, Henry

    Irving, Dan

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Johnstone, Joseph

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

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Blair, Reginald

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

    Gardiner. James

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lawson, John J.

    Briggs, Harold

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

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

    Bromfield, William

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Cairns, John

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Casey, T. W.

    Gregory, Holman

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Grundy, T. W.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

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

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Maddocks, Henry

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mason, Robert

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Moles, Thomas

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Tootill, Robert

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Vickers, Douglas

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Robertson, John

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

    Morrison, Hugh

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Rodger, A. K.

    Waterson, A. E.

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Whitla, Sir William

    Myers, Thomas

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Wignall, James

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

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

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

    Simm, M. T.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Parker, James

    Sitch, Charles H.

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

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Stevens, Marshall

    Wintringham, T.

    Perring, William George

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Wise, Frederick

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

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

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Swan, J. E.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Taylor, J. E.

    Younger, Sir George

    Pratt, John William

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Purchase, H. G.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)

    Captain Guest and Commander

    Reid, D. D

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)

    Eyres-Monsell.

    NOES.

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

    Kidd, James

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

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

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Mr. Pretyman and Mr. Inskip.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (1) leave out the words "by reason" and insert instead thereof the words "on account."
    At the end of paragraph (1) insert a new paragraph—
    "(2) in lieu of any compensation which in the case of a holding is to be ascertained by reference to the rent of the holding, there shall be payable a sum equal to fifty-two times the maximum weekly value of the benefit of the provision of a cottage free from rent and rates as determined for the district under the provisions of the Act of 1917; and."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Mr. ROYCE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words—
    "Provided also that where under paragraph (b) of this Section the tenant of a holding seeks to obtain a certificate from the district wages committee or a sub-committee of that committee, the occupier shall be entitled to appear before the district wages committee or the sub-committee, as the case may be, and shall, in the event of the certificate being refused, also be entitled to recover from the tenant the expenses incurred by him in appearing before the district wages committee or the subcommittee."
    This Amendment is moved to secure to the labourer, when an appeal is made to the District Wages Committee and if the charge is unsuccessful, compensation for loss of time and expenses in connec-
    348
    tion therewith. I am sure the Committee will think that reasonable.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think it fair and reasonable that the workman should have an opportunity of appearing in person before the Wages Committee or Subcommittee to oppose an application, and it is not unreasonable that some provision should be made to pay his expenses if the certificate is refused. Therefore I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment in principle. It may be a matter which is dealt with better by Regulation made by the Minister. It may be desirable to some extent to alter the wording of the Amendment in another place.
    Mr. ACLAND: There is one phrase which will need modification. The certificate, I think, should be the certificate of the District Wages Committee. It would not be right to trust sub-committees of the district committee with the authority of giving certificates. It should be done by the Committee itself.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to reconsider that point.
    Mr. ACLAND: Certainly.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have not been in the House while the discussion on these Amendments has been carried on, but I should like to say a word or two on the Clause as a whole. It seems to me to be a most extraordinary departure for this Government to make. It shows how we can progress in socialistic legislation to an extent which five or six years ago would have seemed impossible. It also shows the difficulty and danger of bringing in legislation which allows the robbery of one class for the benefit of another. The farmers are endeavouring to rob the landlords in order to put something into their own pockets. Now that they find that once they have introduced the principle that you may rob a person in order to benefit yourself, now that they have got the landlord's property and find they may have to part with some of it to somebody else, they begin to think that this Bill is not quite so good as it was. I have received a circular from the Farmers' Union in which they say that this Clause is a bad one. They by no means fancy putting their hands into their own pockets for the benefit of somebody else; they only desire to put their hands into the pockets of the landlords for their own benefit.
    I should like the House to consider how much further they are going in this direction. Not only are farmers not to be allowed to farm their land in the way they choose—in the way that will be to their own interests, as they think—not only that, but the Department is to be allowed to come in and compel them to farm the land in the way it thinks best. In addition to that a body called the District Wages Board is to decide whether or not the farmer may dismiss a labourer. How is it possible to carry on any business in this way? I do not know what the position of the country is going to be. I see in one of the papers to-day it is suggested there should be a forced loan with a great increase in the tax on corporations, or that there should be some other method devised to prevent the country going to utter ruin at once. This sort of legislation tends to render that kind of thing absolutely necessary. What is wanted is encouragement to the farmer and to everybody else to do the
    350
    best they can to advance their own interests, which are really the interests of the State. If the State is to become the director adviser, guide and controller of people carrying on business the only result will be that no business will be carried on at all. I cannot believe it possible that those Members of the Government who were formerly members of the Conservative Party should come down here and, with their previous records, propose legislation of this sort. An hon. Member near me suggests that the explanation is that the majority of them know nothing about it. Possibly that is the correct solution. We have only to look at facts. There are 707 Members of this House. Seventy are away, thank goodness! They are occupied in shooting people in other parts of the country. But that leaves about 640.
    The CHAIRMAN: These remarks are a little too general. The right hon. Baronet is rather anticipating the Third Reading.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am coming to my point. I wanted to call attention to the fact that in a Division on the Amendment but a few minutes ago only 160 Members of the House took part, and that rather seems to suggest that the majority of the Members do not know what is going on. Under these circumstances it is perfectly evident that the country can no longer trust this House to do its duty, and the sooner we recognise this the better, at any rate for those of us who still remain Conservative. Our principles may be wrong, but we believe in them, and we do not believe in this sort of legislation. It is useless our voting against it, because we are voted down by hon. Members who come in from the smoking and dining-rooms. I rather gather from the circular from the Farmers' Union, to which I referred just now, that they are already learning their lesson. I hope they will not forget it, and that before very long they will see cause to regret supporting a measure of this kind.
    Mr. ACLAND: The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) founded his advice to his Friends on a supposed circular from the Farmers' Union. There is, I believe, no one in this House who speaks directly for that union. I have received a circular. I expect it is the same one as that to which the right hon. Baronet refers, and I would like to point out

    351
    that they do not condemn this Clause. They reiterate their support of the Bill, and only refer to this Clause in a colourless way, indicating that they would like Amendments to be made to it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me—
    Mr. ACLAND remained standing—
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has put words into my month—
    Mr. ACLAND: I must decline to give way.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman declines to give way, I can only say I have not been accustomed to that sort of thing.
    Mr. ACLAND: He said he had in his pocket a communication from the Farmers' Union condemning this Clause. I do not think he can produce it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I said I had received it. I did not say I had it in my pocket. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you did!"] We have all got it. I will find it and send it to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as I possibly can. What the Clause was I remember perfectly well; it was that they were in favour of the Bill providing that the other Clause dealing with labourers' cottages was omitted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I really must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I had a notice sent to mc officially, and they said they agreed provided it was made perfectly clear that the Clause would not interfere with good cultivation on the farm.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE INSERTED ON CONSIDERATION.—(Dwelling-house occupied by workmen employed in agriculture.)
    Where under any contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture current at or made after the commencement of this Act, the provision of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house for the occupation of the workman forms part of the remuneration of the workman, and the provisions of Sections fourteen and fifteen of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, are inapplicable by reason only of the house
    352
    or part of the house not being let to the workman, there shall be implied as part of the contract of employment and as from the commencement of the occupation or of this Act, whichever date is the earlier, the like conditions as would be implied under those provisions if the house or part of the house were so let, and those provisions shall apply accordingly as if incorporated in this Section with the substitution of "employer" for "landlord" and such other modifications as may be necessary.
    Mr. ROYCE: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think these words will make the matter perfectly clear, and therefore I will accept them.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to make a personal explanation as my veracity has been called in question. I have now got the circular, and it reads as follows.
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I not make a personal explanation, Sir?
    The CHAIRMAN: Not in Committee, on another subject. We are now on another Clause. Personal explanations should come at the, end of Question Time.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. When the veracity of an hon. Member has been called in question, is it not customary to allow him, if he has an opportunity of quoting a document which he was asked to quote, and which at the moment he was not able to quote, to make that explanation?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so, when we are in Committee and on a different subject. I have never heard it done before.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "earlier" ["whichever date is the earlier"], and insert instead thereof the word "later."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
    "Provided that this Section shall not affect the obligation of any person other

    353
    than the employer to repair a cottage to which this Section applies or any remedy for enforcing any such obligation."
    The effect of the Amendment is this: When we inserted this Clause at an earlier stage on Report, it was feared it would transfer from the landlord to the tenant any obligation that lay upon him to undertake these repairs. I undertook then to make it quite clear that no such transfer of obligation should take place under the Clause, and this Amendment carries out that undertaking.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman is now making a modification in this Clause, in accordance with the circular which has been sent out by the Farmers Union. This is the circular which is the cause of the Amendment:
    "This Committee is of opinion that, provided the suggested new Clauses relating to tied cottages and repairs to cottages are modified in the one case, so that husbandry is not prejudiced, and in the other case, so that the liabilities of owners under tenancy agreements shall not be transferred to the tenant (i.e., the employer), the Government should…. pass the Bill into law without delay."
    So that the passing of the Agriculture Bill into law without delay is contingent upon the abandonment or the alteration of the Clauses I have just read.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. INSKIP: I should like to enter my protest against the form in which this Clause is drafted. I cannot imagine a more cumbrous method of legislation than that which has been adopted in this Clause. If hon. Members will look at the last sentence of the Clause, I think they will see a sentence which appears for the second time within a week and which never before has been seen in an Act of Parliament. It is not only legislation by reference to the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, but it is legislation by reference, and the Act which is referred to is to be modified, not in accordance with anything which is precisely laid down in the section, but it says, "and such other modifications as may be necessary." One has no power at this stage to amend drafting, but I enter a respectful protest against such
    354
    loose and slipshod methods which are now adopted apparently by the draftsman as if that were the proper way of drawing up Acts of Parliament. I should like to refer to another looseness of expression in this Clause, where it says that "the like conditions as would be implied under those provisions," that is Sections 14 and 15 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909. If hon. Members will refer to Sections 14 and 15 of that Act, they will find there is only one condition which is implied, and not more than one condition, and yet this Clause, to the great obscuring of its true object, speaks about the implication of the like "conditions," in the plural. It should be perfectly easy for any unskilled draftsman to put into intelligible language what is intended to be done by this new Clause, as now amended by the proviso moved by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope those who are responsible for this Clause will perhaps pay attention to the proper method of drafting Acts of Parliament, instead of using such slipshod methods as have been chosen in this instance.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I had no idea that my hon. and learned Friend behind me was going to call attention to the words he has mentioned. I should like in a very few words to endorse what he has said. I am perfectly certain that neither of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench can have any sort of responsibility for the drafting of this Clause. I cannot imagine anything more slipshod and more slovenly than the words "such other modification as may be necessary." I should like to hear the opinion of one of His Majesty's Judges the first time my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has occasion to appear before him under this Act and to hear the comments that a judge would make when he is called upon to construe his powers under these words, "such other modifications as may be necessary." I can imagine a judge saying that that gives him complete discretion to do whatever he likes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think my hon. and learned Friend is a little bit hard upon the draftsmen. He must remember the reason why all these Clauses are badly badly drafted is that they have more than is possible for any human being to do. It is the result of the way in which it is endeavoured to force legislation through this House and the absolute

    355
    necessity of drafting new Clauses in a hurry. When Clauses are drafted in a hurry bad legislation must ensue. I do not know how many Bills they have drafted either on this side or some other side of the House. Clauses were put in which were never intended when the Bill was introduced. But if it is likely to be popular with a certain class of people and a certain desire to have a Clause put into the Bill, the result is that we have a Clause drafted in the way in which this Clause is drafted. As my hon. and learned Friend says, it is governed by the last words "such other modifications as may be necessary," that is to say, it leaves it to the judge practically to decide what is necessary in the Clause, what modifications may be put in, or what modifications may be left out. We shall have gentlemen perhaps saying that this is judge-made law. We shall have a new Act to interpret what is the meaning of this Clause if it happens to be against a certain section of the community, and we shall have another Act to over-ride what is called judge-made law. Let me point out as an illustration of what I am saying. You have only to turn over the page and you will see a Clause that occupies five pages. I defy anybody either to understand or to draft a Clause which occupies five pages of the Paper. The same rule applies. These draftsmen have to do in a few moments what ought probably to take them many weeks. I would point out to my hon. and learned Friend, who I am sure has the interests of the law at heart, to exercise his great ability to persuade the Government to moderate a little of their anxiety for legislation. They would probably find that the cases in the Courts would diminish and the legislation which is affected would be simple and could be understood by the people.
    Sir J. HOPE: It seems to me we are introducing some quite extraneous matter into the Agriculture Bill. With regard to housing, I, personally, have always protested against the Housing Acts that have been passed both this year and last year as in no way dealing with agricultural housing. Now suddenly, at the last moment, in a Bill which does not profess to deal with housing, an eye-washing Clause has been put in which it is hoped will help agricultural housing. I am not prepared to oppose this Clause
    356
    though I do not believe it will help housing in the smallest particular. I think it will more confuse the issue and make it more difficult. Agricultural housing in Scotland, as we all know, is in a very bad state. I myself moved an Amendment in the last Housing Act, which was refused, suggesting that the subsidy which was then granted under the last Housing Act of 1919 should be extended to assist the reconstruction and enlargement of houses. That was a proposal which would materially have assisted agricultural housing in Scotland. That was not accepted, and nothing has been done. Anyone who knows Scotland knows that housing is not progressing favourably or elsewhere, but it is not progressing at all with regard to agricultural housing. Will this proposal help it? I do not believe it will for one moment, and I think it will confuse the issue. I should very much like to know how it will affect the question of houses which are let on farm leases. In Scotland, as is well known, these houses are let under a lease, the tenant accepting them in a good state of repair and being responsible for keeping them in a good state of repair. If, on the other hand, structural alterations have to be done to these cottages the owner is chargeable. That is the present law under the lease. It has gone on for some years, and nothing very much has been done. One of the drawbacks is that the tenant has accepted the houses in a good state of repair, and during the currency of the lease the tenant farmer has not raised the question because he was afraid he may have to pay for the repairs. We have still got this question of repair to clear up. I do not believe under this proposed law we shall know. Under the Housing Act for Scotland, Section 25, there is a proviso that if an owner of any house suitable for occupation fails to keep that house fit for human habitation, then he has to put it into a state of repair; but there is to that Clause a proviso that if the house is not capable, without reconstruction, of being put in a state fit for human habitation, then the owner has the alternative of putting it into a state of repair, or may close it down, because it is supposed to be unreasonable to pay more for reconstructing the house than the house is economically worth. I want to know whether this proviso in the Housing Act will apply. I strongly sup-

    357
    port any legislation which will deal with agricultural housing and improve it, especially in Scotland, but I should like to know exactly how this Clause is really going to promote housing. If the Government wants to do anything they should assist and encourage private enterprise, and assist not only new construction but also enlargement.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not know how this question comes under this Clause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1909 are incorporated in the Bill. I have Sections 14 and 15 of the Act. I have read them rather hurriedly, but I do not see in them any proviso which says that if the landlord or the owner is not putting the house in repair then he shall not be obliged to do so.
    Sir J. HOPE: May I answer that?
    The CHAIRMAN: It does not seem to me to be relevant. I have been puzzling my brains to know how it comes in under this Clause. I really cannot discover it at all.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Clause incorporates Sections 14 and 15 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909. If there were anything in either of those Clauses which bore out the contention of my hon. Friend I think it would be relevant, but there is nothing which does that. I presume I am right in supposing—I have read this as carefully as I can
    The CHAIRMAN: One hon. Member has referred to the Act of 1909, and another hon. Member to the Act of 1919. They had better both adjourn and settle matters.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think—
    The CHAIRMAN: No, it is not relevant.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the Clause which would be relevant. I have no very great objection to this Clause. I think it is right for a house to be put in a fit condition for human habitation. What my hon. Friend says is to a certain extent true, namely, that there are a large number of cottages—I am very sorry for it—in rural England which are certainly not up to modern requirements. What he result is going to be I am not quite certain, because the words "fit for human habitation" are rather vague. I am not
    358
    quite sure what interpretation may be put on them by the local authorities who, under this Clause, are called on to interpret them. Provided they interpret them in the sense that the walls must be thick and waterproof, that the roof must be in order, and the floor sound, I have no objection. If they interpret them to mean that there must be a number of bedrooms, sitting-rooms and a parlour, and all that sort of thing, then, though personally nothing would please me better than to see these arrangements carried out, I do not see where the money to do it is coming from. That is the great difficulty from which we are suffering in all this sort of legislation. It is quite easy to sit here and say that we ought to do this or that, but it is not so easy, especially after a great war, to find the money. The proper course for the Government—I am not for a moment suggesting that they should abandon the Clause—would have been to have put in some words defining what, in their opinion, is the meaning of "fit for human habitation." So far as I know, there is no definition in the Act of 1909. If there is I have nothing further to say but this point is a very serious one, and worthy of consideration. I should be very much obliged if my right hon. Friend would tell me whether there is any definition in that Act, or if there is any definition which is accepted as common law by the Courts of Law.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: My right hon. Friend really raises points which I think he can answer himself. I sometimes believe that, being so good a student of Acts of Parliament and of law, he is really thinking aloud on doubts which are passing through his mind rather than addressing me, and wishing for an answer.
    Sir F. BANBURYNo.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: If he will look at Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1909 he will see the words are that the premises should be fit for human habitation. These words were passed in an Act of Parliament now 11 years old. So far as I know they have given rise to no difficulty, and—I may be wrong—to no reported case upon them. It is a question of fact in each case whether or not a dwelling is fit for habitation. In some situations and in some places a dwelling may be quite fit for habitation; in another place it may suffer from some disadvantage which may

    359
    have to be put right. In all cases it is a question of fact, and the right hon. Baronet will not find a definition in law, because you cannot define what is a question of fact. Although he may search for a long time through these Acts of Parliament, I do not think he will find a definition. I hope that that may assist his researches still further.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation for disturbance in case of allotment gardens.)
    (1) The provisions of this Act as to compensation for disturbance in the case of a holding shall apply with the necessary modifications in the case of an allotment garden, but subject to the provisions of this Section.
    (2) Where the tenancy of an occupier of an allotment garden is terminated by reason of a notice to quit which is less than one year's notice, the compensation shall be either such an amount as is payable under the provisions applied by this Section or such an amount as represents the benefits which would have accrued to the occupier from the occupation of the allotment garden on the terms of the expired tenancy during the period between the date of the expiration of the tenancy and the end of one year from the date on which the notice to quit was given, whichever amount is greater.
    Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where possession of the land is reasonably required for naval, military, or Air Force purposes, or for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes.
    (3) Compensation under this Section shall not be payable in the case of an allotment garden provided by a local authority for the purposes of The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, where the occupier is resident more than one mile out of the district of the local authority.
    (4) Any question as to whether compensation is payable under this Section, or as to the amount payable, shall be determined under and in accordance with the provisions of The Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, in the same manner as the amount of compensation for crops or other matters is determined under that Act, and the compensation under this Section shall be in addition to any compensation payable under that Act.
    (5) So much of the last-mentioned Act as provides that that Act shall not extend to the Metropolis is hereby repealed as respects
    360
    any tenancy which terminates after the commencement of this Act.
    (6) In the application of this Section to Scotland the expression "allotment garden" means an allotment under The Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended or applied by any subsequent enactment, and a reference to The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or to The Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, shall be construed as a reference to the said Act of 1892 as so amended or applied.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Allotments are dealt with in this Bill in two ways. First of all, there will be compensation under Clause 7, where plot-holders are disturbed from their allotments. We do not propose to alter that in any way. The first paragraph of the Clause I am now moving makes that quite clear. It says:
    "The provisions of this Act as to compensation for disturbance in the case of a holding shall apply with the necessary modifications in the case of an allotment garden but subject to the provisions of this Section."
    That means that where a plot-holder is disturbed he will get compensation for disturbance, which is one year's rent plus the cost of removal. In the case of an allotment the cost of removal will be very small, and one year's rent in most instances will probably be in the neighbourhood of 10s. It is also true if the disturbance is capricious that it may be as much as four years' rent. Allotments are also dealt with in the Bill in Clause 22, which lays down the general principle that in the case of all holdings, including allotments, twelve months' notice shall be necessary. That particular Clause as it stands is singularly ill-appropriate to allotments. In one respect it goes too far In the case of Defence of the Realm Act allotments, where land was taken during the War for allotments for temporary purposes—land which was required for building, and would have been used for such but for the War—twelve months' notice would be necessary. That would stop a great deal of housing, mining, and industrial work generally, and would mean that an enormous sum of compensation would have to be paid
    It would be very hard also on those who during the War were willing to lend land temporarily for allotments which otherwise would have been used for building. In land wanted for building or

    361
    other similar purposes, there ought to be means whereby the resumption can be obtained more quickly. In that respect the 12 months' notice given goes much too far. In another respect Clause 22 (notices to quit) is quite ineffective from the point of view of the allotment holders. What would be the result of that? As regards future contracts care would be taken to put in these special reasons for which the tenancies could be resumed, and in that case 12 months would not be applicable in the case of allotments. Therefore the Government came to the conclusion that it would be far better to deal with the case of allotments in a special Clause, which special Clause I may say I have carefully considered. It has been placed before the Members of this House who are interested in allotments, and I think it generally meets the situation, and is a great improvement on the present position from the point of view of the allotment holders.
    What we propose in the new Clause I can sum up in a very few words. We divide the case of allotment holders into three. First of all, where allotments are not properly cultivated. In that case there will be no compensation at all for disturbance. The new Clause, I may say, goes on the principle of compensation for disturbance, giving special compensation for disturbance for less than 12 months' notice. In the second place, if the notice is reasonably given for any purpose which is recognised as a good purpose, for example, naval, military, or air force purposes, or for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, or for roads necessary in connection with any of these purposes, there will be compensation under the Bill, namely, one year's rent and cost of removal. That will be given whether the notice is 12 months or less, equally that compensation will be payable.
    There is this further. Notice may be given to terminate the tenancy on which there are allotments for purposes for what I may call more or less arbitrary purposes, that is to say, not for good reasons. For example, a man may wish to add the allotment to his own private garden, or he may wish to make a tennis court, or to use the ground for some other sporting purpose. In these cases, if the notice is less than 12 months, there will be special compensation which will amount to the value of the beneficial occupation which the allotment holder would have
    362
    had in it if the full 12 months' notice had been given. That is a new provision, and, I think, a very valuable one. It will have the effect of diverting landowners from turning down allotments under 12 months unless there is some specially good reason for so doing, because the compensation in that case will amount to a very considerable sum. We may reckon that the value of the beneficial occupation for a year will be about £7. I am only taking an average figure. It may be more or less. You may have 16 allotments to the acre. That would, therefore, mean that if notice of less than 12 months is given for the purposes other than those purposes provided in the Bill, namely, naval, military, and air force purposes, or industrial purposes, compensation may amount to as much as £112 an acre. That would be a very great deterrent to the landlord giving notice except for the very good reasons which are defined, and it would give a security of tenure to the allotment holder that he certainly does not enjoy at the present time. The proposals we have made, I think, are fair. I think they meet the point that in many cases we must get the land back quickly for important purposes; at any rate, it does make it an expensive process to get rid of allotments for inadequate reason, and it will have the effect of giving the allotment holder a much better security.
    Mr. ACLAND: I want, first of all, to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for the pains he is taking to deal with this subject. He has met Members of the House interested in allotments, and although he cannot give them all they want—for allotment holders want a great deal—
    Mr. LAWSON: And they are quite worth it!
    Mr. ACLAND: I agree. Yet, on the whole, the provisions of the Bill in regard to allotment holders do put them more or less on parallel lines with the farmers, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has met us in a reasonable way. But it cannot be too often or too strongly observed, I think, that nothing in the way of compensation will really satisfy the allotment holder. What he is out for is security of tenure, and he feels the position even more than the farmers do. My right hon. Friend has gone a reason-

    363
    able way in devising what can be done on the basis of compensation, but it is security of tenure that is required, for under no circumstances will the allotment holder lose the little piece of land he has, and which is the only thing which will make the allotment holder happy. But the allotment holder has got to admit, and he will not admit it—though it is, unfortunately, true—that a great deal of the land that he is most anxious for absolute security in connection with is land taken for the purpose of allotments during the War, under the most distinct and explicit understanding that it would be taken back and was not going to be used permanently for allotments. It is also true that many private owners gave land which was waiting to become building land, and within a reasonable area for building, and gave it up temporarily for allotments, and to help the nation in its food emergency.
    It would be, I am afraid, impossible, however great the sympathy we have with the allotment holder, to say that that land, if taken by the Government under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and also given by the private owner for temporary use as allotments, should, because of the various reasons advanced, become permanently allotment ground We have got to look at this Clause as being simply what it is, a Clause dealing, not with the question of security, but of compensation. From that point of view, things are on the whole fair. It is, first of all, I think, right—I think it was I who raised the particular point—that the tenant of allotment land should have the same rights as the tenant of an agricultural holding, if he is given a year's notice. That may be quite considerable in certain cases. I know a good deal of allotment ground, for which the allotment holder pays something like £8 an acre, and that will give for an ordinary tenure compensation on the basis of one year's rent, or 10s., and it may go up to £2 if the notice is a capricious one. That is not a very great deal, but in some respects it is something quite considerable, and it is only right if the allotment holder has to go that he should get the same basis of compensation, that is the year's rent and the cost of removal, just the same as the larger man. It is also reasonable to have special provisions
    364
    for the cases where the tenure of thy allotment holder is terminated in less than a year. I do not think you can devise anything more likely to be just than to give the allotment holders the benefit of an option either to take what would have been the benefit he had secured if he had continued to cultivate his allotment or to take the cost of removal and from one to four years' rent, whichever of those two options give him the most. That is a perfectly genuine attempt to meet the case of disturbance at less than a year's notice.
    10.0 P.M.
    The most difficult point is the special proviso in the new Clause which restricts the choice of methods of compensation. In the great bulk of cases where the allotment is needed for naval and military or air force purposes, or for building, mining or other industrial purposes, or for roads, that is not entirely inclusive. It will be under that provsio that a great deal of the allotment land will be resumed, and has been resumed. It seemed to me at first that the man who had notice to quit of less than a year when his land was wanted for these purposes would get no compensation, but I think that is wrong. He gets the expenses of removal and one year's rent, which is the ordinary compensation the farmer gets if he has to go after one year's notice. That at any rate is something, and the only point to be made is that the allotment holder under that proviso gets just the same compensation if his notice to quit is a year or a period of less than a year, and it may be a week. You would expect if the notice was shorter that the compensation might be greater, but that is not provided for. All the defence the allotment holder has is that contained under the word "reasonable." He will have the right to call in an arbitrator, and if he decides that the notice is given unreasonably, and that the land is not being reasonably required, he will decide that the proviso shall not operate, and in that case the allotment holder will have this option, and will be entitled to the larger compensation estimated on the basis of the loss he has sustained by not having a year's occupation. In the case of a very short notice the arbitrator may say it is not reasonably given and the allotment holder will then have the greater compensation. That is the only safeguard. I will conclude by

    365
    saying that it has been in the House throughout our discussions rather fashionable to upset agreements come to upstairs, but I do not think that we who are interested in allotment holders want to do that in this case. My right hon. Friend represents the Allotments Committee which consists of hon. Members who work in connection with the National Union of Allotment Holders, and I represent the Agricultural Organisation Society, and we all want to help this Clause through and not overthrow it.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I am authorised to say on behalf of the National Union of Allotment Holders, that they accept this Clause. My right hon. Friend knows, however, that it is with a certain amount of regret in the minds of the members of the Union, and I believe also in the minds of a large number of Members of Parliament, that we are to-night discussing the question of compensation to these allotment holders who have had to give up their holdings. The position of the allotment movement in this country at the present time is a very serious one. All over the country thousands of notices to quit have been given to allotment holders in various districts, and as my right hon. Friend knows full well, no amounts of £7 to £14 or even £100 can in any way be commensurate with the ideas of the movement, or the ambition of the allotment holders themselves. What they desire is to continue the national work they are doing, and while they accept this Clause they all know that my right hon. Friend simply regards this as a temporary Measure, and as by no means dealing with the future of allotments generally in this country.
    At the end of this year some thousands of allotment holders in London have got to give up their holding. I myself believe that is a matter of great regret, and I believe it is to the national disadvantage that that should be done. I am afraid this Clause does not deal with that position. We have had recently discussed in this House the question of the allotments on the Wanstead Flats. In this case there is an immense amount of acreage of land available for this important movement, and yet, despite the representations of the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Agriculture, these allotment holders have got to give up their holdings at the bidding of an authority which appar-
    366
    ently is not subject to the jurisdiction of this House. I am making these observations not by way of criticisms of this proposal but in an endeavour to indicate to the House that this Clause, whilst going a considerable way in dealing with the difficulties, by no means solves the present problem which is before the allotment holders of the country. I only wish to say in conclusion that the allotment holders believe they have in the right hon. Gentleman a true Friend, and I hope he will be able to indicate at the close of this discussion that he is prepared to meet the representatives of the allotment holders of this country with a view to coming to some more satisfactory solution of the problem than is foreshadowed in this Clause, and with a view to making the allotment movement a permanent one, and one that is not subject to the capricious wishes of certain local authorities up and down the country.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Listening to the two right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side I have been forced to the conclusion that neither of them realises the real value of the allotment movement from the social and economic aspect. They devoted their remarks to the question of compensation, a trumpery two penny-halfpenny matter which concerns allotment holders very little indeed. The Minister in charge of this Bill met a deputation from the National Union of Allotment Holders and offered them this Clause as the best he could do in this Bill. For that we thanked him, and we accepted it as the best he could do in this Bill, but in accepting it as such it was with an understanding, given by the Minister at the time, that after this measure was through the House he would again meet the deputation, and go more thoroughly into the whole question of allotments, with a view to possible legislation next Session, if found necessary. Under these circumstances it would be wrong of me to oppose this Clause in any way, but I do want to point out that it is not even half a loaf, not even a crust, and it goes a very little way indeed towards satisfying the hunger of the thousands of allotment holders who are being dispossessed, and of the thousands of other people who are hungering for allotments and cannot get them. This is a very important and valuable movement from a social and economic point of view, and it will have to be inquired into very thoroughly, and the Minister in charge

    367
    of the Bill, and others who pretend to be, and I believe are interested in this movement, must approach this matter from a different point of view. I am grateful for this Clause in so far as it goes, which is a very little way indeed, and I hope that when the Minister again meets the deputation we shall go very thoroughly into the whole matter, and get some legislation next year to do some good.
    Mr. SWAN: Adequate consideration has not been given to allotment holders, having regard to the service they have rendered to the community. Every consideration ought to be given to allotment holders before they are given notice ac all. If we are to encourage working men to take allotments, then something substantially more than the 12 months ought to be the consideration. In the urban district council area in which I live, in fixing the terms for allotments due to past experience, the least we would take is 14 years, because we are conscious that if a man is to get a return for his labour, and all the digging up of the soil, taking off turf, he must have a long period in which to recoup himself, and 12 months is not anything like sufficient. Good service was rendered to the country at a time when there was a demand for food. Allotments were the means really of saving families from starvation, and to take away these allotments will mean reducing substantially the standard of living of a number of families, and before the allotments are taken away greater consideration ought to be given to the possibility of getting land elsewhere for building or for factory purposes. What is meant by the compensation that is offered? Assuming a man built himself a hut for his tools, or put a rose-bed upon his garden, will he get compensation for all this work and expense? Thousands of men in the county of Durham have gone to that expense, and now, after they have had their allotments for three years, this Bill come along and says that if a farmer or a public authority or someone else wants the land they will get 12 months' notice to quit. It is very unfair both to the individual and to the community that a man's labour should be thrown to the winds in this way. There is no analogy between the case of the farmer and of the allotment holder. In the case of the latter
    368
    you have had intensive cultivation. You cannot measure the labour that a man has put into his allotment; maybe he has put in the whole of his week ends, and the efforts of the whole of the family may have been put into the land in order to get the best out of it for himself and the nation. It is ludicrous in the extreme to compare the farmer with the allotment holder. Will compensation for removal mean compensation for his bushes, his tool-house and his greenhouse?
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I am very sorry to see that this Clause neglects to give security of tenure to the allotment holder. That is the only thing which is of value to the allotment holder, and the only thing he is really working for. It is said the allotment holder wants a good deal. As far as I know, and I represent a good many, they do not want a great deal, they are extremely reason able people. If the land is needed for housing purposes or for any other purpose, and there is no other land avail able in the district, they are quite willing that their land should be given up, but they are not willing to give it up when it is not really needed. I know of a case in my own constituency where 600 allotment holders have been turned off land for the sole purpose of building working-class houses, although the plans for the houses have not yet been passed, and they will not be put on that land for another year. It is in such cases as these that the allotment holder wants to be protected. He only asks for one year's security of tenure, and that the notice shall take effect only between October and February. That gives him one clear year. I maintain that in a locality where they are letting land for allotments, they know what building schemes they are going in for, and have made up their minds when those schemes are to be put in operation; and they ought not to offer the land to the allotment holder unless they can give him security. A question has been asked as to the meaning of the compensation that is to be given. Does it mean that if the allotment holder has spent money on manure, seed, and fencing, and has built his little hut on his allotment, he will be compensated for all that? If he is not going to be compensated for that expenditure, but is only going to be paid one year's rent and his expenses of removal, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Perhaps I may shorten the discussion if I explain that now. The compensation proposed in this Clause is in addition to the compensation to which allotment holders are already entitled under the Agricultural Holdings Act. For all crops on the land, for unexhausted manure, and so on, they already receive compensation, and that is not taken away by this Clause. The compensation for disturbance which we give in this Clause is in addition to that. As regards the question of the removal of a tool-house, that, undoubtedly, would be one of the costs of removal, for which there would be compensation under this Clause.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information, which, I am sure, will be received with approval by all allotment holders. I should like to ask, however, even at this late hour, whether it is not possible to insert in this Clause another proviso giving to the allotment holders one year's security of tenure. If this could be done I am sure it would be to the advantage of the whole country. We have been told that this country must produce the greatest possible quantity of food. The allotment holders are producing a vast quantity of food, and, unless some security of tenure is given to them, we shall see thousands of them thrown off their allotments before the end of this year. I am quite sure that it will be most regrettable if that happens.
    Mr. E. KELLY: It seems to me that doubts might arise as to whether the Clauses under discussion apply to the Irish allotment holder. My reason for making this suggestion is that apparently these provisions come under Part II of the Bill, and Part II deals principally with compensation for disturbance. By these new Clauses, for the first time, the principle of compensation for disturbance is applied to allotment holders. Since 1870 we have had the principle of compensation for disturbance in the case of farms, and the law with regard to it is well established. We have also machinery for enforcing awards in respect of disturbance, and we have well-settled machinery for calculating the basis upon which that compensation is to be awarded. Allotments are of recent growth in Ireland, as they are in this country—they are more recent there, if
    370
    anything—and it seems to me that if Parliament is going to give statutory effect to provisions for the compensation of allotment holders for disturbance in this country, the Irish allotment holder has even a stronger claim, seeing that the Irish landowner and the Irish farmer were able, if necessary, to claim compensation long before such a claim received statutory recognition here. Therefore the Irish allotment holders would value an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that they are within the scope of these Clauses. I agree that it might be necessary to make some consequential Amendments in the definition Clause, applying the measure to Ireland, in view of the fact that Part II of the Bill does not apply to Ireland. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me an answer at once so as to shorten the discussion.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As the Clause is drafted now it will not apply to Ireland.
    Mr. KELLY: This is rather a serious matter. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman treats the point I raised in a hostile manner. It occurred to me that it is simply a draughtsman's oversight and that as the provision for awarding and calculating compensation is under Part II of the Bill, which applies solely to England, that it was an oversight that similar provision was not made in order to apply these provisions to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me an assurance that he will modify Clause 27 in the necessary particulars I am sure it will not be unreasonable.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot do it at this stage. That is impossible. But if there is a desire that this allotment Clause should apply to Ireland—I have no means of ascertaining that at present—I will take care that Clause 27 shall be modified in another place.
    Mr. KELLY: I put it to the right hon. Gentleman on the ground of ordinary justice, not on the ground of the demand whether it should or should not. Is it just that an English allotment holder should have compensation for disturbance? If the Committee say it is, why should they say it is not just that Irish allotment holders should have similar compensation? I appeal again to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not perfectly simple even at this moment to draft a Clause to the effect that the Department of Agri-

    371
    culture may make such orders as they think fit to enable these New Clauses to be applied to Ireland with the necessary Amendments? It could be done in two lines. If necessary I will undertake to hand in an Amendment to that effect before the discussion closes, but I think it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to see that it is done. What is the objection?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no objection. I have tried very hard to meet the hon. Member, but he does not seem to respond to my advances at all. Far from it. I have told him it cannot be done at this stage. It has to be done on Clause 27, which has not been recommitted, and therefore we are powerless to do it at this stage. But if the matter is generally desired, I will take care that it is done in another place. What more can I say?
    Mr. KELLY: I want the right hon. Gentleman to say it will be done.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I should be very sorry to say what another place will do to this Bill.
    Mr. KELLY: I do not want a provisional guarantee. If the right hon. Gentleman says he will have an Amendment made in another place that is the most I could ask for, and I think it is the least the right hon. Gentleman ought to offer.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I will not follow the hon. Member into the abstract requirements of justice. I am content to leave that point, as the right hon. Gentleman has left it, in his hands. I do not want either to follow those hon. Members opposite who have spoken on the general value of allotments, because that is a subject on which they are preaching to the converted and on which there is a very substantial body of agreement. I would enter a caveat against some statements made by hon. Members, who said, I have no doubt with great truth, that the real claim of the allotment holders was for complete security of tenure. I think it ought to be remembered that there are two sides to that question, and, although security of tenure might be desirable, it might also result in difficulties as to the provision of allotments at all. Those who had land
    372
    suitable for allotments would be likely to think twice before granting land for allotments if in so doing they were precluding themselves and the community from early resumption for purposes for which it was even more urgently required. We all know it is extremely difficult to reconcile these conflicting claims. Our sympathy for and our sense of the value of allotments may be as high as you like, but we must ultimately recognise economic factors, and in attempting to divert land we may be likely to land ourselves in an economic quagmire I rose to refer to another point which, I think, should be borne in mind for possible consideration in another place, it was raised on Clause 7, and left, I think, in a rather indefinite position. That point is, what is to happen in the case of a landlord who let land to tenant A, who in turn has sub-let, without the landlord's knowledge, for allotments to various sub-tenants. If the landlord gives notice to tenant A, he should not be involved by virtue of that notice in any necessity to give compensation to the allotment holders, who are in reality subtenants of A, and have never been accepted by the landlord. It is a point of some substance, and I raise it so that it should not be overlooked. Some Amendment of the Clause may be required to safeguard the interests of the principal owner.
    Mr. R. McLAREN: In connection with the proposal to allow compensation in respect of having to give up allotments, I may put the case of my own town where the Corporation laid out the public park for allotments, and they have been kept going ever since. Recently I understand that notice has been given that the land is to be restored to its original purpose as a public park. I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell me whether in a case of that kind the Corporation will be entitled to pay these allotment holders who received the ground on the understanding that it was solely for the purposes of the War? Near where I live the owner of a property kindly let out his grass land for the purpose of giving allotments to the people, on the understanding that so long as the War lasted these men would have the ground for cultivation as allotments. Some of the holders have refused to give up their allotments, though asked to do so. Is that man to be asked to give compensation? One of the best

    373
    things that ever happened in this country was the giving of allotments during the War. People are now working shorter hours, and many of them are anxious to give all the time they can to allotments, and it is a good thing to give them the opportunity of doing so. In Scotland many houses have very large gardens. When a man leaves a house he leaves the garden. Is compensation to be given in future for gardens as well as for allotments? If so, up will go the rent. While encouraging allotments care must therefore be taken not to make things harder for others. In districts where there are mines allotments have often to be used while the crops are on it for boring to see whether minerals are there. In such cases there should not only be the ordinary compensation, but also compensation for the manure and other things that the holder put into the ground.
    Sir J. D. REES: The provisos in this Bill as regards compensation are exceedingly stiff and with reference to this proposal to extend compensation to allotments, I would ask if allotments in public parks and gardens are affected? This is not quite like the case to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. As I understand, there are allotments in Kensington Gardens, for instance, and the tenants there are tenants of the Commissioners of Works, who represents the Crown—that is to say, the public. If compensation is payable the public would be paying compensation, in addition to having been deprived of the amenities of the gardens for the years of the War and two years after the War. If this provision applies to Richmond Park and Kensington Gardens, and just outside to a beautiful piece of formerly almost rural ground, it is time to oppose the provision. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say that that is not so. The Committee is agreed as to the utility of allotments, but their beauty is not equal to their utility, and we must remember that we are dealing with the immemorial rights of the public, which have been mortgaged with very slight advantage to a very few members of the public to the disadvantage of a very large number of members of the public, who are deprived of the health-giving properties of these areas How detestably undemocratic it is for a few to get all these things at the expense of the community,
    374
    and that subsequently compensation should be leviable on the community on behalf of those few! Sub-section (2) proposes that the provision will not apply where there is a notice to quit which is for not less than one year. I do not know whether these particular allotment holders have always had a running notice to quit, and have sat as yearly tenants. Even in that case I believe that in agriculture, if you have a tenant, it is almost impossible to get rid of him in less than two years. Therefore, it may be that, in spite of this provision, these allotment holders may be more firmly planted than the Committee believes. Does Sub-section (4), which provides for additional compensation to that payable under this Act, apply to the allotment holders in Richmond Park and Kensington Gardens? Sub-section (5) increases my perplexity. I confess that I do not understand it. The proviso to Sub-section (2) states that the paragraph shall not apply where possession of the land is reasonably required for Naval, Military, or Air Force purposes, or for building, mining, or other such purposes, or for roads in connection with any of these purposes. I agree in approving that, but why does not that apply as regards the parks which are the lungs of London, and which have been temporarily handed over for this use? It is laid down that compensation shall not be payable on the grounds of health convenience and public requirements, and surely the parks with their health-giving properties should also come within the exception. It is somewhat difficult to speak on this particular matter, as nobody seems to realise how irregular is the position of a handful of men camped in a park which has belonged to the public for centuries, and how necessary it is that they, for democratic reasons, should be ejected without compensation as soon as possible. I ask the Solicitor-General whether or not these particular allotment holders come under this Clause.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We have had a very long discussion on this Clause, and practically every Member who has spoken has approved it. A certain number have said that they wished it had gone further, but they agreed that, as far as this Bill was concerned, it is the utmost we could do, and that the general question of allotments could not be raised now. I have already said in reply to a deputation

    375
    that if they accepted this Clause I would later on consider what further Amendments could be made to the general law regarding allotments. But that matter cannot be raised in this particular Bill, and I hope therefore that the House will shortly come to a decision on this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) asked what would happen in cases where tenants had sub-let their allotments. Would the landowner be held responsible? I think the landowner would not be responsible, but difficulties might arise, and I should like to consider what would happen under these circumstances. Then I was asked by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) whether compensation would be payable in the case of land temporarily taken in the public parks for allotments. Yes, it would be, and I think quite rightly so. I do not think that an allotment holder who is dispossessed of his holding in a park is less entitled to compensation than any other allotment holder. He was asked to take an allotment and grow food during the War, and, as a general rule, it was very well done It is perfectly true that we are bound, since the parks are dedicated to the general public and are required for recreation and fresh air, to resume the land there and not allow the allotments to continue for ever, but if the allotment holders are dispossessed they are certainly entitled to compensation, and unless 12 months' notice is given they would be entitled to compensation on the higher scale. My hon. Friend asks why such a purpose as public recreation should not be a purpose like naval, military, or air force purposes, or building, for which the lower scale is paid. The answer is this: When land is wanted for naval, military or air force purposes, or for building, it is presumably wanted at once, and therefore, in order that the work may be got on with, the lower scale of compensation is paid, but really it cannot make very much difference, if land in the parks has been used for allotments, whether that land is resumed for the general public this year or next year, provided it is done within a reasonable period. I hope the Committee will now come to a decision on the Clause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I want to ask one or two questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide"] I do not know why
    376
    hon. Members are in such a very great hurry. The Eleven o'clock Rule is suspended, we are discussing an extremely important Clause£I do not think we began to discuss it till five minutes past ten£and therefore it is perfectly in order and necessary that those of us who require some explanation of certain words in this Clause, which may lead to a very considerable amount of litigation, may be allowed to ask the Solicitor-General, who is now in charge, what the result of these words will be. We are in a little difficulty, because the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the allotment holders on this side has made a certain statement, and an hon. Member opposite, who also says he speaks for the allotment holders, has made another statement. So far as that goes we are not assisted in any way. An hon. and learned Member (Mr. Inskip) pointed out a short time ago that the previous Clause was unintelligible. What is going to happen under Sub-section (2) of this Clause, which reads:
    "Where the tenancy of an occupier of an allotment garden is terminated by reason of a notice to quit which is less than one year's notice, the compensation shall be either such an amount as is payable under the provisions applied by this Section or such an amount as represents the benefits which would have accrued to the occupier from the occupation of the allotment garden on the terms of the expired tenancy during the period between the date of the expiration of the tenancy and the end of one year from the date on which the notice to quit was given, whichever amount is greater."
    I presume that means that if an allotment holder is told to go on the 1st March of any given year, and, if he had had a year's notice, he would not have gone until the 1st October of that year, then he is to be recompensed for the loss which would have occurred between the 1st March and the 1st October, presuming that he had been in occupation of that allotment during that period. What he would have gained if he had been in occupation of that allotment during that period would depend upon two things: first of all, upon his own personal exertions, and, secondly, upon the weather. Who is going to decide whether or not, between the 1st March and the 1st October, there are going to be hailstones or frosts or something which would destroy the produce which he would have put into the garden if he had been in occupation, which he was not? That is one of the conundrums which will have to

    377
    be put to whomsoever has got to decide upon this particular Clause; and the second one is, who is to decide what the exertions of any particular person would have been? One knows perfectly well there are a certain number of people who are extremely capable in gardening, whether it is floral gardening or growing vegetables, and there are other people who are certainly not so capable, and how are you going to decide whether this particular person who is not in occupation, but might have been in occupation, is a capable market-gardener who would have taken advantage of fine weather, or would have taken care to guard against the ravages of frost in cultivating his market-gardeen? What is the good of putting in a provision in this Clause which nobody can possibly interpret? Coming to the proviso in Sub-section (2), what are "other industrial purposes"? It is extremely difficult to know. There again, we are left with vague words, which it is impossible to interpret. I do not know why Sub-section (5) should be put in. The Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us, but my own belief is that the Metropolis is so dealt with because a good many of the allotments in the Metropolis were in the public parks. They were granted under the stress of war, and it was never intended that they should be used for the pecuniary benefit of any particular class. I really do think we ought to have had some explanation of that. I noticed the extraordinary acquiescence of the right hon. Gentleman when an hon. Member opposite, who has been conspicuous by his absence from this House, got up and said he wanted the Clause extended to Ireland. There were one or two Ulster Members in the House, and they did not express any desire to have the Clause extended to Ireland, and I do not know whether they desire it or not. But if there were one thing we thought we were going to gain by the passing of a Home Rule Bill, it was that Irish legislation would be excluded from this House, and I cannot quite see how Irish legislation, whether it is good or bad, can be introduced into a Bill in this House.
    Colonel GRETTON: I have every desire that those who cultivated allotments should continue to be encouraged in every possible way, but there have been two classes of allotments discussed in this Debate. In the case of those established in
    378
    public parks for war purposes only, it was never intended or expected that they should continue after the War. They might very well be given up after 31st October in any year. Before the Government decides that they are going to impose a charge on public funds they should examine and consider their Financial Resolution, to see whether under its terms they have the power to impose such a charge. It is quite hopeless to ask the Government to pay any attention at the present moment to a charge on the public rates, but this is really a special case. Not only does this Government intend to give the allotment holders compensation which they never claimed, but they are going to force the authority to make a charge to restore the ground to the condition in which it was in before it was turned into allotments. Thus, there will be a double charge imposed. Incidentally allotments in the public parks are not entitled to compensation. These are matters for further consideration, and if it is too late now I hope the Government will give it attention in another place.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: I want to appeal on behalf of the people in a number of moderate-sized boroughs of the county who, at the beginning of the War, gave up their parks for allotments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] It is all right for London Members to shout "Divide," but there are other boroughs represented in this House besides the London boroughs. Why has the Minister in charge of the Bill specially singled out the London boroughs in order to help the London rates, when there are a very large number of hon. Members who are very much concerned at the rising rates in the smaller boroughs in the country? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in another place, he will see that the same law shall be made to apply to the smaller boroughs all over the country as that which will apply in London, so that these boroughs, which gave up their parks in this great national service of allotments, Should—
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That does apply.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: If it does apply I am satisfied. I understood it did not. I only want to make 11.0 P.M. certain that the smaller boroughs or cities are not penalised as against the London boroughs.
    Sir H. COWAN: The right hon Gentleman has told us that compensation is to be paid in respect of allotments in public parks. Is compensation to be paid for allotments on commons, and, if so, by whom is the compensation payable, especially in the case of regulated commons, for the Conservators have no funds for the purpose? May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give me an answer?
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Enforce Proper Cultivation.)
    (1) The Minister, if in any case he is of opinion after consultation with the agricultural committee (if any) for the area in which the land is situate—

    (a) that any land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; or

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

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

    (d) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraph applies;

    may serve notice, in the case of neglect to execute the necessary works of maintenance, on the tenant or owner, as the case may be, requiring him to execute the necessary works within such time as may be specified in the notice, and in any other case on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give for securing that the cultivation shall be in accordance with the rules of good husbandry or for securing the necessary improvement in the existing method of cultivation, or for securing that the land shall be used for arable cultivation, so, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown, and where compliance with any such directions, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, involves any breach of or non-
    380
    compliance with any covenant or condition of the contract of tenancy, the Minister may in the same or any subsequent notice so served direct that any such covenant or condition, so far as it interferes with compliance with such directions, shall be suspended, and may provide for securing to the landlord such payments or other benefits (if any) as the Minister thinks just on account of any profit or benefit derived or expected to be derived by the tenant by reason of the suspension of the covenant or condition or by reason of the execution by the owner of any works of maintenance, and any such provision of the notice shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy.
    Provided that if any person on whom any notice is served under this Section is aggrieved by the notice, he may within the prescribed time require the question whether the land has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or whether the production of food on the land can in the national interest be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of the required improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation or whether such improvement or use will injuriously affect the persons interested in the land, or whether the works required to be executed are necessary works of maintenance for the proper cultivation or working of the land, or whether the time specified in the notice for the execution of such works is reasonable, to be referred to arbitration in accordance with Part IV. of the Act of 1917, and where any question is so referred to arbitration no action shall be taken for enforcing the directions given by the Minister until the determination of the reference or except in accordance with the terms of the award, and, where the person on whom any notice is served is a tenant, the landlord shall have the same right as the tenant of requiring any question to be referred to arbitration.
    (2) Where any notice is served on a tenant, a copy of the notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord.
    (3) Where a notice has been served under this Section on the owner or occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute some work and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice he shall be liable, on summary conviction in respect of each offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a further fine not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues after conviction.
    Provided that—

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

    (b) the Minister shall be entitled to execute any work specified in the notice, and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default the reasonable cost of executing such work in a proper and workmanlike manner, and the right to institute any such proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that

    381
    the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice.

    (4) Where a notice has been served on the owner of any land in the occupation of a tenant requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute necessary works of maintenance and the owner fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the works in a proper and workmanlike manner, and a tenant so authorised shall be entitled to execute the works accordingly, and at any time after the works have been executed to recover from the owner the costs reasonably incurred by him in so doing, in the same manner in all respects as if those costs were compensation awarded in respect of an improvement under the Act of 1908.
    (5) A notice under this Section shall not require any work to be executed within a period of less than one month from the date of the notice unless in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary that the work should be executed within some shorter period specified in the notice.
    (6) If, in the opinion of the Minister, the occupier fails to cultivate the land in accordance with directions so given, the Minister, after the prescribed notice, may, if the occupier in default is a tenant, by order determine the tenancy of the holding or of any part thereof at the expiration of the current year of the tenancy, not being less than two months after the making of the Order, and, if the occupier in default is not a tenant, enter on and take possession of the land, or of the holding, of which it forms part, for such time, and (either himself or by any person authorised by him) do all such things as appear to him necessary or desirable for the cultivation of the land of which possession has been taken, or for adapting such land for cultivation.
    Any such Order of the Minister may contain such provisions as the Minister thinks fit for adjusting the relations of landlord and tenant where the tenancy is determined; and any such provision of the Order shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy.
    (7) Where it is represented to the Minister by an agricultural committee that the owner of any agricultural estate or land situate wholly or partly in the area of the committee, whether the estate of land or any part thereof is or is not in the occupation of tenants, cultivates or manages the estate or land in a manner inconsistent with good estate management, and so as to prejudice materially the production of rood thereon, the Minister may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable so to do in the national interest, and after making such inquiry as he thinks proper and after taking into consideration any representations made to him by the owner, by Order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land or any part thereof:
    Provided that—

    (a) An Order made under this Sub-section shall not, except where the person appointed by the Order to act
    382
    as receiver and manager of the estate or land is appointed to act in the place of a person previously appointed under this Sub-section, take effect until a period of six months has elapsed after the date on which notice of the Order having been made was given to the owner of the estate or land, and the owner may at any time during the said period appeal against the Order to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and where any such appeal is made the Order shall not take effect pending the determination of the appeal; and

    (b) An Order made under this Subsection shall not, except with the consent of the owner, extend to a mansion house, or the garden or grounds attached thereto, or to any land which at the date of the Order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and which is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; and

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

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

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

    The Minister may by an Order made under this provision apply for the purposes of the Order, with such modifications as he thinks fit, any of the provisions of Section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relates to the powers, remuneration and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees, and authorise the receiver to exercise such other powers vested in the owner of the estate or land as may be specified in the Order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager.
    Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof except with the consent of the owner or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court.
    The owner of any estate or land in respect of which an Order has been made under this Sub-section may, at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the Order, or after any change in the ownership of the estate or land, apply to the Minister to have the Order appointing the receiver and manager revoked, and if on any such

    383
    application the Minister refuses to revoke the Order the owner may appeal against the refusal to the High Court, in accordance with rules of court.
    (8) If within one month after the Minister has entered on or appointed a receiver and manager in respect of any land the owner of the land so requires, a record of the condition of the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the land shall be made within three months after the date of requisition by a person to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution; and in default of agreement the cost of making such record shall be borne by the Minister and the owner in equal portions.
    (9) Where the Minister has entered on any land under this provision he may, after the prescribed notice, let the land or, with the consent of the owner, any part thereof for any term not exceeding five years on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit and at the best rent that, having regard to such terms and conditions, can reasonably be obtained.
    Provided that—

    (a) before any contract of tenancy is executed by the Minister under this provision a draft thereof shall be sent to the owner of the land and a reasonable opportunity afforded him of objecting to any provision therein; and

    (b) a copy of the contract of tenancy shall be sent to such owner as soon as possible after its execution.

    (10) Any notice given by the Minister for the purposes of this Section, which directs the suspension of any covenant or condition, shall be sufficient defence to any action or other proceeding in respect of any breach of, or non-compliance with, the covenant or condition so far as the breach or non-compliance is authorised by the notice of suspension.
    (11) If, at any time after a contract of tenancy of any land has been created by the Minister, the owner of the land requires the Minister to withdraw, the Minister shall so withdraw as soon as reasonably may be.
    (12) When the Minister at any time withdraws from possession of any land of which he has taken possession under this Section—

    (a) he shall before withdrawing (except where the withdrawal is required by the owner of the land) give the prescribed notice in writing of his intention to the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land, and such notice shall be given not less than three months previously to the withdrawal by the Minister, and shall expire on one of the half-yearly days customary in the district where the land is situate; and

    (b) he may recover from the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land such amount as represents the value to that person of all acts of cultivation or adaptation for culti-
    384
    vation executed by the Minister; and

    (c) the land shall be subject to any tenancy created by the Minister in like manner as if the tenancy had been created by the person who would but for the tenancy have been entitled to resume occupation of the land.

    (13) Any person who is interested in any land of which possession is taken under this Section, and who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Section in that behalf, shall, if he makes a claim for the purpose before the expiration of such period, not being less than one year, after the exercise of the powers as may be prescribed by the Minister, be entitled to be paid by the Minister such amount or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss.
    (14) The amount recoverable or payable by the Minister under Sub-section (12) or Sub-section (13) of this Section shall be determined in each case in default of agreement by arbitration under Part IV of the Act of 1917.
    (15) For the purposes of this Section the expression "necessary works of maintenance" means such of the following works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed (that is to say):—

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

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

    (c)the execution of repairs to buildings;

    Prvided that a notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section requiring any person to maintain or clear any drains, embankments, or ditches shall not operate so as to impose on that person any obligation in that behalf if and so far as the execution of the works required is rendered impossible by reason of the subsidence of any land or the blocking of outfalls which are not under the control of that person.
    (16) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Sub section applies growing upon any land, he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him to cut down or destroy the weeds in the manner and with in the time specified in the notice, and where any such notice is given the provisions of Sub-section (3) of this Section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply as if the land were land which was not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, and as if a notice had been served on the occupier under Sub-section (1) of this Section.
    The expression "occupier" in this Subsection means, in the case of any public road, the authority by whom the road is being maintained, and, in the case of unoccupied

    385
    land, the person entitled to the occupation thereof.
    Regulations may be made under this Act for prescribing the injurious weeds to which this Sub-section is to apply.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

    FIRST SCHEDULE.

    MINOR AMENDMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1908.

    Enactment to be Amended.

    Nature of Amendment.

    Section forty-eight

    …

    …

    For the words "cultivated as a market garden" there shall be substituted the words "cultivated as a market or allotment garden."

    Amendment made: Leave out the words:

    Section forty-eight

    …

    …

    For the words "cultivated as a market garden" there shall be substituted the words "cultivated as a market or allotment garden."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

    SECOND SCHEDULE.

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

    Session and Chapter.

    Short Title.

    Extent of Repeal.

    7 & 8 Geo. 5, c.46.

    The Corn Production Act, 1917.

    Sub-section (1) of Section two; in sub-section (1) of Section nine the words form "(b) that for the purpose of" to the words, "as the case may be," both inclusive, and in the proviso to that Sub-section the words "or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of the land included in the notice"; in "make such order as seems to them required in the circumstances, either authorizing the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding, or determining the tenancy by virtue of the order"; in Sub-section (4) of that Section the words "If within three months after the Board have entered on any land the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires"; in Sub-section (9) of that Section the words "in respect of which any notice is served or order made under this Section or"; Sub-section (2) of Section nineteen.

    8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 35.

    The Corn Production (Amendment) Act,1918.

    The Whole Act.

    Amendment made: Leave out the words:
    in Sub-section (1) of Section nine the words from "(b) that for the purpose of" to the words "as the case may be," both inclusive, and in the proviso to that Sub-section the words "or whether it is
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    undesirable in the interest of food pro- duction that the change should apply to any portion of the land included in the notice"; in Sub-section (3)of that Section the words "make such Order as "seems to theme required in the circum- stances, either authorizing the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding,

    387
    or determining the tenancy by virtue of the Order"; in Sub-section (4) of that Section the words "If within three months after the Board have entered on any land, the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires"; in Sub-section (9) of that Section the words "in respect of which any notice is served or Order made under this Section or"; and insert instead thereof the words "Section nine."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
    Bill reported; as amended (on re-committal) considered.

    CLAUSE INSERTED ON CONSIDERATION.£(Application of Act to cottage on holdings under Act of 1908.)
    Where the occupation of a dwelling-house, forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies has been allowed by the tenant of the holding to a workmen employed by him in agriculture on the holding, whether the occupation is under a contract of tenancy or not, and the occupation is terminated on account of the termination by the tenant of the holding of the employment of the workman, the provisions of Section seven of this Act shall (subject as hereinafter provided and so far as the same are capable of application) apply as if the dwelling-house were a holding and, where there is no contract of tenancy, as if the person allowing the dwelling-house to be so occupied were the landlord and the occupier were the tenant, and the notice to terminate the occupation were a notice to quit:
    Captain FITZROY: I beg to move, after the word "dwelling-house" ["Where the occupation of a dwelling-house"], to insert the words "including a garden attached thereto."
    We have had a long discussion about the compensation to be paid to allotment holders, and this particular Clause deals with the compensation to labourers when they are given notice. In the case of labourers who occupy tied houses very often their garden is a thing of great value to them. I think they are entitled to compensation when given notice to quit, and for having to quit their garden. The Clause as it appears on the Paper simply says, "Where a dwelling-house," and later on the words are, "if the dwelling-house or garden." The right hon. Gentleman said he put in those words because it was not necessary as the words "or garden" did not occur in the earlier part of the Amendment. I think it is important that compensation should be paid for the garden as well as the house.
    Mr. ROYCE: I beg to second this Amendment.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I shall be glad to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: After the word "dwelling-house" ["apply as if the dwelling-house were a holding, and"] to insert the words "including a garden attached thereto."—[Captain Fitzroy.]
    Bill to be read the Third time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

  POST OFFICE (HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN MAIL CONTRACT).
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I beg to move, "That the contract, dated the 11th day of November, 1920, between the Postmaster-General and the London and North-Western Railway Company for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails between Holyhead and Kingstown from the 28th day of November, 1920, be approved."
  If any points be raised, I will reply to them later on.
  Mr. LINDSAY: This contract may not seem of much importance from an English point of view, but to Ireland it is a matter of great importance. I do not find fault with the sea service, which is fairly satisfactory, and the House should realise that the North-Western Railway are giving for £100,000 a year, rather more than what the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company gave over twenty years ago. In 1897, when the old contract came into force, the City of Dublin Steam Packet arranged to run the service in just over three hours for a sum of £98,000 a year, and the London and North-Western Railway Company have now arranged to run it in two and three-quarter hours for £100,000 a year. But my objection to the whole thing is that, although the Post Office has made this contract as regards the sea journey, it has been neglectful, apparently, of the land connections. The railway journey from Euston to Holyhead is considerably longer now than when the old contract was made with the City of Dublin Company, and the connections on the other side of the Irish Channel are much worse. I always hesitate to refer in this House to anything connected with my native town, but

  389
  I must put forward the case of Belfast. It has a population of 400,000 people, but we do not get our London letters before 10 minutes past 11 in the morning, and in order to catch the outward mail via Kingstown letters have to be posted by 3.15, which, roughly speaking, gives a postal day of four hours. If that were unavoidable I would not complain, but for years we in Belfast have been putting to the Post Office various schemes whereby we should have our letters delivered at nine o'clock in the morning, and the posting time be extended to somewhere about five o'clock. However, the postal authorities have invariably treated all our suggestions with scorn, and we submit that if they argue that our views are wrong and their own right, they ought to be prepared to submit them to some tribunal. I suggest to the Postmaster-General now that it is wrong to have fast steamers and slow trains, because it is an utter waste of money, and I want him to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate this general question of the Irish mail.
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): I do not think the hon. Member must enlarge on that topic. The question before the House is the agreement for the conveyance of His Majesty's mail between Holyhead and Kingstown. He has made his point as regards the railway service, but he must not enlarge on it.
  Mr. LINDSAY: The schedule to the contract deals with the arrival of the trains at points of departure on this side and the times of arrival of the steamer, and really the whole thing is so mixed up that it is difficult to dissect it.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It may be, but the agreement deals with the conveyance of mails between Holyhead and Kingstown. The hon. Member has made his point, and I only say that he must not enlarge on that point.
  Mr. LINDSAY: If that be the case I will only ask you to allow me to suggest to the Postmaster-General that he should not oppose the inquiry which I advocate, and will then refer to one or two questions connected with the contract itself. The contract contains a provision that if the mail packets between Kingstown and Holyhead do not run in the day service on Sunday, there should be a reduction of
  390
  some £10,000 per annum. I would suggest to the Postmaster-General that these services are unnecessary. Then it is provided that the service may be run from the inner harbour at Holyhead, instead of from the Admiralty Pier. The distance from the Admiralty Pier to the inner harbour, as nearly as I have been able to ascertain it, is 1,000 yards; and yet, when the service is to be run from the inner harbour instead of from the pier, ten minutes extra is allowed, which seems to be extraordinary for a mail service. Apparently the London and North Western Railway Company, when they get this contract, are going to back their boats into Holyhead, which is a slovenly way of conducting a mail service, but one which the Post Office has sanctioned for a number of years. In the Stranraer service the boats back out of Stranraer and back in at Larne, thus losing about ten minutes on the trip. Then, again, this contract is for twenty years. Of course, I quite realise that the London and North "Western Railway Company could hardly be expected to provide ships for a shorter period, but it appears to me that, considering the advances in aviation that have been made during the last six or seven years, the mails to Ireland will probably be taken by air before 20 years have passed, and then this contract will have to be lapsed, and the service will have to run at a loss, because there is a Clause providing that if the mails are diverted to other routes the contractors will have to submit to arbitration as to what abatement shall be made in the subsidy.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was interested by what the hon. Member has just said about the mail steamers backing in. Was his suggestion that they should go straight in bows on, and then warp round?
  Mr. LINDSAY: Yes.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think that would be a great hardship on the crews, the engineers and everyone else. I have only crossed over by the Stranraer route once, and do not remember the harbour very well, but I know both Holyhead and Kingstown harbours, and warping there would be very difficult in view of the amount of traffic. It would also be extremely hard on the crews, who between trips naturally want to get a little rest, and also to take the oppor-

  391
  tunity of cleaning fires and so forth. Moreover, as they would have to back out and turn, there would not be much in it as regards loss of time. Warping in harbour is really impracticable.
  Mr. LINDSAY: For many years past I have seen boats coming in bow on at the Admiralty Pier, landing mails and passengers, and then turning round.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If they do that, it is a great strain on the crews. However, I do not want to pursue the matter. The hon. Member is probably better informed than I am. With regard to the terms of the contract, as far as I know them, I was particularly interested in the question of what was going to happen to the officers and crews of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. I understand, however, that satisfactory arrangements have been made by the London and North Western Railway Company, and they are practically going to take over the whole of the personnel, so no sailor is going to lose his job, which is very satisfactory. The courtesy shown by everyone and the efficiency is very high indeed. The vessels are of an extraordinarily useful type in war time. They were very useful in the last War, and made very handy transport steamers. But that ought not to blind us to the fact that there is a great future for air transport of mails, and this route is ideal for that purpose, and without a doubt in quite a few years£I think within five years£the commercially most efficient method of carrying the mails, as regards speed and so on, will be by air. I want to ask the Postmaster-General and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin) whether any commercial air companies were invited to tender for the carriage of mails by air either now or in the near future. I am very much afraid the Post Office is not nearly so alive to the importance and practicability of carrying mails by air as other countries are and as they ought to be. The number of mails flown with letters by the mail-carrying aeroplanes in the United States is very great indeed. It is a regular thing between many of the inland towns, and I am afraid our Post Office is lagging behind in this matter and is not putting forward its best efforts in research in this matter as we have a right to expect. This contract provides
  392
  a subsidy of £100,000 a year for 20 years for carrying the mails between these two Governments, and that subsidy would be of extraordinary value to an aircraft company or group of companies who could form a syndicate for the purpose.
  A subsidy which is a moderate one for shipping is a very great subsidy for aircraft, because, for the distance covered and the time, aircraft are infinitely cheaper than water-borne traffic. The advantage commercially in favour of aircraft, either lighter or heavier than air, is getting greater and greater almost hourly as progress is made. It is a tremendous mistake if we have in any way bound ourselves in this contract to carry the mails by water for 20 years. I know in Clause 7 there is a rather complicated paragraph which says the Postmaster-General if he shall deem it expedient in the public interest that any new arrangement shall come into force whereby the quantity of mails or number of officers for the time being required to be conveyed shall be substantially decreased, the contract may be modified and, I believe, even cancelled. There are provisions in Clause 28 for arbitration. Have the legal or business advisers of the Post Office been consulted as to whether an advantageous offer by an aeroplane or seaplane company could be considered in the public interest as a reason for annulling the contract and diverting part of the subsidy to air-borne mails? The Government is giving wholly insufficient encouragement to the commercial development of aviation. The Minister for Air has also the Portfolio as Minister for War, and I feel he is too much engaged in aggressive activities to pay attention to the development of air matters, which I regret profoundly. Has the Post Office considered the possibility of the carriage of mails by air? And the Fame thing applies to passengers and perishable goods. The big lighter than air craft have a lifting capacity of fifty tons, and big aeroplanes lift ten tons. In a few years' time, if we are still bound for twenty years to carry these mails by the Holyhead sea route, we will be the laughing stock of the world.
  Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMAS: I have not very much to say about one company or the other, but I was greatly concerned about the employés

  393
  of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Co. When I heard of the possibility of that company losing the mail contract, I felt that something should be done in the interests of those men, who deserve so well of the country for all they did during the War. I made inquiries and I am glad to say I received a letter from Sir Thomas Williams, the General Manager of the London and North Western Railway Company, which is a credit to that company and a great source of satisfaction to the employés of the City of Dublin Company. I should like to read some extracts from that letter, as it will in future be some kind of record—
  "Relative to the men who are now employed by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company I would like to express the obligations of my directors to you for giving them the opportunity to state their intentions in case the Government accept their tender for the carriage of the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown. The question has already been raised by Mr. Havelock Wilson, M.P., and discussed with him by one of the chief officers of this company, who gave an undertaking that if this company's tender is accepted the London and North Western Company are prepared to take over at Holyhead, and even at Kingstown the men under sixty years of age, and to consider on merit those cases of men over sixty years of age. With regard to the latter it was pointed out that the number must be very small, and that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company have their obligations, particularly in regard to men who have been in their service for many years. … I have much pleasure in giving you on behalf of my directors the same undertaking that was given to Mr. Havelock Wilson, and if there are any other points on which you would like further information I will be very pleased to discuss them with you at any time and place convenient to you."
  I have had the pleasure of discussing various points with Sir Thomas Williams, and I am perfectly satisfied that the London and North Western Railway Co. are going to do everything that one could expect the company to do with those men whom they are taking over. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting the proposal.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON: This is not so simple a matter as might at first sight appear. In aviation I always think that we are falling into the mistake of presuming too much and giving too little, and that people will be discouraged with the whole subject unless we put the facts more fully before them. The whole question of air mails is a diffi-
  394
  cult one, because the aeroplane is not an efficient traveller at night, whereas the ordinary traffic across the sea goes on in the dark, and until we educate people to post their letters in the morning, which we shall never be able to do, then this evening service is as satisfactory a thing as one can get. In the London and Paris air service there is very little advantage. The needs of the community are met by the ordinary traffic. But, provided you do get a night service as well as a day service, there is no doubt that an air service can be useful in getting together letters from main sources and sending them on at once and avoiding a great deal of waste of time. The whole question of air mails is one which concerns the general policy of the Postmaster-General. Are you to look upon the carriage of mails as purely a business proposition, or can you use the money voted for the Post Office indirectly to benefit the nation in other ways? We have been told recently by the military authorities, the chief of the Air Staff especially, that an efficient air force must necessarily depend on efficient commercial aviation. Therefore it is to the national advantage to see that somehow commercial aviation in this country should flourish. At present nothing is being done to encourage it. Though there have been recommendations by advisory committees that there should be subsidies these have not materialised, and in the present state of our finances I do not think they ever will. So commercial aviation looks to the Post Office as one of the few helps that it is ever likely to get.
  With regard to Ireland, I do think that a special appeal ought to be made to the Postmaster-General to do his best to try a service as soon as possible, because the difficulties between the two countries, which are largely centred on ethnological and other causes, owe a great part of their existence to the Irish Sea. If we could do away with that there would be no Irish problem. The better we know each other the less likely we are to quarrel. By increasing the speed of communications we draw the two countries nearer together.
  I notice in this contract that Clause 7 allows the Postmaster-General practically to do what he likes with regard to breaking or changing the mode of transport. It is a most extraordinary Clause and seems to me to redound to the credit

  395
  of the Postmaster-General. I think we ought to have a word from the Postmaster-General that, if possible, he will divert some of the mails along the new route.
  Sir R. THOMAS: The last speaker has inquired whether this is a business proposition. I think this tender is evidence of that fact. The City of Dublin Company put in a tender for £150,000 for ten years, and the London and North Western Railway Company a tender for £100,000 for twenty years. As a business man, that strikes me as a very good business proposition, and the Government have accepted the only possible tender. One hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to the way the London and North Western Railway Company steamers have to navigate the harbour of Holyhead. I happen to be a resident of Holyhead, and know something about the manœuvring of these boats. There is no necessity whatever for the boats to come into the harbour stern foremost. They can come in bow foremost and swing round quite naturally, and then go out bow foremost. The hon. and gallant Member for Anglesey (Sir O. Thomas) has referred to the undertaking given by the London and North Western Railway Company to take on all the employés of the City of Dublin Company. That is satisfactory. As a result of the railway company getting this contract all their repairs to boats will be done at Holyhead, which will mean additional employment. The practice of the City of Dublin Company has been to send ail the boats from Holyhead for repairs. It is therefore obviously to the advantage of Holyhead that the contract should go to the London and North Western Company.
  Mr. WIGNALL: Up to a few hours ago the Labour party had been preparing for a tremendous fight against the confirmation of this contract, simply because we were concerned on behalf of the labour employed by the City of Dublin Company. A letter has been read which gives certain assurances. When I tell you we have been at work from 3.30 to nearly 9.30 to-day, you will realise that the question has not been as simple as it appears. I am glad to say that I can spare the House from the infliction of a speech. I hold in my hand an agreement which we have succeeded
  396
  in concluding with the London and North Western Company, and it covers all the sea-faring men, cooks, and stewards, the labourers at Kingstown and the whole of the men employed at Holyhead. This, I am glad to say, will meet the difficulty with one exception, and that is the case of the men over 60 years of age.
  Sir R. THOMAS: There are only eleven of them.
  Mr. WIGNALL: Only eleven! If you were one of the eleven, you would realise the importance. It is in regard to those eleven men that the main difficulty has arisen, and they are the men in whom we are now most concerned.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not a matter for the City of Dublin Company to find compensation for the men who have served them all these years?
  Mr. WIGNALL: I quite agree, but if the hon. Member were one of the directors of the City of Dublin Company, he might be inclined to say, "We have lost the contract, and have nothing to pay with." It is necessary to face this position. We have got a guarantee that the cases of these eleven men will be considered individually. On the general merits of the case, we have accepted that Clause, and, with the exception of these eleven men, the agreement I hold in my hand covers the whole position with universal satisfaction. The position of the workmen will, as a result of our negotiations, be better in the future as regards both hours of labour and remuneration. Therefore, the Labour party withdraw that opposition.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The hon. Member for the Cromac Division of Belfast (Mr. Lindsay) raised a question as to the speed of the service. That is a matter not for the Post Office, but for the Ministry of Transport, and I am not in a position to make any comment on it. I will however mention that to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. LINDSAY: I was told distinctly it had nothing to do with the Ministry of Transport.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: And I have been assured that it has. With regard to entry into the inner harbour, ten minutes will be saved thereby, and the transfer of the

  397
  mails will be greatly expedited. The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to the question of air mails. I can assure him that this is not being overlooked by the Post Office. Air mails are at present more or less experimental. There are now air mails to Paris, Amsterdam, and Brussels, but the atmosphere is more favourable for them. There is less cloud and fog than on the route from this country to Ireland. In the United States of America, too, they are able to work under more favourable conditions. These distances over land are very much greater than is possible in this part of Europe, and in the case of landings they run much less danger.
  Not only that, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the essence of the Irish mail is that it should go by night. At present, of course, night flying cannot be done. I know it was done during the War under exceptional circumstances, but it cannot be expected to be done now, and in fact it is impossible to be done at the present moment. I have had considerable discussions with those interested in the flying industry, and they admit that, as far as that is concerned—the most important point for the mail service—it is impracticable for the moment, and many of them are also of the opinion that they must depend more on the carriage of goods than on the carriage of mails. Clause 7 has been referred to by various hon. Members. In case in the next 20 years the mail service by air becomes a practical proposition, there is provision made in this Clause for making a corresponding reduction in the amount paid to the London and North Western Railway Company for the fewer mails they carry. I think I have met all the points that have been raised, and I hope the House will ratify this agreement now, as the present contract expires at midnight on Saturday or early on Sunday morning.
  Mr. MOLES: I regret very much the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in respect to the railway time. There is, of course, an enormous advantage in the rapid transport of mails to communities such as my hon. Friends and I represent, and I think it is a reproach to the right hon. Gentleman that he comes down here and asks this House to give its endorsement to a contract which, while upon the one hand it speeds up the sea-borne por-
  398
  tion of the journey to the extent of 15 minutes, more than throws away that advantage in another direction. The right hon. Gentleman has in effect told us that he will not even consider a representation upon it at all, and he says the railway portion of the journey is a matter for the Minister of Transport, but I think he is mistaken and that he has himself a function in the matter. He has a right to make terms with the London and North Western Railway Company in so far as the carriage of the mails is concerned, and he has equal power when he enters into his contract. He does exercise these powers now with the Great Northern Railway Company, who carry the mails in Ireland, so that it will not do to tell the House it is a matter solely for the Minister of Transport. If the right hon. Gentleman makes that suggestion, I am bound to say£although I do not like doing so£that he does not understand the duties that he is entrusted by this House to carry out. I regret to make such an observation to him, but only quite recently he gave me an answer which was the most obvious shuffling. He is aware of the constant representations that have been made from commercial bodies and from chambers of commerce all over Ireland, who have appealed to him again and again and have never got from him other answer than the kind of thing he has given to this House just now. We cannot force the right hon. Gentleman's hands. We would not, of course, desire to defeat a contract of this kind, because that would hang up the thing altogether. All that we can do is to protest against the attitude he has taken up, and I do so as strongly as I can, and I am sure I have the good sense of the House with me.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I rise only to express my cordial agreement with the remarks which fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and I think this contract should not be allowed to pass without making it perfectly clear that everybody in this House recognises the services which have been rendered by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company which carried these mails so efficiently for so many years. I think the efficiency they showed was practically unparalleled in this country, and the greatest courtesy was at all times shown by all the officials from the highest to the lowest. I regret that circumstances should have made it

  399
  necessary to accept the competitive tender, because naturally, this being an Irish company, most of my countrymen would have preferred to see the contract remain in their hands, but if they have found themselves unable to compete with the London and North Western Railway Company in this matter, the fault is entirely due to the Government for the manner in which they treated the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. They lost two of their steamers during the War when they were requisitioned by the Government. The Government did not pay them the compensation, but compelled them to indulge in very costly litigation, and it is the fault of the Government entirely that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company has been placed in the position in which it finds itself to-day. I understand litigation is still going on. That, of course, is no fault of the Postmaster-General, who is in no way responsible. Perhaps if the Secretary to the Treasury could be induced to speak to-night, he could throw some light on the manner in
  400
  which that company has been treated by the Government. We have no alternative left now. A contract has to be made in some form, but I do not think this contract should be allowed to pass without there being expressed from this Bench the most cordial support of the tribute which was paid by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Resolved, "That the contract, dated the 11th day of November, 1920, between the Postmaster-General and the London and North Western Railway Company for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails between Holyhead and Kingstown from the 28th day of November, 1920, be approved."
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Seven minutes before Twelve o'clock.

IRELAND.
  MONSIEUR M. BOURGEOIS (DETENTION).
  MONSIEUR M. BOURGEOIS (DETENTION).
  CREAMERIES (DESTRUCTION).
  CREAMERIES (DESTRUCTION).
  COURT-MARTIAL (MR. D. BUCKLEY).
  COURT-MARTIAL (MR. D. BUCKLEY).
  INSPECTOR-GENERAL, ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (RETIREMENT).
  INSPECTOR-GENERAL, ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (RETIREMENT).
  TAILORING TRADE (EARNINGS).
  TAILORING TRADE (EARNINGS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  STAFF COURSES.
  STAFF COURSES.
  EX-SOLDIER CLERKS, WAR OFFICE (PENSIONS).
  EX-SOLDIER CLERKS, WAR OFFICE (PENSIONS).
  SOLDIERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  SOLDIERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  MILITARY SERVICE ACTS (FOREIGN SUBJECTS).
  MILITARY SERVICE ACTS (FOREIGN SUBJECTS).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  CLUB SITE, NORTH TIDWORTH.
  CLUB SITE, NORTH TIDWORTH.
  MUNICIPAL SANITARY APPOINTMENTS.
  MUNICIPAL SANITARY APPOINTMENTS.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PRE-WAR ARMY PENSIONERS.
  PRE-WAR ARMY PENSIONERS.
  SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE (RISE IN PRICES).
  SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE (RISE IN PRICES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  APPLES.
  APPLES.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  BUTTER.
  BUTTER.
  LEASE, BUCKINGHAM PALACE ROAD.
  LEASE, BUCKINGHAM PALACE ROAD.
ALLOTMENTS.
  ST. NEOTS.
  ST. NEOTS.
  ARABLE AND PASTURE LAND, GREAT BRITAIN.
  ARABLE AND PASTURE LAND, GREAT BRITAIN.
  KENSINGTON GARDENS.
  KENSINGTON GARDENS.
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  PENSIONS COMMUTATION.
  PENSIONS COMMUTATION.
PEACE TREATIES.
  INDUSTRIAL MATERIAL (DESTRUCTION).
  INDUSTRIAL MATERIAL (DESTRUCTION).
  COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES.
  COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES.
GOVERNMENT STAFFS.
  WAR WIDOWS.
  WAR WIDOWS.
  BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, LONDON.
  BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, LONDON.
  DEUTSCHE BANK, LONDON AGENCY.
  DEUTSCHE BANK, LONDON AGENCY.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY RATES.
  RAILWAY RATES.
  RAILWAY CLAIMS (LOSS ON WORKING).
  RAILWAY CLAIMS (LOSS ON WORKING).
  COAL WORKINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
  COAL WORKINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
HOUSING.
  TIMBER IMPORTED FROM RUSSIA.
  TIMBER IMPORTED FROM RUSSIA.
  BOUNDARY EXTENSION SCHEMES.
  BOUNDARY EXTENSION SCHEMES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GERMAN MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS AND CLOCKS.
  GERMAN MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS AND CLOCKS.
  AMERICAN SHIPPING, FAR EAST.
  AMERICAN SHIPPING, FAR EAST.
  SILK GOODS IMPORTED.
  SILK GOODS IMPORTED.
  IMPORTS (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  IMPORTS (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  GLASS AND GLASSWARE IMPORTED.
  GLASS AND GLASSWARE IMPORTED.
  WOMEN POLICE, SCOTLAND.
  WOMEN POLICE, SCOTLAND.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS) BILL.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS) BILL.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  FILMS (EXAMINATION BY POLICE).
  FILMS (EXAMINATION BY POLICE).
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA (LABOUR).
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA (LABOUR).
  SCHOOL HOLIDAYS (HOPPICKING).
  SCHOOL HOLIDAYS (HOPPICKING).
  LONDON UNIVERSITY (GOVERNMENT OFFER).
  LONDON UNIVERSITY (GOVERNMENT OFFER).
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord ABINGER—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD):My Lords, after nearly thirty years of public life I cannot recall an occasion which has afforded me more anxiety than the task which. I have undertaken to-day. I should be blind indeed if I ignored the atmosphere of emotion and indignation in which all of us at this moment must approach the consideration of this question; and it will be necessary for us later to ask ourselves, as we frequently had to ask ourselves during the late war, the difficult question, What is the true perspective which must be assigned to the appalling crimes to which the attention of the country was directed yesterday?
It has occurred to me that in the first place, before I attempt to address myself to the arguments which deservedly require the consideration of the House, I might perhaps render a useful service by attempting to make it plain what are the actual proposals contained in the Bill now before the House. I have prepared a Memorandum which I hope may be more intelligible than the actual terms of the Bill to those of your Lordships who are not accustomed to examine Bills, and which, reported in the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, may give some assistance to those of your Lordships who follow me in this debate or propose to take part in the Committee stage.
The proposals of the Bill can be classified under three heads—legislature, executive, and finance. I will deal in the first place with the legislative proposals. A Parliament is set up for Southern Ireland, consisting of His Majesty and the House of Commons of Southern Ireland; and a second Parliament is set up for Northern Ireland, consisting of His Majesty and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland under the proposals of the Bill means the six counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry,
422
and Tyrone, together with the boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry; Southern Ireland means the rest of Ireland. Each Parliament is empowered to make laws for the order and good government of its area in all matters relating exclusively to that area, except certain matters which are expressly excepted from its jurisdiction. These excluded matters are enumerated under thirteen heads in Clause 5 of the Bill. They are practically identical with the matters that were excluded from the Parliament of all Ireland under the Act of 1914, save that submarine cables, wireless telegraphs, aerial navigation, and negotiable instruments appear for the first time in the present Bill.
The matters that are excluded fall into two main groups. The first group comprises the Crown, the making of peace or war, combatant forces, treaties and foreign relations; and as regards these it may be noted that the Irish Convention acquiesced in the exclusion of the Crown and the making of war and peace, qualified the exclusion of the combatant forces by a suggestion that the Irish Government should arrange with the Imperial authorities for a local defence force to be raised and paid for by the Irish Government, and qualified the exclusion of treaties and foreign relations by recommending, provisionally, that Ireland should have power similar to the Dominions in respect of commercial treaties. In the second group the main exclusion is trade with any place out of the part of Ireland within their jurisdiction. This really turns upon the exclusion of the power to impose duties of Customs and Excise. I shall have more to say upon this point when I approach some alternative proposals which will require discussion. The other exclusions in this group—navigation, merchant shipping, light-houses, buoys and beacons, quarantine, coinage, legal tender, standard of weights and measures, trade marks, designs, merchandise marks, copyright or patent rights—are matters as regards which a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom, and in the case of merchant shipping throughout the Empire, is obviously of the highest moment for national and Imperial purposes.
In addition to the above exclusions certain taxes are excluded from the powers of the Irish Parliaments. Your Lordships will find this in Clause 21, and I will say a word about that when I deal with the financial proposals of the Bill. Certain other matters are reserved, not permanently

423
but temporarily. Instances of such temporary exclusions are the postal service, the Post Office Savings Bank, trustee savings banks, designs for stamps, and the Public Record Office of Ireland. These are reserved until the date of Irish union, and are then to pass to the United Irish Parliaments. But the two Parliaments are given power under Clause 10 to pass identical Acts to transfer these matters to the Council of Ireland prior to union or to continue the reservation after union. The justification—the complete justification—of this reservation is that it would be impracticable to divide these matters between Southern and Northern Ireland. If I may remind your Lordships who were concerned with the proposals of 1914, the postal services and Post Office Savings Banks were reserved under that Act until the Irish Parliament had passed a resolution to take them over.
Land Purchase is also reserved, as it was reserved under the Act of 1914, for the evident reason that the completion of land purchase is an Imperial obligation and can only be effected by money raised on the Imperial credit. Your Lordships will have observed that proposals for the completion of Land Purchase will shortly be laid before the House of Commons and in due course will make their way to this House. The two Irish Police Forces—the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police—are reserved until such date as His Majesty in Council may determine, not being later than three years after the appointed day, and upon that date the police forces are transferred to the two Parliaments. Under the Act of 1914 your Lordships may recall that the Constabulary was reserved for a period of six years.
No one will contend that the establishment of separate Parliaments for Southern and Northern Ireland is an ideal arrangement. It is dictated by the condition of the present situation which is believed to be fundamental. If smooth administration and economy were alone to be considered it would be infinitely preferable that there should be a single Parliament and a single Executive for the whole of Ireland. This Bill, therefore, while it complies with the conditions which I have assumed to be fundamental, recognises the possibility of a United Ireland, and supplies a simple and effective means by which union can be brought about by the two Parliaments.
With this object in view—I shall have
424
something more argumentative, as is necessary, to say upon this point later—the Bill sets up a Council of Ireland, which is to consist of forty-one members, twenty appointed by each House of Commons, and a President appointed by His Majesty. Of the twenty representatives of each House of Commons ten must be members of the appointing House, but the remainder may, if the House thinks fit, be non-members. These provisions are to be found in Clause 2. The reason for the establishment of the Council cannot be better expressed than in the terms which are used in the Bill itself—
"With a view to the eventual establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland, and to bringing about harmonious action between the Parliaments and Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to the promotion of mutual intercourse and uniformity in relation to matters affecting the whole of Ireland, and to providing for the administration of services which the two Parliaments mutually agree should be administered uniformly throughout the whole of Ireland, or which by virtue of this Act are to be so administered, there shall be constituted the Council of Ireland."
Under the provisions of Clause 11 subsection (3) the Council has to consider any questions which may appear in any way to bear on the welfare of both parts of Ireland, and in particular it is to consider what Irish services should, in the common interest, be administered by a body having jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland, and it has to make recommendations to the two Parliaments for the transfer of such services to the Council. Under the terms of Clause 11 subsection (1) the two Parliaments are authorised to delegate to the Council, by identical Acts, any of their powers.
The first duty of the Council is to frame a scheme for the establishment of Second Chambers to the two Parliaments, and to submit a scheme to the two Houses of Commons for their consideration. Much will inevitably be said in the course of these debates on the subject of the provisions for the Second Chambers. Let me indicate at this stage, briefly, that the main object of the Second Chambers must be the protection of minorities in the respective parts of Ireland. It is very difficult to see how adequate protection can be afforded unless by Second Chambers constituted on very special lines. The difficulties are almost insuperable—I believe them to be insuperable, and the Government at least has become convinced that they are insuperable

425
—of imposing a Second Chamber on either of these Parliaments from without., but having regard to the fact that the majority in Southern Ireland is closely connected by religion and sentiment with the minority in Northern Ireland and vice versa, it might, one would hope, be anticipated that the representatives of the two Parliaments, meeting together in the Council, may devise a scheme of Second Chambers that the two Parliaments, inspired by an interest which after all is mutual, would adopt, which would secure reciprocal protection for the respective minorities. Should the two Parliaments feel the wisdom of delegating some of their powers and services to the Council, this would be the first step towards union which might be, and it is hoped would be, followed by greater delegation and ultimately by the recognition of the great advantage of a United Parliament. That contingency is expressly pro vided for in the Bill, which authorises the two Parliaments to establish, by identical Acts, a Parliament for the whole of Ireland in lieu of the Council.
In addition to these advisory functions, which it is freely conceded are functions only to be contingently exercised, legislative and administrative powers with regard to railways and fisheries are vested in the Council in the beginning, with a view to the uniform administration throughout Ireland of the public services in connection therewith. The Council is also vested with legislative functions as regards Private Bills affecting all interests, both in Southern and Northern Ireland. Those who are aware of the small progress, which proposals in relation to private legislation have made in the cases of Scotland and Ireland up to the present day will not be disposed to disparage the importance of these functions.
It is necessary now that I should address myself to the contingency of either part of Ireland not accepting this Bill. This contingency is provided for in Clause 70, which was inserted on Report in the House of Commons on November 8. The clause provides, in effect, that if the number of persons validly returned to the House of Commons in Southern Island or Northern Ireland at the first Election is less than one half the total number, or if less than one-half the total number take the Oath as such members within fourteen days after the date of the first meeting, then His 'Majesty in Council may provide for
426
the dissolution of the Parliament concerned and for the postponement of the summoning of a new Parliament, and may also provide for the government of that part of Ireland being carried on by the Lord Lieutenant with the assistance of a Committee of Irish Privy Councillors appointed by His Majesty, whilst the powers of the Parliament are to be exercised by a Legislative Assembly comprising the members of this Committee and such other members as His Majesty may appoint. In plain words, this is a substitution of Crown Colony Government for the Representative Government proposed by the Bill. A question which has been asked, and which will continue to be asked, is whether either part of Ireland will refuse to work the Bill, and the test of acceptance of the Bill which this clause applies is that the population either does or does not elect to their House of Commons an adequate number of members to serve in the Constitutional Parliament of which His Majesty is the head. If such a number are validly elected and are willing to take the oath of allegiance as members, the required condition is satisfied. At present seventy of the Irish Members are pledged to an Irish Republic and nothing else, and obviously, unless the views of the electors have changed before the first election to the separate House of Commons, the condition will not be satisfied and Crown Colony government will supervene. In the meantime this Bill, with its offer of a representative Parliament and responsible government, presents an alternative to the electorate. The suspension of constitutional government under the clause is not necessarily permanent. It will be open to His Majesty at any time, by Order in Council, to summon afresh the Parliament of that part of Ireland concerned, if and when it appears t hat there is reasonable prospect that the Parliament would be accepted.
I will now say a word as to the representation in the United Kingdom House of Commons and the Houses of Commons of Ireland. Under the Bill, Ireland's representation in the United Kingdom House of Commons is to be continued, but the numbers are to be reduced from 105 to 46. That provision is contained in Clause 18. In the Bill, as introduced, the number was 42, but an Amendment was carried in the House of Commons, and accepted by the Government, giving representation to the Universities. Forty-two

427
borough and county Members are distributed among existing Parliamentary constituencies as nearly as may be according to population. Under the Act of 1914 also, as the House will recollect, the number was 42, and the constituencies in the Act of 1914 were substantially the same as the constituencies in the present Bill, with such changes only as are necessitated by the division of Ireland into two parts and by the alterations made by the Irish Redistribution of Seats Act. On a strict population basis Ireland's representation in the United Kingdom House of Commons would be 69, and the number of 46 does not pretend to have been determined upon any very logical principle. Any in and out arrangement, as the experience of those who have attempted to frame home Rule Bills shows, is impossible, and in order to compensate for the fact that the interests of Irish Members in matters dealt with by the House of Commons cannot under the new arrangements be as wide as those of other Members of the House, it has been thought right not to give Ireland full representation upon a basis of population.
The House of Commons of Southern Ireland is to consist of 128 members, of whom four are to be returned by Dublin University and four by the National University, leaving 120 county and borough Members. The House of Commons of Northern Ireland is to consist of 52 members, of whom four are to be returned by the Queen's University of Belfast, leaving 48 borough and county Members. The constituencies are the same in the case of the United Kingdom House of Commons and the Irish Houses of Commons, but four times as many members are to be returned to the Irish Houses as are to be returned to the United Kingdom House. The members of the Irish Houses are to be elected on the principle of proportional representation, and from this circumstance arises the necessity of large constituencies. Excluding the University constituencies, there will be an average of: one Member for every 26,052 of the population of Southern Ireland, and one Member for every 26,164 of the population of Northern Ireland. The principle of proportional representation needs, I think, no recommendation to this House, and its application to Ireland was expressly recommended by the Irish Convention.
I will add a word or two about the Executive. Following the precedent of
428
all previous Home Rule Bills the Executive under the present Bill is to be an Executive under the Crown, consisting of Privy Councillors who are members of and responsible to the local Parliament. The powers of the Executive extend over the same field as the powers of Parliament, and no further. Under the present Bill, of course, there are to be two Executives corresponding to the two Parliaments. The constitutional powers of the Executive will be found in Clause 9 of the Bill.
I come now to the date at which the Bill is intended to come into operation. It comes into operation naturally upon the appointed day. Normally the appointed day is to be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the Bill passes. That is the provision of Clause 71. If the Bill, therefore, passes in December of 1920, it will come into operation normally on August 2, 1921, but power is reserved to His Majesty to accelerate or postpone the coming into operation of the Act by seven months either way. For instance, in the event mentioned January 2, 1921, would be the earliest day, and March 2, 1922, would be the latest day.
I pass on to the financial provisions of the Bill. The limitations under which such matters are discussed in this House are familiar to all of us, and it would evidently be wrong that I should attempt a general explanation of its provisions and effect without making your Lordships as clearly aware as it is in my power to do of the effect and scope of the financial provisions of the Bill. It provides that each of the Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland shall have power to impose and collect taxes within their respective jurisdiction, other than Customs and Excise duties on articles manufactured and produced, Excess Profits Duty, Corporation Tax, Income Tax, and Super-Tax. The taxes so excepted will continue to be levied and collected by the United Kingdom, and the proceeds of those taxes, after deduction of the Imperial contribution—to which I will refer in a moment—and the cost of reserved services, will be paid into the respective Exchequers of Southern and Northern Ireland, and will be appropriated in due course to the public service of these Governments. The Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland will have power to impose certain taxes which are transferred to them—namely, Death Duties, Stamp Duties, Licences and

429
Entertainments Tax, and certain miscellaneous items, amounting altogether to £3,500,000. In addition, the local Parliaments will have power to impose taxes not substantially the same in character as the taxes which are reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Special powers have been granted to enable the local Parliaments to vary the rate of Income Tax and Super-Tax. They are entitled out of any surplus funds in their possession to grant rebates to Income Tax-payers who are both resident and domiciled in Ireland, or, on the other hand, they may charge a surtax in addition to Income Tax on such persons. The object of these provisions is to enable a variation to be made in the Income Tax and Super-Tax without disturbing the central collection of the Imperial Income Tax and Super-Tax. The central collection is of extreme importance both to the United Kingdom and to the Irish Parliaments, as any breaking up of the Imperial Income Tax and the granting of concurrent powers to the local Parliaments world not only cause the tax to be less fruitful but would lead very probably to a demand, which would not be assented to, for the abolition of the deduction of Income Tax at the source.
In what I have said hitherto with regard to taxation, I have dealt with its future machinery rather than its results. I will now attempt to show, for illustrative purposes upon the Estimates of 1920–21, what the effect will be upon the financial position of the United Kingdom on the one hand and of the two Irish Parliaments on the other. I should explain to your Lordships that I am dealing with the Estimates of 1920–21 without taking into consideration the revenue from the Excess Profits Duty, which is a special war tax, and I exclude from the other side of the accounts the special expenditure remaining over from the war, such as the bread subsidy. What alone is useful is to obtain a comparison which eliminates as far as possible those consequences of the war in the field of taxation which it is hoped may be more or less temporary.
Upon this basis the estimated revenue will be £48,500,000, while the expenditure, including about £1,750,000 for future services the expenditure upon which has not yet matured, will amount to £26,250,000. Included in the £26,250,000 is the cost of the present Irish services and of the reserved
430
services, so that the balance of £22,250,000 is a net amount which, if this Bill did not conic into operation, would be contributed by Ireland towards the Imperial Exchequer of the United Kingdom. I do not think your Lordships will doubt that there should be some contribution made by the Irish Parliaments to the Imperial Exchequer. The principle was admitted by the Irish Convention and in subsequent debates in the House of Commons. Instead of fixing the present rate of contribution—that rate which, as I have said, would be paid if this Bill did not become effective, the £22,250,000—the Bill proceeds upon the basis that for the first two years there shall be an Imperial contribution of £18,000,000, but provision is made that this contribution may be challenged by either of the Irish Parliaments on the ground that it does not represent the capacities of the Parliaments to pay. Should such a challenge be made, the actual amount of the contribution for the two years will be settled by the Joint Exchequer Board. After the end of two years the Bill contemplates that the Joint Exchequer Board should take into account the capacity to pay and should fix the contribution for a period of five years, after which time it can be again revised.
It will be seen—the excess of revenue over expenditure being estimated at £22,250,000—that when the Imperial contribution is fixed in the way I have described at £18,000,000, there is a margin of £4,250,000 to which the Irish Parliaments will be entitled. But; that is not the only margin which will be available for them. As I explained in dealing with the amount of expenditure, there is a sum of £1,750,000 for services which have not yet matured. The margin is increased, therefore, to £6,000,000. Nor is this all upon the financial side. It is intended to make a free grant to Ireland of the Irish Land Annuities, amounting at this time to about £3,250,000 and rising to something over £3,500,000 as the existing land sales are completed. The full margin, therefore, which will be available for the Irish Parliaments over and above all existing Irish expenditure is not less than £9,250,000 after providing for the Imperial contribution. This sum is divided between the two Parliaments. Southern Ireland receives a total surplus of £7,000,000 and Northern Ireland a total surplus of £2,250,000. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the Imperial contribution has been fixed at a moderate figure well within the capacity of Ireland

431
to pay, and the results of this moderation and of the generous gifts of the Irish Land Annuities are very substantial margins which will enable the Irish Parliaments to be free from anxiety, at least in the earlier years of operation. Such are the proposals of the Bill both in relation to its general clauses and in relation to those clauses which deal more especially with the subject of finance. Having, however tediously, I hope without avoidable obscurity, indicated the general nature of these proposals, I venture to ask that they shall receive a degree of consideration in this House which is not biassed by comments that have been made elsewhere upon the Bill.
What is it that is actually conceded to Ireland? Here, with the greatest respect, I address myself more particularly to those sponsors and supporters of the Act of 1914 of whom we are so fortunate as to have many influential representatives in this House. This Bill gives to the Irish people—gives to the Northern Parliament and to the Southern Parliament—powers for dealing with their own education, their own agriculture, their own land, their own labour, their own poor law, their own local government, their health, their railways, their liquor legislation, their legal arrangements, their old-age pensions, and the problems that relate to unemployment and health insurance. We offer under the terms of this Bill full powers in relation to those matters to the North of Ireland; we offer the same powers to the South.
We have recognised plainly—and frankly recognise—the special case of Ulster. The case of Ulster is the obstacle upon which, more than upon any other single cause, previous proposals have broken and failed. It is well within the recollection of this House that after the 1914 Bill had pursued its tempestuous and controversial course a special Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill, 1914, was introduced into this House, supported by the authors and parents of the 1914 Bill—a proposal which had no object except to recognise the special and exceptional circumstances in which the community of the district in Northern Ireland found itself. In the last few years the matter has developed even further. Nothing would induce me, if I could avoid it—and I can avoid it—to say one provocative word I in this anxious and fate-charged moment in regard to the stormy
432
and bitter controversies which are still alive in the memories of every one of us. But I am bound in justification of these proposals, and every member of this House is bound by the responsibility of the vote which he will give upon this Bill, to take note of certain events which have occurred since the proposals of 1914, or the Act of 1914, last engaged the attention of this House.
In the first place, while Mr. Asquith was still Prime Minister, and while Lord Grey and Lord Crewe were still his colleagues, he declared in clear and eloquent language that no proposals to coerce the population of Ulster could be adopted or carried out by the Government of which he was the head. The present Prime Minister, as is well known, is equally bound to the same view, and it is a view which has always commanded the support of an overwhelming majority in this House. It is a view which has been founded upon indisputable historic fact, upon differences which are as deep as the very differences between the population of Southern Ireland and ourselves—the very differences upon which the whole claim for self-government is founded by the South of Ireland.
When once you accept, as this House has so often accepted, the view that the case of Ulster is a case of a population overwhelmingly Protestant, in its main attributes resembling far more closely the population of Scotland than the population of the South of Ireland—when once that recognition is clearly and candidly made the framers of this or of any other Bill are confronted, in relation to Ulster, with two alternatives and with two alternatives only. They may either leave Ulster in its present position—that is to say, they may give Ulster no Parliament of its own, and allow the Ulster representatives as heretofore to come to the House of Commons in London—or they may adopt the course, which is adopted in this Bill, of giving a separate Parliament to Ulster, possessing functions comparable to those assigned to the Parliament in the South. No one, I suppose, would dispute that, inasmuch as this is a concession which is almost universely conceded to be necessarily due to the static elements in the situation to which I have referred, and inasmuch as it is a modification which is made in favour of Ulster, the opinion of the Ulster representatives themselves upon this point must carry an overwhelming and, it may be, even a decisive weight.

433
We shall he told that eight months ago, or six months ago (I do not recall the precise period) the representatives of Ulster plainly expressed their preference for remaining as heretofore under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament, and that eight months ago representatives of Ulster made it plain that, if, it was left to them, of the two, and the only two, alternatives they would prefer to remain in their present constitutional position. As I read what is said and what is written by the leaders of the Ulster Party I have no doubt at all that they have profoundly changed the view which they then expressed. If it is said that a community should not change its views on matters of principle which are fundamental in the short period of six or eight months, I venture to reply that we live in months which are crowded with great events, and that no man and no community in the days in which we live can be charged with inconsistency if opinion in that time has undergone modification.
Let me make plain to you what are the opinions upon this point of those who are entitled, by universal agreement, to speak on behalf of the population of Ulster. In the course of the Third Leading debate in the House of Commons the leader of the Ulster party, Sir Edward Carson, said (it is in HANSARD, Vol. 131, No. 137, col. 1441)—
"Where will you get a better method of self-determination than this? Do you think it would be a better self-determination to say to the Irish people, 'You go by the majority and set up something that the people of the North of Ireland loathe and detest, and then, if they do not accept it, go and shoot them down. Is that self-determination? No, Sir, this Bill sets up a procedure for a union and unity of the whole of Ireland, but it will be a real unity, and not a sham unity. In my belief no other scheme so statesmanlike, or so near to self-determination, which is so loosely defined, has ever yet been brought before this Parliament."
That was a statement made by Sir Edward Carson in the course of the debate. Since that speech was made I have received a letter, entirely unsolicited by myself, from Sir Edward Carson which I think it worth while to read to the House. It is in these terms—
"My dear Lord Chancellor,—With reference to the Government of Ireland Bill, which will be before the House of Lords next week, I observe that it is frequently stated that r o one in Ireland wants the Bill passed into law. May I say with the full consent of all my colleagues from Ulster that this is a fallacy. It is quite true that we are
434
all of opinion that to retain the Union is the soundest policy, but we recognise that under the existing circumstances, and especially having regard to the fact that the Act of 1914 is upon the Statute Book, it is not possible to secure that, provision as it at present stands. Ulster wants peace, and above all things to be removed from the arena of party politics in the Imperial Parliament. We have agreed therefore, and have made up our minds, that in the interests of Ireland, Great Britain, and the Empire the bust awl only solution of the question is to accept the present Bill and endeavour to work it loyally."
It is right that I should make plain to you, inasmuch as we are repeatedly told that nobody in Ireland wants this Bill, that the arrangements for establishing and working their Parliament and all the ancillary institutions which are involved in the establishment of that Parliament have reached a high degree of progress in Ulster at the present moment. There is at least one part of Ireland, homogeneous, commercially extremely important, very experienced in business affairs, which is prepared the moment this Bill becomes operative to show the whole world that Irishmen are capable of conducting their own affairs and that the powers and facilities received under this Bill are neither trivial nor illusory.
The attitude of Ulster is very intelligible. Think of the nightmare in which they have lived in the last fourteen years. Is it very unintelligible that they should be prepared to make an attempt with a proposal which at least gives them finality, that they should be prepared to show that the qualities of self-government are possessed by those who inhabit that part of the Empire.
I pass front the case of Ulster to make some observations upon the powers we have given to the Central Council. I most boldly say that, intentionally or unintentionally, the greatest possible injustice has been done to the proposals which we made in relation to the Council. You may, if you choose, make alternative or larger proposals upon any of the main topics of the Bill, but do not ignore the importance of that which gives you for the first time a germinal principle out of which the whole union may grow. We have assigned immediately to the Council important functions in relation to a Second Chamber, to private business and to railways, and there is nothing that is not in the power of the Council at any moment it chooses, within a week, to propose with the object of establishing a closer union.

435
When we come to pass criticism upon this Bill and the points to which its clauses refer, let us at least not ignore that for the first time we enable ourselves to show to the whole world by irrefutable testimony that the Irish question is an Irish question alone, and it is in the power of Irishmen to reach a complete solution to-morrow. Is that no gain on the position which in the face of the civilised world we have occupied until this moment? None of your Lordships is so callous as to what passes in other parts of the world as not to know that one of the principal causes of the dislike and distrust which are felt towards these Islands in those parts of the world in which they are felt is, by some obscure and, as I think, wholly indefensible feeling, that we the people of these Islands are wantonly, as Englishmen, denying to Irishmen that to which Irishmen are entitled. Nothing more monstrously unfair to the people of England, Scotland, and Wales was ever conceived. There has not been a moment now for some years in which, as soon as Irishmen reached agreement, Englishmen were not prepared to give them not only what was in this Bill but more than was in this Bill. Here, within the paper of this Bill, we make it plain to the whole world that we have set up an authority which consists of Irishmen, and Irishmen alone, which if they can bridge over—and with discussion I hope they will succeed in bridging over—their controversies, may procure for them a degree of self-government which has exceeded what has been put forward by any great Irish leader or Nationalist until the claim for a separate Republic was made.
I am most deeply concerned that I should not evade any question that may properly be put to me by those who honestly entertain grave doubts as to the propriety and safety of these proposals. It is obvious at once that I shall be asked two questions which confront us. I shall be asked what is to happen supposing that the Sinn Fein representatives in Ireland decline to take any part in the election of the Southern Parliament. Suppose, for instance, the Bill becomes law and the Sinn Feiners either refuse to take part in elections or, if they take part, adopt the course which they have adopted in relation to the present House of Commons and refuse to present themselves and take the Oath. In the first instance, it may happen. I do not embark on prophecy; the future is too
436
uncertain. Supposing it does happen they will be governed, until they see that they have a better alternative, as a Crown Colony. That is the answer to the first question. And side by side with the knowledge that because of their own refusal to embrace the power which is being exercised at their very door by Ulster, side by side with the men who at the moment dominate that situation and procure that result, there will be dozens and hundreds and thousands of Irishmen whose influence, as I believe, will make itself increasingly felt in the sense of showing that it is the acme of madness to prefer to be governed as a Crown Colony rather than take the powers which, at their very door, are being exercised by Ulster, and the golden bridge which is afforded to them by the existence of this opportunity.
Another school of questioners will ask me this Supposing that the Sinn Feiners, or the majority in Ireland, fraudulently affect to become members of the Parliament which is conceived by this Bill. Supposing, in other words, that they are elected, and that thereupon they come and take the Oath, and having taken the Oath and having been elected they proceed to declare a Republic, or to violate the Oath that they have taken. That is a formidable question, and it requires to be faced. I say in the first place, for what it is worth—and other noble Lords must form their own opinions—that as I have attempted to understand the Sinn Fein Party I do not believe that, with all their mental and moral idiosyncracies, this is a course which they would in fact adopt; and I specially ask your Lordships to notice, although it is quite obvious, that had seventy or eighty Sinn Fein Members of Parliament been prepared to take the Oath which would qualify them to take part in the debates in the House of Commons in the course of the last two years they could have played a stormy and influential part. They were not prepared to take the Oath and they did not take the Oath, and whatever their faults may be—as to this I can only express my own opinion with diffidence, because confidence would be rash—I do not believe they would adopt that course.
But I may be asked, and it is right that I should face the question, If they did adopt this course—I may be told that we cannot gamble with contingencies of this kind—and if they followed courses which are formidable and dangerous to the fate of

437
these Isles and of this Empire, what would you do then? My Lords, I answer that question very plainly in tin evident crisis and danger in which we live, to-day, and I say that if they did that the existence of that Irish Parliament would be brought to an end by any means that might be appropriate and necessary. It might involve, conceivably, the conquest of the South of Ireland. Let us face, when we are examining this question, the straight and evident conclusion that al1 these things are a matter of alternative. We are not offered the alternative of making these experiments, if you choose I o call them so, and of dealing with a peaceful and contented Ireland at our doors. We are confronted with the alternative of having to some extent cleared our conscience and brought ourselves into relation with the spirit of the day, and the alternative of going on dealing with Ireland in its present condition by our present means.
I am of opinion—and I hope that your Lordships will give deep consideration to the specific proposals of this Bill before rejecting them—that this is incomparably the most promising measure which has ever been introduced upon the subject of Home Rule. I ant sire that this Bill is the only Bill that has yet been brought forward which affords the slightest prospect that yon may use those powerful motive springs of a mutual interest to bring together the discords of the North and of the South. I am not blind to the difficulties under which I recommend the Second Reading of this Bill to-day. It is opposed here on many different grounds and by many different members of the House. I have thought it worth my while to make sonic analysis of the opposition with which the Bill in this House is menaced, and I have made an honest. attempt, as far as my ability enables me to do so, to try and examine all the grounds which lie behind each of the specific heads of opposition in order to react a conclusion upon a point which is at once essential and fundamental—namely, whether these various oppositions are consistent with one another.
The first Motion for rejection is in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven. No one is more entitled than the noble Earl to be listened to with deep respect in this House upon this subject. He is a veteran, if he will allow me to say so, in this controversy, and he has taken views
438
which, although not in the main the views of this Bill, are in spirit comparable to the views adopted in this Bill, at a moment when their advocacy was very unpopular both in this Home and elsewhere. The noble Earl invites your Lordships in substance, though not in terms, to reject this Bill. His Motion is equivalent to a Motion "that it be read this clay six months." I am astonished that of all others the noble Earl should have taken that course. He wrote a number of letters to The Times when the Bill was in its early stages, and when indeed it had advanced to a much later stage. On January 1, 1920, when the noble Earl had had plenty of opportunity of acquainting himself with the provisions of the Bill, he wrote a letter which began—
"It may seem strange, but in view of past history it is not offensive to congratulate the Government upon its honesty."
My Lords, one becomes used to these ambiguous compliments, but that is not the passage which I am searching for. The noble Earl says—
"So I summed up my creed on the Irish Convention, and I hold to it still. I think Federalism will be the resultant of the scheme, and as I love simplicity I could wish that it had been based directly upon that conception, but I, at any rate, have no hesitation in saying that I feel bound in duty to Ireland to give most careful, honest, and self-sacrificing consideration to the proposals in the Government's Bill when it comes before us."
He also said, and this is rather important in relation to the Council—
"The Council, whether it be looked upon as a connecting link, a sort, of statutory convention, or a kind of conciliation board, is too weak. It is entrusted with private Bill legislation, and that will give it some control over some matters originating in one part of Ireland but affecting the whole."
And the noble Earl criticised the Council upon one ground only—that the powers conceded to it are too limited.
By March 27 the noble Earl had had further time to study the Bill, and he then wrote as follows to The Times—
"The Southern Unionists—"
I ask Lord Midleton's attention to this—
"protest against the duality of the Government Bill as being partisan. Whatever the Bill means, it does not mean partition. In a quasi-Federal scheme the creation of one, two, four, or a dozen Legislatures does not impair the national integrity of Ireland. The Northern Unionists accept the Bill in its main provisions. Unionism in general is opposed to any prescriptions for Ireland so long as the terrible disease which is

439
killing her continues. Amid all this welter of opinions, objections, denouncements, the Government Bill stands out as a practical attempt to deal with the situation subject to two restrictiont."
Then the noble Earl stated the two restrictions, with which everyone in the Government will be in complete agreement. I do not know whether or not the noble Earl is responsible, but the letter is headed, "The Irish Bill: Some Questions for its Opponents." So the noble Earl, who apparently to-day is wishful in effect to destroy the Bill, was at that moment clearly of opinion that the Bill stood as practically a promising attempt. But by August the enthusiasm of the noble Earl was growing, and in a letter which he wrote to The Times of August 30 he said—
"If these assumptions are correct, the path to a possible settlement is open, and simple to follow. The only danger lies in its simplicity. Why clamour to scrap the Government Bill?"
That was the view of the noble Earl in August, 1920. He has written later letters, which I have before me, but it is evident that at that time, having had an opportunity of judging the meaning and effect of the Bill, that was his opinion, and nothing has possibly happened that ought to have altered his maturely formed opinion except that the House of Commons in Committee has not extended the powers given by the Bill in the direction which recommends itself to the noble Earl. There is a Committee stage in this House. If the noble Earl was in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons and asked his opponents "Why scrap the Government's Bill?" at that period of the Second Reading in the House of Commons, why does the noble Earl invite us here and now to repudiate all our functions as a body that equally can improve the Bill?
When I confine my attention to the way in which the noble Earl's Motion is conveyed I find that it is an explanatory Motion aid founded upon the allegation that this Bill does not command the support of any majority in Ireland. I must ask the noble Earl this very plain question. Is he really under the delusion that his proposals, which at this moment he thinks ought to be carried into law, receive the support of a majority in Ireland? If he takes the view that his proposals ought to be carried into effect by the Government here and now, and if he admits, as a candid controversialist he will admit,
440
that his proposals do not command the support of a majority in Ireland, what is the relevancy of inviting this House to reject the Government's proposals in a reasoned Amendment on the one ground that is a blemish to which his own proposals are equally exposed? I cannot think that, however much sympathy your Lordships may have with the noble Earl's history in this matter and the independence he has shown, he will be able to establish, or that your Lordships will be able to descry, any consistency in the advice he gave when the Bill was well on its way in the House of Commons and the advice he gives your Lordships to-day.
I approach a second school of opposition, and it is that which is so ably led in this House by the Earl of Midleton. The noble Earl has for many years, and with the greatest ability and industry, put forward every consideration that can be and ought to be borne in mind when one is dealing with the question of the interests of the Southern Unionists. And, indeed, their case is one which everyone admits to be most difficult. So far the noble Earl has us all with him. As I understand the public utterances of the noble Earl and his attitude in the course of the Convention, in which he played so able and conspicuous a part, I gather that Lord Midleton is not to be ranged in the number of those who attack these proposals upon the ground of rigid and orthodox Unionism. In fact, if I am not mistaken—and I confine myself entirely to documents which have become public—I believe the noble Earl (many of us profoundly regret it) was actually made aware that he was an unwelcome member henceforth of the Southern Unionist Alliance because the proposals for which he made himself responsible at the Convention were not, in the opinion of the Southern Unionists of that day, consistent with their own. I believe it was after that period that the noble Earl and his friends established the Anti-Partition Union, if that be its true name. Therefore Lord Midleton is not to be numbered as one of those who oppose this Bill, as among the number who say that in the present state of Ireland it is insane to introduce a Home Rule Bill. I will approach that school in a moment. The noble Earl does not belong to it He belongs to the school which, with the legitimate idea of strengthening the safeguards for the Unionists of Southern Ireland, say that this Bill ought to go further in certain

441
specified respects and afford him and his friends greater protection.
The first observation I have to make on that attitude is this, that obviously these are points which ought to be made on Committee stage. I believe there are three points which he regards as of extreme importance. In the first place I understand the noble Earl—I am dealing with his public utterances—to be strongly of the opinion that Ulster ought not to be allowed at this moment to set up a separate Parliament, but that the Ulster Members, whether they wish it or not, should be compelled to remain at Westminster. I say to the noble Earl as strongly as it is in my power, Surely that is a matter which concerns not the Soul hem Unionists but the Ulster representatives themselves. Surely they must be the judges. It does not in the least matter what they thought eight months ago. You must listen to the authorised statements which issue from representative lips to-day, and if we find that the representatives of Ulster say that of the two alternatives they definitely prefer the alternative of having their own Parliament set up, surely the noble Earl could not with any show of wisdom ask us to say that we thought that Ulster ought to give up the hopes she now entertains of this Parliament and continue her representatives at Westminster.
The noble Earl is deeply concerned, and rightly concerned, with the question of finance. I know what he has said in public—that the noble Earl feels that the present financial proposals in the Bill are inadequate. It is quite true that we in this House cannot make Amendments which relate to the subject of finance. We can debate them, but we cannot amen them. The Government have made proposals in the region of finance which we believe to be in the first place adequate, and in the second place sound. We descry immense objections to any proposals either to give Customs and Excise or control of the Income Tax to Ireland. It is obvious that the differentiation which would or might arise between a shipbuilder in Belfast and a shipbuilder in Glasgow might present problems of insuperable financial difficulty. But nobody is really so unreasonable as to suppose that we should put forward in our Bill financial proposals in the face of which we see a very great financial difficulty. Equally, I hope, no one is so thoughtless as to imagine that if
442
peace were offered to us by any body which was plainly qualified to speak for Irish opinion we should not examine and reexamine the whole field with the object of discovering any way of satisfying those with whom it is our primary and paramount object to deal.
The third point about which the noble Earl is deeply concerned is the question of a Second Chamber. Here again I will deal with your Lordships, as I have throughout, with the most complete candour. An assurance was given by Mr. Walter Long that we would produce a scheme for dealing with the question of a Second Chamber. The extent to which we have carried out that pledge is that we have charged the Council of Ireland as amongst its first duties with this task. I will tell your Lordships quite plainly why we have left it to the Council in Ireland. It is because we have found ourselves unable to provide at the same time what Ulster wants—a democratically elected Second Chamber—and what the security, or the imagined security, of the Southern Unionists require—a Second Chamber which is not so elected but which depends on some fancy franchise. We have failed in attempting to devise such a Second Chamber, and I regret profoundly that so far as we are concerned it has exceeded the resources of human ingenuity, but it does not in the least follow that it will exceed the resources of the Council in which Ulstermen, who are concerned for the protection of the minority in the South, will find themselves confronted with representatives of the South of Ireland equally concerned for the protection of their minority in the North. I say no more about it, because it is well within the power of the noble Earl to put down Amendments on every one of these points, with the exception of finance, which will test the views of your Lordships and give me an opportunity of replying to them on the Committee stage.
I come next to the school of thought expressed upon the Notice Paper by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, which I know has many sympathisers in this House. Lord Willoughby de Broke is at least consistent. My noble friend always is consistent, and consistency is a great quality and one for which all of us, even when most conscious of falling short of it, may express a deep respect. My noble friend has not at this moment in this

443
matter any responsibility at all. He is entitled to claim that he is still a Unionist. May I be perfectly candid? I also am still a Unionist in this sense. If I were certified of twenty years of unbroken power in this country, I am still most clearly of opinion that the solution of the Irish question which would be best for England and best for Ireland would be the prosecution during that period of the policy which, in our opinion at least, had attained so large a measure of success in the year 1906. In saying this I make it quite plain that I am conscious that there are many of my colleagues—there must be many of my colleagues—who would not take that view. You must make the reservation that you are given that power and that you are given that power for the requisite period. The late Lord Salisbury spoke of "twenty years of resolute government." The Unionist Party, in the period to the close of which I refer, had been given some ten years, and it was only given those ten years by what many members of this House would describe as the accident of the issue, with its repercussion on the Election, of the war in South Africa. That accident and that Election gave the Unionist Party some ten years of office. Is it not evident, in trying to descry what lies in front of us through the mists of the future, that no man living can claim that twenty years, or anything like twenty years, lie in front of any Party that believes in the maintenance of the relations between Ireland and this country on the lines that have existed since the passing of the Act of Union? He would indeed be bold who would say that in the prospects and the vicissitudes of the years before us he could rely on any such continuity.
I anticipate that the noble Lord will point, as he is entitled to point with great force, to the state of Ireland, and say that in the present condition of Ireland this Bill ought to be rejected. The horrible crimes of last Saturday lend point and weight to the case which the noble Lord can make. We all knew that this army numbered many thousands. It is not surprising that 100 or 150 should have banded themselves, after five or six weeks crimelessness in Dublin, for a desperate adventure. It is reported, and it is believed by the authorities, that the primary object of this adventure was to attempt to intimidate the Courts-Martial and to capture certain documents. Your Lordships are aware that a great capture has recently been
444
made of the most secret and vital documents of the military and revolutionary organisation in Ireland, and I need hardly say that it is the intention of the authorities to make the fullest use of these documents for justiciary purposes. I do not dismiss the view that the secondary object of the selection of the date for these outrages was the belief that there was a section of opinion in this House which might, at this moment of all others, be influenced by these outrages. When I say this I remember that it was at a critical stage of the Bill in the House of Commons when the attempt was made on Lord French's life, and the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr.Macpherson, expressed to me his strong view that the moment of the assault was chosen in relation to the Parliamentary crisis.
These men and those who share their guilt are the real opponents of this Bill in Ireland. What they wish for is revolutionary secession, and I still say that they are being beaten all the time. In the last few weeks, day by day, the issue has gone against them. It was only four days ago that I was shown a communication from one of these guilty associations in a provincial part of Ireland to a central committee in Dublin—this is one of the documents of which I spoke—in which they asked that they might be given a dispensation of two months from attacking policemen, because the pursuit was growing increasingly dangerous. In all parts of Ireland the police are resuming their barracks, and it is indeed an encouraging sign that at the present moment, discouraging as the reports were sonic two or three months ago, we are actually every week recruiting for the Police Force more Irishmen alone than leave the Police Force in that week. I cannot believe that these brutal and horrible crimes will influence the House in its decision. Either these men will represent the South of Ireland and will be able to dominate the view in the. South of Ireland if the Bill is passed, or they will not. If they do not dominate that opinion, our experiment will have succeeded. If they do, our experiment has failed and they will be governed, and continue to be governed until they see the error of their ways, as a Crown Colony.
I would point out that Lord Willoughby de Broke is not the only Unionist in this House. Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona. The names of Arthur Balfour, of Walter Long, both of them ex-Chief Secretaries,

445
are well remembered and deeply revered in this House. Both of them are members of the Government, and they have come to the clear and certain conviction, having approached this matter with their knowledge and experience; that; this proposal and this proposal alone holds the field. I would remind the noble Lord of what I sometimes think he has forgotten, that after all the Act of 1914 is still on the Statute Book. Many of my noble friends sitting upon the Front Bench—Lord Crewe, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Grey, and Lord Harcourt—were members of the Government at the time when that Act was placed upon the Statute Book. The moment the Treaty with Turkey is ratified that Act, unless some other Act takes its place or it is in terms repealed, becomes operative, and writs automatically issue. The only alternative to our proposals, or some other proposals, is that the 1914 Act shall be allowed simply to come into force. That is and must be the view of those who do not accept our proposals and do not bring forward any independent proposals of their own.
May I be permitted positively and explicitly to make it plain to your Lordships that, whatever others may do, this Government will not make itself responsible for the repeal of the 1914 Act. I do not believe there is a single Unionist Member of the Cabinet who believes that to be a possible course, and I am assured by the Leader of the other House that in the House of Commons, elected under circumstances which certainly give a fuller representation to Unionist opinion than any House of Commons that is likely to take its place, there is an absolute majority of Unionists who would decline to father any policy based upon simply the 1914 Bill. Having made ourselves responsible for these proposals, having said that in our belief and judgment some proposals must be made that give Ireland something, how could we get rid of our difficulties by merely repealing the 1914 Act?
I will make a very brief observation upon the proposals which have been made by Mr. Asquith. I do not know how many supporters Mr. Asquith has in this House on this question. I have discovered that there are some, who ordinarily share his views, who do not share his particular expression of them in regard to this matter. Mr. Asquith, in his letter in The Times of October 5, while proposing the fullest
446
And widest autonomy upon the Dominions' plan, wrote—
"In regard to naval and military forces, I do not share the apprehension of those who think it necessary to impose on an Irish Dominion limitations and fetters which are not to be found elsewhere in our self-governing Empire. No Irish Government would be so insane as to mortgage its scanty margin of resources for such a fruitless and costly enterprise as the creation of an Irish navy."
The expenditure which is necessary in relation to submarines is not, after all, very considerable, and from what I know of the negotiations which took place between the then German Government and a certain section in Ireland. I am not inclined to take many risks in that particular matter. Mr Asquith continued—
"Nor is it readily conceivable that it would seek to deny—what it could never effectively prevent—the free access to Irish ports and harbours of the vessels of the. Imperial Navy."
I should have thought that a very moderate expenditure upon mines would have effectively prevented free access. Anybody who is in agreement with Mr. Asquith's proposals must most vehemently dissent from and deny the views which I assume to be held by Lord Willoughby de Broke. The view of the Government is plain, that under no conceivable circumstances can the control of the Army or Navy be given to the Irish Parliament. We welcome here to-day for the first time since I became Lord Chancellor one who has long in another place borne a distinguished name, Viscount Grey of Fallodon.
NOBLE LORDS:Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I will, if I may be allowed, make an observation—a very brief one—about his proposal. The proposal of the noble Viscount, as I understand it, is this. We ought to leave Irishmen themselves to settle how their country is to be governed, and to give them time to come to an agreement we must continue to perform as best we can the functions of government in Ireland for a period not exceeding two years, and at the end of that period withdraw completely. I cannot believe that this is a proposal which would commend itself to any considerable number of your Lordships' House. It is not, as I understand it, the proposal of Mr. Asquith. I would point out that two years is a fleeting period in the history of a nation. Where were we two years

447
ago? Almost where we are to-day, except that the situation is not quite as bad. Does the noble Viscount really mean that if the South of Ireland and elsewhere have failed to compose their grievances in two years' time they are then to be left to themselves What is the prospect of their composing their grievances? I for one confidently express my view that they will fail once more to agree. The differences of hundreds of years are not so easily composed, and conditions such as those envisaged by the noble Viscount are not to be disposed of in twenty-four months. After they have failed to agree, does the noble Viscount really mean that we in this country, with all that Ireland counts for tactically and strategically, are to wipe our hands of it and withdraw the police and the military forces there? What would happen if we did that? I, for one, believe that at once the South of Ireland would be at the throat of the North, and we should involve ourselves in the tragic responsibilities for a civil war, the blame for which would lie upon us. If I believed that there was any considerable party in this House who would support the policy unreservedly of abandoning Ireland in a few years, so sure am I, for one, that in a period of two years under these circumstances unity would not have been brought about that I should be disposed to ask whether it would not be better to leave that unhappy Island now.
I have exhausted, so far as I understand them all grounds of opposition that are put forward to this proposal. There is not one proposal that does not fall under the terms of the noble Earl's Motion. Ireland would not accept these proposals if they were offered. It would not accept Lord Grey's proposals nor Mr. Asquith's, and it certainly would not accept Lord Willoughby de Broke's. According to their express utterances of this moment they will accept nothing but a Republic. In the Division or series of Divisions that are to take place, if we were dealing with Lord Willoughby de Broke's proposal alone we should, I anticipate, have liberal support; if, in other words, the mere question was to reject this Bill on the grounds which my noble friend will state and on which he will rely for support, those now on the Front Opposition Bench—Lord Crewe, Lord Grey, Lord Buck- master, Lord Midleton, Lord Haldane, and others who think that we ought to go much further—would be bound to support
448
the Government on that issue. If, on the other hand, we were dealing with the proposals put forward by Mr. Asquith, we should certainly have the support of Lord Willoughby de Broke. The only thing that can defeat our Bill is a coalition between those who think we go too far and those who think we do not go far enough. I cannot think that such a result would be creditable either to our procedure or our penetration. I think it is right to make it plain, because communications have been indirectly made concerning a Motion to adjourn this debate. It might mean an adjournment to any convenient and obviously suitable time, but a Motion to adjourn this debate indefinitely or to adjourn it to any subsequent occasion would be a dilatory Motion which any Government in charge of a Bill must necessarily regard as equivalent to a vote for its rejection. If, indeed, the various sections in this House who object to this Bill upon wholly irreconcilable grounds desire to destroy the Bill at this stage, I venture most respectfully to suggest to them that it would be much better openly to defeat it on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, who, after all, makes a direct and intelligible proposal for its rejection.
I have detained your Lordships at some length in introducing this measure, but whoever has had to address himself to such a situation will realise how great our responsibilities are. I do not believe that we shall fail in the end. I believe that these proposals are the most promising which have been brought forward up to the present. I am not rash enough to make any flippant prediction in regard to the future, but I do not and I will not wholly dismiss the dream that instructed, or if you will constrained, by the new orientation of this new world we, who an. so soon to give a solemn vote, may succeed where the dynamic personality of O'Connell, the burning eloquence of Gladstone, and the iron will of Parnell were splintered and broken in failure. If this should happen, how immense would be our contribution to the stability and greatness of these Dominions! if we in our day should be so happy as to succeed, History will record of our generation that we inherited indeed a mighty Empire but that it was menaced abroad by a powerful and most resolute enemy, while at home it was enfeebled at its very heart by a plague spot of disaffection and sedition. And in such

449
an event the annals of that history will record on a shining page that we—our generation—after five years of martial vicissitude, broke in rout the foreign enemy, and, having done so, here at our doors recaptured in a nobler conquest this island of incomparable beauty, and, in doing so, became reconciled to a people so individual in its genius, so tenacious in love or hate, so captivating in its nobler moods.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENhad given notice, on the Motion "That the Bill be now read a second time," to move to leave out all words after "That" and to insert "this House declines to proceed with a Bill which meets with no support from the grrat majority of the Irish people, and affords no prospect of any permanent settlement."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move the. Amendment which stands in my name, I do so without any misgiving that it is the right course and practically the only course for me to pursue, though I do it with great reluctance. To the best of my ability and opportunities I have tried to further the cause of political reform in Ireland, and. it hurts me to oppose any Bill which is honestly intended, as this Bill is, to satisfy Ireland's ambitions and requirements, and to put an end to the appalling state of things which exists in that country—utterly disastrous to Ireland, a shame upon our statesmanship, and a menace to all constitutional government. It is true that the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack has been kind enough to quote many sentences from letters I have written. I said the Bill was an honest attempt on the part of the Government, and I repeat that it is an honest, but unfortunately a very ignorantly honest, attempt on the part of the Government. The noble and learned Lord in quoting from my letters omitted to quote from one which I wrote just before the adjournment. I forget the exact words I. used, but they were to the effect that I hoped the interval which would take place before Parliament met again would be so used that wise counsels might prevail and. the Bill might be greatly improved. I could not foresee the speed with which this Bill would be put through the other House of Parliament. I could not prophesy that in the other House Amendments upon
450
the financial clauses with which I could agree would receive no attention and would not pass. Still, as I have said, it hurts me to oppose on Second Reading any Bill which is designed to do what this Bill seeks to do.
I suppose we all have different ideas as to the exact lines upon which a Bill for the better government of Ireland should be framed. For instance, I think it is very important that in order to satisfy Irish sentiment Ireland should be restored to her former status of a kingdom. Any peculiar views I have I assure your Lordships I would put on one side in the consideration of this Bill if I thought it had the remotest chance of providing a permanent settlement, or even of acting as a measure of appeasement that might put' a stop to the appalling crimes that happen every day. There are points in this Bill that I should like to touch upon. I am not going to follow the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack through all the details of the Bill, though it is rather tempting to comment upon what he said just now, that Ulster accepted the Parliament in the Bill because it would give a finality That seems to me a little inconsistent with what the noble and learned Lord said a little time before, that this dual system was not intended to last, and that the Government were in hopes that amalgamation would take place.
I am tempted to comment upon one or two points about the composition of the Council, the Senate, and matters of that kind, but I want to confine myself to the consideration of one point, and one point only—what is to me the absolutely fatal defect of the Bill. I can define my mental attitude towards the condition of Ireland and the desires of Ireland in a sentence. I am sure that you can never have a permanent settlement and permanent peace in Ireland until you have moderate opinion—and that is really the great bulk of public opinion—behind the law and in favour of maintenance of the law. I am equally certain that you will never satisfy that moderate public opinion and get it openly to support the law until it is satisfied on the financial point. It never will be satisfied until you give to Ireland full fiscal and financial control over her own affairs This Bill does not give that or anything like it, and it is on that ground that I ask you not to proceed with the Bill, because it is fatally and vitally faulty in the one

451
point in which we cannot amend it in this House. All the other points in the Bill are capable of Amendment, but in the matter of finance we are powerless, and we cannot remedy this fatal defect.
I make no claim to speak for moderate opinion, not even for Unionist moderate opinion. I am speaking only for myself. But I know by what has been said—by what has taken place at meetings and from letters in the Press—that on this point at any rate I am in accord with moderate opinion generally. I have studied their views, I have studied their demands. They are all within the conditions that the Prime Minister has laid down as limiting a Home Rule measure. I have studied the various statements made from time to time by responsible Ministers on the subject and commenting upon these demands; and the only construction that I can put upon them, and I think can be put upon them, is that if demands are made within the limiting conditions which have been laid down by the Prime Minister they will be favourably considered. Well, they have not been. Identifying myself with moderate opinion, I think that we have a right to expect far larger, more just and more generous provisions than are contained in the financial clauses of this Bill.
I will go further and say that the Government have not kept faith with us in this matter, and I would like to substantiate that statement. Will your Lordships allow me to take you back to 1917? As you know, there was a Convention summoned in Dublin in that year. It was not an elective Convention, but it was fairly representative of all phases of Irish opinion except Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein could not accept the reference, and very honestly refused to take any part. The reference is contained in a letter of the Prime Minister of June, 1917. It was—
"To submit a Constitution for the future government of Ireland within the Empire."
Nothing could be larger than that—any constitution, provided it was within the Empire. The Convention failed to come to an agreement, as you know; it does not now matter why or when. But moderate Unionist opinion and moderate Nationalist opinion came very, very close together.
This difficulty about Customs arose, and was dealt with by the Prime Minister in a letter to the Chairman. He told the Convention that the grant of Customs
452
and Excise might—not "must," but "might"—be considered incompatible with the federal re-organisation of the United Kingdom. He said it would be practically impossible to make such a disturbance of the fiscal and financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland in the midst of a great war. That was quite obviously his real objection; and he suggested that during the war, and for two subsequent years, Customs and Excise should be reserved, and that at the end of the war a Royal Commission should issue, to submit proposals for adjusting the economic and fiscal relations of the two countries. What was the inference we drew from that, and, I think, were intended to draw from it? That the grant of Customs was impossible during the war, but it was not intrinsically impossible in any measure of self-government for Ireland; that after the war it would be considered, and favourably considered. It does not appear to have been considered. What has become of the Royal Commission? Judging by the Bill, this question of the grant of Customs has not received much consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
I should like to make one or two other quotations. The Prime Minister, in reply to a deputation from the Trades Union Congress Parliamentary Committee, said—
"I was prepared to discuss with any responsible leaders of Irish opinion any plans for the settlement of Ireland subject to two conditions—and there were only two. The first was that we could not agree to secession in the American sense; and the second was that we must have self-determination for the North-East—a perfectly clear statement. Two conditions only: no secession, and no coercion for the North-East."
A deputation of commercial and professional men from the South of Ireland in August last waited on the Prime Minister and urged that this Bill would only still further increase the discontent in Ireland, and that the solution lay in the grant of the Dominion status within the Empire, with generous financial treatment in view of the over-taxation in the past A very large demand indeed. But what did the Prime Minister say? He did not say it was impossible and not worth discussing; he regarded the deputation and its message as "the first message of hope," to use his own words, and be asked for representation of moderate opinion from the other parts of Ireland, and it was given him.
A Peace Conference was held in Dublin on August 24 last. That was not composed

453
solely of business men; it was composed of Lieutenants of counties and Deputy-Lieutenants, and, in fact, of specially moderate Unionistic opinion generally. It was thoroughly representative. My noble friend Lord MacDonnell moved a resolution which was passed. I think a deputation was arranged and a Committee appointed to see that the resolution was brought before the Prime Minister. It was a three-fold resolution, but the points in it that I wish to emphasise are that the grant of full national self-government within the Empire could alone bring peace to Ireland; that complete administrative fiscal and financial independence was the test of national self-government; that the North-East should be a free contracting party. That resolution was also fully within all the conditions limiting self-government that had been laid down by the Prime Minister. What has happened? Nothing Now the Prime Minister says that he sees no advantage in receiving a deputation from so representative a meeting as that.
I have one more quotation. This is what the Prime Minister stated in the other House on the Motion for adjournment—
"The Government have made certain proposals in order to meet Irish public opinion, but I have on more than one occasion gone beyond that and have said that subject to three clear and definite conditions we were prepared, as a Government, to discuss with anybody who could claim to represent Irish opinion any proposals which they put forward and which, in their judgment, would satisfy Irish opinion.''
And in reply to a deputation of both branches of the Legislature he said—
"You cannot have effective law in any land unless you have public opinion behind it. That is vital, and the secret of all Government in these perilous days is to enlist moderate opinion firmly behind the law."
I might perhaps mention a letter of last September from the Chief Secretary, in last September from the Chief Secretary in reply to a deputation or letter from a meeting of the Wexford magistrates. He wrote—
"I note the resolution applies to the present grave state of the country, and advocates the granting of self-government as the only path to the restoration of good-will. It is, I assure you, the desire of the Government to grant the fullest possible measure of self-government to Ireland."
And he went on to say that the resolution of the county of Wexford magistrates was of importance, and he would taken an early Opportunity of bringing it to the notice of
454
the Prime Minister. I have no doubt it was brought to the notice of the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister does not appear to have taken much notice of it.
I could quote more instances, and I could quote numerous letters in the Press differing, of course, in detail but all agreeing in the one main point—that it is essential for the peace of Ireland that a full measure of administrative, fiscal, and financial control and autonomy should be accorded to Ireland. I think I have said enough to bear me out in my contention that, with this Bill before us, we of moderate opinion have a right to say that the Government have not kept faith with us. We are asked now to accept this Bill as the fullest possible measure that the Government can give to Ireland. Moderate opinion has taken every opportunity it had to express its views; it cannot possibly speak with delegated authority, and the Prime Minister and His Majesty's Government must know that perfectly well. I confess I find it a little difficult to understand the Prime Minister's conception of the condition of things in Ireland. Speaking at the Guildhall, and alluding to the offers that he has made to Ireland to discuss matters, he said that if he had made such offers to Germany during the war he would have got a response, but that he got no response from Ireland. But what possible analogy is there between the two cases? Germany had a Government to negotiate with; Ireland has not. It is perfectly true that the Irish have, or think they have, set up a Republic and elected a President, and so on, but that is not recognised. Of course it is not recognised. How can you negotiate with the imaginary President of a non-existing Republic? The thing is absurd. There is no analogy at all. There is not any human being now in Ireland who could claim to speak for the Irish people who is not pledged to secession, and secession is not discussable. How then can you discuss matters with anybody who can speak authoritatively for the Irish people?
At one time the Prime Minister tells us that it is vital to enlist moderate opinion in favour of the law. Moderate opinion has taken every means in its power to impress upon the Prime Minister how that can be done. Now the Prime Minister sees no object in listening to moderate opinion, and doubts that moderate opinion exists at all. I think this House understands the situation better. Moderate.

455
opinion exists, and can be satisfied—moderate Unionist opinion, moderate Nationalist opinion and moderate Sinn Fein opinion. Moderate Unionists have expressed their view as to what would satisfy them. Would it satisfy Constitutional Nationalists? I believe it would. Constitutional Nationalism was, as we all know, snowed under in the Election of 1918, but it is not dead. It would very speedily revive if there was the smallest possibility that constitutionalism would achieve its ends. Would Sinn Fein be satisfied? I am convinced that it would. Sinn Fein, after all, was in its origin a precept, and a very sound precept. In its politics it based itself on the fact that the Union was not placed before the people of Ireland as a distinct issue at a General Election, and they theorise that therefore the Irish Parliament had no right to abolish the Irish Constitution, and the Irish Constitution still exists I am not wanting to argue whether there is any validity or sense in that at all. I only mention it because the Irish Constitution was based upon a fact, acknowledged by enactment of the British Parliament, that no power on earth could make laws for Ireland except the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland.
Until recently there was not a tinge of republicanism about Sinn Fein. In fact republicanism is quite unnatural to the Irish. Sinn Fein and the bulk of the people became republican in sheer despair, when they were convinced that, not this Government or that Government, but the whole British policy was to refuse to Ireland a fair opportunity of developing herself according to her own views and on her own lines. But Sinn Fein is not in any war wedded to republicanism, and I am confident that the offer of full fiscal and financial control would be accepted by the great body of the most moderate sections of Sinn Fein. Of that I am certain; but you cannot expect Sinn Fein to come here and do penance in a white sheet. You probably would not get the open, active support of the Sinn Fein leaders, but you would get acquiescence. You would get passive support. Moderate opinion would be able to assert itself and would assert itself. But until Ireland is offered the one essential thing—namely, a full measure of fiscal and financial control—there is not the remotest chance of the moderate sections of Sinn Fein, or of any other part of the people, becoming in favour of the law.
456
Can any one of your Lordships suppose that the elections are going to be fought and constituencies contested at the next election in Ireland upon the issue of this Bill as the alternative to independence? Not one. I am convinced of it. But they would be contested, and they would be won, if you could offer as an alternative to republican independence a measure which would be satisfactory to the great bulk of moderate opinion in Ireland. Moderate opinion is not organised. It is terrorised to a certain extent, but it cannot concentrate, it cannot express itself and make itself heard, and it never can and never will until it is given some definite proposal, some definite nucleus, on which it can crystallise itself and make itself felt and heard. Moderate opinion has to be created and strengthened. You cannot bludgeon a man into moderation. You can prevent the expression of violent views and prevent their being put into action, but you cannot make a man change his views by physical force. You can only do that by going as far as possible to satisfy his own views, and you are not going to do that by the provisions in this Bill. This Bill does not offer any satisfactory alternative to independence, and this House cannot transform it into a satisfactory offer.
I do not know why the Government changed their opinion, but judging from the Prime Minister's speech at Carnarvon they did change it completely, and have fallen back, I suppose according to plan, upon a position that it is useless to offer any measure of appeasement to Ireland until this condition of disorder is suppressed. With that theory I disagree utterly. I think that the present condition of Ireland, strange as it may seem, offers a very favourable opportunity for effecting a settlement of this vexed Irish question. Your Lordships will have seen and noted the important utterances of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam and the Bishops of Ross and Cork. The people of Ireland are sick of the horrible reign of terror that exists there. Of course, order will be restored. The Government are very slow about it, but of course they will succeed in putting down disorder, and crime, and murder. Everybody knows that in Ireland perfectly well. Everybody in Ireland knows perfectly well, and so do His Majesty's Government, that Ireland cannot be kept quiet perpetually by physical force. You can

457
put down lawlessness and disorder, drive it below the surface, but it will never be extinguished until you can get moderate opinion openly and strongly in favour of the law.
There have been several opportunities for settling this question. The best of them all was during the régime in Ireland of Lord Dudley, of Mr. George Wyndham, and of my noble friend opposite, then Sir A. MacDonnell. That was thrown away. There have been other opportunities since, and they have been thrown away. Now a favourable opportunity exists, and I suppose that will also be thrown away. I do not know that it is necessary to argue that there will be great risk and inconvenience in granting the Customs and Excise to Ireland. Of course, there will be inconvenience, and Customs barriers will be erected, either within the confines of Ireland itself or between Ireland and Great Britain, but the inconvenience would be manifestly so great that it would be certain to cure itself The Prime Minister, I think on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, said that where Customs have been given to subsidiary bodies they always resulted in their being given to the central body. That is not an argument against giving the Customs to Ireland; indeed, it is the strongest argument for giving it to Ireland. It is perfectly true that the tendency in Ireland would be centripetal; but for a Customs Union to be entered into ultimately by people given the control of their own monetary affairs is a very different thing from maintaining what is practically a Customs Union by depriving people of what they think is absolutely essential to their welfare.
As to the danger, what danger can there be in a measure which is within the limits laid down by the Prime Minister. Practically the Crown and all appertaining to the Crown and the forces of the Crown, their access to the ports and strategic positions, foreign affairs, peace and war, and treaties, are all reserved. What danger can there possibly be in giving practically all else, including fiscal and financial control, to Ireland? There may be some risk to Ireland. If Ireland is quite satisfied in her sentiment, is given an opportunity of developing herself as she thinks best, is on her own, responsible for her own future, and she failed and did not make good, it would
458
be a danger to Ireland, and I admit an indirect danger to Great Britain, because two communities situated so close together must always act and react on each other. But the risk would be infinitesimally small, and as to any danger on the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister I absolutely fail to see.
What is the position? We have this Bill with, to my mind, a fatal defect in it, and one which it is out of the power of this House to remedy. His Majesty's Government are trying to construct a bridge of amity between Great Britain and Ireland, and they have left out the keystone of the arch which this House cannot put in its place. What can this House do? It can amend the Bill if it gets into Committee in all particulars, but it cannot touch this vital one. What could I do? As I have said, it hurts pie to oppose any Bill that is intended for the better government of Ireland. But what could I do? I could have abstained altogether, kept aloof, taken no part whatever in debating this Bill, but feeling as strongly as I do on this fiscal and financial point that did not seem to me to be honest. I took the only course that constitutionally and conscientiously I was able to take. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"Leave out all words after 'That,' and insert this House declines to proceed with a Bill which meets with no support from the great majority of the Irish people, and affords no prospect of any permanent settlement.'"—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE had given notice, on the Motion "That the Bill be now read a second time, "to move to leave out all words after "That" and to insert the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that according to the Rules of your Lordships' House it will not be possible to debate two Amendments at the same time, but as the Lord Chancellor has been so kind as to devote some portion of his brilliant speech to my Amendment perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a word to two at this juncture in the debate as it might help those of your Lordships who are going to vote for one Amendment or the other, and perhaps against them, when the time comes. I put this Amendment on the Paper simply

459
and solely because, first of all, I wanted to make my own position—which does not matter very much perhaps—perfectly clear with regard to this question; and, secondly, because on behalf of those who believe—and there are still some left—that in the last resort a return to the Union between Great Britain and Ireland is the only possible policy, I wanted to have a weapon in my hand ready loaded which I could use at any moment in case something happened to the Amendment which has just been moved.
I should like to take this opportunity of assuring the Lord Chancellor that I have not put forward this Amendment for the purpose of making known my own phylacteries, or to explain to the rest of the world that I was the only Unionist left in the Unionist Party. The situation is a great deal too serious for anything of the kind, and I assure your Lordships that in voting against this Bill—at least when I vote for my own Amendment or for that of Lord Dunraven—if it results in the defeat of the Bill, as I hope it will, we shall vote against it with a full feeling of responsibility for that which we are doing.
There is another reason why it was thought desirable to have this Amendment on the Paper. The Lord Chancellor traversed every single point with regard to every single frame of mind on the Home Rule question, and he did not miss this one. He perfectly correctly pointed out the alliance between those noble Lords who wished to reject the Bill because it does not go far enough and those, like myself, who wish to reject it because it proposes to repeal the Union between Great Britain and Ireland and therefore goes much too far, and I did not think it quite right to make myself a party to an alliance of that kind without taking an opportunity of explaining to your Lordships why I was doing so. I thought the best way was to place this Amendment on the Paper giving a direct negative to the Bill.
If it will make the course of the debate any simpler the course I should propose to take is this. After what I have said, and having put this Amendment on the Paper, I do not think there will be anything particularly dishonest in voting for Lord Dunraven's Amendment if he presses it to a Division. I understand that a Motion may be moved for the adjournment of the debate. I do not know whether that is so or not, or
460
whether one has a right to refer in public debate to what he has heard outside the House. But in the event of a Motion being moved for the adjournment of the debate I should vote against it, because I believe that in voting for an adjournment you would be open to the charge of conceding the principle of the Bill.
I need not weary your Lordships with the reasons for which I hope this Bill will be deferred to the Greek Kalends by defeat in your Lordships' House, because the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has practically made my speech for me. He has paid me the compliment of saying that those who think as I do have always been perfectly consistent and that we can point with great force to recent events in Ireland. I am not going to enlarge on this point, because it is a terrible and painful subject, and one of which it would be perfectly easy to use the language of emotion. He said it was legitimate for those who think as I do to refer to the shocking outrages which have recently occurred. I believe it is intimated in the speech of the noble and learned Lord that those outrages were intended by their perpetrators to synchronise with the debate in this House about Home Rule, and that those perpetrators were the real opponents of the Bill. Be that as it may, I submit to your Lordships that if you vote against this Bill you will be giving effect to a section of very strong feeling in this country that these ruffians who organised these outrages are not the people to whom we ought to grant legislative autonomy at this or any other moment in the history of this country.
Our fellow-countrymen on this side of the water, who are concerned very deeply, have not heard very much about Home Rule for Ireland from members of the Government lately. There is a disposition in this country among the electors to say, "Oh! we are tired of this eternal Irish question. We don't want to hear about it any more. Give them any form of government you like, if you only get it out of the way." It is not unnatural that some of our fellow-countrymen in this country should take such a view, but I submit that there is no excuse for Parliament, who ought in some regard to be the leader instead of the follower of public opinion, and it is no excuse for leaders of political thought in either House of Parliament to

461
acquiesce in that view. This is not the first time your Lordships have been invited to agree to the repeal of the union between Great Britain and Ireland. This i3 the third or fourth occasion on which you have been asked to do so. You may say that things have so much changed since the House of Lords first rejected a Home Rule Bill that now is the time to go back upon the ancient policy which used to animate the majority in this House by granting the repeal of the union. Those who agree with me will tell you that every single thing that has happened in the meantime has in our opinion—certainly in mine; I speak for myself—made the whole case for the union between Great Britain and Ireland immeasurably stronger than ever it was before. So far from this being purely an Irish question, every single outrage or murder, no matter by whom it is committed, and every defiance of law and order in Ireland has a repercussion in this country ultimately of which it is impossible to over-estimate the significance.
This is first, last, and all the time, an English question, and I submit to your Lordships with great respect—I do not presume to try to lecture your Lordships—that it is our duty to bring this before the people of the country. Let us try to get away from that frame of mind which is always saying, "After all, it doesn't concern me; it only concerns the people in Ireland." It seems to me that everything which has happened since the first Home Rule Bill was rejected by the House of Lords makes the case for the union immeasurably stronger. Someone perhaps will say that the decision of Ulster has undergone some change since that time, and therefore, on account of Ulster, you ought to pass this Bill. Ulstermen, they will tell you, are asking for the Bill to be passed, and therefore it should be passed. I have some slight claim to be able to say something for Ulster, because I went there and had the great honour of taking part in an Ulster demonstration. I heard on several platforms that what the Ulstermen believed in was the maintenance of the union between Great Britain and Ireland. What we are suffering from as much as anything is that the Parliament Act was passed. If it had not been for the passing of that Act it is not unfair to say that the murders which are taking place in Ireland would not be taking place at the present moment, and we should
462
not be in the position in which we now find ourselves. The Parliament Act was passed and a Home Rule Act was passed over the heads of the House of Lords. Subsequently to that, a Bill for the separation of Ulster from the rest of Ireland was passed by this House. I was one of those who voted in the minority against the Bill, because I thought that one Parliament in Ireland was quite bad enough. If you are going to have two you aggravate the danger of separation more than enough, and the idea of the partition of Ireland is stereotyping and giving effect to a state of things in that country which is fraught with the very gravest danger for the future.
We heard from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack just now a very eloquent forecast of reasons why the setting up of two Parliaments in Ireland under this Bill would eventually lead to union, or something like union. I believe I am correctly stating his point of view. Will it? If this Bill is passed, if both parties in Ireland agree to it in the spirit which the noble and learned Lord indicates, and if everybody is extremely good and tries to make it a success, no doubt something might happen like that which was prognosticated by the noble and learned Lord. But one can only found one's opinion upon current events, and upon the fact which are brought before us. We do not see a temper prevailing in the South and West of Ireland at all likely either to form a Parliament at all or to make the Act work. They have already told us that this Bill is no good, and that they will not have it. I cannot find any reason, except possibly a tactical reason, for passing the Bill. Assuming that this view is correct and that the South and West of Ireland will not have the Bill, we are told that they will then be governed as a Crown Colony, and that eventually, if that does not do, we shall have to go over there and reconquer the country! In the meantime Ulster will be going merrily on with her own Parliament. That is a state of things which seems for all time to mean the partition of Ireland, and is a very severe blow to the union of all parties in Ireland, and above all to the union between Great Britain and Ireland which we all wish to see brought about.
I have many friends in Ulster as well as in the South of Ireland, and I have often heard an argument which has lost weight

463
recently. That argument was this. If you do not pass this Bill, said the Lord Chancellor, you will bring into operation the Act of 1914, and the Ulster point of view is that, inasmuch as the 1914 Act has not been amended in order to carry out the pledge to Ulster, Ulster will be brought under a Dublin Parliament. That is the argument. It is very difficult to believe that the provisions of the Act of 1914 are not obsolete long ago, and it is also very difficult to believe that, even if they were not obsolete you could in the present temper of Ireland enforce the Act of 1914 or any other Act for the setting up of one or more Parliaments in Ireland. When the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that it is the intention of the Government, if this Bill is defeated, not to move hand or foot to repeal the Act of 1914, I suggest to him with very great respect that if he and the Government do adhere to that determination they will find themselves in a position where there will be such an outburst of public opinion against carrying out the Act of 1914 that they will have to repeal it. The impossibility of allowing that Act to come into operation will be so obvious that no matter what Government be in power they will be bound to repeal it, and the force of circumstances will drive the British Parliament and the British people on this side of the Channel to the legislative act of union between Great Britain and Ireland which we used to hear at one time, from those who seem anxious to pass this Bill now, was a very great success.
I have tried very briefly to state the reasons why I have brought forward this Amendment. I have done so mainly with the object of making clear the position, and also, frankly, because I want to have a loaded gun in my hand so as to be able to fire it at some time during the debate by having a Division on my Amendment in the event of anything untoward happening to Lord Dunraven's Amendment. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will not move my Amendment now, and I shall not ask your Lordships' indulgence to speak again during the debate; but at a later stage, if my friends and I think fit, it will be, I imagine, open to me to move my Amendment. In the meantime I propose to support the Amendment of the noble Earl who has just sat down.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN:My Lords, I do not propose to occupy more than a
464
very limited amount of your Lordships' time. I do not wish to controvert in any way the arguments used by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, but I desire to refer shortly to some of the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I desire to state as simply as I can why we in Ulster now support this Bill. I speak as one of the vice-presidents, in conjunction with my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry, of the Ulster Unionist Council, and as one who for nearly 13 years was a member of an Ulster constituency, and who has resided in Ulster most of his life.
It is unnecessary for me to relate to your Lordships the consistent opposition of Ulster to previous Home Rule Bills. In her opposition to the Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893 Ulster never wavered, nor did she when the Home Rule Bill of 1914, which is now an Act, was brought forward. Ulster took the strongest measures to resist it when Home Rule could be passed after the destruction of the powers of this House under the Parliament Act. Ulster Unionists, holding the ideas that they did, regarded Home Rule as a whole for Ireland as impossible Therefore, they concentrated on the exclusion of Ulster from the Home Rule Parliament at Dublin.
Then came the war and the situation was changed. During the war, when we were pressed into the service of the Empire, the Unionists of Ulster gave up what were to them many vital points. At a meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council in 1916, at which I was present, having been able to obtain leave from the Army in which I was then serving, they waived their resistance to Home Rule for the rest of Ireland, but insisted that they should never be placed without their consent under a Parliament at Dublin. They also insisted that the exclusion should be permanent. This latter claim was resisted by the Irish Nationalists. Mr. Asquith, the then Prime Minister, promised to introduce an amending Bill in order to deal with the Ulster situation. That was not introduced owing to various circumstances—the rebellion in Dublin, and others. An Irish Convention was summoned, on which sat many noble Lords who are present at this debate, and of which I was a member. I am sure those noble Lords who took part in that Convention will never forget the weary months that we spent in Dublin. The Convention finally issued several Reports. There was a Majority Report, a Minority

465
Report, and a Report issued by the Ulster Unionists. The object of the Convention was to find some substantial agreement. None of the Reports issued came under that head and so matters remained very much as they were previously.
How do matters sand now? Should this Bill be rejected nothing remains for the Ulster Unionists but the Act of 1914, which has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord and is now on a Statute-Book The Act of 1914 is an Act which the Unionists of Ulster will not have. The only alternative for them, as far as I can see, is to accept the present Bill, I do not for one moment intend to admit that Ulster likes the Bill, but its acceptance is the only course open to them. What else could they do? There are many reasons why they would prefer to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. They do not like to desert in any way those loyalists in the Southern and Western parts of Ireland with whom they have always been associated. But I do not think they could take any other steps than those which they are taking now. That sounds rather strange from me, seeing that my father made memorable speeches at many Ulster meetings against the Bill of 1893, I think it was, in which he said that we would not have Home Rule. We have no more love for Home Rule now than we had then, and when I say "we" I venture to include myself. But I think the Bill which is before this House is the only solution for us at present.
Your Lordships are aware, no doubt, that this Bill has been more or less approved or, if I may use the phrase, damned with faint praise, by Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament and by the Ulster Unionist Council. Bat they realise that it has been introduced by a Coalition Government, composed of the two leading Parties in the State, and that it is proposed in the interests of the Empire. It might be asked why they have changed their views and why they now say that they are prepared to come under a Northern Parliament as suggested in this Bill, rather than, as I think was said by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, stay under the Imperial Parliament. The real truth is that they desire finality. They are tired, after thirty years of political intrigue, gerrymandering, and wire pulling. They are a solid race, a race of great courage who believe in themselves and believe that under a Northern Parliamert they can work out
466
their own salvation, continue their business and their agriculture, and be more or less independent of outside interference.
I know it will be said by some noble Lords—I think probably by the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, who is present—that the setting up of two Parliaments will destroy any hope of Irish nationality. I do not profess to be a student of John Stuart Mill, but I came across this passage from his works which I should like to read to the House. John Stuart Mill said this of nationality—
"people form a nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies—sympathies which do not exist between them and others, and which make then co-operate more willingly among themselves than with other people."
He added that the strongest of all motives making for nationality are—
"identity of political antecedents, the possession of a national history, and the consequent community of recollections, collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret connected with the same incidents in the past."
Nobody who has made a study of Irish history can say that is in any way true of the past of Ireland. Ever since the plantation of Ulster the Ulster people have been more or less at variance with their fellow-countrymen. You may say that is deplorable. It is deplorable I grant, but it is a fact which cannot be gainsaid, and calling it "deplorable" does not alter its truth in the slightest degree. In my opinion the Bill which is now before your. Lordships' House will give the best possibility of a solution of the problem. I go further. I may be somewhat optimistic, and it never does to be optimistic about Ireland.
NOBLE LORDS:Hear, hear.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN:But I believe that there is a chance, and more than a chance, if the Southern Legislature and the Northern Legislature eventuate, and if both function, that in time the North might give a lead to the rest of Ireland and show that Irishmen can govern themselves in an orderly and sensible fashion, and that at some future date the two may coalesce and form a united Parliament. But that will only be on one consideration—that is, a joint loyalty to the Crown and to the Empire.
I have said these few words on behalf of the people to whom I am greatly attached and with whom I have lived most of my life. They are people who have always

467
been proud of their association with this kingdom. Your prosperity has been theirs; your future they look upon as theirs; your hopes were theirs, your trials have been theirs, your perils have been theirs, your sacrifices have been theirs, and your victory has been theirs also. Therefore I ask your Lordships to grant this Bill a Second Reading as opposed to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE:My Lords, when a country is in the state in which Ireland now finds itself with complete anarchy advancing with giant strides all over the land, and when a Bill is introduced by a responsible Government to settle the Irish question by creating two Parliaments where Irishmen of different schools of thought may be segregated—in one the Unionists and Protestants, and in the other the Sinn Feiners and Roman Catholics—and when, in addition, it is proposed to form a Council which will act as a golden bridge that may eventually bring the whole of Ireland under one great national Parliament to work together in amity and unity for the advancement of their native land, in gratitude doubtless to this country for the great boon she has given them and in loyalty to the Throne and the Empire, and when that Bill has passed the House of Commons by a large majority of British Members, it deserves, and I have no doubt will receive, the careful and respectful consideration of your Lordships' House.
But if you find that the authors of that Bill are mistaken in an expectation of settling the Irish question; if indeed you suspect that they have introduced this Bill not for that reason only but that they are actuated by other and less altruistic motives; if you are convinced that the setting up of two separate Parliaments will result, so far as the North is concerned, in the erection of a new and insuperable barrier to her union with the rest of Ireland, the duplication of the whole of the Civil Service of Ireland, and the creation of a vast number of vested interests, which it will be difficult or impossible in the future to do away with, and, so far as the Southern Parliament is concerned, will not lead to an increase of local government, but, on the contrary, to the abolition of whatever form of local government there may now exist, and the substitution for it of what is commonly known as Star Chamber government—if you are convinced that
468
all this will be the result of the Bill before the House, then, however good may be the intentions of the Government, I think you will hesitate to follow them, along the pathway they have paved, to its ultimate destination.
In my youth I passed an examination in Roman law, and one of the definitions which I was asked to explain was the word "pollicitatio," and, if I remember rightly the interpretation, it was a proposal made which it is not intended should be accepted. I think, so far as Southern Ireland is concerned, the word "pollicitatio" is writ large over every page of this Bill. I stated that I thought the Government was actuated not alone by a wish to settle the Irish question, but by other and perhaps less altruistic motives. Let me mention two or three of them. In the first place, there is no doubt the Government is anxious to get rid of the Act of 1914, which is now on the Statute Book. When this Bill was introduced in March of this year, I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that it would have been impossible for the Government to induce at any rate the Liberal members of the Coalition to vote for the repeal of the Act pure and simple, without introducing an alternative measure. The noble and learned Lord tells me that that still is the case. I should be inclined to doubt it. I think that he and his colleagues rather under-rate their power of being able to persuade their followers to this effect.
And the second reason why I think this Bill has been introduced is to rescue Ulster from what has become for it an almost impossible situation. Much water has gown down the Boyne since the Solemn League and Covenant was made. Already many of its provisions have had to be thrown overboard; three counties of Ulster have had to be forsaken, and the remainder of the Covenant is now clinging round their necks like an Old Man of the Sea, whom they are only too anxious, if they can honourably and finally, to get rid of. Both the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Duke who has just spoken have told us that the reason which induces Ulster to accept this Bill is because there is finality in it. I only wish I could believe that that is the case. I wonder if your Lordships have ever considered how the religious population of Ulster is divided. I have been looking up the figures, and I find that in the portion

469
of Ulster which is to be under the rule of the Belfast Parliament there are no less than 429,000 Roman Catholics to 721,000 of other denominations. That is what the Lord Chancellor called an overwhelming majority of Protestants. Does any one in this House believe that those 429,000 Roman Catholics will tamely submit to the rule of a Belfast Parliament? I certainly do not. It is dangerous to prophesy, but I think I an., safe in prophesying that the first years of the Ulster Parliament, should it come into existence, will be chiefly occupied in passing Coercion Acts against their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in the province, and that those fellow-subjects will be aided and abetted by their co-religionists in other parts of Ireland in resisting the Belfast Parliament, with the result that we shall see reproduced in Ulster in a squalid edition the very same state of things which now exists between Ulster and the rest of Ireland.
The third reason why I think the Government have introduced this Bill is for the purpose of camouflage—camouflage to influence public opinion in the United States and the Colonies. Personally, I am not much concerned as to the views which either the United States or the Colonies hold with regard to our domestic affairs. I regard that as a matter altogether for us to settle. But there is no doubt that the constant choice of the text of "self-determination and the freedom of small nations" did give people reason to believe that the statesmen who invariably used those phrases in their eloquent speeches really believed what they said. And among those who were most firmly convinced that it was so were the people of Ireland. They thought that they had only to insist that they wanted a Republic, to show by their votes that they desired it, in order to obtain it. It was no good pointing out to them that the establishment of a Republic would be a danger to Great Britain, and that it might lead eventually to the break-up of the British Empire, because they pointed out in reply that the Allied and Associated Powers had not hesitated to destroy one of the most ancient monarchies of Europe in order to set up half-a-dozen mushroom republics in Central Europe. Of course, we all knew perfectly well that the well-known expressions were only pious opinions, they were never intended for one moment to be translated into articles of faith where reasons of high policy forbade that they
470
should. But nevertheless, such is the hold that they have obtained on the ears of the public that the Government have thought well to introduce this Bill as a measure of camouflage, though they know perfctly well that the people of Ireland have no intention of accepting it.
There is not much use in talking of what are the intentions of the Government.—it is more to the point to judge what will be the effect of what they propose. I have always been one of the strongest advocates of the Union as being the best form of government for Ireland, if properly administered, and the one which divides Irishmen least. But, unfortunately, for many years the Act of Union has not been properly administered, and in addition to that we cannot deny—it is no use disguising it from oneself—the fact that there is no party in this country which is now prepared to fight for the maintenance of the Union. We have seen that even in Ireland, where the Ulstermen were keenest in favour of it, they have changed their mind. The Lord Chancellor said they were quite right to change their minds within a short space of three or four months, though he would not allow the same freedom to my noble friend Lord Dunraven, who moved an Amendment.
But, at any rate, under these circumstances when three years ago I, with many other Unionists, was invited by the Government to enter an Irish Convention to try to settle with our Nationalist fellow-countrymen whether it was not possible to form a Constitution for Ireland which would satisfy their national aspirations, which would provide sure safeguards for the Unionist minority, and at the same time maintain the integrity of the Empire, I thought it my duty to accept. I certainly have never regretted that I took part in those deliberations, which brought me into contact with my fellow-countrymen of different political persuasions in friendly intercourse in a manner which had never happened to me before. I wonder whether your Lordships would allow me to mention one personal touch with regard to it? About six weeks after the Convention had been sitting I happened to make a, speech in which I put forward—temperately, I hope, but very resolutely—the claims of the Southern Unionists, and, when I had finished, a member of the Convention, whom I had never met before, came to me and said, "Me lord, Oi have often read

471
about ye, but Oi have never met ye and Oi have never hurrd you before; and, to till ye the truth, now Oi have met ye and now Oi have hurrd ye, Oi loike ye a great deal better than Oi expected." Well, my Lords, that feeling was entirely reciprocated by the union. We liked the Nationalists a great deal better than we expected; we found that they were ready to concede to us any safeguards that we deemed necessary. They were not only ready but were anxious that we should have full representation in both Houses of Parliament, because they recognised that without our help and co-operation it would be impossible successfully to start an Irish Parliament.
My Lords, I sigh when I recall how very nearly we succeeded in affecting a settlement. After all, at the end, the great difference between the Unionists and even the most extreme Nationalists was whether or not England should retain the Customs. I for one am prepared to yield that point now, and I think there are a great many Southern Unionists who are prepared to do the same. But I think it went further than that. I believe there was a moment when we almost arrived at a settlement which would have included Ulster. I do not say that it would have been on such broad lines, for Nationalist Members would have made large concessions to an agreement which included Ulster, which they were not prepared to concede to Southern Unionists alone. Many of the Ulster Members were most conciliatory. I should like, if he will allow me, to mention specially my noble friend Lord Londonderry, whose statesmanlike speeches in that assembly touched a chord which re-echoed throughout the whole of its members. But unfortunately the Ulster Members were not only members; they were also delegates of the Ulster Unionist. Council All the decisions had to be referred to that body before they could give an answer. Those gentlemen, naturally, had not the opportunity of friendly intercourse with Irishmen of different shades of opinion; they were not imbued with that spirit of conciliation and compromise without which it was impossible that the Convention could have a successful issue. The result was that the favourable moment was passed, and then like a bombshell the Government announced that they were going to introduce conscription in Ireland and the work of nine months was thrown away.
472
We are now asked to consider another form of Irish settlement, and I hope we are not going to throw overboard an Act of Union unless we think that we are going to have instead some form of Government which will have a chance of being accepted by Irishmen at large. I know it will be said that Irishmen at present will accept nothing except a republic, but I doubt very much if that is the case. People ask much more than they want, and besides, as we have been told to-day, people change their minds. I have had an opportunity of seeing many Irishmen, some of them extreme, some of them moderate, and I am firmly convinced that if a settlement were proposed to them in the terms which were suggested by the Convention, with the addition of full fiscal control, they would be ready to accept it. The Leader of the House, in the speech which he made on November 2, deprecated such an arrangement on the ground that if Ireland were allowed to have the control of her own finances it might possibly result in Irishmen being less taxed than Englishmen, nay even that Irishmen might have to pay less for a glass of whisky than would be charged in this country, and he seemed to think that that was a terrible state of things. These were his words, I think—
"She would have an Irish Parliament, and an Irish Parliament could so arrange matters that the Irish people would have cheaper tea, tobacco, beer, whisky, and the like; she could institute a lower Income Tax in that country. Why should we tolerate a situation in which an Irishman living on this side of St. George's Channel would have to pay an Income Tax of from 6s. to 9s. in the £ according to his wealth, while if he lived across St. Georges Channel on the other side he might only pay ls or 2s. in the £."
I wish the noble Earl were here. I should like to have asked him whether he had read Clause 24 of the Bill, because if that comes into operation it would be possible for Irishmen to be charged 15 s. or 20 s. in the £ by the Irish Parliament. I should like to ask whether Irishmen living on the other side of the Channel could tolerate a situation where they would have to pay Income Tax at 15 s. to 20 s in the £, while if they lived on this side of St. George's Channel they would only have to pay 6s. to 9s.
But surely there is the question of principle involved in this. Is it really the determination of the Government that Ireland shall under no circumstances benefit from any economies which she may be able to make in the administration

473
of her own finances? That is one of the principal reasons why she asks that she should have control. May I mention one or two instances that come to my mind. At the time when the old-age pensions were instituted in this country Mr. Redmond stated that if he had had the control of what was to be paid in Ireland it would be 3s. 6d This very morning I got a letter from a railway company in which they complained bitterly of the arrangement by which Irish railway porters were paid on the same basis as English railway porters. If this principle is once allowed, surely we are reverting to the worst legislation of the eighteenth century, when one Irish industry alter another was smothered because it was feared they might compete with those of this country. I ask the House to consider this question on its merits and not to mix it up with other considerations. I ask them not to be swayed by the thought of how it might affect the Government if this Bill does not pass, whether it would' tend to put it in difficulties, or even tend to its eventual removal and replacement by another which might be less liked by your Lordships. I would ask you not to consider whether or not this is a favourable issue for this House to find itself perhaps in conflict with the House of Commons; and, above all, I would ask you not to be frightened with the bogie which has been raised that, if you do not pass this Bill the Act of 1914 will come into force and you will be false to your pledges to Ulster. I believe the Act of 1914 is dead and buried, and the financial provisions are such that it would be impossible ever to bring it into operation.
But I ask the House also to remember another thing. If they have pledges to Ulster, have they no pledges to the 359,000 Protestants who are scattered throughout the South and. West of Ireland? Over and over again we have been promised that they should be provided with ample safeguards. Every speaker, from the Prime Minister downwards, has assured us that ample safeguards would be introduced into the Bill. Where are they? The only one that can be mentioned is that of proportional representation, which may possibly give us five or six members out of a House of 128, and even that safeguard, small as it is, may be removed in three years by the action of the Irish Parliament Then again as to taxation. What safeguards are there against that? I have mentioned just now Clause 24, and that
474
is one of the clauses which I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said we should not be able to amend in Committee. By that clause it would be possible for a single Chamber—remember at present there is only a single Chamber—to pass legislation taxing individuals at any sum up to 20 s. in the and there would be no redress. Not only that, but as far as I read the Bill there is nothing to prevent them from repealing the Habeas Corpus Act and imprisoning every political opponent they may happen to know of in the country.
Then there is the question of a Second Chamber. If there is one thing we were assured more clearly than another it was that the Government would provide this Second Chamber. Now the Lord Chancellor tells us that the difficulties in imposing a Second Chamber from without are insuperable, and he proposes to leave it to the Council composed of 20 Orangemen and 20 Sinn Feiners who may possibly frame a measure, which in turn is to be submitted to the Northern and Southern Parliaments and to be approved of by them. If we wait until we have obtained a Second Chamber in that way we shall have to wait until the Greek Kalends. The Lord Chancellor said that another difficulty was the fact that Ulster wanted an elective Second Chamber. Why can she not have it if she wants it? We know the Second Chamber that we want. It was agreed to by the whole of the Convention. It was a strong Second Chamber, perhaps not a democratic one but suited to the needs of the Irish people and provided effective safeguards for the Southern minority. If this Bill ever reaches Committee stage we shall have to insist as strongly as we can upon a Second Chamber being provided.
My belief is that if this Bill is ever to have a chance of being successfully put into force three things are necessary. In the first place, the financial provisions must be largely and generously revised. I am not asking that Ireland should not pay her share of the National Debt. On the contrary, I think she ought to be charged whatever is fair, and also for the maintenance of the Army and Navy. Whether the sums mentioned in the Bill are proper or not would take too long to discuss now. In the second place, ample safeguards must be supplied for the Unionists of the South and West, both as to representation in the Lower and Upper House

475
whether those safeguards comply with the ethics of democracy or not. And, in the third place, and this is most important., provision must be made, if Ulster cannot be included in the Irish Parliament at present and I acknowledge that is impossible, for a plebiscite, or referendum, whether by counties or otherwise from time to time to see whether she, or any part of Ulster, is prepared to change her mind and is ready to try and solve with us the problem of whether Ireland is able to govern herself.
THE MARQUESS OF SLIGO:My Lords, it is my intention to support the Amendment because the Bill in its present conditions satisfies no section of the West of Ireland in which I live. There are some who want complete separation; it does not satisfy them. There are some who wish for a full measure of self-government, such as was required by the former Nationalists, self-government within the Empire; it does not satisfy them. There are some who would prefer to remain under the Union; it does not satisfy them. I am one of the latter, and agree with the Lord Chancellor that it would, if properly administered, be the best form of government for Ireland, but I understand from what has fallen from him and from prominent politicians of all opinions that they are determined that some form of Home Rule shall be given to Ireland. Therefore, if the Government insists on forcing a measure of government upon Ireland I submit that it should be one which will have some chance of being really effective, and that when a change of such importance is about to be made there should be a reasonable chance of success.
We in the West can see no hope of success for the measure as it now stands. To us it appears to be primarily a measure of partition, and the more one looks at its provisions the more it appears that an immense amount of ingenuity has been expended in order to make this partition permanent. In the first part of the Bill a hope is expressed that it may lead to One Parliament for Ireland and the Council of Ireland is to frame it, but that Council has no Executive or administrative powers. It can only propose; and the various suggestions that are made in the later clauses of the Bill seem to make it more and more difficult to establish One Parliament. The mere fact of the establishment of two separate Parliaments, with two Civil
476
Services, two Exchequers, two Courts of Judicature, with all their paraphernalia and their staffs, tends to establish great vested interests, and the longer they remain in force the more difficult will they be to abolish. From what we have just heard from the noble Duke, it is evident that in this Bill partition is to be permanent. He said "We want finality." It would not appear, therefore, that he anticipates that there will be any strenuous or real effort to join in one Parliament. This question of partition, therefore, makes the Bill unacceptable to most of those who live in the West.
The Lord Chancellor stated that he and many others had the deepest sympathy with the loyal minority, but we want more than oral sympathy; we want something tangible. Eleven years ago when the 1909 Act was being passed, Mr. Birrell said "Minorities must expect to suffer." That was accepted as a jest, and it must be very pleasant to Mr. Birrell to realise that when he airily throws off an obiter dictum it is treated as an epigram. To those of us who were the victims it seemed more like an epitaph, for it was the death blow to the hope that we would receive justice at the hands of our fellow-countrymen. This time we have been assured by the Prime Minister, by ex-Prime Ministers, by men who are in the Cabinet, by men who have been, who expect to be, who hope to be, who think they ought to be, in the Cabinet, that whenever Home Rule is granted there shall be one sine qua non—namely, there shall be safeguards to protect the interests of minorities. None of us can find in this Bill one single safeguard for loyal minorities. A Second Chamber was promised. That, if properly constituted on the lines of the Senate accepted by the majority at the Dublin Convention, would be a real safeguard, but that promise has been broken and no Second Chamber is created. Clause 24 contains provisions which amount to a positive invitation to a vindictive majority to persecute a minority. That is why I ask your Lordships to vote for the Amendment, in the hope that the Government will re-cast the Bill and particularly the financial provisions. I trust that your Lordships will be no party to committing an act of injustice by abandoning the loyal minority, as has so often been our fate in the past.
[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM:My Lords, I hope that it will not be understood by your Lordships that I wish to embarass His Majesty's Government by anything I say. I know that the difficulties with which His Majesty's Government have to cope to-day are immense, and it is the last wish that I have to use my country as a stick to beat His Majesty's Government with. I would like to say the same thing about the Prime Minister. I have no wish to attack the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister during the war did untold service to my country and to myself as a citizen of that country, and the very last thing I should ever like to do, or ever would do, would be to say anything against him on account of that. But, my Lords, I have to consider this Bill on its merits. I have to ask myself whether the Bill will be a good thing for Ireland, for England, or for the British Empire. I have to ask myself whether the Bill will bring ruin or prosperity to any of those or all of them. After having considered it for many months I cannot alter my opinion that this Bill, if it becomes law, will bring not only ruin to Ireland but disaster to England. This question is not to my mind a parochial question; it is not a question which affects Ireland either to the south of the Boyne or to the North of the Boyne. It is a matter which affects England and the British Empire in far greater degree and importance than Ireland.
I find myself in rather a difficult position to-night because I live in Ulster, and within the last ten days or so I have been told by my brother Peers in Ulster that there has been a tremendous change in the opinions of the people who live in those six counties. I say "six counties" advisedly, because there is no longer any Ulster. There was a geographical Ulster which existed up to some months ago; but three counties were cut out of that geographical Ulster and now there are only six counties left, and so there is really no Ulster. I say that en passant. My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn told me before dinner that there had been a great change in the opinion of the people who live in those six counties, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack produced a letter in a most dramatic fashion, written by Sir Edward Carson, to the effect that there had been a great change in the opinions and feelings of people in those six counties. My Lords, that is absolute news to me.
478
I admit I have been abroad for the last two or three months, and I have not been in absolutely close touch with the people of those six counties in consequence of that; but up to that time I certainly held the opinion that there was a distinct difference of opinion in those six counties regarding this Bill. As far as I know we have never had any plebiscite upon this Bill, and I would like to know upon what grounds my brother Peers in Ulster say that there has been a great change of opinion. We certainly had a difference of opinion regarding the question of the six counties and the nine counties, but that is quite a different matter from the question of this Bill or no Bill. There is, I believe, a considerable body of opinion in those six counties strongly adverse to this Bill. England is, as much as ever she was, the predominant partner. That phrase, which was coined many years ago, has lost none of its importance or strength by the lapse of time.
Let us look at the history of this Bill. It was prepared and introduced by a man who has been a life-long Unionist, the First Lord of the Admiralty. As long as I can remember in political life the present First Lord of the Admiralty has taken a most prominent part in any anti-Home Rule demonstration that has taken place, and whenever there was any great meeting in the North of Ireland almost invariably it was attended by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and he would be one of the most forcible speakers present. Yet we now find ourselves in this position. The First Lord of the Admiralty, a lifelong Unionist, has prepared and introduced with a certain amount of pride a Home Rule Bill. What happens to that Bill in another place? Who is it that forced it through? None other than the people who call themselves Unionists from the North of Ireland The Unionist Members of Parliament are the people who have forced this Bill through. Had it not been for them I very much doubt whether the Bill would ever have reached your Lordships' House. We are told in a letter from Sir Edward Carson, read by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that this is the only chance. Yet they (the Ulster Members) never voted for it in the House of Commons. If they thought it was the only chance, why did they not vote for it? Moreover, we get an ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Paisley, going down to Wales and advocating an Irish Navy. I

479
sometimes wonder whether we really are quite normal after the war. The situation in which we find ourselves is quite astonishing.
As regards the Bill itself, I think it reeks with anomalies, absurdities, and paradoxes. I will give one or two instances only. Ireland to-day admittedly is divided against itself—anyhow, in spirit. It is the natural desire of everybody who has the interest of Ireland at heart, whether he be an Englishman or an Irishman, to see the two peoples joined together. There is nobody in your Lordship's House who would not he more than pleased if he thought that those two peoples were going to join together to live in amity. Yet here is a Bill which prevents that, and divides those two peoples for ever by Statute. They are divided in spirit to-day; to-morrow you will divide them by Statute. You sign and sea! it in this House and say that those people shall never conic together. What is the sense of it? I fail to understand it.
Then there is the extraordinary situation which will arise if this Bill is not accepted by the South of Ireland, because you will have Crown Colony Government. The Nationalist Members can then come over and take their seats in the House of Commons—I do not say that they will, but they can—and interfere with purely English affairs, while English Members of the House of Commons will have no power whatsoever to interfere with the affairs of Ireland. That is a nice state of things.
Then, lastly, there is the case of the surtax. Years ago it used to be said that one of the troubles of Ireland was absenteeism. It was said that if only people would go and live on their estates in the country half the troubles of Ireland would not arise. I think there is a great deal to be said for that, but what you are going to do by this Bill is to say that if anybody has the temerity to go and live on his country estate in Ireland he shall be liable to a surtax. Take my own case, which is the same as that of hundreds of others. I live in Ireland and I hope I always shall, but I have to pay my Income Tax and my Super-Tax to the Imperial Exchequer. After this Bill is passed the Government in the North of Ireland will have the right to place a sur-tax upon me. If they do that I shall become a pauper; I shall have to pay 20 s. in the £, and there will be nothing left. I am told that I cannot
480
hand over my estates to the Government of Ireland and say to them, "Take them and let me get out; I have some money in other places, and I can go and live somewhere else." I cannot do that. What is the sense of it?
NOBLE LORDS:Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM:If there is any I cannot see it. I have given your Lordships two or three instances; there are many more, but it is useless to go on citing them. I wonder—I have often wondered—whether this is the only solution the British Government can find for the troubles of Ireland. England is world-famous for her marvellous power of government. Is this the only way in which you can govern Ireland? I feel that in time to come, if this Bill ever becomes law and is put into force, the historian who writes the history of these times will point the finger of ridicule and scorn at the people who introduced it.
At the present moment throughout the country there is a great wave of feeling that the Government is spending too much money and that economy is necessary. And yet to-day, when we have this appalling debt round our neck—£8,000,000,000—dragging us down, this is the time when His Majesty's Government propose to embark on the expensive business of building Houses of Parliament and offices all over the North and South of Ireland, and employing a host of officials who, as we all know, are permanent—once you get them you never get rid of them, and if they live long enough they get pensions.
I would like to ask your Lordships to consider who is at the back of this agitation Are they Irishmen? I say, most decidedly No There is a conspiracy aimed at the destruction of England and the British Empire, and the people who are working that, whose wish is to see the destruction of England, have used Ireland as a jumping-off ground. They think that Ireland is the best ground to begin working on and they are doing it to-day. The question of self-government or the better government of Ireland never enters into their heads for one second. They care no more for Ireland than that table before me. And if they can prove to their friends and supporters and admirers throughout the world that they have prevented England from governing Ireland, and reduced British government to

481
a nonentity in Ireland, they have won the first round in the game. Am I, or is anybody else, to submit to that sort of thing, when I believe it? No, of course not I hope that some of your Lordships will believe it, and see that by voting for this Bill you would not be voting for something which would improve the condition of Ireland but for something which might very well prove to be the first step in the downfall of England.
My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn said that one of the reasons why the people in the North of Ireland desired the passage of this Bill was because it brought finality, and because it brought peace. If I really thought it would bring finality I might be inclined to alter my vote. But I do not. I do not believe there is any finality when you get two peoples opposing each other who are so different in character and in aspiration as the people who live north of the Boyne and south of the Boyne. As for peace, well, you have got no immediate fear of civil war to-day, but from the day you put this Bill into force and it is accepted—if it is ever accepted—by the South of Ireland and the North, of Ireland—it is my firm conviction that you will be approaching civil war every day. I cannot see how it can be averted, with two peoples so entirely different, with religious bigotry of the worst description on both sides, and with a possible Customs line drawn between them. That is not peace to Ireland.
Your Lordships will probably say, What is your alternative? Of course, the first thing to consider is the position of the 1914 Act on the Statute-book. We are told that that Act automatically comes into force the day peace is signed with Turkey. I am not responsible for that Act. I admit that before the 1914 Act was passed I did vote for the Amendment to leave out the six counties from the Bill. I voted for that simply because it was to my mind the alternative to civil war, and I believe any thing is better than that. Then I come to the question of how the Act is to be dealt with by His Majesty's Government, if I have to take such a responsibility on my shoulders. The first thing I have to say about it is that its financial provisions are well known to be impossible. Nobody, I believe, to-day would consider for one moment an attempt to enforce the Act with its present financial provisions. Therefore to my mind it is almost impossible I to introduce it as it is, and for it to be either
482
amended, or an amending Act introduced. What is the history of the Act? We know full well that it was passed over the heads of the people during the war. The people who had been fighting that measure, or a Bill like it, had gone to the war to fight for England and for their country. It was passed over their heads. To my mind there was no moral justification for that Bill, none whatsoever, and as a consequence I do not see why there should be any moral obligation on the part of His Majesty's Government to-day to enforce it. I do not know if there are any members of the Cabinet who introduced that Bill in the Government to-day, but the majority certainly are not, and for that reason I see no moral obligation on the part of the present Government to enforce that Bill. It is not a case of its being one of the laws of the Medes and the Persians; it can be repealed, or it can be altered in some way; but to say that because the Act is on the Statute-book nothing can be done does not seem common sense to me.
Then, my Lords, I come back to the Union. The Union, I believe, is tins only method of government for Ireland. Look at the prosperity it has brought to Ireland. At the present moment the bank balances of the farmers and tenants in Ireland amount to £150,000,000. That is certainly a sign of prosperity, and every one knows that up to 1906 the Union gave great satisfaction. The country was extraordinarily peaceful and prosperous; we have Mr. Birrell's own words for it. Why are you going to change it? Why are you blaming the Union for the present state of affairs? It is not the fault of the Union; it is the fault of the administration of the Union. Take an example. If a Captain of a battleship runs the ship ashore and she breaks up you do not blame the ship or the naval architect who designed the ship. You blame the Captain; and it is the same with the Union of England and Ireland. It is not the fault of the Union; it is the fault of the people who administer the Union. During the last ten or twelve years every one knows that if any law was passed which the people of Ireland did not like, the Government either said that it did not apply to Ireland, and if it did and the people of Ireland disobeyed it they shut their eyes to it. How can you expect any law to exist or to be of any use if you treat it in that way? Therefore to-day why should you blame the Union? If you administered the

483
Union properly it would probably be as great a success now as in the past.
I should like to say one word about self-determination, which to-day is a very popular phrase to use. It has many good points. I have seen it in operation, I have read of it, and have spoken to people who have seen it in operation. There is no question that it is an excellent thing if applied to certain people; but there are naturally exceptions to every rule. Self-determination is now being applied to Ireland. I regret to say that I think the Irish people are one of those peoples who are unfit to govern themselves. They cannot. govern themselves. They have to be governed. They are the most easily governed people in the world, and if you will only take them the right way they are most easily led. Unfortunately that cuts both ways. The sooner it is recognised by the people of England that the Irish cannot govern themselves the better for England and for Ireland. I hope your Lordships will think very long before giving a vote for a measure which I know noble Lords on both sides of the House and from the Woolsack to the cross benches in their heart of hearts disapprove of and disagree with. Holding the views I do I find it absolutely impossible to vote for a measure which I believe will bring nothing but ruin and disaster not only to Ireland but to England and the British Empire.
VISCOUNT HALDANE:My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has spoken with strong conviction and with eloquence as representing a section of the Irish people. I rise to ask your Lordships' indulgence while I speak a few words from a different point of view, but one which is also relevant. For forty years, at the bar and on the bench of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it has fallen to me to be a close student of the application of the principle of self-government to the different parts of the British Empire. Quite true those parts were different parts—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland lie far away—but there has been much that has been analogous in the circumstances, and what is important is that the developments there have gone on, step by step and stage by stage, often originating in what was very imperfect and culminating in each case in the successful working out, after a sufficient lapse of time, of the principle.
484
To the noble Earl's speech I listened with much interest. He began by saying that the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced by a Unionist Government were very remarkable circumstances. I agree, they are He took exception to much that is in the Bill. So do I, from a rather different point of view. For myself, I do not think it goes far enough, and I should not wish to be associated with direct responsibility by an affirmative vote in pronouncing this Bill to be an altogether adequate one. But when we came to the end of the speech of the noble Earl we got upon a new note. To put it in a sentence it was, in effect, that no possible Bill that could be introduced could make things any better, or end in anything but disaster. He is against complete self-government in Ireland, which is what I should have welcomed if it had been in this Bill. He is against doing anything except governing by the rule of law and order. We all want law and order and the question is how to get law and order.
I listened with pleasure to the brilliant speech which fell from the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, and there was a point in that speech which struck me very much. He said quite frankly that he himself would have preferred twenty years of resolute government, but he could not sec his way to twenty years of resolute government. A Unionist Government would not endure for that time, and no other Government was likely to pursue a continuity of the policy. That was a profoundly true saying on the part of the Lord Chancellor, but it rested in something deeper than the mere change of Government which takes place in the normal course in a country like ours. It rested on this, that the basis of all Government in these islands is democracy—the will of the people, exercised by the people and through the people—and the people will not have any system of law and order that does not arise from their own good will. They believe that there is a good will that results in law and order, and they believe that if you do not have law and order you have only the action of a small minority, setting themselves against the will of a majority, which on the whole they take to be well-intentioned. There is much to be said for that view, but it is too late to argue it on its merits. It is the accepted Constitution of the country, and so long as you have democracy it is impossible to pursue a policy of resolute

485
government by coercion of any large section of the population by any other section. It will always be said that either it is a very small and limited section or it is a large section, which means that something is Wrong, and then a democracy will insist on putting it right. So it is that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was quite well founded when he said that we have reached days in which it is hopeless to expect twenty years of resolute government. If you had it, it could not succeed. The people have been educated up to a point in which they will not have it, and it would drive them on to the side of disorder if you practised it. So it conies about that to-day there is one principle and one principle only in which we can have any hope, and that is the principle of placing the fullest responsibility upon the shoulders of those 'who exercise the real power, the power of the public will, which is at the back after all of all our institutions.
This is not from my point of view a perfect Bill by any means; on the contrary, it falls far short of what, to my mind, is necessary for giving effect to the principle which I have just described. But that is not the question which I have to put to myself. The question which I have to put to myself is whether I ought to cooperate in impeding the efforts of the Government which has conic to the conclusion that this is the right principle and has embodied it in a Bill, which is imperfect, but still is an expression in some sort of the principle. Now on one set of conditions, and one only, can I bring myself to embarass the Government in making an effort which is made with what is to me an excellent intention I might think that the proposition was so bad and so monstrous that it was better it should be put aside. That is a very serious conclusion to come to in the case with which we are dealing, because what chance is there of any alternative Bill to this?
Several NOBLE LORDS:Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HALDANE:Is anybody in this House so foolish as to pretend to believe that any Bill can be got by agreement between this country, as it is represented day, and Ireland? Is anybody so foolish as to believe that to-morrow there is coming in another Government which will produce a better Bill? It is perfectly obvious that you cannot come
486
to any agreement between the Government here and Ireland upon the kind of Bill which you wish to introduce. You may conic to an agreement with a good many people in Ireland, and it is a great help to you if you do. You may be able to make a start; you may be able to do something on which you have a prospect to build hereafter; but to pass a Bill by agreement is unfortunately not within the region of practical polities at the present time. Therefore when a Bill is introduced which is not founded on agreement, but which may yet pass, the question I ask myself is whether it is better to use force against Ireland in the shape of passing such a Bill without the consent of a considerable proportion of the Irish people, or whether the alternative is better, which is to resort to the violence which we have seen during the last few months.
I am far from reproaching the Government for trying to keep law and order in Ireland. It is the business of every Government to do its best to preserve law and order. But what is going on at the present time is only an illustration of the terrors which are brought about by the condition of things in winch the people are on one side and the Government which is seeking to keep the law is on the other. I was talking only this morning to an Irish Unionist who told me, whatever the merits of it, that the whole of the South and middle of Ireland had gone Sinn Fein. That was the opinion of one person, and it has been the opinion of many people with whom I have talked for a long time. Nor do I see that ceasing. It may be—I cannot tell—that the Government by repression may be able to produce a smooth surface and put a different appearance upon things. But can they produce contentment in Ireland? 'We have heard a good deal of self-congratulation. There was a little of it, I think, in the speech of the Lord Chancellor this evening about the efforts of the Unionist Government which was interrupted after ten years' good work, ending in 1906. The Unionist Government did good work and passed many things, but will any one pretend that they contented Ireland? Things were quiet, but the Home. Rule agitation was getting stronger and stronger, and the. Home Rule agitation today is only the outcrop of the agitation which existed in those days.
NOBLE LORDS:No.
VISCOUNT HALDANE:It is no use noble Lords pretending that it is not so. There has been an absolute continuity in this Home Rule movement during the whole of my time, and if it has been quieter at some periods it has been noisier at others, and to-day you have perhaps the best of all possible demonstrations of the unsatisfactory expectations of those who look to resolute government for a solution of the question.
This brings me to the practical question of to-day. Is there that in this Bill which makes it such that we should not give the Government, whose policy it is, the opportunity of trying it? The form in which the Bill has appeared is the responsibility of the Government, but it is a responsibility which they have assumed in face of the circumstances, and the question I have to ask myself is whether there is that in the Bill which makes it worth while leaving them free to give it a trial. For, if so, I venture to submit to your Lordships that it is our duty, in the face of the situation in Ireland to-day, not to interrupt the Government which is making the effort that, under the circumstances, appeared to them to promise most. Go on with coercion I do not believe they can for any prolonged period. Does this Bill give an opportunity, lot of coming to an agreement—there is no question of that—but of making what in diplomatic language is called a detente, a departure from the existing order of things from which there might be some hope?
There is one feature in this Bill for which I value it much, and for the sake of which alone I am prepared to say that nothing will induce me individually to put any obstacle in the way of the Government having its opportunity. When we get to Committee other considerations will arise. We will then discuss the details on their merits. But what is the proposition at this moment? There are various proposition. There is that of the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, brought forward in the form of what is called a reasoned Amendment, which is polite language for rejection. Then there is Lord Willoughby de Broke who, with more brutal frankness, has put down a Motion for the rejection of the Bill. And then there is the inure subtle and insidious form which we have not yet seen on the Paper, but of which we heard from the Lord Chancellor and from other noble Lords some ado bration—a Motion which is to delay the Second Reading, a
488
Motion for the adjournment which is to put off a decision perhaps a fortnight or some such time. To put off a decision on a Bill at this period of the session is an extremely dangerous thing. I should have thought if that were really a genuine Motion it would be sufficient to say, "Give us ten days or a fortnight before the Committee stage, and we will pass the Second Reading." But a Motion of that kind on Second Reading which goes to the very root principle of the Bill I say is a Motion which, so far as I am concerned, I resent more than I should a direct Motion to reject the Blll.
What is the principle which is valuable in this Bill? It offers to Ireland responsible government. It offers to Ireland an Executive which will no longer be the present Executive—the Lord Lieutenant under the control of Ministers at Westminster—but an Executive in which the Lord Lieutenant as representing the King will be advised by Ministers representing the two Parliaments. That is what is meant by responsible government; the Ministers being selected from the Parliament which returns them. It is a great step forward to get to responsible government. Those of your Lordships who have been students of the British Empire know that responsible government is something which has been given very tardily. Even in my own memory, which does not carry me back very far into these times, I can remember periods when there were Despatches to Colonial Secretaries who would have scouted the idea of giving responsible government to the Colonies. Lord Durham made his famous Report on the state of Canada eighty years ago, and when the Bill was brought forward eighty years ago to give some effect to that Report this country would not give Canada responsible government. The new Province of Canada, Old Canada as it was called, which included Ontario and Quebec as they are to-day, was given a Government which was representative but not responsible. It was not until six years after that the step was taken of- putting responsibility where power was. What was the result? The friction, the lawlessness, the disturbances which existed throughout these Provinces in those days speedily began to disappear because the people themselves set it right.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Is the noble Viscount prepared to treat. Ireland like Canada?
VISCOUNT HALDANE:I am prepared to go as far as I can in the same direction. In Canada self-government produced the result which was hoped for by those who believed in the principle of placing responsibility where power was. If responsibility was placed where power is in Ireland I have the same belief about Ireland that I have practical verification of in the case of Canada. The circumstances, of course, vary in some ways, but unless you have the courage to take your life in your hand and go to the fullest extent with this, then do not wither between two things: either say that you are out-and-out coercionists, or say you will take the full step. That has been the case throughout the experience of the British Empire. We have found as we have gathered courage that disturbances have become lessened and have finally disappeared in so far as we have made it the interest of the people themselves to put an end to them. Does anybody suppose that it is in the interest of Ireland to keep up the horrible state of things we have been reading of in the City of Dublin and in the City of Cork in the last few days? Does anybody suppose that Tralee should be in the condition it is to-day? Do you imagine that the vast majority of the citizens of these towns are not in favour of law and order just as much as your Lordships are?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN:No.
VISCOUNT HALDANE:The majority of them are just as much in favour of law and order as your Lordships, and we have this condition of things to-day because of the sense of grievance and of liberty outraged which has arisen.
NOBLE LORDS:No, No.
VISCOUNT HALDANE:It is all very well for noble Lords to say "No, no," but if your Lordships would study history—
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN:How do they show it?—by murder.
VISCOUNT HALDANE:You have not given them the power to put it down; you are trying to put it down yourselves, and you have failed. But I am afraid it would take a very long speech from me to convert the noble Viscount, and therefore I will not try. But I wish emphatically to say that my difficulty about this Bill
490
is that it does not go as far as I should like to see in putting the instrument into the hands of a people whom I believe to be no more averse to law and order, no more in favour of murder and abominations than the people to which I myself belong; a people who if they had the sense of liberty, if they had the sense of being governed according to their own ideas, as we claim to be governed according to ours, would, in all probability, respond in the same way as people have responded here.
But this Bill has something more than the fact that it contains the principle of a responsible Executive. I am one of those who, as a Member of the other House, voted in favour of the Home Rule Bill of 1866. I have never ceased to regret that the Bill was thrown out in the House of Commons. I have never ceased to regret the opposition—as I think, the blind and short-sighted opposition—which prevented an opportunity when two men of genius in their different ways, Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell, each at the head of his people, were prepared to carry things through. You could have settled with Ireland in those days for much less than you could settle with Ireland to-day, and, if to-day you refuse the effort which the Government is making, it is not improbable that you will have to settle on still more difficult terms at a later stage. For we have not the machinery, we have not the people behind us to enable us to pursue the only policy which is a logical alternative.
The Bill has this great advantage, that it has met with the approval of the majority in Ulster. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Duke who spoke from the benches opposite. I was very much impressed with the way in which he recorded the steps by which Ulster had come round to this view. I was impressed in the same way by what was said by my noble friend on the Woolsack because he himself was almost, in earlier stages, a child of Ulster in this very affair, and to-day we have him telling us that, in the interests of Ulster itself, it seems the best thing to come in. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave such a lucid and accurate analysis of the Bill that I shall not trouble your Lordships with any details about it. I only wish to say that, taking a bird's eye view of the Bill, which I have studied very attentively, as a constitutional lawyer was

491
bound to do, I am struck with this, that it is a Bill which proposes to go step by step—step taken after step—not incontinently, but as Irish assent develops itself and manifests itself. You have got at present, if the Bill were to pass, two Parliaments, one for the South and one for the North. You have responsible government. The Executive would be dependent equally upon those two Parliaments. They have their own Ministers, but obviously, as the noble Earl said in his speech, that is not a convenient state of things.
I differ from the noble Lord who said that this is the end of all things. It. is not the end of all things; the Bill has carefully prepared for another state of things which lies beyond. If it is the wish of the ten members who sit in the Council from the South and of the ten members who sit in the Council from the North, there are many things which can be done by the Council itself towards the promotion of Irish unity; and if they can get further, if in the process of education through that Council they can reach the stage at which they say "Well, it is better that we should have one Parliament," then they can unite and form one Parliament for the whole of Ireland.
I doubt whether under existing circumstances it was possible to go much further than that.. I should, of course, have liked to see an Ireland which would have said "Give us a. large measure of Home Rule for the whole island, and we will work it," but that is not what they are saying, and that is not what they are likely to say. When I. find a state of things in which Ulster is going into a Bill which goes even so far as this, and in which the principle of responsible government is embodied to the extent. it is in this Bill, then even if I find the Bill unsatisfactory in many respects and not a Bill which I myself would have been prepared to put forward as anything like a complete remedy for the situation, I say if there be no other alternative to shooting people down in Ireland and continually to shoot them down then I, for my part, cannot take the responsibility of putting any difficulty in the way of the Government going on with their experiment. I am thankful that they are making this experiment; I am thankful that they are departing from the policy of clear coercion and going as far as they are.
The position is, as I have said, not wholly
492
satisfactory. If there is anything likely to cause friction it is the extent to which the control of their own finances is held back from Ireland. That is not a matter that you will make any better by putting the Second Reading of this Bill off for a fortnight. It is not a matter in which we can initiate change in this House; it is better surely to let the Bill pass with such Amendments, if there be any, as you can make in Committee, and having made them to leave the question of finance to the only place that can deal with it, the other House of Parliament. It is a matter for a subsequent Bill, and I should hope that it is matter for a Bill that may conic before any long time is out, because I am pretty sure it will be found that you will not get rid of friction in Ireland until you have given Ireland something like control of its own finances. The situation is this. We have the paradox that the only way of passing a Bill for self-government for Ireland is to pass it to a certain extent uninvited. Ireland will not agree, and your alternative is coercion. Therefore you must pass a Bill on your own initiative and your own responsibility if you want it to become law. An agreement is impossible. It is said that the South will never work the Bill.
LORD BELLEW:Never, never, never!
VISCOUNT HALDANE:The noble Lord says "Never, never, never." How does he know?
LORD BELLEW:I have lived for sixty-four years in Ireland, and I know.
VISCOUNT HALDANE:After having been for sixty-four years a stout Unionist, I should say you are putting yourself in a very difficult position as regards forming a judgment. The only reason why I refuse to give up hope that this Bill will work is this. It is directly and grossly against the interests of the people of the South not to take part in it. If they do not, what will be the consequence? Why, the consequence will be that Ulster will begin to constitute itself a Parliament and constitute itself an Executive, and the South of Ireland will be left out of the business altogether. There will be Crown Colony Government for the South of Ireland, and the South of Ireland will see the affairs of Ireland being infringed by their rival. The Irish are a practical

493
people like other people, and despite the prophecy of the noble Lord I venture to think that material considerations will prevail over sentiment when it gets to that.
LORD BELLEW:No.
VISCOUNT HALDANE:The noble Lord is an idealist of the highest order, and I think we in this House ought to congratulate ourselves on having somebody who has such a deep conviction and who is ready to stake his interest for that conviction. But for myself, I am of opinion that the temptation to the South will be too great after a little interval, and that we shall find the South slowly perhaps, gently, and then with sonic confidence, explaining that it is going to take some part in this and is corning into the business. I am not without hope that if that once happens and the South and the North begin to work a little together we may see some of these further steps that are foreshadowed in the Bill which the Government of necessity, and I think wisely, have not tried to carry further than the stage of providing the machinery for accomplishing that if the time ever comes. I have said all I had to say. I rose for the purpose of expressing my very strong feeling that, quite apart front the question of taking affirmative responsibility for this Bill, it would be, wrong to prevent the Government from having their opportunity. My objection is as strongly against any dilatory Motion as it is against any direct Motion for rejection. Our business is to let the Government who are responsible for this matter get to work. After all, this is better than what we have been reading of during the last few days in Ireland; and for myself if this Bill constitutes a d tour, a departure, from the sequence of things which has been all too unhappily marked, I shall feel that the attempt has been worth waking.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:My Lords, I must confess at the outset that the speech of the noble Viscount has put me in a difficulty from the fact that it is a different speech from what I expected. In fact, the noble Viscount has said so many of the things I intended to say myself that I feel I have little justification for doing more than explaining to your Lordships how it is that I, who have always voted against every Home Rule Bill I ever had the
494
opportunity of considering, am on Thursday night not going to range myself on the side either of those who propose argumentative Amendments, or of those who propose direct negatives, or of those who propose postponement and dilatory Motions.
I will take the Amendment of the noble Earl which has been put from the Chair. If it passes the House will have indefinitely rejected the Second Reading and will have committed itself in its place to nothing more or better than a sterile affirmation of a purely argumentative proposition. But it is worse than that. The Amendment begins with a statement of fact, "no support from the majority of the Irish people." This may or may not be true, but even if it is true it is not necessarily a condemnation of tire Bill. The fact that one should have to be so apparently paradoxical in describing the situation is the fault not of England but of Ireland. The one fact about this Bill which persuades me to support it is that Ulster, which with all respect to the noble Earl who has just spoken is, I think represented here in a better informed manner by Sir Edward Carson and the noble Duke, has at all events for the first time in its history expressed its readiness to give a trial to some kind of local responsible self-government.
There is also the element in the Bill that the one thing w hick has always wrecked schemes for Irish self-government in the past—namely, the divisions between Irishmen themselves—is in this Bill relegated to decision and solution by the efforts of Irishmen themselves, and no longer will it be the case that Ireland will have an opportunity of howling and complaining to Britain that she, and she alone, does not solve difficulties the solution of which rests with Irishmen themselves. This Bill at all events secures an opportunity for Irish feuds to be somehow composed, by Irishmen's own efforts.
We have heard a great deal to-night about moderate opinion. If this Bill passes there will be something practical for moderate opinion to do and they will have an opportunity of doing it, a direction and orientation in which they can usefully apply their efforts in doing it. We must remember that in what is called Ulster there is a repulsion, an antipathy, a repugnance, to what may be called Nationalist rule in Ireland which at the very best and very least requires some explanation, and it is not a sufficient

495
explanation to borrow Mr. Gladstone's phrase and say that it is all "original sin" on the part of Ulster.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR:I do not think Mr. Gladstone said that.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:lie said that it was the fashion in England to imagine that Ireland was cursed with a double dose of original sin, and it was this phrase that I borrowed as convenient to describe the conception I negatived as regards Ulster. There must have been something to account for this repugnance and antipathy, which is almost animal in its intensity. I say that the fault is largely with Nationalism itself and the events of the last two days—which I am bound to say ought not to deflect us by one inch either to the right or the left in doing what we conceive to be just—have certainly not done anything to diminish the sense that we have that Nationalism is largely to blame for that repugnance on the part of Ulster.
I have another observation to make about the fact that this Bill is not supported by a great majority of the Irish people. I wish some leading statesmen had followed the hood example set by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. I do not think this is the time when it is a useful thing for leading British statesmen to go about on platforms to egg on the Irish people and suggest to them that they should reject this Bill; that they should refuse to work it; that they should meet it with non-co-operation and possibly, with political sabotage. I think they might have been left to come to such a decision for themselves and of their own mere motion. The noble and learned Viscount has really fastened to what is the central fact of this Bill. We cannot deal with this question otherwise than by stages and steps. We are at a stage now when the British Government cannot go beyond a certain step, and the next step after that is one which must be taken by Irishmen themselves and no one else.
The other limb or member of this Amendment says that this Bill "affords no prospect of any permanent settlement." That is nothing but an expression of opinion and, with the utmost respect, I am going to express my dissent from that opinion. The mere expression of opinion proves nothing. The Bill affords at least as much
496
prospect of a permanent settlement as any Bill which has gone before it. In connection with all previous Bills, in the mouth of the late Mr. Redmond and others, you have the proposition that Ireland was a unit. Well, is it? Is there one creed in Ireland? Is there any race in Ireland which is entitled to the monopoly of the whole territory? Is there the same industrial, the same economic, the same occupational outlook all over Ireland? There is nothing of the kind. There is one thing, and only one, which we can say—that the inhabitants of Ireland live in a place which is surrounded by the same salt sea.
Having disposed of the Amendment which is before the House, I have to think whether to oppose the Bill and to prevent it passing by any other means. That is a thing to me unthinkable. This Bill holds the field. It is not incapable of amendment. It does not operate a permanent partition. It leaves all doors open. I will not say perversity, it is only Irish non-co-operation which will close any of those doors. Irish interest will keep them all open and will make the greatest advantage of having them so open. It makes a reality of those safeguards for minorities which have appeared in the speeches—
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN:What safeguards?
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:I was going to say those safeguards for minorities which have appeared in all speeches of proposers of Home Rule Bills in the past.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I should like to know what safeguards there are for any minorities in the South of Ireland in this Bill.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:I say what I said before. It gives some recognition of that principle of the safeguarding of minorities.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:I would like to ask my noble friend what safeguard of any sort there is for any minority in the South.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:It gives some recognition of the principle of safeguarding minorities.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON:There is none.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:There is in the North. I have not said there was any safeguard in the South, except that in the South you will have the strongest motive in an orderly community for showing that a minority Will be treated in the South as it probably will be in the North.
LORD BELLEW:Name one single safeguard.
Several NOBLE LORDS:Order, order!
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:Ulster will have its own destiny in its own hands, and the South will have to choose between coming into this kind of local Parliamentary government or accepting Crown Colony rule. Sinn Fein may compel the continued acceptance of Crown Colony rule; but Sinn Fein will not do that otherwise than by terrorism. By reasoning it will never succeed. Interest will point the way in the other and the safer direction.
It is not perhaps a final objection to this Bill to say that the financial provisions are not what they could be. Of course, we cannot impose taxes. There are few things we can do as regards finance in this House, but there are ways of conveying to the other House our views that certain financial arrangements might be preferable to those in the Bill. I have not a doubt that those ways when we reach the proper stage will be adopted. I believe some of them find their place even in the Parliament Act itself. I believe they are called suggestions. We must not call them Amendments, for that would be an impropriety.
In connection with financial relations I should like to say that some people indulge in the language that it is admitted that Ireland has been overtaxed in the past. It is just as well that at this stage we should have it placed on record that the authority of the Childers Commission received in January, 1897, a shock from a very well-informed writer from which it has never recovered, and as to which it has never produced a refutation.
THE EARL OF MAYO:Who was the writer.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:The article was anonymous. It was in the Edinburgh Review of January, 1897. It
498
was said there that the injustice was not an injustice between the British taxpayers, and Irish taxpayers, but between the payers of direct taxes and indirect taxes, and that the Irish consumer of tea and the Irish consumer of whisky, though he might, pay more than he ought to in this allocation of burdens between direct and indirect taxation, did not suffer from any greater inequality than did his brother tea or whisky drinker in Great Britain. That injustice has long been redressed, so that. I do not agree that the financial provisions of this Bill are any less than generous. I think it just as well we should remember that if we are going to be brought face to face with the demand for complete separation there will be an absolutely unknown, increase of what- may be called Britain's, defence liabilities, and that that will cause such a debit in the account against. Ireland and in favour of Great Britain that. I hope there will be some pause in the degree of independence which is demanded from Ireland.
I alluded to Shin Fein just now. It is one of the forces which it is supposed that you must reconcile if you hope to propose anything like a successful scheme for Irish self-government. What is Sinn Fein? One thing we do know is that it is a cause which did not succeed in polling one-third of the voters on the register in the constituencies in which contests took place at last General Election. It polled in those constituencies 485,105 votes. There were 543,000 odd votes polled against it, and there were 977,000, odd persons who voted against Sinn Fein or abstained. To my mind it is very small wonder that since then Sinn Fein has found it impossible either to maintain or to extend its doctrines in Ireland without the use of murder or terrorism. That is, not a popular cause in any sense of the word, and probably you will see the weight and force of the Sinn Fein doctrines suffer a complete change if and when the spectacle is seen of Irishmen anywhere being governed themselves by Irishmen.
This leads me to reflect upon another of the great difficulties which have stood in the way of good relations between England and Ireland. I think it was Mr. Kipling, who said that Ireland always has a picturesque phrase applied to it and is always allowed to strike picturesque attitudes, and of course it has always organised matters so that Irish politicians never would accept any office from an English

499
Government. Since the advent of what may be called the Campbell-Bannerman régime there has been no moral or any other justification for any refusal of the kind. This refusal to take any part themselves in the government of Ireland has been little better than a claim to exercise power without bearing the burden of responsibility. Since 1898 Irish Nationalism has had in municipal affairs complete ascendancy. Since 1905 when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman became Prime Minister, it was the fault of Irish Nationalism itself if it did not have—and I believe it very largely did have—ascendancy also in Executive matters, or matters other than municipal. But now the spectacle will be seen of Irishmen being governed by responsible Irishmen, of responsibility being attached where power is entrusted. I, for one, look forward to a day when Irishmen will discover that mistakes may possibly be the heritage and the curse of Irish Governments just as they now imagine them to be the monopoly of English Governments. They will discover that infallibility is not to be found in an Irish Government any more than mercy is supposed to reside in an English Government. For my part I have always believed in the Union as a proper Government for Ireland.
Historically speaking, I think we ought with all respect to correct the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack. I believe the late Lord Salisbury's phrase about twenty years of resolute government was uttered somewhere about 1885 or 1886, and with the exception of an interlude of three years in 1892, Lord Salisbury got his twenty years of resolute government. From the end of that period right up to 1913 you had the late Mr. John Redmond saying that Ireland had never been so peaceful or so prosperous. On the day before we declared war on Germany the noble Viscount, Lord Grey, said that Ireland was the one bright spot in the critical position to which we were advancing. Later we were told that it was nothing but War Office stupidity and not Irish disloyalty and disaffection towards England that prevented a much larger number of Irishmen going into the Army than those who so gallantly did so.
My Lords, I shall support this Bill because I think it will afford Irishmen an opportunity of bearing some of their own burdens and their own responsibility,
500
and will do much to bring about that spirit of conciliation which all previous Home Rule Bills have failed entirely to produce.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE:My Lords, I rise to put before the House the views, as I conceive them, of the vast majority of Ulstermen. I am an Ulsterman: I live in Ulster; and I am a member of the Ulster Unionist Council. I welcome this Bill. As the Duke of Abercorn said, Ulster will accept this Bill and I would like to tell your Lordships why. I have always held that in considering the question of the government of Ireland it is no use disguising the fact that you have to deal with two races. You have to recognise that Protestant Ulster should not be treated as a minority merely to be safeguarded, but that if the principle of self-determination is conceded to the rest of Ireland Ulster also is entitled to the same concession. In fact, I consider that Ulster should be regarded as a distinct racial entity in Ireland.
More than one noble Lord in the course of this debate has made mention of the fact that Ulster had, apparently, changed her mind and was now prepared to accept some form of Home Rule or self-government. I think I may say—and noble Lords who come from Ulster and other parts of Ireland will agree with me—that the people of Ulster are a practical people. They have to look facts in the face, and they do it. They see that the Act of 1914 is on the Statute-book. They also try to look into the future, and Ulster knows that sooner or later—when, one cannot say—a General Election will take place, and a change of Government may occur; Ulster knows that she is not likely to get anything like as good terms as she gets under this Bill if we have either a Liberal Government or a Labour Government in power.
It is quite true that we Unionists in Ulster, along with the Unionists in the rest of Ireland, have always maintained that the Union is the wisest policy. But I doubt whether that possition can be maintained now. We have travelled a very long way since 1914. The Unionist Party, or at least the majority of the Unionists in Great Britain, have accepted at any rate the principle of home rule or self-determination in some form or another, and we must recognise that fact.
Much has been made in the course of this debate of the fact that this Bill divides

501
Ireland and sets up a permanent partition of Ireland. I think the noble Lord, Lord Oranmore and Browne, said that it set up an insuperable barrier between North and South. I take the contrary view. I say that this Bill, at any rate, is the first Bill that provides a chance, and a fair chance, of the North and the South, if they wish, coming together. I lived in Leinster a good few years before I went to live in Ulster, and, if I know anything about Ireland, J know this, that you will never get a peaceful or permanent form of government in Ireland if you try to coerce either of the two races into a Parliament which either of them mistrusts. But here in this Bill you give the North a Parliament, you give the South a Parliament, and you provide the machinery by which they can, if they so wish, come together.
If this Bill becomes law, and if a Parliament is set up in the North of Ireland I cannot believe that, as one noble Lord said, the South of Ireland will never set up a Parliament of its own. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haldane, when he said that it would be absolutely going against the interests of the South of Ireland. If this Bill passes, and if a Parliament for the North of Ireland is set up and functions, surely if the people of Ulster show in that Parliament and in t heir acts of government a tolerance, a forbearance, and a justice to all classes irrespective of party and creeds, as I believe they will do, they may set an example to the rest of Ireland, and the rest of Ireland may follow.
Is it too much to hope that if that occurs this Bill, instead of being, as its oppoenents contend, a means of dividing Ireland in two and meaning the permanent partition of Ireland, will provide means for establishing on a firm foundation the real unity of Ireland, and that contrary to the ideas of the opponents of this Bill it may be a stepping stone to a lasting peace some day in Ireland. We all desire peace in Ireland. We are all tired of this eternal bickering and quarrelling and differences of opinion between parties in Ireland. Believing as I do that this Bill does give a chance, and, so far as I can see, the best chance of getting eventually some unity in Ireland, and that it gives Ulster a means of managing her own affairs, if there is a Division I shall certainly vote for the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA:My Lords, I very much regret that
502
you should have to hear two Ulstermen so close together. I know that some of you think that a little of Ulster goes a very long way, but really it is the fault of the Whips. I had hoped that you would have had twenty-four hours interval of rest between hearing the Ulster opinions. But there are not many of us in this House, and it is rather important, as this question is of such gravity, that we should be allowed to give you our point of view.
The Duke of Abercorn, who was vice-president of the Ulster Unionist Council, told you that Ulster was prepared to accept this Bill. She is not enthusiastic about it, but she feels that it offers some promise and some prospect of stability and peace in the future. Nobody really except those who live in Ireland can realise what an atmosphere of unrest and turmoil has been over the country during the last ten years. The Ulster people want peace. They want to be allowed to live their own lives, to work out their own future, and to cease to be the shuttlecock of politics. Some of your Lordships have expressed great surprise that Ulster should be willing to accept this Bill. But is it really surprising? She knows, as you have been told over and over again, that the Act of 1914 is still in existence. No one can imagine that this Act can come into operation, but if your Lordships throw out this Bill there is always a chance of another Government coming into power. You may have a Labour Government with Commander Kenworthy as Secretary for Ireland, or Mr. Asquith's Government—miracles never cease—with his army and navy for Ireland. What would be the fate of Ulster then? Can you wonder that we take what we can get? We dislike most intensely having to abandon our fellow-Protestants in the South and West, but we cannot help it, and I am perfectly certain that if they were in our position they would do exactly the same. They do not like the idea of us having a Parliament to ourselves. They would like us to come in under one Parliament. If we did we could be of no possible use to them against the enormous Sinn Fein majority. We should all perish together. We Protestants in Ireland are in the position of shipwrecked mariners. We in the North are those who have been lucky enough to get on to a raft in comparative safety. The Southern Unionists are like the remainder of the crew who have been unable to get into safety and wish to upset

503
our frail bark simply with the idea that "if we cannot be saved blest if you shall be."
I was going to be so bold as to quote a speech by Lord Midleton. I hate being opposed to him for a good many reasons which he will appreciate. It is a dangerous thing for me to quote him, as he is a trained debater and I am only learning the first exercises. But he delivered a speech in this House in June, 1918—I have not the reference with me now—in which he gave very good reasons why no Unionist could possibly agree to go into a Dublin Parliament. He knew then that the Sinn Feiners were in correspondence, or close connection, with the Germans. We objected to coming into a Parliament under them, as we should be at that time. My point is that as he objected then so also did we object. We object still more now when we know that they are an organisation which, to put it mildly, tolerates murders and assassinations.
There is another party which will be opposed to the Bill, and that is the representatives of the three excluded counties, whose leader is Lord Farnham. I am not in the least surprised that they should wish to wreck the Bill. They want to do all they can to obviate the fate they see before them. As Lord Farnham knows, I was one of the few in the six counties who did their best to reverse that decision. We had two meetings. At the second, however, we were defeated by a very large majority. If I may make a personal allusion I would like to explain my position. Though I was opposed to the Ulster Unionist Council on the question I feel, as we were defeated by a large majority, that if we of the North are going to make this Parliament in Ulster a success we must all pull together; otherwise, it would be hopeless. At the same time I understand Lord Farnham's wish to oppose it.
The other party which is trying to defeat the Bill is composed of the robust diehards under Lord Willoughby de Broke, the Slashem and Bashem Party, who will have nothing to do with any Parliament of any sort. I quite understand Lord Willoughby de Broke advocating the policy because he does not live in Ireland, but I cannot understand any Irish Unionist Peer being a follower of his. How anybody who lives in Ireland can wish the state of affairs which has existed all these years to continue, I cannot imagine. It is abso-
504
lutely beyond me. If you listen to them you will never have peace of any sort in Ireland. You have raised the hopes of the Irish people of some measure of self-government and you cannot possibly refuse that. I have some hopes that if you give the North this Parliament they will work it to the best of their ability, without bigotry, without religious intolerance, and in the best interests of Ireland and the Empire at large.
LORD KILMAINE:My Lords, at this late hour I rise to speak with great diffidence, especially as I have not prepared a speech. But, coming from the South of Ireland, having lived there exclusively for the last three or four years, not having left it for more than three weeks during the last two years, and having for the last nine months lived under the so-called Republican Government., because it was the only Government holding sway in the district where I lived, and my family having been there, too, it being there now, perhaps I ought to give my point of view and that of brother loyalists who live in the district.
I have listened to the speakers from Ulster with very great interest. I have always recognised the right of Ulster to separate treatment. Whether the particular Parliament which they now seem to favour is the best form of separate treatment is a matter for themselves. I suppose they are the best judges of what suits them. The one thing to which people in the South are bitterly opposed is for a separate Parliament to be set up in Ulster. I am talking of Sinn Feiners. They would not so much object to Ulster being left out of any Home Rule Bill until she was willing to come in, and that, I had hoped, was the attitude which the Ulster Members in this House would take up. From the passage of the Bill in another place I thought that was the attitude they were going to adopt. The Ulster Members did not vote for the Bill. They always said they never asked for it and did not want it, but only desired to be left alone.
A few days ago I asked a leading Ulsterman, not a member of this House, "Is it a fact that you in Ulster are now getting quite keen about this separate Parliament in Ulster?" He said, "Not at all." I said, "It is stated that you are." He said, "We should like to be left under the British Government," "But," he said. "they are not offering us that; they are

505
only offering us this Parliament, and we have got to take it."
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA:May I ask whether he was a member of the Ulster Unionist Council, who represent Ulster?
LORD KILMAINE:He certainly was. I do not like to mention his name, because it was a private conversation; but I thought he was one of the most representative gentlemen from Ulster I could possibly speak to. It was an absolute bombshell to me when I came here to hear that the Ulster Peers were going to support the Bill. But, as I said before, the Ulster Peers know their own job best, and if they think they can work the Parliament by all means let them do so.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in his very able speech, said that Ulster wants peace. I cannot imagine where Ulster expects to find peace if she tries to set up this Parliament. She will have the entire South against her. She will have a very large minority of her own who will also be aglin4 her. And then they say they want finality. I may be entirely wrong, but I cannot imagine anything less likely to lead to finality than this partitioning of Ireland. It is hopeless.
Several NOBLE LORDS:Hear, hear.
LORD KILMAINE:I have come over much against my will, for I hate speaking, in order to implore your Lordships not to pass this Bill and put it on the Statute-book. If you pass this partitioning Bill, and if Ulster succeeds in setting up her Parliament and overcomes the opposition and gets that Parliament working, I do not believe there is any power on this earth which will ever get Ulster to amalgamate with the rest of Ireland, and there never will be a settlement or peace in Ireland while there are two Parliaments there.
It was also said in one of the speeches that Sinn Feiners in the South of Ireland were not willing to support this Bill. It was implied that it was the Sinn Feiners only who would not support the Southern Parliament. I can assure you that many loyalists I know in the West are just as bitterly opposed to this Government of Ireland Bill as any Sinn Feiners are. We look upon it as disastrous. It is proposed that practically all our
506
rights are to be put exclusively under an Irish Parliament, and yet we are to pay full Imperial taxation, and in addition any Sur-tax that the local Parliament likes to put on us as well. Is that fair treatment of the loyalists of Ireland? Then it was said that if this Parliament in the South were not set up, the South would be governed as a Crown Colony. It is very easy to talk of governing Ireland like a Crown Colony, but I am a witness of the absolute breakdown and failure of government in the South and West of Ireland during the last two years. The breakdown was so absolute that we did not know where the British Government was. People who have been opposed to Home Rule all their lives have said, "We could not have anything worse than this. Let us have Home Rule of any sort or kind. Anything is better than this." That is the state we have been reduced to there.
I would also like to say that I have had personal acquaintance with many Sinn Feiners in the South and West, and it is quite wrong for any of your Lordships to suppose that the whole Sinn Fein party are identified with this revolting policy of murder and outrage. There are hundreds and thousands of people under the Sinn Fein flag who repudiate and loathe this policy of murder just as much as any of your Lordships in this House. But they are terrorised. What can they do? To whom can they appeal? The lives and property of people in my county were threatened. They appealed to the British Government for protection. They did not get it. The police could not give it to them. The soldiers could not give it to them. Then in certain cases they appealed to Sinn Feiners and I must say that in regard to the district where I live the Sinn Feiners treated them with the greatest. fairness.
I voted against the 1914 Bill chiefly because, if it had been enforced it would at once have led to civil war; and if it were attempted to enforce it now it would lead to civil war. I also voted against it because I did not then think that the Irish people could ever govern themselves. But what I have seen of Sinn Fein Courts and of the Sinn Fein movement in the extreme west of Ireland, during the time that they have been allowed to have complete control, has made me change my opinion. Sinn Feiners have shown extraordinary fairness in a great many ways and they have been extremely just in their decisions.

507
I am willing and always have been willing, Unionist as I am, to vote for any Home Rule Bill provided it offered a reasonable prospect of settling the eternal differences between Ireland and England. A though I have no confidence in the success of any Government in Ireland I would vote for any Bill that promised a settlement of this perpetual feud between England and Ireland. But this Bill offers absolutely no prospect of settling matters. I assure your Lordships the fact of this partition Bill hanging over the heads of the Irish people has been one of the main causes of all the outrage and unrest that have occurred. The people loathe the idea of this Bill and will do anything to upset it now or when it has been passed into law. If you want peace my Lords surely a Bill manufactured in England and entirely in the interests of England as I hold this Bill to be is not the way to get it. This is not the Bill to bring peace with an Irish people who are clamouring for a Republic. Sinn Fein at least asks for an independent Irish Republic and you offer them this Bill. If you want to offer them a Home Rule Bill you must offer them something that they will accept. You must offer them real Home Rule. I do not say that you can get agreement now, but I think it is absolute madness to give up the hold that you have on the country now. It may not be strong, but you have some hold upon it, and unless you have some prospect that this Bill will finally settle the Irish question you ought to maintain your hold upon the country. I believe that the great majority of Sinn Feiners and Nationalists in the South and West of Ireland do not want to break away from the Empire. They are not disloyal to the King. But what they do want is to manage their own affairs, and what they especially want is the collection and control of their own taxation. If you are not prepared to give them that, then I am afraid there is no chance of any Bill bringing that peace to Ireland for which we all long. For the reasons I have stated I entirely agree with the Amendment moved by the Earl of Dunraven and I shall support it.
LORD CLWYD:My Lords, I cannot agree with the general view expressed by the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, and I find it a little difficult to discover a complete consistency in respect to some of his statements. He has every right, as every noble Lord who
508
knows Ireland and has resided there has, of expressing his views to this House, and those views will receive due consideration, I am slue, by all who hear them.
I should like to express my views upon this Bill from the general standpoint of one who has watched the progress of this Irish controversy for 30 years at all events. I happened to be a spectator in the other House during the proceedings on the first Home Rule Bill of 1886. I supported through all their stages the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1893 and the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1912.
There is, perhaps, another reason for this brief intervention in the debate, and it is the fact that throughout my Parliamentary life I represented a part of the United Kingdom, Wales, which gave to the principle of Irish self-government a more emphatic, more consistent and constant support than, perhaps, any other portion of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that the question we have to decide in relation to this Bill is, Is there any chance or possibility through the passing of this measure, of the way being opened for a gradual solution of the Irish problem? With reference to the difficulties of the situation, I belong, as I have said to a country which has always supported the principle of Home Rule for Ireland. I also belong to a Party which has endeavoured for 30 years to carry that principle into effect. But I recognise, my Lords, that it is absolutely purposeless to refer to the past or endeavour to express regrets at this stage that the policy did not meet with the success we think it deserved. What we have to do, as it seems to me, is to try to realise the exceptional circumstances and conditions which surround this Irish problem, and in the light of that recognition endeavour to come to a right judgment whether this particular Bill will open the door to a permanent settlement in time to come.
It is, I think, perfectly clear, if we impartially consider the past, that in dealing with this problem we have not given all the factors of race and temperament and religion that place in the solution of the problem which they deserve. There is one other factor in the case to which I hardly think those who oppose this measure give sufficient consideration, and that is the factor of the war. I do not desire to dwell upon this point, but it seems to me that sometimes in history there takes place an

509
event—in this case it was the convulsion of a world-wide war—which develops history at a greater rate in a comparatively short period than has been the case during perhaps generations, or even centuries of previous history. We do not sufficiently recognise, in my opinion, the enormous change in every direction which has been brought about by the convulsion of the late war, and it has had its effect upon the Irish situation. It is the irony of fate that whilst the people of this country and other nations in alliance with us were fighting a life-and-death struggle for the liberty of the world it was impossible for us to give that attention to Ireland which was necessary, and, owing to that want of attention, things were done, mistakes were permitted, which have added very considerably to the difficulty of the solution of the Irish problem at the present time.
I will not refer in any detail to the Bill itself. As I have said, I supported the previous Home Rule Bills, and this Bill is certainly, in my opinion, an advance upon both the previous Bills which I supported years ago. Speaking for myself, I would say that I hope that it may be possible to enlarge the scope of the Bill, and that at a not very distant date. Speaking again for myself, I place great importance upon satisfying the majority of the Irish people on the financial side of the question. I know that it is impossible for us in this house to deal with the question of the Customs and Excise, but my own individual opinion would be that it would be worth while going a great distance in that direction if we were able in that way to secure that measure of support in Ireland which the noble Earl who has m wed this Amendment, Lord Dunraven, thinks would follow such a decision.
As to the state of lawlessness and terrible crime which is now unhappily prevailing in Ireland, there can only be one opinion; it must be put down, and, as the Prime Minister has said, the full resources of the Crown must be utilised for that purpose. But, from that study of the Irish question which I have been able to make, I also have come to the conclusion that the essential thing is to secure the support of the moderate section of Irish opinion on all sides. I have some reason to believe that the statement is true that, even to-day, there is a considerable section of even the Sinn Fein Party in Ireland who hate what is going on, and who would be glad of any
510
opportunity which could be afforded of coming to an agreement which they think would be satisfactory, and which would lead the way by stages to the measure of self-government which they desire.
There is no doubt as to the seriousness of the situation in Ireland. I heard one noble Lord say to-night something with which I profoundly disagree. He said he did not place very much account upon the attitude and opinion of people outside this country with regard to the Irish situation. I profoundly disbelieve that. I believe that it is of the highest importance that the opinion of outside nations, and particularly the United States, should be satisfied in regard to Ireland if we are to build up, as I hope we are going to do, and still further extend the scope and influence of the British Empire.
In conclusion I would only make this further remark. There are many points in this Bill that to my mind are not completely satisfactory, but it is the best possible Bill, under the circumstances, and there is no other measure which I think could command such support in Ireland or elsewhere. What we have to do, it appears to me, is to face the situation courageously and quickly. The tragedy of the Irish controversy has been that there have been too many words and too few deeds, and my own hope is that we shall pass this Bill and that we shall pass it quickly, that we shall remember the motto of the late John Bright, "Be just and fear not," and trying to do justice to Ireland in this Bill I believe in the long run we shall achieve the end that we have in view.
LORD DENMAN:My Lords, I beg to move, on behalf of Viscount Grey of Fallodon, that the debate be now adjourned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:As the Minister in charge of the Bill I may, upon that Motion, remind your Lordships that while it is not our habit to sit often after dinner it has been our custom, when we do, to sit quite late, and we frequently, indeed, almost habitually in my experience, sit till midnight. There have been some orators present tonight who could have contributed, I should have hoped very considerably, to our debate. While accepting the Motion which the noble Lord has moved, anticipating vividly the

511
pleasure we shall derive from the contribution to the debate of the noble Viscount to-morrow, I am very sorry there are not enough speakers to utilise the remaining time until midnight.
On Question, further debate adjourned until to-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Third Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Monday next.
PAISLEY CORPORATION (1NCHINNAN OPENING BRIDGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
To be read 3a to-morrow.
WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOY- MENT IN LEAD PROCESSES) BILL.
Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for Monday next) put off to Tuesday next.
SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) (No. 2) BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for Monday next) put off to Tuesday next.

THE INDIAN ARMS ACT.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL rose to ask His Majesty's Government—(l) Whether the Indian Arms Act of 1919 differs from previous Acts in imposing no restriction on the carrying or manufacture of arms, other than firearms, except in certain specified areas; (2) whether this relaxation is not already causing some anxiety, and whether it may not lead to a considerable manufacture of swords and other lethal weapons; (3) what are the reasons for this change in a long established policy.
The noble Lord said:My Lords, in asking my noble friend the Under-Secretary
512
of State for India the Question of which I have given notice, I only wish to say that I am much obliged to him for his kindness in having allowed me to put it this evening.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF LYTTON):My Lords, the Act of 1919, to which my noble friend refers in his Question, did not in certain minor details differ from previous Acts, but the new rules made under it removed, except in the Punjab, Burmah, and the North-West Frontier Province, restrictions on the possession and use of arms other than firearms. Local Governments, however, have power to reimpose these restrictions as regards any class of persons or any areas, and several Governments have done so as regards swords, bayonets and daggers.
Then I come to the second Question of the noble Lord. This relaxation to which I have referred, as the noble Lord suggests, has been causing considerable anxiety in some places, and other Governments are considering the re-imposition of restrictions at least on the use of swords without licences.
In reply to the last Question, this change was made on the recommendation of a Committee of the Imperial Legislative Council on which more than half the members were experienced officials appointed in September, 1918, by the Governor-General in Council to consider the proposals made for the amendment of the rules in order to do away with racial distinctions. As I have already explained, the Act itself makes no change in the previously existing law beyond altering the provision for the treatment of arms for which the licence of exemption has expired or been cancelled.
LORD AMPTHILL:The noble Earl has left out one point, as to whether the manufacture of arms is going on upon any considerable scale.
THE EARL OF LYTTON:That point is dealt with in the second part of the reply; it is going on, and is causing anxiety. The necessity for reimposing restrictions is under the consideration of some of the Local Governments.
House adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock.