Sitting of 10 April 1924

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

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name. This is the usual Motion, designed for the convenience of the business of your Lordships' House, which it is your practice to pass at this time of year.
Moved, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 17th of June next:
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 17th June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these Orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up From the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 6th of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Thursday the 8th of May next:
That this House will not receive any Report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Thursday the 8th of May next.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That the said Orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall.

AUXILIARY AIR FORCE AND AIR FORCE RESERVE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Thomson.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord on the way he has passed through your Lordships' House this most important and urgent measure for the safety and defence of this country, and I only hope that, when it goes to another place, it will pass with equal facility and case. It has the most earnest support of all my noble friends on this side of the House.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARBITRATION CLAUSES (PROTOCOL) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC-HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Debate resumed (according to Order) on an Amendment, moved by Lord Lamington on Tuesday last, to Clause 5.
Clause 5:
Children on licensed premises.
5. The prohibition of the presence of children in the bar of licensed premises contained in any Act for the time being in force shall apply to premises to which an "improved public-house" certificate is attached, unless the licensing justices deem it desirable, owing to the special circumstances of any premises, that a specified part of such premises should be open to children."
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 3, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("in the bar of") and insert "upon"—(Lord Lamington.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved to leave out Clause 5. The noble Lord said: My Lords. I rise to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice, to omit Clause 5. I hope your Lordships will not think it inconvenient if this subject is raised again at this late stage. I take this course because I saw signs on the Report stage that a good many members of your Lordships' House would have been glad to have an opportunity of giving a decision on this question, and I can assure my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill that I raise this point quite as much in the interests of his Bill as in any other interests. In truth, I am sincerely friendly to the principle of his Bill, which, I believe, is the only deliverance for which we can hope from the disastrous conditions which, I will not say, are created, but seem to be perpetually continued, through the intemperance of the temperance people and the zeal of zealots who will not allow us to have any remedy except pure prohibition.
First, as to the form of this clause. Your Lordships will observe that, in order to create a dispensing power, it begins by reciting a provision of the Statute Law which everybody knows to exist, and which requires no re-enactment. Then, in a subordinate sentence, beginning with the word "unless," it proceeds to create a dispensing power in the justices which many people will think highly objectionable and one which I do not hesitate to say would, on the arrival of the Bill in another place, constitute a formidable obstacle to its progress and acceptance there and. in fact, might be fatal to it.
Now, as to the substance. Your Lordships may remember that in 1908 a Statute entitled The Children Act, 1908, was passed into law which said:
"The holder of the licence of any licensed premises shall not allow a child to be at any time in the bar of the licensed premises, except during the hours of closing."
That clause goes on to define what is meant by a bar. This definition is, I think, of importance because it ought to get rid of any idea that might be raised that any harmless bit of shelf on which

229
you might put glasses to supply drinks to people who are having the most innocent kind of meals, might be construed to mean a bar. The words are these:
"any open drinking bar or any part of the premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor."
That is the definition, and your Lordships will observe that it means some place where drink is actually sold and consumed on the spot. It is, in fact, an institution with which we are only too familiar, and which, no doubt, has to go on being provided for the convenience of persons who do want to get intoxicating liquor.
The Legislature has said that in such places a child should not be allowed to enter, and I think it is not desirable to create a dispensing power to cause suspicion and that it is better to leave this prohibition in force. The main contention which I wish to submit to your Lordships is that if you do leave the prohibition in force the inevitable effect will be that efforts to get certificates for improved public-houses, which I hope will often be made, will be made by persons who are prepared to separate entirely structurally and otherwise the bar from what I may call the improved part of the public-house, and there never can arise any question whether a child can or cannot be admitted to the bar in contravention of the present enactments on the subject. Therefore, in the interests of this Bill and with the greatest possible friendliness towards the principle which my noble friend wishes to advocate, I move my Amendment, which aims at the removal of a clause which. I think, can be of no use to my noble friend or to his purpose.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I recognise the friendly intentions of my noble friend. Like him, I have no desire to see children allowed to be frequenters of the bars of public-houses, but I am advised that it is technically very difficult in practice to distinguish what is really a bar and that, therefore, it is desirable to give some dispensing power to the magistrates. In view of the general practice, I cannot believe for a moment
230
that there will be any abuse of this power, or that under this clause children will be allowed to frequent a bar. That was the reason for the insertion of this clause. In some cases where you have an improved public-house it might be difficult to differentiate what is known as the common bar and what would be the bar under these new conditions. Therefore, I am advised by those who know better than I do that it is desirable to have this clause in the Bill. It has been slightly altered from its original drafting at the instance of the noble Viscount, Lord Cave, who thought that the present wording was better. I should be very glad indeed if my noble friend would withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot hold myself responsible for the wording of the clause, because the changes which I desired to see made were not made, but if my noble friend holds to his clause I shall vote with him. I want to say how I understand the clause. I think many of us feel very much that under the present law you sometimes see outside a house of refreshment a line of young children left there under somebody's care, or perhaps under the care of their mothers, waiting while the father, and perhaps the father and the mother go inside. It is a hateful thing to see, but if you have a really improved public-house you need not insist upon that kind of thing.
I have said it so often on this Bill that I hesitate to repeat it, but if this Bill is worth anything at all it will lead to the starting in this country of houses of quite a different character from the ordinary public-house which we are accustomed to see. I tried to persuade the House that these improved houses could be opened without bars, but I was told by the most rev. Primate that I was wrong—although I had seen hundreds of places abroad without bars—and that such a thing was contrary to the British constitution. I believe, however, that in these improved public-houses the bars will be of quite a different character from those which we see in other places. It is true, as the mover of the Amendment said, that any room, however large, where intoxicating liquors are consumed, and which is mainly used for that purpose, is a bar, even although the actual serving bar is right at the end of the

231
room, and there is a large space where people are consuming their refreshments at tables in a decent way.
If this clause goes out no child can be admitted to a room of that kind, and, as I understand it, the whole purpose of the clause is that if the magistrates, when they grant their certificate, are satisfied that some room in the house, although it contains a bar at the end, is yet not unsuitable for allowing men with their wives and children to come to it, they shall have a dispensing power and may allow that to be done. I trust the justices, and I think that in most cases they will exercise their dispensing power reasonably, and I am desirous of giving them that dispensing power. If the clause is struck out, there is very little left in the Bill. People may be granted this special certificate, but it brings no privileges except the dancing and music licence. It is not worth having the Bill for that purpose only. If you strike out this clause, which seeks to give effect to the improvement which I desire to see, I cease to have much interest in the Bill as a whole.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I hope that Lord Lamington will stick to his clause. Lord Stuart of Worthy said that this particular power, which the. licensing justices were to have, was not right. I must point out to the noble Lord that in my opinion the licensing justices know the local conditions better than anybody else, and that is one of the reasons why I trust that Lord Lamington will maintain the clause in the Bill. I have some knowledge of a public-house which has been specially built, not solely for the purpose of selling liquor but for the provision of refreshments also, where the bar is not exactly separated by a complete partition from, but adjoins, the place where refreshments can be sold. Children can go in there, can go to the counter and purchase provisions, and anything they like. The bar is next door. To say that no child shall be allowed to go into that place because there happens to be a bar within view, with half a partition dividing it off, seems to me to be carrying the matter a little too far.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, expressed the hope that many houses of this sort, which are an improvement on the present public-houses will be
232
built, and I hope so, too. You will be astonished to hear that the house I speak of is in Ireland, and a curious result of that house being built, where you can get every sort of refreshment, is this. There is another public-house at the other end of the village, which sold excessively bad liquor, but when it found that its customers, who used to get drunk on whisky and other deleterious stuff, went to the public-house specially built on this improved plan, it had to get good liquor, and the drunkenness in the village, such as it was, has almost ceased. That is my experience of a public-house built under the conditions that Lord Lamington wishes to introduce under this Bill. I think that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, has put the matter quite clearly. If this clause is cut out of the Bill, the Bill is really not worth the paper it is written on.
On Question, Amendment negatived:
LORD LAMINGTON: I beg to move that this Bill be now passed.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. (Lord Lamington.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, this is a Bill which, word for word, is the same as the Bill that passed your Lordships' House, last year. It was amended on the Third Heading, and it did not go further because there was presumably no time to carry on the discussion in another place. I want to make that quite clear, because I see that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, has put down a Motion to reject the Bill on Second Reading. I did not feel sure, when I saw his Motion, whether he was aware that it was precisely the same Bill as that which passed this House last Session.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am quite aware of it.
LORD PARMOORThe Ministry of Agriculture is required, by Section 2 of

233
the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, to collect and prepare statistics relating to agriculture, but that Statute contains no provision as to the method in which those statistics are to be collected, although, as a matter of fact, on a. voluntary basis, a very large number of annual Returns were made. These Returns were subsequently made compulsory by the Corn Production Act. 1917, but with the repeal of that Act the compulsory powers disappeared. The value of those Returns it is really impossible to question. They are the basis, practically, of all discussions which we have on agricultural policy and afford the only reliable evidence we have as regards the dimensions of the industry and the position in which it stands at any given time. They are wanted, not only as regards crops and live stock, but also as regards the number of men employed. As a statistician, the noble Lord will appreciate that if these statistics can be obtained, without putting any undue obligation on farmers, or other persons interested in the industry, it is very important that we should have them, if we are to get a proper picture of the conditions in the agricultural industry.
There is no doubt that the very large majority recognise the importance of giving this information, and giving it in accurate form, but a minority, no doubt, dislike having to give statistics and resent the obligation. The references which I am going to give are really references to resolutions passed in relation to the Bill of last Session, but it has not, been thought necessary to get any further intimation as regards the opinion obtained at that time, nor is it bought that there is any change of opinion. At a conference of the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales which has been particularly interested in this question, and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, which was held in 1922, the following resolution, which was passed by the General Purposes Committee of the first of these unions, was adopted by the second:
"That this Council of the National Farmers' Union, recognising the great value of accurate statistical and economic information to the industry in all its branches, informs the Minister of Agriculture that it would welcome the introduction of a measure in Parliament to put upon a sound basis the annual agricultural statistics from England and Wales, provided
234
that such a. measure contained due guarantees that the information so given by individual fanners would not be disclosed, or used for any other purpose than the compilation of those Returns."
I may say at once that the Bill contains a provision that no such disclosure shall be made, and any one who makes such a disclosure is rendered liable to a heavy penalty. Indeed, every precaution is taken that there shall be no such disclosure, and, as I am informed, the Ministry of Agriculture finds that the provision which they have put into the Bill to prevent any disclosure of that sort is satisfactory to the farmers.
The proposal to make the Returns compulsory was also submitted to the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Council of Agriculture, and it received the approval of both those bodies. The only information which can be obtained at the present time in any reliable form about the employment of men in agriculture is merely from the Census Returns which, of course, can only be obtained every ten years. Even then there is a good deal of doubt as to their accuracy. The noble Lord will recognise, I think, that if statistics of this kind are to be kept up-to-date a period of ten years makes the last statistics of no great value. In some respects the figures to be obtained in this way are of greater accuracy than those which can be sot from the occupation returns in the Census because the form in which the Return is made is more precise, and therefore, more accurate, than any one of the Census columns which gives the information. Now, in addition, if they are taken yearly, or even every two years—I think the proposal is that they shall be taken yearly—they would give most valuable indications, in the view of the, Ministry, of the employment position, and they would be available, promptly.
I do not think I reed say much more in regard to the general desirability of obtaining these statistics, but I would like to add a word or two in regard to the provisions in the Bill in order to show how the wishes of the farmers and of all those interested in supplying these statistics have been safeguarded. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 1 of the Bill, under which these Returns are required, he will see that it says that the occupier of any agricultural land in England or Wales, of the person having

235
the management of any such land, may be required to make within such time as is specified in the notice, and in such form and to such person as the Minister may prescribe by Regulations, a Return in writing for that year. I pause there for a moment because there is a provision that the method of making these Returns shall be prescribed by Regulations which have, of course, to be laid on the Table of the House and possess the ordinary safeguard of Parliamentary control. I know that the noble Lord does not think that is effective, and in some senses I should agree with him; but it really is a sufficient safeguard against Regulations of this kind being put in any oppressive form.
What the clause asks for is a Return in writing for that year in respect to the cultivation of the land, or the crops or live stock thereon, or the persons employed on the land, and if the occupier is the owner he is to make a statement to that effect. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 is specifically inserted to meet the requirement of the National Union of Farmers to which I have referred. It was put in to meet a suggestion which they made, and it is in these terms:
"No individual return or part of a return made under this Act shall be used, published, or disclosed except for the purposes of the preparation and publication by the Minister of agricultural statistics or of a prosecution under this Act."
That is to prevent the disclosure for other than the specified purposes of the information which has been obtained.
Then, if the noble Lord will turn to subsection (4), he will see that
"Any person who uses, publishes, or discloses contrary to the provisions of this Act any individual return or part of a return shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
Subsection (7) carries out in the ordinary form in Rills of this kind the provisions as to Regulations. It says—
"Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat praying that the regulation may be annulled His Majesty in Council may annul the peculation, and it shall thenceforth be void …"
That, of course, puts the protection in the best form, because it gives the power of annulment really to a vote in either
236
House. I mean that this House would have full control, just as much as the other House would have it, in such a matter.
The Bill is applied to Scotland by Clause 2 with the ordinary alterations which have to be made in applying to that country a Bill of this sort which is primarily an English Rill. Those alterations make it conform with Scottish names and procedure. That is the Bill. As I say, it was passed in absolutely the same terms by your Lordships' House last Session, and I hope that it may be passed again. The noble Lord will find in the provision as to Regulations being laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, a sufficient protection against anything in the nature of an oppressive requirement. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said My Lords, the noble Lord, the Lord President, began his speech by asking me whether I was aware that this Bill, in the identical form in which it now appears, passed your Lordships' House last year. Unfortunately, I was well aware of that, and I remember being much astonished at the time at the Bill slipping through in the way in which it did. I would, however, point out to your Lordships that, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill passed your Lordships' House last year and that the Government had the whole time of the other House, it made no further progress. The Government did not attempt to press it.
Whether that was owing to any action of mine or not I cannot say; but as soon as I was aware last year of what your Lordships had done, I took it upon myself to interview Sir Robert Sanders, then Minister of Agriculture, and to point out to him that that was a very bad time to put further burdens upon the farmer. I pointed out how very oppressive a Bill of this sort, though seemingly very innocent, might become. Sir Robert Sanders is a friend of mine. He does not speak very much. He is a quiet, reserved kind of man, and he merely listened to what I had to say and said nothing. But we heard no more of the Bill in another

237
place. Whether that was owing to my action or whether it was owing to the innate badness of the Bill, I cannot say; but the fact remains that, though the Government could have put that Bill forward last year, they did not do it.
Unfortunately, I am only a poor man. I do not possess agents, sub-agents, bailiffs and people of that sort. I have to fill up all these forms myself and, therefore, I know the trouble which arises in regard to filling them up. If your Lordships will permit me I will place before you the history of this Bill as I know it. I call it a Departmental Bill. Your Lordships are aware, no doubt, that there are in the various Departments a number of Bills in pigeon holes which are meant for the glorification of the Departments concerned. They have nothing whatever to do with the welfare of the country, or the good of the community. They are, as I say, for the glorification of the Departments. If a Minister is in the hands of his chief officials, it is said to him "Look here, just bring this Bill forward. It will do the Department some good, and it will not do any harm, and you will go down to posterity as the Minister who introduced this particular Bill."
The history of this Bill beyond that, so far as I know it—and I have filled up these forms for a considerable number of years—is as follows. Until the Corn Production Act came into force the form was always voluntary. When the Corn Production Act finished it became voluntary again. I never heard a single complaint about the forms not having been properly filled up. So far as I know, the information was given by the great majority of farmers, and I never heard a Department or anybody make any complaint that the information was not forthcoming. About three or four years ago—I do not bind myself to the particular period—a new demand appeared in the old Returns. You were required to state how many men you employed. I refused to fill up that particular Return. I had a conversation with a friend of mine, and also with members of another place, and we all agreed that we would not fill up that Return. We did not know what it was wanted for, and we did not see what business it was of the Board of Agriculture to ask us how many men we employed. That seemed to us to be our own business, and not the business of any one else. At that
238
moment I happened to know that there was a movement among friends of the noble Lord—it was not spoken of very openly—to compel farmers to employ a certain number of men for so many acres, and we thought, aid I still think, that this provision was put in to obtain information on which to found a Bill to make it compulsory for farmers to employ a certain number of men for every fifty acres, or whatever the number of acres might be. It was not until we refused to fill up this particular form that we heard of any proposal to make the filling up of forms compulsory.
My belief is that that particular Department did what, I am sorry to say. all Government Departments have got it into their heads to to during the last ten years, and that is tried to make the subject do something which does away with his freedom, and if the subject revolts and objects to submit to it they bring in a Bill to make it compulsory. That I believe to be the whole foundation of this particular Bill, it may be said, if that is so, there is no reason why the Second Heading should not pass now, because in Committee you can cut out that particular clause. But there are other features to which I object, for reasons arising out of my own personal experience. Clause I says that a person shall be required to make a Return within such time as is specified in the notice, and in such form and to such person as the Minister may prescribe by Regulations made under this Act. Under that clause I shall have to fill up a form. I may be endeavouring to do my duty in this House—I endeavoured to do it in the other House—and it takes some little, time to fill up these forms. I do not know whether many of your Lordships fill them up yourselves, but if you do you will know that you have to state the exact acreage, down even to fractions of an acre. You have to state the exact acreage in roots, in seeds, in oats, in wheat, in barley, how much of your grass land you are going to mow, how much of it you are going to feed, how many ewes you have, how many lambs, how many cows, whether they are in milk or whether they are dry, how many heifers, if they are maiden heifers, how many horses you have, how many of them are breeding horses, with all their ages, etc. It takes a great deal of time to fill up all these forms.
I filled up one of these forms at a time when I was farming 950 acres. It took me a long time to fill it up, and I did not keep a copy. The following year I was told that there was a variation in my form as compared with the previous one. I forget whether the variation was two acres or three acres, but I was asked what had I done with those two or three acres; had I let them or had I sold them, or what had I done with them? I replied stating that I expected I had made a mistake in addition, and said no more. As it was not compulsory nothing happened. But if this is going to be compulsory I might be fined £20, and be told to fill up another form. I contend that that is unreasonable at this moment with all the troubles that agriculturists have, and with all the burdens which the farmer has to bear. It is not right that the farmer, who for many years has done his best to send in correctly these forms, should in future be put under the control of an official, and if he does not fill in the forms exactly as that official tells him under the Regulations which may be made, that he should be fined. The protection is perfectly illusory, because no one knows when the Regulations appear. I shall try to find them out, but I do not know whether I shall find out correctly. If you are going to put farmers at the mercy of these officials, and compel them to make Returns even to a fraction of an acre, you will be doing something which. I submit, you ought not to do.
I have never filled in fractions of an acre. Let me give your Lordships an instance of the difficulty. All my arable land is in big fields. I have one field of 63 acres. I grow in that field a certain amount of wheat, a certain amount of oats, and seeds, and roots. I know, roughly speaking, what portion in that field is devoted to each particular crop, but I have never had that portion of field measured. I expect that is how I came to make a mistake of two or three acres. I rode round with my foreman. I said "There are 18 acres, and here are 12 acres." I put the figures down roughly, and that is, I suppose, how I got an acre or two wrong. But if we are to be put under control of a Department there is nothing that an official, if you offend him, may not tell you to do. You may enter into correspondence which will last for weeks or months. You will have to argue with him when you ought to be doing
240
your duty in looking after your farm, or in being here. All that time you will have to waste arguing whether or not you have filled up the form to within a few acres. Moreover, you have to do it within a specified time. I have bad a great many things to do, and I have been sometimes late in filling up forms. Under this new Bill I should be liable to be fined for being late. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will reject this Bill, for in my opinion it is utterly incapable of amendment in Committee.
Before I sit down—and I apologise for being so long, but I feel obliged to put the case as it presents itself to me—I would like to point out this. The burden of taxation at the present moment is very heavy upon everybody, and one of the reasons for this is the immense increase in cost resulting from the making of so many Returns. I have taken out the cost of the Ministry of Agriculture in the year 1913, and the cost this year. In 1913 the cost was about £500,000, while in the present year it is £1,500,000. It is three times as much, and that is largely owing to all these forms, and to all these officials who are required to see that we do this and do that. I may perhaps be unfortunate, but I do not think I have received any greater assistance from the Ministry of Agriculture this year than I had from it in 1913, yet as a taxpayer I have to pay three times as much as I did in 1913. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, the House has listened with considerable surprise to the speech of the noble Lord who wishes to reject the Bill. What is the Bill? It is a Bill to facilitate the preparation of agricultural statistics. We all know how necessary that is. There are certain provisions for fining people who refuge to comply with what is required. The noble Lord made a most interesting speech. He has told us in touching tones that he farms 950 acres himself. I must remind your Lordships that this Bill was introduced in the last Parliament by the Earl of Ancaster, who is the son of a man who knew a great deal about agriculture, and the noble Earl

241
himself farms, not 900 acres but between 7,000 and 8,000 acres. He brought in this Bill lost year, and now we are told it is to be rejected because of the cost to the Ministry of Agriculture! What on earth has that to do with the Bill? We are told that it is a glorification of the Department. What on earth has that to do with the Bill?
The noble Lord also goes back to his old cry of interference with freedom. It is nothing of the sort. This is simply a Bill to facilitate Returns with regard to agricultural produce and land. The noble Lord says it is incapable of amendment. I dare say it is no amendment is necessary. The only Amendment introduced by the noble Earl last year was, after "Minister," to insert the words "of Agriculture and Fisheries." The noble Lord may be an adept at splitting hairs, but I never remember hearing a speech moving the rejection of a Bill which had so little to do with the Bill itself. In my opinion this is a good and a necessary Bill and I hope the Government will be supported on the Second Reading.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, if my noble friend goes to a Division against the Bill my friends and I will feel bound to support the measure. It was introduced, as your Lordships know, by the late Government last year. It was passed by this House through all its stages, and that being so I cannot conceive that your Lordships would desire to refuse it a Second Reading. It is true it was not proceeded with in the other House but, as my noble friend knows, there were other reasons which prevented the progress of this Bill and other Bills during the course of last year. I am afraid I cannot confirm his conjecture that it was owing to his conversation with the Minister of Agriculture that the Bill was not proceeded with. It was our view, and it is our view still, that these figures, so obtained, would be very useful not only to the Department but to all those in either House, and to those concerned with the welfare of agriculture, who desire to help the industry and give it assistance in its different functions. It may be that the Bill is capable of being amended in Committee, but that is a matter which we can consider later. I hope the House will not reject the Bill on Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of this Bill speaks of it as though it was a Departmental measure for the purpose of extorting in some way information from individual farmers for a sinister purpose. There is no sinister purpose behind the Bill. The nation is engaged just now in a great effort to improve the condition of agriculture in this country. It is the most important industry in the country, and the purpose of the Bill is simply to get the information which is necessary for that purpose. You cannot work out a true solution for the condition of agriculture unless you know exactly what you are dealing with. We have not that information. It is to be had in the case of many industries, but in the case of agriculture we have left the matter to unscientific investigation, with the result that it is extremely difficult for any Minister to get the facts he requires before any progress can be hoped for The Bill is not for the glorification of any Department, but in order to get the necessary facts without which no advance can be made.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I really think that the Bill of a year ago slipped through this House without your Lordships knowing much about it. There is a great deal of force in what has been said by Lord Banbury of Southam, and if this Bill is passed in its present form it will be very oppressive in many cases. The noble Marquess's argument in favour of the Bill was that because it was introduced by the Earl of Ancaster, who farms between 7,000 and 8,000 acres, therefore it must be perfect. Let me inform him that I farm about 15,000 acres and I think the Bill is most imperfect. However, that has really very little to do with the question. At the present time Returns have been made for many years, and I do not think there is any great necessity for any drastic change. We all know what these Returns are. Every year they get more and more oppressive, and it is a great nuisance to farmers to be perpetually pestered for Returns from various Departments. There is a strong feeling amongst many people against this Bill. As the years

243
go by these Returns become larger and more complicated, and the more complicated the questions are obviously the more likely it is that there may be inaccurate answers and misleading Returns.
I quite agree that information is necessary for agricultural operations, but I do not think you will get information by this Rill certainly not unless it is amended. I shall have to move Amendments in Committee in order to make the rules less stringent. The Rill would not carry out its purpose. In fact, it would rather put people against making any Returns at all. At the present time most people try their best to give accurate Returns, but if you are going to have these complicated questions it means that it will be more difficult to give accurate answers, and any one who makes a wrong answer is liable to serious penalties. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to go to a Division, but if the Second Reading is carried I shall move Amendments when we come to the Committee stage.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to point out, in reference to what the noble Lord and the noble Duke have said, that at the present time these Returns are made, and if they can point out that the statistics required are of an oppressive character, or could be given in a better form, or that they could be answered without so much trouble, that is exactly the kind of information which the Ministry of Agriculture, desire to have. That is the information which we might obtain at subsequent discussions if this Bill had a Second Reading. It is a good thing that the form of those Returns should be carefully considered, and any views put forward by noble Lords would receive every consideration from the Ministry of Agriculture. I hope that the noble Lord will not think it necessary to divide on the Second Reading. By so doing he would surely be seeking to deprive this House of the opportunity, which I understand him to desire, of attempting to put these Regulations into a bettor form. I would thank him for any information which he can give for the assistance of the Ministry of Agriculture.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, goes to a
244
Division, I shall certainly support him, for these reasons. I agree perfectly with the principle of the Bill, which has been carried out in my country with great success. The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, in explaining the Bill, explained it, as he always does, with great lucidity, but I noticed that he left out the real sting of the Bill—namely, the penalty clause. That is the clause that makes it a very disagreeable Bill. Let me give my experience of this system in another country. These returns were asked for by our Board of Agriculture, and we looked upon them with great suspicion. I asked what we call a strong farmer, a very rich man—much richer than I am— what he thought of them. He said he thought they would be very useful, and he advised me to fill them up. I then went to another man who was a real old Tory, a greater Tory. I think, than my noble friend who has opposed the Bill. He said that he did not believe in the Government, and ho called them all sorts of names. I gave him the paper, and asked him to read it and tell me what he thought. He said: "I think that is about the best thing they ever did." I then asked him if he were going to fill up the form, as an old farmer who did not agree with the present Government. He said that he was.
But these forms were altogether voluntary. They were a great success under the old régime. The Constabulary used to collect them, and now they are sent round to everybody and are properly filled up, and, as our country is almost purely an agricultural country, they are most useful. I agree with every word that Lord Parmoor said as to statistics being essential, but you will get these statistics much more easily if you obtain them voluntarily, and persuade the farmers that they are essential, instead of putting in your Bill a provision that they will be fined £20 if they do not fill forms up properly. That is my opinion, and if the noble Lord goes to a Division I shall vote with him.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Clainvilliam, L. (E. Clon-william..)

Lucan, E.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Russell, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Sutherland, D.

Darling, L.

Cave, V.

Meston, L.

Bath, M.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Chelmsford, V.

Olivier, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Cobham, V.

Pentland, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Beauchamp, E.

Stanmore, L. (E. Galloway)

Clarendon, E.

Arnold, L.

Thomson, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumherland, D.

Hood, V.

Hawke, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)

Hindlip, L. [Teller.]

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

Lawrence, L.

Mayo, E.

Raglan, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Sumner, L.

Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

LANARKSHIRE EDUCATION AUTHORITY.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Scottish Education Department has had an application from the Lanarkshire Education Authority to spend about. £70,000 on buildings in Glasgow, if so, whether in lieu of this large expenditure they would try to make an arrangement with the County Council for accommodation, and whether this is not evidence of the heavy cost of having two rating and spending authorities in the same area.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, on behalf of Lord Lamington, I beg to ask the Question which he has placed on the Paper.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, it is my duty to act as mouthpiece for the Scottish Education Department in answering this Question. The Question is in three parts. The first is whether the Scottish Education Department has received an application from the Lanarkshire Education Authority to spend
246
£70,000 on buildings in Glasgow. There has been, I understand, such an application, and it is under consideration. The Department are making further inquiries, and will be ready later on to answer a question on the subject. With regard to the second part of the Question, whether in lieu of this large" expenditure they will try to make an arrangement with the County Council for accommodation, the answer is that it is not part of the function of the Education Department to make any arrangement of that sort. It is within the competence of the education authority to do so, but whether they will do so or not I suppose the Department is hardly in a position to say. With regard to the last part of the Question, the Department do not consider that it is their business to express an opinion upon the subject, because it is questions rather of policy than of administration which come before them. It is to be remembered, however, that when the Education Act was before the House it was considered by Parliament that opinion in Scotland was strongly in favour of having a separate Education Department and not doing anything in the direction of the combination of the two authorities which is referred to in the Question. That being so, I am not authorised to give any answer of a positive kind to that part of the Question.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I must apologise for not having been present when my Question was put by my noble friend. With respect to what the noble Lord has just said, I am not aware of

247
Scottish opinion being strongly in favour of a separate body. My experience is to the other effect, and that the people of Scotland are so aghast at the enormous increase in the cost of education that the great bulk of the people, and certainly the great bulk of the ratepayers, would be glad to see some change and some system of economy introduced. I should have thought that this was a splendid opportunity for the Government to see their desire for nationalisation realised. We are told that an improved system of education is absolutely essential for the welfare of the country; therefore, it should not be made a charge to any great extent upon the pockets of a very limited number of people—namely, those interested in the land. I think this is a fine opportunity for the present Government to put into force one of their principal articles of faith.

ATTACK ON BRITISH TROOPS AT QUEENSTOWN.
LORD. BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether any communications have passed between them and the Government of the Irish Free State as to the probability of arresting the murderers of the British soldiers at Queenstown last month. On the 21st of last month a party of 21 soldiers landed at Queenstown, somewhere about the middle of the day. At that moment a motor car containing four men in the uniform of the Irish Free State, with two machine guns, opened fire upon these unfortunate men, killing two or three and wounding others. The Government sent a message of sympathy to the Free State and the Free State offered a reward of £10,000, but, so far as I know, up to the present no persons have been arrested.
More than three weeks have elapsed since the crime. The crime took place in broad daylight, in a public place, and it is absurd to say that there are not many people who know perfectly well who the people in this motor car were and what became of them. I bring this Question forward because I am very much afraid that unless some Question of this sort is put the matter will be allowed to drop and the whole country will forget what has taken place. At the
248
present moment—I do not know why—memories are very short, and unless people are reminded of what has taken place the tendency is to let the matter slide and to forget all about it. Now, we have had unfortunate experience with regard to the arrest of people in the Southern parts of Ireland. There were two or three—I forget the exact number—officers and one private who were sent on an expedition during the truce. They were captured, and nobody knew anything about their fate, and nothing was ever found of them. In another place Questions were asked, but nothing happened, and only about a month or two months ago the bodies of these men were found in a disused pit.
I do not know whether any communications have passed between the two Governments, but I put it to your Lordships whether it is conceivable that, in the days of Lord Palmerston, for instance, such an outrage would have been allowed to pass without some notice being taken of it. I hope that His Majesty's Government will inform your Lordships' House what communications have passed, and that if the murderers have not been arrested they themselves will take such action as will ensure their arrest. It may be said that it is difficult to get evidence—probably it will be—but it must be remembered that in the Irish Free State there are at present thousands of people in prison without trial. I do not recommend that course, but the Irish Free State have done it where it is to their interest to do it, and where it has once been done it can be done again. Possibly, if that course were taken, evidence would be forthcoming.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, certain communications which have passed between the Government of the Irish Free State and His Majesty's Government, in which the Free State Government expressed their abhorrence of this outbreak of savagery and their determination to use every effort to bring the murderers to justice, have already been published and I need not further refer to them. In addition, as I think your Lordships are aware, the Free State Government have expressed their intention of paying compensation to the relatives of the murdered man—one man was murdered; the others were

249
injured—and to those who were injured; and I am happy to inform your Lordships that the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, under the Chairmanship of Sir Alexander Wood-Renton, is to-day sitting in London to hear the first of these cases.
In addition to these public communications, my right hon. friend the Secretary of State has kept in constant touch on this subject both with the President of the Executive Council and with the High Commissioner in this country, who have shown themselves anxious to keep him fully informed as to the steps which are being taken and as to the chances of success. Your Lordships will readily understand that in a matter of this kind the less said on either of those points before the criminals have been captured the better. But I am able to say that the Government of the Irish Free State are by no means without hope that, sooner or later, they will be able to bring the criminals, or some of them, to justice.
His Majesty's Government sincerely trust that these hopes will be justified and they are fully satisfied that in very difficult circumstances the Free State police and Army are doing their best. Ireland, from its national features, is a country in which it is far more easy for criminals to evade capture than in England, as we know from our own experience prior to the Treaty. I would remind your Lordships that the Free State Government have offered a reward of £10,000 for information leading to the capture of the criminals—a reward the magnitude of which I believe to be almost. if not quite, without precedent. The fact that this reward has not yet been claimed is significant of the difficulties with which any Irish Government has to deal.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: My Lords, I think my noble friend behind me is entirely justified in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House because, as he observed, there is a tendency in these days, when horrors seem to follow each other with increasing frequency, for the public memory to grow dim, and things which would have startled and bewildered in earlier times are allowed to pass by in a few weeks almost without notice. Therefore, I think my noble friend was quite right in asking for the information which
250
he has sought. It is indeed, even in Ireland, where so many tragedies have happened, a most deplorable thing that this sort of incident, the shooting down of innocent British soldiers, even if only one was actually killed, in the light of day with scores, perhaps hundreds, of people looking on, should occur.
My noble friend behind me asked what steps were being taken to bring the criminals to justice, and in reply to that the Government, through the mouth of the noble Lord, have given us two pieces of information. He says, in the first place, that compensation is being offered, and is being arbitrated upon, to those who have lost or suffered. Of course, that is quite right so far as it goes, but what my noble friend really desires is not so much, or not only, compensation to the families of the victims as the arrest of the culpable parties. That is the gist of the whole matter, and neither the offer of £10,000, unprecedented as we are told it is, nor the grant of compensation on a most liberal scale will in the least satisfy those who want the criminals to be arrested and brought to the bar of justice.
Therefore, on the second point to which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, alluded, I should like to join my noble friend in pressing His Majesty's Government to continue in close communication with the Irish Government on the subject. My noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam seemed to suggest that it was possible, for His Majesty's Government to make efforts to arrest the criminals. Of course, that is beyond their power, but everything that it is their power to do by pressure—of course, friendly pressure, but pressure of the strongest character upon the Irish Free State, and everything that the Irish Free State can do, and I venture to say ought to do, in this matter, ought to be encouraged, and if no information is forthcoming within a very short time I hope that my noble friend when we meet again will renew the Question which, as it appears to me. he quite legitimately put to-day.

STANDING ORDER NO. XXI.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the working of Standing Order No. XXI. Your Lordships will recollect that Lord Newton

251
called attention to the working of Standing Order No. XXI, and it was then stated that, so far as the Government were concerned, it was a matter to be left entirely to the judgment of the House. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said he thought it might be desirable that a Select Committee should be appointed to deal with this matter. The Motion that stands in my name is that it is desirable that a Select Committee should be appointed for this purpose. There are down on the Paper the names of seven noble Lords, all of whom, I think, are willing to serve. I want to add another name, that of Lord Stanmore. I am told that I ought to mention his name at this stage. I do not think there would be any difficulty in there being eight members of the Committee, because it is the ordinary practice of your Lordships' House, as regards Private Bill Committees, to have four members.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Always five in the Lords.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, I was wrong; live. I am obliged to the noble Viscount. But I do not think there would be any difficulty in applying that principle, and I may point out that we should have the advantage of the Chairmanship of the Lord Chairman. The reason why I have suggested the name of Lord Stanmore is that I entered into certain negotiations with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I suggested that there should be two representatives of each of the three Parties in this House. Subsequently, it was thought that seven would be better than eight, but, nevertheless, I hope your Lordships will accept what I propose, and add the name of Lord Stanmore to the number, making a Committee consisting of eight members. It would, I think, be unwise to refer to the individual members, nor is it necessary in a case of this sort.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into the provisions and working of Standing Order No. XXI, and that the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:—

L. President (L. Parmoor).

M. Salisbury.

M. Curzon of Kedleston.

252

E. Beauchamp.

E. Russell.

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore).

L. Newton.

L. Stanmore.

—(Lord Parmoor.)

THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, as I was partially involved in these discussions, perhaps I may say a word. I think that in my remarks suggesting the formation of this Committee I indicated that seven would probably be a proper number, and that is the number which seems to me to be most in consonance with our ordinary procedure and with convenience. At a subsequent stage I entered into communication with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack about the matter, continuing to act on the assumption that I have named. Meanwhile, my noble friend the Lord President was in independent negotiation with the responsible Parties seated on this side of the House, and thus there was a certain difference between our respective lines of procedure. I was moving on the lines of a Committee of seven, and Lord Parmoor on the lines of a Committee of nine. In the course of those negotiations he appears to have entered into some sort of undertaking with my noble friend Lord Beauchamp. I am sure I do not desire to interfere with the fulfilment of any undertaking that has excited reasonable expectations.
There was only one observation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, with which I did not quite agree. He said, for instance, that he had made an endeavour in his proposals to represent the different Parties in the House by two each. I see sitting behind the noble and learned Lord, the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Is he a member of that Party? I believe that no body would repudiate the imputation more stoutly than my noble friend, Lord Russell, and when I warmly——
EARL RUSSELL: May I interrupt the noble Marquess to ask him whether I understood him to say that I should repudiate the insinuation that I was a member of the Labour Party?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No. All I was suggesting was that

253
my noble friend should repeat the statement which he made to our satisfaction some time ago with regard to the Party represented by noble Lords sitting on that Bench. As to the addition of his name to the Committee, I assented to the suggestion with enthusiasm because no man has a greater knowledge of the forms of this House and no man, although professedly a Radical, is more Conservative in his observation of our traditions but I did not for one moment accept him as a member of the Party which sits in front of him, because his attitude at the present moment is one of unremitting vigilance, and one might say of almost constant opposition.
In regard to the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, I cannot enter into the exact proportions of the Party of which he is an ornament and their right to have one, two or three members. I should prefer that the matter should be dealt with on personal grounds only. I think that the noble Lords, who, it is proposed, should be put upon this Committee, were selected really because of their knowledge of the subject, their long experience of your Lordships' House, and their ability to give you good advice, and if the, noble Lord, Lord Stanmore, answers to that description, as I am quite willing to believe he does, I raise no objection to his being put upon the Committee. But I depreciate the idea that any attempt has been made upon this Committee to represent in fair proportions the various Parties in this House, because none of us has the slightest idea what those Parties are.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not know whether I might say a word by way of personal explanation. I am not quite sure now whether the noble Marquess wished to suggest that I was or was not a member of the Labour Party. It will be, I think, in the recollection of your Lordships—and I thought the noble Marquess was in the House at the time—that on the first day of the Session I stated that I had been for seven years a member of the Labour Party.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: Yes but the noble Earl objected to not being summoned to their meetings.
EARL RUSSELLPrecisely, and for the very reason that I was a member. But I am summoned now, and that has
254
been put right. So car as this Committee is concerned, I thought that I was probably asked to serve upon it because the noble Marquess was good enough to ask me to serve on a similar Committee some years ago.
On Question, Motion agreed to: The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT (CO-PARTNERSHIP) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I desire to ask leave to introduce a Bill to promote the adoption of co-partnership by statutory and other companies, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which has been read a first time, I understand that it will be convenient that the House should meet at twelve o'clock to-morrow to deal with business. I do not know whether that is inconvenient to any of your Lordships.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Might I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will give us a little time before he puts the Agricultural Returns Bill down for Committee?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. I determined that it should not go down before the the Recess. It will be put down some time after.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We shall have time to look into it?
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.

QUEEN'S FERRY BRIDGE BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

LONDON ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) (No.2) BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely,

E. Stamford.

L. Lawrence,

L. Clwyd,

L. Meston (Chairman),

L. Banbury of Southam;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, May 20 next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1),
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2).
Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Rawtenstall Corporation.
The same were Ordered to lie on the Table.

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (TRIALS) BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Thursday, May 15 next.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
STROUD WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL.
To be read 2a to-morrow.
SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the desirability of altering the customary period of the Parliamentary Session, and the incidental changes necessary thereto, do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room A., on Thursday, May 8 next, at twelve o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.