Sitting of 27 July 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN.
The Rt. Hon. Sir Edmund Bernard Talbot (commonly called Lord Edmund Bernard Talbot), G.C.V.O., D.S.O., having been created Viscount FITZALAN of DERWENT, of Derwent in the County of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LEE CONSERVANCY BILL. THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name with regard to these Bills. It is justified by the procedure of these two Bills through Parliament.
Moved, That the order made on the 13th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughwore.)
On Question, Bills read 2a.

ST. HELENS CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, desire to put to the noble Marquess who leads the House a Question of which I have given him Private Notice, as to whether he is able, especially in view of what was stated in another place yesterday about the course of public business, to give us in this House some further information on the subject. The Leader of the House in another place, as your Lordships will have seen from the newspapers, announced a list of measures, a long list, with which
26
His Majesty's Government desired to proceed, a shorter list of measures which would be proceeded with if some agreement could be arrived at about them—that is to say, if they were declared to be noncontentious—and a quite short list of measures which it was proposed to drop.
The statement generally confirmed what was said by the noble Marquess on the last occasion when this matter was discussed—namely, that the probability was that the Railways Bill would reach us somewhere about the end of the second week in August. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) made a suggestion, to which I cordially agreed and which I think was also cordially accepted by His Majesty's Government, that two or three noble Lords should confer informally with those representing the Ministry of Transport, in order to ascertain whether the statement which has been made was in fact correct—namely, that from the public point of view it was of supreme importance that the Railways Bill should become law as soon as possible, at any rate towards the middle of August, or a little later. We were not informed of what I have since ascertained to be the case—that the decontrol of the Railways automatically ceases in the middle of August by Statute. Some of us had been under the impression that it was merely a declaration of intention. But I am now given to understand that it is a statutory obligation, and that fact, of course, gives great weight to the contention that the Bill should become law as soon as possible.
I understand that the noble Lords who conferred with the Department reached the conclusion that in the interests of the public, and in the interests of the railways themselves, it may be taken as generally proved that it would be disastrous, or at any rate unfortunate, if the Bill were postponed until a later period of the year. I need not say that I do not attempt to contest that view, which was arrived at by those most competent to reach it after full inquiry, and the noble Marquess may therefore assume that so far as my friends and I are concerned, we shall throw no obstacle in the way of the consideration of the Railways Bill taking place before the adjournment or prorogation.
But there is a very long list of Bills, some of them of great importance—I do not propose to trouble your Lordships by

27
enumerating them at this moment—which we shall be called upon to consider. One important measure, the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill, is already before your Lordships, and is going to be taken into consideration next week. But there are several others of great importance to be considered, altogether apart from the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, which is, in itself, in a peculiar and, as I stated last time, a still somewhat dubious position. We are not yet assured as to whether the Safeguarding of Industries Bill is or is not to be regarded as a Money Bill within the terms of the Parliament Act. Supposing it is so declared, your Lordships will remember that it is a provision of that Act that a Money Bill, to be considered as such by your Lordships' House, has to come here a month before the close of the session; if not, it ceases to be, I take it, a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act. Supposing the Safeguarding of Industries Bill to be a Money Bill, it throws a rather lurid light on the probabilities of a long continued session. On the other hand, if it is not a Money Bill, I have no doubt that it will be considered at great length, and clause by clause, by your Lordships' House, because in the minds of some of us it is a measure of the first importance, and one which it may be assumed is likely to occupy a great deal of your Lordships' time.
That being so, I appeal once more to the noble Marquess as to whether His Majesty's Government cannot reconsider the decision at which they appear to have arrived. That decision, I take it, is that the session shall continue until all the legislation which the Government think necessary has passed your Lordships' House, according to the hopeful view expressed in another place, by some date about the last week in August, or, as I think your Lordships will admit, possibly by a considerably later date. That long summer session is likely. also by the admission of His Majesty's Government, to be followed by a meeting of the House—whether it be the close of this session or the beginning of a new one does not appear to me, I confess, to matter a brass farthing—some time towards the end of November. That prognostication destroys the hope of a long vacation with which the noble Marquess allured the House on the last occasion when this matter was raised. If we are going to sit far into September and to meet again late in November, those—apart from His Majesty's
28
Ministers, with whose needs and position I entirely sympathise—to whom a holiday and some repose away from London is necessary, will not get the opportunity of enjoying that repose at the most favourable time of the year: but in the case of some of them, their holidays will have to be remitted to late in October or till November.
I therefore appeal to the noble Marquess whether, on further consideration, and in view of what may be taken to be the certainty that if we sit on till the end of August there will be no chance of enjoying a holiday until right up to the New Year, it would not be to everybody's interest—that of the noble Marquess himself, that of his colleagues, that of the officers of the House, that of the Civil Service generally, and also (although the noble Marquess may think it less important) to the comfort and interest of members of both Houses of.Parliament—to agree to rise as soon as the Railways Bill has been passed through Four Lordships' House, leaving such other legislation as 'nay be in any degree contentious, and therefore likely to take some period for discussion in your Lordships' House, until the autumn; and, as you know you have to meet at the end of November, meet earlier in November, give two or three weeks for the discussion of those measures here, and then start the following year with a clean slate.
I may put this further point to the noble Marquess. He hopes, as we all do, that it may be necessary to bring in some amending legislation to set the seal of Parliament upon an agreement between the different Parties in Ireland. That legislation, it may be presumed, would be introduced by the Prime Minister in another place, and, while it is being discussed there, we here should be able to conclude those other matters which, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of many others of Your Lordships, can well be allowed to stand over until that date. I will not pursue the matter further now, but I will ask the noble Marquess if he is able to give us any comfort in the direction which I have endeavoured to indicate.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, when the noble Marquess, with his usual courtesy, let me know this morning that he was going to ask a question about the course of

29
business this afternoon I had no idea that he was going to address to me the particular appeal to which we have just listened. The noble Marquess stated his ease with his usual moderation and force, and, indeed, he endeavoured to depict himself as acting in a purely altruistic spirit; the only people whose interests he was really considering were those of myself, incidentally, those of the whole of my colleagues, the officers oh this House, and the Civil Service in general. I am very grateful to the noble Marquess for considering all our interests, but I confess I am disposed to think that the interests of other people linty also have figured to some extent in the background of his mind.
However that may be, let us see the situation: as it now stands. When I spoke the other day, I informed the House that to the best of my knowledge a situation would arise involving a good deal of financial and other dislocation and trouble if the Railways Bill were not proceeded with and passed into law in the month of August. That remark caused some surprise on the other side, but it produced the very natural, and, as we at once realised, very reasonable suggestion, that the Government, if they held that view of the ease, should convince their opponents that it was true. I understand that these communications have passed in the interval, and that my noble friend, Lord Muir Mackenzie, and others who acted with him, have been convinced that the statement I made was well founded, and (as the noble Marquess himself said just now) that if the Railways Bill were not passed into law at some date soon after August 15, on which date decontrol is to commence, the results world be, if not disastrous, at least very unfortunate. 'I cannot help congratulating myself that we have convinced noble Lords on that point, and I am grateful, therefore, to the noble Marquess for the observations he made in that respect.
The next Bill to which he turned was the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill, which has passed another place, and will be in the hands of your Lordships next week. I hope that there will be adequate time to discuss that, and, indeed, I did not gather that the noble Marquess made any complaint in that context. Then we come to the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, and here the noble Marquess depicted to us two alternatives. He said, in the first place that if this B is decided by the
30
authorities in another place to be a Money Bill—which I am told, though I cannot speak with any authority, is not unlikely—we must remember that under the law as it now stands, it will have to come to your Lordships' House, under the terms of the Parliament Act, a month before it is passed over our heads, if that be the decision to which we are driven, and, in the other case, if it is not pronounced to be a Money Bill, he rather foreshadowed a long and somewhat dismal prospect of close and almost meticulous criticism by noble Lords in this House who are not in favour either of the principles or details of this Bill.
Upon those observations I would make only two remarks. The first is, let us wait, in the first place, to see whether it is or is not going to be declared a Money Bill. In the second place, even supposing it is not, is the. Bill really the bogey and the spectre that the noble Marquess seems to indicate? I am afraid I am too busy to follow these things very closely, but, from such examination as I have been able to direct to the matter, the Bill seems to me to be rather a harmless and innocent one, and one which, if passed into law, will not alter the whole course of world events, hut, as time goes on, will pass into an atmosphere of general acquiescence. Therefore, as regards that Bill, venture to say there is not sufficient cause for arriving at the kind of decision which the noble Marquess asked me to take at this moment.
We therefore come to a consideration of the case as it is affected by the general convenience of your Lordships, through the likelihood of the session ending next month or the beginning of September, and by the prospects of such Irish legislation as we may require to introduce. The case is put rather differently to-day from the form in which it was put the other day. Then we were led to think that if an arrangement was arrived at in Ireland an autumn session, in the ordinary sense of the term, commencing in all probability in October, would be required, and if such a session was obligatory—and I at once realise the fact—it was asked, why not cut this part of the session short, why not meet again for that great purpose in October, and finish the rest of the business which we were invited to postpone just now? But that is not the ease to-day. I think it was stated in another place yesterday that the preliminary negotiations, or whatever you like to call them, in respect of Ireland are

31
likely to occupy no inconsiderable space of time, and that even supposing they fructify, as we hope they may do, they will still require a good deal of consideration by the Government and those concerned in putting them into legislative shape, and that in all probability the so-called autumn session will really turn out to be a winter session, meeting, let us say, in the concluding days of November or in the opening days of December, and discharging, as I hope it would, its business approximately by Christmas.
Therefore, when the noble Marquess, framing his scheme and schedule of the future, says that the hope of a long vacation has already been irretrievably destroyed I venture to disagree with him. Let us suppose that we are able to get through this programme substantially by the end of August. There then remains September, October and November. That is a prospect that fills me with almost delirous delight. I regard that not only as a vacation, but as a prolonged vacation, something I have not known for years, and I am shocked that in the altruistic spirit to which I have referred the noble Marquess proposes to deprive me of that modest solace.
Certainly, I cannot give him the assurance for which he asks. It is not for me to predict what your Lordships may do in this month. I am sure you will behave with the consideration and moderation which you have always exercised, and which fortunately it is more easy to exercise in the month of August than in any other time of the year. There are climatic conditions which render a conciliatory spirit almost obligatory on all of us, and I doubt not that if we show a spirit of due humility on this bench it will be unconsciously reflected on the benches opposite. Therefore, I am disposed to go ahead with the programme of business as it now stands, see what we can do in the month of August, take the frugal measure of holiday then open to us, and, if our Irish proposals eventuate in anything like success, ask your Lordships to come together later in the year in order to give legislative sanction to them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have not always the pleasure of acting with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in regard to business of this House, but on this occasion I do most cordially agree with him. I am
32
very sorry that the Leader of the House has not been able to meet us in a different spirit. No one hearing him speak with that confident eloquence which is so becoming would have dreamt that the Government were making almost unprecedented demands on your Lordships' House. Really, one would have expected an attitude of apology rather than the friendly and somewhat jocose style with which the noble Marquess dealt with the subject. Seriously, he does not seem to me to have grappled with the arguments of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. I am not going to repeat them, but I would remind the noble Marquess the Leader of the House of one argument which he absolutely passed by.
I do not know what is going to happen in respect of Ireland, but I assume that an Irish Bill will be required in the autumn. If that is the case, as the noble Marquess pointed out, that Bill will be one of great complexity, certainly very polemical, and will be introduced in another place. While it is being discussed there your Lordships' House, according to the programme of the Government, although bound to be in attendance—I mean all the officials—will have nothing to do. Their time will be completely wasted. The Lord Chancellor will have to be here and the officers and attendants will have to be in their places, but, according to the Leader of the House, they are to have nothing to do. He will not allow the business which we cannot do now properly, but which we could do very properly then, to go over in order to fill up that time; he is going, if he can induce your Lordships to assent, to keep us here until a late day in August or September and then, when we come back for the winter session, we shall have nothing whatever to do while the House of Commons is going through all the stages of the new Irish Bill.
I think that argument, by itself, is almost conclusive, and I hope he will not look upon the conversation this afternoon as final. If we can co-operate in passing Government business—a spirit which has characterised us all through—I hope lie will allow us to make further representations. The method by which the Railways Bill is to be saved this session entirely originated with us; it was our proposal. We made the suggestion under which it has been possible to convince independent members of your Lordships' House of the

33
necessity for passing this Bill. The necessity should never have arisen, and it was due to the way in which the Government managed the business that it did arise. We have helped the Government, and now when we ask: "Are you going to keep us doing nothing, kicking our heels, through the winter," the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has nothing to say and does not address himself to that argument. I hope that on a future occasion we shall be more successful.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I think that in the interests of the country the position of the Lord Chancellor, the Law Lords, the Attorney General and the Solicitor-General, should be considered in relation to this question. Are these distinguished and hard-working officials of the Government to be deprived of their long vacation? If there is any one who requires a rest I am sure it must be the Lord Chancellor, the Law Lords, and the Law Officers of the Government. Outside the question of the Railways Bill it has not been proved that there is any necessity for prolonging this session, and as the Committee which has considered the matter say that it is necessary to pass the Railways Bill, then let us concentrate the whole of our attention upon it and get away as quickly as we can. The observations which have been made this afternoon confirm me in that view. We shall be wasting time if we prolong the session unnecessarily.

IRISH NEGOTIATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in accordance with private notice I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the Government are now able to make any statement as to the terms offered to Mr. de Valera, and if not, can they indicate how soon they will be in a position to make such a statement? Perhaps the House will allow me to explain in two sentences. Mr. de Valera had his first interview with the Prime Minister on July 14, and the final interview about a week ago. I had some reason to believe that the Government would be able to make a statement within a few clays of that event. But I judge from what passed in another place yesterday, and from what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has said this afternoon, that there is no prospect of an answer from Mr. de Valera for several weeks.
34
That places us in a very difficult position, and that is the reason why I put this Question to the noble and learned Viscount. We were, with great reluctance, willing to postpone addressing ourselves to this subject for a few days. But if we allowed anything like a length of time to elapse, it might be assumed that we approved of the method which the Government have pursued in the solution of this Irish question; the truth being that we feel the deep shame and humiliation which are involved in these negotiations, and that we were only waiting for the statement of the Government to make our position clear to the House and to the country. We are quite willing to wait a few more days, but I do not think we can wait indefinitely; and therefore I venture, very respectfully, to put the Question of which I have given private notice to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the position is generally as follows. Some days ago, as the noble Marquess has indicated, summarised but, I hope, intelligible proposals were made by His Majesty's Government to the representatives of Southern Ireland, which it was hoped might serve as a basis for reconciliation and for peace. If those terms are accepted, it will, of course, be necessary to embody them in the form of an Act of Parliament, and it will be necessary for both Houses to discuss them in that form. It may be convenient and necessary to anticipate such discussion. The noble Marquess more than once in his speech puzzled me a little by saying that "we" feel that there is a great shame involved in these negotiations, and generally in the employment of denunciatory implications tacked upon the use of the first person plural. I do not know precisely whom the noble Marquess means to indicate when lie says"we "; but I make it very plain that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as all my Unionist colleagues, who formerly, at least, belonged to the same Party as the noble Marquess, are concerned, we are utterly unconscious of any shame in the discussions which we have undertaken or in the proposals which we have made.
If these proposals are accepted, I have made it plain that we shall not in any way be anxious to postpone a discussion of the matters indicated by Lord Salisbury, and to sustain the weight of the indictment which he has indicated it is his ardent

35
desire to put forward. I may go, and perhaps I ought to go, even further, and say that if, on the hypothesis that these proposals are accepted, we do recommend them for the adoption of both Houses of Parliament, we shall not only welcome, but we shall challenge, criticism of the nature indicated by the noble Marquess, and I, for one, most confidently avow that we shall not be found incapable of meeting even so formidable a menace. If, on the other hand, these proposals are not accepted by those to whom they are addressed, it will none the less be necessary that Parliament and the country should be acquainted with the nature and the terms of the proposals which we have addressed to the representatives of Southern Ireland, and we shall undoubtedly select an early opportunity so soon as that contingency has declared itself, of making them known. Here, equally, we should be prepared to meet the same indictment, if the noble Marquess, on the hypothesis that the attempt has failed, thinks it worth while to make that indictment.
The noble Marquess has asked me to tell him with what precision I can when we shall be in a position to make this statement. I am not aware of anything that has passed between the representatives of Southern Ireland and the Government which would have led me to suppose that many or several weeks—I forget the exact phrase—would elapse before a conclusion, which could be stated and explained, had been reached by the other Parties to these negotiations. If there be some fact upon which that inference can be based, it is unknown to me, and my own anticipation is, as it was when I last spoke on this subject, that we may reasonably hope that we shall receive some expression of opinion upon this offer from those to whom it has been addressed, before Parliament separates. I am bound to add this. The matters dealt with in this proposal are of very high consequence. The noble Marquess himself discerns in them the material for much animated controversy and discussion, and much 'difference of opinion in this country. I think he is probably right. The matters which are contained in this proposal will unquestionably be much discussed. Our position as a Government in relation to them is, of course, plain. If they be accepted elsewhere, we shall recommend them to Parliament as our proposals. We shall either meet with the necessary support for
36
them in Parliament, or we shall fail. If we fail, it will naturally be proper for us to consider whether the necessary support is likely to be forthcoming elsewhere.
But I have not ignored, and, so far as I know, none of my colleagues has ignored, the complexity of these discussions, or the importance of the decisions that will be required to be taken. Is it not equally obvious that those who are considering them upon the other side of the Channel are confronted with difficulties at least as grave, with considerations at least as various, and that they have persons to consult whose views, whose concurrence, or whose dissent, must obviously be most carefully considered by them? Whatever view any member of this House may be inclined to take as to the attitude, for which the Government accept the fullest responsibility, involved in undertaking these discussions at all, I should be extremely surprised if the noble Marquess met with a great deal of support in an attempt to complain—if he were disposed to make it—that the representatives of Southern Ireland took some weeks to consider whether they were prepared to accept as a basis for a statutory b arrangement the proposals which His Majesty's Government have made.
Lord Salisbury has spoken of the shame which he and others feel in the fact that these negotiations have been undertaken at all. In such matters it is quite impossible for one individual even to attempt criticism of the feelings which come into the mind of another individual, because they are beyond anybody's control. We must support that charge if -and when it is preferred. But, postponing that for the moment, what exactly is the disadvantage and the mischief that the interval which has been interposed has brought to the country? Each day, before these negotiations were undertaken, it was possible to read in the papers that some devoted public servant, either a civil servant or a member of the various volunteer forces, or a soldier of the Crown, had been murdered in circumstances as to which I have never concealed my opinion in this House—an opinion which, I believe, is shared by your Lordships. Each day contained also the distressing records of incalculable material damage, which these unhappy dissensions and acts of illegal violence had occasioned.
While I admit fully that a moral question

37
will require and will receive discussion, upon the course which we have adopted in undertaking these negotiations at. all, I cannot see that there is any valid reason why any noble Lord should grudge the days which are given to the attempt to see whether a solution can be reached—days which are, happily, free from those outrages which have distressed your Lordships and alarmed and distressed the whole country. I cannot answer in point of date the question of the noble Marquess, further than to say that at the first possible moment that information can be given to him and to the House it will be so given, and that if the noble Marquess should, as I think unhappily, find it his duty to challenge discussion on the other issues at an early date, that is a challenge which will certainly be accepted at the earliest possible moment by His Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have no desire to prolong the debate upon the subject raised by the noble Marquess and replied to by the noble and learned Viscount. I merely desire to clear my own mind upon one matter which the reply of the noble and. learned Viscount seemed to me to place in a somewhat new aspect had understood that the negotiations which had taken place so far were strictly preliminary negotiations, in order to discover whether a basis existed upon which a detailed Conference could take place between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of Southern Ireland, with a view to arriving at a real agreement. From the noble and learned Viscount's speech it seemed as though matters had gone somewhat further—namely, that the Government had actually suggested definite terms which would be either accepted or refused by Mr. de Valera and his colleagues, and that the matter had therefore reached a far more advanced stage than most of us had been prepared to suppose. Judging by recollection of the statement that was made by Mr. de Valera, or on his behalf, I had certainly gained the impression that the negotiations had not gone further than the stage which I have indicated—namely, that there had been a general discussion on bases which would lead, if those bases were accepted, to further negotiations, which might occupy a considerable period of time. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell me whether my reading of what he said is correct.
38
Before I sit down I should like to say this. My noble friend, Lord Salisbury, when discussing the business of the House, stated that he and I are by no means always in agreement on all subjects under discussion in your Lordships' House. We are in a condition of remarkable unanimity over the question of the business of your Lordships' House, but in this matter we are not likely to see so completely eye to eye, and I think I ought to say that, so far as I am acquainted with the circumstances at present; and so far as one has been able to gather them from the necessarily meagre reports that we have received, I cannot see that His Majesty's Government have in any sense humiliated themselves by entering on and pursuing these negotiations with those who, after all, do speak for the great majority of Southern Irishmen; and, quite apart from the important fact mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount, that at any rate for the time being an astonishing condition of tranquillity has resulted in Ireland from these negotiations, on the general merits, and in view of the paramount necessity of pacifying Ireland, so far as I know the facts I am only disposed to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the step that they have taken.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I ask the pardon of your Lordships for intruding again, only for a second, I do not want to pursue the matter any further for the present, beyond saying that we must all approach the subject with a feeling of the deepest responsibility, and therefore, in giving notice, as I do now, that on Wednesday next I shall call attention to the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and Mr. de Valera and move a Resolution, I desire to say that I should be anxious not to stand upon any ceremony in the matter, and that if representations were made to me, from any quarter of the House, on the subject, I should give those representations my most earnest consideration. But as at present advised, I propose to move that Resolution on Wednesday next.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I take notice on behalf of His Majesty's Government of the intention which the noble Marquess had just conveyed to the House. With reference to the point made by Lord Crewe, the divergence, or the apparent divergence, indicated by him is,

39
I think, a verbal one. He is quite right in supposing that certain heads of possible agreement or concessions were submitted, or were offered, to Mr. de Valera and his associates on their recent visit to this country. It is, of course, obvious that no document dealing with matters so delicate could be complete; in other words, everybody contemplated that unless those proposals were rejected at once further discussion would be necessary. They may be called conferences, or may be given a less formal term, but other discussions will undoubtedly prove to be necessary.
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said that he was not aware that anything so formal as an offer had been made. Without in any way making public that which could, from any conceivable point of view, react unfavourably on the situation, I may say that there is in existence, and there has been communicated to the representatives of Southern Ireland, a document which has received the sanction of the Cabinet, and which does, in substance, make it plain to them what are the proposals for which His Majesty's Government are willing to undertake responsibility and to place before Parliament. It would have been, of course, quite useless to discuss even what the noble Marquess spoke of as a basis of a further conference unless you had made known to those with whom you were discussing the general nature of that which you were prepared to give.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am extremely obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. My only fear was that what he said might conceivably be taken—and he has explained wrongly taken—as though certain definite terms to take or leave had been presented to the representatives of Southern Ireland. I understand that is not the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not the case.

ADAMSON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
HAMILTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and returned to the Commons.
PAISLEY GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TAUNTON EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
MEDICAL SECRECY.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN LORD DAWSON OF PENN had given notice to call attention to recent rulings as to the privilege of medical men with regard to evidence in Courts of Justice, and to move that the matter be referred to a Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord said: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have intimated that it would be more convenient if the Motion which stands in my name were postponed for a few days. I beg to ask your Lordships' leave so to postpone it, and to express a hope that that postponement will be for a short time only, and that I may secure a favourable opportunity of bringing forward a matter which, I venture to think, has some public importance.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP rose to ask His Majesty's Government the dates of the termination of any Commercial Treaties, notice to determine which has already been given; whether His Majesty's Government proposes to give notice to terminate any others, and if so, which.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is fortunately not necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any great length in putting this Question. Your Lordships will readily understand the reason why it appears on the Paper. It is in order that we may obtain some information before the Safeguarding of Industries Bill reaches this House. Your Lordships have already heard some reference made to that Bill in the course of this afternoon's discussion, and, if I had been in order, I should have

41
wished to have warned the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that his hopes with regard to an easy passage for that Bill are not very likely to be fulfilled.
On my own part and, I hope, on the part of all Free Traders, it will meet with a considerable amount of opposition in this House and demand several sittings; and I feel no doubt at all that the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and who has always shown himself so keen a Free Trader, will be one of the first to assist us in doing what we can to amend the Bill, if it is impossible for us to persuade your Lordships to refuse to give it a Second Reading. The fact that a number of matters, including, I think, this which is specially covered by the Question that I have put down on the Paper for to-day, have not been fully discussed in another place, but were, owing to the guillotine, not brought under the full light of public discussion, will Drake it the more imperative upon your Lordships' House to give a long and careful study to the provisions of this Bill.
I confess that I hope to hear from the noble Lord who represents His Majesty's Government in this matter that there are no Commercial Treaties, notice to determine which has been given, and that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to give notice to terminate any. If that is so, we shall be provided, as I hope we may be able to show on a later occasion, with a considerable amount of ammunition for our speeches when the Bill conies before your Lordships' House. I may perhaps be allowed, in conclusion, to quote a short extract from the Report of the Committee on Industrial Policy which was presided over by the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That Committee carefully considered the suggestion that existing Commercial Treaties should be denounced in order to clear the way for new economic arrangements, and the Committee, which commands a great deal of support among noble Lords in every part of this House, reported that, in their opinion, there appeared to be grave objections to the course proposed. They said:—
"It must be borne in mind that the denunciation of Treaties establishing our right to most-favoured-nation treatment—a right which is not limited to Customs Duties, but extends to many other matters affecting trade and commerce, and also to navigation—might is some cases deprive this country of valuable rights which it might not be easy to recover in every instance."
42
The wisdom of these remarks is, I think, borne out by the present position of the tariff controversy in Italy.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, the noble Earl's Question raises a matter of very great interest to many of the leading lights of the commercial world, which is so ably represented in your Lordships' House, and although the noble Earl has promised us a great deal of discussion on this matter, I hope that, so far as concerns the Question appearing on the Paper, the reply I can give will be, as far as possible, satisfactory to him.
As regards the first part of the Question, His Majesty's Government have not given notice to terminate any of the Commercial Treaties to which this country is a party. In view of the revision of their tariff legislation certain countries have given notice to terminate Treaties having Specific provisions as to the rates of duty which are to be charged. Such notice has been given by Greece and by Rumania. France also has denounced her Convention of 1882 with this country, on grounds of general policy, but it should be remarked that Customs Duties are specifically excluded from the operation of this Convention. I might remind your Lordships that, by a French law promulgated on February 27, 1882, it was declared that from that date goods of English origin or manufacture should be liable, on their entry into France, to the same treatment as those of the most favoured nations, with the exception of Colonial produce, which it was declared would remain subject to the general Customs Tariff.
As regards the second part of the noble Earl's Question, I am glad to be able to reassure him that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to denounce any Commercial Treaties at the present time. If the inquiries provided for in the Safeguarding of Industries Bill disclose cases of dumping, due to the depreciation of Exchange where an order would be at variance with the terms of a Commercial Treaty, the desirability of denouncing such Treaty will be considered. I may, perhaps, be allowed to add, in further reference to this part of the noble Earl's Question, that the President of the Board of Trade stated on June 18 in another place that—
"In making orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill it would be necessary to consider any Treaty provisions which may be

43
held to limit our action in respect of the duties leviable on goods on importation into the United Kingdom."
I have before me a list of the countries with which Treaties, Conventions or engagements are in force, which would have to be considered in this connection.
This list has been supplemented by the insertion of a column showing the date when each Treaty is terminable. This revised statement may interest your Lordships, especially the noble Earl who raised the Question, and I am prepared to state the substance of it, if it be the wish of the House. There are twenty-six countries named in the list. In respect of five, the Treaties contain no provision for termination of any sort or kind; they are Argentina, Costa Rica, Liberia, Venezuela and Denmark. Sixteen stand at twelve months' notice, but as four of the Treaties are of recent date the period during which they would, in any case, be operative, has not yet expired; they are Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras (which will not be terminable before May 5, 1925), Italy, Japan (which is not terminable before July 16, 1923), Mexico, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Persia (which is not terminable before March 21, 1926), Portugal (not before September 23, 1926), the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. With two countries—namely, Esthonia and Spain—we stand at six months' notice; and with two (Belgium and Greece) at three months' notice. As I have already stated, in the case of Rumania the Treaty has already been denounced; so that I trust your Lordships will see that there is no intention at present of acting in the direction which gives the noble Earl such great concern.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving me such a full answer. It is no doubt due to my own carelessness, but I could not quite follow what was said in regard to the denunciation of a Treaty by France. I understand it is in two sections. Have they also denounced the part which deals with Customs Duties?
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I shall be glad to explain that to the noble Earl afterwards, if I may.

ADVERTISEMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. On June 24 last year a Bill on the same subject was introduced by the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh. This Bill is a descendant of that. It was prepared at the time when Lord Balfour passed away, and in other circumstances would have been brought before your Lordships' House by him. I have taken up the principles which he so earnestly and consistently supported, in order to bring the matter again before this House. At the time the Bill was brought forward last year and accorded a Second Reading by your Lordships, it was intimated by the Government that certain conferences were advisable with the Home Office upon a matter that was contained in the Bill. There have been discussions with an official of the Home Office, with a view to meeting the objections taken to the last Bill in regard to administrative grounds, and those who have prepared this Bill hope that they have now devised a measure which will be simple and effective.
The principal change that has been made is that advertisements are not to be dealt with by means of by-laws, which prove to be very unsatisfactory and very variable in the case of different local authorities, but the local authorities themselves are to have power to take action in respect of glaring and unsightly advertisements. If they do so upon unreasonable grounds, there is an opportunity, under the Bill, for appeal. The Bill also gives power, which did not exist before, to rural district councils, parish councils and urban districts of less than 10,000 people to provide for the stopping, of unsightly advertisements.
The first clause deals with the character of the advertisements or hoarding, as defined by the, Act, for which it is intended to provide, "hoarding" meaning a hoarding or other structure, of whatever material, used or intended to be used solely or mainly for the purposes of advertisement. It points out the kind of amenities with which it is desired to prevent interference; it indicates the kind of notice that is to be given by the local authority, the kind of action they are to take, and, in the event of such action, the counter-action which

45
the occupier is required to take. It prevents advertisements within a shop or house or railway station being affected, and to gives an opportunity of appeal in the event of any person who is required to do anything by the local authority being aggrieved.
The second clause deals with hoardings or advertisements which may be outside the particular jurisdiction of one county council and yet may affect the inhabitants within that jurisdiction. It would deal, for instance, with such cases as an advertisement of a glaring and unsightly character being exhibited on the Surrey side of the Thames and affecting people on the Middlesex side, and vice versa, and enabling that to be corrected. Then there are adoptive provisions with regard to moving and flash-light advertisements, and a saving for advertisements that exist at the present time, so that they would not have to be removed too quickly. Clause 5 lays down what a person intending to erect a hoarding for the purposes of advertisement should do, so that the hoarding may be properly erected in good order, and who is to be responsible to be proceeded against if the advertisements are unsightly. Clause 9 saves such by-laws as, under certain Acts of Parliament, would at the present time be in existence. Finally, the Advertisement Act of 1907, which is the Act with which Lord Balfour had to deal, is repealed.
Any one who motors through the country, or goes through the London streets, cannot but be aware of the kind of advertisement which this Bill is designed to stop as unsightly and useless, as well as certain classes of moving flash-lights, and the vast competition that there is at the entrance to every village between advertisements of every kind of petrol and tyre and motor car, which even the people who sell these different articles have found to be a very severe tax upon their resources. I think that is shown by the fact that the Royal Automobile Association and other associations have been very active in trying to press the local authorities, in cases where it is now possible, to promote by-laws to stop so many of these advertisements being exhibited upon the countryside.
I would say, generally, that the eye has as good a right to protection as the ear. If the ear is assailed by shouts and intrusive and objectionable noises, the person
46
who is assailed can proceed against the person making the noises for committing a nuisance, but in eases where the eye has to suffer there is not, at the present time, sufficient protection. Our country is not the only one which is proceeding in this matter. France has passed three sets of very stringent laws upon it. Their principle has been to tax unsightly advertisements out of existence. They even go up to such a tax as £16 per sq. yard upon advertisements that are more than 20 yards in extent. Germany has followed suit. New Zealand acts through municipalities; somewhat in the same way as is suggested by this Bill, and in the United States of America the Supreme Court has decided that it is within the competence of a municipality, under the common law, to proceed to stop such things. I do not think I need detain your Lordships longer upon this matter. In asking you to give a Second Reading to the Bill, I am really asking you to endorse a principle which you have twice before approved, in the Act of 1907, and in the Bill which was adjourned some time ago.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I hope this House will not give a Second Reading to this Bill. I desire, without going into much detail, to give your Lordships the opinions of business men and advertisers in regard to it. I will give their views in a somewhat condensed form, but sufficiently to enable your Lordships to get an idea of how averse business men are from this sort of interference with commerce. This Bill is a serious menace to the commercial interests of the country. An enormous amount of capital is involved, and if the Bill is passed a huge sum will be lost, for totally inadequate reasons. Millions of pounds are invested in advertisement sites, and in the machinery and plant which are used for producing advertisements, and this sum would be immediately jeopardised, and ultimately lost, if this Bill passed.
I admit that sometimes there may be objectionable advertisements, but, on the other hand, many advertisements are really very artistic; indeed, artistic advertising has been encouraged to a great extent in this country. Because some advertisements may be a little unsightly,

47
surely you will not interfere with the trade and commerce and prosperity of the country. Many thousands of skilled and unskilled workers would be thrown out of employment if this Bill were made law. Not only those engaged in the preparation and printing of these advertisements would be affected, but also the many thousands engaged in the distribution and posting of outdoor advertisements. The livelihood of these people would be prejudicially affected, and unemployment would be considerably increased.
There is another point to which I would like to direct attention. Your Lordships would make a very great mistake if you looked upon this measure as one to which there is no objection. You will have the great business advertising firms in this country rising up in very serious and violent opposition to it. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not, as a matter of course, give a Second Reading to a Bill of this sort. It would interfere with the advertising which has been the cause of bringing about great prosperity in this country. Your Lordships are already aware that many great business concerns have been built up within the last twenty years through advertising. There are many things in this world that we do not like. Many of us would like to see some disfigurements removed. I, like many of your Lordships, would have preferred not to see our embankment run over by tramway cars, but they were necessary in the interests and for the convenience of London. Similarly, these advertisements are absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the trade of our country. If you want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have good Income Tax returns you must give business firms facilities for making profits, and one of the ways in which they are enabled to do this is by advertising their goods and creating a demand for them.
I contend that there is no public demand whatever for any of the drastic powers asked for in this Bill. It is unjust and unreasonable that any business man should be faced with having his business placed at the mercy of local authorities who, in their discretion, would have absolute power to deprive him of facilities for advertising upon which the success of his business may entirely depend, and, having so damaged him, there would be no compensation whatever payable to him. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not support the
48
Reading of this Bill. Thousands of advertisements have been contracted for over varying periods, in some cases for several years, and to order the removal of advertisement sites within six months would mean the breaking of all these contracts which, I would point out, bring an enormous revenue to municipalities in the form of rates. To remove them, therefore, would mean to add a further burden to the already overburdened ratepayers.
Why should you deprive a householder or landlord of the power of making money from the display of advertisements, unless some really serious objection can be raised? No trivial objection ought to be allowed. It should not be enough, in order to condemn an advertisement, to say that it is a little unsightly. We must, with our immense trade and commerce, have a certain number of unsightly things. You must have a chimney here and a factory there. If you begin with one thing, why not proceed to attack all the rest, and say that everything which is unsightly must be done away with? I ask your Lordships to consider, if that were done, how serious would be the effect upon the trade and commerce of this country. This Bill is not a practicable one. It is fantastic, and I shall do my best to oppose its further passage. It would injuriously affect large and important businesses, which have been and are being built up by outdoor advertisements, and it is as unjustifiable as it would be injurious in its effect.
I have not pretended to give a complete and full answer to every paragraph in this Bill, but I have made a general statement expressing the views of business men as they were given at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in London yesterday. These views there met with unanimous approval, and I bring them forward in the hope, and, indeed, the confidence, that they will receive the favourable consideration of this House. This is really a useless Bill. It is uncalled for and harmful to business generally. It would cripple many tradesmen and interfere with the rights of property. I therefore ask your Lordships not to give it a Second Reading.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Government whether county councils at the present moment have not power to make by-laws in regard to matters of this kind. I believe that is

49
the case, because not long ago I was asked, as a member of a county council, to visit a particular district in order to see whether advertisements which had been placed there were objectionable or not. While I sympathise with a good deal that Lord Southwark has said I think, on the other hand, that some control is very necessary in order to prevent unsightly advertisements being erected to the destruction of the amenities of a district.
It seems to me that the right body to do this is a municipality, a borough council or a county council which deal with much larger areas. In the Bill it is proposed that if advertisements put up by a district council are said to be unpleasant by another district council there may be an appeal to the county council. On the face of it, that practically admits that the county council has to be brought in, and I think it would be very desirable to give the power not to small local authorities but to larger authorities like a county council. In a county council you have a body which will be more impartial and more authoritative, and if the Bill is read a second time to-day, I hope Lord Askwith will be prepared to accept Amendments to this effect.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord who has just spoken the present law with regard to advertisements is governed by the Advertisements Regulation Act of 1907, by which a local authority has power to make by-laws for the regulation and control of hoardings when they exceed 12 feet in height; and has power to regulate, or restrict, and prevent the exhibition of advertisements which injuriously affect the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade, or destroy the natural beauty of the landscape. I imagine the authority is the county council, although I am not quite sure on that point.
The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading has dealt with the previous history of this Bill and referred to the fact that last session Lord Balfour of Burleigh brought in a measure to deal with the question of advertisements. Replying at that time for the Home Office, I observed that there were objections to the Bill on administrative grounds, and I invited the promoters of the measure to consult with the Department. They did so; but I must make it quite
50
clear that this consultation by no means should be assumed to commit the Government to approve of this Bill. It was merely to meet the objections which were taken to the last Bill. The Home Office has not expressed an opinion on the present measure.
After the prolonged discussion we have had this afternoon your Lordships will readily understand that it is impossible to find time for the consideration of this Bill during the present session, and the Home Secretary is not in a position to give any promise as to the attitude of the Government in any future session. All I can say is that the Government is sympathetic towards the proposal of the promoters to prevent advertisements which are a public eyesore, and it is thought that a discussion on the present Bill may serve a useful purpose. The problem is to prevent disfigurement of the landscape by unpleasant advertisements and at the same time to reconcile this with preserving reasonable facilities for advertising. This is very difficult to do, because the interests conflict, but it is possible that a discussion on the present measure may disclose a way of reconciling these different points of view and devising a measure which will be acceptable to all parties. In those circumstances, I do not propose either to support or oppose the Bill, on behalf of the Government, but to invite such discussion as may take place with a view of seeing whether the two opposing views may be reconciled.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in reply to the invitation of the noble Lord —he and I discussed this matter together—I should like to make one or two brief observations. Most unfortunately I have not had the advantage of hearing the whole of the speech of Lord Askwith, as I was called away for another purpose, but I am generally aware of the purposes proposed by the mover and his friends. We must all agree generally with the formula laid down by the noble Earl, speaking on behalf of the Government, that in these matters advertisements which are plainly objectionable, not on moral grounds but on æsthetic grounds, should not receive encouragement, here or elsewhere. But there is another side to the question which ought not to be completely ignored. The whole developments of the modern business world show that the practice of advertising plays au ever larger part in the immensely

51
complicated processes of business, and the shrewdest men, those who have conceived and founded the most gigantic enterprises, are themselves the very men who have employed most the practice and resources of advertising.
I could take a hundred illustrations, all of which are perhaps too well within your Lordships' recollection. Consider the system of advertising by which the advantages, the undoubted advantages, of the various products supplied by Lord Leverhulme to a consumptive world have been recommended in every capital of Europe, a fact with which I am personally familiar. Take another illustration; those tablets, the merits of which I confess are known only to me by hearsay, but which are popularly stated to be worth a guinea a box, and which I am told have realised an immense fortune to those who were fortunate enough to make that discovery in the first place. I do not remind your Lordships (lest it should be thought I am a shareholder in these various concerns) of the astonishing properties which are claimed for Dr. Williams' Pink Pills for Pale People. I take them all for one purpose, and one purpose only—namely, to show that many of the men who have undoubtedly developed British trade with foreign countries have been among the largest of our advertisers.
I contribute to the discussion this doubt whether the present is the most happily chosen moment for introducing still further restrictions, based upon considerations which do not purport to be other than æsthetic considerations, upon a course of business which the shrewdest of our merchants believe to be a primary contributive cause of their success. When we once admit, as I think all the friends of this measure must admit, that the objection to a process acknowledged to be beneficial is æsthetic, we are, of course, brought face to face with very difficult questions. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading would not, I think, involve himself in the dilemma of contending that these advertisements do not pay, or, in other words, that they do not succeed in their object. What is their object? It is to make these commodities more widely known to the purchasing public, either in this country or abroad. If they do not succeed in that object, it may be supposed that the enterprising and very well-informed individuals who exhibit the advertisements, at very considerable personal expense,
52
would cease to do so. I am therefore entitled to base my argument on the premiss that these advertisements do pay, or, in other words, that they multiply and increase the process of the exchange and commercial circulation of particular commodities. That being conceded, ought we at this moment to lay a prohibitive hand upon this process when the objection is based upon entirely æsthetic considerations
I have always thought that æsthetic questions were among the most difficult of all upon which to reach, I will not say a general solution, but any solution at all. Who is to decide whether a given advertisement does or does not come into conflict with a true standard of æthetic beauty? The noble Lord, as I understand the Bill, deals with that point by a simple method. He says that the local authorities are to be judges upon these æsthetic questions. Another noble Lord thinks that the true æsthetic principles of the Greeks are more likely to be reproduced by the county councils. Upon this comparative method of examination, I do not incline to either view. I will only say that we have an opportunity of judging of the standard of æsthetic beauty which recommends itself to many of the local authorities, by visiting those portions of our public hoardings upon which the merits of competing watering-places are not inconspicuously set forth.
Your Lordships will recall the spectacle of a gentleman of a degree of obesity which, for the purpose of golf or any other athletic game, I should have considered inconvenient, who is depicted running at a very high rate of speed carrying a tennis racquet, a number of golf clubs, and the outward and visible signs of many athletic activities, in order to make it plain that the ozone of Clacton-on-Sea, or of some other place, is indisputably superior to that which can be offered by any of its rivals. I can only say that, although the longer one is condemned to London in the heat the more attractive it is to observe the highly-coloured pictures of the sea which are exhibited, the more I study them, the more hopeful I am that, whoever else is to be the judge of our advertisements, the task will not be committed to bodies which, if I may venture to say so, have hitherto wielded rather too lurid a brush for even my unexacting taste. The real truth is that, the moment you involve

53
yourself in matters of taste, you come to the sharpest division, and are bound to admit the old familiar saw, quot homines, tot sententiae.
Who can possibly tell of any advertisement whether a true standard of taste would be shown by approving it or by rejecting it? Is it one of those cases in which we should resort to the democratic panacea, and say that the conclusion is to be found in the counting of heads? If not, is the conclusion to be found in the decision of wise and gifted men, men who, in these matters, have spent their lives in evolving true criteria of the beautiful? If such men there be—and they are only very sparsely known to myself—I greatly doubt whether they are to be commonly doubt among the membership of our local authorities. If you take a journey by railway and examine, as many of us do, the pleasant pasture lands, through which the train proceeds, many subjects present themselves as to which opinions might reasonably differ. Occasionally, one sees an enormous bottle, which conveys to the world the advantage of some accompaniment of more familiar household joys. I will confess that I am so unæsthetic and so unexacting in these matters that I reach the conclusion that, if the bottle gives me the information how many miles we have passed since London was left, or, conversely, how many miles remain before London is reached, I withdraw all my æsthetic objections, because I consider that the bottle has played its part. The bottle very soon disappears. I have seen three enormous elephants beside the line. I forget what particular purpose they served, nor, even did I remember, would I advertise it further; but, after all, they were soon gone. This cannot really be represented as being a permanent or very serious cause of annoyance to a serene mind. The mind that will brood upon such a matter, in these days when great problems occupy our attention, must be pronounced, I think, to be constituted in a very unhappy way.
While nothing will induce me, if I can help it, to be publicly labelled a Philistine, or allow it to be thought that I am in any way irreconcilably opposed—I am not—to the object of the Bill, I do wish very seriously to suggest to the noble Lord that we ought most carefully to consider whether local authorities ought to be armed by a private proposal with these powers, when
54
the commercial community make two points. They say: "We are on the whole better judges than artists or local authorities as to the methods by which we can make known the product of British enterprise; and we should not commit ourselves to the expenditure involved by these advertisements if we did not satisfy ourselves that, both at home and abroad, we could increase the output and success of British trade." Speaking for myself, I am not prepared to give these powers at this moment, and without very much further argument than I have heard, in the method proposed by this Bill.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I am perfectly incompetent to follow the extremely pleasant speech to which we have just listened, but I would venture to suggest two questions with regard to the two main arguments used against this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount pictured the terrible difficulty that is likely to arise as to whether or not a particular advertisement is in good taste. Is it a very real difficulty that he is raising? We exercise taste in regard to sound and smell, two senses which are to be protected against very gross annoyances. I have known people who liked the smell of tallow. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt—it is not a delicate æsthetic question—that the smell of tallow is a nuisance to the neighbourhood in which it is emitted.
I suggest that in practice the kind of question that might arise, if this Bill became law, is not much more subtle than the example of a disagreeable smell which I have taken. It is unlikely that local authorities are going to be roused to action by minute violations of æsthetic taste. In particular, there can be no question that a very large number of big placards, images of cows, and so on, advertisements of various lung tonics and aperient medicines, which one frequently sees, do, in the mass, distract from the amenity of the landscape, even though, if you took any one of them and treated it as a separate picture, the noble and learned Viscount might find much to praise and to commend in its design.
The only cases which are grave enough to call for the action of the local authorities are those where the question is whether or not there is a nuisance to the public eye. That is going to be a very simple question and can be dealt with on very broad grounds.

55
The only other important argument is that these advertisements pay in the sense of adding to the wealth of the country. Do they? That is the point on which I feel the greatest doubt. Of course, they pay the particular advertisers who advertise largely and skilfully enough, and in a sufficiently arresting manner. They pay them in the sense that they lead someone to buy their commodities in preference to others. For instance, they may induce the public to take my friend Mr. Worthington's ales in preference to those of somebody else. But does this advertising add anything whatever to the wealth of the country? I should have thought that on the whole this advertising business was, in the public interest, totally useless.
LORD RIDDELL: My Lords, there is a very strong objection to this Bill on the part of the commercial classes. Resolutions against it have been passed by the London Chamber of Commerce and other commercial bodies—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What bodies?
LORD RIDDELL: I will tell the noble Earl later. The reason for this opposition is obvious. The Bill not only deals with advertisements to be erected, but with those already erected. If the Bill passes, it will be within the power of the local authorities to compel commercial people to spend millions of money in removing advertisements, pulling down hoardings, and so forth. I do not follow the Lord Chancellor in what he said with regard to certain firms, but I notice that the big firms to which he adverted carry on business in the Liverpool district, which may perhaps explain the reference that he made to them. So far as we can ascertain, there is no demand for this measure.
The local authorities, to whose judgment it is proposed to submit this matter, have already very extensive powers. Have they exercised them? Not at all. The other day I had occasion to visit the town hall and the magnificent park of one of the greatest towns in the country. To my surprise I saw, overlooking the park, what I regarded as a hideous advertisement, I said to my friends who were on the local authority:"How is it you allow this advertisement to dominate your park? "The answer was: "It brings in a certain sum in rates, and we do not think it obiec-
56
tionable." If you have incidents of this kind, and the local authorities, who have powers, do not see fit to exercise them, why should we cumber the Statute Book with another Act of Parliament? I notice that there is a tendency to pass new Acts of Parliament whenever any grievance is brought to light. There seems to be no disposition to examine the existing law and enforce it. It seems to be thought that matters of this kind are settled as soon as a fresh Bill passes through Parliament. The truth is that the removal of these evils depends not upon passing Bills through Parliament, but on the manner in which the law is administered by the local authorities, or by those whose duty it is to administer it.
Personally, I am somewhat interested in this matter as representing one of the associations to which I have alluded, and I notice, in going through the country, how very few local authorities have availed themselves of the facilities placed in their hands by Parliament. I have always regarded Lord Askwith as a person with a serene mind. The Lord Chancellor said that he thought a person with a serene mind would not be disturbed by these advertisements, and I agree with the Lord Chancellor. I cannot understand what there is to disturb any reasonable member of the community in the existing state of affairs. It would be interesting to ascertain by whom this Bill is being promoted—what interests are concerned in promoting it. Has it received the approval of the local authorities? Is it being promoted by a section of artists? We should like to know who the promoters are. So far as the business aspect of the question is concerned, we know the feeling of the business community, and although many of us are interested in æthetic questions, we must remember that we are living in times when we cannot disregard the views of the men who are carrying on the trade and commerce of the country.
If you find a strong feeling on this subject among the commercial classes, von are bound to pay due attention to that feeling. When trade is flourishing and money is in the country you can then give rein to your æthetic views, but when the country finds itself in a very precarious condition, and it is essential to economise and to foster trade in every possible way, if I may say so, I think it is a very inopportune time to bring forward a Bill of this

57
kind, which tends to discourage the commercial classes. Take, for instance, the great firms to which the Lord Chancellor alluded. If this Bill passes, and the local authorities throughout the country give effect to it, those firms will be faced with enormous expenditure. They will have to remove thousands of signs and make good thousands of premises, thousands of people will be deprived of rent, and the local authorities will lose rates. So far as I am aware, and so far as I can ascertain, there is at the present time no demand for this measure. I listened with attention to Lord Charnwood, and I notice that he made a reflection which seemed to shim that he is of opinion that the business classes do not know how to conduct their affairs. The noble Lord said he did not think that advertising was any good. He said that the same quantity of goods would be sold whether you advertised or not.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I think they would be sold by a different man, who did not advertise at all.
LORD RIDDELL: That is exactly what I said. The noble Lord said that as large a quantity of a commodity would be sold without advertising as with it. That is not the opinion and the experience of the commercial classes. If you want to stimulate the sale of a commodity you must advertise it. I do not say that because I am in the advertising business. So far as the newspapers are concerned they would have everything to gain by suppressing these mural advertisements. But, so far as advertising generally is concerned, it needs a very bold man to say that you can sell the same quantity of commodities without advertising as with advertising. The commercial classes have their own views. They have passed their own resolutions and, while the noble Lord may have information which is not present to their minds, I am always in favour of believing that people know their own business best; and when a great commercial body like the London Chamber of Commerce passes a resolution such as they have passed, in a time like this, I am certainly not prepared to disregard it, or to take the noble Lord's advice in preference to that of the men who are engaged in carrying on the business and commerce of the country, upon which we all rely for our daily bread.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that probably there
58
is essentially more agreement in the House I in this matter than has been altogether apparent in the speeches to which we have listened. There would be, I think, a general agreement that in this matter of advertisement, and the possible disfigurement of natural beauties of landscape or beauties of buildings, you have to draw the line somewhere. We should all agree that to see Westminster Abbey covered with advertisements of sausages, or sonic other commodity, would be approaching an outrage. We should all, I suppose, also agree that, as regards certain scenes of natural beauty, such as (to take them at random) Stratford-on-Avon, the Cumberland lakes, and the river Wye, some means ought to be taken in the public interest to protect them from a large crop of hoardings or advertising signs which, in the opinion of everybody, would disfigure their beauty, So far, we may take it that there is general agreement.
But it is also, I think, true that, in a thickly populated and crowded country like this, it is impossible to indulge your æsthetic emotions everywhere, and I suspect that we shall come nearer and nearer to a system of preserving certain areas, certain places, certain collections of buildings, quite deliberately and specifically for the enjoyment of those who are able to go to see them, and not attempt to establish everywhere—for instance, in the great suburbs of London, or the outskirts of our great towns—an æsthetic standard which, if we indulge it too freely, may interfere, as several noble Lords have pointed out, with the legitimate purposes of trade.
For that reason it seems to me that this Bill, in its terms, is too indiscriminate. I greatly question whether it is wise to leave to a district council—bearing in view either the probable composition of that body or the smallness of the area over which it presides—the power of exercising authority with regard to these signs and advertisements. I agree with my noble friend behind me that of the two a larger body, such as a city council or county council, is more likely to include people who would look at the thing from a larger standpoint, and would be able to hold the balance fairly between questions of taste and questions of the public interest.
To pursue what I was saying earlier, however, I am not sure that the time will not come when a still larger and more authoritative body may have to be placed

59
in charge of such questions. I should be very glad myself to see the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, placed in charge of these matters; but that, of course, is a dream. As matters stand, I confess I shall find it difficult to support this Bill in the terms in which it is drawn, although, as I happen to be one of the members of the Council of the National Trust, I naturally take a keen interest in the preservation both of natural beauties and of old and interesting buildings.
On Question, Motion that the Bill be read 2a negatived.

THE LEIPZIG TRIALS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he is in a position to make a statement on the conduct of, and the sentences in, the trials which have been held at Leipzig, at which the Government has been represented; and to move that any reports received in reference thereto should be published, so far as publication is consistent with the interests of Justice.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to make a statement in answer to my Question, because the statement that he can make, coining from him, would put an end to a good many of the suggestions and uncertainties which now appear to surround this Question. The noble Viscount will notice that I carefully eliminate from my Question any matter of policy, because my desire is to limit it merely to matters of judicial procedure and judicial sentence.
With regard to the question of the conduct of the trials held at Leipzig, the noble Viscount will know that criminal trials under the German law are held under a different form of procedure from trials in this country. Under German law the conduct of trials of a criminal kind is in the hands of the Presiding Judge, who practically himself maintains complete control of the procedure throughout. What I should like to ask, in the first place, is whether there is any ground whatever for suggesting that the conduct of the Presiding Judge at Leipzig has not been altogether judicial and impartial. I ask the question because, from what is certainly good authority (I do not want to use any other
60
expression) I have heard high praise of the conduct of the Presiding Judge. They are difficult matters to be dealt with, no doubt, but I am told that in every way he has acted both judicially and impartially.
The next matter relates to the sentences in the trials. Your Lordships perhaps may be aware that the scale of punishment in Germany for criminal offences is more lenient than the scale of punishment here. Not long ago our sentences were extremely harsh, but the tendency of modern legislation and modern practice has been to make them more lenient. I am informed that a number of the sentences at Leipzig are really the maximum allowed under the German Code, the German system being that you have comparatively light sentences for a number of these offences, but that they are cumulative; that is to say, for two offences you get a cumulative punishment, and, as regards a large number of these sentences at Leipzig, they are the result of the cumulative sentences on the maximum scale. Therefore, if there is any fault to be found, it is not with the conduct of the trial, but with the principles of German law.
I do not want to enter upon any question of policy. I am one of those who desire very strongly to see International Courts set up to deal with international questions, and I sincerely hope that if trials of this kind have to be conducted in the future—as seems probable, human nature being what it is—they will be carried out by International Courts of which both the method of conduct and the sentences will have the approval of all countries. So long as there is a difference, in the conduct of the trial or in the sentence to be imposed, there will always be reasons for making comment sometimes of a rather unfriendly and critical character.
May I say at once that I do not intend to move formally, but simply to ask that any reports received in reference to the conduct of these trials or the sentences passed at Leipzig should be published so far as publication is consistent with the interests of justice. That is the limitation which your Lordships have laid down judicially in this House as that within which publicity ought to be allowed, unless there is any countervailing reason. I do not suggest for a moment that there should be publicity if it is not consistent with the interests of justice. But it is difficult to think that after a trial is over any report as to the

61
conditions under which it has been held, would be inconsistent with the interests of justice. If the noble Viscount on the Woolsack thinks that the publication of reports of these trials would be inconsistent in any way with the interests of justice, I should be the last person to suggest that they ought to be published.
In conclusion, I believe that in accordance with the procedure of the German Courts, the representatives of this country have not been entitled to take any part in the actual proceedings. If that is a rule of the German Courts I think it is only right that the procedure should have been followed. The sane: procedure, I think, would apply as regards the Criminal Courts in this country—that is to say, only those parties who were primarily interested in the administration of justice would be allowed to appear and to be heard in a particular case. As we know, there have been representatives of this country present, including the Solicitor-General, on the occasion of these trials, and I assume that some report has been received from them of what they have experienced in relation to the trials. I hope that the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to allow the publication of these reports, or to say that they are going to be published, except so far as publication would be inconsistent with the interests of justice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think it is convenient at this moment to make a statement of the kind which my noble and learned friend invites me to make. The requisite materials are being collected and prepared for early publication and, in my judgment, criticism would be more properly deferred until those materials can be fully considered. The noble and learned Lord's wishes as indicated in the Question are satisfied, I think, by the assurances I have given that there will be as full a publication of the requisite materials for the formation of a judgment as is really possible under the known circumstances of the case. I might be tempted to make some observations, not necessarily of a hostile character, upon certain parts of my noble friend's speech, but the matter is extremely delicate; it must at some future date engage the attention of the Supreme Council; and I think that, on the whole, the course I have indicated is the best.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble and learned. Viscount for the
62
answer he has given, although I regret that he could not go more fully into the matter. At the same time, if there is an intention to publish at no distant date all that can be published about these trials, so that there shall be no ex parte statements and that the whole matter may be ripe for discussion, I do not care to press the discussion any further at the present time.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

EDUCATION IN MALTA.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I desire to ask whether His Majesty's Government realise that, students having received the right of priority of choice of language in education under the new Constitution of Malta, it would be an intolerable injustice to force such students as elect to take English to pass examinations in Italian as the only means of continuing their education.
The language question of Malta has always given rise to difficulties. The fact is that three languages are rather too many for two small islands with a total area of considerably less than the County of Rutland, and a population less than that of Leicester. The language of the people is Maltese, but English is essential to very many of them. Italian is at present, and has been for some time, the language of the Law Courts. The Maltese themselves, the working classes especially, have shown a very strong preference for English, and probably for that reason the new Constitution very wisely lays it down that English and Italian shall be recognised as equal languages of culture. That Constitution also lays it down that the parent of a boy attending an elementary school may decide whether he will give priority to English or to Italian. In the case of the University the student has the right to determine the priority. But it is not quite clear what all that means. If students who choose English as their language of culture are also obliged to learn Italian in order to pass

63
examinations for promotion or for transfer to some other educational system, there will be very great hardship placed upon them.
Clause 57 (2) of the Constitution does not impose an obligation, but leaves the whole matter in complete doubt. Any one who has studied education in India knows how very heavily the Indian student is handicapped by being taught in a language which he is trying to acquire at the same time, and it seems most unjust that a Maltese-speaking boy who has selected English as his language, should be forced to learn Italian, which can be of very little use to him unless he is going into the legal profession. His case is really harder than that of a Gujerati-speaking boy who has only to acquire a single language—English. The effect of such a policy, if carried out, would certainly be to impede education and to waste public money, and I hope that the noble Duke will be able to clear the matter up, because it is one of very great importance to the Maltese. I beg to ask my Question.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, the provisions relating to the study of the English and Italian languages in Malta are to be found in Section 57 of the Letters Patent. Subsection (2) of that clause runs as follows—
"The English and Italian languages shall be recognised as equal languages of culture in Malta at the University, in secondary schools, and in the higher classes of elementary schools as subjects of study. Where both languages cannot conveniently be taken simultaneously, regard shall be had in settling the order of priority in which the languages shall be taught to the wishes of the parents in the case of schools, and of the students in the case of the University, and to the utility of the teaching for the purposes of the pupil's future occupation. The foregoing provisions shall not extend to prohibit the Maltese language from being used in the lower classes of the elementary schools in so far as it may be necessary as a medium of instruction."
From the words quoted the noble Lord will observe that where both languages cannot be taken simultaneously the student has a full right of choice, and the only risk is that a Maltese Minister of Education might prescribe simultaneous teaching where it would be difficult for the student to take both together.
I do not expect that any such circumstances would arise, and as the Maltese
64
have been granted the right of self-government, it must be assumed that they will exercise their rights wisely. At the same time, it will, of course, be open to the Governor to make further provision under Section 67 of the Letters Patent by way of definition of the sections dealing with the language question, if necessity arose, or if such further provision were in accordance with the general wishes of the Maltese population. On page 31 of the Letters Patent it says:—
"Nothing shall be done by way either of legislation or administration which shall diminish or detract from the position of the English language as an official language, or done to restrict its use in education or in the public service."
The Letters Patent, I may point out, have been the subject of very long and careful consideration on the part of all parties concerned.
LORD SYDENHAM: I beg to thank the noble Duke for his reply, but I do not think he made it quite clear whether the two languages, which are not the natural language of the Maltese population, would have to be taken together. That is really the point I wished to make. I gather from the noble Duke that that point has not yet been quite settled, and that therefore we must trust to the good sense of the Maltese electors to settle it. Is that what the noble Duke wishes to say?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. As there is now self-government in Malta, it is naturally assumed that the Maltese will deal with the matter in a sensible manner, but, as I mentioned in the last part of my reply, it can be dealt with by the Governor, who may make further provision under Section 67 of the Letters Patent by way of definition of the sections dealing with the language question, if necessity arises.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
[From Minutes of July 27.]
VISCOUNT HAWARDEN.
Petition of Eustace Wyndham Maude, Viscount Hawarden, in the Peerage of Ireland; claiming a right to vote at the elections of the Representative Peers for Ireland, read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the amendments made by the Lords, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be printed, and to be considered to-morrow.
LEE CONSERVANCY BILL. THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Committee negatived.
LONDONDERRY CORPORATION (BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of yesterday appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Committees to meet on Tuesday next.
ADAMSON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 3a to-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TAUNTON EXTENSION) BILL.
To he read 3a to-morrow.
HOUSING (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
To be read 3a on Tuesday next.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
To be read 3a on Tuesday next.