Sitting of 1 August 1924

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Midlothian (Calder District) Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Edinburgh Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered upon Monday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PRESERVATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,—
  "to confirm a Preservation Order of the Commissioners of Works under the The Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913, in relation to the earthworks in the parish of Colchester, in the county of Essex," presented by Mr. JOWETT.
  Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and the Bill be now read the First time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  IRISH TREATY.
    JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL.

      STATEMENT BY MR. THOMAS.
      Mr. BALDWINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Govern-
      2402
      ment have yet received the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the questions submitted to them arising out of Article XII of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): Yes, Sir. The Report was presented to His Majesty in Council yesterday afternoon, and will be laid before Parliament as soon as it is printed. The effect of the Report of the Judicial Committee on the first four questions submitted to them is that the refusal of the Government of Northern Ireland to appoint a member of the Commission is a casus improvisus in the Act of Parliament implementing the Treaty; that is to say, it is a contingency which was not foreseen at the date of the passing of the Act, and that, if the Government of Northern Ireland maintain that refusal, there is no constitutional means under the existing Statutes of bringing the Commission into existence.
      The House will perceive that this Report raises grave issues. His Majesty's Government have no doubt that it was the intention of Parliament, when they approved and ratified the Treaty, that in the event of the Government of Northern Ireland exercising their option under Article XII, the Commission to be appointed tinder the proviso to that Article should, in fact, be appointed; and they feel that they are bound in honour to secure, so far as lies within their power, that that intention is carried into effect. They most earnestly hope that, even at this late stage, the Government of Northern Ireland may see their way to appoint a representative on the Commission; but I must make it clear that, if that hope is not fulfilled, the Government propose forthwith to introduce legislation to give effect to what was the undoubted intention of the Treaty, and to press for the passage of that legislation through Parliament regardless of the consequences to themselves.
      Not merely the honour of His Majesty's Government but the honour of this country is involved in seeing that an obligation definitely imposed upon the United Kingdom by a Treaty is fulfilled in spirit and in letter, and my colleagues and I are not prepared to omit any an step which is, in our view, necessary to place

      2403
      the good faith of Parliament and of the British people beyond question.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only want to ask a question, not because the right hon. Gentleman has left us in any doubt as to the intentions of the Government, but rather to emphasise them. May I say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that we have learnt with very great satisfaction—[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, you would!"]—the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman. If I understand him—he will correct me if I am wrong—it is, that his announcement means that he wishes to make it clear to the Empire and the world that the Government of this country are not prepared to shuffle out of a bargain on a mere question of machinery, and that, whatever measures be necessary, in order to carry out the honourable engagement entered into by the people of Great Britain with the Irish race, they intend to carry out. H they do, they will get the support of my colleagues and myself.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Was there not an honourable engagement with Ulster?
      Mr. THOMAS: Nothing would be more disastrous in this issue than passion and feeling.
      Mr. FERGUSON: Disaster is staring you in the face!
      Mr. THOMAS: I have, at the request of the Prime Minister, already invited President Cosgrave and Sir James Craig to come to see me. From the day I took office, I believed, and will continue to believe, that a settlement of this question would be better by agreement on both sides. I have striven more than I can say at this time to bring that about. I have said nothing publicly, and I have deprecated discussion in this House that would tend to make the possibility of a settlement more difficult. Even at this last hour, I am still going to continue to do that. I still believe that if we can bring about a peaceful settlement, so much the better. On the other hand, there should be no mistake—there must be no misunderstanding whatever, for the goad name of this country is involved—so far as we are concerned, and regardless of any con-
      2404
      sequences, we intend to show that this is what we mean.
      Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Whilst entirely agreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the desirability of avoiding passion, may I ask him whether he realises that the assumption of the Government that this is a mere drafting oversight of the Treaty, and that the honour of this country is involved in rectifying that oversight, is not an idea that is by any means universal, and will be hotly contested?
      Mr. THOMAS: I am quite sure that legislation of any kind on this question will be hotly contested. I am quite sure that this long controversy ought to be settled smoothly. We must not forget, however, that this is a Treaty—whether good or bad, I am not now arguing the merits of it—this Treaty, whether good or bad, was not only ratified by the House of Commons, but ultimately endorsed by the country as a whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—ultimately endorsed by a General Election. I can conceive—and do let the House keep this in mind—as to what would be the effect within the Empire itself and abroad, if it went forth that Parliament and this country did not intend to give effect to what is in the Act that was passed here.
      Mr. W. REID: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in regard to honour, may I ask whether he realises what it means for this House to bring in legislation to override an option given to a self-governing State within the Empire?
      Mr. THOMAS: When this Act was passing through the House, and Ministers on both sides were responsible—I remember it well—they were most careful to point out that they expressed no opinion as to what the boundary should be, and were careful to point out that that was the function of the Commission. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Baldwin) agrees with that? That has been precisely my attitude. I have not said what the boundary ought to be. I do not pretend not to have views about it, but, after all, that is a function of the Commission. I have given an invitation, with the concurrence of the South African Government. There is in this country at the moment a distinguished Judge whose

      2405
      impartiality and knowledge are beyond question. He has visited both North and South, and it is not for us, as a Government, to interfere in any way with what is a function imposed upon him by Statute.
      Mr. HUGH O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this legislation, if it become necessary, will be introduced?
      Mr. THOMAS: As I have already intimated, I have invited President Cosgrave and Sir James Craig to meet me. Nothing would be more fatal to the success of any such meeting or conference than to introduce legislation. Everyone must agree, if you are going to try to bring something off, to give it a fair chance. Therefore, we do not propose to introduce legislation until I have met them, but a Bill dealing with this matter and rectifying it will be introduced if we fail to agree before the Adjournment. I wish to make that quite clear.
      Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would such a Bill, if it be found necessary to introduce it, be passed through all its stages before the House rises?
      Mr. THOMAS: I have just said two things. One is that I want nothing done that will hinder the possibility of a settlement at this stage. For me to make any such announcement now would have that effect, but equally I say—and I wish to make it abundantly clear—that no steps will be left untaken by us to prove to the world conclusively and before Parliament rises what are our intentions.
      Mr. FERGUSON: Arising out of that, it is quite evident that the Ulster Government do not intend giving up a single mile of their territory. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government are going to do in that event? Are they going to intervene with military powers, or anything of that sort?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

    CIRCUIT COURTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
    Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Amendments to—
    London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill [Lords],
    Wakefield Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
    Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill,
    That they do not insist upon their Amendment to the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill to which this House bath disagreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
  Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(Mr. Gosling.)
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Can we have some indication from the Government as to their general attitude towards these Amendments?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): In the main, I propose to accept these Amendments. But there are two matters with which the Government must disagree. One is the question of the introduction of the regulation of trams, and the other the length of time which the Bill is to run. It is only on those two points that I ask the House to disagree.
  Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Advisory Committee.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 1, lines 17 and 18, leave out "appointed by the Minister," and insert "elected by the Committee."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: May I congratulate the other place upon giving us what we fought for both on the Committee stage and the Report stage, because it has secured to the Committee the right to select its own chairman. To that extent the Committee is likely to be a greater safeguard of the rights of the people of London, and it will give them some power to bring forward their grievances and express their views.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. GOSLING: With regard to the remainder of the Lords Amendments to
    2424
    Clause 1, I propose to ask the House to accept them.
    Lords Amendment:
    In page2, line3, leave out from "the" to the end of line5, and insert "councils of the metropolitan boroughs."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Gosling]
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not quite sure that it is wise that this Amendment should be accepted. The point familiar to the House was that under the provisions of the Bill as it was introduced it was provided that the Minister should select from nominees made by certain local authorities in certain areas. On the face of it, the Lords Amendment would appear to be more democratic, but in practice I am very uncertain whether it would be so. There has already been some action taken in the County of London by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, under which they have met and chosen two nominees in readiness for the passing of the Act, and those two nominees happen both to come from the South side of the river, one from Wandsworth and the other from Camberwell, and they both happened to be of one political party. It seems to me that boroughs, perhaps not necessarily of another political complexion, such as the boroughs in the East End of London, with separate traffic problems to those in Wandsworth and Camberwell, ought to have a representative on the Advisory Committee so far as those borough councils are concerned. The provision as it stands means that the existing majority of the groups of local authorities can settle quite apart from those considerations who the nominees shall be. That is so far as London is concerned, but we have to consider the county of Middlesex and other counties where even graver considerations may arise, where a majority for either party or political or geographical reasons desire to secure that one or two or three nominees from a certain area or party shall be appointed. My feeling in regard to the minorities in connection with such matters is that each locality which has a vital interest in the matter should have the freedom to send nominees direct to the Minister and in the absence of an agreement the Minister

    2425
    should have power to make the selection, having regard to the rights of minorities in the areas not represented. Therefore, I am rather sorry that the Minister has decided to recommend the House to agree to this Amendment, because. I think it will work an injustice to areas so far as representation on the Advisory Committee is concerned.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: It is one of the fundamental faults of the constitution of this Committee that there are only two representatives to divide amongst 28 bodies. There are different points of view in connection with those in the North, South and West of London, and in my view it is immaterial whether this particular form is confirmed or the original form. We get two representatives in any case.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments down to page 7, line 19, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4. (Closing of Streets for Works.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 7, line 25, at the end, insert:
    "and the Minister may if he thinks fit make it a condition on giving his consent under this Sub-section to the breaking up of the street or part thereof that all works in connection therewith shall be carried out at night by commencing the same after the hour of eight in the evening and completing the same by the hour of eight in the morning, and if not then completed by carrying on the same continuously by day and night."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the, Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Colonel ASHLEY: If you are going to carry out the work at night, obviously the cost will be more than if it were carried out during the day. On whom will the obligation rest to find the extra money involved?
    Mr. GOSLING: Undoubtedly, it will he upon those who have to carry out the work, and that is why the greatest discretion will have to be used in the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 12, line 42, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 13, line 25, after the word "omnibus," insert the words "trolley, vehicle or tramway car."
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move,
    "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This and the following Amendments on this Clause give power to restrict the running in the streets of trolley vehicles and tramway cars as well as of omnibuses. The Amendments, after discussion in the other place, were agreed to without a Division after the Noble Lord in charge of the Bill had resisted their insertion. Amendments were proposed at various stages in the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons with the object of bringing tramway cars within the purview of this Clause, but on each occasion they were rejected. The reason for excluding tramway cars from the Clause is that tramway cars differ essentially from omnibuses, in that they can run only upon a special, fixed permanent way, which has been made at great expense, and which represents a very large amount of sunk capital.
    If the number of omnibuses in a particular street be restricted, they can move at once to another street in which the restrictions do not operate, but this does not apply in the case of tramway cars, which are absolutely tied to the streets in which the permanent way has been made. The same considerations apply to trolley vehicles, which, though they have no permanent way, are, in this respect, on the same footing as tramway cars, because they are tied to their overhead trolley wires and equipment, and cannot be transferred to another route, if prevented from using a particular route. Although the fact that statutory rights have been conferred on tramway companies is not conclusive, because naturally it is open to Parliament to change the rights it itself has given, still tramway cars and trolley vehicles do differ from omnibuses in this respect. The London County Council, I think, have asked Members generally to support them, and, speaking as a member of that Council, I

    2427
    do feel that the claim they make to the House is one which should be supported, and, in these circumstances, I beg to move to disagree with the Lords in these Amendments.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: We are now on a subject which always excites tremendous controversy, that of omnibuses against trams, and, as I have said before in this House, we should never have this particular controversy at all if local authorities were allowed to run omnibuses as well as trams. It is because they only look at the traffic problem from one point of view that they are for the trams and against the omnibuses. It is really absurd to make a party question of trams versus omnibuses. Frankly, I hold no brief for one more than for the other. But do not let it be thought, because you are not in favour of trams and are in favour of omnibuses, that you are not democratic. The number of passengers carried by omnibuses and trams during the year in London is practically equal. It is rather curious that the Labour party and the Liberal party are undoubtedly supporting vested interests when they support the trams. They do so because of the undoubted advantages given to the trams in the past—advantages which it is desired to continue to hold. Although trams may he run by municipalities, they are run primarily with the idea of making a profit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, they have to be run on commercial lines and we have to look to the fact that in running them on a commercial basis you may find yourself directly up against the public interest in London. You may deliberately crowd your congested areas by giving powers to the tramway company which are not really to the advantage of London as a whole. It is quite useless to pretend that you get control of the traffic in London when you leave out control over one particular vehicle which is notoriously at times one which obstructs traffic. I quite agree with the point of view advanced by the other side as to the statutory right of trams. For myself, taking neither one side nor the other, I should like to see the trams included, although I should feel doubtful whether it were wise for any Minister to take action with regard to the tram unless they
    2428
    deliberately crowd particular areas in London, which they do not do. That is the case I wanted to put to the House.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: I do not wish to go into the controversy of omnibus versus tramways, or of municipal trading versus private enterprise. Those points do not really arise on this particular Amendment because it applies nut only to municipal tramways but also to other tramways, and there are still in and around London very large companies owning a very great number of tramways which are likely to be involved. Here is where the tramways come under exactly the same category as omnibuses; they are in an entirely different position because before a tramway line can be laid not only has the consent of this House to be obtained, but that also of the local authorities in whose area the lines are proposed to be laid. These local authorities have an absolute veto at present to hold up any proposed tramlines which they think likely to interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or the general traffic. Before a tramway line is laid a Bill has to be passed through Parliament. A very strong case has to be made out showing the streets are suitable and wide enough, that the tramways are necessary and required, and that they are an economic proposal. When that is done, then the company or the local authority has to spend very large sums of money in putting the trams down. If the lines are not a success, the capital is absolutely wasted. When the line is made it is necessary that so many feet of roadway should be maintained out of the profits of the tramway, and, in addition, the undertaking is rated just in the same way as railway lines. Therefore I submit they are in an entirely different position, and it would be a very serious proposition once this House has authorised and encourage a company public authority to put down tramway lines to limit their user and perhaps permit a fresh kind of opposition to come in and interfere with the tram company's running rights. If you stop an omnibus running along a particular road because it is too narrow, another road can be found for it both in London and in any other part of the country. That is where the omnibus has a very great advantage over the tramway. It is always possible to divert it to a new

    2429
    route of traffic if the Minister finds the existing route unsuitable, but with tramway lines it is quite different. The tram is there for all time. It has to be paid for, and therefore it is not a sound thing to interfere with its general use.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: As I anticipated, we have had the usual speech from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris). He has already delivered it in this House to my knowledge on two or three occasions, although I admit it is always pleasant to listen to him, The question is that, by this Amendment, omnibuses and trams are brought within the same category. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green says that that is not so. I should be glad if that were the case, but when you pass this Bill you are going to fix the routes of omnibuses just as much as you are going to fix the tramway routes, and no one will be able to change the omnibus route unless the approval of the Minister is first obtained. The moment you pass this Bill the omnibuses will be tied down to particular routes in the same way as the trains now are. If you take the trains out of the Bill, you will be dealing piecemeal with the traffic question. After all the trams are as much responsible for the congestion of public traffic as any other vehicle on the streets, indeed some people think they are more responsible. What excuse can you have when bringing in a Bill dealing with congestion of traffic for leaving out of consideration one vehicle which causes it as much as any other vehicle. The Minister is to have the power to deal with these things if he thinks fit, and you are going to set up to assist him a very able advisory committee fully representative of all the interests involved. Surely that Committee will be very able watch dogs on the Ministry and will act as a check on him, even though he may share the views which hon. Members attribute to me. In any case, we have an assurance from the Minister that whatever he does will come before Parliament, and we shall always, no doubt, for many years, have the same speech from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, or, if he is not here, no doubt some other representative of the London County Council will make it. The interest will always be represented in this House.
    2430
    Some people think that those who wish to see trams included in this Bill are anxious to see trams uprooted from the streets altogether, but that is not a practical suggestion, and no man in his senses would make it. The traffic in this great city could not be carried on without trams, as things are at present. It may be that in the course of years, as the loss on the trams becomes cumulative, and it becomes impossible for the London County Council to carry on any further, they will themselves take a different view, and we shall have them endeavouring to get statutory powers to run omnibuses or something of that sort. I venture to think that the day when that happens will be a great day for the ratepayers of London. At the same time, as things are at present, we could not do without trams, but it is, surely, only reasonable to include them in the Bill. Hon. Members should not forget that, where trams are run in quick succession, ordinary wheeled traffic of all classes is concentrated on the other parts of the highway, between the outer rails and the kerb. They must remember, also, the obstruction to traffic that is caused by trams, the effect that they have upon houses and so on, and the effect that their rails have upon other classes of traffic.
    Hon. Members opposite are always anxious to tell us that they are, like ourselves, trying to represent the underdog, and the underdog of modern traffic is, surely, the bicycle. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) does not want to mislead the House, and that he is just as anxious as any other Member to look after the interests of cyclists. Does he not realise the effect that tramlines have upon cyclists, and how difficult they make it for them under modern traffic conditions? The Chief Commissioner the other day drew attention to the very grave danger caused to cyclists, and to other traffic generally, by the presence of cyclists in London traffic. This danger is very largely added to where there are greasy tramlines, which make it very difficult for cyclists to ride. Therefore, I think there is a great deal more in this question than has been represented by the Minister. What we want to know is a really good reason why trams should not be included in the Bill. If the Minister could give me a better

    2431
    reason than he has given yet, possibly I should be ready to withdraw my opposition, but in the absence of a better reason and a little more argument for not having trams in the Bill—that is to say, for not dealing with the other half of London traffic—I, for one, shall certainly endeavour to get a Division on this Motion. I am very sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-
    Brabazon) has run away, but at any rate I am not going to retire from the position which I have taken up, and I do think we have a right to some better answer from the Minister than we have yet had with respect to the non-inclusion of trams.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes. 171; Noes, 30.

    Division No. 187.]

    AYES.

    [11.50 a.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Guest, J, (York, Hermsworth)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Alstead, R.

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Hardle, George D.

    Paling, W.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Pease, William Edwin

    Baker, Walter

    Harris, Percy A.

    Perry, S. F.

    Banton, G.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Barnes, A.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Pilkington, R. R.

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Potts, John S.

    Batey, Joseph

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Raffan, P. W.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Berkeley, Captain Reginald

    Hillary, A. E.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Bonwick, A.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Hogga, James Myles

    Romeril, H. G.

    Buchanan, G.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Rose, Frank H,

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Hudson, J. H.

    Royle, C.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Scurr, John

    Climie, R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sexton, James

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Snell, Harry

    Cope, Major William

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Spence, R.

    Cove, W. G.

    Keens, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Crittall, V. G.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lansbury, George

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Law, A.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Dickson, T.

    Lawson, John James

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Dukes, C.

    Leach, W.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lee, F.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Linfield, F. C.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Egan, W. H.

    Loverseed, J. F.

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, E.

    Falconer, J.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Lunn, William

    Warne, G. H.

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Foot, Isaac

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Wells, S. R.

    Franklin, L. B.

    Mackinder, W.

    White, H G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Maden, H.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    March, S.

    Williams, Maj. A. S.(Kent.Sevenoaks)

    Gates, Percy

    Marley, James

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Maxton, James

    Windsor, Walter

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Mills, J. E.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Gosling, Harry

    Montague, Frederick

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Morel, E. D.

    Wright, W.

    Greenall, T.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Young, Andrew (Glatgow, Partick)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Murray, Robert

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Groves, T.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Bowyer,Capt. G. E. W.

    Craig, Capt. C. C.(Antrim, South)

    Berry, Sir George

    Bullock,Captain M.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Clarry,Reginald George

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Ferguson, H.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col Granville C. H.

    FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Briscoe.

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendments:
    In page 13, line 30, after "omnibuses" insert "trolley vehicles or tramway cars."
    Line 39, after "omnibuses" insert " trolley vehicles or tramway cars."
    Line 43, after "omnibuses" insert "trolley vehicles or tramway cars."
    In page 14, line 33, at end insert "trolley vehicles or tramway cars."
    Disagreed with.
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 14, line 43, at end insert as a new Sub-section—
    (6) Any regulation made under this Section shall be laid before both Houses 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 after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON:
    I am interested to see that the Minister accepts this Amendment, because it is rather different from his original Bill. As he introduced it, any regulations of this kind were in his own hands, and although they had to be subjected to the scrutiny of the Advisory Council they were powers which he was able to control without any Order in Council. I do not say that is a bad thing to have this Parliamentary control but I very much doubt whether the Orders which he will issue are subjects which it would be very proper to discuss in this House. I know the actual prescribing of routes will come under this Amendment but any regulations he issues and such regulations as to what omnibuses should go down that particular route are very intricate subjects upon which the Minister would have both sides of the case supplied to him, because he has to give notice before
    2434
    making such a regulation, and he would be able to see exactly the whys and wherefores, whereas Parliament would not have both sides of the case put before it. It is not really such a serious matter to grant these regulations because, as put in the Bill in another place, they are only for one year, when they can be revoked. Probably therefore the Minister is wise to accept it.
    12 N.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: This wording is merely a form and is not going to give this House any serious power of interference with any particular Regulations. Everyone who has any experience of the House knows that the mere formal laying on the Table is a mere nominal power to Members to criticise or ventilate any opinions on particular Regulations. For many years it has been found almost impossible to get a House for a proper full discussion. These words are harmless but they do not satisfy us when we come to Clause 10, when we think it is important that Parliament should have real control over the very important Regulations that appear in Schedule 3. When we come to that I shall raise the point.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I thought the hon. Member's speech was going to be a sort of preliminary attack upon the Regulations which we shall discuss under Clause 10, and I was not wrong in thinking so. I will deal with the control later on when we come to that Clause. The hon. Member at the beginning of our Debate praised another place for its democratic Amendments, which gave more popular control. In this case also another place has given, I think, a considerable measure of control to the House over regulations made under Clause 7. When the Bill was originally introduced there was no control over the regulations in either House. The Minister was absolutely uncontrolled in any orders he might make, but another place has put in this proviso, which is a considerable advance over the original proposal. It gives very considerable control to Par-

    2435
    liament. There may be occasions on which a private Member can intervene in this House in the 28 days and there is another place, which the hon. Member says is a democratic place, which is not so congested in business and where they have very little to do. If they consider a regulation interferes with the liberty of the subject a Motion can be made in the 28 days and the regulation automatically becomes void. Therefore I submit that in this we have a very substantial advance in Parliamentary control over the Act.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Penalties for disobedience to direction of Police).
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 15, line 22, after the word "is," insert the words "for the time being."
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is purely drafting.
    Mr. NAYLOR: I hope I shall not be considered hypercritical, but I do not understand why this particular Amendment has been introduced. I presume I shall be told that this is a drafting Amendment. A drafting Amendment is designed for the purposes of correcting faulty construction or making clear what is not already clear. This Amendment does neither. If these words are included, I can well understand that a legal argument may arise as to whether a costable for the purpose of this Clause was regularly engaged in the regulation of traffic or merely engaged "for the time being." It may be argued that a constable who is regularly engaged in this work is also engaged "for the time being." I hope the Minister will be able to explain the reason that prompted the other place in suggesting this Amendment.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): The difference is this. A police constable, say Sergeant Jones, in uniform, is regularly engaged day by day in the regulation of traffic. Therefore, persons disobeying his orders would be liable to prosecution for
    2436
    obstruction. The intention surely is that he shall only have that authority when he is actually engaged in regulating traffic. Although for the whole of the period that he is working he may be engaged day by day in the regulation of traffic, we do not want him, even if he is in uniform, thinking that he has power to give directions somewhere else in London where he happens to be. I think the other place is to be commended in this respect for suggesting an Amendment for the protection of the subject.
    Mr. NAYLOR: While accepting the explanation, the words appear to me to be inserted in the wrong place. They should come later.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I suppose the President of the Board of Trade is deputising for the Attorney-General. He has fulfilled many duties in his time, and we are quite prepared to see him occupying the position of a Law Officer of the Crown "for the time being." It may be worth while looking at this point. I do not know Whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the Law Officers of the Grown on the matter. Apart from the legal question, it seems to me that difficulties may arise as to whether the officer is "for the time being" engaged in this work. My Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has had more experience of this kind than I have, and perhaps he will add a few words. I only want to warn the President of the Board of Trade in his new capacity that he had better be very careful, and I hope he is reassured in his statement by the advice of the legal authority at the disposal of the Government.

    Clause 10.—(Power to make Regulations.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 16, line 32, leave out Sub-section (7) and insert as a new Sub-section:
    (7) Any regulation made under this Section shall be laid before both Houses 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 after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Mr. P. HARRIS: I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is accepting this Amendment. We had a very long Debate in the House on this point, which resulted in a non-party Division, and I had the honour to be supported as Teller by the hon. Member for Oxford University, who has always been a guardian of the privileges of this House. His long experience enabled him to point out that if were to retain any control over these most important Regulations it was essential that we should adopt this particular form—a form followed in the case of the Housing Bill, the Dyestuffs Act and other legislation concerned with Regulations—in which we must pass the appropriate Resolution in a positive form rather than in a mere passive or negative form. The only opportunity that this House has of discussing matters of this kind is after Eleven o' clock at night, when Members are anxious to hurry away home. In those circumstances it is not likely that a purely London matter of this kind will attract proper attention or get proper consideration, unless there is this security that Parliament will have the power of really controlling the powers that the Minister has by Regulation.
    The power of making regulations on matters prescribed in Schedule 3 is almost unique in municipal government. The Minister is going to have autocratic powers to interfere with the whole traffic, not only in London but throughout the metropolitan area. Undoubtedly these regulations, necessary as they may be, will cause friction and irritation. They will interfere with the rights and privileges of thousands of individuals and cause, very often, heavy financial loss to thousands of people, not only motor-omnibus owners but owners of other is thoroughly unsound. If this House is to keep complete control of these Regulations we must have regard to the form and character and wording of them and the effect they are likely to have on traffic in London.
    It was pointed out in another place that the supposed alternative words were
    2438
    not likely to give the Lower House much power. On the other hand, the other place will have powers which are practically denied to the representative body. That is not a position which this House should accept, and we should take the first opportunity to restore the position. If the original words were retained, I would be prepared, if it would meet the views of hon. Members opposite, who are anxious to protect the rights of another place, to accept the words "both Houses of Parliament." I am anxious to retain the rights of the House of Commons to control the Minister and to control these important Regulations.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: We discussed this matter on the Report stage, and in this matter I was bold enough to plead the case of the Order in Council as compared with a Resolution of both Houses. I regret to say that I did not receive the support I should have received from the Minister in charge of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) called me a "bureaucratic fledgling." The hon. Member opposite says that these Regulations are going to be of tremendous importance. Let us look at the Schedule and see what would come up to this House to be passed by Resolution. The collection of refuse, broken down vehicles, cabranks, queues waiting in streets and the lighting of street works. These are the sorts of things we have got to pass. I have had a certain experience of London Members. I sat upstairs in an atmosphere of London Members which I shall never forget, and I have come to the conclusion that London Members as a whole are particularly assiduous, and will not assist in having rights taken away from them. On that account I think that it is very unlikely that any Order it Council affecting London is likely to go through this House unnoticed, but that London Members will be sufficiently wideawake to raise the question, especially as it is exempted after 12 o'clock.
    Mr. H. MORRISON: I am exceedingly sorry to interfere in this particular matter. The only thing which tempts me to vote for agreeing with the Lords Amendment would be the view that it would make the Bill largely unworkable. That tempts me to a very large extent because, as the House knows, I have the most profound

    2439
    contempt for and dissatisfaction with this Bill. But after all is one entitled, because one has contempt for a Bill as I have, of the deepest character, for this Measure, therefore to pursue a policy which is designed by a side issue to make the thing unworkable? I think that the Minister of Transport—I am not talking of him as the present Minister, but as an institution—is bad enough as being the instrument to control London questions, but if I may say so, with the greatest respect, I think that the House of Commons is infinitely worse. If Members will read the Third Schedule to the Bill they will see, as the hen, and gallant Member for Rochester (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) pointed out, that they deal with matters of local detail as to whether omnibuses shall go on this route or that. They may even deal with street trading or questions of collecting street refuse, and queues at places of entertainment, I think, though I am not sure. They concern matters of detail. The practical question is: Are hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire or Ulster fit to decide Regulations affecting the streets of the Metropolis? The whole case against the Bill is that the House of Commons is not fit to do it.
    It is true that Ministers can receive the representations of London direct, and give them consideration, and his officers can advise him, but can the House of Commons, with its varied composition, possibly be capable of settling the details of London streets? As one who believes that the whole of this Schedule raises issues which are appropriate to local government, and can be settled properly only by the people of London, I think that the Minister who can get into contact with London—if one has to choose between two evils—is more fit to do it than the House of Commons, which consists of representatives from all over the country, and which on many occasions has not dealt fairly with London questions. The whole question to be settled is how far do the words of my hon. Friend secure control. We must all know that the question of approval or disapproval of Regulations in this House is very largely a matter of form, whether the onus is upon Members to object or, upon a Minister to get the Regulations through.
    2440
    The great bulk of the Members do not come from the area concerned. The great bulk of the Members are not from the Metropolis. The procedure will be that Members will approach the door and the party Whips will say "Aye'' or "No," so that what happens is that the House of Commons wastes the time which could be better given to something else, and we really get no efficient administration. The mere assertion that the House of Commons ought, with the greatest seriousness and pomp, to decide on how street refuse ought to be collected at Hackney Wick or at Wick Road, Hackney, is an absurdity. I am sure that the House of Commons has sufficient knowledge of its own weaknesses and shortcomings to know that it is not fit to do any such thing. These duties are appropriate to the London County Council, or the borough council, and ought never to be taken away from the people of London. It is an outrage when that is done, but Parliament has so willed, and, that being so, we must not pass an Amendment which will make a farce of the administration of the Act and the making of Regulations thereunder.
    Viscount CURZON: I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). The House will enjoy the spectacle of the divorce which is now taking place between the London Labour party and the London Liberal party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Progressive."] The point in which I am interested is the speech which has just been made. We cannot forget that in another place he is the keeper of the London Liberal party, or the London Labour party. They are the same thing: I get mixed between the two. I only hope that the hon. Member will remember the speech he has just made when the. London County Council makes its next attempt to extend its octopus like control over the muncipalities surrounding the present administrative area of the county of London. I hope that he will realise their point of view a little better, when he criticises the right of hon. Members of this House, who may have just as great experience in municipal affairs as either he or anybody else on the London County Council, to come to Parliament with these problems of London government. Personally I think the more help and guidance we can get from those who speak with experience

    2441
    of the great municipal corporations throughout the country, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham, the better it will be for London government as a whole, and I hope that he will not forget the speech which he has just made.
    Mr. COMYNS-CARR: Like the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), I was astonished at the speech made by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). The hon. Member told us that if these Regulations were discussed in this House the vast majority of hon. Members would only vote as the Whips told them at the door. Whether coming events cast their shadows before, and that the course which the hon. Member defined is that which he proposes to take on this Amendment, I do not know, but it may be that the explanation of the attitude which he has adopted is not wholly unconnected with circumstances such as those to which he has referred. The suggestion that, in asking the House of Commons to pass a Resolution affirming or disaffirming Regulations which it is proposed that the Minister shall make under this Section, the House of Commons will be invited to deal with the collecting of refuse in Hackney Wick or anywhere else, is absurd. It is not proposed that this House shall pass a Resolution regarding questions of administration of the Regulations, but questions of the making of the Regulations. What I wish to point out is that, by Sub-section (3) of Clause 10, it is provided that fines may be imposed for breaches of the Regulations. It says:
    "(3) Any such regulations may provide for imposing fines recoverable summarily in respect of breaches thereof not exceeding in the case of a first offence twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence fifty pounds, together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day the offence continues after notice of the offence has been given in such manner as may be prescribed by the regulations."
    I quite agree with the hon. Member that the control of such questions are are contained in the Schedule to this Bill ought to be in the hands of the elected representatives of London; but it is an outrage to suggest that the making of Regulations which are to involve the imposition of substantial penalties, such as are mentioned in the Section, should be left at the substantially uncontrolled discretion of a Department of State, and that no
    2442
    effective power should be given either to this House or to any other democratically elected assembly to supervise the making of those Regulations. We all know that the laying of Regulations on the Table of this House and the power to move a resolution, having regard to the congestion of business and the nature of our procedure, is practically a farce. There is no effective control obtainable by this means. But if, on the other hand, a resolution has to be passed affirming the Regulations before they come into force, there is some substantial control, and there is no reason why there should be any undue congestion of business as a result. We all know that such Resolutions are passed almost every evening in the week after eleven o'clock. It is only in the event of there being something which raises a matter of controversy and to which there is serious objection that any time would be taken up at all. But, putting it in that form, there is given an opportunity to any Member to raise any real objection to the making of the Regulation. The Amendment to which we are asked to agree gives an effective power to the other place, because, by the procedure there and the comparative leisure in which their deliberations are carried on, it is always possible for them to find an opportunity of introducing a Resolution objecting to any such Regulation. Therefore, the effect of this Amendment is to give substantially to another place a power to supervise these Regulations which is denied to this House. I most strongly protest against a Government with the pretentious of the present Government accepting from another place an Amendment such as this, and I hope it will be defeated.
    Colonel ASHLEY: It would not be denied that the attitude of Liberal Members regarding this Amendment is one of frank hostility to the Bill. They have always been against the Bill, and they want to kill it if they can. This new-found desire to maintain the liberties of the House of Commons and the scrutiny of Ministers is directed to killing the Bill more than to maintaining such liberties or to restricting the activities of Ministers. This Amendment marks a very substantial advance on the Section which was rejected by the House some weeks ago. The criticism of the Bill as originally introduced was

    2443
    directed to two points. One was that there was not sufficient Parliamentary control, and, further, that if there was Parliamentary control and a Resolution was passed by either House, then the Minister only might revoke the Regulation; it was not mandatory. This Amendment makes it mandatory on the Minister, or a Regulation becomes automatically void if the Resolution is passed. As to Parliamentary control, let us be quite frank. It is very difficult in these days, with the congestion of business, whichever way you approach it, to get proper Parliamentary control. That is the great trouble. I understand that Lord Salisbury in another place has set up, or is setting up, a strong Committee to go into the question of Parliamentary control as far as it affects another place, to see if some better formula may be devised for insertion in Bills so that more Parliamentary control may be secured.
    I do not think that any hon. Member would seriously deny that if the wishes of Liberal Members were carried out it would be impossible to work this Bill at all. This Bill is going to last for three years only. I understand that hon. Members of both parties opposite are determined to maintain the three years limit. If they so determine, three years it will be. Nobody pretended that this Bill was more than an immediate attempt to deal with an urgent problem. I had had a great deal to do with the devising of the Bill and I have never contended that it was a perfect Measure. All I can say is that the London traffic problem is so urgent that you cannot wait until the Greek Kalends to do something. At the end of the three years you can have a new Bill or carry on this Bill from, year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The House will have an opportunity of seeing whether these Regulations work well and if they do not work well the House can put in something else. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Government.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The statement just made was first that this is a new enthusiasm for a certain method of control. It is no new enthusiasm at all. The Bill as it stands, with the Lords Amendments rejected, is the Bill that was
    2444
    passed by the House of Commons. It was passed by the House of Commons very largely owing to the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are now told from the Front. Bench opposite that the Bill is practically unworkable. Why did not the friends of the last speaker think of that when they voted for the Bill at the time? An overwhelming majority of the party opposite voted for the Bill as it stands. If there is any question of a compromise to make it more suitable, it can be done if we now disagree with the Lords Amendment. I, therefore, appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to show the consistency which we always expect of them, especially the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), and, having carefully thought out the vote that they gave last time, not to let themselves be drawn away by such statements as have been made, but to support the Motion to disagree with the Lords.
    Sir K. WOOD: If we go back to the merits of this Amendment the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) will see that apparently his party are suggesting that every Regulation made under this Bill may, if they so desire it—if any hon. Member desires it—come before this House. That would render the working of this Bill absolutely impossible. The third Schedule sets out the purposes for which Regulations may be made. One of these purposes is that of prescribing routes if necessary, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) could hold up a Regulation made for prescribing routes until it had received the approval of the House. Another one in which hon. Gentlemen opposite will take particular interest is No. 12 in the third Schedule, which deals with broken-down vehicles. That no doubt raises some feelings in the breasts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then No. 10 relates to prescribing conditions subject to which horses, cattle, sheep and other animals may be led or driven on streets within the Metropolitan police district. Whether the author of this Bill had any vision of right hon. and hon. Members opposite approaching Westminster to support the Government I do not know, but perhaps that is the real reason why hon. Members opposite desire that these matters should be continually brought before the House of Commons. I should think in their own interests and in the interests of the Bill the less said

    2445
    about these matters the better, and we should be well advised to accept the Lords suggestions.
    Major R. WILLIAMS: I do not intend to follow the comic interlude, if I may so describe it, to which we have just listened. I had hoped that some hon. Member would rise to point out how the interests of country Members are affected under the first Schedule of the Bill. I observe that the greater part of my own constituency is included. That being so, the argument advanced by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Herbert Morrison) that this is merely a matter for the London Members is one with which I totally disagree because this first Schedule must affect the constituencies of Members in the Home Counties. Therefore I support the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) because I think it is a matter of considerable interest to those in the country districts if they are to be told by the Minister of Transport how to light and guard their street works. That seems to be an entirely local matter, in which local people ought to have something to say, and therefore on behalf of the Home Counties Members I support the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green.
    Mr. WEBB: I ask the House to consider this question from another point of view. I am not speaking as the deputy of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, but simply as one who has had some experience of the difficulties connected with these matters and of the difference which exists between the two propositions now before the House. The proposition which has come down from another place suggests that the Regulations should become effective unless they are disapproved of by a Resolution of this House, and the alternative proposition is that they should not become effective until the House passes an affirmative Resolution. It may be that in matters in which great interest is not taken or in which there is no intention to obstruct, there is not much practical difference between these two courses as regards the amount of control possessed by the individual Member. I suggest to the House that it makes all the difference to the Government when it is in the position of a beast of burden having a great many loads to carry. I first of all
    2446
    wish to deal with this matter from the point of view of the Government as the beast of burden having to carry the load. If it is decided that an affirmative Resolution must be passed for every one of these Regulations, it means that the Government must allot the time necessary to get those affirmative Resolutions passed. It may be that there is a desire to take up Government time. It may be that there is a desire to talk on these Regulations—a desire not wholly unconnected with the fact that it is wished that the Government should not do some other things.
    My particular interest in the matter is, I confess, not so much concerned with the exact degree of control which an individual Member may exercise because a Member or a group of Members will always exercise very considerable control. My interest is rather in the question of how we are going to carry on the business of this House—the business in which Members are interested and which they want to get done. The particular Session which is now closing has been marked by the regrettable fact that a great many Measures which a majority of the House desire to see passed have not been passed owing to lack of time. If the House asks the Government to find time for the possible discussion of every one of these Regulations they are not merely affording an opportunity for making the Bill unworkable—which I fear would be taken advantage of to some extent—but they are seriously interfering with the possibility of passing other Measures from time to time which the majority of the House for the time being would wish to see passed. That is the real distinction between these two propositions—the amount of Government time, of the effective time of the House which will be taken up. It is not enough to say that in both cases the discussions would be after 11 o'clock. It is a draft on the available time which the Government can induce the House to grant. If I were speaking only in the interests of this particular Measure and the working of this Measure I would point out that if every one of the Regulations has to wait until time can be found for the House to pass an affirmative Resolution, even though they may be quite innocuous Regulations and may not excite any great resentment, it will always be possible that we shall be told through the

    2447
    ordinary channels that they will cause Debate and that will involve delay. I am much more concerned, I confess, with the effect upon the other business of the House and upon Bills in which I am interested and other Members are interested. The Government time is time which should be utilised in the interests of democracy, and we should not dissipate it.
    Mr. STURROCK: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that time and again, the House has risen as early as seven and eight o'clock.
    Mr. WEBB: I do not know that that interruption need have been made. My small observation of these things goes to show that accidents of that kind cannot be prevented. When the House adjourned at an early hour the other day it was because it had not been foreseen that you, Mr. Speaker, would take a certain view of a certain Amendment. That could not have been foreseen. The mere fact that some hours were not utilised in those circumstances would not have enabled the Regulations under this Bill to have been dealt with, because it could not have been foreseen or arranged. I myself have one or two quite non-contentious Bills which the House want, and I have not been able to get them on because there have not been the necessary arrangements among those responsible for the business of the House. I suggest it would be very unwise for any of us who really desire that the time of the House should be used for urgent problems of legislation, to fritter away that valuable time, which is all too short now, on business of this kind. So far having carried that principle, I think it is right that this House should have an opportunity of making a demonstration, if any Regulation be made to which objection is really taken by hon. Members, and it will always be possible, in a matter of this sort which excites public interest, for sufficient members of this House to make their wishes felt. One further word. This has constantly been referred to as if it were an arbitrary act of the Minister. The hon. Member said, quite rightly, that these things ought really to be decided by the directly elected representatives. I am a county council man myself, and those who have experience know how
    2448
    these matters are settled by the watch committee, with, possibly, very little interference by the whole council. But, at any rate, the whole council has an opportunity of interfering. Surely it is common ground that it is not possible here and now to get a body for London and larger London.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman promised, when the Bill was introduced, to appoint a committee to inquire into London government. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when that committee is going to be appointed?
    Mr. WEBB: The hon. Gentleman knows very well, first of all, that I did not make that promise, and, secondly, that as I am not even deputising for the Prime Minister, I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation. As a matter of fact, it would be desirable, in my opinion, that these matters should not trouble this House at all, and should be dealt with by the directly elected representatives of the locality concerned. Meanwhile, there has been a body created by this Measure which is the best thing that can be done to represent the opinion of the elected representatives of the localities concerned. It has been the subject of immense discussion, and no better body can be suggested until we get a directly elected body for the areas concerned. Before a Regulation can come into force, it is provided that the Minister "shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report." Does anyone suppose the Minister could bring forward any Regulation which had not the support of this Committee? There has been a little exaggeration about automatic control. We limit the automatic control below and above, at one end in the case of the Advisory Committee, which is the nearest we can get to a democratic body for this purpose, and, at the other end, if the Minister goes seriously wrong, the House of Commons will be able to pull him up.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I am sorry I cannot agree with the statement that has been made. The earnest, almost pathetic, appeal of the right hon. Gentleman leaves me quite unmoved. He made exactly the speech which we would have expected from him, perhaps more than from anybody else. He has the firmest possible faith in

    2449
    bureaucratic government. He is prepared, I should say, at any time to take from a Department the considered judgments they have formed, and announce them as wisdom, which the House ought, without comment, to accept. I demur from his description of the Government as a patient beast. I regard them as autocratic controllers of the time of the House. This earnest desire, constantly professed, to have more time for Members for discussion really has a rather insincere ring. There has been no such desire on the part of the Government. It has been with the utmost difficulty that we have been able to secure opportunities of discussing questions that we wish to raise, and I am bound to say, looking back on the Session, there has been a great deal of waste of time, owing to want of careful arrangement in the putting down of Government business. The early adjournments for the last two nights are evidence of that, and, therefore, I feel quite unmoved by the statement as to time for Members of this House to discuss matters. We put this Amendment in against the Government in the Committee stage. It went to another place, which has inserted an Amendment re-arranging the method by which we are to conduct our business here.
    I say we ought not to go back on our decision, and take from the other place instructions as to how we are to conduct our business here. The other place is not in the same position as we are with regard to these Regulations. In another place, they can Debate them under their procedure. They are not controlled by an autocratic Government, as we are, so that the House of Lords is in a far better position to discuss these regulations than the House of Commons. I think we did the right thing in inserting the provision we did. We had support for the Amendment from all quarters of the House, and I think all old Members of the House who have had experience of laying Orders on the Table, know that it is always a form, and almost a farce. It is not the case that when there is a pretty strong feeling on the part of even a large num-
    ber of Members of this House, time can be got out of the Government for the discussion of Regulations. I think the House did right in the Committee, and I hope we shall disagree with the Lords Amendment.
    Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: I agree with the Lords Amendment. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who has been a long time in the House, and never attempted to help London traffic, should now oppose something that will help it. The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has opposed the Bill right through and endeavoured to defeat it from its inception. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should try to make it an unworkable Bill. We have now got a Bill brought forward under the only control that, for the moment, can be devised. Here we are going to give London a chance to control its traffic, and I hope the House will agree with the Lords in their Amendment.
    Major MOULTON: I would like the House to understand that these Regulations, once made, are exactly in the same position as the Clause of a Bill. They have exactly the same authority and interpretation. Anybody who has any practical experience—I speak only as a young Member—knows that the chance of getting Government time to disapprove of the Regulations made by a Minister of that Government is infinitesimal. The consequence is that the provision for laying the Regulations on the Table of the House, while it seems to give greater authority, really gives the House no control whatever. If the Government have to find time to pass Regulations they can, if they are pressed for time, suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule and pass them in that way, but if a private Member wishes to object, he has no chance of securing time—the Government of their own accord never give time in order to give the House a chance of expressing its opinion. I suggest that we disagree with the Lords Amendment.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 50.

    Division No. 188.]

    AYES.

    [12.58 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Baker, Walter

    Barnes, A.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Banton, G.

    Batey, Joseph

    Berry, Sir George

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Plelou, D. P.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Romeril, H. G.

    Broad, F. A.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J. H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Scurr, John

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Sexton, James

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Clayton, G. C.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Cope, Major William

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Cove, W. G.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Snell, Harry

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Crittall, V. G.

    Lansbury, George

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Law, A.

    Spence, R.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Leach, W.

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Dixey, A. C.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Dukes, C.

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Sullivan, J.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lowth, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Lunn, William

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Egan, W. H.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

    Elliot, Walter E.

    MacDonald, R.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Thurtle, E.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Mackinder, W.

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    March, S.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Gates, Percy

    Marley, James

    Viant, S. P.

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Maxton, James

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Middleton, G.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mills, J. E.

    Wells, S. R.

    Gosling, Harry

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Montague, Frederick

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenall, T.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Groves, T.

    Muir, John W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Murray, Robert

    Windsor, Walter

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Harland, A.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Harvey, C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

    Haycock, A. W.

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen

    Hayday, Arthur

    Pease, William Edwin

    Parkinson.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Perry, S. F.

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Hillary. A. E.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Allen, R. Wilberforcs (Leicester, S.)

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Robertson, T. A.

    Alstead, R.

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Royle, C.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Birkett, W. N.

    Jowitt, W. A (The Hartlepools)

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Black, J. W.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Bonwick, A.

    Keens, T.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Loverseed, J. F.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Maden, H.

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Falconer, J.

    Mitchell,R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Finney, V. H.

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Foot, Isaac

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Franklin, L. B.

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Raffan, P. W.

    Mr. Percy Harris and Major R. Williams.

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 18, line 15, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Definitions.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 20, line 18, leave out "tramcar or trolley vehicle" and insert "trolley vehicle or tramcar."
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is it not consequential?
    Mr. GOSLING: It was inserted at the instance of the Government, having been inadvertently omitted from the Amendments.
    Sir K. WOOD: I think we had better have a little explanation of this. It sounds very much to me as though this were a consequential Amendment upon one originally introduced into the other place. I should not like the Minister of Transport to have anything in this Bill that he does not want. I would suggest to him he had better give us a complete explanation as to what is the meaning and effect of this Amendment.
    Mr. H. MORRISON: Is not this an alteration of the position previously decided by this House which disagreed with the Lords Amendment? Surely the only safe thing to do at this stage of the Bill with its reference to tramcars and trolley vehicles is to disagree with the Lords Amendment?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Was not this passed by the Lords and not printed by mistake? Is it not consequential? If there is anyone to blame, is it not the authorities of the other place?
    Mr. WEBB: It is a question of definition. The definition has been made right in another place and it does not affect the operative Clauses. It does not in any way affect or import to have control over the tramways as some hon. Members seem to think.
    Mr. KEENS: We ought to know something more about this. It is not clear how the thing stands.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am satisfied that this Amendment is not consequential, but. I will read it again: In page 20, line 18, leave out "tramcar or trolley vehicle," and insert instead thereof "trolley vehicle or tramcar".
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 20, line 24, at end insert:
    "The expression 'tramway car' includes any carriage used on any street or road in the London traffic area by virtue of an order made under the Light Railways Act, 1896."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Mr. MARCH: I trust the House is not going to agree to this Amendment of the Lords. This is brought in for the purpose of bringing the tramways under the Act, and I hope the House will disagree with the Lords, and that this will not be included in the Bill.
    Mr. GOSLING: I suggest that this House should agree in this case, because under certain transport systems in the area commonly spoken of as that "tramway system" are technically "light railways."

    CLAUSE 17.—(Short title and commencement.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 21, line 6, leave out "twenty-seven" and insert "thirty."
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: This matter, as to how long this Bill should operate, was one upon which we spent very many hours upstairs. I do not think I am disclosing any secrets when I say that the Minister did accept a certain period of time. I cannot but believe that the Government are really doing a serious thing in suggesting that this Bill should operate only for three years. By that time someone else may be in power, but traffic is a thing which at present is changing so quickly that any Traffic Bill which now we pass might be a bad Act in five years' time. What, however, I want the House to think about is this: It is really proposed that at the end of three years the Traffic Regulations of London which we propose to give by this Bill are going to collapse. What will happen is that this Act will automatically come under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That does not pre-

    2455
    judice introducing another Traffic Measure, but I cannot see what advantage we are going to get out of it, or what hon. Members can get out of this particular provision by making the Act operative only for three years. It is very curious that in connection with this Bill we have not discussed traffic in any way, but local government. In that connection the Labour party have proposed to give the transport authority power over London traffic, whereas the Conservatives have opposed giving the power over London traffic to the Conservative London County Council. I do not think, in the pressure of Parliamentary time, we are likely to have another Traffic Bill for three years. Eventually this Measure can be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and consequently we are really quibbling about a matter which does not come into practical politics.
    Mr. MARCH: I hope the Minister will stand by what he has just said. If there is going to be any extension of the time no facilities will be taken to improve the traffic, or get this Measure to work as we want it worked. If the matter is left over for another six years things will roll on just as they have done in the past. For these reasons I hope the Minister of Transport will stand by the proposition he has made.
    Viscount CURZON: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) in regard to this proposal. I cannot understand why we should be threatened with a collapse of this Bill in three years time. That is a very odd attitude to take up, because this Measure has been hurried on as a result of the negotiations arising in the case of the recent transport strike in London, and, therefore, it is in the interest of the transport workers and the general public that something should be done to regulate traffic conditions. We all know the strain that is put upon those who drive the heavy vehicles in London today, and therefore it is very urgent that we should get from the Minister, if he is not going to accept the Lords Amendment, some idea of what he has in mind at the expiration of 1927. Can he tell us what the view of the Government will be in 1927. Of course I do not anticipate that the Socialist party will be in power
    2456
    then, but I think the country should know what is his view now as to what should be done with London traffic at the end of 1927.
    Mr. GOSLING: I answer that question very much in the same way as I put the matter to the House in the first instance. This Bill was introduced as a temporary Measure, and this was done because all sides felt that the question of London traffic should not be left, as it was, and the real remedy was to deal with the question of local government in Greater London. It is quite clear that what the Government wish to safeguard is not to put in a longer period which might lead to other matters being dropped. I hope before the expiration of three years we shall have produced legislation dealing with the larger question of local government, and if by any chance at the end of three years we have not been able to do all we want to do, we can easily go on by extending the period from year to year. For these reasons and not for the reasons given by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), I ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: After a very long Debate the date of 1927 was inserted as a reasonable period to give the Government time to really deal with London government. I suggest that 1927 is quite long enough.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I am surprised at the attitude which the Minister has taken up in regard to this point. He suggested that the reason for making the term short was that this was admitted by everybody to be an emergency Measure. It may have been introduced as an emergency Measure, but if was not a very bad Bill when it was first introduced, and after the help and assistance given by my hon. Friend and others on these benches the Measure has been turned into one which is likely to work exceedingly well. We do not see for one moment why we should make it merely an emergency Measure in the sense in which it was introduced, because it is now a Bill which it might be advisable to continue for more than three years.
    We know perfectly well what the object of hon. Members in this House is in attempting to keep in this period of

    2457
    three years. There are those who want to smash this Bill up, and if they cannot do that, then they want to continue for only a short time. There is another class who are interested in a fantastic scheme for Greater London which has already been turned down by a Royal Commission, whose decision they have absolutely refused to accept, although they have not been able to put forward any good reasons for refusing those recommendations. Here we have a Bill absolutely in accordance with the recommendation of that Commission that we should have certain definite ad hoc authorities or Committees to deal with particular matters such as traffic. I hope the House will accept the Lords Amendment in this case, and give this Bill a reasonable chance, and not take the rather foolish and futile course of endeavouring to limit future Parliaments in the way which has been proposed.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Originally the Bill contained an open date, but by agreement in Committee a date was added,
    and this was carried by a majority, and as a democrat I accept that conclusion. Three years was inserted, but the Bill now comes back with six years added. The reason I oppose the Lords Amendment is that the problem as it is now is a serious one, and the shortest possible time you can give to it will give the greatest impetus to the local authorities to tackle the traffic problem. As soon as we insert the period of six years in the Bill, we shall find that no serious effort will be made to tackle the problem at all. In three years' time changes will have to be made to fit in with new requirements, and to give a period of six years, which will probably stabilise the anomalies that exist to-day, and which will exist later, is far too long. For these reasons I hope the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 63.

    Division No. 189.]

    AYES.

    [1.26 p.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Franklin, L. B.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Leach, W.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Lee, F.

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Lindley, F. W.

    Alstead, R.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Linfield, F. C.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Loverseed, J. F.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Gosling, Harry

    Lowth, T.

    Baker, Walter

    Greenall, T.

    Lunn, William

    Banton, G.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    McCrae, Sir George

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Barnes, A.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Batey, Joseph

    Groves, T.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Birkett, W. N.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Mackinder, W.

    Black, J. W.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N)

    Maden, H.

    Bonwick, A.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    March, S.

    Broad, F. A.

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Marley, James

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Maxton, James

    Buckle, J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Middleton, G.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mills, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Montague, Frederick

    Climie, R.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Hillary, A. E.

    Muir, John W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Murray, Robert

    Crittall, V. G.

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Hudson, J. H.

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Perry, S. F.

    Dukes, C.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Dunnico, H.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Potts, John S.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E)

    Raffan, P. W.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Egan, W. H.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Finney, V. H.

    Keens, T.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Lansbury, George

    Rea, W. Russell

    Foot, Isaac

    Law, A.

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Spence, R.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Robertson, T. A.

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)

    Royle, C.

    Sullivan, J.

    Williams, Maj. A. S.(Kent, Sevenoaks)

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Scurr, John

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Windsor, Walter

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Sexton, James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Woodwark, Lieut. Colonel G. G.

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Thurtle, E.

    Wright, W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Viant, S. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Snell, Harry

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. B. Smith.

    NOES

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harland, A.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Harvey, C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Berry, Sir George

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frater

    Blundell, F. N.

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Wells, S. R.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Lumley, L. R.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    MacDonald, R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Clayton, G. C.

    McLean, Major A.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Cope, Major William

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Sir Kingsley Wood and Mr. Dennis Herbert.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Pease, William Edwin

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. A Greenwood.]

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Particular matters which may be referred to the Advisory Committee.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 25, lines 6 and 7, leave out "or one or more of them."
    Sir K. WOOD: May we ask what this Amendment means? Is it a drafting Amendment? Might I suggest that it would be well if we had a Law Officer present? I see the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Clynes). I have no doubt that he has observed the inconvenience in which the House is placed. Where is the Attorney-General this afternoon? Where is the Solicitor-General? Perhaps the Minister of Transport will tell us that at the same time that he explains the Amendment.
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is really reducing the Debate to an absolute farce if Members of the Government cannot tell us what the
    2460
    Amendment is that they are asking us to agree to or disagree with, as the case may be. As I understand it the words in question are "of them." That means absolutely nothing unless the Transport Minister gives us the full text, and he ought certainly to be able to explain the matter. If the Minister, cannot do it, perhaps the Deputy-Leader of the House will do it or will allow one of the Law Officers to do it. This is a very bad example of making a laughing stock of the House.
    Viscount CURZON: The last difficulty that arose was over the word "if," and we got no definition of that. Now I understand the difficulty is about the words "of them." May we hear from the Minister exactly what is referred to by these words. I submit that the House has a definite right to know from the Minister exactly what the Amendment means. I hope the information will now be forthcoming, in order that our minds may be set at rest.
    Mr. GOSLING: On the first Clause in page 3, line 19, a certain Amendment was

    2461
    moved, and this present Amendment is purely consequential on that Amendment.
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 25, line 17, at end, insert
    "with the exception of any matters dealt with by him in virtue of Section seven of this Act."
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is an Amendment which is purely consequential on the exclusion of the additional members for the consideration of Clause 7.

    THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Purposes or matters for or with respect to which Regulations may be made by the Minister.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 26, line 8, at end insert
    (6) For prescribing the number and maximum size and weight of trailers which may be drawn on streets by vehicles or vehicles of any particular class or description, and for prescribing that a man should be carried on the trailer, or where more than one trailer in drawn on the rear trailer for signalling to the driver.
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, after the word "description," to insert, the words
    "either generally, or on streets of any class or description."
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not usual first to put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment," before making any Amendment in it?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle): No. The Amendment to the Amendment is first made.
    Sir K. WOOD: May we have a little explanation of this Amendment? The hon. Gentleman simply got up and read the Amendment and his further Amendment. He gave us no information as to the meaning of it.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Should not the Motion that we agree or disagree with the Amendment be put before the Amendment is amended?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. But I think it would be well if the Minister would let the House understand why he is proposing the Amendment to the Amendment.
    Sir K. WOOD: Surely it is not an unusual thing to ask a Minister to indicate why he is inviting the House to take a certain course?
    Mr. GOSLING: I confess I am not as well acquainted with the Procedure of the House as other Members, but I may explain that the Amendment as printed on the Paper is not complete and the words I am proposing to add are necessary in order to make it work. For some reason or other they were left out, but they should be put in.
    Sir K. WOOD: That sounds all right.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am surprised at the Minister having accepted this Amendment. It seems to me that what he wants to do could have been done better by Regulations. He is introducing a curious practice in English law by making the provinces subject to quite different Regulations as compared with those obtaining in the London area. If it is right and proper to carry a man on a trailer in order to see that they are not obstructing the roads in London, surely such a Regulation should be of general application throughout the country. If it is a bad thing that a trailer should be without a man in London it must be an equally bad thing that it should not carry a man outside London. I think the Minister of Transport should have proposed to disagree with this Amendment and have promised to introduce legislation affecting the whole country on this particular point.
    Viscount CURZON: I should like to reinforce, if I may, the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). My first point is that the Minister already has power to deal with trailers generally under the Highways Act of 1896, under the Motor Car Act of 1903, and under the Roads Act of 1920. Under all these Acts he has power to make Regulations.
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it would be better if the Amendment to the Amendment were disposed of before we

    2463
    discuss the question whether or not this House agrees with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Viscount CURZON: My point is that the Minister already has power under no fewer than three separate Acts of Parliament to make Regulations with regard to the use and construction of trailers. These Regulations are now in force right throughout the country. It is sought by this Amendment to impose upon these three Acts of Parliament a fresh series of Regulations applying only to London. This seems to me to be piecemeal legislation not of a very practical character. What is going to happen if this Amendment is agreed to and the Bill passes into law? What is going to be the position of a driver of a very heavy motor vehicle with a trailer coming up from the country to London. When he arrives at the boundary of the area covered by this proposal would it not mean that a man would have to be waiting there to take a seat on the trailer? Or must a man be carried on the trailer during the whole of the trip. I suggest that this really is not a practical suggestion. I have every sympathy with the spirit of the Regulation, because I know that it is proposed in the interests of public safety. I do think, however, that great difficulty and confusion will be caused if this proposal passes. I cannot help thinking that the proper time for an Amendment of this sort is when legislation in introduced embodying the recommendations of the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles. The Minister himself, and I think also his predecessors, have indicated that such legislation is on the stocks. In fact, I believe that it has gone even further, and is actually ready for the Minister to introduce it whenever he wants to do so. I think that that legislation should the occasion for bringing in a restriction of this sort. When this matter was dis-
    2464
    cussed during the Committee stage the Minister said:
    "I must warn the Committee that this Amendment would be an alteration of the general law and that it is not a matter with which the Committee can deal."
    Therefore, I should like to know from the Minister what, if anything, has taken place in the House of Lords to alter that view, and whether he still holds to it. If he does, I think he should explain to the House why, in spite of that view, he is now prepared to agree with this Amendment. A lot of people think that many accidents are caused through trailers having no one in charge of them, and that the noise made by a vehicle and its trailer prevents the driver from hearing overtaking vehicles; but I do not think that a man sitting on the rear of a trailer is necessarily in the best position to prevent small children from jumping on to the drawbar. I would also submit that there are many trailers now in use on the roads that have no accommodation for a man to sit at the rear and warn the driver of over taking traffic, and that, therefore, the proposal is impracticable from that point of view.
    Another point that I would suggest to the House is that it is economically somewhat unsound. As things are to-day, many traders who employ motor vehicles to draw trailers to take their goods about have adopted that practice on a definite understanding, knowing the regulations and legislation as they stood. If, on the top of that, you are going to bring in legislation which is hound to put them to considerable expense, what is likely to be the point of view of those traders in the future? It is a matter which definitely concerns the workers now employed in the transport industry, because, should it become impossible for traders to use this means of transport, it may result in these men losing their employment. The goods might be transferred to a more economical method of transport, which might in that case be a railway, and people who are now working on the roads might lose their jobs. Suppose that, on the other hand, the result were that traders, instead of employing one vehicle drawing a trailer, employed more motor vehicles, would it not have the effect of still further adding to the congestion on the streets? The House

    2465
    ought to go somewhat carefully into the ramifications of this proposal before they agree with the Amendment which the Lords have inserted.
    Mr. FRANKLIN: I hope the Minister will stand firm in his acceptance of the Lords Amendment. It is intended for the protection of life and limb in London, and, surely, in the case of a trailer coming from some distance, we have first of all to consider the protection of life here. We argued this matter out in Committee, and I believe this provision is necessary to protect the weakest of the users of the roads, namely, the ordinary passengers. Therefore, I hope the Minister will stand to his guns.
    Mr. B. SMITH: I hope the House will agree with the Lords in this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) and the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) ask why we are dealing with this matter in a piecemeal fashion. In answer to that I would ask why are we dealing with the question of London traffic in a piecemeal fashion? It is simply because of the anomalies of London traffic, and because the point of saturation in regard to the roads has been reached. That is why we are dealing with it in this way, and one of the greatest causes of congestion is the trailer. There is not a motorist using the streets of London, whether a passenger driver, a commercial driver, or a private driver, who will not admit that a trailer not only adds to the density of the traffic, but because of there being no supervision on the trailer, its continual sideways movement is a danger in manipulating closely organised traffic.
    Viscount CURZON: I do not admit it.
    Mr. SMITH: The Noble Lord cannot do so at the moment.
    Viscount CURZON: Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that I have some authority to speak on the matter, as I have been driving motor vehicles since 1898.
    Mr. SMITH: Unfortunately, too fast! That, however, is just a little banter, and I am sure the Noble Lord is not offended. There is not a coroner in the country who at some time or other has
    2466
    not commented on the great danger of a second vehicle controlled by the driver of the first vehicle, so far as braking is concerned, and who has not recommended in some form or another the abolition of these trailers. When one thinks of the juvenile life that has been lost owing to there being no man on the second vehicle, that in itself ought to compel the House to exercise its sympathies and its discretion in favour of the Lords Amendment. It is suggested that the only reason for the man on the rear of the trailer is where a second trailer is added to the first, but, when there is only one trailer, the man will be there, not only to watch the conditions of the traffic, but to manipulate that vehicle, so far as he can, in order to synchronise it with the operations of the man in front of him, and thus secure safety. If it is uneconomic, the trailer will go; if it is economic, it will relieve unemployment by adding the second man on the trailer.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Instead of another lorry?
    Mr. SMITH: Instead of another lorry. The trailers are here, and hon. Members opposite do not want them to go. I do. I believe it is far better that they should be off the streets altogether. The continual lateral movement of a heavily-laden trailer on a country road does, in my view, far more harm to the road than is done by any other vehicle, because if does not follow dead in the wheel-track of the vehicle that is leading it. The continual lateral movement of the second vehicle churns up the track of the vehicle in front of it. Having regard to all the circumstances, I hope the House will do as the Committee did, and support this Amendment.
    2.0 P.M.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: I think there is a little misunderstanding about this Amendment. The point of our opposition is not that we do not recognise the danger which there may be from using trailers, or the advisability of some Regulation of this kind, but it strikes me that a provision such as is proposed in this Amendment is really, I will not say outside the scope of the Bill, but is one of those things which ought not really to be dealt with by this Bill. One of the great objections to putting it in here is that

    2467
    there is already power in certain existing Acts to deal, to a certain extent, with trailers, and those provisions which enable trailers to be dealt with extend to the whole country. If you have some different kind of provision with regard to trailers in the London area, you are creating confusion and probably making greater difficulties, and, perhaps, causing greater trouble than if they were left alone altogether. Apart from that, there is this new Bill on the stocks, in which it is proposed to deal with something of this kind, and, judging by what has been said in the House to-day on another part of the present Bill, in regard to what the House ought to do in order to try to force Parliament to do something in future, I do not think we ought to allow this Regulation to go into the Bill. If it is a desirable Regulation for London and the district, it is a desirable Regulation for the whole country, and we are only inviting delay on the part of a dilatory Government Department in bringing forward this Bill to deal with the question as a whole. Therefore, I hope, in the interest of the Bill, and in the interest of the streets of the country as a whole, and of safety to life and limb throughout the country, the House will disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.
    Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: I hope the House will refuse to accept the Lords Amendment for a very different reason from that which has been advanced. I think everyone in every quarter of the House wishes to do everything possible to benefit agriculture. It seems to me if you are going to insist either on trailers being done away with altogether or upon a man being put on every trailer you are going greatly to increase the cost of carriage. The best way to help agriculture is to decrease as far as possible the cost of carriage. By making it necessary to employ several motor-cars, or to employ a man on each trailer, you are going to do agriculture a very great disservice.
    Ordered, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."
    Committee nominated of Sir Kingsley Wood, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. Gosling, Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Webb.
    Three to be the quorum.
    To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Gosling.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  I make this formal Motion, for the purpose of making a statement on the business, which has been revised, for next week. It has been found advisable and convenient to make an alteration the effect of which is not to take the Factories Bill on Monday, and to move the Adjournment Motion, if possible, on Wednesday. Whether than can be done on Wednesday will depend upon our receiving the Amendments from another place with respect to the Housing Bill. Accordingly, I announce the business for next week in the following order:
  Monday: Appropriation Bill, Second Reading; National Health Insurance Bill, Second Reading, if it is not disposed of to-day; Arbitration Clauses (Protocol) Bill, Report; China indemnity (Application) Bill, Report and Third Reading; Workmen s Compensation (Silicosis) Bill, Second Reading.
  Tuesday: Appropriation Bill, remaining stages; and, if received, Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill and Agricultural Wages Bill.
  Wednesday: Lords Amendments, if not previously disposed of, and Adjournment Motion until 28th October.
  Sir K. WOOD: All the approved societies are most anxious that the National Health Insurance Bill shall become law at an early date. It is simply a consolidating Bill, and a certificate has been given that there is no alteration in the law whatever. The present condition of things is very awkward to people who are engaged in the work of the approved

  2469
  societies, and I therefore hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to arrange that all stages of the Bill, on which there is no controversy whatever, may be taken to-day.
  Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I understand the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill is not printed yet, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman must be content with advancing it a stage. I do not think there will be time to do more than that before the Recess. With regard to Wednesday, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government will consider meeting at Eleven o'clock. If there were no Lords Amendments, we could adjourn till a later hour in the day, but in case there were any, it might be convenient to meet at Eleven.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand the Deputy-Leader of the House does not intend to take the National Health Insurance Bill to-day.
  Mr. CLYNES: The Second Reading.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We are only too anxious to get that Bill through. It is essential before we consider the whole national insurance question. Not taking the Factories Bill on Monday means that it will be left over till after the Recess. The third point is that my hon. Friends have asked me to make some reservation in connection with the China Indemnity Bill. They do not object to the Government programme in the least, but there will be some discussion and, perhaps, proposals made in connection with it. Otherwise we are only too pleased to fall in with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions.
  Mr. CLYNES: I have no fault to find with any of the observations which have been addressed since I made the announcement. With respect to the Factories Bill, it is the intention to take it in the first week after we assemble, probably on the first day. I shall be glad if the House could agree to the whole of the stages of the National Health Insurance Bill being completed this afternoon. If time allows, there will be no objection. There is certainly no objection on the part of the Government. I accept the view that we should be content with obtaining only one stage of the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill, if it be the fact that the
  2470
  Bill is not printed. It is a small and, I think, non-contentious Measure, to bring within the compensation law men who suffer from this disease as the result of their work. I agree that it ought not to be pressed too far if the Bill has not been printed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS [MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED].
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): I beg to move,
  "That the Indenture made the twenty-eighth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, between Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, whose registered office is situate at Marconi House, Strand, in the county of London (hereinafter called the Company), of the one part, and the right honourable Vernon Hartshorn, O.B.E., M.P., His Majesty's Postmaster-General (hereinafter called the Postmaster-General), on behalf of His Majesty, of the other part, with reference to the construction of a Wireless Telegraph Station on the Beam System, be approved."
  The question of an Empire wireless system has engaged the attention of Governments during the past 14 years, and, I think everybody must admit, with very indifferent results. I do not think it is necessary for me this afternoon to say anything in support of the contention that such a scheme of wireless service is a real necessity and ought to be brought into existence at the earliest possible moment. Since it was first mooted in 1910 its importance strategically, politically and commercially has been recognised in all quarters. I have been recently in conversation with representatives from the Dominions, and they told me that whenever they get out to sea, whether from Africa, Australia or India they immediately find themselves supplied with news from France, Germany or other foreign sources, which is coloured by its origin. As a matter of fact, foreign countries are to-day able to send from their wireless stations news to receiving stations on land and sea to the uttermost parts of the earth. This fact was noted and commented upon by Admiral Field in his recent visit to the Antipodes, and very strong pressure has been brought to bear upon successive Governments by

  2471
  the Dominions to bring about such a scheme as is contemplated in this agreement.
  Whatever anxiety there may be in this country to set up an Imperial wireless system, the anxiety for such a scheme is even more intense in the Dominions. Unfortunately, as years have gone by the Dominions and ourselves have developed somewhat different ideas and methods of solving this problem. When it came into my hands I discovered that the Marconi Company and the Governments of the different Dominions had made arrangements to enter into commitments which made it necessary for continuous discussion to take place between myself, the Marconi Company and the Dominions before any definite arrangement could be entered into. Having regard to the complicated nature of the problem which presented itself, when I first endeavoured to make myself conversant with the facts, I came to the conclusion that it would be a good policy to set up a Committee. I was fortunate in having as Chairman of that Committee Sir Robert Donald, whose unflagging interest in Imperial wireless is universally recognised. I also had his very valuable assistance in a personal capacity in connection with this proposal. The Committee was set tip with these terms of reference:
  "To consider and advise upon the policy to be adopted as regards an Imperial wireless service so as to protect and facilitate public interest."
  It was impressed upon the Committee that the matter was urgent, and it will be within the knowledge of the House that the Committee issued their report in record time. Their main recommendations were two-fold in character; first, that it should be the policy of the Government to insist that all the stations in this country used for communication with any part of the Empire should be in the hands of the State, and, secondly, that the Post Office should operate directly, under an improved business organisation, all the Empire stations in Great Britain. The Committee suggested the kind of station that should be erected in order to complete the Empire scheme.
  At the time the Committee was considering this matter, it had not been made known that the experiments which had been conducted during a year or two
  2472
  previously by Marconi in connection with the short-wave directional system, known as the beam system, had reached such results as were afterwards made known. When we attempted to adopt the kind of high-power station for this purpose which had been recommended by the Committee, we found that the Marconi people were placing before us the results of their experiments on the beam system. They pointed out that it would be possible to get a service under this system of wireless communication at a very much lower cost than would be possible under a high-power station. We made known to the Dominions what had been placed before us by Marconi as to the merits of the new beam system, and informed the Dominions that if they cared to adopt this system we would be prepared to have corresponding stations in this country.
  During the discussions we had with the representatives of the Marconi Company that company agreed to co-operate with the Government in whatever policy was decided upon. Naturally, they did not care for the policy of having all the stations owned in this country by the Government, but they said that if that was the Government's decision they would accept it and loyally co-operate with us. They also agreed to carry out any decision that the Dominions might reach in relation to the kind of stations that they would have if the Dominions preferred to go in for high-power stations, the company said they would erect them in accordance with the arrangements made out there. If the Dominions said that they wanted the beam system the company said they would erect beam stations also.
  As the House will be aware from the statement I have already made, Canada has definitely decided, and arrangements are being made there for the erection of a station on the beam system. I understand now that the same arrangement is being made with Australia and South Africa. It is only right to say that nothing in the beam system in any way suggests that it can effectually take the place of high-power stations either in communicating over long distances at any time or for long distance communications in all directions simultaneously. The Government are convinced that, notwithstanding the fact that we propose to give this beam system a fair trial, it is essential

  2473
  that we should go on and complete the high-power Rugby station which our predecessors began.
  Members of this House have I assume in their hands the agreement entered into which this Resolution proposes to ratify. The agreement has attached to it a summary of its provisions, but it may assist hon. Members if I briefly recapitulate the principal provisions. The agreement provides for erection by the Marconi Company, as contractors to the Post Office, of a beam station for communicating with a corresponding station in Canada, with provision for its extension so as to provide similar communication with corresponding stations in South Africa, India and Australia. It becomes the business of the Post Office to provide sites for the company upon which to erect these stations. The agreement provides that the company shall complete the station communicating with Canada within 26 weeks from the date on which the sites for the sending and receiving stations are placed at their disposal, and they also undertake to have a similar station available in Canada for communicating with this country within the same period. It is provided that the English station is to be constructed of the best materials and in a manner satisfactory to the engineer-in-chief of the Post Office, who is to be consulted as to the lay out of the buildings and plant. The station is to be capable of communicating at a speed of 100 words per minute each way during 18 hours per day. That would be the average over the year.
  When that station has been completed there is to be a demonstration. The company are to demonstrate by actual working that the guarantees which they give are complied with in the actual working. If the Government's engineer-in-chief is satisfied after a seven days' test of that kind that the station does comply with and fulfil the guarantees given by the company, then the company will receive 50 per cent. of the cost of the station. The station will then be handed over to the Government and the Post Office will work it. If after six months it is found that the station is working satisfactorily, and in accordance with the guarantees, the company will then receive a further 25 per cent. of the cost. There will be a further period of six months' working, to see if the system is working
  2474
  throughout all the seasons, and if at the end of a complete year the engineer-in-chief is satisfied that the guarantees in the contract are really embodied in the service, then the company will be paid the remaining amount of the cost if the station does not satisfactorily comply with the test at any of the stations any time, before we have had the 12 months' test completed, or if the company fail to establish a corresponding station in Canada, it is open to the Postmaster-General to reject the English station altogether, and in that event the company would be under an obligation to return any money which had been paid to them in respect of the stations.
  The consideration to be paid to the company for the station is the actual cost, 5 per cent. being allowed for establishment charges, plus 10 per cent. for contractors' profits. Various safeguards are imposed to prevent any excessive charges, and it is provided that the maximum cost-exclusive of the percentages shall not be greater than £44,920 if a public electricity supply is available, or £50,420 if a public supply of electricity is not available. We have further provided that if South Africa or Australia decides to go in for the beam system, and the Government give the Marconi Company an order for an additional unit, that additional unit, which will be capable of communicating with either Dominion, must be completed within six months. If we give an order for two units for communicating with two Dominions that order must be completed within nine months. I have already said that the guarantee in connection with Canada is a speed of 100 words per minute each way for 18 hours a day, as an average throughout the year. The guarantee in connection with the other Dominions is the same as to speed, but the guarantee as to hours is as follows: Between England and South Africa there would be 11 hours per day, between England and India 12 hours per day, and between England and Australia seven hours per day. The Post Office is to pay a royalty of 6¼ per cent. of the gross receipts of the beam stations.
  Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: How much does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that that will bring in?
  Mr. HARTSHORN: I am afraid that it is not possible to give anything approaching an estimate, because it is not yet known what type of business will be attracted to this station or what the actual volume will be. The Marconi Company is to be paid a royalty of 6¼ per cent. so long as any Marconi Company patents essential for the working of this station are employed therein. After taking over the station the Postmaster-General may, if he feels so disposed, or if he see fit to do so, discard the Marconi patents, and if so the royalty ceases. The company undertake that any telegrams for this country which come under the control of the affiliated companies in the Dominions shall be forwarded to a Government station in this country, and they also give a similar undertaking in regard to any telegrams for the Continent of Europe which are not ordered by the senders for transmission by some other route. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement which is limited to any dispute arising as to the cost of the station. The agreement has been signed on behalf of the directors and the Government, but it is not binding unless and until it has been approved by Resolution of this House. It is for the purpose of securing such approval that this Resolution has been put down, and I hope that this House will now see its way to adopt the Resolution.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It is always a pleasure to listen to a statement on the work of the Post Office, because it is seldom that we have an opportunity of hearing the Postmaster-General tell us the story of what is going on in his Department. Frankly, I have great admiration for the Post Office. It does not show that dead hand which so many Government Departments are rather liable to show. But one of the troubles at the Post Office during the last few years is that there have been too many Postmaster - Generals. Although from a private point of view I would like to see the present occupant of the office there for many years, yet I feel that from a political point of view I must qualify that good wish. When I see the result of the Boston Election coming in, it suggests the swallow which is the sign of the coming summer. One of the difficulties of the Postmaster-General in regard to wireless is that he has to negotiate with the Marconi Company, and anybody
  2476
  who has negotiated with that company must have a very long spoon indeed. Consequently, in looking at this agreement one has to look at it in some detail to see if one can find any holes in it. The Postmaster-General told us of the recommendations of the last Committee on Imperial Wireless. I wonder if every hon. Member present has read the former recommendations of the Committees on Wireless? Perhaps the best of the lot is that known as the Norman Committee. That recommended practically the same as the right hon. Member told us was recommended by the last Committee. That was that Empire wireless should be operated by the State. The recommendations of the Norman Committee were most unjustifiably reversed, and I am happy to see that the last Committee has gone back practically to the original recommendation of the Norman Committee.
  We have it laid down that the policy in future in this country, with regard to Empire wireless, is that the stations should be controlled by the State. With that I cordially agree. But let us remember that the Marconi Company have manœuvred us into a very difficult position. They have control of the other end. In all the Colonies and throughout the world we are not free to transmit and receive messages from another Government or another Dominion station, but always at the other end we have to communicate with the Marconi Company. I am not free who says that private enterprise is not better than State control, but this is not a question of private competition against the Government. The question which we have to bear in mind always is whether the Government or a pure monopoly should run it. I would rather that the Government ran it. One of the difficulties in the last negotiations was that the Marconi Company refused to allow the Post Office to run a station erected by themselves. On that the negotiations broke down. I am surprised to see that in the operation of this more complex system the Marconi Company are allowing the State full control, whereas with the simpler higher-power stations they "kicked" at the last minute and broke down the negotiations. I do not think that the Postmaster-General made clear to the House what is happening with the very high-power station at

  2477
  Rugby. I quite see that when an enterprising body like the Post Office fathers the hope of communicating long distance by a short-wave system, one should take advantage of it. But we are, at the same time, going on with the building of a high-power station, 500 kilowatts or more, at Rugby, with masts over 800 feet high.
  In this Agreement the hours guaranteed by the system are laid down. They show that the short-wave, beam system is practically a night system of transmission; it does not attempt to penetrate the difficulties of ether during the day. I have never been able to get any data as to whether one can, with a high-power station, transmit during the day. The difficulty of transmitting to India, with all the thunderstorms between, and to South Africa, are very nearly as bad with the high-power station as with the beam station. I doubt whether this particular system is going to be better than the One originally thought of, because if the modern system cannot deal with atmospherics, as is clearly shown in this memorandum. I cannot see where the great advantage comes in, except perhaps from the point of view of interruptions to other wireless. On one or two points in this Agreement I wish for information. I see that the company are to receive 6¼ per cent. gross on the receipts. That is all right if everything goes well. On the other hand, it may mean that the Government are making a dead loss upon the whole scheme, and yet the Marconi Company are making a dead profit. That wants to be modified by some provision dealing with the question whether the enterprise as a whole is a success or not. It seems preposterous that the Government should lose money and that a private company should make it during operations of that kind. This is a very new business. We do not know what is going to happen to wireless to-morrow. Yet I see on page 13 of the Agreement the following paragraph:
  "Any patent which the company may purchase or become entitled to use after the date at which the apparatus covered thereby is installed in the Beam system, shall not be regarded as a Marconi patent for the purposes of this Clause."
  Frankly, that seems a very dangerous thing to put in the Agreement. It may be that we shall be able to get over our difficulties only by a new invention. Con-
  2478
  sequently the whole thing would fail or be a success by the employment of a new invention. By this Agreement, whoever has that invention has the Government in his hands. That is the great danger. H the company own or get into their possession patents which would improve the Beam system, before we sign this Agreement we ought to know on what terms we are going to have the use of any further patent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer those two simple questions before we proceed to vote upon this matter. Apart from these few remarks I am very glad to observe the outlook of the Post Office in this respect, and I only hope that the small power wireless will be a success.
  Mr. BAKER: I am very glad to note the attitude taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) towards this proposal because, having regard to the past history of negotiations between the Marconi Company and the Government, we must look at it carefully and critically. I am given to understand by experts that the Beam system is immature and has not been successfully demonstrated by results. I am not in a position to say whether that is the case or not, but the first step to be taken, before this contract is definitely signed, is to call upon Senator Marconi to demonstrate the success of his Beam experiments before the Wireless Telegraphy Commission, the Wireless Board and the engineering advisers of the Government. If we can be given these safeguards I shall have no fear with regard to this contract, but if this contract is to be signed without these safeguards I have the gravest fears to the future. I am altogether at a loss to understand why the Beam system should have been introduced into the discussion at this particular point. Again I am speaking, not from personal knowledge, but from information received. Our experience as a nation in relation to this problem appears to differ entirely from the experience of the French nation. I gather that the high-power station outside Paris is able to communicate with the whole of the French colonies and that the French Government are quite satisfied with that system. As the possibilities of high-power stations are so well known and appreciated, it seems difficult to understand why at this point the Marconi

  2479
  Company should endeavour to persuade the Government to embark on something which is untried and unknown, but I submit there is a good reason why we should be asked to undertake a connection with these experiments at this particular moment. In my view, the basis of the whole move is the fact that the advantage of the Marconi Company lies in delay. Everything which would produce delay has been resorted to in the past, and the whole of the public propaganda has been designed to prove that the Post Office is utterly unfit and unsuitable to undertake this work, and that the nation would be well advised in permitting the Marconi Company to perform this service for it. We are told we are amply safeguarded in this agreement. We may be safeguarded with regard to nonessentials. It may be we are safeguarded with regard to the price, although on that point I am far from being satisfied. It would surely be better to have a definite specification for the station to be erected and definite public tenders for that work in order that we might be satisfied that a fair price is being paid for the station. Quite apart from that point, I am inclined to think that the desire for delay lies at the root of the problem because in the event of the Postmaster-General not being satisfied with the station and declaring that it did not meet the terms of this Memorandum, the Marconi Company would be in the favourable position of having the station erected under its control and it would be backed by public opinion, still further inflamed by the delay which had taken place, and it would then be able successfully to demand a licence to operate the system between this country and the Dominions. I regard that as a particularly serious and important matter. I fear it is useless for me to ask the Postmaster-General to postpone the vote on this particular question until consultations have taken place and experiments have been carried out to demonstrate the system in the way I have suggested, but I am glad to have an opportunity of pointing out what I regard as dangers in this connection.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: As one who has been for a good many years in this House a fairly constant critic of the delay in the development of the Empire wireless
  2480
  chain, I sincerely hope the agreement outlined by the Postmaster-General will be allowed to go through. This is, at last, a definite step. We have for many years awaited a definite step in regard to what is almost the most important feature of Empire communication. I wholeheartedly endorse the Postmaster-General's reference to Sir Robert Donald, whose excellent work in this matter as Chairman of the Empire Press Union, I have known since 1909. He has worked sincerely in this connection and the Committee which met under his Chairmanship gave a splendid example of celerity in arriving at results. As a long-distance critic in these matters, I should like to say that I think the Postmaster-General has dealt with this question in a spirit of fairness and with sole regard to the interests of the British Empire.
  Sir FREDRIC WISE: I am not going to stop this agreement from going through, and, as far as that is concerned, I support the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain), but I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Baker) as to the need for being certain that this agreement is for the benefit of the public. Such agreements in the past have not always been to the benefit of the public, and I remember taking a deputation to the Postmaster-General's predecessor in regard to an agreement which was afterwards altered. I draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to page 3 of the memorandum, with regard to the consideration to be paid to the company for the station. The consideration is to be the actual coat, plus 5 per cent. for the establishment charges and 10 per cent. for contractor's profits. I do not think that is a reasonable agreement. If I were in business I would not agree to having the establishment charges and the contractor's profit beyond the contract price. I think the various safeguards are rather misleading. The memorandum states that the various safeguards are imposed to prevent any excessive charges, and a provision has been made as to the maximum cost. If this is to be put out to tender, as I conclude it will the Postmaster-General must realise that a contractor would go very near the maximum cost. To-day, with the rings there are, naturally there would be some arrangement between contractors, and

  2481
  there would not be the opportunity of getting a reasonable contract at, perhaps, a reduced price when the maximum cost is stated in the Agreement. Also, I should like to ask why is there this difference of £5,500 between the maximum cost if a public electrical supply be available, and if a public electrical supply be not available. It seems to me it is a large amount, and that there will be rather a large profit. Also, I would like to mention what was brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) with regard to the 6¼ per cent. on the gross receipts. That is not reasonable. You find a few lines lower down it is stated, "on the gross revenue." There is a big difference between gross receipts and gross revenue. I think, certainly, it should be on the gross revenue.
  Mr. HOGGE: What is the difference between gross receipts and gross revenue?
  Sir F. WISE: One is a revenue, and the other is not necessarily a revenue. It is a very big difference. Anybody who has had anything to do with figures must, realise that receipts and revenue are very different matters. Then I should like to ask the Postmaster-General a question with regard to the Canadian Marconi Company. What is the arrangement with regard to this Agreement and the Canadian Marconi? It is a very important point when you are dealing with a monopoly such as this Agreement is giving. I feel that if the Postmaster-General will answer these questions with regard, especially, to the Agreement, which I do not think is all satisfactory so far as the public is concerned, I will not altogether oppose the Agreement.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: I shall be very pleased to give what, I think, will be very satisfactory replies to the questions that have been raised. First, I would like to reply to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) with reference to patents. The matter is dealt with in Sub section(6) of Clause 16 of the Agreement:
  "Any patent which the company may purchase or become entitled to use after the date at which the apparatus covered thereby is installed in the Beam Station shall not be regarded as a Marconi patent for the purposes of this Clause."
  2482
  The object of the provision is this: The Agreement provides that we may at any time take out of the station any Marconi patents, but, so long as we use any of them, we pay a royalty on them. It is quite possible, if we took their patents out, and used other patents, if they were entitled to purchase these, and call them their own, we might then be charged a royalty on such patents. We have put this in as a safeguard against any possibility of the Marconi people purchasing something we have put in in place of their patents, and calling them their patents, and getting royalty payment thereon. With regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend that he would like to have this thing demonstrated before sanctioning the Agreement, I do not know whether he has read the Agreement, but I do not know what more complete demonstration can be given of any system than is provided by the Agreement. The company have to erect the station at their own cost, and they have to give a seven-day test of its actual working. If during that period they comply with the guarantee, they get half the cost. It has to be tested again over another six months, and if, during that period, it proves satisfactory, they get another quarter of the cost. Then the demonstration goes on for a complete year, and if at the end I certify that it must be rejected, that decision is final, and they must refund any money they have already received.
  Mr. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a, precedent for such demonstrations? When the Marconi Company undertook to work point-to-point demonstrations, they gave two demonstrations working between Stonehaven and Newcastle before the contract was signed. I am afraid the Postmaster-General did not hear my reference to the position that would arise if he would not give a certificate.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not know what obtained in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do know what is in this Agreement, and it was felt desirable that we should have, for the purpose of this new system, not merely short tests, but tests during the whole year, summer and winter, so as to get all atmospheric conditions. That is why we have adopted this method rather than a short method. It has been sug-

  2483
  gested that the royalty of 6¼ per cent. is not a fair royalty. I can only say that in 1912 or 1913 contracts were entered into on behalf of the Government under which the Marconi Company agreed to erect six stations, and the royalty provided for in those agreements was 10 per cent., and not 6¼ per cent.
  Sir L, WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Gross?
  Mr. HARTSHORN: Yes. It has been suggested that we make this 6¼ per cent. while it is a losing concern. All I can say is, that if at the expiration of the 12 months' test we take over a service which complies with the guarantees provided here, if we have got a station handed over to us that will give an 18 hours' service at 100 words a minute each way, it seems to me we have got a substantial and profitable business to take over at the end of the year.
  Sir F. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman alter the words to "gross revenue" instead of "gross receipts"?
  Mr. HARTSHORN: This Agreement has been signed, and it must be ratified or rejected as it stands. I do not think anything could be altered in the Agreement in this discussion. A great deal has been said about the Marconi Company. I hold no brief for them, but I want to be fair, and we must keep this fact in mind, that the Marconi people have done an immense amount of pioneer work. They have built up a business between this country and Canada. They have been on the top for 15 years. We are taking the whole of that business from them and transferring it from their stations to our stations, and I think, having regard to the provisions of this Agreement, it must be admitted that the Marconi people have met the Government fairly in this matter, and have nothing in this Agreement except that to which they are fairly entitled. My hon. Friend opposite (Sir F. Wise) called attention to the fact that there is the cost plus overhead charges. If my bon. Friend will look at the provisions in Clause 11 on page 10 of the White Paper he will see that it is only the actual cost of each item of manufacture that is taken into account.
  2484
  Instead of including overhead charges in that cost, and ascertaining just what proportion of the overhead charges should be allocated to each particular item of work, we have agreed to an overall overhead figure of 5 per cent.
  Sir F. WISE: Fifteen per cent. in all.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: It is 15 per cent.; but you must allow for the overhead charges in any statement of cost. A further objection is raised that as we have indicated a maximum the contractors will get as near the maximum as possible. If my hon. Friend will read this Agreement he will find that is quite impossible. Time books are to be kept, sheets are to be kept with accounts of the actual work done, the time spent, the wages paid. There is to be an account of everything in connection with the purchase of material—any allowance made to the company; all that is to be accounted for. Only the actual cost is taken into account, and whether the amount is the maximum, or half the maximum, that is what they will be paid. If you look carefully through the provisions of this Agreement I think you will see that is very carefully safeguarded in all respects.
  Sir F. WISE: What is the position with regard to the Canadian Marconi Company
  Mr. HARTSHORN: Under this Agreement the Marconi Company in this country, with whom we are dealing, and who are parties to this Agreement, undertake as part of this contract to provide a station in Canada by the time this one is ready in this country, and if they do not do it they have broken this contract.
  Sir F. WISE: What about the receipts and revenue?
  Mr. HARTSHORN: The position in relation to that will be this: they must send through their stations to our stations all business that arises in the Dominions. As is customary in these transactions, whatever is received for the messages will be evenly divided as between the receiving and the sending stations, after deducting terminal charges. I think that is the usual thing in these cases.
  Sir H. BRITTA1N: If this Agreement is entered into, can we take it that the

  2485
  work is to be put in hand immediately, and that there will be no further delay of any kind?
  Mr. HARTSHORN: The position is that until we have provided a site the work cannot proceed, but when we provide the site for the receiving and the transmitting station the station must be completed within six months. The engineers of the Post Office and the Marconi Company are at present considering the suitability of certain sites which have been suggested, and I am hoping that almost immediately on the ratification of this Agreement work is will be proceeded with.
  Question put, and agreed, to.
  Resolved,
  "That the Indenture made the twenty-eighth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, between Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, whose registered office is situate at Marconi House, Strand, in the county of London (hereinafter called the Company), of the one part, and the right honourable Vernon Hartshorn, O.B.E., M.P., His Majesty's Postmaster-General (hereinafter called the Postmaster-General), on behalf of His Majesty, of the other part, with reference to the construction of a Wireless Telegraph Station on the Beam System, be approved."

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]
  3.0 P.M.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: This is a Bill which was introduced in the House of Lords. It is a Bill of 135 Clauses, a very heavy Bill indeed. I understand it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. They introduced some hundred or more Amendments, and the Bill was ordered to be reprinted. So far as I am aware, it has never been before this House at all. The Bill has not been reprinted, there is no copy obtainable in the Vote Office; not a single soul has seen this Bill at the present time. It was strongly impressed on me a short time ago by two members, one on the opposite benches and one on this side, that the Bill ought to be allowed to go through all its stages to-day. That is absolutely impossible. It is grotesque
  2486
  enough to allow a Second Reading of a Bill which not a single Member of the Government has ever seen in print, especially when it is a Bill of 135 Clauses. True, it is a Consolidating Bill, and I have not a word to say about it—as far as I am aware it is a perfectly good and highly desirable Bill—but I do protest against Bills being brought before us without a print being obtainable. It would get this House a very bad name if it went out that this House passed a particular Bill without a single person having seen it. That is not a thing which would add to the dignity of the House, nor to its respect, at all events, among the legal profession. I understand there are very special reasons for saying the Bill should go, through—I am not saying a word against the Bill, I know nothing about it—but I understand the Government are not now going to ask for more than this stage to-day, and I hope that before it goes through the other stages the Bill will be printed, and that we shall have an opportunity of seeing it. I appeal to the Government in future not to come down to the House to ask us to pass Bills which have not been printed, because it is merely luck whether anybody comes here to raise any objection, and it is an invidious thing to do.
  Sir K. WOOD: When I asked that the Bill should be taken through all its stages to-day and pressed for it, I was not aware that it had not been printed. The Bill is very much wanted by the insurance societies of the country, who are very anxious to have the law consolidated so that they can get to work upon it. I quite agree that, seeing the Bill is not printed that we ought to have it printed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) is as interested as I am, but under the circumstances he has suggested that we should not take it any further than the Second Reading. I trust that this will be arranged and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will see that the Bill is properly printed before we take it through its other stages. The matter is not likely to be much delayed, because there will be a certificate given that there is no alteration in the law, and, seeing that this is simply a matter of consolidation, I do not think we shall be any worse for not going beyond the Second Reading. But there

  2487
  is a good deal in what my right hon. Friend has said, and so far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared that the Bill should have its Second Reading, but we ought not, I think, to go beyond that to-day.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: When I asked the Leader of the House to pass this Bill through all its stages, to-day, I was under the same delusion as the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) that the Bill was printed. I know it is purely a consolidating Measure, and that we want it, especially in connection with the Royal Commission. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University that it would be quite unfair on our part to try to press for anything more than the Second Reading until the Bill has been printed. Therefore I trust the Government will be content with the Second Reading and have the Bill printed by Monday.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: The House, I feel sure, will feel grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) for his vigilant care in this matter. We have protested again and again against Measures coming to this House with Amendments unprinted. I trust, now that the matter has been raised, that we shall have no recurrence of this very serious difficulty which, though this may be the worst instance, is only one of a number.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): We shall not press for more than the Second Reading to-day. We are the victims of circumstances. We only received the Bill last night, and we were very anxious that its stages should be completed before the Houses rises, because, following upon this, it will be necessary to revise and consolidate the Regulations. It is most desirable, indeed essential, that these should begin to operate on 1st January of next year, and that would not be possible if we held over the consideration of the Bill until the Autumn. I am sorry that the Bill has not been printed, but it is purely a Consolidation Bill, and in no way amends the law.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The order for printing was made on 9th July, and it is now August. Such a Bill ought to be printed as early as possible.
  Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: It is not quite fair that the ordinary Member should be asked to go into a Measure of this kind without having seen it. I think we ought not to go further to-clay than the Second Reading.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly, I thought I had made that clear.

  MOTOR CAR RACES BILL.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill only proposes to give powers in regard to the holding of motor car races similar to those given in other countries. The motor car industry has suffered very serious difficulties in this respect, and it is undoubtedly admitted that racing leads to many new improvements in motor cars. This Bill gives power to the Minister of Transport to authorise races upon certain roads. The application for leave has to come to the Minister of Transport from the local authority and therefore it would have the consent of the people in that particular district. It is only proposed to have these races in places which are very remote from towns. I do hope the House will see their way to getting us have the Second Reading of this Bill, because, if there be anything to which the Government object, and I do not think there is, we shall be quite ready to meet them in Committee.
  Mr. MILLS: This Bill is very topical and timely, because I understand, exercising the rigidity of the law with all its antiquated procedure, there is about to be a prosecution for motor racing on the Sabbath in Wales. I should like to know whether the promoters of this Bill have made provision for dealing with this

  2489
  Statute of Queen Anne, which I understand operates against so-called Sunday amusements.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: There is no intention of having any racing on Sunday.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Motor racing on Sunday is expressly forbidden in this Bill, so the point of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) is already met. I do not think, however, that it is very desirable to give power for the public highways to be used for motor races. The object of the highways is that people should be able to pass and repass upon them for the purpose of going to and from particular places, and should be able to do so in reasonable safety. I know that it is probably somewhat out of place to say this from the position I now occupy, but I venture most strongly to oppose the Bill. Motor racing at the best is a very doubtful form of amusement, and there are certainly ample tracts on which motor races can be held. It seems to me that a Bill enabling MEP public highways to be used for motor races ought not to be allowed to go through in a small House on a Friday afternoon, and I should like to move, "That the Debate be adjourned until a quarter to Four o'Clock." No one anticipated that a private Member's Bill would be taken after Government business, and, in ordinary circumstances, at the conclusion of Government business, the Government would have moved the Adjoins-intent, but they have not done so owing to the fact that our pressure is soon to be required elsewhere. If it be not in order for me to move the Adjournment, I shall simply oppose the Bill, and, if necessary, divide upon it at the proper time.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman would be in order in moving, "That the Debate be adjourned," and that would mean that the Bill would not be taken to-day.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day three months."
  Mr. STURROCK: I sincerely hope that the course proposed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) will not he followed. He has addressed the House
  2490
  under some misconception as to what the Bill proposes. It is in no sense a mandatory Measure. No one proposes that the House of Commons should compel different localities to indulge in motor racing. It is a Bill to enable any local corporation to apply to the Ministry of Transport for powers to have such races on a limited number of days in one year. It seems to me that the Bill is really a very reasonable Measure and one worthy of having a Second Reading in this House. We are anxious to do all we can to foster the motor car industry in this country, and there can be no reason for objecting to motor races taking place under well-regulated conditions in suitable parts of the country. I submit that Parliament, in its wisdom, may well allow local authorities to make application to be allowed to carry out such races, and if they do so and secure the approval of the Minister of Transport, my right hon. and learned Friend can have no real ground for objecting to the user of the roads for the purposes concerned, both in the interests of the motor trade and of sport. I therefore hope the House will give the Measure a Second Reading to-day.
  Notice taken at twenty-five minutes after Three of the Clock that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—
  Mr. SPEAKER: There not being 40 Members present, I shall resume the Chair at a quarter to four when a Royal Commission is expected.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at a Quarter before Four o'Clock.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

  1. Finance Act, 1924.

  2. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924.

  3. British Museum Act, 1924.

  4. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1924.

  5. Telegraph (Money) Act, 1924.

  6. Public Works Loans Act, 1924.

  7. Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924.

  8. Government of India (Leave of Absence) Act, 1924.

  2491

  9. Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1924.

  10. Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924.

  11. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1924.

  12. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1924.

  13. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1924.

  14. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1924.

  15. Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women, Glasgow, Order Confirmation Act, 1924.

  16. Edinburgh Corporation (Tramways, Etc.) Order Confirmation Act, 1924.

  17. Rothesay Tramways (Amendment) Order Confirmation Act, 124.

  18. London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges, Scotland) Order Confirmation Act, 1924.

  19. Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1924.

  20. London Midland and Scottish Railway (Superannuation Fund) Act, 1924.

  21. Grampian Electricity Supply Act, 1924.

  22. London and North Eastern Railway Act, 1924.

  23. London Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1924.

  24. Morecambe Corporation Act, 1924.

  25. Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Act, 1924.

  26. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1924.

  27. Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1924.

  28. Sutton Harbour Act, 1924.

  29. London County Council (Money) Act, 1924.

  30. Neath Harbour Act, 1924.

  31. Southend Waterworks Act, 1924.

  32. Brighton Corporation Water Act, 1924.

  33. Thames Conservancy Act, 1924.

  34. Birmingham Corporation Act, 1924.

  35. Southern Railway Act, 1924.

  36. London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Act, 1924.

  2492

  37. Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Act, 1924.

  38. Rotherham Corporation Act, 1924.

  39. Halifax Corporation Act, 1924.

  40. Wakefield Corporation Act, 1924.

  And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:
  Diocese of Winchester (Division) Measure, 1923.

  MOTOR CYCLE RACES BILL.
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  It being after Four of the Clock, and objection, being taken, to further Proceedings, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next (4th August).

  SEEDS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order [7th July] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Blundell.]

  SEEDS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday next.—[Mr. Parkinson.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
    Adjourned at Three Minutes after Four o'Clock until Monday, 4th August.

  POLICE TESTIMONIALS, BARKING.
  POLICE TESTIMONIALS, BARKING.
  HORATIO BOTTOMLEY.
  HORATIO BOTTOMLEY.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT, BRISTOL AND CLEVEDON.
  BENEFIT, BRISTOL AND CLEVEDON.
  RELIEF WORKS (GRANTS).
  RELIEF WORKS (GRANTS).
  MINERS, FIFESHIRE.
  MINERS, FIFESHIRE.
  SKILLED TRADESMEN, PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT.
  SKILLED TRADESMEN, PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (INSTRUCTIONS).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (INSTRUCTIONS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL EMPLOYÉS.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL EMPLOYÉS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT REGISTER, SHEFFIELD.
  UNEMPLOYMENT REGISTER, SHEFFIELD.
  INSURANCE (ADMINISTRATION, GLASGOW).
  INSURANCE (ADMINISTRATION, GLASGOW).
  MINIMUM RATES OF WAGES.
  MINIMUM RATES OF WAGES.
  CROFTERS' ASSESSMENT (FARR, SUTHERLAND).
  CROFTERS' ASSESSMENT (FARR, SUTHERLAND).
  ASSURANCE COMPANIES ACT (COMMITTEE).
  ASSURANCE COMPANIES ACT (COMMITTEE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  CHINA STATION (SUBMARINE AND OTHER CREWS).
  CHINA STATION (SUBMARINE AND OTHER CREWS).
  PENSIONS CLAIM (G. H. BOYES, SUNDERLAND).
  PENSIONS CLAIM (G. H. BOYES, SUNDERLAND).
HOUSING.
  BUILDING (LONDON).
  BUILDING (LONDON).
  NON-PARLOUR HOUSES (COST).
  NON-PARLOUR HOUSES (COST).
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES, KENT.
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES, KENT.
  NON-PAYMENT OF BATES, SHEFFIELD.
  NON-PAYMENT OF BATES, SHEFFIELD.
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

BARONY OF BEAUCHAMP.
Report made from the Committee for Privileges.—
That the evidence produced by the Petitioner, Colonel Ulric Oliver Thynne, is insufficient to prove that any of his ancestors ever sat in Parliament as Baron Beauchamp:
Read, and agreed to, and resolved and adjudged accordingly; and Resolution and Judgment to be laid before His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BARONY OF FITZWALTER.
Proceedings and evidence to be printed.
Ordered, That all deeds, documents and papers produced on behalf of the claimant by his agents, be delivered to the said agents.

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (LAMBETH BRIDGE) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM:My Lords, I understand, from a private conversation that I have had with the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, that he will do his best to give us during to-day's proceedings an account of the negotiations which are in progress at the moment as regards the Boundary Commission concerned with the boundary between the North and South of Ireland.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR):My Lord, I think the noble Lord has slightly misunderstood or exaggerated what I said. I said that I would endeavour to obtain an account of what the Prime Minister said in another place and, if the House desired it, this should be communicated. I did not go beyond that.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM:I certainly did not wish to misrepresent the noble Lord. If he will give us the information which he has said that he will give us and which has been given already in another place, I shall be satisfied
LORD PARMOOR:If I can obtain it I will do so.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:Does not the noble Lord know what the Prime Minister has agreed to do? If so, why not tell us?
LORD PARMOOR:I certainly should not make any statement here unless I had the same words as the Prime Minister himself used. It is far too serious a matter.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM:May I say that this is all that I ask?
LORD PARMOOR:Quite so.

ST. HELENS CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BLACKPOOL ORDER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of 38 &39 Vict. c. 55, and 54 & 55 Vict. c. 76 in respect of smoke nuisances.
1.—(1) The provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, relating to smoke nuisances shall be amended as follows: —
(e) Section three hundred and thirty-four of the Act shall have effect as if there were included amongst the processes specified in that section the processes of reheating, annealing, hardening, forging, converting and carburising iron and other metals:
Provided that the Minister may by Provisional Order at any time after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act exclude from the application of that section any processes specified in that section as amended by this paragraph so far as smoke nuisances are concerned.
(2) The provisions of the Public Health (London) Act. 1891. relating to smoke nuisances and smoke consumption shall be amended as follows: —
(e) In subsections (2) and (3) of section twenty-three of the Act (which relate to penalties for non-consumption of their own smoke by furnaces and steam vessels) "twenty-five pounds" and "fifty pounds" shall be substituted for "five pounds" and "ten pounds" respectively.
VISCOUNT NOVAR:Before we come to the Amendments on the Paper I should like to remind the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, of a question that I have previously addressed to him as to whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill dealing with smoke abate-
204
ment in Scotland. I may remind the noble Earl that, a year ago, a Bill was introduced for Scotland a few days after the English Bill was presented to the House. They were very moderate Bills— probably too moderate. The simplest course now might be for me to move to insert Scotland in this Bill, but there might be disadvantages in that procedure. I hope that the Government do intend to deal with this subject in Scotland, because it is even more pressing there, I think, than in England, by reason of the amount of soft coal that we burn. I do not see why Scotland should be excluded from such remedy as is given to England. The injury done by smoke pollution there in more than one branch of industry is very great.
Probably the best use to which the large amount of waste land in colliery districts could be put is planting, but the value of a silvicultural crop may be diminished by 50 per cent. owing to the prevalence of smoke in the atmosphere. I myself planted 800 acres around collieries, and I am well aware of the effect of this pollution on silviculture. As a matter of fact, this is not merely a Clydeside question. There are parts of Fife where you cannot go into a plantation unless you put on dungarees, and the effect on the trees is even worse than it is upon the clothes. Again, surrounding the towns you have a considerable extent of horticulture and that is probably one of the most important aspects of the land question. That industry is hampered by smoke. I think that pollution by smoke is even a more serious matter than pollution of the rivers. Even agriculture is affected by it, and certainly the stock. I am aware of the strength of the opposition, but I am satisfied from my own experience as provost of an industrial Scottish burgh that great improvement can be effected without any detriment to industry and with great advantage to the public.
EARL DE LA WARR:This Bill is an addition to the Public Health Code. Scotland has a separate code from England and therefore a separate Bill for Scotland will have to be introduced. I understand from my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland, that this will be done in the autumn.
LORD ASKWITHmoved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (1), immediately before

205
the proviso to insert "and in addition thereto the Minister may at any time by Provisional Order include any other process." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment to allow new processes to be inserted by Provisional Order so as to give flexibility to the new prevision. Lord Gainford would have moved this Amendment, but he has been called away on business. It is supported by a large number of manufacturers and also by the Smoke Abatement Society, who consider that flexibility is necessary. Even at the present moment, although this Bill has had a certain amount of advertisement, there may be processes which should be brought under it, and particularly one in the pottery industry— to which Lord Gainford alluded on Second Reading—in which, according to the technical men inside the industry, very highly finished results in a particular kind of pottery cannot be got without adding smoke to the atmosphere. It would be a serious thing to interfere with the trade by suddenly depriving it altogether of the right of putting smoke into the atmosphere. Therefore I move this Amendment. It might be said that new processes could come to Parliament for a new Bill, but that, I think, would be entirely inadmissible in such cases. If it were done by Provisional Order, Parliament could amend or reject it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("metals") insert ("and in addition thereto the Minister may at any time by Provisional Order include any other process").—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL DE LA WARR:This Bill is already very weak and emasculated, and the Minister is unwilling to accept an Amendment like this which will further weaken it. The Amendment would also cause certain difficulties in administration, and leave the Minister open to be continually approached by every sort of industry urging him to issue a Provisional Order. I might add that as the law is at present no complaints have been received by the Minister. With regard to new industries, if it is proposed that this Amendment should be passed in order to meet the case of new industries, the Ministry considers that it would be very unwise to legislate ahead of them, and that if new industries require some such treatment as this they can be dealt with at the time.
LORD NEWTON:I am certainly not in favour of weakening the Bill, but I venture to suggest that the point made by Lord Askwith might be met by inserting the word "new" in the place of "other" process. Everybody connected with the existing trade knows perfectly well that there might be some new process, and if the word "new" is inserted I do not see that any harm could be done.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:I would rather like to support what my noble friend has said. The noble Earl who speaks for the Government has told us that no complaint has been received from existing industries, but it is possible that a new industry might come along which would necessitate this Amendment and if you do not have some provision it would necessitate further legislation. Possibly the Government will consider it between now and Report, and endeavour to find some solution.
EARL DE LA WARR:I will certainly lay the matter before the Ministry.
LORD ASKWITH:I will withdraw my Amendment and put it down again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KYLSANTmoved, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out "which relate to penalties for non-consumption of their own smoke by furnaces and steam vessels." The noble Lord said: It is a small Amendment, but it is one in which the Chamber of Shipping is very much interested as they feel that the present law fairly deals with the question of steamers and that ship owners already do everything possible to reduce the amount of smoke produced. We all look forward to the day, perhaps not very many years hence, when there will be a great many motor vessels, producing no smoke at all, but the Chamber of Shipping is very much concerned with the wording of the Bill and I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 2 to 3, leave out ("(which relate to penalties for non-consumption of their own smoke by furnaces and steam vessels)").— (Lord Kylsant.)
LORD NEWTON:A rumour has reached me that the Government are inclined to consider this Amendment favourably, and I trust that by the remarks which I am about to make I may induce them to alter

207
their decision. I would like to remind the Committee that this question of smoke pollution has been carefully investigated for several years. For two years I sat with a number of other gentlemen on an inter-Departmental Committee, and not a single representative of the shipping interest appeared before us during the whole of that time, nor was any representation made to us with regard to that particular industry. Now, at the eleventh hour, the noble Lord comes and wants his own particular industry to be excluded. This is the third time that the Smoke Abatement Bill has been introduced by the Government and the first time that any mention of the shipping industry has been made at all, except on the Second Reading of this Bill.
I am not at all influenced by the fears of the noble Lord. I do not think that the modest proposals in this Bill are likely prejudicially to affect the shipping interest to any important extent, and I am fortified in this view by the fact that recently I saw a notice that a shipowner had died leaving over £3,500,000. That does not look as if the shipping industry was in a bad way. I should, however, like to point out the position of shipping at the present moment. I do not know whether it is realised that ocean-going steamships are not liable to prosecution at all, so long as they are in motion. It is only with regard to the case of tugs and small coasting vessels when they are in rivers and in tidal waters, that there is any legislation. Ocean-going ships cannot be proceeded against so long as they are in motion, either coming or going, and, of course, when they get three miles away from this country they can do what they like. The result is that they are only liable to prosecution when they are at anchor or in a port; in other words, in exactly the same position as a manufacturer.
What possible reason is there why they should be exempt? For some reason or other, my noble friend only proposes under his Amendment to exempt the ships in the River Thames, but I submit that there is no sort of reason for making any exemption whatever with regard to this particular industry. If a manufacturer is under certain Regulations with regard to smoke, it is only fair that a steamer in harbour or at anchor should be placed in the same position. The difficulties are no Lord Newton.
208
greater. I sincerely hope, therefore, that no countenance will be given to this Amendment.
LORD KYLSANT:I should like to point out to the noble Lord that whilst this particular Amendment only affects the port of London, I have a further Amendment later on which will deal with the whole question.
EARL DE LA WARR:All our sympathies are with Lord Newton. Unfortunately, the only chance that this Bill has of going through is if it is an agreed measure. As there is a considerable opposition from the shipping trade, the Minister has decided that he will have in some way to meet them. We do it under protest, but the Minister will consider the question of putting down some Amendment on the Report stage.
LORD KYLSANT:An Amendment fairly to meet the point raised?
EARL DE LA WARR:It would meet the principle.
LORD NEWTON:The noble Earl says this Bill is more or less an agreed Bill. That is perfectly true. It is an agreed Bill between the persons who are interested in smoke abatement and the Federation of British Industries. That Federation is a. very important body, the most important body of its kind in the country, and I am able to state that they arc against this Amendment. They are quite naturally in favour of the principle that all industries should be treated alike.
LORD PARMOOR:I hope the noble. Lord, Lord Kylsant, will allow this to stand over till the Report Stage. I think it would be much more convenient.
LORD KYLSANT:All right. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITHmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection: —
"(4) Within twenty-four hours after any alleged nuisance has occurred an intimation shall be given to the occupier of the premises in respect of which such nuisance is alleged."
The noble Lord said: The object is that a notification should be made at once when a nuisance has either been reported or is seen. The present system in most towns would be that

209
an inspector would either observe or be told of a nuisance; that he would have to report it to the medical officer of Health; that that officer would report it to the local health authorities or the sanitary authorities; that they would refer it to the council; and that the council would tell the clerk to write a letter and the letter presumably would then be written by the clerk, perhaps a month after the nuisance had occurred. It has been found that quick inspection of a nuisance, which is very often due either to carelessness or to an omission which was not intended, will stop it or give the owner the opportunity of abating it, but that if time passes by it is impossible very often to find out how the nuisance arose. As this has been talked of as an agreed Bill I may mention that both the Federation of British Industries and the Smoke Abatement Society are anxious that this subsection should be inserted. It has been tried in a voluntary manner in one or two towns. It might be said that other towns would follow suit, but that has not happened and a mandatory injunction would have a great deal more effect.
In Sheffield, a very smoky town, it is said that the results of such action are good. The major portion of Sheffield lies in a cup and it is a very smoky place. I remember seeing an engraving of a picture which was taken in a smokeless Sheffield when Queen Victoria visited it. The whole of the inhabitants determined that the Queen should not see a smoky Sheffield, and they put out their fires and stopped their blast furnaces for three or four days. So pleased were they with the result that they actually made pictures and engravings of it. I saw one engraving at Messrs. Vickers & Co. If that result could be brought about in a few more towns it would spread throughout the country, people would get the idea of a smokeless atmosphere and this Bill would be far more popular than any other Bill that has been passed by the present Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL DE LA WARR:This Amendment would cause considerable difficulties in administration. The Minister is, however, prepared to meet the noble Lord by issuing a circular when this Bill is passed urging the local authorities to realise the
210
importance of working in the very closest co-operation with manufacturers and of communicating with them privately when possible. I hope this will satisfy the noble Lord and that he will not press his Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH:I cannot conceive that a circular to the local authorities would be of the slightest value, and I propose to press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:Perhaps my noble friend will explain how the administrative difficulties would arise. I think after what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, that this Amendment would be of advantage, especially as the principle has been already tried. As we know, all our local government has grown up on these experiments in different towns, and when they have succeeded they have been embodied in legislation. I do not want to press the Amendment, but perhaps my noble friend will explain a little further. Perhaps the difficulties might be overcome by a further Amendment on the Report Stage. It does seem to me that if there is a large demand for this Amendment something more could be done than issuing a circular to the local authorities.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE:It appears to me that the people who are producing these nuisances ought to be told immediately. It is not the case that those at the head of great factories know of them. The nuisance is concealed from them by the people who produce it, and it is only fair that they should be informed at once.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:It is obviously fair that the earliest possible notice should be given to the occupier of a factory that somebody thinks he has committed a breach of the Act by emitting smoke. But the fault of this Amendment is its hopeless ambiguity. It creates an obligation and does not say upon whom the obligation is laid.
LORD ASKWITH:The information would be given by the inspector.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:Then, why not say so?
EARL DE LA WARR:If this notice were not given I think it is perfectly clear that any further legal action would be void. Therefore, the notice would have to be given within twenty-four hours.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:It is possible that the Amendment might be bettor drafted, but what I think the majority of your Lordships really wish is that there should be something on the face of the Act of Parliament placing an obligation upon the requisite authority to give information as to the nuisance as soon as possible. The noble Earl opposite says that he will see that a circular is issued by the Government Department. Clearly that is not sufficient. We want something in the Bill itself. If the noble Earl would go a step further and say that, acting in the spirit of my noble friend's Amendment, he will do his best to frame words which will carry it out, that will be quite a different answer and we can put the words in on the Report stage.
LORD PARMOOR:I think that might be done. We do not want to have a contentious Bill here. Everyone is agreed, I think, that the suggestion the noble Marquess has made ought to be accepted, and we accept it.
LORD ASKWITH:I understand the noble and learned Lord to be prepared to pass an Amendment in these terms. I should much have preferred to have had this actually in the Bill and then to amend it on the Report stage‥
LORD PARMOOR:The noble Lord may take it either way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:In that case we will put the Amendment into the Bill and then, I understand, that on Report the noble and learned Lord will ask your Lordships to alter it—he may not succeed—when the time comes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Onus of Proof.
2.—(1) In any case in which by-laws for the purpose have been made by the local authority, the emission, during such period as may be prescribed by the by-laws, of black smoke of such density and volume as may be so prescribed, shall raise the presumption until the contrary is proved that the emission constitutes a nuisance.
(3) In the application of this section to London, the London County Council shall be the local authority within the area of the administrative county.
LORD NEWTONmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "black." The noble Lord said: This is really a very important Amendment. I am sorry to be obliged to move it because I thought we had converted the Government to our view. It is difficult to prosecute anybody under the existing law, and the difficulty has been enormously enhanced owing to the fact that you have to show that the smoke is black. That, apparently, is an extremely difficult thing to do. I dare say there are noble Lords present who recollect a test case—the case of the Lots-road Power Station—where enormous trouble was taken to fight the point and it was lost because, the magistrate could not be convinced that the smoke complained of was black. It must be obvious to everybody that smoke can be equally objectionable even if it is not black. Whether it is dark grey, or brown, or green, or any colour of the rainbow, smoke is objectionable in any form.
What is the sense, therefore, of leaving that word in? This is a new Bill and is by way of amending the law. Black smoke is already a nuisance. It is already a thing upon which you can prosecute. What is the good of sticking to that particular point in this Bill? The result of including the word "black" is not only that prosecutions fail but that local authorities are very reluctant to prosecute. It is no good their making by-laws if the by-laws are liable to be nullified by an absurdity of this kind. I think my noble friend Lord Novar will corroborate me when I say that I do not think the word "black," in reference to smoke, occurs in the Scottish Health Acts at all. It is plain that you ought to be able to proceed against persons if the smoke is objectionable, and not simply because it is black. Unless this point is made clear it will be impossible to get local authorities to make bylaws and more impossible still to induce them to enforce those by-laws. In these circumstances I move the Amendment and I shall certainly divide the Committee upon it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, leave out "black".— (Lord Newton.)
EARL DE LA WARR:The effect of the Amendment would be to make it impossible for by-laws to be made setting down

213
standards for any kind of smoke. It is agreed on all hands that no way has yet been discovered of fixing standards for smoke other than black smoke. Therefore, on general grounds it is obviously undesirable to include in a Bill provisions that cannot be enforced. It does not add to the effect of the law if it contains provisions which cannot be enforced.
VISCOUNT NOVAR:There certainly is no reference to "black" smoke in the Bill which I had the honour of presenting to your Lordships' House last year. "Smoke" was defined in that Bill as including soot, ash, grit and gritty particles. There was not a word about black smoke, and I am satisfied that the local authority would have great trouble in establishing that smoke was black or otherwise. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has said, smoke is just as offensive when it is not perfectly black as it is when it is of the blackest possible colour.
EARL DE LA WARR:If the House will understand that our acceptance of this Amendment is subject to revision by the Minister on the Report stage—
LORD NEWTON:You accept it?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARRmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "of such density and volume as may be so prescribed." The noble Earl said: Clause 2 has reference to the fixing of the standards for the emission of black smoke. If these particular words which we move to omit are retained in the Bill the implication will be that it is practicable to fix standards for density and volume. That is not practicable. Therefore we desire to omit those words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("of such density and volume as may be so prescribed").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARRmoved, in subsection (3), after "London," to insert "the port sanitary authority of the port of London shall be the local authority within the district of that authority, but save as respects that district." The noble Earl said: The Minister has been approached by the port sanitary authority of London in regard to placing this Amendment in the Paper, and he has been
214
convinced that it would be best to leave the matter in their hands, as their area goes right outside the area of the London County Council, and because they will be dealing particularly with subjects with which they are competent to deal, such as shipping. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, after ("London") insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEADmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out "administrative," and after "county" insert "of London and the Common Council within the City of London." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name is a very simple one, and I move it on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London. Clause 2, subsection (3), of the Bill proposes that the London County Council shall be the local authority for making by-laws within the Administrative County of London, which includes the City. The Amendment proposes to leave out the word "administrative," which will have the effect of excluding the City, and to add "the Common Council" as the local authority for that area.
The object of my Amendment is to preserve the existing independent position of the Corporation under the Ministry of Health in regard to public health matters, as indicated by Section 133 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, which is as follows:—
"In the application of this Act to the City of London the following modifications shall be made:
(a) There shall be no appeal under this Act from the commissioners of sewers to the county council:
(b) The by-laws made by the county council under this Act shall not extend to the city:
(c) The county council shall not have power under this Act to require the commissioners of sewers to provide and maintain a building for post-mortem examinations:
(d) The powers of the county council under this Act to proceed in case of default of a sanitary authority shall not extend to the commissioners of sewers."
The Commissioners of Sewers no longer exist. The Corporation of the City of London is now in their place, and I ven-

215
ture to say that these provisions are very specific in preserving the independence of the City.
It is understood that the objection to giving this power to the City is that it is intended that the by-law powers shall comprehensively cover large areas. There is little in this objection as regards the City, because all by-laws by whomsoever made have to be approved by the Minister of Health. He would, therefore, see that those made by the Corporation were not inconsistent with those made by the London County Council. As a matter of fact, in practice, in all cases of the making of by-laws and regulations, it is for the Corporation to see what by-laws and regulations the County Council make, and then for the City to base their by-laws and regulations upon them, with such alterations and additions as may be essential. I venture to direct the attention of the House to some of the more important measures under which the Corporation have statutory independence for the City—Public Health (London) Acts, Weights and Measures Acts, Explosive Acts, Shop Acts, Locomotives on Highways Acts, Advertisement Regulations Acts, Children Acts, and also, under the London County Council General Powers Acts, in respect of the following matters—employment agencies, sanitary provisions and massage establishments. I hope that the noble Earl, after hearing this explanation, may be able to see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("administrative") and after ("county") insert ("of London and the Common Council within the City of London").—(Lord Marshall of Chipstead).
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this Amendment, because this Bill is one which seeks to give satisfaction, or at any rate to attain agreement, on all sides. If there is really a strong feeling, as my noble friend behind me has explained, in the City that this provision should be made, I hope my noble friend will accept it.
EARL DE LA WARR:The Minister does not like this Amendment, as he particularly wanted uniformity. As,
216
however, the feeling of the House appears to be in favour of it, and as the House is anxious to get on to other business, I will not resist it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
LORD NEWTONmoved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Chimneys possessed by Government Departments, public bodies and local authorities subject to Act.
"… Notwithstanding the common law or any provision in any local or public Act, all Government Departments, public bodies and local authorities possessing works from the chimneys of which smoke is emitted shall be subject to this Act: Provided that in the case of Government Departments the person in control of the branch of the department from which the smoke- is emitted shall be deemed to be the person by whose act, default or sufferance the nuisance, if any, arises or continues."
The noble Lord said: I do not like to be disrespectful of a Government measure, but it does seem to me a piece of monumental impudence to bring in a Bill dealing with a social evil and to exempt all Government establishments from the proposed penalties. It is almost as if you were to suggest that no person in Government employ should be prosecuted if he got drunk. The case is all the worse when you reflect that the present Government, as we have been told, intend to monopolise all the industries in the country—that is, supposing the industries are still going on after a, certain number of years. Consequently the whole of the industries of the country will be exempted, unless this Amendment is carried, from any penalties for producing smoke. Before the Committee there appeared most important witnesses from Government Departments, and they were more insistent than any one else upon the necessity of some alteration in the law. Now it is calmly proposed that Government establishments shall act precisely as they please, whereas every private manufacturer or merchant is to he heavily fined. I do not think it is really necessary to labour the point. I am sure it is a common-sense question, and that this Amendment will be adopted.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Newton.)
EARL DE LA WARR:It is unnecessary to attempt, amongst so many distinguished lawyers, to argue that this Amendment is constitutionally impossible. Perhaps I might give the noble Lord an example of the difficulty. A nuisance may be due to a constructional fault, and the person in charge may have no authority to spend money on structural changes without getting central authority. Further, the consent of the Treasury may be required, and even of Parliament. Is Parliament to be brought before a magistrate if an estimate has been placed before it and has not been passed? Of course not. The responsible Minister can, however, always be brought to book in Parliament. There is, however, no intention of not bringing Government establishments up to the standard, and the Minister is prepared to try to form some sort of declaration that could be inserted in the Bill.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:Will that be put in the Bill?
EARL DE LA WARR:I would not like to say that at the moment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:But you will consider it on Report?
EARL DE LA WARR:We will try to do something.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:The Government must realise that a reply that this cannot be done will not satisfy your Lordships. It is clear that it must be done. You cannot exempt a Government establishment. I am not going into the constitutional question, for we are much too pressed for time to go into that, but I would assure the noble Earl that the Government will do well to be provided at any rate with words on the next stage of the Bill. I am certain that neither this House nor another place would endure to have Government establishments exempt.
LORD PARMOOR:We will accept the situation and endeavour to get suitable words. I quite understand what has been said with regard to the words as they stand.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:I think it should be borne in mind that local authorities who may offend are not
218
covered by the constitutional objection, and I hope their case will not be forgotten.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Power to make orders extending the provisions of 6 Edw. 7. c. 14.
(2) Any order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act:
Provided that, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such order is laid before it, praying that the order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the order and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.
LORD STRACHIEmoved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) Any Order made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses 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 after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of any new Order."
The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment. It is to strike out the subsection regarding the laying of Orders before both Houses of Parliament and to insert a new one to make it mandatory and not permissive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 1 to 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.)
EARL DE LA WARR:The Government accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARRmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert—
"(3) Where the Minister of Health is of opinion that any work is of such a character as is likely to cause the evolution of any noxious or offensive gas, he may, notwithstanding that the provisions of the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906, may not apply to that work, authorise an inspector appointed under that Act to enter and

219
inspect such work, and the provisions of that Act relating to the powers of inspectors shall apply in respect of that work in the case of any inspector so authorised."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment gives the Minister the right, in the case of noxious or offensive gases, to enter on the premises for the purpose of inquiry. It is obviously necessary that he should do that before he makes this order.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power to make by-laws respecting new buildings.
4. The powers of an urban authority under section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875, and of the London County Council under section one hundred and sixty-four of the London Building Act, 1894, shall extend to the making of by-laws requiring the provision in new buildings other than private dwelling-houses of such arrangements for heating as are calculated to prevent or reduce the emission of smoke.
LORD NEWTONmoved to leave out "other than private dwelling houses." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment; I believe it will be accepted by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("other than private dwelling-houses.")—(Lord Newton.)
EARL DE LA WARR:We accept this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:The result of this will be that whenever there is a little smoke coming out of a private house, if your cook has allowed a little fat to drop in the fire, you will have a visit from an inspector, and will be hauled before a magistrate, your time will be wasted and you will probably be fined half a crown or something of that sort. I hope we are still going to have a little liberty left to us in this country. I appeal to the noble Lord—I nearly always support him—to withdraw this Amendment. It is really going too far.
LORD NEWTON:I have no intention whatever of withdrawing the Amendment. I can quite understand the noble Lord
Earl De La Warr.
220
objecting to any change for the better. I have no doubt he thinks it much more economical and desirable that a housemaid should carry a coal scuttle up to the third or fourth floor rather than there should be a gas fire. As a matter of fact, that person will not be liable to prosecution because the Amendment only applies to new buildings. All I suggest is that local authorities should be authorised to make by-laws with regard to smoke abatement appliances in new buildings. It is purely optional, and I should have thought there was no harm in it whatever.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:Does this apply only to new buildings?
LORD NEWTON:Yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:That makes a little difference certainly, but I am not sure that it makes any great difference. The noble Lord says that he does not want a housemaid to carry a coal scuttle up three or four floors. He says there should be a gas fire. I have always believed that this was a free country, and if I want to have a coal fire there is no reason why the noble Lord should come and tell me that I must have a gas fire simply because he likes a gas fire. We are going back to the days when nobody could do anything at all without the consent of some official. I do not like the Amendment, and I am astonished the Government should have accepted it in such an easy way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON:The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, after ("heating") insert ("or cooking").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
LORD RAGLAN:With reference to Lord Kylsant's Amendment, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause: "7. This Act shall not apply to any steamship or other vessel," which is not now moved, my noble friend has asked me to say that the reason why he has put this Amendment on the Paper is that he wants to be quite clear that the Amendment which the Government propose to insert on Report will cover this point.
EARL DE LA WARR:Yes, that will be considered.
Clause 7:
Short title and extent.
7.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1924.
[(2) Section three of this Act shall be construed as one with the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Act, 1906, but save as aforesaid this Act shall be construed as one with the Public Health Acts, 1975 to 1907.]
(3) This Act shall not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
EARL DE LA WARR:The Amendments to this clause down in my name are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 2, at end insert ("and this Act and the Public Health Acts may be cited together as the Public Health Acts ")
Page 5, line 4, at end insert ("and the other provisions of this Act in their application to London shall be construed as one with the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 ")
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("1875 to 1907").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day road for the consideration of Commons Reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR:My Lords, the Amendment which the Commons have disagreed to is in Clause 1, where your Lordships substituted "nineteen hundred and twenty-five" for "nineteen hundred and twenty-six." Their Reason for doing so is as follows: —
"The Commons disagree with this Amendment because it alters a charge on the rates, and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason hoping that the above reason may be deemed sufficient."
I move that the Commons Reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, I think your Lordships have some reason to criticise the action of the Government in not having brought this Bill again before the notice of this House
222
except after such a long interval. This question was considered in the House of Commons nearly a month ago, and it has only now been brought back to this House. The result is that in order to discuss this very difficult question of privilege we are reduced to the fragment of time which can be spared from the debate on the Agricultural Wages Bill, on a Friday at the end of the Session. It is much to be regretted.
As regards the actual question, your Lordships will remember that when the Bill was before this House and the Amendment was inserted it was objected to on a question of privilege, and upon consideration by many of us that was not denied, but it was urged that it ought not to be a major matter as regards the question of privilege as it has nothing to do with the imposition of taxes. It has nothing to do with anything except rates, and, although it is a matter of privilege, yet it is a point which the House of Commons has been accustomed to waive if such a course is suggested. Notwithstanding the strong feeling of your Lordships no intimation was given to the House of Commons, so I am informed, that the Lords did desire that privilege should be waived on the present occasion. I think your Lordships have some reason to complain that their view was not submitted to the House of Commons. We always desire to treat privilege of the House of Commons with the greatest respect, and upon certain matters we never call it in question, not even with a view to its being reconsidered.
But there are questions of privilege which the House of Commons is accustomed to waive on due cause being shown. How can the House of Commons know that such a Cause exists unless the matter is submitted to them? They cannot know the strong view of your Lordships if the matter is not submitted to them. I understand that this particular question was put through as a matter of routine, the ordinary phrase covering a question of privilege was used by Mr. Speaker and the matter was allowed to slip through without a word being said. I am not blaming the Government specially. I think your Lordships have been badly used by Members of Parliament sitting in all parts of the House of Commons. Now the matter comes back covered by

223
the question of privilege. I do not think, on consideration, that I am prepared to say that the matter is not privilege in the most extreme interpretation of that word, and, therefore, there are only two courses open to us—to accept what the Commons have said or re-submit it to their consideration.
In, the dying days of the Session it is not likely that the matter will be reconsidered if we sent it back. It is not a matter of the first importance, and therefore I should not suggest that your Lordships should resist the Motion which the Government will make not to insist on the Amendment. I do desire, however, to place on record a protest on behalf of this House that these matters are not properly brought before the House of Commons when a strong feeling is expressed in your Lordships' House as to the desirability of privilege being waived. I should be grateful to the Lord President if he will undertake to convey to his colleagues in another place the strong view your Lordships take on this matter.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess that we are in this case dealing with a matter which is on the edge of privilege—it is a question of rates. The noble Marquess has stated that he does not attribute any fault to the present Government. I suggest that we should meet and talk it over. It appears that in existing circumstances matters of this kind are not dealt with in a satisfactory way in another place. I would willingly meet the noble Marquess in order to see whether matters of this kind can be prevented from slipping through on account of inadvertence. I do not think that this is a Government matter, and I do not know, at the moment, how the matter ought to be arranged, but I agree that some arrangement ought to be made. Perhaps we can meet and see what can be done.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:My Lords, may I say that many times, when I had the honour of sitting in the House of Commons, privilege Amendments were brought up, and the then Speaker always said in effect: "This is a privilege Amendment, but it is in the power of the House to waive that privilege." In this case, apparently, Mr. Speaker either forgot or omitted to make that statement, and apparently there was nobody on the
224
Conservative side of the House who was aware, or who remembered at the moment, that the waiving of privilege was by no means an unusual thing in the House of Commons. If I may venture to say so, I do not in any way wish to criticise the action of Mr. Speaker, but if the noble Lord would consult with Mr. Speaker as to whether on other occasions it might not be advisable for him to remind the House that they have that opportunity, I. think the difficulty might be met.
EARL BUXTON:My Lords, I was very glad to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, the Lord President. His suggestion is, I think, that there should be something in the nature of a conversation, or possibly a conference, in regard to this matter, so that this point concerning the waiving of privilege may not be overlooked when Amendments from your Lordships' House come to another place. In the case of the particular Bill that is before us, I do not know exactly what happened, but my noble friend Lord Salisbury mentioned that the House of Commons had practically no opportunity of waiving their privilege. We discussed yesterday an even worse case when we were dealing with the question of privilege that arose on Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill. It was worse—as I think noble Lords will see by referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT—in the sense that the House of Commons was put into a position of not even having before them, or being able to secure at the Table, your Lordships' Amendments in order to consider whether the question of privilege arose or not.
They had no opportunity, therefore, of considering the Amendments on their merits, though Mr. Speaker himself said at the end of the discussion that the privilege of the House was, on occasion, waived. But no such opportunity arose in that case, and no member really knew what the Amendments were. Your Lordships' Amendments went through under such conditions that no member had any opportunity of proposing or suggesting that privilege should be waived. I am certain that, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury said, no noble Lord in this House desires to claim any greater privileges for this House than exist at present, but I do think that it is well that

225
an opportunity should be given for considering these matters, so that the House of Commons might have every opportunity of waiving privilege if it desires to do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE):My Lords, I should like, if I may, to make one observation on the particular question that is before the House. This was a pure question of money, and nothing else—a question of how much money should be voted. It is the fact that rates stand upon exactly the same footing as taxes, and, if the noble Marquess will refer to the relevant passages in Sir Erskine May's book, he will find that that is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I do not know if I correctly heard the noble and learned Viscount, but I understood him to say that this was purely a question of voting money. But it was not a question of voting money at all. It was a question of rates, and only indirectly so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:The noble Marquess evidently did not hear that I added in the next sentence that rates stand upon, the same footing as taxes, and it is so laid down by the greatest authorities we have. The Speaker took that view, and did not suggest to the House that there was any doubtful question of privilege. The matter is over, and what the House of Commons may choose to do on future occasions regarding these questions of privilege I do not know, but all that concerns us at the moment is that, this was not one of those questions in which privilege arises only incidentally. It was a pure question of money voted.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will allow me to say one word in reply to the Lord Chancellor. During the time when I sat in the House of Commons my impression was exactly the same as that of the Lord President, and entirely different from that of the Lord Chancellor —namely, that rates were in an entirely different position. It is perfectly true that rates are sometimes treated as a matter of privilege, but they are not so treated on the same footing as alterations in taxation, or as an Amendment affecting taxation. This distinction has always been very clearly observed during my
226
experience in the House of Commons, and I am sure that any old members of the House of Commons will confirm me in that respect.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING WITH THE LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 85 as first printed for the House of Lords.]
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("twenty-six") and insert ("twenty-five").
The Commons disagree with this Amendment because it alters a charge on the rates, and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason hoping the above reason, may be deemed sufficient.
EARL DE LA WARR:My Lords, I beg to move that we do not insist upon the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, the subject matter of this Bill, of which I now propose the Second Reading, has been before your Lordships already earlier in the Session, and was rather fully discussed on that occasion. It was brought forward on a Question asked by the noble Marquess, the Marquess of Lincolnshire, and the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe. I think it has always been recognised, and I certainly recognise, that agriculture is a question in which your Lordships have special interest and of which you have special knowledge. From the discussion to which I have referred and from other discussions in this House we may, I think, gather one or two points of principle with which I will deal before I proceed to the terms of the Bill itself.
I think that all of your Lordships have been agreed, and it has been stated more than once in this House, that, having regard to the great national importance of the industry of agriculture it is very important to obtain, if we can, such a measure of agreement upon our agricultural policy as will lead to the probability of that policy being continuous. We have suffered in agriculture from a

227
policy being adopted by one Party or by one Government, and then changed when a new Party or a new Government came into power. If a continuous policy could be suggested it would be a great advantage, and that, I know, is the view which your Lordships have entertained and expressed on more than one occasion.
In this context I should like to quote again—it has been quoted more than once —the opinion of Lord Ernle, when he was Mr. Prothero, upon this question of agricultural wages. I quote it because I think it is the shortest way of expressing the view of the Government, and the same view is really expressed in the Bill which is now before your Lordships. When the Corn Production Bill was being discussed in another place, Mr. Prothero, as he then was, used these words: —
"I do not think it is a satisfactory way to treat the minimum wage to say it is part of a bargain between the State and the agriculturists, and I should prefer to put it on higher and more national grounds. It is absolutely necessary for the national welfare that agricultural wages should be raised."
That was the view expressed by Lord Ernle in 1917, and I will quote, in passing, a passage in the present Bill which is intended to carry out precisely the same idea.
Your Lordships will find it in subsection (4) of Clause 2, which says: —
"In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation."
I do not think there will be any difference of opinion that that test is the proper test to apply in dealing with questions like that of minimum wages.
It is important at the outset to make clear that a measure of agreement, which is so valuable in matters of national concern, such as the agricultural industry, has been obtained in the terms of the Bill, and I may say at once that in my view the Government are pledged not to alter the Bill to any material extent whatever. That was the pledge entered into by the Minister for Agriculture in another place, and I implement it entirely. So far as the Government are concerned with it they have no right what-
228
ever, after the undertakings given in another place, to alter in any material sense the principles of the Bill as they stand. That is the attitude I must adopt throughout, and unless I adopted it we should be open to the charge of having given an undertaking and not honour ably attempted to abide by it.
After the introduction of the Bill in another place, and during the Committee stage, there were very marked differences of opinion as to the form in which it was desired that legislation on this important subject should take place. I do not want to go into matters of controversy, which appear to me now to be matters of past history, but in order to make clear what happened in another place, and in order to make clear what is the attitude of the Government, I want to read one or two passages with reference to the arrangement which was made when this question was before Standing Committee B. on July 24 of this year. After the Committee met Captain Fitzroy made a statement to this effect: I will read the material parts of it because I think we must keep it in mind in discussing this Bill, although, of course, this House is absolutely free to take its own course. No one would dispute that.
The hon. member said:
"As a rather old Member of Parliament, however, I have evermore become convinced that Bills which have in them great controversial issues are seldom passed satisfactorily into law without some form of a compromise."
Then he went on to say what, in his view, was the compromise:—
"After a considerable amount of discussion, and many conferences, we did come to what we thought was a very reasonable amount of agreement. I, and of course, I am sure, those who sit with me on this side of the Committee, put absolutely implicit trust in any undertaking that the Minister makes. We are quite convinced if he gives an undertaking, he is absolutely sure, to the best of his ability, to carry it out. I was unfortunately not able to be present at yesterday's proceedings, but I gather from the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I have just been able to study for a few moments, that there seemed some amount of doubt over a Division which took place … I should like just to state what was the nature of the compromise at which we arrived, and what it was we were both prepared to do. Those of us on this side of the Committee gave an undertaking that if the various conditions which were arrived at were adhered to we would give every possible facility to the Minister to carry his Bill through the House

229
without any delay whatsoever. We are prepared to carry out that undertaking, if the Minister is able to assure us that he, on his part, can carry out the undertaking that he gave. The undertaking which the Minister gave was that he would oppose the insertion in the Bill of a minimum wage being set up by the Central Wages Board, and—he will correct me if I am wrong—that carried with it an undertaking that a minimum wage in the form of a figure would not be inserted in the Bill. A further undertaking he gave us was that he would resist all efforts of his followers, so far as he could control them, to modify the form of the Bill when it came up on Report ‥‥ I would respectfully ask the Minster if he can give us an assurance that he is able to carry out the undertaking that he gave."
Then the Minister of Agriculture said:
"I think that the hon. and gallant Member has exactly stated what was agreed between us. We arrived at that agreement, naturally, with some pain and reluctance on our part "—
And Captain Fitzroy observed: "And on ours.'' The Minister continued:
"‥but we decided that there must, of course, be give and take; and the general ground of agreement was embodied in the form that the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned. He will correct me if I am wrong, but he did not mention the further item which the right hon. gentleman the Member for Ripon mentioned yesterday, in regard to their using their best endeavours to help the passage of the Bill on the part of the Conservative Party in another place.
Of course no undertaking beyond that could have been given. Then Captain Fitzroy said:
"I did not mention that because I did not think it was necessary."
It seems to me that we have an absolute undertaking, certainly on the Minister's part, which prevents me from making any concession which would be inconsistent with the statement made by Captain Fitzroy, and I am bound to say, as representative of the Government in this House, that I shall be bound to resist to the utmost of my power any suggested Amendment which can possibly interfere with that undertaking.
The real question, as your Lordships know, in this matter is as to the power of the local committees, as compared with the power of the Central Board in London. As the Bill stands, that critical point has been adjusted and decided in the compromise to which I have referred. The initiative power, and the greater part of the power, is to be bestowed upon the local committees. As regards their
230
constitution I shall have a word or two to say by and by. If I might express my own opinion, I think that is the right way to proceed in a Bill of this sort. At any rate in the first instance, you should settle these matters locally, if you can, because the conditions of agriculture differ so much in different parts of the country that if you attempt to have one general system, or one general minimum wage, it might very well have the effect of being uneconomic in some parts of the country, and of reducing the wages paid at the present time in other parts. I believe that if you were to consult agriculturists you would find that, by a very large majority, all classes of agriculturists would prefer matters of this kind to be settled in the locality, if it can possibly be done.
At the same time, everyone recognises that if you do not get success in the locality you must have some system of appeal or reference to an agricultural wages board in London. For instance, the Central Landowners' Association made a statement which was referred to in the last debate in this House, and on that occasion they stated that they thought that the reference should be to local representative bodies where both parties will have confidence in their representatives and substantial justice may be anticipated from them. At the present time the mere principle of conciliation has not succeeded. That really is no criticism of the Bill as it stands, for what we want to do is to make the local authorities effective, and to give them powers which will not in the majority of cases, as we anticipate, necessitate the interference of the Central Wages Board at all.
Your Lordships will see, if you look at the terms of the Bill, how that general principle has been carried out. Clause 1 deals with the establishment of agricultural wages committees, that is, the local bodies, and of an Agricultural Wages Board, and the way in which those committees and that Board are constituted will be found in the First Schedule of the Bill. The local committees will contain representatives in equal numbers of employers and agricultural workers, and the chairman will be chosen from outside, being a person who does not represent either interest. As regards the Agricultural Wages Board, you have the same

231
principle of representation, but you have a certain infusion of members appointed by the Minister, and you also have a special arrangement as regards the chairman and vice-chairman. I do not think it has ever been suggested that, assuming the principles underlying the Bill, there is any objection to the way in which it is proposed that either the committees or the Board should be constituted for this purpose.
The duties and powers of the agricultural wages committees with respect to the minimum rate of wages are set forth in Clause 2. In one sense there is no minimum rate of wages; that is to say that, according to the undertaking given, no figure is named in the Bill. There is no suggestion that one minimum wage, settled at headquarters, should extend to the agricultural industry at large. In accordance with the arrangement made, the principle is that each committee, having regard to the conditions of the locality, should consider the question of a minimum wage in that locality, subject, in certain cases, to an appeal to the Central Wages Board in London. Then there is another matter in which I think noble Lords have always been interested. There is a provision to cover the case of infirm and old people, who may be employed on special terms. I am certain that any one who is cognisant of the conditions of agricultural life will feel the extreme necessity of making a provision of that kind, in order that old and infirm people may not be turned out of work, although, owing to economic causes, it may be impossible to pay them the minimum wage. That is in Clause 2 (3), where it is said that the Act is not to be applicable in respect of workers who are "so affected by any physical injury or mental deficiency or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause" as to be incapable of earning the minimum wage. I have always thought that it was one of the tragedies of country life that old people should be turned off because they had lost the power of doing their due share of work. Everyone has always endeavoured to maintain them as long as possible, under every conceivable condition, and the Bill enables an arrangement to be made by which those men may be retained, without necessarily receiving the minimum wage.
232
Another matter to which I wish to call attention is the form in which the Central Wages Board comes in if there is a failure on the part of the agricultural wages committee to act. That is dealt with in Clause 5. The conditions under which the matter will be referred to the Agricultural Wages Board in London are these. There is first this condition, that the agricultural wages committee—
"(a) do not, within two months after the committee tire established and a chairman is appointed, fix and notify to the Agricultural Wages Board a minimum rate of wages which they are required to fix under this Act;"
That is to say, if they do not within two months perform the duties which the Act places upon them then the matter stands referred to the Agricultural Wages Board. The second condition is in the next paragraph—If an agricultural wages committee
"fail to fix and notify to the Agricultural Wages Board a minimum rate of wages in substitution for any such rate as aforesaid which, by cancellation or otherwise, has ceased to operate;"
That is to say, if they have done something which has made an existing minimum rate cease to operate, or has caused it to be cancelled, they must notify the fact to the Central Wages Board.
The third condition is contained in this paragraph: If the wages committee
"by a resolution of the representative members of the committee request the Agricultural Wages Board to fix, cancel, or vary a minimum rate of wages."
then the Agricultural Wages Board comes in again. I want your Lordships to appreciate that before that power can come into operation a resolution must be passed by all the representative members, of both sides, who, in that way, will express their desire in the particular case to have the matter settled by the Agricultural Wages Board in London.
Clause 6 does not give the Minister the power of fixing wages at all, but gives him a power of referring the matter back to the local committee if he thinks it desirable. It reads as follows:—
"The Minister may direct an agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate which has been fixed by them, and thereupon the committee shall reconsider the same and notify to the Minister the result of their reconsideration."

233
I hope I have made it quite clear that I cannot depart, and it would not be honourable to attempt to depart, from the arrangement which was come to between the Minister of Agriculture and the Conservative and other interests in another place, which I have already read to your Lordships.
The only other matter to which I should like to refer is the Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, to postpone the further stages till the autumn. It will be for the noble Viscount himself to consider whether it is necessary to move it or not, but I urge him not to do so. I do that not from any want of consideration for his great knowledge of these matters, because probably no one knows more about them than he does. If the Bill had not been on an arranged basis I can understand that there would be strong reasons for pressing that Motion. But surely, as conditions now stand, and in view of the fact that the main terms of this Bill have been arranged, there can be no reason why the further stages of the Bill should not be proceeded with now. I believe that the discussions in Committee will be, and must be, on a limited scale. I am perfectly sure that every one in this House who has the slightest interest in agriculture must be cognisant of all the relative conditions and arguments.
Of course, a common complaint can be made about Bills coming to this House so late in the Session. I believe that will always be the case so long as our present system remains of putting Finance before legislative measures. No Bill has ever come to this House during the period of some years now that I have been a member of it, to which that form of objection could not have been taken. I am afraid it is almost a common form objection. But when you have a Bill which, as I say, is practically settled, not only do I see no reason for postponing it, but I hope that your Lordships will pass it, that it will come into operation, and that steps will be taken immediately by the Ministry of Agriculture to make it effective. Under the form of what is really a common agreement, it is very satisfactory, to my mind at any rate, that one of the first steps in our agricultural policy may be accepted by your Lordships and put into operation with the good will of all those
234
interested in the great industry of agriculture. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Parmoor.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE:My Lords, I think the speech which has been made by my noble friend the Lord President is rather a peculiar one. He did not tell us how vast has been the change in this Bill since it was first introduced into another place.
LORD PARMOOR:Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF SELBORNE:This is a different Bill to that which was introduced in the House of Commons. I make no secret of my view that the Bill, as introduced, would have been most disastrous in its effects on agriculture. Its real title ought to have been: "An Act for turning the arable land of England into grass as soon as possible." That is what the real title of that Bill should have been. What is it that it purported to do? It really gave power to the Minister of Agriculture sitting in Whitehall, either directly or through a Central Wages Board, to settle the wages of every agricultural labourer in England and Wales. That was going to be done, or my noble friend opposite must pardon me if my friends and I think it was going to be done, through a Party and by a Party that is fatally warped in its view of agricultural conditions by its attachment to an urban industrial programme. The only effect of the Bill, as introduced, must have been to produce something like a panic among farmers. Every man who could possibly abandon his arable operations and turn his land into grass, would have done so, and where the land could not profitably be turned into grass it would have been allowed to become derelict.
I think I shall not be trespassing upon your Lordships' time too long if I try to bring you back to the real root of this matter. Arable farming, corn-growing, speaking in the large, does not pay at the present moment. Therefore farmers will cease to grow corn, because if they continue to grow corn they will go into the Bankruptcy Court. The result of their ceasing to grow corn must be to throw the great majority of the acres now under the plough either into

235
grass or into rubbish. There are palliatives, and I would not for one moment ignore them or underrate their importance. Arable land can be used for stock farming and for dairy farming, and, of course, there is always market gardening, fruit farming and the other subordinate branches of agriculture. Some of the land now devoted to corn may be saved for the plough by one or other of those palliatives. But, speaking broadly, if corn ceases to pay, the vast majority of the acres now under corn must pass from the régime of the plough into grass or into rubbish. That means a further diminution in the agricultural population. It means a still greater lessening of the already too small proportion which the agricultural population bears to the industrial. I think the dwindling of the agricultural population is the greatest tragedy that is happening in this country. The agricultural population can only be kept at its present figure, or increased, by keeping the land under the plough. That is really the root of the whole problem, and that is why I regarded as so fatal the Bill as it was introduced. I felt sure, and I am perfectly certain of the accuracy of my belief, that the Bill would have turned out of the plough many hundreds of thousands of acres that are now under the plough.
The Bill has been immensely improved by reducing to a very great extent the powers of the Minister and the powers of the Central Wages Board, and by really giving authority in this matter to the county wages committees. I will not go over the ground which has been covered by the Lord President, but I do not want to conceal from your Lordships that, in my opinion, the Minister is still left with too much power. Let us consider the matter. Under this Bill the Minister himself will appoint two members to each county committee. In some cases he may also appoint the chairman if there is a failure of agreement among the other members of the committee. He will appoint the secretaries of all the county committees, and he will appoint all the officers who work under those county committees in investigating complaints and seeing that the Act is enforced. He will appoint all the members of the Central Wages Board and under Clause 6, to which the Lord President alluded, ho has power to
236
direct the reconsideration of the rates fixed by a county committee. It is true that he has not the power to enforce a change; but when your Lordships consider that two members and possibly the chairman of each committee will have been appointed by the Minister himself, it is clear that a request to reconsider is directed by him to a body in which he already has a strong personal foothold. Therefore, I am by no means inclined to underrate the importance of Clause 6.
In my humble judgment, the Bill, though so greatly improved, still leaves too much power in the hands of the Minister. According to my view, the only real method of satisfactorily settling these, rural questions (because they are rural questions.) must lie in the agreement of a local committee, the members of which are really cognisant of the conditions of agriculture and of country life in the district concerned, a knowledge that never can be imparted to the members of a central board and certainly not to a Minister sitting in Whitehall. There is a Motion, to which the Lord President has referred, by my noble friend Lord Long of Wraxall, to defer the consideration of Amendments till after the House reassembles in October. I think my noble friend is perfectly within his right in making such a suggestion, and I think this House would be abundantly within its right in asking for more time to consider the Bill and the Amendments in it, if it had not been reduced, as I think I can show, to a very simple Bill. As the Bill was originally introduced it was a complicated Bill, but I venture to suggest that the points that remain for discussion, and the points on which amendments can be usefully moved, are now few and simple in their nature, and I do suggest, notwithstanding the great authority of my noble friend, that there is time in the remaining days of this part of the Session to deal with the Committee stage of the Bill.
I think we must ask ourselves: How will this Bill work? If it is really worked by the county committees—and I welcome the schedule where practically every county has a separate committee, with the exception of a few of the small Welsh counties and counties like Rutland—I think it may do good. I certainly do not think it can do any harm. It may do

237
good, but if, unfortunately, the working of the Bill should prove differently to the hope of those who have made this arrangement in the House of Commons, and if it really should turn out that owing to disagreement or other causes the Central Wages Board is brought in and the control of the Minister tends to increase, then I am sure the result will be as I stated the result of the first Bill would have been, a further conversion of our too attenuated acres of arable into grass.
Why is it that I distrust a Minister— and I do not mind saying to my noble friend opposite, a Labour Minister—in this matter at Whitehall and a Central Wages Board? It is because, most unfortunately, as I think, when the Labour Party deals with these matters at headquarters they almost always appoint to deal with them gentlemen who have never themselves been agricultural labourers, who know nothing, or very little, about agriculture, who, perhaps, never have even lived much in the country, and who regard agricultural questions not really from the point of view of agriculture, but from the point of view of the Party to which they belong. The unfortunate industry of agriculture is harnessed by the Labour Party to the chariot wheels of an industrial and urban population, and to a Party whose main policy is founded not on the interests of the rural but of the urban and industrial population. That is why I say that I profoundly distrust the operations of any central organisation, the Labour members of which will not be in any sense agriculturists or countrymen.
Indeed, that explains the attitude of the National Farmers' Union, who have suggested, and I think with great justice, that this proposal to deal with wages by means of wages committees or wages boards ought to have been accompanied with something in the nature of support or subsidy. I think that is quite true, because I believe—I have said this before, and I state it again—that there really are only two possible policies for agriculture. One is the policy of which my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire is an advocate, of Free Trade and laissez faire, and the other is the policy in one form or another of the Corn Production Act. The great misfortune of the Free Trade and
238
laissez faire policy is that the Liberal Party, while always adopting it ostensibly, never have really carried it out in fact, because, while proclaiming that as their policy, they have always threatened agriculture with all kinds of harassing legislation, and have continuously increased the taxation of agriculture, with the result that it is no longer a question of a fair field and no favour.
If noble Lords will turn to the report of the tribunal on agriculture, just published, they will see how immensely greater are the burdens borne by agriculture in this country than they are in the lands of most of our competitors, and they will also see that in those lands, where agriculture is not so heavily burdened, there is almost invariably some measure of State assistance or support. Therefore, it is under the most peculiarly difficult circumstances that agriculture has to operate in this country. If I am right, then it follows that it is not possible for any Party—it does not matter whether it is the Conservative Party with its resolutions which come to nothing, or the Liberal Party with its curious ideas of laissez faire, or the Labour Party with its ideas of land nationalisation—it does not matter which of those policies prevails, or which of those Parties is in power, it is not possible to force up the rate of agricultural wages without doing something to support the industry to enable it to keep the land in cultivation. The only effect, apart from that, as I commenced by saying, is to drive more and more land away from the plough, continually to decrease the number of agricultural labourers employed, and generally to heighten that disproportion, which I think is so dangerous and so unfortunate, between the agricultural and the industrial populations.
It is a very interesting fact that the Government themselves appear to me to be tending rather in that direction. I make no apology for alluding to the leaflet that has played so large a part in the Lincolnshire by-election — a leaflet in which it has been definitely stated, I understand, though I have not seen the leaflet, that it was part of the policy of the Government now in power to give a subsidy in some form to the farmer. I see that the Prime Minister was ques-

239
tioned on Wednesday on this matter by a relative of my own. And what did the Prime Minister say? He said:
"The Independent Labour Party, which is a section of the Labour Party, has been working for some time at the problem of stabilising agricultural prices, and has made some proposals on the subject, but they have not yet been officially adopted by the Labour Party, though the Party is much interested in the matter."
I think I can even add to the information that the Prime Minister gave to the House of Commons on that subject. I believe the very proposal that has been put forward in Lincolnshire was worked out by an agricultural committee of the Independent Labour Party of which, unless I have been inaccurately informed, the Prime Minister was a member, though I believe that was before he came into office as Prime Minister.
I believe this particular policy has the honour of having the Prime Minister as one of its sponsors. What is that policy? It is a very remarkable policy and worth mentioning in connection with this Bill. The first point is land nationalisation, all the land in England and Wales to be managed and farmed by one Minister sitting in Whitehall, assisted by county committees. Of course, there is to be a wages board, but the Committee that framed this policy know perfectly well that agriculture cannot produce the wages which they desire the Board to settle for the agricultural labourer, and, therefore, there is to be another Minister, I suppose at the Board of Trade, to whom is to be entrusted the sole power of importing all wheat and meat. No private trader is to be allowed to import wheat or meat. The Minister at the Board of Trade is to make an intelligent anticipation of what he thinks the course of agriculture in the world will be during the next five or six years and he is to fix prices in England for wheat and meat which will give the farmer a fair profit. That is a most grandiose scheme, but I think it will bring complete disaster to agriculture, absolutely destroy the industry and do a great deal of harm in the land besides.
But the interest of it is this: that it is dawning on this Government and the Party it represents that it is quite impossible to force up wages without doing something to support the farmer; and it is on that fact that I want to lay stress.
240
I believe absolutely that there is no alternative except the two I have mentioned—the alternative of leaving agriculture entirely alone, or of some such policy as was embraced in the Corn Production Act. I thought it was worth while drawing your Lordships' attention to the very remarkable development that has taken place during the last few days in Lincolnshire and to the Prime Minister's reply to a Question, but as this Bill has now come down from another place I certainly am not going to oppose the Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE:My Lords, I have listened with the greatest possible attention to the speech delivered by the Lord President. It was exactly the speech one expected. It was the speech of a kind-hearted and generous man, and one well known and respected in the county in which he lives, but it was the speech, I am afraid I must say, of a disappointed man. He told us that an agreement had been obtained on the subject of this Bill and I at once asked myself this question: With whom? He went on to say that the Government have no right to alter the Bill. They have given an undertaking not to do so, and having given that undertaking they mean to stick to their pledge. Those were his words, more or less. Then he proceeded to tell us with whom the agreement had been made, and it seems that Captain Fitzroy, for the Conservative and Unionist Party, so far as Captain Fitzroy could control them—those were very wise words—had entered into the agreement to which the Lord President referred. I take it, therefore, it means that the Government will resolutely oppose a minimum wage.
LORD PARMOOR:A minimum wage in the form of a general minimum wage at a fixed figure.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE:I beg your pardon, that is perfectly right— a fixed minimum wage. I think I had better say at once that the policy of the Liberal Party is in favour of a minimum wage. By that we stand, by that we fall. Let me tell your Lordships why I am entitled to say this. The National Liberal Federation this year met at Brighton. There were delegates from all parts of the country and an agricultural resolution was proposed by Sir Harry Verney. I happen to be, and have been for more

241
years than I care to remember, President of the Home Counties and Eastern Counties Liberal Federations, which represent some sixteen or seventeen counties, and I was allowed to say a word on the question. I asked that great meeting whether I was justified in saying that the policy of the Liberal Party for the agricultural labourer is a minimum wage of not less than 30s. a week, a working day of eight hours, the inspection and limitation of tied cottages, and the Sandringham Saturday half-holiday which was started in Norfolk on the Sandringham Estate. There was at once a roar of consent and approbation which really could have been heard at Beachy Head. Therefore, I am perfectly justified in saying that this is the Liberal policy as regards the agricultural labourer, and by it we stand or fall. I was not surprised that the Lord President made no allusion whatever to any compact, or compromise, or agreement of any sort or description, with the Party to which I have the honour to belong.
One word on the subject of the Bill. For good or evil a Labour Government is in power at the present moment. When they came into office everybody wished them well, everybody said that they would give them a fair chance, and I think that both sides of the House have loyally carried out that pledge. But at the same time, while they held out many hopes and aspirations with which I am in entire sympathy, none of us ever hoped or expected any instantaneous realisation of idealistic improbabilities. We had no ideas of that sort, but at the same time we had a hope, and I think we had a right to expect, that this Labour Government, when it came in, would at once do that which so many of us had at heart, and would make an effort to relieve the terrible condition of the agricultural labourer in England. I dare say the Lord President will remember that I took the liberty of asking him a Question earlier in the year, when the Government had settled down in their stride, as to what they meant to do for the agricultural labourer, and whether they would set up wages boards and a minimum wage.
LORD PARMOOR:I referred to that point, I think, before the noble Marquess was here.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE:I beg your pardon; that is my fault. The noble Lord corrected me with that kindness and that courtesy which are his great distinguishing characteristics. He spoke to me as if I were a wayward child, and addressed me like a kind parent. He asked me what was the use of forcing an open door—that was the phrase that he used. He said: " Do you not know that Mr. Ramsay McDonald, the Prime Minister, has expressed his intention of doing so?" I may say in the strictest confidence that I had not the smallest conception that he had done so; but that is neither here nor there. What the noble Lord said to me really amounted in effect to this: "Do not be tiresome; it will all come right if you only wait and see." I quite agree that we had not long to wait, and I congratulate the Government on fulfilling their pledge so soon. We had not long to wait before seeing that the promise was not a very wholehearted one, and that the Bill which was introduced by the Government, though it brought in county wages boards and a Central Wages Board, with powers to act in the event of the county wages boards not doing their duty, yet it failed in the one particular respect in which all the agricultural labourers in England hoped that something would be done—those labourers who are in what they call the starvation wages zone—it failed to provide the minimum wage, fixed and enforceable by law, of not less than 30s. a week.
There was one thing about the agricultural labourers which the noble Lord omitted to say, and which none of the Labour members have mentioned in either House, and that was the obligation which we were under, and the gratitude which we owe, to the agricultural labourers for the splendid way in which they came forward during the time of the war. I do not mean to say for one moment that the agricultural labourers did any better than anybody else. That is impossible. No one could have done better than everybody in the Kingdom did. But I do say that, in the county in which I live, every agricultural able-bodied man went to fight for liberty and honour, to fight for his country, in which he had no stake whatever —for very few of these agricultural labourers own even a flower pot of land— to fight for his own home, which at that

243
time, before the war, meant a more or less good cottage out of which he was liable to be turned at six days' notice if he went counter to his landlord or if he stopped working for a, tenant farmer. I do not say that this was done in every case, but he was under that liability.
What, in the view of all those who are best qualified to speak, was the thing that kept these men's hearts up in the squalor and filth and slime of the trenches for the four years during which England fought, and after which England won? What was it that kept up the courage of these men? They did not want to be called heroes, nor did they want heroic legislation. That which kept, their spirits up was the hope that when they came back, though they did not expect a new heaven and a new earth, they would find a new England, new conditions, and a new land which they hoped to be allowed to help to fashion and to share. What happened when they did come back? They marched through London in khaki, flags waved, bells rang and mobs cheered. They were given a certain amount of money for their services, and they went back to their wretched villages under the same conditions as, or worse conditions than, they had known before the war. In every village all over England we find tributes to the heroic dead who died for their country. In every village the wreaths are put up day after day by loving hands and loving hearts to the men who fell in the war. But what, I ask the House, has been done for these men who, in England's need, went to fight for her?
There were two gleams of hope. There was the Coalition Government. Every creed and every class was collected to govern the country and to make everything all right. The Coalition Government said to them: "We will make this country a land fit for heroes to live in," and they brought in a Bill in which they promised them 45 s. a week, guaranteed by the Government, for life. They went so far as to say that if any atrocious individual in days to come cried to do away with that wage it would take them four years before the Bill could be got rid of. What happened? They were promised 45 s. a week. There were other conditions, of course,— onerous conditions which, if carried out, would have cost the country anything
244
from £40,000,000 to £80,000,000 a year. In consequence, that Act of Parliament was repealed.
I want to call attention to this point, upon which the Lord President himself laid stress, that Lord Ernie, when he brought in this legislation providing a minimum fixed wage, expressly denied that there was any intention of linking the two things together, of giving money to the farmer and, as a consequence, raising the labourer's wage. That has been pointed out over and over again. It was, I think, a very wise proviso, because if a man tries to ride two horses at once he naturally comes to grief in the effort. The thing is to do one thing at a time, and it was distinctly understood that the minimum fixed wage was in no way dependent upon any other provision that might appear in the Bill. The 45s. a week—the women said of it: " It is too good to be true; we cannot believe it"—was done away with in six months. The noble Lord who brought in the Bill was raised to the estate, title, dignity and honour of a Viscount, and was raised also to the position of First Lord of the Admiralty. The farmers, who were not in the Bill, were given a sop of £18,000,000, and what was done for the wretched labourer? Nothing whatever. I will not say that they were thrown to the wolves, but they were thrown back on their own resources, to the terribly inexorable law of supply and demand. They were thrown over and betrayed, and not one sixpence or even copper was given to them in return.
These poor things had another chance. The Coalition Government fell and the leaders thereof, and I suppose no leaders, terrestrial or celestial, ever fell so far. Then in came a Conservative Government, with the good wishes of everybody. They were told that if they kept things going for the next few years they would have the good will and blessing of everybody. What happened? A snap Election took place and Mr. Baldwin, whose great stock in trade is his honesty—I am sure he means to stand by his word and make his followers do so, too—went to the country and told the labourers that if they voted for him they should have a minimum wage of 30s. Of course, there was the other side of the question and the farmers were told: If you cultivate the land—it does not matter what you put in, whether geraniums or lilies of the valley—you shall

245
have £1 per acre, if you will consent to give 30s. per week to the agricultural labourers. But north of the Tweed the farmers not only give 30s. but a great deal more, and the result would be that if he paid 30s. a week a man would get the whole of his rent in addition to three quarters of his rates, which, as your Lordships know, are already paid by the industrial population who came under so much censure and criticism this afternoon.
"Once bit twice shy." The agricultural labourers did not vote for the Conservatives, and the Labour Government came in, and for the third time of asking this Wages Bill gave the agricultural labourers another gleam of hope. I am not going to take up the time of the House arguing about the details of the Bill. We all know that the power of the Central Board to fix wages has been taken away, and by taking that away the making of a fixed minimum wage was made imperative. The moment you take away the power of the Central Board to fix a proper living wage, and the moment you leave the wretched agricultural labourer to local conditions— I make no charge against anybody, but the moment you do that, then it becomes absolutely necessary to have a fixed minimum wage. That is what the labourers in Norfolk and Suffolk and parts of Oxfordshire hoped for, and that is what they have not got.
I do not know whether Lord Olivier will wind up the debate on behalf of the Government. He was the permanent Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, and he knows the ins and outs of the office as well as anybody. He is also a distinguished member of the Fabian Society, and a member of the Labour party, and the Labour party has made it a great plank in their platform, in the same way as have the Conservatives and the Liberals, that there should be a fixed minimum wage. How, then, will the noble Lord, if he speaks, explain this volte face? How will he be able to explain the position of the Labour party at this present moment, seeing that we have been told by the Leader of this House that the Government are going to stand by their undertakings in the House of Commons, and are going to break their promise to the farm labourers, and vote against a minimum wage? I leave it to
246
him to explain, and I shall listen with great wonder and interest to his remarks.
I am afraid I have trespassed too long upon the time of the House, but there is nobody here to speak for the agricultural labourers. I only wish that my powers were greater, but I have done the best I can. I would ask: What are the chief objections to a 30 s minimum wage for the whole country? What objection can there be? No reason has been given in this House, and the only reason I believe is that it is generally supposed that in some parts of this country farmers cannot pay it.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL:Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE:The noble Viscount, Lord Long, says "Hear, hear!" Is that really the case Farmers can and do pay 30 s. in districts where there is a demand for industrial labour, and in many parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire 30 s. is being paid on land which is no better and produces no more than the average Oxfordshire, Norfolk and Wiltshire land. If that be the case then the plea that the farmer cannot pay30 s goes by the board. It is also said that if you enforce this wage we shall lose all our tenants. Lose our tenants? Why, the demand for farms is so great in this country that if you have a farm vacant you get ten or twenty applications for it at once. The Lord President of the Council some time ago told us himself that he had a farm on the top of the Chiltern Hills, and he had had fifty applications for it. Well, in Norfolk there is a relative of my own who has a farm two miles from a prosperous market town. He is twenty miles from Norwich, and five miles from Cromer, and my relative has had fifty-three applications for that farm. And so it is all over England. The idea that any man in his senses would throw up a farm unless he was obliged is absurd. If he does, there will be ten or fifteen people ready to jump into his shoes, and perhaps make a very much better fight than he would himself.
Mr. Noel Buxton, the Minister of Agriculture, made a statement in the House of Commons which I think has been received by the whole country with horror and dismay. This is a statement made by a Minister of the Crown on his

247
own responsibility, and backed up by the whole of the Government. He said that, with a wage of 25 s. a week, when you had taken out enough for the rent, for clothes, for insurance, and for the other necessaries and decencies of life, there remained about 15 s. to pay for food, and, if the labourer had a wife and five children— and Norfolk men are very affectionate husbands, and the wives very good wives, and they have very large families—that worked out at ¾ d. a meal. I was born in the third year of that terrible decade which was called the "hungry forties." I remember the awful position of England at that time. I was held up as a child by my mother at Grimsthorpe Castle, my grandfather's house in Lincolnshire, and shown the fires. There was a fire at Ednam, a fire at Bourne, and ricks blazing somewhere else. One looked upon them like Brock's fireworks in the days of good Queen Victoria. We do not want those terrible days back again, but I do not believe that in all the history of the hungry forties any such awful statement was made in either House of Parliament as that a man with a wife and five children was so miserably paid that all they had to depend upon was ¾ d. a head for each meal.
How are some steps to be taken to remove this great evil? Your Lordships can do it at once. You can support the Amendment, which I hope to move in your Lordships' House on Monday, to secure the agricultural labourers a minimum wage of 30 s. By that Amendment .you will bring back a gleam of hope and confidence to men who are almost in a state of despair. Is it too much to hope that the House of Lords, which before the war was supposed to own one-third of the land of England, will rise to the occasion and put an end to this abominable state of things? If it will vote for a minimum wage of 30s. all over the country, it will put a stop to a state of things which is not only a disgrace and a scandal to our common civilisation and Christianity, but almost a crime as well.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL:My Lords, I believe it will be convenient if I state at an early stage, very briefly, what is the course that I contemplate following in regard to the Amendment which stands in my name, to postpone the further stages of the Bill till the
248
autumn. I do not propose to follow the noble Marquis in the very interesting speech to which we have just listened. He did not name the Minister responsible for the wonderful Bill he referred to, but he said he went to the House of Lords. I do not recognise him; however, I dare say he exists. I have considerable experience of agricultural labourers. I know them personally extremely well, and have talked things over with them in their own homes. They have no hesitation in talking frankly and openly to me, and the stories I hear of agricultural labourers being afraid to talk to men of a better class I believe to be absolute rubbish. It is entirely contrary to my experience.
The noble Marquess suggests that we ought to pass his Amendment for a compulsory wage of 30s. I am not prepared to vote for that or anything like it, and for this reason. I am acting for what I believe to be the interests of the agricultural labourers themselves. Nobody wants to see them receive lower wages than they are getting in most parts of the country. Where those men are who are receiving only £1 a week I do not know. After a search one man was found in Wiltshire, but his employer was very soon brought to his senses and fell in with the general practice. But I say it is in the interests of the farmers not to fall in with this proposal. A great many farmers, men in whom I have the greatest confidence, upright and able men with plenty of capital, have told me that they really cannot afford to continue paying their full rate of wages to all their men, and that if they have to pay more than they are paying now, which in many cases is 27 s. a week, what they will be compelled to do will be to cut off some of their labour altogether, and employ fewer men. You will benefit a certain number of men by increasing their wages 3s, per week, but you will punish others very heavily indeed. I know that many members of the Farmers' Union take the same view. Therefore I cannot follow the noble Marquess's argument that it is in the interests of the labourers that this should be done.
When the noble Marquess says to us, in reproving terms, that we ought not to be afraid of this and that we could let our farms again quite easily, he appears to misunderstand entirely the ground upon

249
which many of us rest our arguments. We are not thinking of our own rents. We are not thinking that it will not be easy to re-let our farms. I am happy to say that I have very few changes of tenants. Most of us know that to-day we can do as the noble Marquess has told us and as the Lord President told us the other day—if a farm becomes vacant we can let it again very easily, and as often as we want to do so, at an increased rent. That is perfectly true.
But I was surprised that the noble Marquess used that argument because, although we have always been strongly opposed in politics, as much opposed as I imagine two men can possibly be, yet he has always shown a spirit and adopted an attitude in his public life, especially in all his relations with agriculture, which would indicate that he is a humane man animated by the highest principles and anxious to live on the best of terms with his neighbours and the community generally. Therefore, when he suggests that although my tenants might say to me: "We cannot pay this rent, it is impossible", I should either say to them: " You must pay it or go," or run the rent up and take the chance of their having to give in; may I say that has not been my practice and I am not going to start it now? I certainly should not go to my tenants voluntarily and say to them: " I am going to fix for you what wages you should pay to your labourers." The suggestion that we should have a wage fixed by Parliament for the whole of the country is one that I shall vigorously oppose whenever it is made. I have, unfortunately, a rather severe attack of asthma and it is not easy for me to speak. As a result, your Lordships will be relieved of any prolonged remarks from me; but I apologise for my unfortunate delivery.
The Bill as originally introduced into the House of Commons was, in my judgment, a mad measure. I cannot conceive what were the intentions of the Government, and whether they really thought that they were going to do any good to agriculture. It is evident from the most casual study of the Bill that it could not have done anything of the kind, and further evidence is to be found in the attitude which the Government assumed in Committee and in the House of Commons, and by the drastic changes they have made in it. I admit that the new
250
Bill is a very much better one. The improvements in it have been considerable. I think we owe a great debt to those members of the House of Commons who did the extremely hard work that was necessary in order to effect these changes in the Bill. I think we owe a debt to the Government for having accepted those alterations. But they come to us and make the somewhat ignominious announcement that whatever we like to do or say, whatever our views are: " There is the Bill, you can talk as much as you like; it is our ultimatum."
They justify it, I admit, on very high grounds. They say: "We received fair treatment from the Conservative minority on the Committee stage and they have played fair. We have made them a promise and we must keep it." That is a very high line to take. I must not be regarded as suspicious of the Government or as seeking to discredit their actions if I say that in the course of a very long Parliamentary career, during which I have often had charge of a Bill for the Government or of the opposition to it on behalf of the Opposition, I have become very familiar with that most convenient declaration:—"We have come to an agreement with the other side and we cannot consider any alterations. It has to go to the House of Lords and to come back."
I placed my Motion on the Paper not because I wanted to destroy the Bill. I object to the Bill. Had I been a member of the Government it would not have been brought in. Had it been brought in I should have gone out; I would not have been responsible for it at all. But that is not the case. I have nothing to do with the Government. I know that my own Party in another place and, I believe, by far the larger number of them here are in favour of some measure of the kind, and nothing would induce me to run counter to their views, basing my action solely on my own opinion and the fact that I hold views which differ from theirs. I placed my Motion on the Paper because I was in hopes that it would be acceptable even to the strongest supporters of the Bill, and that it would surround our proceedings in your Lordships' House with some appearance of decency.
I think this is a scandalous proceeding. This Bill is brought up from the House

251
of Commons after having occupied weeks and weeks of time there and having been the subject of much contention and numerous articles in the newspapers. You bring it up to the House of Lords which you have not yet abolished, and you say: "There is the Bill, you have to take it, and not only have you to take it without making any alteration practically "—which is what is being said today—" but you have to give it a Second Reading between one o'clock and four, in the space of about two hours and three quarters" (because there is a Royal Commission at 3.45) "and we are going away next week." We know that certain Ministers have made their plane for going away and that those plans cannot very well be upset because others depend upon them. It is in the space of these two or three days that we are to finish this Bill.
Supposing the House of Lords decline to accept the view of the Government and put in some Amendments of their own. What is the use of doing it if the Government in the House of Commons and the House of Commons itself say: "We came to a bargain with the Conservative representatives in Committee. We played fair. We played our part honourably and honestly. We have made this agreement and we are not going to depart from it." If when we say: "But we are not going to depart from it when we are urged to go further in a Conservative direction; you must do the same and play your part," you say to us: "Very well, if you stick to your guns, we will stick not to our guns but to those which are put into our hands by the House of Commons," I think that is treating the House of Lords in a really scandalous fashion.
I am bound to say that I could not see what harm would be done by postponing this Bill until the meeting of Parliament in October. There need be no material delay. You can, if you like—it is quite easy—have a special meeting of the county council for the purpose of the election or nomination of the authority, and you can get it all done in plenty of time to start in the new year. That really is all that is necessary. I am not going to trouble your Lordships by an examination of the Bill. I know others will do that. I only want to say that a Bill which contains power to set up a central
252
authority in London to deal with agricultural wages is striking a blow at our agriculture from which it will not recover. I am not exaggerating. I know what is thought of these things by the class to which I belong, and I know perfectly well that the agricultural labourers, whatever they may be in the noble Marquess's county, in my own county, and in the counties where I have made myself acquainted with them, are extremely intelligent people; they know their job perfectly well; and hundreds of them have told me that the worst thing that can be done is to take power out of the hands of those who find the capital and find the work, and give it entirely into the hands of a central department.
I have been at the Ministry of Agriculture myself. I think it was a better Department in the days of the late Lord Chaplin and myself and others. Politics were then rigidly excluded from our policy. We took no note of politics at all, but concentrated all our attention and all our energies first and foremost on keeping the country free of animal diseases. When I gave up the office in 1900 the country was absolutely clear of disease, with the exception of swine fever. Now what have you got? You have farmers and others in every part of the country terrified at what is going to happen, and not knowing from one day to another whether they will not have disease in their neighbourhood. My belief is that this is due to the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture has given more time to political moves like this than to the prevention of disease. This is not a Bill for the benefit of agriculture. This is a Bill to lead agricultural labourers to say: "These are our friends; we must all vote for them: we will get something else." This is not a Bill for the benefit of agriculture. It cannot be said too often that you cannot benefit agriculture by benefiting one class of agriculturists alone. You must include the man who owns the land, the man who cultivates it—when they are two different people—and the working man. Here you are putting the farmer on a different plane altogether from that on which you put the labourers, and you will do immense harm to our greatest industry.
I apologise for my unfortunate physical weakness, and I am very grateful to your Lordships for letting me speak as I have

253
done. I have only now to say that, as appears to me now, it would not be agreeable to anybody on this side of the House, or anywhere else, that I should move my Motion. I have no intention of moving it, for I do not think I can carry it, and it would be only wasting your Lordships' time. So far as I can judge from the conversations I have had with noble Lords, and from what I have heard in debate, there would not be the remotest prospect of anybody supporting me. I listened with delight and satisfaction to the admirable speech, if I may venture to say so, made by Lord Selborne. He is one of our greatest living authorities on matters connected with agriculture. He has devoted an immense amount of time to considering the question on a wide basis, and I think his views were probably the right ones. I shall not do anything which is likely to interfere with the policy which would be favoured by the noble Marquess as representing Lord Curzon, and Lord Selborne, who has spoken on behalf of the Front Opposition Bench to-day.
That does not mean that I have altered my views. It does not mean that I do not thoroughly dislike this Bill. I resent the suggestion made from time to time that we who are opposed to a Central Wages Board or a Minister being put over us are objecting to it because of our own interest, because it is our own pocket that is concerned. Nothing of the kind. We are just as ready to make our sacrifices as those agriculturists who call themselves Liberals, and just as ready as those who call themselves Labour. Thank God, there arc not many agricultural labourers who are Labour. In my part of the world they support Liberals. I do not mind them doing that so much, though I do not like it, but if they will not support the Conservatives well, I say, let them stick to the Liberals and not be led away by this will-of-the-wisp. These gentlemen are holding out a light that will lead these poor beggars into the morass, where they will leave them to get out as best they can. It is because I think it will do more mischief than good that I oppose this Bill. I placed my Motion on the Paper hoping that at all events it would be of some use in our debate, and I have
254
ventured to tell your Lordships what, in all probability, is the course that I shall take.
LORD STRACHIE:My Lords, I think that whatever our feelings are regarding the establishment of wages boards this is not the time to take any objection to them. I should like to remind your Lordships that wages boards came to stay from the very moment that the Coalition Government established them under the Corn Production Act. It is true that they also abolished them when they repealed that Act, but that does not in any way interfere with my argument, which is that when you have once adopted a principle—a principle which I think is a right one—you must go on with it. Therefore I think this House, like the other House, will accept this Bill unanimously as a matter of principle. There is no doubt that the wages paid in some agricultural districts are not sufficient to keep body and soul together under certain conditions, and it is certainly necessary to deal with this matter.
I do not, however, like the way in which it was dealt with as this Bill was introduced into the House of Commons. When the Bill was introduced, what was its main underlying principle? It was to give absolute power to the Minister. It is true that local committees were to be set up in the various counties who were supposed to fix the rate of wages in their particular areas according to local conditions, but there was another clause in a later part of the Bill which would have enabled the Minister, if he thought fit, entirely to override the decisions of the Committees. Clause 6 now states that the Minister may, in certain circumstances, direct an agricultural wages committee to reconsider a minimum rate, and to notify him of the result of their reconsideration. In the original Bill for all practical purposes it was left to the discretion of the Minister to control the wages of the whole of the country, and to vary and alter them as he thought fit, regardless of any considerations whatever. There was the danger that that power would be used by a Minister for political and Party purposes.
I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that so far as possible, agricultural matters should be kept entirely outside Party politics, and when I was in another

255
place I always attempted to keep myself free from political considerations in dealing with agricultural topics. Now what is the position? It is true that this Bill has been considerably altered in another place since it was first introduced and that what the Lord President calls a compromise has been arrived at. The compromise really only comes to this, that there should be no minimum wage inserted in the Bill. It seems to me that in his statement Captain Fitzroy laid the greatest emphasis on the point that there should be no minimum wage, and that that was the real object in making this compromise. I think that Captain Fitzroy and his friends are too much frightened by the minimum wage. A minimum wage was fixed in the Corn Production Act, with the consent of the Conservative Party, and I cannot see any reason why they should be afraid of it. I should not be afraid of seeing a minimum wage fixed, and in my opinion it would give greater satisfaction to agricultural labourers than any other provision in the Bill.
It is true that under this compromise the Agricultural Wages Board will non now be able to order local committees about, but the Minister of Agriculture has very cleverly accomplished much the same thing. Under the Bill as it stands now the Minister has power to appoint, on his own initiative, two members to sit on local committees with the same power of voting as any other member. This means that they will have great power when it comes to a question of appointing the chairman. Under the original Bill there was to be an independent chairman appointed by the employers and the workers, with the proper provision that if the workers and employers did not come to any decision as to the chairman the Minister should appoint. Naturally, someone would have to appoint a chairman, and the mere fact that the Minister would have to appoint the independent chairman would have only made it imperative on the local people to come to some decision themselves. I am sure they would have felt that it was better they should appoint locally than for someone to be appointed from Whitehall.
That is not altered really under the present Bill, because the two appointed members will have equal powers with
256
other members in the election of a chairman. That is to say, for all practical purposes, if there is any difference between the representatives of the farmers and the labourers on these local committees, they will have a casting vote as regards the appointment of the chairman. And it will be the case in all other matters that come up for decision before a local wage committee; these two appointed members will have absolute power to say what the wages shall be, whether they shall be high or low. Therefore, I am perfectly justified in saying that by a side wind, and very cleverly, the Minister of Agriculture has accomplished his purpose. I do not blame him for doing so. He has got the better of those who thought they had got the better of him.
Let me refer to the question raised in Clause 6. I think it is a very doubtful clause indeed. It says:
"The Minister may direct any agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate which has been fixed by them, and thereupon the committee shall reconsider the same and notify to the Minister the result of their reconsideration."
What does that mean? It means that by sending down an instruction to the two appointed members that the Minister does not like the decision of a local committee, they will have to consider it. Supposing the two appointed members do not carry out the view of the Minister of Agriculture, all he has to do, when their term of office expires, is to scrap them and put in someone else who will carry out his wishes more effectually. Then we have the old story with which your Lordships are now very familiar with reference to Regulations lying on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. The same thing happens in this Bill. The provision is of no effect as regards your Lordships' House, and I am sure your Lordships will insist that a similar Amendment is made in this Bill as was made in the London Traffic Bill and the Housing Bill, giving equal power to your Lordships' House with the House of Commons to cancel and make void any Regulations of which you do not approve.
There is a curious arrangement in Clause 9 by which the Minister may appoint a secretary for each agricultural wages committee. The secretary is not to be appointed by the local committee itself; he is to be appointed by the

257
Minister, and without any consideration of the wishes of local committees. I have no doubt I shall be told by the Government that the Minister will always consider the wishes of the local committee. But that is not the point. These are important committees representing great counties, and sitting in order to regulate wages and other matters, and surely each body should be trusted and have the power of appointing its own secretary. He should not be nominated by the Minister sitting in Whitehall. Then the officers who are to be appointed to look after various matters and to be of assistance to agricultural labourers, to see that justice is done to them, are also to be appointed by the Minister. Local committees, apparently, are to have nothing whatever to do with these officers. I am certain that Mr. Buxton, the present Minister of Agriculture, will be perfectly fair and just, but when we are making Acts of Parliament we are not to think of the particular Minister at the head of the Department at the moment. We have to think of what may happen in the future, and make it quite clear that there is no chance of any "jobs" being done. It must be remembered that the Minister of Agriculture will have £70,000 a year placed at his disposal for the pay of these officials and various boards. He will, therefore, have great patronage in his hands.
There is also a very curious provision in the First Schedule. It is to the effect that by a Regulation of the Minister these committees shall either be nominated or elected. I think we may fairly ask the Lord President to give us some indication as to what is in the mind of the Government; whether they mean them to be nominated by the Minister in Whitehall, or whether they mean them to be elected, and if so, in what manner and under what franchise? It is perfectly clear that too much is left by this Bill to the Minister himself and to Regulations. I admit that if your Lordships accept a proposal to amend the provisions with regard to Regulations under this Bill lying on the Table of this House, then this House will have control over them. It seems to me that we ought to have some explanation as to the way in which the Government intend to put these Regulations into force, and an Amendment of that sort would in no way be a breach of the agreement
258
which has been arrived at. I think we should have some definite statement from the Government as to how they mean to carry out these Regulations, and whether these various wages committees are to be nominated or elected.
I regret very much that the Government have taken up the position that they are obliged to resist all Amendments, however much they may improve the Bill from the point of view of your Lordships or from the national point of view, and that the Conservative Party in another place have pledged themselves to support the Government against any such Amendments.
LORD DYNEVOR:My Lords, I do not wish to delay your Lordships for more than a very few seconds. I look upon this Bill as a compromise, and I think it should be accepted. If this Bill is lost there, will, without a doubt, be another Bill which, in all probability, will cause a long and bitter political fight. It is now for the employers and the employees to work this Bill to the very best advantage. As the Bill is a compromise, I do not intend to move any Amendment in Committee, nor do I wish now to delay your Lordships any further by entering into-any criticism of the Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:My Lords, I agree very much with a great deal that the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has said and with a great deal that I understand the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, to have said, but I go a good deal further than they do. I believe that this is a bad Bill. I believe that it will not do any good whatever to the agricultural labourer, and that it ought to be rejected. Consider for a few moments what the position is. Only two years ago the Coalition Government, which had a Wages Board, abolished that Wages Board, and only last November the then Conservative Government, though it did not institute a Wages Board, made a condition that if a farmer cultivated a certain amount of arable land he would receive £l an acre if he gave his labourers 30s. a week. All that has gone. And why? Because, as my noble friend Lord Long has said, this is an electioneering Bill, intended to catch votes in the country, and because a certain number of so-called Conservatives are afraid to face

259
their electorate unless they are able to say that they have taken something out of the pockets of a small class and put it into the pockets of a large number of voters.
Is there any other industry in the country—take the steel industry, or the cotton industry, or the shipbuilding industry, or the building industry, or any other industry of the country—in which there is a Wages Board which is compulsory on the masters and not on the men? In the building industry, are the master builders obliged to give to an official who comes round in the middle of their business any particulars that he chooses to demand when he asks questions regarding the money that they pay, and are they subjected to a fine not exceeding £20 and three months' imprisonment in addition if they fail to do so? I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, noticed that under this Bill an official of the Central Board may go to a farmer, who might be at work on the hay or corn harvest, and demand from him all sorts of particulars, order him to produce his books and his accounts and make him go away from his work and back to his house to produce all these particulars. It may be a fine day in the middle of a wet summer, so that the farmer may lose a considerable portion of the crops which he would obtain if he were allowed to superintend his work. If the farmer does not consent he is liable to a fine not exceeding £20 and, in addition, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. The noble Lord says that he is not going to accept any Amendments, but surely he is not going to insist upon a provision of that sort.
The building trade is a sheltered trade which is not open to any competition, but agriculture is the greatest single industry in the country, and is open to more competition from abroad than any other industry. In Denmark and in Holland is there any legislation of this sort? Is there any in India, or in Canada, or in America? How on earth are farmers going to meet foreign competition if they are handicapped by legislation of this sort? Take the railways, which are to a certain extent a sheltered industry. They have been guaranteed by Parliament a sufficient sum to pay the interest which they were paying before the war, and, in addition, a sufficient sum to pay 5percent.
260
on any new money that they may raise. They have their Wages Board, but it is not compulsory on either party, and there are no penalty clauses. If the men do not choose to observe an agreement that has been reached by the Wages Board they do not observe it. As a matter of fact they struck only the other day. Nor is there any obligation upon the railway companies to observe the agreement. But in this case, while there is no obligation whatever upon the agricultural labourer to carry out the agreement, an obligation is placed upon the farmer, coupled with very severe penalties. A more one-sided arrangement I do not think it would be possible to imagine.
Now let me deal for a few moments with the Bill. Take subsection (3) of Clause 1. It is there enacted that a Minister may, if he thinks right, amalgamate two or more counties. I do not know what the word "more" means. It might mean seven, eight, nine or ten counties, and the only safeguard is that this cannot be done without the consent of the counties. But the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has pointed out that two independent members are to be appointed, and these independent members will hold the balance. If the Minister tells the independent members of, say, seven or eight counties that he wishes to insist upon an amalgamation scheme, it will be done. Then the Bill will establish that which I believe the Labour people have always desired—an identical wage over a large number of counties. They apparently forget that climate, soil and conditions of farming vary in nearly every county in England. I should like to confirm the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, that the three or four members of the Conservative Party who came to this agreement have been got round. They have been absolutely taken in and deceived. They are under the impression that they have done away with the Central Wages Board. They have done nothing of the kind. They allow the Central Wages Board to remain in the Bill, they give it power to spend £70,000 a year, and they allow the Minister to have complete control of everything through the two members, and possibly the chairman, whom he puts on.
Now let me draw your Lordship's attention to Clause 5, because owing to the extraordinary hurry which has taken

261
place I believe I am right in saying that a very considerable number of your Lordships are under the impression, which has been culled from the newspapers, that this is all right; that the Conservatives have achieved a victory, and you need not trouble any more. As a matter of fact, the Conservative Party have been heavily defeated by Lord Parmoor and his friends. Look at Clause 5. It says that if an agricultural wages committee does not within two months function, then the Central Wages Board comes in and can function. Now the rules and Regulations are to be made by the Minister, and a quorum will be fixed by the Minister. Presuming there are six representatives of the employers and six representatives of the men, and two independent members, and presuming the Minister fixes a quorum at eight, and tells the two independent members to see that the quorum is not made, then the Central Wages Board comes in and fixes the wages, and does everything. The Minister can do exactly what he likes under this Bill, and the so-called compromise is not worth a snap of the finger.
Lord Strachie called attention to Clause 6, which says that the Minister may direct an agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate which has been fixed by them. Let us see what will take place. Presuming a wages committee has fixed a certain rate of wage, and has informed the Minister or the Central Wages Board, the Minister may send it back and say that ho does not agree with it. At the same time, he tells the two independent members, whom he has appointed, to see to it that there is an alteration made; and let us presume, for the sake of argument, that those two independent members show a little independence—which I think is extremely unlikely—and refuse to alter the wages. What will the trade union say? They will say to the men: "Here, your committee have refused to obey the order of the Minister and increase the wages. Do not pay any attention to the wages they have fixed, but strike for a higher wage." That is human nature, and I do not know that I should blame them; but it is one of the things which is certain to happen under this clause. Why should the Minister interfere between employer and employed? I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord yawns, because I am certain that in his own mind
262
he agrees with every single word I am uttering, and knows that he has no argument to meet mine.
Then there comes Clause 9, under which the Minister may appoint a secretary for the Agricultural Wages Board, and a secretary for each agricultural wages committee, and may have two independent members appointed by him, and also may have a chairman appointed by him. Therefore, it is an absolute certainty that the Minister will have control of all these committees. The Minister may, in addition, appoint an officer who may enter at all reasonable times and demand, either from the worker or the employer, all sorts of information; that is to say, he is to go round and endeavour to stir up strife, and the more strife he stirs up the more chance he has of being called a diligent officer and being advanced in office. If any person refuses to produce any document, or give any information, which any such officer lawfully requires him to produce or give, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment. Yet we are supposed to live in a free country. The noble and learned Lord I know was, and so far as I know is, an agriculturist, and yet he is prepared to support this provision. I should love to see him fined £10 and sent to prison for six weeks for not giving the information which, under his own Bill, he insists that other unfortunate people shall give.
Only a few more words and I have done. The First Schedule lays down, as I have already said, that there are two members to be appointed by the Minister, and that the chairman, unless he is appointed within two months, shall also be appointed by the Minister. I propose in Committee to move that the two independent members shall be appointed by the county council, though I do not very much care whether it be the county council or some other body independent of the Minister. We have too much of the Minister nowadays, not only in this Bill but in every Bill. The Minister always appears. The tyranny of the minister is, or may be, greater than the tyranny of any king in the old days. I have always objected to being tyrannised over, whether by king or minister, but if I have got to be tyrannised over I prefer to be tyrannised

263
over by a king rather than by a minister. Are we to understand that the noble and learned Lord is going to refuse to accept an Amendment of the sort I have indicated? I presume he is, and on that I should like to say one or two words with reference to the supposed agreement.
During the last few years, when I had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons, there was a practice which was entirely novel, of two or three members going to see the Government which happened to be in power and making arrangements without consultation with the vast number of members in that House, and then saying: This is a compromise with which you have to agree. I do not agree with the remarks of Captain Fitzroy, which the noble Lord read a short time ago. I think it is a great mistake, and that if members of the House of Commons had studied the Bill, instead of taking for granted what Mr. E. Wood and Captain Fitzroy told them, they would not have taken the course they did. At any rate, I do not think they would have done so if I had continued to be a member of the House of Commons.
I should like to say one word with regard to the independent members. I have no faith whatever in these independent members. I have had experience of boards with independent members upon them. I have had experience of the Railway Conciliation Board, with an independent Chairman. On the first Board the Chairman was appointed by the Speaker, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. What was the result? Whenever he gave a decision contrary to the men they refused to accept it, and within four years of the appointment of this first Conciliation Board there was a strike. Mr. Lloyd George surrendered, as he always did surrender, and then things went on for two or three years, when there was a statement made by the men that they would not put up with this form of Conciliation Board any longer, and they would not have an independent Chairman of that sort. The war came, and the matter was postponed until after the war. Now there has been a Conciliation Board set up with independent members on it. They have agreed to a little reduction that was asked for, though only an infinitesimal amount, but the men, though they had signed and agreed to the
264
reduction, refused to accept it, and went on strike. Is that an episode which is likely to show that the independent members on these committees will have an easy time, or that they are likely to be of any use? They will be appointed by the Minister, and if they do not do as the Minister tells them they can be withdrawn.
This is the first departure on what is going to be, I am afraid, a very far-reaching change in this country. You cannot stop at agriculture. If you pass this Bill you will have to do something of the same sort in every other kind of industry. The Bill is not brought forward because anybody believes in it, least of all the Conservatives in the House of Commons, but because it is thought that if there is a General Election it may be rather awkward to have it said that they voted against a Bill which might possibly do something for the agricultural labourer, who is a larger electoral force than the farmer. If we are going to do as the Liberal Party, have done— which accounts for the Liberal Party's downfall—that is to say, to concede everything under pressure, not because it is thought right but because there are a larger number of people asking for it than the people who will be injured by it, the Conservative Party will share the fate of the Liberal Party. I should like to warn those members of the Conservative Party who -call themselves Tory Democrats or Social Reformers that for every shilling that they are willing to take out of the pockets of the few to put into the pockets of the many, the Party of the Lord President of the Council will immediately offer half a crown and they will do no good whatever for themselves, for they are going on a downward plane which will ruin this country and the Conservative Party.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM:My Lords, I understand that the Government are prepared to make a statement about Ireland.
LORD PARMOOR:With your Lordships' permission I will read the Question

265
and Answer given in the House of Commons:
"MR. BALDWIN asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet received the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the questions submitted to them arising out of Article XII of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland.
"THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. THOMAS): Yes, Sir. The Report was presented to His Majesty in Council yesterday afternoon, and will be laid before Parliament as soon as it is printed. The effect of the Report of the Judicial Committee on the first four questions submitted to them is that the refusal of the Government of Northern Ireland to appoint a member of the Commission is acasus improvisus in the Act of Parliament implementing the Treaty; that is to say that it is a contingency which was Dot foreseen at the date of the passing of the Act, and that, if the Government of Northern Ireland maintain that refusal, there is no constitutional means under the existing Statutes of bringing the Commission into existence.
"The House will perceive that this Report raises grave issues. His Majesty's Government have no doubt that it was the intention of Parliament, when they approved and ratified the Treaty, that, in the event of the Government of Northern Ireland exercising their option under Article XII, the Commission to be appointed under the proviso to that Article should, in fact, be appointed; and they feel that they are bound in honour to secure, so far as lies within their power, that that intention is carried into effect. They most earnestly hope that, even at this late stage, the Government of Northern Ireland may see their way to appoint a representative on the Commission: but I must make it clear that if that hope is not fulfilled the Government propose forthwith to introduce legislation to give effect to what was the undoubted intention of the Treaty, and to press for the passage of that legislation through Parliament regardless of consequences to themselves.
266
"Not merely the honour of His Majesty's Government, but the honour of this country, is involved in seeing that an obligation definitely imposed on the United Kingdom by a Treaty is fulfilled in spirit and in letter, and my colleagues and I are not prepared to omit any step which is in our view necessary to place the good faith of Parliament and of the British people beyond question."

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read la; and to be printed.
LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Message from the Commons: That they agree to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to this Bill without amendment; they agree to one other Amendment, with an Amendment; and they disagree to certain other Amendments, for which they assign Reasons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD):I suggest that the Commons Message with regard to the London Traffic Bill be considered on Tuesday next, if that is convenient to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:That is a matter for the Government to decide. I should almost have thought, however, that, in case there was any further difference between the two Houses, it would have been better to have taken this business on Monday. But that is a matter for the Government.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD:The Order Paper will be very full on Monday. We have got the Committee on the Housing Bill, and now the Committee on the Agricultural Wages Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I was not aware of that. If the noble Viscount will permit me, I should have thought it was impossible to take the Committee stage of the Agricultural Wages Bill until Tuesday. After all, noble Lords must have time to put their Amendments on the Paper. I do not know what noble Lords behind me think about it.
LORD THOMSON:May I explain to the noble Marquess that it was by arrangement with the mover of these two Amendments that the London Traffic Bill was postponed until Tuesday next? The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, is responsible for both of the Amendments to the London Traffic Bill on which there will be any discussion, and for that reason it was postponed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:That is a good reason, and I will not interfere, of course, with that arrangement. I quite understand it. I am, however, rather surprised that the noble Viscount proposes to take the Committee stage of the Agricultural Wages Bill on that day, which means that that Bill and the Housing Bill will be considered in Committee on the one day.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD:I can only say that I understood that was the arrangement come to by the Lord President. I thought he was in the House, but apparently he is not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I am afraid that we have never heard of it on this side. My noble friend has suggested to me that the House will be technically in session after the Royal Commission and, perhaps, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, would make a statement then as to the exact condition of business.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD:I will see what arrangement can be made to suit noble Lords opposite. I am not at all sure that the Lord President is now in the precincts of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I will confer with the noble Viscount upon the matter between now and the Royal Commission.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills, and Measure passed according to the provisions of Section 4 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, received the Royal Assent: —
Finance.
Carriage of Goods by Sea.
British Museum (No. 2).
Isle of Man (Customs).
Telegraph (Money).
Public Works Loans.
Conveyancing (Scotland) Amendment.
Government of India (Leave of Absence).
Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions).
Unemployment Insurance (No. 2).
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6).
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1).
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8).
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1).
Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women, Glasgow, Order Confirmation.
Edinburgh Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation.
Rothesay Tramways (Amendment) Order Confirmation.
London Midland and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges, Scotland) Order Confirmation.
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers).
London Midland and Scottish Railway (Superannuation Fund).
Grampian Electricity Supply.
London and North Eastern Railway.
London Midland and Scottish Railway.
Morecambe Corporation.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation.
London County Council (General Powers).
Manchester Ship Canal.
Sutton Harbour.
London County Council (Money).
Neath Harbour.
Southend Water.
Brighton Corporation Water.
Thames Conservancy.
Birmingham Corporation.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Board.
Rotherham Corporation.
Halifax Corporation.
Wakefield Corporation.
Southern Railway.
London County Council (Lambeth Bridge).
Diocese of Winchester (Division) Measure, 1923.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, I desire to put a question to the noble Lord opposite as to the exact course of business at the beginning of next week.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE:My Lords, it is proposed that on Monday the House should sit at 3.15 p.m., and that the principal business should be the Committee stage of the Housing Bill; that on Tuesday the House should again meet at 3.15 p.m., and that the next stages of the London Traffic Bill and the Agricultural Wages Bill should be taken, together with other business; and that on Wednesday the House should meet at twelve noon, and that Notice should be given on the Paper for the suspension of the Standing Orders, so that certainly the Agricultural Wages Bill may be completed, and probably also the Housing Bill. It is expected that there will be a Royal Commission on Wednesday evening, and that possibly the Adjournment of the House for the Recess may take place the same evening.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:That is possible, but I hope that the noble Lord and His Majesty s Government will not take it as settled that the House can adjourn before Thursday, That will depend upon how business gets through.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE:That is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
House adjourned at four o'clock.