Sitting of 17 August 1921

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD
CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CHILDREN OF UNMARRIED PARENTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read la, and to be printed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
ABERDEEN CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY WORKS RAILWAY) ORDER CONFIR- MATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
BRIDGE OF ALLAN WATER, ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

WHEAT IMPORTS
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I desire, on behalf of Lord Bledisloe, to ask His

Years.

Imported Wheat and Wheat Flour Retained in the United Kingdom (Imports Less Re-exports)in Equivalent of Grain.

Percentage of Total Consumption in the United Kingdom.

Value of Total Imports of Wheat Flour into the United Kingdom.

Average of

Tons.

Per Cent.

£

1905–1914

5,655,000

80·2

46,427,545

1915

5,123,500

76·5

65,617,352

1916

5,679,600

77·9

80,581,353

1917

5,532,600

78·7

119,432,777

1918

4,714,700

71·3

113,546,430

1919

4,794,250

70·9

101,699,401

1920

6,068,700

79·9

167,019,949

The proportion of the space available on vessels entered with cargoes from abroad at United Kingdom ports which would Lave been necessary for the carriage of the wheat and flour represented in the first
830
Majesty's Government what was the average amount of wheat annually imported into the United Kingdom during the ten years preceding the war, and what were the amounts of such imports for each year of the war and since, including an estimate in respect of the current calendar year; also what proportion in each case of the total national consumption these imports represent. And also, what was the value of the wheat imported into the United Kingdom annually prior to the war, during the war, and since the war; what amount of shipping tonnage such imports occupied, and what proportion this represented of the total tonnage available; also what is today the additional cost to the nation of sea-borne wheat arising from the differences in international monetary exchange?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (TILE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I will answer these two Questions together. The following table shows the net imports of wheat and wheat flour for the calendar years specified, expressed in the equivalent amount of grain, and the percentage of these imports to the estimated consumption for all purposes except seed. It has been assumed that 50 per cent. of the home crop is consumed in the year in which the harvest is reaped., and no allowance has been made for the variations in stocks held at the beginning and end of each calendar year, as data for pre-war years are not available in this respect. The table gives figures for the last complete calendar year, but the estimate desired by my noble friend in respect of the current calendar year would involve an excursion into the realms of prophecy.
column of the table may be estimated at about 6 per cent. in the ten years before the war. It rose to about 10½ per cent. in the year 1917, and then fell to about 7½ per cent. in the year 1920. The actual amount

831
of shipping tonnage occupied cannot be stated precisely, since it would involve an inquiry into the conditions of transport which the Government arc unable to undertake.
With regard to the last part of the noble Lord's second Question, it is estimated that the additional cost arising from the differences in international monetary exchange if spread over all imports of sea-borne wheat would at to-day's rates of exchange be approximately 9s. per quarter.

RAILWAYS BILL.
Order of the day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the house do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl 4 Lytton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 31:
Limitation on powers of the tribunal to increase charges.
31.—(l) The rates tribunal when first fixing the standard charges shall prescribe and report. to the Minister a limit beyond which an increase in those charges shall not be lawful without reference to Parliament.
(2) The Minister shall submit the report for approval to both Houses of Parliament, and upon a resolution being passed by both Houses of Parliament approving the report, either without, modifications or subject to modifications agreed to by both houses of Parliament, the report shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, subject, however, in the event of modifications being so agreed to by both Houses of Parliament, to such modifications.
LORD SUMNER LORD SUMNER moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble. and learned Lord said: This clause, the first subsection of which I urge your Lordships to strike out, is one which, as you will see, requires the Rates Tribunal, when first it fixes the standard charges, to prescribe a limit. beyond which an increase in those charges shall not be lawful without reference to Parliament. The effect of that is only visible when one considers the machinery which the Rates Tribunal is to work. By the by, I might remind your Lordships that the Rates Tribunal is not the one which we discussed a good deal yesterday—namely, the Amalgamation Tribunal, the names of the members of which appear in the Bill
832
—but it is another Tribunal which I assume to be a continuation of the Rates Advisory Committee which, as some of your Lordships know, has been doing extremely useful work for some time under the presidency of Sir Francis Gore-Browne—a very competent body, as one would assume.
As you will see from Clauses 29 and 30, the first duty of the Rates Tribunal is to fix a schedule of rates to be charged for the carriage of merchandise in a very great variety of classifications, and also combinations as to distance. It is to be submitted to the Rates Tribunal by the constituent companies, and then the Tribunal is to hear all parties interested in the matter and to settle the schedule of charges. it is upon the result. of the schedule of charges so fixed that the prosperous working of the railway company from the point of view of the shareholders will depend.
In days gone by, before competition was abandoned and control was substituted, and when it was still thought possible that the people who were interested in an undertaking were the people who would best understand how to conduct it prosperously, there was a system of charging which was based upon maximum rates, and a very intelligible system it was. The undertakers applied to Parliament for powers to construct a railway; they made their own calculations and estimates; they took the risk- of what they did; and they were left a free hand—originally a very free hand—in exercising their rights. The form of Parliamentary control then was that maxima were fixed in the Act, and the railway company was entitled to charge the rates within those maxima, according as they found it best likely to attract business. The system here is that a Rates Tribunal, presided over by an eminent King's Counsel, is to do what normally would have been hammered out be hard experience by the railway companies themselves—namely, to discover a system of rates which would enable them to earn a reasonable return for their undertaking without driving their customers away.
It is recognised in the Bill that the Rates Tribunal will have to meet two difficulties. One is that in calculating a rate when everybody who is interested and is desirous to be heard is entitled to be heard, you are extremely likely to be led away—I do not say led astray—by the representations of traders and others whose chief desire is to get the smallest rate possible; and there-

833
fore the railway company, which after all has to live out of these rates, must have its position protected by a specification as to what is to be the calculation to be taken account of by the Rates Tribunal in order to reserve to the railway company a proper return for its undertaking. Accordingly, in Clause 58, it is provided that the railway company is to be entitled to what is called a standard revenue, and the charges which are to be fixed in the first instance for each amalgamated company by this Tribunal are to be such as will, together with other sources of revenue, result in securing for the railway company the standard revenue therein defined. I will not trouble your Lordships with the definition of it.
The standard revenue is carefully hedged round by various provisions for the benefit of the railway companies themselves, and no doubt that represents the result of a tough, and I hope a successful, fight by the directors of the railway companies in the course of the process which is called agreement, though I think some term less descriptive of amity might have been better chosen for what went on before the Bill was introduced. The Rates Tribunal is, after all, beginning a new dispensation without any practical experience of their own, and with the whole experience of the past pretty nearly wiped out—thanks to the time that has elapsed since pre-war days, and the condition (I use no harsher term)—in which State control has reduced the railways; and it is recognised that the rates cannot be fixed in the first instance with any such confidence in their being the right rates as would warrant their remaining for any long time unchangeable and unchanged. Accordingly, by Clause 59, subsection (1), it is provided that the Rates Tribunal shall review the standard charges at the end of the first complete financial year, and then at the end of each succeeding year.
Thus, there are to be annual reviews of these standard charges, and it is provided, assuming that there is proper, careful work and that mere temporary fluctuations are eliminated and so forth, that if the standard charge which has been fixed is not enough to secure to the railway company that which is reserved to it in the Bill under the term standard revenue, then the Rates Tribunal shall, unless, in their opinion, owing to change of circumstances, the deficiency is not likely to continue, make such modifications in all or any of the
834
standard charges and such a corresponding general modification as they may think necessary to enable. the company to earn the standard revenue. Now that is not an easy undertaking for the Rates Tribunal, but at any rate, it is rational and it is intelligible.
The Rates Tribunal, after hearing the people who want the rates to be cut, and after hearing the railway company's representations as to what its expenses, and so forth, are likely to be, says:"We will make a tentative fixing of the charges for twelve months and then the Statute says we are to revise them." I should think every one would agree that at the beginning it would be very little more than a matter of guesswork for the Rates Tribunal, because you must remember that all these economies which we hear of as the result of amalgamation may, and probably will, be very slow to materialise. One of the Schedules saddles the amalgamated companies with a large part of the persons employed in the older companies, and though they may cut down the number of men they employ they will not be able to cut down the amount they pay them. Under Clause 15 there is always looming in the background the Minister, set in motion by interested parties who want money spent for their benefit, which may run to the requirements of alterations and extensions involving hundreds of thousands of pounds. Therefore, during the first twelve months, when the railway companies are feeling their way and seeing whether they can get back their normal traffic in abnormal times, trying to find out whether they can get the public to forget what they had to put up with during the war and become again willing customers, the first fixing of standard charges must be very tentative. What the Rates Tribunal will say is:"All you gentlemen can come back in twelve months after we have had some experience of this, and, if it is necessary, we are empowered to alter it, and we shall alter it." The railway companies are assured that if they cannot earn their standard revenue then these charges will be increased.
But it is precisely at the moment when the Tribunal has a minimum of information and a complete absence of experience, that the Statute requires it to fix the upper limit beyond which it cannot subsequently raise the standard charges, and that limit is to be stereotyped by being communicated to the Minister, and, thereafter, no increase

835
above that is lawful without reference to Parliament. Another Bill; another inquiry; another stormy passage through one House of Parliament, if not two. I put it to the noble Earl, whose explanation of this miraculous enactment I attend with interest and with hope of instruction—Is it possible to do more to produce a deadlock at the expense of the railway companies? You say to the railway companies:"We are fixing the standard charges in the dark, we are fixing an upper maximum limit, equally in the dark. We can change the lower one, but the upper limit we cannot change, and if we fix the upper charge and it turns out to be unremunerative, if we make a mess of fixing the maximum charge, there is nothing for you to do but to come to Parliament. In any case you will have to carry on the railways on an unremunerative basis until you get a Bill passed, if ever you do; you will be to the bad all that time."
There is evidently a desire to make a hybrid out of two perfectly distinct and separate systems. By one system you fix the high maximum, and then let people get their own rates by higgling the market. On the other hand, the system of the Bill is to dry-nurse the railways and trades from the cradle to the grave and give them periodical revision, which will have the advantage, at any rate, of bringing them into Court year after year with a chance of getting three sensible gentlemen to hear what they have to say.
There is one way out, and I imagine it is the way which the three sensible gentlemen will take if they have the courage to resist the clamour which I have no doubt will immediately be raised. That is, to say to the railway companies, when they begin their duties,"How high would you like to have this maximum fixed? You know more about it than we do, but neither of us know much. You fix the maximum so high that it cannot, with any reasonable probability, be too low, then we shall always be able to adjust the standard charge year after year to that result which Parliament intended—namely, the result which will enable you to get your standard revenue—while the demands and interests of the traders are considered as far as is within the limits of economic possibility."
If the Tribunal took that step you can imagine what would be said about them, and if they do not take that step, if they try to fix the charge at the beginning
836
when they know little or nothing at all about it, they are obliged to take the maxi mum risk that can be taken of bringing the railway companies to the bad at the end of the year, by finding that the standard charges are not sufficiently remunerative to produce the standard revenue. It is all done at the risk of the railway companies. They have to pay outgoings, wages, and materials, carry all their traffic (by Statute they are bound to do so), the traders are entitled to have their goods carried at the fixed standard charges; and if the standard charges do not bring in enough to pay the standard revenue, and it cannot be met because the standard charges cannot be raised in the following year, it is the railway companies that are to the bad, and no one else.
The noble Earl will probably reply that what I am saying is a travesty of the operation of the clause, and that certainly, in the hands of the three magicians who are to be appointed, we need not expect any such dire results. If we are to walk by faith in this matter it may be so. But what I want to find out is, What is the good of this fixed maximum charge at all? Who is benefited by it? It hampers the Rates Tribunal; indeed, more, it shackles them. They are bound hand and foot. It compels a further reference to Parliament and compels the railways to go on trading at a loss until Parliament intervenes for their protection. A nice prospect for the shareholders ! And who gets any benefit out of it at all? It is in the power of the Rates Tribunal to put a maximum limit so much out of the picture that it becomes, in working, what I think it is in design, a mere piece of camouflage.
I can imagine no explanation of this except that it is a sop thrown to intransigeant traders in order to pacify them, who, if they are pacified, will be more easily pacified than I should have thought. They were told that the Tribunal was to be bound to protect them by fixing a maximum that could never be exceeded without the consent of Parliament. What is the good of it? I am still left where I have always been ever since I started thinking over this clause. I ask the question and get no answer. If I am told that no answer need be forthcoming, because it has all been agreed somewhere else, my reply is that I ask it precisely for the purpose of investigating these bargains out of doors, these agreements between the parties concerned, which

837
take away from the Chambers of the Legislature the practical moulding of legislation.
We are told that, if they are content, surely we might be content too. I am not content with something that I cannot understand. If we can be made to understand, not only how it works, how it is hoped that it will work, how it is believed that it will work, but also what conceivable good it does, then our objection might be overcome. But, for the time being, I confess that it seems to me to be an attempt to utilise the system that is abandoned as part of a new scheme into which it does not fit, and where it can only do harm.
I am all the more fortified in that view if a quotation that has been supplied to me is correct. I have the opinion of the Railway Rates Advisory Committee, set up under the Ministry of Transport Act, to the same effect. The quotation is from paragraph 22 of the summary of that Committee's conclusions, in which it was stated—
" No limitation, by way of maxima or otherwise, should be placed upon the rates to be fixed by the Tribunal, either generally or when any variation is made. The railway companies should be prohibited from charging any rates above the standard rates fixed by the Tribunal, hot should be entitled to, apply to the Tribunal to increase the standard rats, or any of them, and any body of traders sufficiently representative of the trades affected should be entitled to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the standard rates, or any of them."
It may or may not be a wise thing to commit the solution of an economic conflict to the, determination of a judicial and a semi-legal body; but surely, when you have done it, you ought to have the courage of your opinions and trust that body.
It is not fair to send before that. body the two contestants, the, traders and the railway company, and to say that the railway traders may demand such rates as they can satisfy the Tribunal are right and proper, but that the railway companies shall come into court with one hand tied behind their backs, because, before anything whatever is done and any experience has been gathered, the Rates Tribunal has, rightly or wrongly, been compelled to come to a conclusion that has no reference whatever to the actual facts.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, lines 1 to 5, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord, summer.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before the noble Earl replies to the, formidable speech of the noble and learned Lord, I venture to intervene for a moment, because this Amendment brings back to me two happy summers which I spent as a member of the Joint Committee presided over by the Duke of Richmond many years ago, who were sitting, I think, for something like ninety days in the two sessions, engaged in fixing maximum rates. That, as the noble and learned Lord has said, is dead and gone, but I am disposed to agree with him that the clause in the Bill attempts to revive the ghost of that system, while combining it with an entirely different scheme.
This is not a moment to discuss the question of the standard profit as applied to the railways. It is obviously a very arguable question as to whether the railways need to be provided with a standard profit. In the past, many railways have earned no profit at all, and the system, which is here laid down, of insuring, under Clause 58, the profits obtained in a certain series of years, is one which is, no doubt, open to discussion. But having adopted that system, it must be a necessary consequence that, in order to earn that profit, the railways must be permitted to charge— either by way of tolls, or fares, or terminals, or however they can get it—a sufficient sum to earn their profit; arid if they do not earn it, and the maxima are so fixed in a given year as to prevent their earning it, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that they appear to be unfairly treated. I confess that I agree with hint also that this clause, as it stands, seems to be one of the many attempts made by His Majesty's Government to have things both ways; that is to say, to get the advantage, if it be an advantage, of the semi-nationalisation which is provided by this Bill, along with the incompatible advantage of a system of regulated freedom, such as that under which the railway companies worked in the past.
But what I really want to know from the noble Earl is what is going to happen. The Rates Tribunal, in the first instance, is going to fix a scale of maxima applicable to the different groups, and these maxima are to be submitted to Parliament. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, by moving to strike out only subsection (1) of Clause 31, seems to have left subsection (2) in the air. I take it that this would go also, if his first Amendment were carried.

839
When the tribunal has fixed these maxima, the Minister, having looked at them, is obliged to report them to Parliament. A Resolution is to be passed by both Houses of Parliament approving the Report. It is inconceivable that the House of Commons would approve a most intricate and detailed recommendation of that kind without inquiry.
What I want to know is whether the noble Earl contemplates the setting up of another Committee like that of which I was a member and have the most delightful recollections, a Committee which sat for two years, and which was constituted in order to fix the scale of maximum rates, that is to say of rates which, with certain exceptions, were generally applicable. That system was greatly tempered by the enormous number of special rates which, by the agreement both of traders and of the railway companies, were applied to relieve the difficulties of permitting the railway companies to charge as much as they liked, or, according to the well-known phrase, as much as the traffic would bear within the maximum. These special rates amounted to hundreds of thousands in number. Of course, the maxima had to be fixed high; in fact, they were and are very seldom charged.
The point to which I want the noble Earl to reply, if he would be so good as to do so, is as to whether this provision does not mean a complete re-opening by Parliament of the whole question of fixing of rates, because, if it does, it is clear to us all that it must detract greatly from the value of the Bill, and must postpone a final settlement of the exceedingly difficult question of the transport of goods at a price which can be reasonably remunerating to the promoters of the different railway lines and also tolerable to the traders and others who have to send goods by them.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down has called your Lordships' attention to one small technical objection in the form of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I do not dwell upon that, however, because I assume that although the Amendment is to leave out subsection (1) the intention is really to get rid of the whole clause, and therefore I will argue the matter from that point of view. We have had a very interesting speech from the
840
noble and learned Lord, and it is certainly not my intention to say that he has given a travesty of the machinery of the Bill. On the contrary, he has given an extremely lucid, clear and, as far as I can judge, accurate description of the machinery of the Bill.
I have nothing to complain of in the description which he has given of the machinery, but I confess that it was with growing surprise that I listened to the very able speech of the noble and learned Lord — surprise that the speech should have come from that quarter, because I could not help feeling all through that the noble and learned Lord was making the very speech which the Government has made and would make on many occasions in answer to Amendments calling in question the principle of this Bill. As the noble and learned Lord has made what I could not help feeling was my case, I must try to make, in reply to him, the case which I am quite certain he would make if this clause were in the Bill in the form in which he desires to put it, or, in other words, if the Bill were without this clause altogether. I will try to explain what I mean.
The noble and learned Lord asked in whose interests this clause could conceivably have been inserted. He pointed out quite accurately that the clause was a limitation upon the powers of the Tribunal, and that the clause certainly was not in the interests of the railway companies, who had to make a living out of these rates; and then he asked: In whose interests, therefore, can this clause have been inserted? Besides the Tribunal and besides the railway companies who live on these rates, there are the travelling public., and the railway-using public, who are vitally affected by an increase in the rates and fares of the railways, and it is in the interests of those people, the railway users, that this clause is inserted. When I say that I was surprised that the speech should have come from that quarter, I say it because, as a rule, from the noble and learned Lord and those who are usually associated with him on the other side of the House, the Government is severely criticised for departing from the usual practice of procedure, and, in so far as they do that, injuring or affecting the interests of the public.
The noble and learned Lord has explained quite truly and clearly that up to the introduction of this Bill the practice has been for railway companies, under their

841
Statutes, to fix themselves the variations of rates and fares up to the limit of the maximum decided by Parliament which is set forth in their Statutes; in other words, the railway users are protected by the Statutes from an increase of charge beyond the point at which it is fixed by Parliament. Than, the noble and learned Lord went on to say, again quite truly, that we are departing from that practice and that we are setting up in the place of Parliament a technical body of experts. I was glad to not ice that he paid a tribute to the experience and authority of the Rates Committee, which has been working for two years under the Ministry of Transport Act, and since the Chairman of the new Rates Tribunal will be the same as the Chairman of the Rates Committee, I assume that he will have confidence in this new Rates Tribunal. In future, instead of the railway companies, this new expert body will have the fixing of actual rates.
Now, those who represent the traders and railway users and the general public, have protested against the suggestion that this new body should be put not only in the place of the railway companies in. fixing actual rates, but in the place of Parliament, which has up to the present fixed the maximum beyond which the railway companies must not go. The noble and learned Lord, I think, realised that that was probably the explanation of this clause, because he spoke of it as a hybrid of two systems— an attempt to reconcile the old system, by which maxima were fixed by Parliament, and the new system, by which the rates are to be fixed by an expert non-Parliamentary body; and the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who supported him, referred to this clause as reviving the ghost of the old system.
The facts which prompted those two phrases are correct, but I venture to suggest that there is another and more accurate description. This is a concession, on behalf of the Government, to those representing the railway users, by which they leave in existence some portion at any rate of the system which they are endeavouring to change, and the position of the railway users at present is this. They say:"Although the railway companies may make variations in their charges, rates and fares, we, at any rate, know the limit up to which we may have to pay. We, however, much object to taking away from us altogether that safeguard—the fact that these charges
842
which so materially affect our trading interests, may be put up to any extent, and we may not know at all what are the limits of the liability which we may be put under." They have, therefore, urged upon the Government to leave in the Bill some maximum so that they may know, at any rate, what is the limit of their ultimate possible liability, and it was as a concession to those who represented this public interest, the traders and users of the railways, that the Government agreed to leave in the Bill that degree of safeguard to them and that feature of the system which, in other respects, is being swept away.
Lord Crewe asked me what we thought would happen if this clause stands and the Rates Tribunal makes a report to Parliament in favour of some increase of the charges beyond the maximum which they have in the first instance laid down. I am not in a position to give any more information to the noble Marquess than he can derive from thinking over the situation himself. I cannot tell him what Parliament in those circumstances would do. 1 think it is extremely doubtful that Parliament would set up a Parliamentary Committee to investigate the report of a Committee which, I think on all hands it must he admitted, must have as much experience as, if not greater experience than, can be found on any Committee of Parliament. I imagine, therefore, that Parliament would simply decide by Resolution either in favour of accepting the recommendations of this expert body or not. However, I may not be justified in saving that. I cannot say, because either House of Parliament might, I imagine, decide to refer the matter to a Select Committee.
TILE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I might mention that the words of the Clause strike me as almost inviting procedure of that kind—
" upon a resolution being passed by both Houses of Parliament approving the report, either without modifications or subject to modifications agreed to by both Houses of Parliament,…"
Those words seem to me to invite a detailed examination of the proposal.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am not prepared to say that it was an invitation, but, of course, I admit that it leaves such a procedure open and I am no more competent than the noble Marquess to say what the procedure of either House should be. I would, however, urge your Lordships very

843
much not to be moved by a speech which represented very clearly the views which the Tribunal would take on this matter, and the views which the railway companies would take on this matter, but to consider also interests which, except so far as I have been able to do so, have not been voiced in this debate—namely, the interests of the railway users—and not to strike out of this Bill a clause which was left in as a protection to them and the striking out of which would arouse very strong hostility and objection, and would make them feel that a concession which the Government had made in their interests had gone from the Bill, and that to that extent; therefore, it was less entitled to their support than it is at the present time.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, it is right to say that the railway companies were free to dispute the propriety of this clause, and they exercised that freedom in another place, and although they were not successful in getting this clause removed, they are free to ask that this Amendment be carried, and they would desire it to be carried. The very—I might almost say brilliantly— ingenious explanation of the noble Earl seems to me to fail from this point of view. Where are these users of railways, what kind of users are there, who will not have the fullest representation at all stages and on the hearing of all questions before the Tribunal under the provisions of Clause 43, which gives a right to be heard to—
"all parties whom they consider entitled to be heard, together with any representative body of traders who may desire to be heard or any person who may obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade that he is, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, a proper person.…"
I should like to know what class of traders, freighters, passengers, even stowaways, would not get before the Tribunal under those extremely comprehensive words?
I submit that this is not only a concession wanting in logic, but a concession to persons who want really to be heard a second time and to have again a question decided in their favour on the principle of "-Heads I win, tails you lose," because if this provision for the maximum charges is ever to come into operation, it can only come into operation in circumstances which must be such that expenses have so risen that the power to adjust charges to revenue has ceased to give to the companies that security for their dividend which,
844
hereafter, is to be a maximum dividend, without which they cannot possibly carry on. Really, after all, the idea of raising the cost reminds me of the fable—I forget whether it is Æsopian—about killing the goose for the golden eggs, because the logic of the hitherto unrepresented users of the railways cannot be set up on its legs even by the defence of the noble Earl, because they would get bad railways with starved revenues and no resources out of which to make improvements, unless the railways were in a position at least to earn the dividend which Parliament is invited by this Bill to say is a fair return for the capital invested, and to earn a dividend without which the ordinary investor will not risk his money. It is difficult to conceive in what cases this maximum limit can be maintained, and I hope therefore that the Amendment will be carried.
LORD ASKWITH: I cannot but think that the noble Earl made a rather halfhearted defence of this clause. He spoke of agreeing with the noble and learned Lord as to his description of the machinery of the Bill. He spoke of a degree of safeguard which some of the traders thought they would get from this clause. I cannot think that the degree of safeguard would be anything comparable to the expense and delay which would ensue to those traders by having this clause in the Bill. The settling of these maxima, as I know from experience, is a matter of time and difficulty, and months and months will be lost on red tape. These Tribunals are already overweighted, and they have more than they can do. The railways will not be able to settle down to peace and contentment if a vast number of the officials of all the railway companies are continually engaged before these Tribunals, and if uncertainty is to exist for a long time as to what these rates are to be. Nothing can be of greater advantage to the traders themselves than to have, as soon as possible, certainty, and although there may be a few sets of traders who might desire to retain these obsolete ideas of a maximum, I feel sure that when they come to consider the effects of the expense and delay of keeping on with the haggling over rates, they will realise that they will be more than compensated for allowing this clause to go by the board.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I wish to say a few words upon a point which has not been touched upon, and that is that. this

845
Bill really does away with all competition. I am personally concerned in a small railway company, a railway and dock company. I cannot forget that the very reason for forming it was to set up a competing company in order to keep rates down. I want to point out that the effect of the amalgamation of railways on these dock groups does away very largely with the whole effect of competition between the railways. Though one's interest is to a great extent in the success of the new group, I cannot put away from my mind the importance of the condition that rates and charges in competition were by a natural process kept from undue increase, and I hope the House, in coming to a decision, will remember that there is now an absence of that competition. It would naturally be more in the interests of big railway combinations to increase their rates and charges if they could make a reasonable case before the Tribunal for so doing. I think the traders' and freighters' point of view ought to be kept in mind.
LORD EMMOTT: My only point is the paint of view of the trader in this matter. I have never heard the subject discussed, but I have listened most carefully to this debate and, even from the traders' point of view, I cannot see for the life of me how the Rates Tribunal can do this work with any advantage in the time that is given them. If it has to be done, Lot it be done later on when they have time to deal with it. But so far as I can see, a great deal of their time will be spent in fixing not only the actual charges—that is another point—but this future maximum charge which, for the time being, is a purely fanciful one. I think it will interfere with their immediate duty of fixing the actual rate. Therefore, so far as I can see, even from the traders' point of view, it would be an advantage rather than a disadvantage that this clause should go out. At some later date it may be advisable to fix another lot of maximum rates and charges, but if I am correct in supposing, as I think I must be, that this Rates Tribunal must fix these maximum rates when they fix the first standard charges, I think it is asking them to do too much and it will delay what is really necessary—the fixing of the first standard charge.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I assure your Lordships that my defence of this clause was certainly not half-hearted, and that I cannot possibly accept the Amendment
846
of the noble and learned Lord. Knowing the feeling that was expressed on this matter while the clause was under discussion in another place, I feel certain that a view which has not been voiced in this House will be very strongly voiced if the Amendment is carried.
I represented this as an Amendment which was ill the interests of the railway companies, and I am not surprised, therefore, that directors of railway companies should support it. But, when noble Lords like Lord Emmott, who professes to speak for traders, and Lord Askwith, who has put down Amendments to this Bill in the interests of traders, give me no support I can only say that, so far as the traders' case is represented in this Home, the arguments I have ventured to put forward in their interests are not supported. Since I have had no support from any quarter of the House, and since those who profess to speak for traders tell me I am mistaken in thinking this Bill is in their interests, I shall not put the House to the trouble of a Division and shall he content with negativing the Ammendment of the noble and learned Lord. If your Lordships carry the Amendment it will leave the Government free to re-insert the subsection in another place if they so wish.
LORD SUMNER: May I in the first place thank the noble Marquess for drawing my attention to the imperfect form of this Amendment as it stands on the Paper. I would ask the leave of the House to alter it so as to move out the whole clause. I entirely disclaim any antipathy to the traders' point of view. Nor was this Amendment placed on the Paper after consultation with any railway representative.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I did not suggest it.
LORD SUMNER: I believe the traders are fully able to look after themselves. They are too sensible to suppose that this clause is any good to them, and that is why nobody is here to defend it in their favour.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble and learned Lord having withdrawn his Amendment, I had better put the Question in this way—that the clause stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Clause 31 disagreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 (Application of schedules to non-amalgamated companies).
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The two Amendments that I have on the Paper are for the purpose of improving the drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 29, line 26, after (" than ") insert (" amalgamated companies and ")
Page 29,line 34, after (" prescribed ") insert (" time and in the prescribed ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34:
Repeal of existing provisions.
(2) In the case of the rates fixed under paragraph (v) of subsection (1) of section six of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, or in any case where it is proved to the satisfaction of the rates tribunal that any charge in operation on the fourth clay of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and fixed under any subsisting agreement or special statutory provision was originally so fixed for valuable consideration, the rates tribunal shall, and in any other case may, by order continue the charge, subject to such modification as to the tribunal may appear fair and equitable, and in making such modification the tribunal shall, as far as practicable, provide that the relative position between persons entitled to the charge and other persons as existing on the said fourth clay of August shall not be prejudiced or improved.
LORD SUMNER LORD SUMNER moved, in subsection (2), after"the rates tribunal shall," to insert"by order continue the charge." The noble and learned Lord said: I.can put this very briefly because it is on the" theme on which I addressed your Lordships yesterday without any success. Subsection (2) of Clause 34 proposes that in certain cases (one of which is this) where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Rates Tribunal that any charge in operation on the fourth day of August, 1914, and fixed under any subsisting agreement or special statutory provision, was originally so fixed for valuable consideration, the Rates Tribunal shall do—what? Respect it? Give effect to a statutory bargain for past consideration paid or performed? Not a bit of it—shall continue to charge, subject to such modification as to the Tribunal may appear fair and equitable.
As a lawyer I am entirely unable to reconcile myself to a statutory provision in a general Bill which says that where there is a statutory bargain, the existence of which is admitted and which is proved to have been entered into for valuable consideration passing from the persons who are now entitled to the benefit of the clause, then this Tribunal shall be entitled to alter it; provided only that it does it in a way which it thinks fair and equitable. In this connection"equitable"means nothing; it means only fair in four syllables instead of one.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: If the noble and learned Lord will read the last words of the clause he will see what"fair"is defined as meaning.
LORD SUMNER: Yes, I am quite aware of it."Fair ". is defined—at least I do not call it a definition, but still there is a proviso which says:"shall as far as practicable provide that the relative position between persons entitled to charge and other persons as existing on the said fourth day of August shall not be prejudiced or improved." I am unable to understand how you can make an alteration in a man's contract any more palatable to him by telling him that, whatever he may think, you think that it is fair and that his relative position to the party on the other side has neither been prejudiced nor improved. The point, of course, needs only to be stated. It may be good or it may be bad. I think probably it will be considered old-fashioned. Certainly it is out of harmony with much that we have in this Bill.
If the day should ever come in which anybody could afford to subscribe fresh capital to any railway, I cannot conceive how the railway can appeal with any prospect of success if Parliament has once made it quite clear that the policy of sixty or seventy years at least is abandoned, and that those who obtain a Parliamentary bargain, in consideration of something which they do or concede generations ago, are not to be allowed to have the full benefit of it hereafter, but are to be called upon to have it revised by some Tribunal, however respectable, which is required to do what it thinks fair and what it considers will leave the relative positions of the parties as they were. The railways are entitled, upon a bargain like that, to any benefits that may accrue from it, and it

849
will, be remembered against those who seek to raise new capital in the way in which it was raised of old that there is nothing really left of the old security that was afforded by a Parliamentary bargain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 29, after (" shall ") insert (" by order continue the charge").—( Lord Sumner).
LORD GAINFORD: I have an Amendment dealing with very much the same subject. It is a matter upon which I feel very strongly, because no railway director who has entered into a bargain with any trader would think of trying to seek to escape from that bargain owing to an alteration of the circumstances due to the Government having introduced a Bill to amalgamate railways. In the Act of 1863, when amalgamation was the subject matter which was brought before Parliament, it was laid down that any bargain— I am not quoting the Statute, of course— or any arrangement or agreement entered into between a railway company and a trader, for consideration given, should not be prejudiced by the amalgamation. The amalgamation was not to put an end to the bargain or agreement that had been entered into. I have on the Paper an Amendment which deals specifically with existing agreements of this character, and 1 have in my mind several eases where the railway company have acquired land, sometimes by Parliamentary powers, sometimes voluntarily, from individual traders, and have, in consideration of the traders having sold them a portion of land, undertaken to make a special arrangement for the conveyance of the trader's goods.
I am a director of a firm which possessed a colliery on one side of a hill. We made a railway over the hill, and by a stationary engine hauled the material up to the top of the hill, let it down on the other side, and manufactured the whole of the produce of the colliery into coke at the other side of the hill. The railway company came along, and said to us:"We are prepared to buy this railway from you, and to undertake to carry the traffic for you." We said:"We are quite agreeable, if you will do it on the same terms on which we can convey our own minerals over this hill by our own private line." By agreement, the railway company acquired that line, which has now been dis-
850
mantled, and will probably never be utilised again. For the same rate at which we could convey our minerals over our own private line, they have taken this traffic several miles round on a level gradient, instead of on the steep gradient over the hill.
We have no alternative now but to accept that agreement. It may be said that the terms are unreasonable. On the other hand, we, as a company, say that the terms are not unreasonable. The railway company entered into this bargain with us for better or for worse, and we did the same, and they are bound to take our traffic for us under the agreement, and have no right to increase the charge, seeing that we have now no power ourselves to take the material over our own disused railway. We say that the I improvement in machinery would enable us to convey now our material over our old railway more cheaply than we conveyed it at the period when the agreement was entered into with the railway company, and we further say that we ought not to be compelled to pay more because the railway company have to employ an excessive number of railway men, and cannot carry the material in a roundabout. way at a profit. We contend that the railway company ought to adhere to the agreement they entered into.
May I give one other case —I could quote several. The Consett Iron Company had a staith on the Tyne, to which they imported all their iron ore—600,000 tons a year. The railway company said: We would like to have this staith," and they came to Parliament to get power to obtain it. The railway company, having got the staith, entered into a bargain with the Consett Iron Company that if at any time hereafter, they were not able to carry out their bargain they would reconstruct this staith and enable the Consett Iron Company to again use their own staith. I am told that that is now practically impossible. The Consett Iron Company, in consideration of the whole of their ore being brought into the Tyne dock or into the South dock at Sunderland at special rates, allowed the railway company for all time to convey-the whole of their foreign imported ore over their system, instead of the Consett Iron Company themselves taking it into the Tyne onto their own wharf and dealing with it there in their own way. If there were any alteration or any breach

851
of that agreement, or if it were annulled the Consett Iron Company to-day would lose an enormous sum of money. It is not a question of the relative positions of two competing persons. It is a question in the interest of one particular company, and of that company being able to secure its iron ore at a price at which it could have obtained it for itself if it had the advantage of the use of its own wharf, which it possessed before the year 1898.
I do not wish to detain the Committee by giving other examples, but it seems to me that one thing only can be done by the Government if it is going to advocate the breach of an agreement or of a contract, and that is to pay compensation to any person who is injured by the alteration or the breaking of an agreement of this kind. For these reasons I have thought it better to address the remarks I have to make upon the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord rather than upon the Amendment in my own name which comes on later.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I agree with the noble Lord that this Amendment does not require long discussion, but when he says the case has only to be stated I would qualify that by saying,"Yes, if it is stated fairly." With all deference to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think his statement of the case was a fair statement, because he gave your Lordships to understand that the effect of the Bill was that where in the past, in return for some valuable consideration of land or so forth, railway companies have made an arrangement with an individual or company to quote them in future a special rate below the general rate to the company, that bargain was by this Bill set aside and was not in future to be carried out.
Before I argue the case on its merits let me make it quite clear to your Lordships what the Bill does. The Bill says that where in the past, for valuable consideration, a special rate has been quoted by the company, now, in days when, in consequence of increased costs in all directions, it is necessary to revise the general rates of the company, that special rate quoted in return for valuable consideration is to be placed in precisely the same relative position to the general rates charge as it was at the time when it was made. That is to say, if the special rate was half the
852
general rate it shall remain half the new increased rate; if it was a quarter, it shall remain a quarter. Whatever the proportion of the reduction given as a concession over the general rate, that proportion shall.be retained to the new general rate fixed by the Rates Tribunal.
His Majesty's Government considers that an arrangement of that kind is fair to the parties that made the original contract, and to prevent a modification to that extent would mean that the contract to-day would have a far greater additional value to that which it had at the time it was first made. As a proof that I am not wrong in claiming this provision as a fair one, I would remind your Lordships that probably the most classic instance of a special rate, in return for valuable consideration of this kind, was that made between the London and North Western Railway Company and the St. Helens Corporation. In 1862 the St. Helens Corporation parted with a canal and a railway to the London and North Western Railway Company, and in return were given by the company a special rate for the carriage of goods on their line. That special rate they have enjoyed ever since. Now the St. Helens Corporation has agreed that the proposition which the Government makes in this Bill is a fair one, and they say that if they are left with the same relative advantage over other users of the railway, they have nothing to complain of. That is a class of case on behalf of which the noble Lord spoke, and since they are satisfied that the arrangement in the Bill is a fair one, I hope your Lordships will support the Bill as it stands and resist the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD SUMNER: I should be extremely sorry if 1 had represented the terms of this clause in any way that would be considered unfair, but I remain entirely impenitent. I am under the impression that my description of the clause was correct, and I do not desire that it should be anything more. If I was not fair to the clause in the sense of putting the best complexion on it that could be put on it, I did not wish to do that. I wish to let the House know what the clause means and does. What the clause means and does—and the noble Earl accepts it—is that I, who make a contract say, in the year 1860, for a consideration which is

853
entirely executed and passed, that for a hundred years I am to have a particular specified benefit out of it, shall not have the benefit of that contract in the year 1921 or 1922, but something like it, something put upon me which will not give me the full contractual advantage and make it as profitable to me as it was in 1860 or in 1914. That is to say, there is substituted for a contract for one hundred years to carry my goods at a fixed sum per ton, a contract that I shall have them carried for me at a sum that will be no more burdensome to the railway company than the fixed sum was in years past and no more beneficial to me than it was in years past.
That may be a very nice thing for a corporation to agree to when it is doing the handsome thing in the name of its ratepayers, but I am thinking of the individual who does not consent to have it altered; and I do not understand why in the case of people who may be hard, iron-fisted men, but have a contract for which they have paid, and want to have the benefit of it, their determination should be interfered with because the St. Helens Corporation is doing the handsome thing by the London & North Western Railway Company. The noble Lord behind me has given very cogent instances of what will happen. I trust your Lordships will support me in saying that a contract is a contract even in an Act of Parliament.
LORD ABINGER: I do not think the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has quite realised that the reason why all these contracts are being altered is that a great war has happened. The whole transport of the country is upset, and it has to be rectified and put in order again. The
transport of this country means very much the same as what water meant to the Incas of Peru many years before your Lordships lived. That country depended entirely on the question of irrigation. It had a population of 36,000,000, but since its water has been cut off it has now a population of not more than 4,000,000 or 5,000,000. That was all brought about by the Spanish Conquest. Here we are in a similar dilemma. We have been face to face with the greatest war that civilisation has ever seen, brought about to a large extent by the democracy which the noble Lord always represents, and always hopes to represent, as we all do up to a certain point, though we have to give way in certain circumstances. The war has brought about an entire transition of motives and ideas. A railway company is nothing more than a motor-car, and the Government is in the position now of having to ask the public to change the gearing of the motor-car, which is getting worn out.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, who entered into such admirable contracts must remember he is only one person in this country. Why should the whole country have to pay for the benefit of that one man, and that one company he represents, when we have all been suffering? I really think we ought to support this Amendment because it merely says that people who have entered into contracts before this Act came into force shall continue those contracts upon the same terms. If the ratio of a gear were two to four, the ratio of the gear should remain the same.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be here inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:ߞContents, 36 Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Ampthill, L.

Gainfoid, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Askwith, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.]

Avebury, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Redesdale, L.

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

Bledisloe, L.

Sandys, L.

Cawley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Grey, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Shandon, L.

Kimberley, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Mayo, E.

Clinton, L.

Midleton, E.

Denman, L.

Strachie, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Sumner, L. [Teller. ]

Hood, V.

Ebury, L.

Terrington, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

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

Vernon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Churchill, V.

Hylton, L.

Gladstone, V.

Killanin, L.

Sutherland, L.

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Knaresborough, V.

Bath, M.

Peel, V.

Lambourne, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Lovat, L.

Abinger, L.

Ludlow, L.

Ancaster, E.

Ailwyn, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Bradford, K.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Merthyr, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Anslow, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Chichester, K.

Armaghdale, L.

Ranfury, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Clarendon, K.

Charnwood, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Eldon, E.

Clwyd, L.

Roundway, L.

Fortescue, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lucan, E.

Decies, L.

Somerleyton, L. (Teller.)

Lytton, E.

Faringdon, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Gisborough, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Plymouth, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Treowen, L.

Strafford, E.

Gorell, L.

Weir, L.

Hamilton of Dalzeli, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.]

Chilaton, V.

Harris, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 30, leave out ("modification") and insert ("adjustment"). (The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD GAINFORD: I suggest that the words"if any"should be inserted after the word"adjustment." I think the Tribunal should have power not only to make an adjustment but to leave the position as it is if, in their opinion, no adjustment is required.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I accept the addition.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 32, leave out (" modification ") and insert (" adjustment "). (The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had given notice of an Amendment to insert at the end of the clause the following new subsection—
" (3) This section shall not apply to any agreement entered into before the passing of this Act whereby or whereunder any railway or other property has been required or any easement has been obtained by any railway company from any person other than a railway company and in which stipulations with respect to facilities, services or charges form the consideration or part of the consideration for the acquisition of such railway property or casement."
The noble Lord said: I am not going to repeat the speech I have just made, although
856
I feel inclined to give some further illustrations, in which my own firm are not interested, where traders would be prejudiced by the action of the Government in passing the clause as it stands. I am going to make an appeal to the Government to consider, between now and Report stage, whether, in the event of hard cases being brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it would not be possible for compensation to be paid. I think some hard eases may exist, and if he will consider the matter before Report stage in order to try and secure justice I shall be grateful.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 36, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I will, of course, consult those who advise me in this matter on the point. I cannot hold out any hope that an Amendment could he inserted in the Bill to meet it. I will put before them, however, the matter which the noble Lord has raised, and discuss it with them.
LORD GAINFORD: In that case I do not want to press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 (Subsequent modification of standard charges):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Both my Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 30, line 42, after (" person ") insert (" for the purpose ")

857
Page 31, line 12, leave out from (" exceptional ") to the end (if the line and insert (" charges under that section ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Review of competitive exceptional rates.
39. If and whenever representations are made to the Minister by any body or persons who, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, are properly representative of the interests of shipping or canals, that exceptional rates are being charged which are competitive with coastwise shipping or canals in such a manner as to be detrimental to the public interest, and which are inadequate having regard to the cost of affording the service or services in respect of which the rates are charged, the Minister shall (if satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out) instruct the rates tribunal to review such rates, and the rates tribunal may, after hearing all parties whose interests are affected, vary or cancel such rates or make such other order as may seem to them expedient.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert"or road transport"after"shipping or canals." The noble Lord said: I rise to ask the Government to consider the inclusion of road transport in this clause. At the present moment the railway interests and the shipping interests are represented, and I maintain that the road interests should also be represented, as constituting a more important form of traffic than either canals or shipping at the present moment. It might be said that road transport is not of a statutory nature, and that therefore it ought not to be represented, but personally I do not think that that argument affects the question. As far as that point is concerned, shipping itself is not statutory. I suppose, again, that barge owners can convey produce on the canals at any price they choose, just as carriers can upon the roads. In these circumstances, I think it is only fair that the road interests should be included. They are demanding equality of treatment, without prejudice to the question, which may arise later on, as to whether the railways should be given power to run their own road transport, which is not within the purview of this Bill. I shall be glad if your Lordships can see your way to support this Amendment, which is considered very desirable by various road interests of an important nature.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 35, after (" canals") insert (" or road transport ").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: This clause was inserted in the Grand Committee in another place for the purpose of protecting shipping and canal interests from the unfair competition of exceptional railway rates. As I understand the noble Lord, he wishes to place those who run lorries and motor wagons on the roads in the same position as these canal and shipping undertakings. I would submit to the noble Lord that the circumstances of the parties whom he represents in this Amendment are in no sense comparable with those to which the clause at present applies. Coastwise shipping is in a peculiar position, in that it is absolutely vital to the life of the country. Without this coastwise traffic, it would be impossible for large ports such as London, Liverpool, Hull, Bristol, and so forth, to be promptly cleared in case of an emergency. Canals, on the other hand, are statutory undertakings. They have charges which themselves are regulated by statute. The road transport to which my noble friend's Amendment applies is in an entirely different category. These road transport carriers are to-day competitors with the railway companies. The railway companies would have no voice in the rates which they might charge, and the noble Lord says that the road transport interests should have a voice in preventing the railway companies from reducing their charges, in case it would affect the amount charged by these motor lorries.
I submit that the noble Lord's Amendment is entirely unreasonable, and would be unfair in its operation. It would, for instance, enable these road transport carriers to come before the Tribunal and, in cases where a railway company was charging a particularly low fare for market tickets, they would be entitled to say that such a rate was unfair to the people who carry passengers along the roads. Seeing that these motor lorries and road transport generally are under no statutory obligations and have no undertakings towards the public, it seems to me unreasonable and unfair to ask that they should be heard before the Tribunal, when that Tribunal is considering what are the rates that should be charged upon the railways. The analogy which the noble Lord has endeavoured to set up between his road transport carriers and canals and shipping is not, I think, a consistent one, and I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: In answer to the noble Earl, I should be glad to know whether, under the heading of road transport, he includes tramways; for tramways and motor buses around London might be serious competitors with the railways. It might happen that if the railways cut fares to the suburbs round London, they would kill the tramways equally with the road transport. Am I to understand that tramways have no power to apply to the Rates Tribunal, but that only the shipping and canal interests can do so?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: That is so under this clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out"instruct the rates tribunal to review such rates"and insert"refer the matter to the rates tribunal for review." The noble Lord said: I suggest these words to the noble Earl because they are more courteous and also more fair. A tribunal of this kind is not under the thumb of the Minister, and arbitrators are not generally "instructed"by the persons who appoint them.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 42, leave out (" instruct the rates tribunal to review such rates ") and insert (" refer the matter to the rates tribunal for review").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I agree to that.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 ton agreed to.
Clause 43 (Settlement by tribunal):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Both my Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 37, line 22, leave out from (" hearing ") to (" any ") in line 23
Page 37,line 27, after (" person ") insert ("for the purpose and any other party whom they consider entitled to be heard ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 (Owners' risk rates):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 35, leave out (" for any ") and insert (" where "), and after (" merchandise ") insert (" is ")—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 (Through rates and fares):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Both my Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 39, line 38, after the second (" the ") insert (" said ten days or other ").
Page 40, line 22, after (" rate ") insert ('' or fare ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49:
Collection and delivery charges.
(4) Any dispute as to whether or not any charge for the services of collection and delivery is reasonable shall be determined by the rates tribunal.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 22, after (" reasonable ") insert (" or whether the length of notice for the termination of an agreement under this section is reasonable ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 (Dangerous goods):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: This also is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 41, after (" before-mentioned ") insert (" by-laws ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 (Publication of schedules o standard charges):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: There are three drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 45, line 34, after (" keep ") insert ('' open for inspection at its head office ")
Page 45,line 36, leave out (" upon such railway ")
Page 45,line 38, leave out (" open for inspection at its head office ") and insert (" upon the several railways owned or worked by the company ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause. 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55:
Miscellaneous provisions as to rates.
55. The provisions contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act (being provisions similar to those now contained in the various railway rates and charges orders) shall apply to the amalgamated companies and the railway companies to which a schedule of standard charges has been applied.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, after"shall," to insert"as from the appointed day." The noble Earl said: This is really only drafting. It defers the operation of Clause 55 until the appointed day, and in that respect makes it consistent with the rest of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 18, after (" shall ") insert (" as front the appointed day ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57:
Interpretation of Part III.
57. For the purposes of this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
The expression"railway rates and charges orders"means the provisional orders fixing maximum rates and charges appli-
862
cable to the several railway companies made and confirmed by Parliament in pursuance of section twenty-four of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.
The expression"prescribed"means pre- scribed by the rates tribunal.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment in the definition of"fares," to leave out"and other," and to insert"rates for season and traders' tickets and other special contracts, and." The noble Lord said: I have put down these words with a view to ascertaining whether season and traders' tickets and similar contracts are intended to be included in the words"other charges"in connection with the conveyance of passengers.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes, they are included.
LORD ASKWITH: Would it not be better to make it clearer?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I ant advised that the Amendment is unnecessary, because these season tickets would be included in the words"other charges '' in the Bill. It is undesirable to insert an Amendment which is not necessary.
LORD ASKWITH: I do not move.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I beg to propose a drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved.—
Page 47, line 8, leave out from (" exceptional ") to the end of line 11, and insert (" ' charges ' means charges below the standard charges, including special charges continued subject to adjustment under the provisions of this part of this Act, and the expressions exceptional rates ' and exceptional fares' shall be construed accordingly ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58:
Adjustment of powers of charging to revenue.
58.—(1) The charges to be fixed in the first instance for each amalgamated company shall be such as will, together with the other sources of revenue, in the opinion of the rates tribunal, so far as practicable yield, with efficient and economical working and management, an annual net revenue (hereinafter referred to as the standard revenue) equivalent to the aggregate net revenues in the year nineteen hundred and thirteen of the constituent companies and the subsidiary companies absorbed by the amalgamated company, together with—
(b) such allowance as may be necessary to remunerate adequately any additional

863
capital which may have been raised or provided in respect of expenditure on capital account incurred since the fourteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one; and
(2) Subject as aforesaid, the tribunal when fixing charges in pursuance of the provisions of this section shall fix such charges as in their opinion are best calculated to ensure the maximum development and extension in the public interest of the carriage by railway of merchandise and of passengers and their luggage, and shall accordingly ascertain as far as may be practicable the effect which the existing charges, or any of them, have had upon the merchandise or passenger traffic to which they are applicable, and in particular whether the application of such charges has tended or, if continued, would be likely to tend towards causing the increase or diminution- of the said traffic.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out"fourteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one," and to insert first day of January nineteen hundred and thirteen and not included in the expenditure referred to in the last preceding paragraph." The noble Lord said: It must be remembered that 1913 was the last accounting year for the purpose of various standards before the war. Unless you take into account in adjusting charges the revenue and expenditure borne and undertaken so far back as that, although the works upon which it was spent did not come into operation until after the beginning of control, the company which made that expenditure will suffer an unjustifiable loss, because it will not be able to get the revenue which will properly remunerate it for the expenditure of that capital. It is true that, as a matter of fact, expenditure of that kind was not allowed in reckoning the interest which was allowed by the Government in its guarantee to the companies during the period of control. None the less, under the scheme and policy of this Bill it should be reckoned as a factor in the burdens undertaken, the proper remuneration of which should be calculated in adjusting charges to revenue in the future operations of the railways.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 40, leave out from (" the ") to (" and ") in line 42, and insert the said words.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, at the end of subsection (1) (b), to insert"unless it can be shown that such expenditure has not enhanced the value of the undertaking." The noble Lord said: These words occur in the next subsection, and it would be clearly unreasonable that capital should be remunerated which had not advanced the value of the undertaking.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 42, after (" twenty-one ") insert (" unless it can be shown that such expenditure has not enhanced the value of the undertaking ").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I accept this Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out"subject as aforesaid"at the beginning of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is considered of great importance by many traders, because there has been a controversy as to whether the whole object of this Bill was to obtain an annual revenue, as in 1913, or to obtain the maximum development and extension of the public interest in the carriage of merchandise and passengers. As a matter of fact, the whole object of the Bill is neither the one nor the other, and it seems that it would be much fairer not to put one as being subject to the other, but to put both of them on an equality basis in these two subsections.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 21, leave out (" subject as aforesaid ").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am advised that this Amendment will not really make any alteration in the sense of the clause. This Tribunal has two duties to perform, and I am not aware that this Amendment would alter the relative importance of those two duties; but, if the noble Lord attaches great importance to it, I have no objection.
LORD ASKWITH: The next Amendment is consequential on the previous one.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 23, leave out (" fix such charges as ") and insert (" have regard to the means which ").—(Lord Askwith.)
Clause 58; as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59:
Periodical review of standard charges and exceptional rates.
(2) The Minister may direct as respects any year after the third annual review that a review shall not be held, and the directions may extend either to all the amalgamated companies or to any one or more of those companies:
Provided that no such direction shall extend to any company which has applied to the Minister for a review, or in respect of which the Board of Trade on the application of any representative body of traders have requested that a review shall be held.
(4) If on any such review the rates tribunal find that the net revenue or the average annual net revenue obtained by the company (hiring the period on the experience of which the review is based is less than the standard revenue of the company, with such allowance (if any) as appears to the tribunal necessary to remunerate adequately any additional capital which may have been raised or provided in respect of expenditure on capital account incurred since the date upon which the standard charges were fixed in the first instance, and that the deficiency is not due to lack of efficiency or economy in the management, the tribunal shall, unless in their opinion owing to change of circumstances the deficiency is not likely to continue, make such modifications in all or any of the standard charges and such a corresponding general modification of the exceptional charges of the company as they may think necessary to enable the company to earn the standard revenue with such allowance (if any) as aforesaid:
Provided that no such modifications of the standard charges shall be made as will increase any of those charges beyond the limit imposed in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act.
(6) Subject as aforesaid, the rates tribunal when modifying charges on any such review, shall have regard to the like considerations as when fixing charges in the first instance,
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to substitute"second"for"third"in subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment would give an opportunity to the Minister, if the third annual review was not necessary, of dispensing with it. In every year for the first three years there must be a review by the Tribunal, and then it is open to the Minister to make it in every third year. This Tribunal will be simply overweighted with the vast number of things it has to do. In any event, if it occurs that, in, the result, a two years review is sufficient the Amendment that I suggest would enable the Minister to get rid of the third year's review without detriment to anyone.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 23, leave out (" third ") and insert (" second").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I accept this Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), to leave out"representative body of traders ". and to insert"two or more bodies of persons representative of trade or a locality." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in order that a single body of traders should not be able to prevent the Minister from 'stopping the review. He should have some considerable body, or bodies, of people who should come before him, and should give the reason for net having this review. Further, I have put in the words"or a. locality," which would allow bodies of persons who are representative of the-locality to make a complaint. As the Bill at preset stands it is only a representative body of traders who are allowed, and not a representative body in the locality.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 30, leave out (" representative body of traders ") and insert (" two or more bodies of persons representative of trade or a locality ").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord said he thought it was wrong that a little body of persons should have these powers, but by his Amendment he would prevent a big body of persons having them. Surely it is right that such a body as the Federation of British Industries for instance, should be entitled to make these representations and that it should not be necessary for there to be two such bodies. Therefore, I object to the first part of the Amendment because it brings in two bodies, and I think that a body which is really representative, such as the Federation of British Industries might be, ought to have the rights given in the clause of itself without the necessity of another body being added to it. Then I submit this is not the proper place in the Bill in which to bring in representatives of a locality. A locality ought not to have any right of reviewing a general rate which is fixed for the whole country. Whereas, under Clause 35, a locality has the power to secure a partial revision of its rates, we are dealing here with a

867
general rate for the whole country. Therefore, I submit it is not right that a locality should be given a locus standi.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SUMNER: I beg to move an Amendment consequential upon the omission of Clause 31—to leave out the proviso to subsection (4).
Amendment moved—
Page 50, leave out lines 30 to 33.—(Lord Sumner.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I beg to move the drafting Amendment which is on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 2, leave out (" rates ") and insert (" charges ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (6), to leave out"subject as aforesaid." The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 8, leave out (" subject as aforesaid ").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment at the end of subsection (6) to insert—
" Provided that the tribunal shall have regard to the financial results obtained from the operation of any ancillary or subsidiary business carried on by the company, and if satisfied that the net revenue resulting therefrom is, having regard to all the circumstances', unduly low, may for the purpose of such review make such deductions from the standard revenue as they think proper."
The noble Lord said: I desire to move this Amendment in a slightly different form to that on the Paper. The expression"standard revenue"in the last line but one is not altogether accurate, and it would be more technically correct to say"charges which would otherwise have been fixed"as they think proper. I would ask the leave of the House to move. it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 11, at end insert (" Provided that the tribunal shall have regard to the financial results obtained from the operation of any ancillary or subsidiary business carried on by the
868
company, and if satisfied that the net revenue resulting then-from is, having regard to all the circumstances, unduly low, may for the purpose of such review make such deductions from the charges which would otherwise have been fixed as they think proper ").—(Lord Askwith.)
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 (Transitory provisions as to charges generally):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My four Amendments on this clause are of a purely drafting character.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, lines 23 and 24, leave out (" conveyance ") and insert (" carriage ")
Page 51,line 24, after (" passengers ") insert (" or otherwise ")
Page 51,line 25, leave out (" fourteenth ") and insert (" fifteenth ")
Page 51,line 30, leave out (" fourteenth ") and insert (" fifteenth ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 (Provisions as to charges in connection with private sidings):
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, after subsection (4), and immediately before the proviso, to insert the following new subsection:
" (5) The Railway and Canal Commission shall not after the passing of this Act, exercise any jurisdiction with respect to the matters to which this section relates."
The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment to make Clause 61 conform to Clause 27, and in that way prevent a conflict of jurisdiction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line '27, at end insert the said new subseetion.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 (Application of Part IV):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I beg to move the group of Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper. They are entirely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 56, line 1, leave out (" railways") and insert (" railway companies ")
Page 56,lines 2 and 3, leave out (" the railways of ")

869
Page 56,line 6, leave out (-fourteenth ") and insert (" fifteenth")
Page 56,line 7, leave out (" and ") and insert (" including as respects")
Page 56,line 8, after (" companies ") insert (" a joint committee of those companies ")
Page 56,line 9, leave out ("the railways of") line 10, leave out ("and") and insert (''including as respects")
Page 56,line 11, after ("companies ") insert "a joint committee of those companies '').— (The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 70 agreed to.
Clause 71:
Power of councils to give guarantees.
71.—(1) The council of any county or borough or district may be authorised by an order under the principal Act to guarantee or to join with any council, person, or body of persons in guaranteeing the whole or any part of the interest or dividends on any loan or share capital of a light railway company for such period and on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Health:
Provided that a council, before giving or joining in giving any such guarantee, shall, by means of voting papers, ascertain the opinion of the local government electors for the county or borough or district, as the case may be, on the proposal, and shall not give or join in giving the guarantee unless the majority of the answers are in favour of the proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved to omit all words in the proviso to subsection (1) after"Provided that," and to insert:"the procedure laid down in the Borough Fund Act, 1872, shall apply when a council propose to give or join in giving such a guarantee in like manner as it implies when a council propose to incur expenditure in opposing a Bill in Parliament." The noble Marquess said: This is not a large matter, but it has some substance. I can explain it quite shortly, because I understand that the noble Earl opposite has no objection to the Amendment which I propose. The point is that light railways eau be, guaranteed, or partially guaranteed, by county councils, borough councils, and district councils. But if your Lordships look at the Bill you will see there is a proviso saying that before such a guarantee can be offered it is necessary that a poll should be taken of all the electors of the local authority, whichever it may be.
It was pointed out to me by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, of which I was a member for many years,
870
that in a large county the effect might be that the cost of taking the poll would be larger—and it is a most ludicrous result—than the sum required to be guaranteed. Therefore, it is proposed that instead of the procedure provided in the Bill the procedure under the Borough Funds Act of 1872 should be adopted; that is to say, that a majority of the whole council must concur in the granting of the guarantee. That is the procedure which has to be adopted in the case of the promotion of a Bill in Parliament by one of the local authorities named. It is only right to say that all I am empowered to put is the case of county councils. I do not know that borough councils and district councils would take the same view, but I think I am entitled to assume that they would, because it seems scarcely likely that they could be so much in love with the principle of the referendum that they would prefer to go to the trouble and cost of taking a poll to acting by a majority of the council.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 32, leave out from (" that ") to the end of line 38, and insert the said new words. —(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I accept this Amendment.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 (Facilities):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 31, leave out (" this Part of ").(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76:
Allocation of receipts on worked railways.
76. Where under any Act or agreement passed or made before the passing of this Act any railway is maintained and worked on terms based upon the receipts front the traffic on such railway, the amount which shall be payable to the owning company out of such receipts shall be such as would have been payable to them if the rates, fares, tolls, dues, and charges in respect of such traffic had been the same as those in operation during the year nineteen hundred and thirteen, but not less than the amount actually paid in that year, and the balance of such receipts shall be retained by the company maintaining and working the said railway.
THE EARL OF ELGIN THE EARL OF ELGIN moved towards the end of the clause, after"year," to insert,"With the addition of an amount in respect of interest on capital expenditure at the same rate per annum as was payable by the Government to any such company in respect of the year nineteen hundred and twenty under the agreements or arrangements relating to the possession by the Crown of the railway of such company." The noble Emil said: I move this Amendment on behalf of the smaller railway companies who do not work their own lines, and whose lines are worked for them. The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that these companies shall receive any sums representing interest on capital expenditure incurred since the commencement of the war.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 11, after (" year ") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Elgin.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I agree.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77:
Accounts, returns and statistics.
(2) It shall be the duty of every railway company to compile and render to the Minister the statistics and returns set out in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, sub-divided in the case of an amalgamated company in accordance with such operating areas as may be agreed between the Minister and the company, subject, nevertheless, to such variation as may from time to time be agreed between the Minister and the Railway Companies' Association.
Provided that the Minister may exempt any light railway company from the obligations imposed by this subsection to such extent as he may think fit.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 35, after ("variation ") insert (" of those statistics and returns ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2), after"variation," to insert"or exemption." The noble Lord said: This alteration would make it clearer that the Minister had the power to exempt.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 35, after (" variation ")) insert (" or exemption ").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I cannot accept this Amendment. The clause imposes an obligation on all the railway companies to make certain returns, and it also provides a power varied in form. This Amendment of the noble Lord, if I understand it aright, would give power to the Registrar to exempt certain companies from making any returns. That, I think, is undesirable. The noble Lord may say that the Minister may not exercise this power, but as it is intended that every company should he subjected to the same obligation to provide returns, I do not want to have anything put into the Bill which would give. the companies the right to assume that they could demand to be put in a special position and to be exempted. That would only lead to pressure being brought to bear upon the Minister by individual companies to obtain such exemption. I do not know whether that is the intention of the noble Lord, but it appears to be the effect of his Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: That was not the intention. My intention was that there should be an opportunity of not insisting upon returns being made when those returns were unnecessary. These returns absorb a lot of time in their preparation, and there may be cases in which railway companies might very well be relieved from the trouble and expense of preparing a mass of statistics which may not be necessary.
THE EARL OF LYWON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I can assure him that his Amendment is not necessary. If any of these tables are discontinued that would be a variation under the clause as it stands. The insertion of his words would have the effect I mentioned, and I hope he will be satisfied by my assurance and not move his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 78 to 82 agreed to.
Clause 83:
Application to Scotland.
83. This Act in its application to Scotland shall be subject to the following modifications:—
(a)"Burgh"shall be substituted for"borough,""servitude"for"easement ":
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 35, after (" easement ") insert ('' and Secretary for Scotland,' for Minister of Health'").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 86 agreed to.
First Schedule:
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved to omit from the list in column 3 of the subsidiary companies of the Western Group the"Festiniog Railway Company"The noble Lord said: I can explain in one or two sentences why I move this Amendment. There are two other narrow gauge railways operating in this district, and all who know anything of the conditions of the district know that the only way in which these three narrow gauge lines can effectively deal with the traffic and develop the industries of this region is by a system of unified control. Negotiations have been pending for some time in order to secure that result, and at last an arrangement has been reached between these three subsidiary lines by which this unification in management can be secured. It is obvious that if one of these railways— the Festiniog Railway—is attached to the Western Group, such unified control would be impossible. These three lines should all go in, or all go our., together. I do not think it is necessary for me to do more than to say that the local bodies in this district, and also the trade interests affected, are in favour of the Amendment. With these few explanatory remarks I venture to hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, column 3, fines 39 and 40, leave out"the Festiniog Railway Company".—( Lord Clwyd.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: This small railway is a narrow gauge line, and I understand from my noble friend that it is intended that it should' be grouped with other narrow gauge lines in the district. As that is in accordance with the grouping principle of the Bill, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved to omit from the subsidiary companies of the
874
Western Group"the Shropshire Railway (Nantmawr Branch) Company." The noble Earl said: This railway was inserted in the Bill in error. This branch is not a railway company at all; it is merely a bit of a line, and ought not to have been included in the Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, column 3, lines 17 to 19, leave out (" the Shropshire Railway (Nantmawr Branch) Company).—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD TERRINGTON LORD TERRINGTON had on the Paper two Amendments to include in the constituent companies of the North Western, Midland, and West Scottish Group the"Hull and Barnsley Railway Company"and to omit that company from the constituent Companies of the North Eastern, Eastern, and East Scottish Group. The noble Lord said: By arrangement this matter was fully discussed on Lord Nunburnholme's Amendment yesterday, and I therefore do not move.
LORD AILWYN LORD AILWYN moved to add to the subsidiary companies of the North Eastern, Eastern, and East Scottish Group"the King's Lynn Docks and Railway Company." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of the King's Lynn Docks and Railway Company, who ask to be inserted in the Schedule of this Bill. They are supported in their action by the whole of the town and district round King's Lynn, and also by the traders and by the Great Northern and Great Eastern Railway Companies. I believe also that the North Eastern and Great Central Railway Companies are not averse from this Amendment. This is the only controlled railway company owning docks that has been left out of this Bill. They have been recognised for some time as a railway company, and they were taken over at the beginning of the war as a railway company, and made subject to all the rules and regulations regarding wages and hours that were issued.
I notice that the Minister of Transport, in Grand Committee, used these words:"There is no financial interest so far as I am informed in it"(the King's Lynn Dock Company). I beg to say that the Minister is not quite correct, because the Great Eastern Company have subscribed £25,000 capital, and a Great Eastern director now always sits on the board of the company.

875
In conclusion, may I say that this Amendment was debated in Grand Committee, and was defeated by a small majority only. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, column 3. line 47, after (" company ") insert (" The King's Lynn Docks and Railway Company ").—(Lord Ailwyn.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have reason to object to the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend opposite. Perhaps the noble Lord will be surprised that I should say a word on this Amendment, but I do it on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Erskine, who is detained from your Lordships' House by indisposition. He has asked me to represent to your Lordships the difficulty in which certain clients of his, if I may so call them, stand, if this Amendment is accepted. It seems that the dock of Boston stands in the position of a competing dock to the dock of King's Lynn. My noble friend shakes his head, but perhaps he will allow me to deliver my message. Those who control this undertaking represent that if the King's Lynn railway and dock have the great advantage of being amalgamated in this great group and they are left outside the effect will be that the great group will deflect all the traffic that they can so as to help the dock of King's Lynn to the detriment of the dock of Boston. That prima facie sounds to me good sense. The Boston people do not wish in the least to stand in the way of King's Lynn. They would be very glad that this Amendment should be accepted, but they plead that if King's Lynn is put in Boston should be put in as well. I do not pretend to be familiar with the locality, but I think it right that the interest of these persons should be properly laid before His Majesty's Government, and I hope they will take the matter into their consideration.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment and for reasons which have been made apparent by the speech to which we have just listened. Neither can I accept the Amendment to the Amendment suggested by the noble Marquess. The Boston dock municipal undertaking is not a railway at all. It is not a railway-owned undertaking and therefore does not come within the purview or title of the Bill, and I do not think it could, by any means, be included in the Bill. King's Lynn Dock and Railway
876
Company, it is true, is a statutory railway company, but I submit to your Lordships that it is only technically a railway company. It is really a dock company which owns a number of sidings, and a little bit of branch line about a mile in length, which connects it up with I think the Great Eastern Railway.
It is therefore not a railway company at all; in fact, it is no more a railway company than is the Port of London Authority, and it might be some surprise to your Lordships to learn that the Port of London Authority, the Manchester Ship Canal, Bristol Corporation, and the Leith Docks, are all statutory railways, and there is no more reason for including the King's Lynn Dock and Railway Company in the purview of this Bill than there would be to include any other of these great undertakings which have in some cases even one hundred miles of sidings attached to their dock business. It is not the policy of the Government to introduce into this Bill, which is purely a railways Bill, any of these purely dock undertakings. It has been impossible to exclude the docks that are owned by railway companies, but to go out of our way to bring into the Bill an undertaking which is really a dock company, and only incidentally and technically a railway, would make very great difficulties, and for those reasons I regret I cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
The Second, Third, and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
The Fifth Schedule (Miscellaneous provisions as to rates):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next three Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 80, line 26, leave out from"sum ") to the end of line 32.
Page 81, line 25, at end insert:
" (2. Any difference arising under this paragraph shall be determined by the rates tribunal at the instance of either party, provided that where before any service is rendered, a trader has given notice in writing to the company that he does not require it, the service shall not be deemed to be rendered at the trader's request or for his convenience.")
Page 81,line 33, leave out (" occupation ") and insert, (" accommodation ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
The Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
The Sixth Schedule:

SIXTH SCHEDULE.

Act amended.

Nature of Amendment.

The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17&18 Vict. c. 31).

In section seven, for the words"for any horse fifty pounds, for any neat cattle per head fifteen pounds, for any sheep or pigs per head two pounds" there shall be substituted the words "for any horse one hundred pounds, for neat cattle per head fifty pounds, for any other animal five pounds.

LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after"pounds," to insert"for pigs per head fifteen pounds, for sheep per head seven pounds ten shillings." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one which was put down and moved in another place. I imagine that the reason there was no discussion upon it was that it carne under the guillotine and compartment rules of the House of Commons upon Report, and the Minister gave merely this answer:"I regret I cannot accept this proposal. The extra value may easily be covered by insurance." It is very little consolation to farmers to be told, if their sheep or pigs are destroyed in a railway accident through no fault of theirs, that they have no claim because they have not insured them. In these days, as we all know, prices are falling, but at the same time profits are falling considerably; therefore, there is all the more reason why there should he some kind of insurance protection for farmers in this matter.
I may say at once that these figures which are given here were supplied to the honourable member who put this Amendment down in another place by the National Farmers' Union, who are most anxious that something should be done in this matter in order to put them in a better position than they are under the Bill. I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to what was said in the Ministry of Transport Rates Advisory Committee's Report on the general revision of railway rates and charges. The Report was issued only last year. This particular matter is referred to on page 50 of that Report. What they say is—
878
Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, Section 7.—The Railway Companies are willing to con: cede an increase in the sums fixed by this section in regard to the amount of damages which may be recovered for loss of or injury to animals where no higher value is declared and extra compensation paid for the increased risk, and ask that other animals and values should be added to the list. We have already recommended amendments of the section which, while they increase the limits of value beyond the figures suggested by the railway companies, bring within the purview of the section all animals instead of as now only horses, meat, cattle, sheep and pigs. We think that the great increase in the value of live stock including many animals other than those enumerated makes these amendments in the value proper, and from the evidence give to us by the railway companies themselves we do not think any great burden will be imposed on the companies by the alteration."
I should like to draw you Lordships' attention to the Sixth Schedule upon page 84 of the Bill.
Under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, the Section said that as regards horses it should be £50, for any neat cattle per head £15, and any sheep or pigs £2. The proposed Amendment to that, which we are now discussing, is that there should be substituted for any horse £100, for neat cattle £50, and for any other animal £5. I should like some explanation from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill as to why this recommendation is entirely ignored. Not only do they not increase the value for sheep and pigs, but they actually leave them out entirely by name, and they simply conic under"other animals.- It is true as regards other animals they increase from £2 to £5, but that is not at all carrying out the recommendation of the Rates Advisory Committee's Report to the Ministry of Transport. I would venture to suggest to the noble Earl that it is very unsatisfactory to group valuable animals like pigs and sheep with rabbits and fowls, because that is what it comes to. In the past sheep and pigs were separately stated in the Schedule as animals for which compensation has to be paid, but now they are simply lumped together with all other kinds of animals.
The suggestion I have made is that sheep should be £7 10s. I am quite ready to admit that at the present moment £7 10s. is perhaps a rather high value to put upon sheep, but I would remind the noble Earl, and also the. House, that though I put down this Amendment of £7 10s. for sheep and £15 for pigs, it is only the maximum that has to be paid. A railway company would not have to pay £7 10s. for a sheep

879
or £15 a head for pigs unless that sum or a larger one was the value. At the present moment probably sheep are not worth more than £6 per head, and the railway company would only have to pay £6 and not £7 108., but when we are legislating for a considerable number of years it is necessary to put in a high maximum because we know prices fluctuate and therefore there should be some safeguarding of the agriculturist and the maximum should not be too low. I would remind the noble Earl that the price of pigs at the present moment is very high. I believe the quotation is 28s. a score, and it is ridiculous to say that £5 would cover the value of a pig if it was lost. I hope the noble Earl will be ready to make some concession in this matter. It is a question which has never been discussed, and I hope he will give some reason why the Government do not attempt to carry out the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. They have ignored it entirely, and lumped all animals together, except in the case of horses and cattle, where, I admit, they have made valuable increases.
Amendment moved—
* Page 84, line 33, after (" pounds") insert (" for pigs per head fifteen pounds, for sheep per heal seven pounds ten shillings" ).—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: As we have now reached the last Amendment on the Paper in this long and complicated Bill, I am sorry that I cannot give Lord Strachie the satisfaction of accepting his Amendment. This Schedule deals with Amendments made in this and other Acts, and this particular section deals with Section 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. That Section of that Act deals with the maximum of liability on railway companies for loss or injury to any animals carried on their line. The present limitation is £2 per head in the case of sheep and pigs, which in the Bill is raised to £5 per head. The Amendment would raise it to £15 per head for pigs and £7 10s. for sheep. I do not suppose, even when these maxima were fixed in 1854, that £2 covered the value of every animal carried on the railway. Certainly in recent years it has been true that animals of a much higher value than £2 have been carried.
But if £2 represented a fair and reasonable value in 1854 the Government hold that £5 is a fair and reasonable maximum to fix, proportionately, at the present time,
880
and they consider it would be unreasonable to put a greater charge on the railway companies because occasionally some animals of a higher value might be carried. Such a case, as the Minister stated in another place, in the opinion of the Government, ought to be met by insurance. It is the duty of those who send valuable animals on the railway to provide against loss or injury by insuring them. In fixing what would be the reasonable maximum liability to the railway companies for animals generally they hold that the figure £5 inserted in the Bill is reasonable and that the amount to which the noble Lord's Amendment would raise it would be altogether unreasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sixth Schedule agreed to.
Seventh Schedule agreed to.
Eighth Schedule (Schedule of statistics to be supplied by railway companies of Great Britain in addition to those furnished under Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911):
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Amendment to this Schedule is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 38, at beginning insert (" Freight receipts ").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the Leader of the House when he proposes to take the Report stage of this Bill?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I propose to put it down to-morrow, if your Lordships consent.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Will it be the first Order to-morrow?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think it will probably be for the convenience of your Lordships, as well as for the despatch of business in another place, that we should put it down

881
as first Order. In those circumstances would it not be desirable that your Lordships should meet earlier to-morrow also? Unless I receive any marked dissent from the House, I would propose that we meet at two o'clock to-morrow and that the Report of the Railways Bill be the first Order.

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of.Ancaster.)
[NOTE.—The references are. to Bill (142) as first printed for the House of Lords.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 3, lines 14 and 15, leave out (" or conditions of employment ") and insert (" of labour ")
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the amendment limits the purposes suggested in the preamble, for which the Conciliation Committees are to be established, and because no sufficient ground has been Shown for such limitations.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): I move that your Lordships do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved. That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, as I was responsible for the Amendment which resulted in the omission of these words, I should like to say that the main objection, which I am afraid is not fully realised in another place, is the extreme vagueness of this expression. We do not know what is meant by"conditions of employment." It may include such subjects as the condition of cottages, half-holidays, and all sorts of matters which may affect persons in other employment than that of farmers, who are, of course, represented on the conciliation committees. For my part I do not think it is a matter of great import-
882
ance, and, unless other members of your Lordships' House have any strong views on the subject, I think we ought to waive our objection.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I think there should be some explanation as to what really"conditions of employment"cover. There is something beyond what the wages boards have done in the past. They have covered actually wages, valuation, allowances, hours and holidays, but there is something snore than that; otherwise, these words are meaningless. I find it difficult to see what other matters there are to come within the purview of these conciliation committees.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I do not attach great importance to this Amendment one way or the other. The view was taken in another place that these words form part of what one might call the preamble of the clause. I think one noble Lord, in the course of our debates in Committee, stated that the only thing the labourer really could sue for was wages; but in another place it was thought that it should be set out in the preamble of the clause that these conciliation committees should take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including such matters as cottages and allowances. I believe these things have been taken into consideration by wages boards in the past, and there is no doubt in my own mind that the conciliation committees will take them into account in the future. I really do not attach much importance to whether these words are put in or not. I honestly do not believe that it makes very much difference, and I hope your Lordships will agree with my Motion.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I am sorry my noble friend has decided to give way upon this Amendment, because I think that it brings in questions which ought not to be brought before the conciliation committees at all. I am particularly afraid of the question of cottages, because the interference with them has'been withdrawn by the noble Earl's predecessor on that bench, and I think it quite possible that conciliation committees might be dragged into that very difficult question through these words. But as the Government propose to agree with the action of another place, I think it will be perfectly legitimate for your Lordships to insist upon

883
the Amendment, and if the noble Lord should still be disposed to do so, I shall support him.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I should have taken very strong exception to the inclusion of the matter of cottage rates in the matters considered by the committees. With regard to the action of the wages board, whether it was an arbitral act of theirs, or not, I am very doubtful whether they ever had legal power to deal with this matter. But whether it was by an obiter dictum or not, the result was most inequitable. Conceive for a moment Tom Smith, who cannot get a cottage on a farm because they are all occupied. He gets 46s. a week; he has to walk or bicycle some miles in order to have a home for himself and his family, for which he has to pay 6s. or 10s. a week. His fellow workman, doing precisely the same work and receiving precisely the same wage, because he has the advantage of a cottage on the farm, cannot get it, because the wages board lay down this obiter dictum that he had got to have it for 3s., an absolutely uneconomic rent, and one which it was a gross imposition to impose on the farmer or the landlord, whichever you choose to regard as the owner of the cottage. It hardly paid for rates and repairs. The cottage. was obviously worth more, as everything had gone up in value, whereas the landlord was compelled by a most tyrannical Act to take the same rent as before the war. This was one of the few things which did not go up in value, simply because the wages board said that it was not to go up in value.
This was most unfair and I should take the strongest exception now, when I have the opportunity, to this grossly partial system being continued, were it not for the fact that under the Act it is for the conciliation committee to decide for themselves whether they will take the matter in consideration or not, and if either party chooses to say that they are not going to consider that particular point, the result is that no agreement is come to. As I read the Bill, the Minister has no power to make an Order, either as regards wages, hours, cottages or anything else. The whole thing has been left to the conciliation committees. Personally, I sincerely hope that agreements will be reached through these conciliation committees. I think it was a very great advantage during the war that the arrangement of wages was
884
taken out of the hands of the principal parties and was decided by a superior authority.
The result has been a most admirable example from agriculture to the whole of the rest of labour in this country. There has been no interruption. It has been a good example, and I think we are very much to be congratulated in having had the advantage of a wise statesman who imposed this system upon the country. But now that it is left to the respective parties to come to terms by themselves, I sincerely hope that these conciliation committees will be as useful a medium of agreement as under the old arrangement.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 3, line 35, after (" nominated ") insert (" An organisation by which any person who is a member of a district wages committee at the date of the passing of this Act was nominated as such may at any time before the first day of November nineteen hundred and twenty-one appoint another person to act in the place of that person as a member of the joint conciliation committee ")
The Commons propose to amend (his amendment by leaving out (" November") and inserting (" December")
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I beg to move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by altering the date from November to December. This is a clause dealing with the power of the organisations to change their representation in the first instance, and it is considered in another place that rather a short time was allowed for the organisations to make consultations and take the necessary steps.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords' Amendment.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 4, line 23, at end insert (" provided that wages shall not be recoverable under this subsection unless proceedings for such recovery shall have been commenced before the expiration of three months after the date when the wages became due or in respect of a period not exceeding six weeks ")
The Commons propose to amend this amendment as follows:
Line 5, after the second ("the") insert ("latest") and leave out ("or in respect of a period exceeding six weeks")
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships disagree with the Commons in the Amendment to insert"latest." In place of that I move, in line 5, to leave out"wages became due"and insert"workman left the employment." I think I had better read the words as they will then run—
" unless proceedings for such recovery shall have been commenced before the expiration of three months after the date when the workman left the employment."
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the first Amendment proposed by the Commons and in lieu thereof propose to leave out"wages became due"in order to insert"workman left the employment." —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl has not dealt with the latter part.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: if this is agreed to I will deal with the second part.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is only a question of order. If I might explain, there are two points raised. One is a question which the noble Earl has just dealt with, on the words"the latest wages became due"which is the Commons' form, and he proposed to amend it in a form to which we have no objection whatever. There is another question which arises as to the amount of arrears which shall be recoverable, and upon that there is likely to be a disagreement and some little discussion. If I may be allowed, I would suggest that the best plan would be to amend the Commons Amendment by striking out"latest wages"and putting in the words that the Government propose, and that will leave it open to us afterwards to deal with the other part of the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, at the end of the Amendment the Commons have moved to leave out the words"or in respect of a period not exceeding six weeks." They have left out those words, and I now move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment. I think I should make it clear that your Lordships object in inserting those words was that a man should not claim back wages for a very long period, but I think your Lordships will perceive that the effect of this Amend-
886
ment goes very far indeed. It was objected to in another place, and I think with a great deal of force. I know there are certain noble Lords who do not believe in collective bargaining, and would sooner that it should be done away with: altogether. But, after all, collective bargaining has been recognised in every trade, and I think is recognised to a great extent in agriculture as well, and we are attempting by this Bill to set up conciliation committees where collective bargaining between representatives of the employers and employed should take place.
On those conciliation committees the employers and employed have to come to a unanimous decision. By inserting words to the effect that, after a decision has been reached that. a certain wage should be paid, any employer who goes back upon that decision will practically only have to make good the difference in wages for six weeks, it appears to me you place almost a premium upon contracting out, and I think that point was raised in another place with very great force. We all know, I believe, that employers in agriculture are just. as generous as, if not more generous than, employers in any other industry, but there are mean men to be found everywhere among employers and others, and I think it is quite possible that, after agreement has been reached between employers and employed, some mean man may put undue pressure upon a man in the village, perhaps living in a cottage out of which he can be turned, and may say to that man:"I will employ you for two shillings or three shillings or five shillings a week below the wage which has been arrived at by mutual agreement." In that way the employer might try to put pressure upon the man to take this lower wage. Of course, it would be absolutely getting round the Act, and the decision of the conciliation committee, and would be practically contracting out in its worst form.
I can recall that many years ago your Lordships had a contest with another place on this question of contracting out, and you were victorious in that case, and had a good cause. It was on the Employers' Liability Bill, and you were standing up for the rights of the workman to contract out when he could get. better terms in that way from his employer than he would get. under the Act. Here the case is different. There may be a man who has had undue pressure placed upon him by the employer, to take 5s. a week lower

887
wage than the conciliation committee have agreed. The man may continue in that employment for six or eight months, and then leave it, and the only claim he would have upon the employer would be a claim for 30s. That in the case of an unscrupulous employer would be absolutely useless, and therefore I think that you should not insist upon the words which you put in the Bill"or in respect of a period not exceeding six weeks." I beg, therefore, to move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth not insist upon the said words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no question here of your Lordships' House being opposed to collective bargaining. That is absolutely beside the point. Speaking for myself, I am entirely in favour of collective bargaining. Of course, the process of collective bargaining will work just as well under the form in which you sent the Bill to the Commons as under the form in which it has come back to us. There is an interval of six weeks allowed, and if, after that period, proper action is taken, then all the arrears can be recovered. That is what will happen in the case of collective bargaining. Every able-bodied labourer will be a member of a union, and he will have recourse to his union, and representations will be made within six weeks, and the mean employer will be compelled to pay the difference which he has tried to gain off the unfortunate labourer for that period.
Of course, everything will work according to the principle of collective bargaining but, if I may say so. it was not worthy of my noble friend that, in his remarks, he should leave absolutely out of sight the whole of the argument upon which this particular provision was put into the Bill by your Lordships. He knows as well as I do that it was not in order to save the mean employer, or with any hope of getting these few shillings into our own pockets, or anything of that kind, that we put in this Amendment. We did so in order to save from unemployment and possible starvation the labourer who is not able-bodied. Everybody knows that under the working of the present Act a very large number of these unfortunate men, who are no longer fully able-bodied, have been thrown out of employment. It has happened all
888
over the country, and for the obvious reason that employers, many of whom are not very big men themselves, are not going to run the risk of having a great bill run up against them for arrears, if they agree with the labourer for less than the standard wage. They cannot give him the standard wage because he is not worth it. They must either give him less than the standard wage or not employ him. I am speaking of the present law. If they come to an agreement with him at less than the standard wage then they run the risk that, at a later period, he will come down upon them and demand the full amount of the difference between the standard wage and the wage agreed to. The result is that they do not employ him; he is left upon the parish.
That is the matter which interests your Lordships. I know that the noble Earl will say that he can go to the tribunal and ask to have a lower wage agreed upon. That is perfectly true, but we know that in the countryside there is an enormous number of cases, and a farmer would not take the trouble. The result is that he says:"Bother this man. I am not going to run the enormous risk. I will not employ him." And your Lordships considered that. It was the argument addressed to the House, and the noble Earl now has absolutely ignored pit in asking your Lordships to reverse your decision. He treated it as if it were a mere question of the mean employer.
What we wish is to do our best—as we should always expect members of your Lordships' House to do—for the infirm labourer. He is a very common case. We have an enormous number of them in our own employment, and we hope that they will be employed up and down the country by the farmer—employed, that is, for wages which it is reasonable for the farmer to pay, seeing that these men cannot do a full day's work. So we decided to make the period over which the arrears could be recovered a very moderate period and thus not to frighten the farmer from employing these labourers; and, after very careful consideration, we thought six weeks was the right figure. Of course, opinions may differ about the period: I was in favour of a shorter period, but I am perfectly willing to fall in with your Lordships' views that six weeks was a reasonable figure. Now the Commons have struck the thing out altogether, so

889
that two years' arrears might be brought up against the farmer at the last moment. I am sure the Commons proposal is not a good or a merciful proposal, and I hope the House will insist upon its Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Taking the two classes of infirm labourers—that is to say, those who are likely to suffer at the hands of unscrupulous employers, and those who are likely to suffer owing to the fears of quite fair and honest employers—if the Commons Amendment, is accepted, consider that the second class is by far the larger; that is to say that them are far more labourers who are likely to he prejudiced by the loss of employment owing to the fears of big arrears of wages being run up against the employer than there are labourers who will be maltreated by unscrupulous employers. For that reason I have no choice but to support the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in resisting the Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: The two noble Marquesses have put the position of the House quite clearly, as it appeared to us on a former stage of the Bill—namely, that there was a very serious danger of the infirm, or under-average, workman not receiving employment if so serious a penalty as might be incurred is placed in this measure. It, is clear that, as we stand at present, all employer may- be mulcted, at any period within three months of the date at which the man leaves employment, of the whole of the difference between the wage which he pays by agreement and the wage which has been fixed by the committee. That will be a serious deterrent in the case of some of these poor and unfortunate men. I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether this is not eorrect— that, when a workman who breaks his agreement sues his employer in a Court for the difference, the Court has no choice whatever in the matter; it must give the whole difference between the agreed wage and the wage which the committee has laid down for the whole period of time.
I am not particularly concerned as to the actual limit of time which is fixed, but I am quite confident that there must be a limit, and I think the noble Earl might revise some portion of his previous speech and recognise that a limit is necessary. It is quite possible that the limit of six weeks is too small, because it might
890
encourage contracting out. And, apart from the danger to the workman of not being employed there is, I recognise, particularly in an industry like agriculture, where the workman is very isolated, a danger that there may be some mean employers who will cut down the wages to almost starvation level. That is. perhaps, likely enough to take place in isolated instances during the period of unemployment and under-employment which is likely to occur. I see no reason why the Court should not be given power to discriminate between these cases. In the ordinary case, where a reasonable agreement, with which both sides were originally satisfied, had been come to between master and man, the amount of arrears which might be recovered might be a small one; while in the other case, where there has been obviously an unfair agreement between the two, a larger limit might be imposed.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER; My Lords, there is evidently a very strong desire among your Lordships that there should be some limit to the amount of wages recoverable. I am afraid I cannot retract what I said originally. Undoubtedly, if the clause is left as your Lordships left it, with only six weeks' arrears recoverable, large numbers of men would not attempt to recover, if they were being paid 2s.; or 3s., or even 5s., below the wage voluntarily agreed to between employer and employed. Even if it were 5s. a week reduction, the amount that a man could recover in six weeks is only 30.s. And, personally, I think it would lead to many perfectly able-bodied men being employed at lower wages. Because, after all, this refers not only to the weaklings, but to the able-bodied men as well, and in the Government's opinion that would lead to the employment of many able-bodied men below the standard wage, and practically to contracting-out. If your Lordships think there should be some limit on the amount to he recovered I would move the following Amendment—
Line 6, leave out (" or in respect of a period not exceeding six weeks") and insert (" and a person shall not be entitled to recover under the subsection wages for more than three months, or for such longer period not exceeding one year as the Court in which proceedings are taken for the recovery of the wages shall consider just ")
I think that meets the case of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. He said that he thought it ought to be left to the discretion

891
of the Court to decide whether there was a case of a deliberate wish to break through the voluntary agreement and that in those cases the Court should have a certain amount of jurisdiction. I think it would be a good compromise.
In the cases referred to by the noble Marquess, of delicate men and practically half-incapacitated men, whose employers know they have to get an exemption, I believe that they will still get an exemption for them. But in cases where a man has been employed for, perhaps, a year or two years at a lower wage than he ought to have been paid and his employer has never taken the trouble to get exemption, and it can be proved to the Court that the employer has practically tried to get round the Act, I think, if the Court is convinced that an attempt has been made to defeat the arrangement arrived at between employer and employed, that to pay a year's difference in wages would not be too much.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the proposal that the noble Earl is now making is quite unnecessarily cumbrous and is rather calculated to result in discord between master and man. I would also suggest that it is a little unfair to the ordinary labourer, who may be paid a good deal less in days to come than he now receives and whose Union, with the decreasing remuneration, would be less able to assist him, that litigation should be resorted to for this purpose. I agree with the noble Marquess on this side of the House that if we are not careful there will be a very serious deterrent latent in this clause so far as prospective employers are concerned when they have to deal with disabled men and partially disabled men or with men who are not worth a full day's or week's wages but are perfectly prepared to come into the employment of the farmer according to the limit of their strength and ability and to enter into a bargain which it is presumed they mean to carry out. I think we ought to discourage the entering into such bargains on the part of anyone with the intention at the outset to break that bargain if he has the chance.
I venture to hope that we shall not quarrel with the House of Commons over the limitation of the period during which wages can be claimed, especially as I have reason to know that the Labour Party in another
892
place hold rather strong views on this matter. I would venture to suggest that we might very usefully come to a compromise and, instead of insisting upon the term "six weeks," that we extend it to a term of thirteen weeks, which is, in effect, three months, without bringing in the Court at all and rendering the procedure unnecessarily cumbersome.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I hope the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe will be accepted. I am rather sorry that the Government made any compromise at all in this matter, because it would have been better, in my judgment, if the law as it stands in the Corn Production Act had remained in operation. There is no limit to the period during which proceedings might be taken now. Three months might be a fair compromise, though I would infinitely prefer that there should be no limitation at all. The present provision has worked very well with the wages boards. Terms can easily be obtained all over the country, and where they have not been obtained it has been simply because the farmer has deliberately chosen to break the law. If the Government accepted Lord Bledisloe's suggestion I should support them; otherwise I am bound to confess that I hope the Government will stand by their original proposal.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: As your Lordships think that there should be a time limit, I ask leave to withdraw my original Motion and will move in its place the Amendment which I have already foreshadowed.
Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said words, but proposes in lieu thereof and a person shall not be entitled to recover under the subsection wages for more than three months or for such longer period not exceeding one year as the court in which proceedings are taken for the recovery of the wages shall consider just."—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the proposal of the Government—rather irregularly made, may I say, as the noble Earl has made another Motion—is very cumbersome and difficult to estimate on the spur of the moment. I do not

893
think your Lordships ought to be asked to assent to it in this fashion. There is a very simple question as to whether the word"six"is the right. one. Upon that I think there is the possibility of compromise. Any reasonable man would say that and I suggest that six is the best word. But I see there is a difference of opinion in your Lordships' House on that. point, and if the Government wished to move to leave out"six"and put it some some other figure I think we could consider it. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment which the noble Earl has moved, and if it is put from the Woolsack I shall vote against it as it stands.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Portsmouth, E.

Colwyn, L.

Strafford, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Sutherland, D.

Goschen, V.

Faringdon, L.

Bath, M.

Hood, V.

Gisborough, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Peel, V.

Gorell, L.

Harris, L.

Abinger, L.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Annosley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Killanin, L.

Bradford, E.

Anslow, L.

Ludlow, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Merthyr, L.

Clarendon, E.

Ashfield, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Eldon, E.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Cawley, L.

Southwark, L.

Lucan, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, K.

Clinton, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Treowen, L.

Plymouth, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Churchill, V.

Gainford, L.

Gladstone, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Ailsa, M.

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Lawrence, L.

Crewe, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

MacDonnell, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Meston, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Ampthill, L.

Redesdale, L.

Salisbury, M.

Avebury, L.

Roundway, L.

Bledlisloe, L.

Sandys, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Chichester, E.

Decies, L.

Shandon, L.

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

Denman, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Desborough, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Mayo, E.

Ebury, L.

Sumner, L.

Midleton, E.

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

Weir, L.

Selborne, E.

Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 5, line 43, at end insert the following schedule:

SCHEDULE.
Provisions of the Corn Production Acts, 1917 and 1920, relating to the destruction of injurious weeds as continued in force.
(1) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Schedule 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
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is that the House do amend the Commons Amendment by the insertion of the said words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That will not preclude the consideration of the question as to the actual number of weeks, afterwards?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I do not think it will.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 11.
manner and within the time specified in the notice.
(2) Where, under this Schedule, 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 Schedule on the occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to cut down or destroy weeds and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall on summary conviction be liable, 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 paragraph 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 manner, and the right of instituting any such proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice.

(4) Any person authorised in that behalf by the Minister or by any body of persons exercising any powers of the Minister on his behalf may, for the purpose of carrying this Schedule into effect, on the production, if so required, of his authority enter on and inspect any land. The occupier shall in all such cases be served with notice of the date on which the inspection is to take place.
If any person prevents or obstructs the entry for the purpose of this Schedule upon any land of any person authorised under this Schedule he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(5) Every notice required to be served under this Schedule on the occupier of any land may either be served personally on him or sent by registered post to or left at his usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, and in case any person nm whom any such notice is to be served is absent from the United Kingdom, and his usual place of abode in the United Kingdom after diligent inquiry be found, the notice may be served by affixing a copy thereof on some conspicuous part of the land.
(6) The Minister may authorise the Agricultural Committee of any county or borough to exercise on behalf of the Minister any of the powers of the Minister under this Schedule.
(7) Any expenses incurred by the Minister under this Schedule up to an amount approved by the Treasury shall be defrayed out of the monies provided by Parliament.
(8) The injurious weeds to which this Schedule applies are the following, that is to say, Spear Thistle (Carduus Lanceolatus L), Creeping or Field Thistle (Carduus Arvensis Curt), Curled Dock (Rumex Crispus L), Broad-leaved Dock (Rumex Obtusifolius L), and Ragwort (Senecio Jacobœa, L).
(9) In this Schedule the expression"owner"includes a person entitled for his life or other limited estate, and the expression"occupier"means in the case of any public road the authority by whom the road is being maintained and in the case of unoccupied land the person entitled to the occupation thereof.
(10) This Schedule shall apply to Scotland with the following modifications:—

(i) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

(ii) For the reference to the Agricultural Committee of any county or borough there shall be substituted a reference to the body of persons constituted for any area under the powers specified in paragraph (d) of the proviso to section one of this Act.

896

(iii) The provision requiring that proceedings for an offence shall not be instituted except by the Minister shall not apply.

(11) This Schedule shall not apply to Ireland.
The Commons propose to amend this schedule by inserting after (" Ministry") in line 5 (" of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this schedule referred to as the Minister ')")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
Bill returned to the Commons.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Charge of customs duties on goods in Schedule.
(5) For the purpose of preventing disputes arising as to whether any goods are or are not any goods chargeable with duty under this Part of this Act, the Board may from time to time issue lists defining the articles which are to be taken as falling under any of the general descriptions set out in the said Schedule, and where any list is so issued defining the articles which are to be taken as falling under any such general description, the said Schedule shall have effect as if the articles comprised in the list were therein substituted for that general description.
Every list issued under this section shall be published forthwith in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes, and in such other manner as the Board think proper.
If Within three months after the publication of any such list any person appearing to the Board to be interested delivers to the Board a written notice complaining that any article has been improperly included in, or excluded from, the list, the Board shall refer the complaint to the arbitration of a referee to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who shall not be an official of any Government department and the decision of the referee shall be final and conclusive, and the list shall be amended so far as is necessary in order to give effect to the decision, without prejudice, however, to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, in subsection (5) after"Government Department," to omit"and the decision of the referee shall be final and conclusive." The noble Lord said: The Amendment that I have to submit has to do with a case in which a person thinks himself aggrieved

897
by reason of the inclusion or exclusion of some article in the list. The point of the Amendment is that there should be an unrestricted power of appeal in these cases, which are very important. Though I am strongly opposed both to the Bill as a whole, and also to the way in which it has been dealt with as regards this House by the Government, the particular Amendment that I have to propose is not. I think, in any way hostile to the Bill. It is one that I should have thought the Government might reasonably accept, and one that the House of Commons, if it were brought before them, would not regard as containing anything that would prevent them from directing that their powers under the Parliament Act should not be utilised in rejecting the Amendment.
There is nothing that is either novel, or that could be called factious in the Amendment that I propose. I believe that it was dealt with to some extent in the House of Commons, and that there the Government showed no intransigeant spirit in the matter. The haste with which your Lordships have been forced to deal with this Bill has, of course, made it difficult to go adequately into matters of detail. The provisions of this clause, as they appeared in the copy of the Bill in the House of Commons which I happened to see at some earlier period, were different from the provisions in the clause as it now appears, and I must admit that if the present form is due to the. action of the Government they have greatly improved the clause from the form in which I saw it before. Nevertheless, I still submit to the House that in a matter of such great importance as the question of including in the list of articles upon which the duties described in this Bill are to be levied, it ought not to be that the party aggrieved—and it is admitted in the Bill that there may be parties aggrieved—should not have access in the ordinary course to appeal. The defect, if I may use so strong a word, of the clause as the Government now have it is that they have added the words"and the decision of the referee shall be final and conclusive." I think it would be better if the Government would consent to leave out those words and to let the clause stand as it is without them.
I have only- one word to add, and it is this. The clause, as it is, reads just the least bit comically. I do not know whether the noble Viscount has observed it. It
898
says"the Board shall refer the complaint to the arbitration of a referee to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who shall not be. an official of any Government Department." Of course, the words ought to be transposed and they ought to read"the Board shall refer the complaint to the arbitration of a referee who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and who shall not be an official of ally Government Department." It is a. very small matter, but I think it is desirable that that alteration should be made.
And I think if the House will consider for a moment they will come to the conclusion that it is a matter of very great importance with reference to the Parliament Act. I think it has been expressed in this House— it certainly has been said outside— that tiffs House can practically make no Amendment. I cannot find anything in the Parliament Act that justifies that statement, nor anything in the Parliament Act that makes it improper for the House of Commons to accept what has been done here, and either to let the Bill proceed in the ordinary way, like any other Bill where both Houses consent, or to present it to the King for His Royal Assent without the consent of this House with that alteration made.
There might be seine mistake or oversight in the Bill which needs obvious improvement. If you take the ease of the Railways Bill which has just been passed through this House, conducted by the noble Earl with an ability which I think has called for the enthusiastic admiration of the whole. House, there were some sixty Amendments to that Bill; and I think it is quite on the cards that if you carefully examined the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, Which is an extremely important Bill, you might find it desirable to make a great number of Amendments of the same drafting character. Why should not a Bill be capable of being altered in that way in this House, and those Amendments accepted by the other House?
I think it is important that we should make the present Amendment, to which there could not possibly he any objection in the other House, so that on this first occasion when there seems to be some opportunity of settling a practice for the Parliament Act you should be able to demonstrate that it may be used in a reasonable and proper way, and without

899
any tyrannical process which lowers the dignity of your Lordships' House and does not carry out the constitutional position that Bills are to be passed not by one House but by two Houses.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out from (" department,") to (" and ") in line 7.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): I think I can assure my noble friend that no reflection was intended on the position of the Lord Chancellor by the curious collocation of words to which he has drawn attention. On behalf of the Government I am gratified that my noble friend approves very much of the alterations that were made in the clause before it left another place. I do not know whether his enthusiasm was called forth more by the fact that the Lord Chancellor was appointed instead of the Treasury, or by the fact that all officials were excluded from being persons who might act in this particular capacity. According to my noble friend, the object of this Amendment is that there should be a full appeal from the referee so appointed, on all questions of fact as well as of law, in connection with the lists which are to be published from time to time by the Board of Trade, defining exactly what particular articles come under the more general definitions as set out in the Schedule.
I do not know whether my noble friend has had his attention called very closely to the words"shall refer the complaint to the arbitration of a referee." I understand that those words give the referee all the rights and privileges of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act. In that ease, as my noble friend will realise, questions of fact are finally decided by the arbitrator. On questions of law, of course, on a case being stated, there could be an appeal to the Courts, and there would be an appeal to the Courts on a question of law under this clause as now set out.
If my noble friend's Amendment were carried, and if those words were left out, it would not give any appeal on questions of fact, and therefore it would not do what my noble friend desires to do. Is it desirable that. there shall be such an appeal on points of fact from the arbitrator? Is it really suggested that all these matters as to whether or not a particular article does or does not come within a particular defini-
900
tion—which is surely a matter of very technical decision—should be referred to and go through all the gamuts of the Courts of Law? I submit that this matter should be finally decided by the arbitrator. Whether that is so or not, the Amendment of my noble friend would not have the effect of giving an appeal on points of fact, and therefore I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to ask the noble Viscount opposite who is in charge of the Bill exactly what is intended by this procedure. Am I to understand that the referee will be appointed ad hoc in each case, and that he will be a person specially competent by his knowledge and experience to deal with the particular matter under consideration? As your Lordships will notice, there is a great variety of articles of very different type in the Schedule, and the same man would obviously not be competent to give a reliable opinion as to whether or not different classes of goods did or did not fall within that long list of different classes.
There is one expression in the Schedule about which I should like to ask the noble Lord a question, before any decision is arrived at on the noble Lord's Amendment. The expression"all other fine chemicals"is used in connection with chemicals, in the last paragraph. I do not know whether there is a technical definition of the term"fine chemicals," which would avoid a reference to the referee, but I should like to give, by way of illustration, a case which might materially affect the interests of the agricultural population. We all know that there are two main kinds of potash, kainit, a minor form of potash, which comes from Stassfurt and other parts of Germany and Alsace-Lorraine, and sulphate of potash, which is a much more refined chemical, and which is preferred by the more enlightened and scientific farmers, and ought to be preferred, to kainit. May I ask whether kainit would be regarded as outside entirely and sulphate of potash within? If so, it is quite possible for a person interested, say an iron-master, who thinks he can make a fortune out of the potash derived from flue dust, to claim that all kinds of potash, including sulphate of potash as used by the farmers, should be kept out of this country in the interests of his own particular industry.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Viscount whether he proposes 'to insert a drafting Amendment in order to put right the ridiculous mistake regarding the Lord Chancellor which has been pointed out? I assume that if it was a Bill of an ordinary character it would be done. I should like to know whether the noble Viscount considers himself debarred from a harmless step of that kind owing to the fact that the Bill has received the Speaker's Certificate as a Money Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I suppose the position on that point was correctly stated by the noble Lord on my right. I suppose that it is possible to insert Amendments, but it is equally possible for another place to declare that they are all privilege and refuse to consider them. That is a matter for another place rather than for your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes, undoubtedly, but, as the noble Viscount knows, it is open to another place to waive its privilege at any time and on any subject.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is so. The noble Marquess also asked me whether I was precluded from introducing an Amendment of the nature he indicated. I hardly think I run absolutely precluded from making a verbal Amendment of that kind, but, as 1 say, it is subject to the fact that it: may be treated as part of a privilege Amendment. whether it improves the sense of the Bill or not.
With regard to the point made by Lord Bledisloe, as to whether the same person is to act in all these different cases concerning many kinds of industry and many sorts of chemicals, I should have hardly thought that any one was sufficiently omniscient to deal with all those points. I doubt whether I am sufficiently omniscient myself to answer all the points he raised. I understand that the term"fine chemicals"is a trade term, rather than a scientific one, and that it is mainly applied in Opposition to heavy chemicals made in this country, than to those fine chemicals, involving rather a difficult and delicate process and made in small quantities, which are aimed at by this Bill. The suggestion that this term should be included in the Bill was made by a late
902
member of your Lordships' House—Lord Moulton.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: After what the noble Viscount has said I do not propose to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power of Board of Trade to apply Part II to certain goods.
2.—(l) If, on complaint being made to the Board to that effect, it appears to the Board that goods of any class or description (other than articles of food or drink) manufactured in a country outside the United Kingdom are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom—

(a) at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter defined; or

(b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, net being a country within His Majesty's Dominions, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;

and that by reason thereof employment in any industry in the United Kingdom is being or is likely to be seriously affected, the Board may refer the matter for inquiry to a committee constituted for the purposes of this Part of this Act:
Provided that the Board shall not so refer any matter involving a question of depreciation of currency unless they are satisfied that the value of the currency of that country in question in relation to sterling is less by thirty-three and one-third per cent. or upwards, than the par value of exchange.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved, in subsection (1), after"other than articles of food and drink,'' to insert"or articles for use in the practice of husbandry, agriculture, or the raising of stock." The noble Marquess said: I do not want to deal with this Amendment at any length because most of the arguments relating to it were used in the course of the debate on the Second Reading, and I think the Government attempted a reply. I quite admit that it seems to be a wrong course to pursue to pick out a particular industry, as this Amendment does, in order to relieve it from the disabilities which all other industries may have to suffer owing to the provisions of the Bill. It is only possible to justify an Amendment of this kind by pointing out that the recent circumstances of agriculture are different from those of every other industry. As

903
your Lordships know until a few weeks ago it was believed by farmers that they were going to receive a measure of protection through the subsidy in respect of some of their most important articles of production. That has been swept away by the Bill which has recently been considered in one of its stages by your Lordships' House.
During all this time, as I am sure noble Lords will remember, many speeches have been made on agricultural platforms and elsewhere announcing that agriculture was to receive this special treatment because it was a key industry, although the term was, as we realise, inaccurately used, because agriculture is one of the great staple industries of the country. But the use of the term"key industry"in relation to corn production was not, I think, formally contradicted by ally one entitled to speak on behalf of the Government. Therefore, the agricultural community, having considered itself to be carrying on one of the great key industries of the country, now finds that it is deprived of the aid which it had been receiving and that, at any rate, there is a possibility that through the terms of this Bill it may suffer actual loss. I know it is said that, as a matter of fact, agriculture cannot suffer, at any rate to a serious extent, through Part II of this Bill. The noble Lord behind me, Lord Bledisloe, used some arguments in disproof of that statement which were not seriously combated from the Government side, and I do not see how it can be disputed that in certain circumstances either agricultural implements or artificial manures might fall under the restrictions of Part II of this Bill.
But I would put the matter to the noble Viscount on another ground. It cannot be disputed that, owing to the recent action of His Majesty's Government, the agricultural community is in a condition of some nervousness, and of what is generally termed unrest; and I would put it to him, even though he does not believe that agriculture will be seriously damnified by the actual terms of this measure, whether it would not be worth his while, as a matter of reassurance, to meet those fears half-way by inserting in the Bill a provision such as I have on the Paper. I do not think that in the particular circumstances that I have mentioned of the Repeal of the Corn Production Act other industries can consider themselves unfairly treated by a preference
904
of this kind— if it be a preference—being granted to the business of agriculture. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will be willing to consider the point in the light of what I have said, because I know that the passing of this Bill through another place has caused considerable uneasiness in the agricultural world generally.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, after (" drink ") insert (" or articles for use in the practice of husbandry, agriculture, or the raising of stock ").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Marquess, I think, protested, or claimed, that agriculture should be called a key industry.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No; I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. On the contrary, I regard agriculture as a staple industry; but I said that it has often been so described without contradiction from His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am sorry that His Majesty's Government were not more careful on those occasions to make it quite clear that they considered agriculture a staple industry, because I was going to protest. that it is, in fact, a misnomer to apply the term"key industry"to agriculture."Key industry," so far as I attempted to define it on the Second Reading of this Bill, applies to peculiar kinds of very technical small industries. It clearly would be absurd to apply a term of that kind to the gigantic industry of agriculture, and I am glad that on this point, at least, the noble Marquess and I are absolutely of one mind.
The noble Marquess supported his Amendment mainly on two grounds. The first was that agriculture might suffer in some ways by the provisions of this Bill. It did not seem to me that the noble Marquess laid very great stress upon that point, because, after touching upon it rather lightly, lie moved on to a second point, upon which he lays greater weight. I think I could argue, if it were necessary, that it is difficult to see how agriculture can suffer from the provisions of this Bill, because, after all, this Bill is intended only to prevent articles being sold in this country at 5 per cent. less than their cost of production in the country of origin. You will observe that, in that case, nothing is said about the cost of bringing these articles here, about freights and insurance

905
and I do not see hew the agricultural or any other industry can expect to be provided with materials at prices far below those at which the articles could be produced in this country, or could be imported on any fair basis of trade from other countries. Agriculture can hardly claim to be damnified because it cannot get its goods at a price less than what it cost to produce them. The noble Marquess also raised an objection as regards the condition of agriculturists, and their nervousness at the repeal of that short-lived Act.
While regretting that the noble Marquess should express any such opinion, my difficulty is in dealing with the Amendment itself. The Amendment itself is couched in such general terms that I am afraid it is exceedingly difficult to say what it precisely means. It seems to me to be difficult to say that any article should not be included, through being, in some sense, of use as regards agriculture. Take pots, pails, milking-stools; there is hardly any limit as to what might be used in agriculture, and I am afraid that if we were to accept this Amendment, it would drive a very large hole in the Bill. It would make it very difficult to work, and the whole thing would become so extremely indefinite that I think even those learned gentlemen who have to decide whether or not an article does or does not come within a particular definition, would be quite unable to come to a decision.
The Amendment, in fact, is too general and too wide, and, in addition, it is open to the objection very clearly stated by the noble Marquess, and with which he is extremely familiar—the difficulty and danger of excluding any one particular industry. As soon as you have excluded one industry, there is an immense appeal from every other kind of industry to be excluded. Agriculture appeals on one ground, because of her short-lived Act, mid every other industry, no doubt, under the ingenious advocacy of the noble Marquess or other noble Lords, could easily prove that it was entirely distinct in. many respects from all other industries. I am afraid I am bound to oppose it on that ground, and also on the ground that there is no knowing how far the Amendment will extend.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I should like to point out that, as you have already selected food and drink as vital matters for the
906
welfare of the country, not to be hampered by the operation of this Act, surely the production of food and drink are a large part of the work of agriculture, and it will not be very unreasonable to exclude the materials by which the food and drink are produced. The noble Lord rather threw ridicule upon the Amendment, on the ground that it was quite unreasonable to suppose that there should be any danger from dumping to agriculture, as the definition of dumping was that the articles should be sold at 5 per cent. below the cost of production, and that there was no consideration of freight or insurance.
But the noble Viscount seems to forget that there were two types of dumping in this Bill. There is"dumping A"and"dumping B," and apparently the Government seem to think the latter more important— namely, the question of exchanges. The Government, apparently, believe that the rate of exchange in Germany is going to allow the Germans to export things to us at a profit. But this is not dumping in the sense that they produce, though at a profit to themselves, at such a depreciated price compared with the market price of the world that they can dump. I do not believe much in this Bill or its protection, but the Government put it forward as a serious Bill, and there is no doubt, as the noble Lord behind me has pointed out, that in a the matter of potash the Germans had, before the war, I will not say absolute control but a very prominent position in its production, and the experts of the Government may advise that the rate of exchange in Germany constitutes the importation of potash a dumping procedure.
Then there is the question of agricultural machinery. Of course, Canada will be free to dump, because Canada is protected as a Dominion, but America, if she chooses, can dump under (a), and if the Government think there is anything in their talk about depreciated exchanges the Germans might dump under (b). Therefore, I think there is no justification for saying that this Amendment is an unreasonable one.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Viscount opposite found fault with the words in which this Amendment is expressed, but if he bas, at heart, any sympathy with the object. of the Amendment, I have no doubt he will make it possible for us so to reconstruct the actual Amendment as to Make it more palatable to himself and his

907
colleagues. However that may be, I cannot help thinking that, if he still represented the electors of the Taunton Division of Somerset, he would be received with less than their usual enthusiasm if he suggested that this Amendment was not one which your Lordships' House ought to accept. He said that agriculture cannot suffer under this Bill. My noble friend. Lord Sheffield, has pointed out several respects in which, obviously, it can suffer. If you are going to confer a potential boon upon every industry in this country except agriculture, and as agriculture will be employing a large number of the products of other industries, it stands to reason surely that, with the enhanced prices consequent upon this clause, agriculture must suffer as being the only industry left out of this Bill.
In my judgment there is absolutely no product which is being dumped, or which is likely to be dumped, to a greater extent in the future than wheat. We cannot possibly produce it at less than 82s. per quarter, and it is being dumped upon these shores at about 75s. per quarter to-day, and there is every prospect of its coming to a much lower price. Yet we are at the same time told that it is absolutely essential, in the interests of national security, that a larger area of wheat should be grown. If that is so, and if you are not prepared, consequent upon prejudice in the minds of the dwellers in the towns, to protect the products of our fields, agriculture must suffer if it cannot get the raw materials of the industry without having to pay the enhanced prices consequent upon the operation of this scheme.
As Lord Sheffield pointed out, the dumping contemplated in (a) would include machines coming from the United States, such as motor tractors, ploughs, reapers and the like, and under (b) would include fertilisers, such as potash, slag and so on, which come from countries which are intended to be hit, and will be hit, by this clause. If they are going to be hit it means that, although it may be true that this clause would not afford any material protection to the producers of these articles in this country, obviously if w6 add 33 per cent. the farmers will have to pay a good deal more than otherwise they would have to pay. At the National Council of Agriculture, held this morning to protest, as we did emphatically and unanimously, against the volte face of the Government
908
with regard to their agricultural policy, there was also a vigorous and unanimous protest against the passage of this Bill without some Amendment to alleviate the position of agriculture in the light of this provision.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: May I appeal to the Government to consider the damage which is going to be done by this Bill to agriculture. Up to now it has been able to use the best machinery obtainable all over the world, but under this Bill von are going to stop all that. When we wish to dump our own agricultural machines upon other countries they will put up a tariff wall against us, and we probably dump as many agricultural machines in Europe and elsewhere as any other country. I believe that provisions of this sort are going to do this country very great harm.
LORD CAWLEY: I hope that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will pay attention to the remarks that have been made. The agricultural interest feels that it is being very badly left in the lurch, because people engaged in it may have to buy in a protected market and sell in an open market, and that is a thing which no person engaged in ally trade wishes to do. If, by any chance, any manufacturer of agricultural interests can make out such a in case that the Government allow 33½ per cent. to be put upon those articles, there will no doubt be great hardship to the farmer who has to buy the machines, and it must be remembered that machine makers, like all manufacturers, have a great weakness for combining and going into small syndicates and trusts.
I can remember very well when most trades were carried on in competition, but a different state of affairs has obtained in the last twenty-five years. Now, the tendency is for two or three manufacturers of one article not to compete but to join together and get as much money as possible out of the public. If the manufacturers of ploughs or tractors, or mowing or reaping machines, get the Board of Trade to prohibit them, except on payment of a 33⅓ per cent. tariff, I have no doubt the manufacturers here will combine, and the farmers will have to pay not only the 33⅓ per cent. addition, but very likely more, for what they have to buy. That is not all. However low the cost of production of corn in foreign countries may be, it will be

909
allowed to come into this country without any tariff upon it. Many of us remember when corn went down to 22s. and 23s. per quarter. It could not be produced here at that price, and I do not think any country in the world can produce it at that price, but there is no reason why, if there is over production for a year or two, corn should cot come down even as low as it did in the early 'nineties.
What is the farmer to do? He cannot go to the Board of Trade and say:"These people are producing under cost price." The Board of Trade have no power to help him, and therefore he has to take it lying down, and his trade is very much injured by this influx of corn at a lower price than the cost of production. I do not think it is any wonder if the farmer says:"You are not behaving fairly to me. I am producing corn, which may be produced abroad and sold in this country at a much lower price than that at which I can produce it, and I have no remedy; whereas other things that I have to buy, either implements, or fertilisers, or other things that I use, I may have to buy in a protected market." It is not fair to the farmer, and I think the Amendment ought to be accepted.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I wonder whether I might appeal to the noble Viscount to respond to what is obviously the general wish of thy,. House? no well-wisher of the Government can desire to see the chasm which has grown up already between them and the agricultural interest widened, as it must be if they persist in refusing the Amendment. What is the position? We are all aware of the necessity of economy, which has driven the Government to withdraw what was regarded as as firm a Parliamentary bargain as was ever made with any industry in this country; and we know that, within six months, for the first time, as far as I know, in the history of this Parliament, a policy so adumbrated and embodied in an Act of Parliament has been withdrawn, and the whole industry left in an entirely different position. I am not complaining. I believe the second action of the Government was better than the first. But no human being can fail to see how strong a feeling has been evoked throughout the agricultural world. On top of that we get the proceedings of this afternoon, when the Government has been endeavouring, still to keep up some of the agricultural wages,
910
or to take care that they do not fall too rapidly. Where on earth is the farmer to make his profit if, on all hands, he is bound, and the one thing for which he has no protection is his own product?
Will the noble Viscount put it to himself in this way? Is there any body of men in this country which, in the circumstances, has a greater right than the farmers to buy in the cheapest market, especially in these days, when everybody desires to see the development of scientific farming, and when large classes of machinery, apart from other materials, are used in farming which are produced more cheaply in foreign countries than they have hitherto been produced here? In those circumstances, and considering that farming is still the largest of all our industries, and that the desire of the Government above everything is that the production of food should be increased in this country, I would appeal to the noble Viscount to make this most modest concession, in which he will have the support of nearly the whole of this House.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I should like to support the noble Earl who has just spoken. The question is really one of the production of food. The price of the loaf stands at over one shilling now, and what the masses want is cheap bread. If you keep out cheap agricultural machinery the farmers of this country cannot produce wheat to enable the loaf to collie down. The tractors that one now sees all over the country are most important articles of machinery for tilling the land for wheat—and wheat this year is one of the finest crops that England has ever grown, although it is not so big as it should be. May I suggest to Lord Crewe that he should I confine the Amendment to agricultural machinery for the. present? I hope he will do so, because I feel it is a very much larger question than the matters which are dealt with in this small Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: May I say one word? His Majesty's Government have done enough harm to the agricultural interest as it is, God knows, and I only hope they will give us a bit of a chance now.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: So far as the wording of the Amendment is concerned, I am quite willing to alter it. It was taken bodily from an Amendment moved in another place, and if your Lordships would like to see it in different terms I should

911
take no objection. The Amendment that. I should be prepared to move would be—
" After drink ' to insert or agricultural implements, or fertilisers used in the practice of agriculture: "
I should be quite content with those words.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Probably it would be simpler to take the Division on the noble Marques 's Amendment as first moved. It states the broad issue.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Very well.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was very much interested to hear so many noble Lords who have spoken on behalf of agriculture regretting, and regretting most pathetically, that wheat was brought into this country without any duty.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid I cannot help them, and I am afraid that, if I were to accept the suggestion, I should bring down upon myself immediately all the indignation of my noble friend, Lord Emmott, who would regard me as a lost soul. Some of the speeches of noble Lords have shown that they really have not appreciated this Bill at all, and that they have been treating the Bill not as an antidumping Bill or a key-industries Bill, but as a general tariff Bill. If it were so, I agree that many of their arguments would he relevant. Lord Mayo and Lord Nunburnholtne would then really have spoken with effect.
But what does Lord Mayo say? He says the object. of this Bill is to keep out cheap industrial machinery. It has nothing to do with keeping out cheap industrial machinery. Under this Bill cheap industrial machinery can come in exactly as it could before. If any industrial machinery is produced in Germany, America, or any other country, and sold in this country, after paying freight and insurance, at the cost of production in that country, it conies in absolutely free as far as this Bill is concerned. Can any body of men in any industry ask for more than to buy their goods at a price which not only gives no profit to the person who makes them, but gives him a loss? How can any industry go on if it has to sell goods at less than their cost of production? I state, therefore, and I state it roundly, that those noble Lords are speaking under a complete mis-
912
apprehension of the provisions of this Bill.
Now let me take one point against my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe. He talked about Europe and America, and he said:"Yes; but there is America. America is going to dump this cheap agricultural machinery into this country." I am always surprised when my noble friend, who is learned in so many things, makes these elementary mistakes. Surely he knows that the American exchange has depreciated immensely against our own, and that there is no human possibility of these things being dumped at 5 per cent, less than the cost of production.
LORD BLEDISLOE: May I be allowed to correct the noble Viscount, because he has made that mistake twice—on the last stage of the Bill and on this. I particularly joined forces with my noble friend, Lord Sheffield, in pointing out, that as regards machinery (A) applies, and as to fertilisers (B) applies. Therefore, the machinery has nothing whatever to do with the depreciation of currency as between us and the United States.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Oh, yes it has; I assure the noble Lord that it has. It would not come under collapsed exchanges, and I think the noble Lord has entirely misunderstood what I said. There are two kinds of dumping. There is the selling of goods at 5 per cent. less than the cost of production in the country, and there is the other question of this depreciation of value owing to collapsed exchanges. The noble Lord has entirely misapprehended my argument. I am not talking of collapsed exchanges as regards America. I am saying that. under the relative values of the American currency and our own, it. would be quite impossible for them under (A)—that is, under the dumping clauses—to send machinery into this country at less than the cost of production in this country. I am dealing with (A), and not with (B), which is collapsed exchanges.
A NOBLE LORD: They are probably doing it now.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is quite impossible that. they can be doing it in the present conditions of trade.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Will the noble Viscount kindly explain why it is impossible? We all know that it is going on.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I assure the noble Earl that it is not going on, because the exchange is now 3.60 in dollars as compared with the £ sterling. I will not say it is absolutely impossible, but the loss would be so great to the American exporter that it is practically impossible for it to take place.
Now, as regards my noble friend, Lord Sheffield, was rather surprised to find that he was alluding to the case of collapsed exchanges with Germany, because he told us that so greatly had the German exchange depreciated relatively to France, and so great was the advantage which the Germans got, anyhow as compared with France, in the difference between the external and internal price of the mark, that it was perfectly useless to put on this miserable little duty of 33⅓ per cent.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I never said so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; I treasure the noble Lord's words more than he does himself. Now he is telling us of the great. danger there would be because of the putting on of that. 33⅓ per cent. During this discussion, I have not heard one single word about the manufacturer of these tractors and implements in our own country. Do not noble Lords opposite consider British trade at all? Do not they consider the manufacturers of this country? Do they consider it fair that our manufacturers of these implements—which, to my own knowledge, arc quite as good as. and better than many of the tractors that they speak of with such enthusiasm as coming in from Anierica would have no chance? They are not avoiding competition. Goods can be
brought in, as I said, not only cheaply, but at less than the cost of production in the foreign country. And when the very limited definition that I have described is put on the term "dumping," surely it is not too much. to ask that they shall be protected or safeguarded front these extreme forms of dumping. I am very sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, but I am bound to say, and.I say it with all respect to noble Lords who are present, that this is an Amendment which. I fear, has not the slightest chance of being accepted in another place.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I only want to say one word in justification of myself and to show how completely the noble Viscount has misunderstood what I said. I never said that the depreciation of currency was an advantage. I said the opposite. I. said that the whole theory that the Germans could export because of their depreciated currency was a fallacy. I night refer the noble Viscount to this very excellent Report, which I have no doubt he has studied, and which states that the German manufacturers of machinery find it very difficult to compete with Belgium and France, although the depreciation of the currency in Belgium and France is down to about one-half of our currency, while the depreciation of currency in 'Germany, is down to one-twelfth of our currency. I do not agree with the noble Viscount's theory at all. I say it is all nonsense, and I can only view this absurd Bill on the grounds which I have put forward.
On Question, Whether the.proposed words shall be here inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49 Not-Contents,: 31.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Peel, V.

Gorell, L.

Hylton,. L.

Sutherland, D.

Abinger, L.

Killanin, L.

Ancaster, K.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, K.

Armaghdale, L.

Ludlow, L.

Clarendon, E.

Chwyd, L.

Methyr, L.

Eldon, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Colwyn, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, K.

Cottesloe, L.

Wavertree, L.

Onslow, E.

Gisborough, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, in subsection (1), after"United Kingdom"where those words firstly occur, to insert"other than France." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I beg leave to submit to your Lordships is one which I hope will receive as favourable treatment as the last Amendment received at your Lordships' hands. There is, I think, this to be said in its favour, that it is in no way connected with any old controversies of any sort or kind. It is rather a question that we should abstain from doing anything which might in any way alienate from us the good feeling and the good will of our Ally, France. I beg to move that from the operations of this Bill France should be entirely excluded.
There is, I think, some little question as to whether France is affected or not. If France is not affected, there can be no harm in accepting the Amendment, whereas if France is affected, there are a great many of us who would be anxious to see the goods of our Ally excluded from the operations of this Bill. It has been stated in debate in this House— and, I think, without contradiction—that already a protest has been received from our friends in Paris against this Bill, and against the possibility of its operating unfavourably towards French manufactures. In these circumstances, I am quite sure your Lordships, with full sympathy for France in all that- she has suffered during the last few years, will be anxious not to do anything which might prejudicially affect her trade.
I think that an argument which I venture to adumbrate on the Second Reading is a really valid one. The greater the depreciation in the currency of a nation, the less must be the price of goods as compared with the price in countries with a
916
less depreciation, if a flat rate is applied. Let me give an instance of that. I understand that there was an exhibition of industries held in the spring of this year somewhere near the Houses of Parliament, and at that exhibition they showed some pianos. The pianos from Germany could be sold, so long as the mark is worth 240 to the £, at £31. A similar piano from France is sold, while the franc is in the region of 50, at the sum of £70. Here comes what, I venture to think, is the weak spot in the proposals of His Majesty's Government from their own point of view, and it is that a flat rate is applied to the goods coming from Germany and to those coming from France; therefore, while the duty upon German pianos is only £11 the duty which the French importer has to pay is not less than £23.
If there is that difference in the duties to be paid upon goods coming from France as compared with similar articles coming from Germany, then there is what I think I may not unfairly describe as a preference to our late enemy. In any case any action under this Bill must disturb our good relations with our Ally, and in these circumstances I hope your Lordships, anxious to maintain those good feelings with France, will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, after (" Kingdom ") insert (" other than France ").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not quite sure as to what is the full meaning of the Amendment of the noble Earl. Does he mean to exclude France as regards both (A) and (B)—ordinary dumping and collapsed exchange dumping? I think that is the effect of his Amendment. Is that his intention?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is certainly the form in which I have moved it. If it is the wish of the House I would exclude (A).
VISCOUNT PEEL: I suppose I had better deal with it on the lines on which it has been moved. I am going to make an appeal to the noble Earl not to press his Amendment, or, if he does press it, I am going to make a very strong appeal to your Lordships not to divide upon it. What is the proposal? We have many Allies besides Fiance, and what your Lordships are asked to do is to make a special exception in favour of only one of those. Allies. I think an Amendment of this kind was moved in another place, but it was a far more tactfully and carefully worded one, because it did not specially single out France, but wanted all our Allies to be exempted. It is not necessary for me to say what -Would be the effect of singling out one Ally and not including the rest, but I am afraid it is not an Amendment which, upon any ground, it is possible to accept, because the very fact of putting France outside this provision would have the effect of compelling His Majesty's Government to accord similar treatment to all countries having a"most-favoured. nation clause"regarding the Customs' duties of this country.
The Amendment, therefore, has obviously, on the face of it, a far more far-reaching effect than the noble Earl has suggested. It has another difficulty to which he had not called attention. Although the great Dominions are excluded from the first part of the Bill, they are not excluded from the dumping part of it, because, as your Lordships know, the act of dumping is looked upon as a form of offence. Therefore, in this matter of trade, you propose to give an advantage to France which you are denying to all your Dominions. I do not believe a proposal of that kind would pass your Lordships' House.
May I make one more point? The suggestion has been made by the noble Earl that there is sonic danger of disturbance of our good relations with France if such a measure as this is passed and France is included. I strongly doubt whether trade arrangements of this kind will have any such effect on our good relations with France. I believe the mutual ties between the two countries are far too close for any suggestion of that kind to have any effect whatever. The French know perfectly well, and we know perfectly well, that it is for every country to take proper measures for the security of its own trade. I may say that recently
918
France has raised its tariffs and as a result, though of course we come under the minimum tariff, that minimum tariff has been a good deal raised; but there has been no suggestion in this country that because we may suffer in that way our good relations with France are disturbed. It is no compliment to France for the noble Earl to suggest that their Governments are less endowed with common sense than ours, and that they are going to be irritated by provisions of this kind when we show no irritation, but constant good will towards France. I hope, therefore, on these grounds that the noble Earl will seriously think before he presses this Amendment, I have shown what a general disturbance it would make as regards other countries, and. I have shown also, I think, the invidiousness of selecting France and France alone for this particular provision.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Viscount has made a strong appeal to your Lordships not to support my noble friend, Lord Beauchamp, if he presses this Amendment. He stated, in the first instance, that it was an invidious thing to do to select France for this particular privilege, while leaving out some of the other Allies, but, of course, if that were the only objection which the noble Viscount took, it would be very simple to amend the Amendment by adding the names of Italy, Belgium and Portugal, who were the original Allies at the time of the Paris Resolutions, upon which noble Lords have laid so much stress. I think it is pretty clear that the reason why Inv noble friend mentioned France, and France only, was explained by what was said either by him or by some others in the debate on the Second Reading—namely, that the actual effect of this measure as it stands will be to hit France very hard, whereas it does not hit the other Allies in the same manner. As we have no commercial Treaty with France, France falls immediately under the possible ban, whereas the other countries, unless our Treaties with them are denounced, escape under the terms of the Bill.
I do not think the noble Viscount was quite accurate in setting aside altogether the fear of the disturbance of relations between the two countries by legislation which may appear to be specially aimed at one of them by the other. I think, if the noble Viscount recalled the comments that were made in the French Press, freely made

919
and in the most candid terms, at the time when a provision relating to sparkling wines was inserted in the Budget, which, if not aimed at, was specially detrimental to, French trade, and which was only modified, not because it was detrimental to French trade, but because it. was found not to bring in revenue— I think if the noble Viscount recalled that he would see that it. is not safe to ignore the possibility of, do not say disturbing in the grand sense the relations between the two countries, but. creating a considerable amount of friction and irritation by financial provisions of this kind.
The noble Viscount has appealed to my noble friend not to press this Motion to a Division. I think it is possible my noble friend may be disposed to respond to that appeal on public grounds, but it will not be, I think, out of any particular deference to His Majesty's Government, or front any doubt that so far as the interests of France arc concerned, His Majesty's Government are making a great mistake in drawing this Bill in the terms they have done.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If I cannot secure more support from your Lordships' House in this direction, naturally I should wish to withdraw my Amendment, but in doing so, I would answer the criticism made by the noble Viscount., on behalf of His Majesty's Government, in asking why it was that France alone was chosen. The answer is obvious. First of all, it is because France has protested, and secondly, as has just been said by the noble Marquess, the leader of the Opposition, it is because France is the only one of our Allies with which we have not a commercial Treaty at the present moment, and therefore she would come, or might come, at once under the operation of this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Constitution of committees.
7.—(1) A committee for the purposes of this Part of this Act shall consist of five persons selected by the President of the Board from a permanent panel of persons appointed by him who shall be mainly persons of commercial or industrial experience.
(2) Any person whose interests may be materially affected by any action which may be taken on the report. of a committee shall not be eligible for selection as a member of the committee.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to omit from subsection (1) all words after"A committee for the purposes of this Part o: this Act shall," and to insert"be appointed by the House of Commons at the instance of the Committee of Selection it the first Session of each Parliament, for tin lifetime of such Parliament, to consist of at least members". The noble Lord said: I shall not detain your Lordships more than a minute over this proposed Amendment, because I think the point is: it is so very plain that it. can be dealt. with in a very few words. If your Lordship-will look at. subsection (1) of Clause 7, it says—
" A committee for the purposes of this Part of this Act shall consist of five persons selected by the President of the Board from a permanent panel of persons appointed by him who shall be mainly persons of commercial or industrial experience."
Your Lordships will see, from the earlier part of the Bill, what very important functions this Committee has to perform.
The Committee will practically settle whether orders are to be made to include certain articles amongst those to which the provisions about dumping are to apply. I suggest that the form of the Bill, being exclusively financial— at any rate it having been certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill— such large powers as are to be given to the Committee under this Bill ought not to be entrusted to any one except members of the House of Commons. That is the whole meaning of the proposal I make, and I suggest that the Government should adopt the Amendment so that this matter could be kept in the hands of the House of Commons.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out from (" shall ") to the end of subsection (1) and insert the said words.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The object of the Amendment is to make a considerable alteration in the Bill. Instead of this committee of business men, selected from a particular panel, it sets up a Committee of the House of Commons chosen by

921
select Committee. That is to say, you I lave a Committee of members of the House if Commons instead of some of those listinguished business men from outside. The whole object of the clause was to conduct the inquiry before this Committee n an entirely non-political atmosphere. It was the decision of the House of Commons and it must be assumed that if lie House of Commons decided to entrust its powers to a committee of business men they are afraid that if they did it themselves there would be political atmosphere. Tile noble Lord assumes that there would not be"political atmosphere."
He will agree with me that it is essential that"political atmosphere"should be entirely excluded. I suppose the House of Commons knows its own composition and members better than my noble friend, and if they think that by setting up their Committee there would be"political atmosphere," I am inclined to believe them even against the great authority of my noble friend. I think it would be better to assume that the House of Commons knows its own characteristics better than the noble Lord. It is also important that the men who will have to judge these facts should be men of wide business experience. I do not say that men of this type are not to be found in the House of Commons, but the governing point is, that these decisions will be removed entirely from"political atmosphere." and I hope your Lordships will not disturb this portion of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) to leave out"five"and insert"six"and after"persons"to insert"of whom five shall be"The noble Lord said: In pursuance of the statement I made in the Second Reading debate, I move that the Committee to whom the President of the Board of Trade is to refer the question as to whether unemployment in any industry, including agriculture, is likely to result from the operation of Clause 2, should consist of one person at least who is experienced in agricultural matters. For this purpose I am moving this Amendment. The result is to increase the five persons in Clause 7 to six, and to ask that the person shall be nominated by the Minister of Agriculture, who necessarily knows much-more about these matters than the President of the Board of Trade.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out (" five ") and insert (" six ") and after (" persons ") insert (" of whom five shall be ").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I sympathise with the object of my noble friend, but I am going to ask him not to press the Amendment, for two reasons. He will admit that a committee of five is a much more convenient body than a committee of six, and for obvious reasons. But. if we are to specify the great business of agriculture we should have to specify a great many other businesses as well, and he knows how troublesome all that specification becomes in an Act of Parliament. I can tell him for his own information that I understand that some representative of agriculture will be placed on the panel, and that the President of the Ministry of Agriculture will be asked to select one. I hope that will satisfy him.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I fully appreciate the undertaking which the noble Viscount has given. In the ordinary interpretation of the word"industry"in an Act of Parliament, it excludes agriculture, and if that is so I suggest, in pursuance of what he has now said, that the word"industry"shall be interpreted so as to include agriculture.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think it is necessary to do that. I have consulted the Board of Trade and they think that their action will not be inconsistent with the terms of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether. Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?—
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is a question of interpretation on which I should like some information. Will the meetings of the Committee, and the nature ' of the applications which will come before it, be publicly advertised so that firms interested may have an opportunity of being represented? Firms may wish to be represented at the inquiry, and unless there is a public advertisement of the fact they cannot become acquainted with the date of the inquiry. The other question is this. Part II is to come into force on October 1. The date of the coming into force of the rest of the Bill does not appear to be specified. Will it be possible to make an Order under Part II before October 1?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl knows well that the meetings of the Committee are to be held in public, and the fact that a Committee has been appointed to meet and decide some specific point will have to be made public. I understand that is the intention of the Board of Trade. As to the other question, the other portion of the Bill is to come into force immediately the Bill becomes law. The noble Earl asks me whether Orders made under Part II could be made before October 1. The period is very short, and I understand that while it is theoretically possible that they might be made it is actually impracticable that they should be made.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am much obliged.
On Question, Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Duration, &c., of orders.
9. An order made under this Part of this Act shall, unless previously revoked by the Board, continue in force for three years or such less period as may be specified in the order; but any such order may, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be renewed from time to time by an order made in like manner and subject to the like conditions as the original order:
Provided that the Board shall not have power to revoke any such order either wholly or as respects any country or article to which the order relates except after reference to and consideration of any report thereon by a committee constituted under this Part of this Act, and that an order made on the ground of depreciation of foreign currency shall not be made or continue in force after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved to substitute "two years" for "three years" where those words firstly occur. The noble Earl said: I do not know whether the noble Viscount has considered the effect of the Amendments I have ventured to put down. I am sure that the great majority of your Lordships, reading this clause, will hardly realise its effect. I am not going to repeat what was said in the Second Reading debate. but it must be admitted that there is a great doubt as to the operation of this Bill. The Government have confined Part I to five years. I can quite understand that it may be necessary to have rather a longer period for industries which have to be fostered and perhaps created than for industries which are in existence, but the object of the second part of the Bill is to avoid
924
their being stamped out by competition which the Government regard as unfair.
Surely, in those circumstances, the provision made for Part II of the Bill for dealing with dumping ought to be for a less period, and not for a longer period, than the provision made in regard to Part I. I think myself that the period applied to Part I is unduly long, and that it may reach a great danger of dislocation of trade, but I am not going to touch upon that point now, because it is dealt with in Clause 16. But with regard to the class of dumping—I forget the technical name which the noble Viscount applies to it—which is the result of the depreciation of foreign exchange, it does seem a marvellous thing that in this clause, which on the face of it appears only to give protection for three years, they have a provision which enables them to give protection for six years.
VISCOUNT PEEL: For dumping?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The Order can be made for three years, and at any time before it has expired, which may be a few days before the Bill lapses, another Order can be made, also for three years. At the end of the clause it is specifically stated that such an Order shall not be made on the ground of the depreciation of foreign currency for more than three years. I challenge both those figures. As regards foreign currency no human being appears to be able to gauge its probable movement from day to day. I do not think a single financial authority of any description predicted the enormous fall in the German mark which has occurred in the last few days, and to contemplate a single Minister in a Government Department sitting down and giving an Order based upon what he believes will be the condition, of foreign currency for three years from now, is to put a power and a responsibility on any man which seems to me to be unwise, which is inequitable to various trades, and which, I fancy, may recoil very much on the Government who have placed it in the Bill.
But while I think that unwise, I cannot understand on what principle, for simple dumping, it is necessary to contemplate three years or six years at all. You have not got to build up an industry upon it. It is simply that, if at any time you find a particular class of article is being landed here at considerably less than the cost of

925
production of it in the United Kingdom, you can at once put on this very heavy penalty. If you put it on for a year you will see the result of it. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to contemplate—and it is one of the most objectionable creatures of the Bill, which is resented on all hands, that the Board of Trade should practically take over control of a very large portion of the trade of the country, at the will of whoever happens to be the Minister of the moment—that the Board of Trade should continue restriction for a period of three years and, even without the interposition of Parliament, possibly for six years.
The whole of this Bill is a leap in the dark. We do not know what the effect of it may be, Different noble Lords with great experience have given absolutely different estimates of that effect. The noble Viscount. yesterday contrasted Lord Colwyn's estimate that all trades would be pressing upon the Board of Trade to get them into the charmed circle
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was Lord Cawley, not Lord Colwyn. I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying that it was wrongly stated. I was certainly not criticising Lord Colwyn, who made a speech or the subject. It was Lord Cawley whom I was criticising.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I apologise to the noble Lord for having given his thunder to anybody else. At all events, his high authority was contrasted, in a sentence which, I think, suggested that every board of directors would be rushing to get their particular industry into the charmed circle, with the estimate made by the noble Marquess behind me, that the Bill would be to a large extent inoperative. One certainty arises out of that namely, that the whole question is a matter of doubt. That being sc., I do think, in view of the enormous body of commercial feeling which exists against the passage of the Bill at all, that the Government ought to meet us Halfway with regard to its duration believe that it would be a wise course in their own interests. I have suggested two years as the period, but if the Government attach great importance to the period being somewhat longer, provided there is a substantial reduction, I should certainly not quarrel with them on that point. But I demur to the possibility of any Minister being allowed, as he is by this clause, at
926
the final moment of the Bill, at a moment before Parliament is to resume, having the power of dishing Parliament by a direct ban awl extending the operation for two or three further years. I hope that, whatever happens, the noble Viscount will consent to take that out of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, leave out (" three ") and insert (" two ")—(The Earl of Midleton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I dislike referring to, or making any complaint as to the speech which I made on the introduction to this Bill, but I attempted to make it clear, though I suppose I did not succeed, that there was a marked distinction between the different portions of the Bill. I used certain phrases, too, about what I may call the common or ordinary dumping, to distinguish it from the dumping connected with collapsed exchanges, and, of course, from the. other portion of the Bill. The desire of the noble Earl, I think, amounts practically to the rejection of the Bill, and it is as a Second Reading objection that I am afraid it must be treated. If the Amendment of the noble Earl were carried, it is just as much a rejection of the Bill as if it had been rejected on the Second Reading.
First of all, with regard to those industries which come under Part I, I ant not sure that the noble Earl would make a very strong objection. I imagine he thought that the term of five years was not unreasonable. But at the same time, his Amendment says that the period shall be two years. If it were limited to two years, the provision would, of course, be absurd, because it would be absolutely impossible and perfectly useless to give assistance under Part I to these infant industries, if the period were to be limited to two years. I am certain there is not one human being in your Lordships' House who would advance one single penny to any of those industries if he knew that this security was to be only for two years. I think that is sufficient condemnation of this Amendment, because it is obvious that before this Bill comes into operation there will be large stocks accumulated in the country, and it will be some time before the Bill begins to work. The term of five years, which will enable these industries to take measures against foreign competition, has been cut down to the shortest possible period, and to reduce it to two years is

927
equivalent to throwing out the Bill, which your Lordships accepted by a considerable majority a few days ago.
The same consideration does not quite apply to collapsed exchanges. I agree with the noble Earl there.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I must remind the noble Viscount that I particularly guarded myself. I was not dealing with key industries, but particularly devoted my whole argument to the question of dumping.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I agree; but I am dealing with the effect of the Amendment—it does not matter to what the noble Earl addressed himself in his speech—and was showing what would be the result of the Amendment if it were passed.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: It does not affect key industries at all. The noble Viscount has advanced several arguments in the course of the discussion which are not justified. How does what is done under t his clause affect key industries?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl wishes to give two years for the general currency of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: But this refers to dumping.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am going to deal with dumping in a moment. With regard to collapsed exchanges, I agree that it is a far more difficult problem. I agree also that it passes the wit of man to know at what time, or in what period, these exchanges may be re-established, and the period of time which was selected, of three years, gave considerable trouble to the Government. Various times were proposed, but on the whole they came to the conclusion that three years was a reasonable period, because it has, I believe, generally, been the experience of the Board of Trade that currencies have re-established themselves much more slowly than was generally expected, and so they thought that three years was a rather better period than two years. I may point out that no harm will be done if the longer period is taken, because it is obvious that, if in that period the depreciation of currency in any
928
country comes to an end, and the exchange is re-established, then the provisions of the Bill will not apply to that country, and no harm will be done. Therefore, I urge the noble Earl not to press that portion of the Amendment.
On the question of ordinary dumping, I really do think lie is under some misapprehension, because I explained in my opening speech, and I am afraid at excessive length, that this portion of the Bill is permanent. It is not a question of three years, or of six years, but it is a permanent piece of legislation, because in the opinion of the Government this form of dumping is bad for trade and ought to be stopped, and there is no question why it should be allowed to go on after three years or six years. This particular portion of the Bill must be placed on quite a different platform from the parts dealing with key industries and collapsed exchanges, which are matters that arise out of the conditions due to the war. Dumping conditions are matters which are bad in themselves, in the opinion of the Government, and on which the Bill is very largely based, and therefore it would be defeating one of the objects for which the Bill was promoted if the noble Earl had his way and, instead of being permanent, this part of the Bill was made temporary, and so very temporary. Therefore, I urge your Lordships who voted for the Bill to renew your vote on this occasion, and not allow the measure to be whittled away and rendered almost useless by the Amendment of the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot help thinking that the noble Viscount has only himself to thank if it is not entirely clear to the House that this provision against dumping was intended to be a permanent provision; because, if that is so, it is not quite clear why Orders made under this part of the Bill should only continue for three years, or, as apparently is even expected, for a shorter period. If the noble Viscount and His Majesty's Government were in earnest in treating the prohibition of dumping as part of our permanent legislation, it is not clear why they did not say so, and why they did not try to pass an Act of Parliament making the dumping of any article, under certain conditions, permanently an offence. Why, therefore, should the Order for what is called ordinary dumping only last for three years, or less?

929
That is a matter, however, which is for the Viscount and His Majesty's Government to decide.
But I support my noble friend behind me on the general ground that all this is experimental, and the dumping provisions are equally experimental. Whether they arise out of the circumstances of the war, or not, is not the point at this moment. They are experimental in the sense that nobody- knows precisely what the effect will be of introducing this provision against dumping. Nobody can say what the effect on trade will be, because nobody knows how the Committee who have to deal with the matter will work the various restrictions and qualifications which, as we all know, were inserted n the Bill. Surely, it is far safer to consider the matter as experimental, so that after the expiration of two years the whole business can be considered again. We are not now considering the noble Earl's Amendment to Clause 16, and therefore I do not pursue that part of the question, but I merely desire to lay emphasis upon the experimental character of the whole business, and the consequent desirability of making all the terms of the Bill as short as possible.
THE EARL OF DESART: I only wanted to say two words in support of the noble Earl's Amendment, because I am bound to say that f roust plead guilty to having been under a complete misapprehension. I thought, and I believe most people thought that all I he provisions of this Bill were of an experimental character. I have looked at the Bill and examined it from that point of view, and I found, so regarding it, that there were apparently three forms of time limit. One was the limit of three years for ordinary dumping, and that might be extended to another three years. The second period had regard to exchanges, which could only go on for three years after the passing of this Act, and the third period

CONTENTS

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Plymouth, E.

Gorell, L.

Sutherland, D.

Hood, V.

Hylton, L.

Bath, M.

Peel, V.

Killanin, L.

Ancaster, E.

Abinger, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Lee of Fareham, L.

Merthyr, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Riddell, L.

Clarendon, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Eldon, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Colwyn, L.

Wavertree, L.

Lytton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

is the one under the Amendment which we are not now discussing, of five years for protected industries. I am bound to say that I hold the opinion, whatever the intention of the Government, that the Bill is experimental in all its provisions, and it is desirable, I think, that there should be a time limit during which the matter should be reconsidered.
Although I am approaching the case from a somewhat more serious aspect than I thought I should have to do, I am going to suggest that the period of three years in this case is not so material if the antidumping clause be subject to such a proviso as we find at the end of the exchanges clause—namely, that an Order should not be made or continue in force after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act. I feel bound to support the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Midleton., which carries out what I had originally believed to be the intention of the Government—namely, that this Bill should be an experimental Bill in all its provisions.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In order to make it quite clear let me say that five years is the period for.Parr I of the Bill; three years for the collapsed exchanges; and for the ordinary dumping eternity is the only limit.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope it is quite clearly understood that this Division and this Amendment are directed towards the dumping and not towards the key industries, to which the noble Viscount directed the more picturesque part of his remarks.
On Question, Whether the word proposed to be omitted shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 39.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Hemphill, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hindlip, L.

Crewe, M.

MacDonnell, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Askwith, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bledisloe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cawley, L.

Sandys, L.

Charming of Wellingborough, L.

Save and Sele, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Clinton, L.

Shandon, L.

Grey, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Southwark, L.

Mayo, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Midleton, E. [Teller.]

Ebury, L.

Portsmouth, K.

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

Strachie, L.

Terrington, L.

Gladstone, V.

Emmott, L.

Treowen, L.

Goschen, V.

Gainford, L.

Vernon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: There are three consequential Amendments to the Amendment just agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 37, after (" order ") insert (" specified to continue in force for a period of less than two years ")
Page 8,line 39, after (" time ") insert (" before the expiration of this Act ")
Page 8,line 42, leave out (" such ") and after (" order ") insert (" made under this part of this Act ").—(The Earl of Midleton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I suggest that the House should now resume. It is expected that a Royal Commission will take place in a few moments, and I would therefore ask your Lordships to reassemble at nine o'clock.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl speaks of a Royal Commission as though it were absolutely necessary that it should assemble at a particular hour. I dare say it is convenient to some persons that it should do so, but I well recollect occasions, when important business was before your Lordships' House, when a Royal Commission has had to wait for an hour or an hour and a half before it could sit. And, as a matter of fact, I very much doubt whether the whole of the further proceedings on this Bill would take more than half an hour. But, of course, it is a matter for your Lordships to decide.
LORD EMMOTT: Many of us have not taken part in these discussions this afternoon simply because we thought it was for the general convenience to get through before dinner.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. A Royal Commission has to be fixed in advance for a particular time, and it so happens that seven o'clock was fixed. It was postponed for half an hour, because it was thought that would be most convenient. If your Lordships desire to sit on now I suppose I could convey to the other House, who have made arrangements, I believe, to have it at half past seven, that we cannot receive them then.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Earl will see that, if this business is to be finished in half an hour, it would be asking a great deal of your Lordships to come back after dinner. I do not think that would be reasonable at all.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We desire to take the Report stage of this Bill tonight.
LORD SHEFFIELD: It will be very soon over.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think it is quite clear that the Report stage will be purely formal and will not take up very much of your Lordships' time. At the same time, the Government may reasonably expect to get the Report stage as well as the Committee. It is well known, I think, that a hungry House is more likely to be expeditious than one which has just finished dinner.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I shall be very happy to fall in with your Lordships' desire, and if it is the general understanding that, as far as circumstances permit, we shall finish in half an hour, and then adjourn, and will convey to those concerned the expectation of holding the Royal Commission at 8 o'clock.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved to substitute"two years"for"three years"at the end of the clause. The noble Earl said: This is a purely consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 5, leave out (" three") and insert two ").—(The Earl of Midleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause—
" If the Board are satisfied that any goods specified in the schedule to this Act or in any list made by the Board under Part I of this Act, or goods to which an order made under Part II of this Act applies have been imported for educational or scientific purposes, and that Such goods in respees, of which duty has been paid have been so used, the duty shall be repaid."
The noble Marquess said: I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I should like to make au appeal to the noble Viscount to consider seriously the proposition which is embodied in this new clause: that is to say, that goods coming under either part of the Bill, if they are desired for educational or scientific purposes, should not be subject to this disability. I will give your Lordships one instance—chemical glass. The chemical glass trade is an extremely important, one to scientific and educational institutions. The expense of the glass used in one University laboratory from which I had a report. amounts to 300 per cent. more than it did in 1913. That is to say, instead of costing about £500 for the year it costs £2,000. That conies at the time when all Universities and' colleges, as your Lordships are aware, find it extremely difficult to carry on at all.
The particular product which I mentioned, chemical glass, is one which will riot be effectively protected by such a duty as it is designed to impose, either under Part I or under Part II of the Act. The difficulty at this moment is that the price is very high and that the quality, though now and then extremely good (it can be made extremely good) is far from being uniform. The amount of breakages that occur in chemical laboratories now is very high. I was given an instance the other day by an extremely well-known and distinguished man of science who had got from the other
934
side of the world a small quantity of a very rare metal on which he worked personally for a whole week for purposes of purification. He put the solution, when it was made, into a cupboard, in a flask of British manufacture, and locked it up. When he went the next morning to look at it; the flask had broken to pieces and the costly solution, which had occupied so much time to make, was lost. That, of course, is a single instance. But, as I am sure the noble Viscount. knows, the complaints which are made of the quality of a great deal of the British glass which is supplied are widespread and loud.
There are also other objects more concerned with the teaching of physics, such as balances, which will also be subject, to these restrictions. When it is considered that this is not a question merely of scientific research, at any rate in the pedantic sense, but that it is most closely concerned with the actual development, of industry—because the connection between research and industry, as your Lordships know, is becoming closer every year and almost every month—it does seem hard that the fountain head, from which the men are to be drawn who are to carry out the intentions of this Bill by improving the output of these various products, should be checked by the difficulty of training the number of men required for research, a number which is, as we know, continually increasing.
In those circumstances, I would appeal to the noble Viscount to consider whether it is not possible, even if he is not able to adopt the full terms of my Amendment, to provide some means by which these very hard cases can be met. My impression is that this matter was discussed in another place, that at a very early period of the discussion it fell under the guillotine, and that it would, but for that, have received a very large measure of support. I venture to press strongly upon the noble Viscount the importance of doing something, and I feel certain that in this I shall have the sympathy of the noble Lord sitting next, to him.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Crewe.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I think I can shorten the proceedings by saying that I have on the Paper a subsequent Amendment referring to the second paragraph

935
of the Schedule which, having regard to the Amendment just moved by the noble Marquess, I do not propose to move because his more than covers it. It is that second paragraph about which some of us arc mainly concerned. It is the paragraph that covers all the various laboratory glass of different descriptions which, unfortunately, cannot be obtained of the same quality in this country as from abroad. The educational and scientific institutions of this country are unanimous, I believe, in desiring to. see research workers helped in this respect and not hindered.
Your Lordships will realise that in the first paragraph which deals with optical glass, yon are dealing with a substance of very great national importance in times of war which affects the whole security of the country. When you are dealing with laboratory glass—glass used in beakers and litres, and flasks and test-tubes—you are interfering with the development of that measure of science which unfortunately we lacked at the beginning of the war and our German competitors possessed. In fact, you are deliberately standing in the way of the development of that knowledge the lack of which proved the greatest handicap to us in pursuing the war to a successful conclusion.
LORD EMMOTT: I only desire to say one word. No money practically will be lost if this Amendment is accepted by the Government. Like other members of your Lordships' House I have had the strongest representations from professors at the Universities, and people of that kind, in regard to the great hardship that will be inflicted upon them. I have had a letter from a professor at Victoria University, Manchester, in which he urges this exemption because he hears from colleagues in Canada and South Africa and other places that the educational institutions there are exempt from the payment of duties on educational and scientific outfits, and he pleads that similar treatment should be accorded in this country.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, is not going to move the Amendment that he has put down, because it is more than covered by that of the noble Marquess. I was going to give the noble Lord an answer on the specific points raised by his Amendment,
936
but I will not do so now, as he does not propose to move it. The noble Marquess has pleaded the cause of scientific investigation and of educational interest with great force. I feel the strength of his case, but his Amendment goes very far indeed. I think he wishes to say that all goods imported for educational or scientific purposes should be exempt.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Provided they are actually used.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid that would make a tremendous gash in this schedule. It would not cut out the schedule altogether, but it would cut out a very large portion of it. I think the Amendment is perhaps more comprehensive than the noble Marquess intended, because the bulk of these instruments are imported I understand, for scientific work. Therefore, his Amendment would be exceedingly destructive. Moreover, I am informed that it is impossible to distinguish between those objects which are used in a University laboratory and those used in a works laboratory. It is suggested that possibly a better way, and one which may meet the feelings of noble Lords, is to give a subsidy to assist research as much as possible. That would be a more easy way to do it, and I understand it is already being done. As regards the educational aspect of the matter, in the ordinary course I would have said to the noble Marquess that I would represent his views to the Minister responsible for this Bill, but unfortunately, in the circumstance under which we are now having our discussions tinder the Parliament Act, I am afraid it would be useless for me to give any such promise. I am sorry I cannot meet the noble Marquess in this respect.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It could be done if the Minister agreed to the suggestion.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid it would lead to a long discussion in another place. That is the difficulty. I think I ought to point out that if we really are to depend for our scientific research upon these articles imported from abroad, our scientific research is in a. somewhat dangerous condition, and were we again, unfortunately, in a state of war, we should be in the difficulties which we experienced in the late war. There may be some difficulty

937
until these industries at home are brought up to date, but in three or four years, when I he industries in this country are well established, the scientific men and the professors, to whom reference has been made, may find that they will get a considerable advantage through the operations of this Bill. The Amendment itself would be far too wide, and I am afraid I am unable to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sorry that the noble Viscount does not think that he can accept the Amendment, even in a modified form. I appreciate the distinction between the objects which are used in college and University laboratories, and those used in works laboratories. I should like to see the latter excepted, too, because I think the work done in works laboratories is so important. I appreciate the distinction, and t hat it would, of course, mean letting in, duty free, a large number of objects. Perhaps I might say that the difficulty which the noble Viscount. has in accepting this Amendment, even in modified form, and sending it to another place for concurrence, is in no sense clue to the terms of the Parliament Act, but is due to the extreme hurry with which we arc asked to finish the session. It is quite easy to send an Amendment down to another place on a Financial Bill under the Parliament Act. 'What you cannot do is, for longer than a month's time, to insist on its being, carried if it is not accepted. But if it is accepted, it could be inserted in the Bill at one. I am sorry the noble Viscount does not see his way to assist us at all over this. The larger payments which are to be made to the colleges and Universities as the only possible alternative are also becoming restricted by the general necessity for national economy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT had an Amendment to insert after Clause 13 the following new Clanfie—
" This Act shall not apply to goods for the purpose of being used in shipbuilding or ship-repairing."
The noble Lord said: I think there may hardly be time to move this Amendment and get a reply, because the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Midleton, will take a little time. I therefore do not move this new clause now. If I desire to
938
move it, I earl do so on Third Reading to-morrow.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Third Reading is to-night.
LORD EMMOTT: Very well, I do not move now.
On Question, whether Clauses 14 arid 15 be agreed to:
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: Am I in order in moving Lord Emmott's Amendment? If so, I shall move it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Iliad already put the question that Clauses 14 and 15 stand part.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 (Duration of Part 1):
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON had on the Paper two Amendments to Clause 16. The noble Earl said: I think, after what fell from the noble Viscount earlier as to the great importance the Government attach to the period of the key industries, I will not ask your Lordships to deal with my Amendments.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.
GOODS CHARGEABLE WITH DUTY.
Optical glass and optical elements, whether finished or not, microscopes, field and opera glasses, theodolites, sextants, spectroscopes and other optical instruments.
Beakers, flasks, burettes, measuring cylinders, thermometers, tubing, and other scientific glassware and lamp-blown ware, evaporating dishes, crucibles, combustion boats; and other laboratory porcelain.
Galvanometers, pyrometers, electroscopes, barometers, analytical and other precision balances, and other scientific instruments, gauges and measuring instruments of precision of the types used in engineering machine shops and viewing rooms, whether for use in such shops or rooms or not.
Wireless valves and similar. rectifiers, and vacuum tubes.
Ignition magnetos and permanent magnets. Arc-lamp carbons.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to leave out"are-lamp carbons." The noble Earl said: This is an unexpected result. I hardly anticipated, in the short time at my disposal, that I should be able to bring this case before your Lordships' House,

939
but I am glad of the opportunity of doing so, and I am also glad that the last discussion that takes place upon the Committee stage of this Bill should be concerned with a characteristic example of protection. The noble Viscount was good enough yesterday to explain to us that these articles were included in the key industries because searchlights for military purposes were included. There is no point of difference between us as to the use of these things for searchlights. I wish to establish the other purposes for which these things are required.
First of all, there are arc lamps for street lighting. The chief engineers of corporations which stilt use arc tamps for street lighting (for example, Glasgow, Manchester and Dublin) are unanimous in their verdict as to the great superiority of imported carbons. The City of London Electric Lighting Company, Limited, has stated that they cannot believe that those responsible for this measure are aware of the difficulties of carrying out arc lighting with English carbons. Another use of are carbons is for photo processes. The Westminster Engineering Company, Limited, whose lamps are used throughout the world for photo-printing, have written to the Secretary of the Electrical Importers and Traders' Association to say they have been quite unable to obtain from English factories a carbon of satisfactory quality, and that some types they cannot obtain in this country at all.
There is a third case, and that is for cinematographs. The largest market for carbons is found in the cinema theatres. The committee of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association have passed a resolution stating that they use nearly 10,000,000 feet of arc-lamp carbon annually, and that they are very strongly opposed to the suggested tax on a key industry. At the present; moment. as I understand, these things can only be manufactured by a single company. This is a thoroughly characteristic example of Protection, by which many will pay more for the benefit of a few.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out (" are-lamp carbons ").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I dare say your Lordships will allow me to answer the noble Earl very briefly. I can console him on one point at once, and that is as regards street lighting. As I understand, these
940
carbon lamps are going out and they are to be replaced by half-watt lamps. So that as regards street lighting the noble Earl may be said to be a little behind the times, though not in anything else. Great stress must, of course, be laid upon arc carbons, because without them searchlights become absolutely useless. I think, when I tell your Lordships that the Admiralty press very strongly for the inclusion of are carbons in this list that you will feel that the interest of individual persons in the country must yield to the absolute necessities of national defence.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
The Schedule agreed to.
House. resumed.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Amendments reported.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether as a pure matter of convenience it would be desirable to change the Amendment of Clause 2 relating to agriculture, which has been passed in the form which was proposed by my noble friend, Lord Bledisloo, and myself. That is to say, instead of it reading,"Articles for use in the practice of husbandry, agriculture, or the raising of stock," it might be put in this form: after the word"drink"insert"or agricultural instruments or fertilisers as used in agriculture.'' It is quite indifferent to me. but that seems rather a more suitable form.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is hardly for me to say if the noble Marquess wants to send down an Amendment to another place.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I must apologise to the House, but I inadvertently allowed the Lord Chairman to pass a rather important Amendment of mine in Clause 7(2)—-namely, page 8. line 1, after'' whose insert"financial," and leave out"materially." The point is this. The Advisory Committee are persons who are obviously intended to be quite impartial and disinterested persons. As the clause is framed now, you have to show that they are materially affected by any action which they may take, which obviously means that they are financially interested. Most of us think the word"materially"is very vague indeed. It is very hard for anyone to say whether he is materially

941
affected by the action which has to be considered, and therefore I venture to suggest, in order to make it perfectly clear, that it most be shown that he is a person whose financial interests are affected by the action which the Committee may take. I should have moved it during, the Committee stage.
Amendment moved —
Page 8, line 1, after"whose"insert financial" and leave cut"materially."—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I would suggest to noble friend that he should allow the words to remain as they are, for this reason. I think his words may be too restrictive"Whose interests are materially affected" means that they are really affected. For instance, if you insert the word"financial," various persons who would be quite competent, and who ought to appear on these panels, would be prevented from judging, merely because they might have a few shares in a particular industry. I suggest that the word"materially"is rather a. wiser and wider word, and less restrictive, and that the clause bad better remain as it is.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I do not know whether the noble. Viscount is fortified by legal authority, but I should have thought it would be very; difficult to interpret the words"materially affected.' When a man upon a Committee dealing with mast important subjects of this kind is asked to say whether his interests are materially affected or not, I should have thought it would be most difficult to give an answer. I think the word"materially"is a most vague word.
VISCOUNT PEEL: And the word"financial"is extremely close and limiting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The word"materially"may be a more difficult word to construe, hut it covers many more cases.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME LORD NUNBURNHOLME moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause—
" This Act shall not apply to goods imported for the purpose of being used in shipbuilding or shiprepairing."
The noble Lord said: I propose this Amendment which is down in the name of
942
Lord Emmott. I am sorry at such a late hour to detain your Lordships, but this is a very important matter for the shipbuilding industry. It is just as important as cheap machinery and the latest and most up-to-date appliances for the farming industry. Up to now it has always been the practice for the builders of tramp steamers on the Clyde and on the Tyne and other great centres to be free to buy their materials from the cheapest possible market. and to work them up into ships and sell them in the dearest market, whether in England or on the Continent., very often selling to people like the Germans. Up to now there has been a tremendous importation of cheap ship plates and crank shafts which have enabled shipbuilders in this country to turn out ships more cheaply than any other country in the world. That has all been for the benefit of this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Nunburnholme.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is rather a large subject to discuss in two or three minutes, but may I say one thing in reply to the noble Lord? A very distinguished authority in tin' House of Commons, a President of the Chamber of Shipping, said that. he was not the least afraid of this clause, because he did not think it would in any way affect Clue building of ships: If you once begin by omitting one industry you have to omit a great many others. May I point out what is often forgotten, that the interests of shipping will, of course, be looked after by this Committee. One of the things they have to consider is not merely whether employment is affected, but whether those who use these importations as materials will also be affected. Therefore, the interests of the shipping industry will be closely guarded.
LORD EMMOTT: I only want to say that the distinguished authority in the House of Commons does not represent in this matter the opinion of the Chamber of Shipping, of which, for the moment, he happens to be the head.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: Nor does he represent the shipbuilding trade.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EDUCATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government as to losses incurred by the State on investments made by the Government, and to move for a Return in the following form—
Income, if any, derived from—

1. £1,198,000 invested in the Commercial Bank of Siberia.

2. £656,250 given for the encouragement of the building of standard ships in the summer of 1918.

(This sum was invested in the Standard Ship Building and Engineering Company, Messrs. Edward Finch and Company, and the Chepstow Property Company.)

3. The Government having invested (a) £629,618 in the British America Nickel Corporation (of Canada); (b) £22,105 in the Turkish Petroleum Company; and (c) 1325,000 in the British Farina Mills, Limited.

(None of these stocks are quoted on the London Stock Exchange.)
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first Question, I have to say that no income has been derived from the shares of the Commercial Bank of Siberia, purchased by His Majesty's Government. The purchase of these shares in February. 1918, was authorised as part of the scheme for supplying funds to General Alexieff in Southern Russia. The
944
scheme fell through owing to the spread of the Bolshevist revolution. His Majesty's Government still hold the shares, and it is possible that some day, when the economic conditions in Russia improve, they may be of some value.
With regard to the second Question, as to a sum of £656,000 given for the encouragement of building standard ships in the summer of 1918, no income is derived by the Government from this investment, The sum to which the noble Earl refers was given for the encouragement of the building of standard ships in the summer of 1918 and was invested in the Standard Shipbuilding and Engineering Company and the other companies to which he refers All the shares in these three companies were purchased by the Admiralty with Treasury approval on August 9, 1918, in connection with the scheme for the construction of the national shipyard at Chepstow. In the quarterly Return of Government Investments in Registered Companies (which is presented by the Treasury to an Order of the House of Commons dated March 30, 1920) for the quarter ended June 30, the following observation is made:—
" These shares are of nominal value only as the entire assets and liabilities of the companies are vested in the Board of Trade."
For any further information with regard to this investment I refer the noble Earl to the Third Report of the Committee on Public Accounts.
Then with regard to the investment in the British America Nickel Corporation of Canada. The sum of over £629,000 represents approximately three million dollars, which were originally advanced by the Government to this company upon the security of the first mortgage gold bonds of the Corporation. This amount was advanced during the war in compliance with the terms of a certain blockade arrangement entered into with a Norwegian company in order to prevent the supply of nickel to Germany. The Norwegian company were largely interested in the British Nickel Corporation, who were in need of funds to develop the undertaking. For various reasons the company has been obliged to reconstruct, and the bond holders have accepted income bonds in exchange for their previous holdings in the company. The Government are still in possession of these income bonds and look on this as by no means a desperate debt.

945
With regard to the Turkish Petroleum Company, the Government holding now amounts to £40,000, the uncalled balance of the shares having recently been called up. The Turkish Petroleum Company own certain concessions in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor in respect of oil which may be found within the districts covered by these concessions. Here again it is possible that they may prove to be of value.
The last Question concerns the British Farina Mills. The affairs of this company have bee n the subject of investigation by the Public Accounts Committee, who have considered the question at some length. If the noble Earl will look at the Report. of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on the ninth of this month, he will find a summary of the conclusions of the Committee as regards this particular investment. The Committee say:—
" In our opinion this is another ease of a war measure, entered upon in a time of great emergency for the increased production of food, which owing to the termination of the war and other reasons his failed to realise expectations. Considering tie difficulty of the conditions we do not see that any grounds for censure exist."
THE EARL OF-MAYO: That was to make potato flour?
LORD HYLTON: Yes.
THE EARL OF MAYO: None of these are quoted on the London Stock Exchange?
LORD HLTON: My noble friend is quite correct.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills, and Measure passed according to the provisions of Section four of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, received the Royal Assent—

Corn Sales.

Juries (Emergency Provision) (Renewal).

Zion Congregational Chapel (Frampton Cottetell) Charity.

Land Settlement Amendment.

Water Undertakings (Modification of Charges).

Territorial Army and Militia.

Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries.

946

Admiralty Pensions.

Isle of Man (Customs).

Greenwich Hospital.

Duchy of Lancaster (Application of Capital Moneys).

Licensing (No. 2).

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Ossett and Wakefield Extension).

Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation.

Manchester (Police, etc.) Provisional Order.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Glasgow University (Dundonald Bursaries) Order Confirmation.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8).

Lee Conservancy.

Southampton Corporation Water.

Thames Conservancy.

London and 'North Western Railway (Holyhead Harbour Leasing).

Stock Conversion and Investment Trust.

Rhymney Valley Water Board.

South Essex Waterworks.

Hastings Tramways (Extension).

Rotherham Corporation.

Coventry Corporation.

Lancashire County Council (Drainage).

Slough Trading Company, Limited (Canal).

Taf Fechan Water Supply.

Metropolitan Water Board (Charges).

Burnley Corporation.

Nuneaton Corporation.

Wigan Corporation.

De Trafford Estates.

Doupe's Divorce.

Union of Benefices Measure, 1921.

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL . [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ADAMSON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
HAMILTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

WAR PENSIONS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (BARNSLEY EXTENSION)
BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABERAVON AND NEATH EXTENSION) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH. PROVISIONAL ORDER (STOKE-ON-TRENT EXTEN-SION) BILL.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
BATLEY CORPORATION HILL.
Returned from the Commons. with the Amendments, agreed to.

VISCOUNT HAWARDEN.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Eustace Wyndham Maude, Viscount Hawarden, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Repre-
948
sentative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords this day, that the right of Viscount Hawarden to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk- of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
Ordered, That this House do meet on Tuesday the 18th day of October next, for the purpose of hearing and determining Appeals and matters connected therewith, pursuant to the provisions of the"Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 "; and that. during such meeting of the House leave be given to the Appeal Committee to meet and appoint their own Chairman.
Ordered, That for the purposes of the Judicial Business of the House, Tuesday the 18th day of October next, be deemed the"first sitting day after the Recess.''
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock until two o'clock to-morrow.