Sitting of 10 May 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Wednesday, May 4, delivered by the Lord Steward of the Household (v. Farquhar) as follows:—
" My Lords, I have received with satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for My Message, communicating My declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920."

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL
    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL
    Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CATTEDOWN WHARVES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order).
Schedule:—
Costs of Order.
22. All costs charges and expenses of and incident to the preparing for obtaining and confirming of this Order or otherwise in relation thereto shall be paid by the Company and may in whole or in part be charged against revenue.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE had an Amendment. on the Paper to delete from Clause 22 all words after "Company" The noble Lord said: It has been pointed out by the Treasury that under the clause as drafted the existence of the Order may be made a ground of charge against the Exchequer in the settlement of the company's account, and the Amendment is made in order that no such charge may arise.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, Clause 22, page 11, line 20, leave out from (" Company ") to end of clause—(Lord Stamnore)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

DUNDEE GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CAPTIVE BIRDS SHOOTING (PROHIBITION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I earnestly hope that your Lordships may approve of it and give it your unanimous consent. It is a small Bill of one clause. The object of it is to do away with trapped bird shooting as at present practised, and, of course, principally with pigeon shooting. I move this Bill because pigeon shooting at the present time is not a real sport. It gives rise to possibilities of great cruelty and is extremely offensive to a great proportion of the British public who are essentially sporting in the best sense of the word. I always think that the best definition of sport is one in which the quarry has an opportunity of escape, and it should have a fair chance of escape. In this case I cannot find that the bird liberated, especially the pigeon, has a fair chance of escape. It cannot rise when or where it pleases, nor use in any way its natural instinct to escape.
The shoot is invariably competitive. Prizes are offered and the competition is invariably accompanied by betting. Indeed, the object of pigeon shooting, as practised at the present time, is betting. It is quite easy to imagine the cruelty that can be practised—I will not say it
268
always is practised—when the winning or losing of money—which is generally the object of the pigeon shooting—accompanies shooting— It is quite easy to imagine. And it is not only imagination, because in the days before the war my Society was informed of the great cruelty practised on the captive bird, such as depriving it of eyesight, pulling out its tail feathers and inserting a pin in its body. I do not say that is the general practice, but the shooting of trapped birds offers opportunities for cruelty of this description.
The continual handling of live birds for the trap makes men callous, especially when money is the incentive. It is not as if it was a matter of pure skill. It is well known that there are mechanical contrivances, such as clay pigeons, which are in use at the present time, and where skill can be practised when it is necessary to have trap shooting. I am also aware that pigeon shooting was, at one time, very much practised in England. It was carried on at clubs like Hurlingham and Ranelagh, but, owing to the efforts of one of the highest ladies in the land, it was done away with, and it is now practised only in places which, to put it mildly, are not of the highest class, or where much care is likely to be taken to avoid cruelty.
I have reason to believe that the Government is favourable to this In the House of Commons it met with very slight opposition of any sort or kind, and there is no doubt that public opinion is very much in favour of the abolition of this sort of thing. The framers of the Bill have taken great care not to interfere in any way with sport such as pheasant shooting, or shooting of that description. We have carefully avoided anything which would trench upon that which the British public know as sport. I think I may say that I have the sporting instinct and have been a sportsman all my life in the way of shooting and hunting, and I am not the man to try to induce your Lordships to pass a Bill which would be likely to interfere with what is known as true sport. True sport consists, as I have said, in allowing animals to have a fair chance of escape and of practising no cruelty. We have included all birds, such as sparrows or starlings, for the reason that we found very often that where pigeons were not used starlings and sparrows were used, and we thought there was a good opening for cruelty in that direction. The framers of the Bill thought that it was not

269
fair to the bird, was not real British sport, and was entirely condemned by the British public.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Lanibourne.)
THE. PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I will only say a few words on the subject of the Bill of which the noble Lord has moved the Second Reading. It is a Bill for which my right hon. friend promised to give facilities as a Private Bill in the House of Commons, and the Government are in sympathy with the object it has in view. The noble Lord has mentioned the fact that the Bill has been carefully framed so as not to apply to legitimate sport, and so that it shall not apply to anything but meetings at which captive birds are liberated for the purpose of being shot at the time of their liberation. It only applies to that, and I do not think I need say anything more, except that the Govern-went are in favour of its terms.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of moving the rejection of this Bill, for two reasons. In the first place, I am quite aware that it would not be of the slightest use to do so, and in the second place, I do not for one moment desire to appear' as an apologist for, or an admirer of, pigeon shooting. But I must confess that it strikes me that we are, perhaps, in danger of making ourselves somewhat ridiculous over this Bill. Looking round the House, small as the attendance is, I expect I am not far wrong in assuming that pearly every Peer present has at one time in his life taken part in pigeon shooting. I remember very well on a former occasion that no less a person than the most rev. Primate admitted (not, I thought, without a touch of conscious pride), that he was the possessor of a cup which he had won at pigeon shooting in his youth—a cup, I trust, not won at Monte Carlo, but in all probability at some seat of learning. I might also remark that the connection of the Church with pigeon shooting is closer than might generally be supposed, because, if I am not mistaken, the Gun Club grounds were the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Considering the number of persons who are, so to speak, incriminated, and the long continuance of this practice, I am a little
270
surprised at the overwhelming display of indignation which is apparent at the present moment. What I do not like about this Bill is that it is obviously the outcome of what is known as a "Press stunt." It must be perfectly obvious to everybody that one of the principal newspapers in the country has embarked, rightly or wrongly, upon a crusade against pigeon shooting at Monte Carlo. Numerous letters have appeared, which compete for pride of place with other letters upon the European situation, the coal strike, the. number of dwts. there ought to be in a golf ball, and any topics of absorbing interest at the moment. To my mind, these letters convey an entirely false impression, because they are obviously written with the intention of inducing a belief that people go to Monte Carlo as they might go, say, to Lourdes, or Mecca, or Jerusalem, for the purpose of solemn meditation and introspection, and that they are outraged by the presence of pigeon shooters.
I cannot help asking these people why, if they are so outraged, they go to Monte Carlo at all. People do not go to Monte Carlo for the purpose of solemn meditation. They go, if I am not mistaken, and if they have not changed their habits, for the purpose of playing trente et quarante or roulette.There are plenty of other places open to them if they are outraged by pigeon shooting at Monte Carlo. They can go elsewhere. Neither can I believe that any serious impression is likely to be created by a Press campaign directed against pigeon shooting at Monte Carlo. The shooting there, from what I understand, is in the hands of professional gunmen of either French or Italian nationality, and I should think they would remain supremely indifferent to the progress of a Bill, or to any Press campaign, in this country. If pigeon shooting conies to an end at Monte Carlo it will in all probability be due more to pressure of shareholders than to any agitation here.
My noble friend, with whose intentions everybody will sympathise, based his arguments against this particular kind of shooting chiefly on the ground of cruelty. It is undoubtedly the case that there is a wide-spread impression, which is not altogether incorrect, that these trapped pigeons are subject to ill-usage before being shot at, and that if they are not killed outright they die a lingering death

271
in very painful circumstances. I doubt very much whether the statements as to the cruelty perpetrated upon them before they are shot at have much foundation in fact, because—without giving these people any credit for humanity—it stands to reason that it is to their interest to keep the birds in the best possible condition in order that they may afford the so-called sport. Will anybody here who has had any sporting experience, seriously contend that there is as much cruelty involved in a trapped bird shooting competition as there is, for instance, in a big day's covert shooting or a big day's grouse driving, or even in a day's partridge driving? Pigeon shooting is a so-called amusement, or sport, which takes place in a populous neighbourhood. If a pigeon is killed at once there is an end of the whole thing. If it is winged, it is probably retrieved and put out of its pain. If, on the other hand, it escapes, it joins tame birds, and no doubt it then comes to an end, because the proprietor of those tame pigeons appropriates it as his property, and destroys it.
Take the case of a day's covert shooting. I have done a good deal of shooting in my time—not so much as my noble friend, because he is rather older than I am—and I maintain, without fear of contradiction, that the amount of suffering inflicted upon the animal creation in the course of a big day's shooting is infinitely greater than the volume of cruelty which is perpetrated in the course of a pigeon shooting tournament. I contend that the great majority of birds or animals which are shot at by legitimate sportsmen, if they are not killed, are wounded, and if they are not promptly retrieved they go away and die, after having undoubtedly undergone very great suffering. Wounded rabbits go away and die in their holes. Wounded birds disappear from the sight of man, and die a lingering death, which is perhaps accelerated by attacks from hawks or other vermin. Take the case of a sport which, to my mind, is perhaps the most amusing form of shooting that exists—the sport of shooting wood pigeons, an occupation which was vehemently urged and applauded by people who are now denouncing the shooting of trapped pigeons. The amount of cruelty that you inflict in shooting at wild pigeons is greater than that inflicted upon tame pigeons, because, as any one knows who has tried it, for one bird that you kill, you wound three or four. I do not think
272
anybody will deny that a wild pigeon must suffer just as much as a tame one.
There is no getting away from the fact—it is no good trying to deceive ourselves upon this point—that sport involves a certain amount of cruelty to animals. Foxes and deer cannot enjoy being hunted. Fish suffer when they are angled for. Undoubtedly the most cruel form of sport is shooting. It seems to me that on these grounds it is very difficult to condemn trapped bird shooting on the ground of cruelty. You must, therefore, discover some other reason. Is the morality of shooting trapped birds really much lower than that displayed in the pursuit of what is called legitimate sport? What does it really amount to? The pigeon shooter is an individual for whom none of us feel much sympathy. His practice is to buy a bird and shoot at it. The practice of the legitimate sportsman, if he has sufficient money, is not to buy a bird but to buy eggs, and when the eggs develop into birds they are nourished with the utmost care. Every possible precaution is taken to make their existence a happy one. Every care is taken of them, and then, one fine day, the proprietor, who has lavished all this care upon them, suddenly turns upon them, having taught them to regard him as a natural friend and protector, and kills them, or endeavours to kill them.
However unsympathetic one may be towards the professional shooter, I do not know that the legitimate sportsman is a more inspiring object. I do not think that a man who faces the hen pheasant with a couple of guns, supported by a leader and by another individual carrying cartridges, and by a dog, is a more inspiring figure on the whole than a man who shoots a pigeon at thirty yards' rise, and is prepared to lay 5 to 2 or 3 to 1 on the gun if necessary. I would also like to point out that the legitimate sportsman is not above imitating the methods of the condemned trapped bird shooter. In former days, when there was more money to spend on such things than there is at the present time, it used to be a common practice to rear so-called wild ducks, and everybody who has indulged in that pursuit knows that those ducks very soon lose their wild qualities and become inconveniently tame, lethargic, and ponderous in their habits. Indeed, it was difficult to get them to fly at all. In those circumstances they were removed, placed in hampers, liberated, and then shot

273
at by the legitimate sportsman. All that will come to an end under the Bill
LORD LAMBOURNE: No it will not.
LORD NEWTON: Then it ought, for I do not see that there is any difference between the two practices. As a matter of fact, it is probably easier on the whole to kill these birds than it is to kill a pigeon at thirty yards rise. We are asked to legislate because this particular form of sport is an illegitimate sport. Here we at once get into difficulties. For my part, I am not at all sure what a sportsman is. A man who rides a steeplechase is a sportsman. A man who shoots big game is a sportsman. A man who goes up in an aeroplane and ventures to descend several thousand feet by means of a parachute is a sportsman. So also is the man who will pass hours and days watching a billiard match, or a cricket match, which take almost as long to finish as a Bill does to pass through Parliament. The mean who will go into a barber's shop and back at starting prices horses which he has never seen, is looked upon as rather a meritorious sportsman, and the kind of sportsman who meets with much admiration is the man with any amount of money who spends fabulous sums in buying yearlings, or two-year olds, with the anticipation that it will some day help him to a position in society, and perhaps enable him to obtain a seat in this House.
So far as I am concerned I give it up. I do not know what a sportsman is, and the best way to find out is to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses, on which the most rev. Primate and Lord Lonsdale might form two of our representatives and Mr. Bottomley and Commander Kenworthy might represent the other branch of the Legislature. Then we might know where we stood; what was a sportsman, and what was not. Meanwhile, the so-called legitimate sportsmen are only preparing a rod for their own backs. Legislation is not likely to stop at trapped birds. It is an absolute certainty, and the only logical conclusion, that all field sports will be attacked on the ground of humanity, and when that time comes those who have welcomed this Bill will find it extremely difficult to make a successful defence on behalf of the amusements which hitherto have escaped interference.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, this little Bill is quite different from the measure which came before your Lordships last session. It has, indeed, been altered to give effect to the criticisms made at that time. The objection to the Bill of last year was that the proceeds of a penny rate, levied in a locality, might be used for the purpose of advertising outside that locality. That Bill was supported by the Government, but when it came to your Lordships' House it was met by powerful opposition. It was pointed out that its provisions were against the practice of Private Bill legislation which had been observed in this House, and the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, opposed it on that ground. I am glad to believe that the Lord Chairman is willing to support the Second Reading of this Bill, although he may have sonic objection on matters of detail in regard to Committee points.
The Bill proposes that profits received from the letting of chairs, tents, tent sites, bathing machines, platform sites for entertainments, or from charges of admission to gardens, parks and enclosures, or the profits derived from entertainments, may be used for the purpose of advertising watering places and health resorts, provided the sum so spent does not exceed the amount equivalent to the proceeds of a penny rate. Such a provision is in accordance with clauses in many private Bills. As the Lord Chairman reminded your Lordships last year provisions of that kind have been allowed in Private Bill legislation in Bills emanating from Brighton, Hove, Aberystwyth, St. Anne's, Weymouth, Southport, Appleby, Llandrindod Wells and other places; and the amount that they are allowed to spend varies from one halfpenny to twopence in the somewhat unusual case of Llandrindod Wells. This Bill passed unanimously through the other house, no voice being raised, against it; and as every effort has been made to meet the criticisms expressed in your Lordships' House last session, I hope you will give this Bill a Second Reading and enable it to pass into law during t he present session.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.— (Lord Emmott.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL. OF DONOUGHMORF): My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to the fact that, to my regret, I had to oppose the Bill of last year, but I hope that will not prevent me joining with him in supporting the Second Reading of the present measure. He has been good enough to ask me to discuss particular points with him. There are certain matters which may have to be considered in Committee, not concerned with the principle of the measure, but aimed at getting the Bill more in accordance with the practice of Private Bill legislation. I have drafted those Amendments and will put them down either this evening or to-morrow. I hope the noble Lord will not take the Committee stage before Whitsuntide as the delay will give us an opportunity of discussing these Amendments. I think we shall have no difficulty in agreeing upon them. I will not trouble your Lordships with the details of the Amendments, and, subject to that point, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the Bill of last year was thrown out on my Motion by a majority of thirty-eight to twelve. I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT and I find that it was expressly explained that the objection to that Bill was that a penny rate was placed on local authorities. The present measure endeavours to meet the objections which were raised and to place the expenditure upon the amenities which may be run in any health resort. I do not, therefore, propose to offer any objection to it, but shall support the Second Reading.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading. The noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, has intimated his intention of putting down some Amendments. I will not anticipate their nature, but I hope he will be more kind to my noble friend than he was to me last year.
LORD EMMOTT: With regard to the point mentioned by the Lord Chairman I will, of course, put down the Committee stage for some date after Whitsuntide convenient to bins, and I shall be grateful to him if he will confer with me and particularly with those who are the real supporters of this measure.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TREATY OF PEACE (HUNGARY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBERCULOSIS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order)
Clause2:
After-care by councils of counties and county boroughs
2. Without prejudice and in addition to any other power, whether under this or any other Act, every council of a county or county borough shall have power to make such arrangements as they may think desirable for the after-case of persons who have suffered front tuberculosis (including persons for the time being insured under the National Health Insurance Act, 1911, as amended or extended by any past or future enactment), and the provisions of this Act relating to committees and joint committees shall extend accordingly as though in those provisions the expression "treatment of tuberculosis "included such after-care.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have one small and purely verbal Amendment to move at this stage.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 26, leave out (" Health "). —(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move—
"That it is desirable that counsel should be allowed to appear before the Royal Commission appointed 'to enquire into the admission into the United Kingdom of live stock for purposes other than immediate slaughter at the ports; whether such action would increase and cheapen the meat supply of the country, and, if so, to what extent; and whether it was advisable, having regard to the necessity of protecting live stock bred in this country from the introduction of disease, and of restoring their numbers after the losses to which they were subject during the war.' "
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion I have on the Paper arises out of the Royal Commission which has been appointed by the Government to inquire into a matter of very great importance indeed—namely, whether it is desirable

277
or not that store stock coming from abroad should be permitted to enter into this country. As your Lordships are aware, no cattle can come into this country at the present moment, except for slaughter at the port of debarkation. The question has arisen from the fact that at the Imperial Conference in 1917 it was urged very strongly upon His Majesty's Government that Canadian store stock should be admitted freely into this country, and should not come under the law of slaughter. It so happened that two Cabinet Ministers at that Imperial Conference gave a pledge that after the war store stock should be admitted from Canada. This pledge was given by Mr. Walter Long and Lord Ernie, It was considered by the Prime. Minister that it was necessary to have a Royal Commission to inquire whether that pledge could be carried out without any injurious effect upon our flocks and herds in this country
The Royal Commission which has consequently been appointed is to be an entirely independent Commission, unlike the Sankey Commission in every respect. The Commission is to inquire into the following five matters: the admission of livestock into this country; the increase of the meat supply; the cheapening of meat; protection from disease; and the making good of the large decrease of livestock that had occurred through losses owing to the war. I have been asked, on behalf of all the agricultural, breed and milk-producing societies, to bring this question before your Lordships' House, because it is felt by the executive committee, which represents all these societies, that it is perfectly impossible that their case against the free importation of stock from abroad can be properly put before the Royal Commission unless they are allowed to be represented by counsel.
It seems tome that it would be a great advantage if the Government were willing to allow this course of procedure. If it were allowed, you would have counsel appearing before this Commission representing the whole of the agricultural interests who are opposed to the importation of store stock from abroad. If you did not allow it, you would be obliged to admit representations from all these great agricultural societies, who might put their case from different points of view, with the result that there would be a considerable waste of time. If, on the other hand, the
278
whole of the societies, just as they have combined at present and appointed an executive committee to represent them, should combine to lay their case before the Commission by counsel, you would have the important difference that counsel would be able to consolidate and present their case without overlapping, and thus you would save a great deal of time. It is important to save time, because I understand that it is desired by the Government that the Commission should make their Report before the meeting of the imperial Conference this year in London.
Then again, it has to be considered that not only those charged with presenting the case of the agriculturist of this country, but witnesses on the other side, will come before the Commission, and will have to be cross-examined if their evidence is to be properly sifted. That can only be done properly by counsel who are adequately instructed upon this matter and are able to cross-examine witnesses. On the other hand, if we did not allow counsel to appear, what would happen? The individual members of the Commission would then have to cross-examine the witnesses. Of course, in asking for counsel to appear on behalf of the agriculturists who are opposed to the importation, I take it for granted that, on the other side equally, Canada and organisations in this country who desire the free importation of store stock would lie represented. This Royal Commission has been appointed upon an entirely different basis from that of the Sankey Commission. That is to say, no experts have been appointed, and it is supposed to be an entirely independent Commission which knows practically nothing about this subject. These gentlemen would hardly be qualified to cross-examine witnesses severely, to sift their evidence, and to bring out the exact state of things.
I may be told that there is no precedent for allowing counsel to appear before a Royal Commission. I do not know whether that is so or not, but even if it is so I venture to think that this is a question of such enormous importance, a question which is so exercising the minds of agriculturists throughout the length and breadth of the country, that it would only be fair, if it is necessary to make a precedent, to do so in this case. I can assure your Lordship's that this is a very complicated question, and wants going into very thoroughly. I feel certain that agriculturists in this country

279
and equally, very likely, those who are in favour of free importation, will feel that justice has not been done if they have not been able to have their case properly put before the Commission or the witnesses on the other side duly cross-examined. These are my reasons for moving the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, before an answer, is given to my noble friend, I should like to say one word in support of the appeal which he has made, in view of the fact that this Commission is to inquire into a question which is calculated to affect the interests of the agriculturists of this country more materially than any question of a similar character that has arisen during the last forty years. My argument would simply be this: that farmers are traditionally and notoriously incapable of stating their case, however convincing that case may be. For that reason, if for no other, I venture to suggest that a fair decision cannot be arrived at by this Commission unless the case is stated by counsel who are used to assembling facts and to presenting a case in a convincing way such as will appeal to the judicial minds which will fortunately be exercised amongst the personnel of that Commission.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, might I, as a member of the Royal Commission, state that the Commission meets informally for the first time to-morrow morning at half-past eleven, and this question which is raised by the Motion is one of the matters which the members will discuss. It is rather difficult to have the procedure of a Royal Commission laid down in the manner in which the noble Lord suggests. In fact, I am doubtful whether there has ever been a case of a Royal Commission where a member of one House of the Legislature has dictated, or laid down, the procedure which the Commissioners ought to adopt in carrying out the functions which His Majesty has bestowed upon them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to add one word, as Lord Askwith has put before your Lordships in his capacity as a member of this Royal Commission his view of the proper procedure. I think, as a matter of fact, and I do not know that the noble Lord is likely to differ from me, that it must be an advantage to the Royal Com.
280
mission when they meet to know something of the arguments, very fully and ably expressed by Lord Strachie, which seem to make the hearing of counsel before this Commission practically imperative, if the whole case is to be exposed and adjudicated upon. Of course, unless the hearing of counsel were included in the form of appointment of the Royal Commission, and therefore by the terms of their appointment it would be an instruction to them, I take it that the matter rests wholly within their discretion, and all that my two noble friends have desired to do is to make public what they conceive to be the strong arguments in favour of hearing the two respective cases through counsel on this particular occasion.
Without repeating in any sense what my noble friends have said, I should like, if I may—and as I happen to be chairman of this executive committee to which my noble friend alluded, I am, of course, deeply interested in the matter—to put the plea upon the ground of the obvious economy of time. It stands to reason that on both sides a case of this sort has to be presented in two ways. It has to be presented with a great amount of technical detail, which is done by evidence, but it also has to be represented by a great deal of general argument, which is far better brought out by counsel, accustomed to argue matters of this kind, than by putting witnesses in the box, whose duty it would be to make a speech pointing out the various social, political and other arguments in favour of, or against, the particular proposals. A counsel can do in an hour what it might take three or four witnesses a day and a half to do. From that point of view alone it is quite evident, I think, that a great economy of time would be secured by allowing counsel to appear.
I can only speak to this particular concession being unanimously desired by one side. I have no reason to suppose that the other side take a different view, but of their predilections in the matter I know nothing. I am not aware whether the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture has any defined views on the matter—he may not find it possible to express a strong opinion one way or another—but I think your Lordships will agree that a discussion of this sort is not without its uses, and is only intended to assist the Royal Commission when it meets.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I may say at the very beginning, as the noble Marquess has just said, that this short debate may be of some use to Lord Finlay, and other members of the Royal Commission, when they come to discuss the question of procedure as to whether it would be desirable or not for the parties interested to be represented by counsel. So far as the Ministry is concerned, I regret to say that we have not thought it right or proper that we should interfere. The matter has been gone into very carefully, and in a case like this it would be an entire departure from custom for the Ministry, or anybody else for that matter, to lay it down how the Royal Commission should act in this regard. It has almost, invariably been the custom that a Royal Commission makes its own rules as to procedure.
All I have been able to do in the past, and all I am afraid I am able to do in the future, is to lay the views of noble Lords, who hold the opinion that counsel should appear, before the Chairman of the Commission, and ask him to consider the ease very carefully. I have already written to Lord Finlay on the subject. I understand that the Commission is to meet for the first time (as Lord Askwith, who is a prominent member of the Commission, has said) to-morrow morning, and no doubt this will be one of the first questions which the members will then decide. I regret that I cannot satisfy the noble Lord further in this matter by saying that the Ministry have thought it their duty to make strong representations to the Chairman as to what the procedure of the Commission should be.
Lord Bledisloe, I think, was little hard upon farmers, when he stated that farmers notoriously could not state their case. My experience rather differs from that of the noble Lord. I have known many farmers who could state their case remarkably well, and surely on an occasion like this, and on an important subject like this, they would be able, with a little preparation, to make out a very good case. They have plenty of spokesmen who, I believe, would present their case extremely well. That is a matter of opinion, of course. On the question of procedure, as I have already said, we feel that the almost invariable custom should be fol
282
lowed, and that the Royal Commission should decide for itself. I can only hope that the noble Lord will not press this Motion to a Division, because I think it would be almost unprecedented for this House, by Motion, to lay down for a Royal Commission how it should proceed about its business.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I do not think that the bringing of lawyers into the case would tend to expedition in any way. The Royal Commission is made up of men of ability, who are very well known, and in my opinion they are quite capable of examining the witnesses and getting through their business as quickly as possible. I do not see any reason for altering the usual procedure. Lawyers may bring out some points which otherwise would not be brought out, but whether they would be necessary points and very germane to the question I have my doubts. My own view is that they would muddle the Royal Commission, and can very well be done without.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, may I say at once that I have no wish to press the Motion. As the noble Marquess explained, we have no desire to put any pressure upon the Royal Commission, but only to ventilate the subject and let the Commission be aware, publicly, of our feelings in this matter. In fact, I have had an opportunity of speaking to the noble Viscount who will preside over the Commission, and I told him that I would not bring the Motion forward if he had any objection to my doing so. He said that, on the contrary, he had no objection at all to the matter coming before your Lordships' House, in order that it might be before the public and thoroughly ventilated. I was glad to hear the noble Earl, who represents the Ministry of Agriculture, state just now that he had made representations to the Royal Commission, and I hope it was on lines which will be generally acceptable to the agricultural interests which he represents in this House.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not wish to be misinterpreted. All I did was to write to the Chairman of the Commission to say that there were certain societies anxious to be represented by counsel, and that I thought he ought to know that. I made no representations as to what he should do.
LORD STRACHIE: I did not wish to imply that, but only that the noble Earl had expressed an opinion showing what agricultural opinion was.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.
LORD WEARDALE LORD WEARDALE had the following Question on the Paper: —
" To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been given to the urgent necessity of action within three months of the 5th September, the date of the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, and the subsequent election of the Judges of that body; and whether the Government is prepared to ratify the project for the Permanent Court of International Justice as formulated by the Advisory Committee of Jurists."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl for a misprint in my Question. The phrase, "the subsequent election of the Judges of that body," should obviously read, "Judges by that body." I must also apologise to the noble Earl if I rather press the Question, because, as he is aware, there is very little time to he lost. It is necessary that a decision should be arrived at before June 5 if the League of Nations is to proceed to the election of the Judges of the Permanent Court of Justice.
I am aware that it is a very critical matter to decide without very careful examination, because it involves the acceptance of the principle of obligatory reference to the Permanent Court of Justice of a variety of questions, amongst them, firstly, the interpretation of a Treaty; secondly, all questions of International Law; thirdly, all questions of fact constituting a breach of international agreement; and, fourthly, the action and the extent of the reparation due in consequence of any breach of that international agreement. I am conscious that all those questions involve very careful consideration, and therefore I appreciate the fact that the noble Earl may not be able to give a positive reply to my Question; but I shall be very glad to hear from him that the matter is being considered by him and his advisers, and that he will be
284
able to come to a decision before the date mentioned, June 5.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I fear that the mistake in the Question of the noble Lord is not confined to the single misprint to which he referred in the remarks to which we have just listened. The next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations will not take place, as is stated in the Question, in September, but in the month of June. It is the meeting of the Assembly which takes place ill September next. Of course, I realised that when the Question speaks of the Judges of that body the noble Lord meant the election of Judges by that body; and what he was referring to was the provision in Articles 3 and 4 of the Statute of the Permanent Court that those Judges, fifteen in number, shall be elected by the Assembly and the Council—the two are mentioned together—from a list of persons to be nominated by the national groups of the Hague Court of Arbitration.
The noble Lord is quite right in his statement of the position. Article 5 does provide that at least three months before the date of the election the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall request the members of the Hague Court of Arbitration, belonging to the States which are members of the League, to undertake the nomination of persons in a position to accept the duties of a member of the Permanent Court; and, accordingly, it does follow that unless the Statute is ratified by June 5 the Council and Assembly will not be able to elect the Judges, in the manner prescribed, by the meeting of the Assembly at Geneva on September 5.
Those are the provisions dealing with the case. As regards the question of ratification, I need hardly assure the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of depositing the King's ratification of the Protocol at the earliest possible date. What we are doing in the. matter is this. We have drawn up a form of ratification which we have circulated to the Dominions, who, of course, are equally concerned with ourselves. We have not yet had replies from the whole of them. Answers have been received from two or three of their number, and I am very hopeful that the replies from the remainder will not be long delayed. The noble Lord will understand the desirability of the ratifica-

285
tion of the King being deposited, if that be possible, and I see no reason why it should not, in the name of the whole Empire, rather than of any individual section of it. I hope that before the period to which he refers has expired it may be possible to act in the manner which he has suggested.
LORD WEARDALE: I have to thank the noble Earl very much for the careful reply which he has given to this Question, and which, I am sure, will satisfy a number of people who are very anxious on the subject.
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD STRATHEDEN—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
IONIAN BANK BILL [H.L.]
  OXFORD MOTOR SERVICES BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PORTSMOUTH WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
TAF FECHAN VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
  TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]

    RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
    RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider the Bills do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Committee Room No. 4 on Thursday the 9th of June, at Twelve o'clock, as proposed by this House.

SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

LYMINGTON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments
288
had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Colne Corporation.

Manchester Corporation Waterworks.

Nuneaton Corporation.

St. Helens Corporation.

Leicester Corporation.

Harrogate Gas.

Burnley Corporation.

Croydon Corporation Water.

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Slough Trading Company, Limited (Canal).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ANGLO-CONTINENTAL SUPPLY COMPANY, LIMITED.
  PETITION FOR BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order of Tuesday last discharged: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN WATERWORKS BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 19th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the
West Ham Corporation
ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill:
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the
Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill
ought to be dispensed with.
Read, and agreed to.