Sitting of 19 June 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD SEA DEFENCES BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
LEGITIMACY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
BASTARDY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
RAILWAY FIRES ACT (1905) (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
EXPLOSIVES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons; agreed to, with an Amendment.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (VISCOUNT NOVAR): My Lords, the short Bill which I now submit to you for Second Reading contains a few clauses which were originally put forward in the
532
Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, introduced in another place last year but not proceeded with. It was thought desirable that the educational provisions of that Bill should be dealt with this year separately. But, as some of them are of a controversial character and the pressure on the time of Parliament has become so great, we have decided to ask approval simply for the one or two clauses which are not regarded as contentious, and which, at the same time, will make for the more economical administration of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918.
Clause 1 contains a provision which a short experience of the Act of 1918 shows to be desirable. The Act of 1918 places the management of voluntary schools entirely under the education authorities, subject to certain safeguards for the maintenance of the religious instruction previously given in those schools. There was a fear lest, in the case of authorities which require to be elected every three years, a policy accepted by the first authority might be liable to be changed. Accordingly, the Act provided that any school transferred should be carried on under the conditions of transference for a period of ten years, after which the education authority would be free to consider whether the safeguards were required or not. The former managers of these schools are, in certain cases, not anxious to continue them. There is no proposal, however, to interfere with the arrangement come to under the Act of 1918 without the full consent of the former managers. Apart from that consent, neither the education authority nor the Department can take any action; but with that consent a saving in certain quarters can be effected.
Clause 2 is one under which considerable economy is expected. When the Act of 1918 was passed, provision was made for the education authorities to meet every month, with the exception that they were not required to hold more than one meeting between the end of June and the beginning of October. Until the new system got into working order this provision had, no doubt, a good deal to commend it, but a number of the authorities have represented that less frequent meetings would be sufficient in the present circumstances. We propose, therefore, to reduce the number of statutory meetings in a year to four, leaving the education authorities to meet

533
more frequently at their own discretion. In this we are acting somewhat in the same way as in regard to county councils, for whom only three meetings annually are obligatory. Under each education authority a large part of the ordinary administration of the schools is carried on by local school management committees. In some of the counties, such as Argyllshire and Inverness-shire and Ross-shire, the expense of meetings is very considerable, looking to the fact that the Act provides for the payment of travelling expenses, subsistence allowances, and, in certain cases, compensation for loss of time. The Association of Education Authorities is in full sympathy with this proposal.
Clause 3 is somewhat more technical, and is rather in the nature of a drafting amendment of certain sections of the Acts of 1908 and 1918. Before 1918 an educational authority could provide for mentally or physically defective children certified as incapable of receiving proper benefit in ordinary schools. In the cities, however, certain children were dealt with by special arrangements, such as open-air schools, even when the children could attend an ordinary school. In order to admit of the payment of travelling expenses in the case of these children an amendment of one of the sections of the Act of 1908 was required, and this was embodied in the Act of 1918. Experience has shown that this went beyond what was asked for or intended, and Clause 3 of this Bill is intended to prevent abuse. It will give all that the authorities who are dealing with this class of child require.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Novar.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have looked into this Bill, and I think it is a useful one. Perhaps it is tinged a little with the spirit of economy in education; otherwise, however, it is not only unobjectionable but useful in its provisions. The taking over of the voluntary schools which are pronounced to be no longer required is a power which the education authorities already have, within the ten years which were the limit, but only with the assent of the trustees of the schools which were taken over. That is quite right. As regards the meetings of the education authorities, there is no doubt that it is
534
very difficult in Highland counties, such as-Inverness and further North, to secure a meeting of an authority of that kind without spending a great deal of money. In the days of plenty, in the days when nobody considered for a moment what expenditure he was authorising, these people were enabled to charge the expense of travelling to the meetings and of maintenance at the place of meeting on a very liberal scale. If meetings are held now they cost the public a great deal of money. It is right to diminish the number of obligatory meetings. We do not want many of them, and when they take place they can be held for an extra day, so that the business can be transacted with a minimum number of meetings. The provisions for epileptics are quite adequate. I think the noble Lord is to be congratulated on having brought in a useful Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MENTAL TREATMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Privilege Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

OUR FOOD SUPPLY.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will publish figures showing the minimum percentage of the different varieties of food-stuffs it is considered necessary for strategic reasons should be grown (a) in Great Britain; and (b) within the Empire overseas; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, prior to the war questions bearing on national defence were not infrequently debated in your Lordships' House. In these days such questions not unnaturally appear less often upon the Order Paper, but I plead guilty, if guilt there be, to bringing one aspect of national defence to your Lordships' attention this afternoon. I confess that I am somewhat appalled at my temerity in initiating a debate on a subject so wide as that which I have raised in my Question, but at any rate I can promise one thing: I have no intention whatever of delivering a dissertation on strategy. It was at one time my lot

535
to have to consider strategical questions, but I arrived only at the point at which I discovered how little I knew about that vast subject. All that I propose to do this afternoon is to remind your Lordships of one or two of our experiences in the late war; to suggest the lines upon which an inquiry into the amount of foodstuffs we could grow within these islands and within the Empire might be conducted; and, finally, to give the reasons why I think that such an inquiry should be held, and, if held, should be held at an early date.
Although fighting stopped little more than four-and-a-half years ago I think many of us are inclined to forget even the main incidents in that stupendous struggle; the amazement of foreign statesmen at the way in which the people of this country accepted very severe restrictions on the consumption of food; the anxiety with which those who were in a position to know watched the continued activity of enemy submarines; and the grave words of warning that were issued from time to time by Cabinet Ministers in regard to the question of our food supplies. May I read to your Lordships a paragraph from the Report of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee which was presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne? They reported as follows:
"The experience of the war has shown that the dependence of the United Kingdom on imported food has already involved the country in special difficulties, and in the future may become a source of real danger. We have found that it has increased the cost of the war; aggravated the difficult problem of regulating foreign exchange; and absorbed an undue proportion of the tonnage of the mercantile marine at a time when its services have been so sorely needed for other purposes. We are conscious also of the possibility of a development in the construction of submarines which in a future war might make impossible a continuous supply of food to the people of the United Kingdom from overseas."
That Report was first published in January, 1917, and might, I think, be regarded as prophetic.
I have been told by one who, I believe, was in a position to know, that grave as were our anxieties in regard to the depredations by submarines in 1916 and 1917, had the war lasted a few months longer our anxieties would have been even greater. By the summer of
536
1918 we had to a large extent neutralised the activities of the smaller hostile submarines, partly by the splendidly executed blocking operations conducted by the Navy at Ostend and Zeebrugge, partly by the extensive minefields which were laid off the coast of Belgium, and, above all, by our nets and other counter-measures in the English Channel. The smaller submarines had not the fuel capacity to enable them to round the north of Scotland and get into the Atlantic, to attack ships in that ocean and then to return to their bases.
By the summer of 1918, however, we became aware that the enemy were building larger submarines of oceangoing capacity: What measures was it possible for this country to take against that danger? Obviously, no mine-field across the North Sea could be wide enough to prevent big submarines from crossing it during the hours of darkness, or, perhaps more accurately, during the periods of bad visibility which are very much longer in the North Sea during the winter months. Consider the fact that a submarine was capable of crossing a minefield so long as it could cross without having to submerge. All that a submarine had to do was to approach a minefield, to lie at the bottom of the North Sea until darkness fell and then to come to the surface, cross the mine-field and, when it had reached the far side, continue its journey below the surface. It was thought that it would be necessary to divert the big aeroplanes which were then being built in this country to operate with the Independent Air Force for the bombing of Germany, in order to patrol the mine-fields in conjunction with our Fleet, so that any submaries lying on the bottom could be successfully bombed. So serious was that danger thought to be that it was decided to use every available ship for rushing American troops over to the war area during the period when submarines were most easily dealt with, namely, during the summer months, and then switch over all ships to the carrying of food supplies when visibility became bad. It was obviously better if you had to lose a ship at all to lose a ship with her crew and cargo of wheat, than to lose a ship which carried her full complement of American troops. I think your Lordships will agree that the decision was a right one.

537
but it entailed that the food supply of the country would fall to a reserve of less than three weeks.
Therefore, at the very moment when our Fleets were supreme upon the seas, and our Armies were at last sweeping forward to victory, this country was in danger of being starved into submission. Not without reason did Lord Selborne's Committee say:
"We can well imagine that in some future struggle the comparative independence of the United Kingdom of a supply of food from overseas might be a determining factor of victory."
The war fortunately ended a few months too soon for us to be able to realise the full effect of the larger submarines at sea. In the same way, it ended too soon for us to realise the full effect of attacks with tanks upon land. But that the submarine of large capacity is considered a great weapon in time of war is, I think, proved by the paragraph which we read in the Press yesterday morning that we ourselves have recently launched the biggest submarine by far that we have ever possessed. What we in this country are doing other countries will probably do, if they have not already done it, and we may in future look forward to far larger submarines than any we have ever seen in the past. We may find that large oceangoing submarines, based at a great distance from our shores, may be an even greater danger than small submarines, based no further distant than they were in the last war.
The lines on which I venture to suggest an inquiry into the amount of foodstuffs it is necessary for our safety that we should produce should be conducted, are as follows: In the first place the officials of the late Ministry of Food should be asked, before they are lost sigh" of, by what percentage we can reduce the normal consumption of food in this country by rationing, and by that I mean that they should lay down the minimum percentages of various kinds of food, namely, wheat and flour, potatoes, sugar, meat, vegetables, fruit, milk, butter and margarine respectively. Secondly, the Foreign Office should be asked from what countries we can be certain of getting food in time of war. That would be less ambiguous than saying from which countries we should be unable to get food. Thirdly, the Treasury should be asked from what countries it would be
538
inadvisable, for financial reasons, for us to buy food. For instance, the Treasury may perfectly well say that in view of the heavy debt we now owe to America it would be unwise for us to buy food from the United States, however friendly she may be, because the effect upon exchange would be disastrous. I imagine that the Department of Overseas Trade is in a position to say what exportable surplus of food products each country would have available in normal circumstances. Fourthly, I would suggest that the War Staff at the Admiralty should be asked to say what tonnage of freight they could guarantee in all circumstances could be landed on these shores. Lastly, the Committee of Imperial Defence should allocate the tonnage so worked out by the War Staff at the Admiralty to the different varieties of foodstuffs and raw products, and other articles, which we must continue to import into this country even under the most severe conditions of submarine attacks by sea.
It is perfectly obvious that much of the information collected in the course of such an inquiry would be of an extremely confidential nature. Therefore, if the Government decide to hold such an inquiry, I, for one, should certainly not ask them by what methods they arrived at their figures, but I submit that if only final figures are published no possibly dangerous results can ensue, nor can the publication have any possible effect upon our friendly relations with other Powers. As your Lordships will observe, I have suggested that the figures should be produced in the form of percentages. Such a form has one grave disadvantage, namely, that as the population increases so also must your normal consumption of food, and therefore, other things being equal, the percentage of food which the Navy can guarantee to bring to this country would be automatically reduced. The percentage would therefore have to be periodically revised, but I submit that as conditions obviously would not remain unchanged, a percentage so important to the future of this country as this would in any case require to come under review at fairly constant intervals. Therefore, that is no very serious disadvantage. On the other hand, I think your Lordships will agree that a percentage is far more easily understood by the man in the street than are masses of figures showing

539
either the sterling value of the different kinds of food products, or thousands of bushels, thousands of cwts. and carcases, gallons of milk, and so on.
Until figures are produced showing how much food we must produce in this country and in the Empire for reasons of safety—and although figures have appeared in the Press and elsewhere I cannot see how those figures can have been arrived at, except by guesswork—until reliable figures have been produced by an authorised inquiry I cannot see how any Government can formulate an agricultural policy. A Government may say, and it is a very strong argument, that for reasons of health it is necessary to have a larger proportion of our people country bred. According to an extremely interesting book written by the late Director-General of Food Production, entitled "Food," a German Commission, which sat in 1906, showed that the proportion of physically fit men in Germany was, for large cities, 65, for small country towns, 83, and for country districts 114; and further, that less than 2 per cent. of the parents of fit men came from the large towns. As the same book states that the proportion of our population engaged in agriculture was only three per cent. as against the 17 per cent. of Germany and the 20 per cent. of France, it would perhaps account for our being described as a 03 nation. I do not believe, however, that that argument will be very effective in this country. After all, even if we are, perhaps, a C3 nation, we defeated Germany in the war, and that despite her vast Army and extensive military preparations.
I submit that if the Government can show, on the opinion of experts totally unconnected with agriculture, that it is essential for our safety to produce a given percentage of food in this country and in the Dominions, they then have arguments with which they can approach the townsman—arguments that it would be extremely difficult to meet. No one has yet forgotten rationing, and if it is shown that anything less than a given percentage of food products in this country and in the Dominions would, in the event of war, either mean far more severe rationing or possibly that most painful of all deaths, death by starvation, then I believe the townsman would realise the importance of agriculture; but not till then. It even gives the foundation on which you can
540
argue Imperial Preference, and an argument that it would be difficult to controvert, if your experts were to say it was essential for our safety that certain food products should be produced within the Dominions if they cannot be produced here.
It may be that these experts would say that a sufficient supply of food can be landed in this country at all times and under all conditions. In that case I can see no reason whatever, except the reasons of health to which I have referred, why the Government should be justified in making agriculture a key industry, or in bolstering it up any more than any other industry. But, if it is found that we must produce more food within the Empire, then I submit that you have a very strong argument to give to those who otherwise do not see that agriculture affects them in any degree whatever. The reasons why I hope the Government will hold such an inquiry without delay are these. In the first place, when war begins your experts, particularly your naval experts, are engaged in matters of more immediate concern, and they have no time to give to the detailed study of a question such as this. Secondly, as we know from experience, you cannot improvise a home grown food supply—certainly not in a matter of weeks or even months—and thirdly, whether the inquiry turns out in favour of the farmer or against him, it is only fair that he should know his fate at the earliest possible moment. I am not-one of those who believe that another great war is imminent. On the other hand, I have still less sympathy with those who believe that when we won the last great war it was a war which ended all wars. I think that recent facts have convinced all but fanatics that that idea must be due to Celtic imagination, or something of that kind.
My views are better and more clearly put than I can put them in the Report of Lord Selborne's Committee, although they are put far more strongly than I should put them, and probably far more strongly than the Committee would put them if they were to write the Report again now. They say:
"We hope and pray that the greater sanity of nations and their increased obedience to the Divine law may save our country from any repetition of the hideous catastrophe which has to-day overwhelmed Europe, but we can feel no positive assurance that this will be the case, and we do

541
not think that we should be faithful to our trust for our dependants if we omitted to take any practicable measures to increase the national safety in a future time of need."
It is because I believe it is our duty to peer into the future, and to take such measures for our safety and for that of our descendants as may be found necessary that I have ventured to ask the Question which stands in my name. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I am afraid that in answering the Question which has been addressed to the Government by my noble friend it will be impossible to lay down with any precision, or even approximately, the limits to which the noble Earl refers. In the first place, any solution of the problem would necessarily vary with the changing conditions of defence and sea-transport, and must therefore be hypothetical; and the problem is further complicated in some of its aspects by the great distances which lie between the United Kingdom and many of the overseas parts of the Empire. Further, as I am sure my noble friend would agree, publicity should not be given to the results of any deliberations by the Government on this question, intimately concerned as they must be with the provisions for defence. But the noble Earl may rest assured that His Majesty's Government, which is responsible for the safety of the Empire, is not unmindful of this aspect of security. At the same time, I may say that in the present position there do not appear to be any serious grounds for apprehension.
It may be well to give briefly the leading facts as to the position, both in the Empire and in Great Britain, with regard to the principal articles of food. With regard to wheat, to-day the Empire is more than capable of supplying all its own needs. If we convert imported flour into terms of wheat, then out of Great Britain's total requirements of wheat for flour and seed about 20 per cent. comes from native crops, about 36 per cent. is imported from Empire countries, and about 44 per cent. from foreign countries. These figures neglect wheat produced in Great Britain and exported or used as poultry corn—about 15 per cent. of the crop. With regard to barley, the Empire is not self-supporting, but of the supply required for Great Britain, two-thirds is home-grown and about 18 per cent. comes
542
from the Empire. As for oats, the Empire is not self-supporting, but Great Britain grows 84 per cent. of its supply and imports about half the remainder from the Empire, chiefly from Canada. With regard to maize, within the Empire only South Africa is a large producer, and that only in quite recent times, and the United States and the Argentine are the main suppliers for the world. With regard to rice, virtually India and British Malaya supply the Empire and have a large surplus for other countries. Great Britain is more concerned as a trader in rice than as a consumer.
Taking butter and cheese, within the Empire, Great Britain is the chief importer of butter; other countries in the Empire meeting their own needs. Including the supplies from the Irish Free State, about one-third of the needs of Great Britain are met at home, about 35 per cent. is imported from the Empire, and about 32 per cent from foreign countries. Except for special varieties of cheese, the Empire is very nearly self-supporting. As to the supplies required for Great Britain, 27 per cent. are produced at home, 65 per cent. come from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and about 8 per cent. from foreign countries. With regard to sugar, to-day about four times as much is imported into the Empire as is exported from the sugar-producing countries of the Empire. The largest producer, India, has a net import balance, and the total production of the West Indies is only one-fifth of Great Britain's requirements in raw and refined sugar.
In respect of meat the Dominions are not only self-supporting but large exporters. England, Wales and Scotland produce to-day only 43 per cent. of the beef, 37 per cent. of the mutton, and 42 per cent. of the pork and bacon consumed within these countries. Including the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, however, these proportions rise to 57 per cent. for beef, 43 per cent. for mutton, and 47 per cent. for pork and bacon. Of the supplies imported into Great Britain, about one-fifth of the beef, about 70 per cent. of the mutton, and about 11 per cent. of the pork and bacon come from Empire countries. I rather gathered from the remarks that fell from my noble friend that he suggested that a Committee, of which he gave an outline should be set up to deal with this whole

543
question. In responding for the Board of Trade, I cannot give any pledge on behalf of the Government, but I may assure my noble friend that his suggestion will be most sympathetically considered.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, before this subject is allowed to drop I desire, with great respect, to make a recommendation or a suggestion to His Majesty's Government and to the noble Duke the Secretary of State for the Colonies. If I may be permitted to say so, I think that my noble friend Earl Stanhope served a very great public purpose by introducing this subject to-day. I am one of those—there are others among your Lordships who went through the same experience—who, in the very early days of the war and during the time of pressure, were connected with various branches of the food supplies of this country, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanhope that very little is remembered to-day either of the difficulties which we endured or of the sufferings of our people as a result of those difficulties. As I listened to the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, on behalf of the Board of Trade, it seemed to me to be a strange comment upon our curious system of Government that it should fall to the lot of the Board of Trade to reply to a question of this kind.
The issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is a two-fold one. In the first place, it is connected with our defence, and, indeed, with Imperial defence, because it will never again be possible to separate those great Imperial questions into parts as was the case in olden days before the war. In the second place, it is connected with the supply of foodstuffs for this country in time of war. I would go a step further than my noble friend Lord Stanhope and beg the Government to consider this Question quite apart from the necessity which arises in case of war. The figures given by the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, must have given anybody who listened to them cause to think, and to think furiously. Take, for instance, what he said about wheat. I ventured to say in your Lordships' House the other day that we could not only grow enough wheat to feed the whole of this country, but that if we encouraged the introduction here of wheat from the oversea territories of the
544
Empire there would be plenty not only to feed us but to enable us to export to other countries if it became necessary. I have not the figures in my head at the moment, but I believe that the same is true in regard to meat. Of this, however, I am certain, because I have been through the figures repeatedly—that, with the exception of a very few articles, consisting mainly, I think, of rare minerals, the Empire contains within itself everything we need in the way of food or clothes or any other necessity. Therefore, I support the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, in his contention that there ought to be a further examination of this subject from the point of view of Imperial Defence.
May I remind your Lordships of that which I am sure you all recollect quite well and which seems to be germane to the reply to which we have just listened—how, constantly in days before the war, we were told by Ministers and officials of all kinds, irrespective of Party, that we were safe. You will remember the immortal saying of Lord Fisher that we could sleep in our beds because all was well. But the time came when we did not sleep at all and went to our beds with grave anxiety not knowing what the morrow would bring forth. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanhope that that experience ought not to be forgotten, though there is, I think, a strong tendency to forget those days.
I rose, however, to make this suggestion to the Government and to the noble Duke. It seems to me that this is not a question for any Committee except, it may be, the Committee of Imperial Defence to consider as a branch of the question of our defence. So far as that inquiry goes, it is obvious, of course, that it must be of a strictly confidential character. But in October there is going to be a great Imperial Conference which will be attended, I hope and believe, by the Prime Ministers of all our great Dominions and by other Ministers as well. I submit to His Majesty's Government that that will be an eminently suitable occasion on which to raise the Question which has been asked by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, to-day.
I suggest that the discussions at the Imperial Conference should not be confined to the question of defence and food supply in time of war alone, but that a real attempt should be made at last

545
to formulate a policy of availing ourselves of those limitless resources which the devotion and courage of our forefathers and the bounty of nature have placed at our disposal throughout the whole Empire. If we can devise a plan for their efficient use, it will make us absolutely secure against any fear of starvation whether in peace or war. In that way we shall supply our needs from our own Empire and those who will stand by us when the time of difficulty comes, instead of encouraging those to make use of our markets who, the moment war begins, turn upon us and, either as useless neutrals or active enemies, attempt to endanger our very existence. I hope that the noble Duke will be able to agree that this whole question, both in its basic aspect and in its Imperial form, may be fully discussed at the Imperial Conference because I am sure that such discussion can be productive of nothing but good results.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lord Long, in one word, that this subject is already actively engaging the attention of those who are making preparations for the Conference which is to be held. I was not aware that my noble friend was going to raise the point and I can only now give him the assurance that those subjects are amongst those which will be considered.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FINANCIAL RELATIONS WITH IRISH FREE STATE.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if it is now convenient to publish a full statement of the financial relations between Great Britain and Southern Ireland. I have placed this Question on the Paper in order to ascertain whether the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, is now in a position to carry out the promise he made to me on May 10 last when I brought before your Lordships' House the question of the financial relations between this country and the Irish Free State. Upon that occasion I ventured to point out that neither while the legislation which separated Southern Ireland
546
from this country was going through the House nor since the signing of the Treaty, now a year and a half ago, has any statement of any kind whatsoever been made to your Lordships explaining the nature of the financial relations between the Free State and Great Britain.
I pointed out then that great questions arose as between the citizens of the Free State and this country in reference to taxation and also by reason of the setting up of Customs barriers and things of that kind which the Free State have thought it right to do as part of their fiscal policy. I also pointed out that large sums were received during the first year after the Treaty by the Free State for Excise and Customs, and particularly in respect of Excise, which were really paid by the British consumer on this side of the water. I refer to such things as intoxicating liquor, in respect of which the Excise was collected by the Free State. The goods were imported into this country, where, of course, the British consumer really paid the Tax. There were also large quantities of goods and much property handed over by the British Government to the Free State Government, and so far as I know there has never been published any account of any sort or description showing how we stand in relation to these questions.
Another matter, very germane to what I am going to say in a moment, is this. Sums of money, I understand, were handed over in accordance with arrangements made to enable the Free State Government to pay claims for property that had been damaged during the time that the Government were attempting to assert the law with the help of Government troops. Whether or not that is so I am not certain. I can only speak from such information as I see in the newspapers. But that there was a considerable account between the two countries is plain from the fact that it was stated in the House of Commons that at the end of the last financial year the Free State was indebted to this country in respect of financial transactions of that year to the amount of something like £3,000,000. I think the figure was given as something less by the President of the Free State when he was going through his Budget in the Free State Parliament. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that there are large transactions to be gone into.

547
When I brought these matters before your Lordships' House my noble friend, his Grace the Duke of Devonshire, who, being Colonial Secretary, had charge of these matters, said:
"My right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in responding to similar Questions in another place, stated that he is quite prepared to consider the preparation of such a Return"—
That was the Return I asked for of a statement of the financial relations between Great Britain and the Free State of Southern Ireland, showing the effect of recent legislation on the Revenues of both countries, and adjustments that had to be made between them. The noble Duke's statement to me on the former occasion continues—
"although he was not able to do it at the moment. I shall certainly bear in mind what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, and, after consultation with him, I hope we may be able to issue some statement which will clear up the points which are rightly exercising your Lordships."
That was on May 10, and so far as I am concerned I have heard nothing about the matter since.
It is daily becoming more and more essential that these matters should be cleared up, and that the House and the country should be informed how we stand, particularly so having regard to the fact that every day the Free State Government, by virtue of the powers you have given to them, are really confiscating the property of loyal subjects of the Crown ill that country, and are absolutely and entirely refusing to carry out the decrees of the Courts (which were your Courts) made before the time of the Treaty. They are claiming to set those decrees at nought by legislation, which, I am sorry to say, the present Government have sanctioned. They are also preparing at the present moment to pass an Act which practically means confiscation of the land remaining in the hands of Irish landlords. It is not open confiscation, because the Government profess to give something, which is to be paid in Irish bonds. And it does that after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a deficit in a country of three millions of people of something like £29,000,000 on one year's working. We have a right to know how the account stands between the two countries in relation to these matters.
It is also germane to the subject to know the way in which the Irish Free
548
State are treating your subjects in relation to debts incurred while Great Britain was governing the country. Your Lordships, I think, have little idea of the hardships of people who relied upon the decrees that were obtained under British rule. We have brought this matter before the Government on very many occasions, and I am afraid I have to be just as blunt to one Government as to another, because I am not a politician. So far as I can see no progress whatever has been made in the settlement of these matters, and the result is that people are plunged into anxieties, hardships and almost starvation, beyond anything that could have been conceived under British rule.
I saw reported in the newspapers an interesting discussion in the House of Commons at Question time yesterday. This Question was put by a Liberal ex-Minister, Mr. Macpherson, to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. He asked whether, except in Southern Ireland, the Under-Secretary could give any precedent for what is happening there of one Government being allowed to set aside and set at nought the decrees that were obtained under the British Government? The Under-Secretary for the Colonies replied that he had never heard of any precedent for such a thing. But that is what is going on there. I received this morning a letter from a lady for whose truthfulness I can vouch, because I have known her since I was about five years old. She asks this—
"Is there any way I can proceed, or anyone I can apply to, to have a decree awarded to me for compensation in 1920 brought under the list of defended cases?"
It was a sum of £1,500 that she was granted. She brought her case before the Courts which this country had set up there. In the first place it came before a County Court Judge and was defended. She was awarded £1,500. The ratepayers who objected took the matter on appeal to a Judge of the High Court at the Assizes, and that Judge confirmed the decree.
Then she says this, which shows the pathos of the case:—
"My solicitor at the time informed me that I could rely positively on getting this money, and on the security of this I borrowed £200 and received my board and residence since 1920 on the promise of payment when I got this £1,500."

549
Imagine her anxiety. This lady is a widow, an elderly widow, and she has been living from hand to mouth for the last three years on the faith of being paid something which was awarded her by two British Courts. When she asks for it from this country she is told that it is a matter for the Irish Free State Government. When she applies to the Free State Government, as she says in her letter:—
"I have been informed that my claim for compensation comes under the list of undefended ones and the assessors of the Shaw Commission have reduced or intend to reduce the amount of my award to £500. If this was the amount awarded to me in the first instance, it would have been different, and I should not then have been placed in the deplorable position I find myself in to-day. I can scarcely think it possible that the English Government would allow its courts and judges to be so dishonoured as to have their decrees ignored like this, and so unjust as to allow their loyal subjects to suffer such hardships in order to satisfy the rebels."
I want to ask the Government whether they will undertake not to hand over any more money to the Irish Free State Government in any circumstances until the Irish Free State Government honour the decrees of the Courts which existed when the British Government was in power.
Surely we have the right to urge that, whenever they are asked for favours or the transfer of money, the Government should have nothing to do with the Irish Free State in these matters until they see that our own people are righted as regards interests that accrued when the British Government administered Southern Ireland. That is all I ask But I think the time has come when we ought to be fully informed of the whole details of the financial position as between this country and Southern Ireland. We shall then be better able to judge as to whether a proper use has been made of such money as has been advanced and to have the rights of our own subjects in Southern Ireland more clearly defined and respected.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I much regret that I am unable categorically to promise when a statement will be made embodying the information asked for by my noble and learned friend. In the House of Commons a few
550
days ago the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to a Question, said:
"I will have a statement prepared as soon as possible, but it will be some time before figures as regards the collection and distribution of Revenue for the year which has closed can be ascertained."
I can only add that the Government are committed clearly and categorically to the publication of that Return. It will take some time to prepare, but as soon as possible I will see that it is in the possession of your Lordships.
The noble and learned Lord alluded to other points, which I know are pressing with very great hardship on a number of innocent and severely afflicted people. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are exercising every influence they can towards getting a reasonable, prompt and satisfactory solution of these claim". In a debate raised at the end of November last year I categorically stated in this House that we as a Government consider ourselves hound and committed by a statement made by the late Colonial Secretary, Mr. Winston Churchill, in a letter dated, I think, July 25, 1922. To that statement I am prepared to adhere. I know we must give reasonable opportunities to the Free State Government to carry out their obligations. I have no reason to doubt their good faith. We ail know—it must be evident—that they are suffering from the conditions which have prevailed in that country for the past two years; they must be in a position of considerable difficulty. They have informed us that they have hopes of paying arrears, under what was known as the Shaw Commission, to the end of May by the end of this month, and then be able to make payments within a month of the awards being made. I can only repeat that we are bound by the statements made by our predecessors. We are doing everything that lies in our power to expedite these payments, and I trust that by steadily adhering to that policy we shall be able to obtain a satisfactory solution.
LORD CARSON: With your Lordships' permission I should like to ask the noble Duke one question. The lady, whose letter I have quoted, asks me to whom she can apply for payment of the compensation awarded her by two British Courts in 1920. Will the noble Duke tell me to whom she is to apply for payment? She has applied to the Irish Free State

551
Government, and she has also applied over here, and got negative answers in both cases. Is there anybody to whom she can apply who will go into this case?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot answer the question myself, but I can give my noble and learned friend a personal undertaking to look into it and see whether I can get a more satisfactory reply.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, this Return will necessarily take some time, and the matter is so vital that I should like to ask whether the noble Duke can hold out any hope that we shall be able to discuss it before the House adjourns for the Autumn Recess.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My noble friend knows that this is more a Treasury matter than a question for the Colonial Office, but every effort I can personally make shall be made to get the Return prepared in order that your Lordships may be able to discuss the matter before the adjournment.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands on the Paper in my name. There is no opposition to this Order. It has been presented to Parliament and copies have been available for some time for the use of noble Lords.
Moved, That the Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, constituting the South-West Midlands Electricity District and establishing
552
the South-West Midlands Advisory Joint Committee, which was presented on the 15th day of May, 1923, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper of your Lordships' House for to-morrow, and therefore, if it meet the convenience of the House, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until Thursday.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of June 14.]
BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL.
RUGBY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL.
Committed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of four Members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' message of the 7th instant to consider the said Bill: Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Thursday next, at twelve o'clock.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (SWANSEA HARBOUR VESTING) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
HOYLAKE AND WEST KIRBY GAS AND WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the
Broadstairs and St. Peters Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the Additional Provision:
Read, and agreed to.

WEST BROM WICH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.

RAWMARCH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
The LORD SPEAKER The LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Port of London (Dock Charges).
Barnsley Corporation.
Birkenhead Corporation.
Rugby Urban District Council.
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Marriages Provisional Order.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
AIRDRIE, COATBRIDGE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Airdrie, Coatbridge and District Water Board—Was presented by Viscount Novar; read 1a, to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee.