My Lords, this Bill, of which I have the honour to move the Second Reading this afternoon, is part of what I might call a quadruple effort on the part of the Government to deal with the serious question of unemployment—an evil which is so prevalent in our midst to-day. I think it will be generally agreed that the one sterling remedy for unemployment is once more to get trade and industry moving upon an economic basis. That is the main objective of the Government in introducing what I have already described as their quadruple effort. The view is that in some degree we can attain that trade revival by putting into operation certain other schemes which will come before your Lordships' House during the course of the next two or three days. And while these proposals are being pressed forward relief works of a useful and productive character are being pressed forward with satisfactory results. When the Minister in another place moved the Second Reading of this very Bill he was able to announce—this, remember, was more than a week ago—that seventy-one applications had been received from fifty-two different local bodies. Meanwhile, for those who cannot provide work there is the urgent necessity of bringing such succour as the grievously embarrassed condition of our national finances will allow. It is to that end that this feature of the Government effort is designed.

Your Lordships, will, I feel sure, be second to none in your desire to give every possible help in this great national emergency. Unemployment is a dark shadow which, alas! has brought much misery and distress to many homes in our midst. This Bill, I am sorry to say, cannot be a cure for that evil. The only cure is some revival, or rather a total revival, of trade and industry. But, at any rate, this Bill is designed to bring such assistance as is possible to those many homes into which misery and distress have been brought so recently. I am afraid that we have to face the coming winter with a prospect of at least 1,750,000 industrial workers out of employment. It is hoped that some trade revival may take place as the result of the other efforts which His Majesty's Government are at present about to make, but it would not be safe, I think, to assume that on the average there will be less than 1,500,000 workers unemployed during the coming winter.

Here our plans afford assistance to Boards of Guardians whose resources must already be severely strained. Then we have the Unemployed Insurance Acts of 1920 and 1921, and I should like to remind your Lordships that the new period of benefits begins on November 3; that is, to-day. Trade Union help is very nearly exhausted, but what is far worse is that the household resources and savings of the workers have been requisitioned to provide daily maintenance. Therefore, the Government feel that it is incumbent upon them to try and do something more along the lines of the Insurance Acts for men who are out of work, for their wives and their children. It is not much that we can do, but we can do something. The state of the national Exchequer settles that point.

I should like to refer as briefly as I can to the main points in the Government proposals. We are going to ask the employer and the employed who is insured under the Insurance Acts to make further contributions towards a fund the proceeds of which, augmented by a substantial grant from the Government, will go to the women and children. This Bill will continue to operate for a period of six months, and during that period the contributions that will be paid are as follows:— The men— that is to say the men who are insured against unemployment and in work— will pay 2d. a week; the employer in respect of each man insured and in work will pay 2d. a week; and the State will make a grant of 3d. a week. In regard to the women, boys and girls, they will make contributions of ld. a week; the employer will make contributions in respect of each woman, boy or girl, employed by him, of ld. a week, and the State will make a contribution of 2d. a week.

This will give us altogether, per week, by way of income, something like £204,000, or about £6,250,000 in rather over six months; that is to say, unless unemployment grows worse in the meanwhile. The total contributions from both employer and employed will give rather more than half that sum of £6,250,000 and the contributions of the State rather less than half. Both the employer and the employed know full well that their contributions will go towards helping to give valuable assistance to their unfortunate comrade who is down and out for the time being. Through the Unemployment Insurance Acts both the employer and the employed have come to their unfortunate fellow man's assistance in a splendid manner, and the response which they have made to those Acts leads the Minister and the Government to believe that this further appeal can be successfully made to their spirit of comradeship and sympathy.

One or two alternative plans of operating this measure have been considered, but the Minister has decided, after very careful thought, to administer this Act by means of the same machinery which operates the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The clerk who pays out the 15s. and the 12s. benefit, as the case may be, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts will also pay out this 5s. in respect of the wife of the unemployed worker, and the is. for each child dependent upon him. That will be done only upon proper evidence of eligibility, and will continue so long as the unemployed worker is drawing unemployment insurance benefit. The estimate made by the Government actuary as to the numbers of women and children who will benefit under this measure represents very substantial figures. He calculates that about 750;000 women will benefit, and very nearly 1,400,000 children. I think you will agree, therefore, that it really is worth doing.

Before I proceed any further I want to point out one thing, in order to prevent any misunderstanding. That point deals with the time when these new benefits will begin to operate. As I have already told your Lordships the new insurance benefits begin as from to-day. The first contributions under this Bill commence as from November 7 and the first week's grant will run as from November 10. That is the scheme, very shortly.

There are, however, one or two other points which perhaps I ought to mention. Clause 6 provides, firstly, that grants from this fund shall be taken into account in determining whether outdoor relief is granted. Secondly, Section 27 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, is temporarily suspended during the operation of this Bill. Let me explain exactly what that means. In granting relief all unemployment benefits must be taken into account plus any help from this fund. But under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, benefit is only taken into account in so far as it exceeds the 10s.; therefore, the emergency payments under this Bill plus the full amount of unemployment benefit— that is to say, not cutting out the 10s.— must be taken into account in determining what amount of relief is paid. The proviso in Clause 1 subsection (1) makes it quite clear that no grant can be made to the wife of an unemployed workman who is herself receiving unemployment benefit or is in wage-earning employment.

One or two features in the financial arrangements ought also, I think, to be mentioned. This measure, as I have already indicated, runs normally until May 7, 1922. On the basis of 1,500,000 unemployed during that period the contributions received by that date will not quite balance the expenditure. Therefore, power is taken in the Bill to extend those contributions for a further period in order to meet a possible deficit. There is also an opposite provision which lays it down that if there is a balance remaining to its credit after the fund has met all its liabilities, that balance shall be paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund. When this Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons Ireland was not included in it, but since that date it has been included in the Bill and is so included at the present moment, on the distinct understanding that it remains unless, before this Bill passes into law, power to operate the measure when it becomes an Act has been handed over to the Legislatures in Ireland.

I do not know that I need say very much more, but there are two matters to which I should like to refer before I resume my seat, As your Lordships are aware, this is a measure which will inflict a pretty heavy burden of responsibility and a certain amount of extra work upon those bodies known as local employment committees. Your Lordships no doubt know that those committees have been at work for some time, carrying out their duties most satisfactorily, arduously and earnestly. They are composed of representatives of employers and employed with a certain number of co-opted members and, I am happy to say, representatives of ex-Service men. Under this Bill the Minister will be obliged, from time to time, to refer matters of great importance to these bodies; they will have to help him to operate the Bill, when it becomes an Act, in the most careful and assiduous manner. But I cannot let this opportunity pass without publicly stating how valuable their assistance and their work have been in the past, and I think I can truthfully make the same remarks about the staffs of the local Employment Exchanges.

I have only one more point to raise and I approach it with a certain amount of diffidence. It is to ask your Lordships to expedite the passage of this Bill through the House as much as possible. I have no desire whatever to check criticism on the Bill, or to ask your Lordships not to amend it if you see fit to do so; that is very far from my mind. I approach the matter from two standpoints. One is the humanitarian point of view, and the other is what I might describe as the practical point of view. If the passage of this Bill is delayed beyond Tuesday of next week at the very utmost, I am informed that there is going to be great difficulty in securing the first contributions of the workpeople themselves, because in a good many cases pay-day takes place on Wednesday and, as your Lordships are aware, these twopences will be deducted from wages in the same manner as the Unemployment Insurance contribution is deducted. The net result of that would simply be that the benefits which accrue under this Bill to wives and children would be slightly delayed.

The other reason is that there are certain Government Amendments which will be laid before your Lordships in Committee and which necessitate the return of the Bill to the House of Commons before it can become law. I am given to understand that the House of Commons will conclude its sitting to-morrow somewhere about five o'clock. As your Lordships do not meet until a quarter past four there will not be very much time to get the Bill through its final stages in order that the House of Commons may decide as to whether they agree to the Amendments or not. The House of Commons, therefore, will not be able to deal with the Bill until Monday next. The point I would ask your Lordships to consider carefully is that we should so expedite the passage of this Bill through this House that we can deal with it to-morrow and get a Royal Commission to give the Royal Assent by Tuesday next.

My Lords, I am sure that you must all have felt that the expressions of sympathy to which the noble Earl gave utterance were sincere. I think also that you feel, with myself, some sense of gratitude to the noble Earl for the extremely clear way in which he explained the provisions of a not too simple Bill. In rising to make some criticism upon the measure, I desire to do so only for the purpose of asking your Lordships once more to consider not merely the palliatives, of which this Bill is one, for the disastrous condition into which our industry has fallen, but to see if there be not some root mischief that lies at the bottom of this trade depression— mischief which, unless it be relieved, will render it a permanent burden upon our national life.

Unemployment is no new phenomenon. Before the war industry was always subject to periodic, and sometimes to prolonged, crises in which many men were thrown out of work. The winter frequently took away from men their chance of earning their living, and, even apart from these seasonal conditions which affected their occupation, there were cycles which it was difficult to measure, and extremely difficult to fore tell, which recurred again and again in trade, and produced depression with disastrous consequences. It was often said that the real cause of this difficulty was incessant over-production, and there is no doubt that the workmen got deeply rooted into their mind the idea that by increasing and assisting in the increase of the output of the mills they were simply building up the causes which would lead, sooner or later, to their being thrown out of work. There never was, of course, a more disastrous fallacy. Whatever trouble caused those periods of distress it was not overproduction.

It may well have been that it was due to the fact that the commodities that were made were not properly distributed, and that there had been too rigid and too immovable a line fixed for the expenses of maintaining industries and the profits which the employer received. Had that been more elastic; had the men been able to associate the increased production with increased receipts, and by that means been able to expand their own means of payment, it might well have been that those difficulties could have been avoided. I refer to that now only because the idea which, through some quarter of a century and probably longer of industrial strife, has been firmly embedded in the minds of workmen has just been the fact that the more they laboured to increase the output— it may be that the more they increased their master's profits— the more certainly they produced the period when their work would be no longer wanted, and they would be thrown out of employment. That idea has remained.

The war is said to have destroyed many things, but it has left that fallacy behind, and I regret greatly to say that to my mind it has been enormously increased and inflamed by the course that the Government themselves have taken during the last three years. It must have been plain to the most shortsighted observer that the war would produce catastrophes in our industrial system which it would not be easy to remedy. Trade never was, and never could be, confined to buying and selling at home. Our trade, beyond all others, was a trade which depended for its life upon our power to export goods overseas, while again, overseas trade did not depend upon selling simply goods to one country and getting their products back. It was a most delicate, intertwined, complicated vascular system by which commerce slowly spread through every single territory and State in the united civilised world, with the result that goods that you sold to America might be paid for by goods that you got from Germany, or from China, or from South America, or anywhere else. Into that delicate and complicated system the war cut a deep gash, and I regret to say that the Government., instead of taking steps to heal the wound, appear to me, from their results, to have taken steps to deepen it and make it permanent.

It is no use producing palliatives of this description for a condition of things which is inherent in the policy that has been pursued during the last two years. Unless, and until, trade can be revived in Europe, our trade will languish. We shall be unable to produce the goods for export, and we shall be unable to keep our people employed at home. Unemployment spreads like an infectious disease from trade to trade, and from industry to industry, and the first thing the Government ought to have done, instead of merely concentrating their energies on how to relieve something which they regard as transient, was to concentrate them on how to prevent the possibility of this transient distress becoming a permanent phenomenon in our national life. I regret to say that they seem to me to have done very little indeed in that direction.

It may well be said that the complaint I have made against the lack of zeal on the part of men to put the greatest amount of their energy and power into their productive labour is one for which the Government is not responsible. I cannot accept that view. There are two things that the Government did when the war was over, for which I think they can never be sufficiently and adequately blamed. The first thing was that they led everybody to believe that our troubles were going to be relieved by the mere fact that we had won the war, and that we were going to get our debts paid by contributions from Germany. They refused to listen to the utter economic impossibility of getting anything of the kind accomplished without effecting the ruin of our own domestic trade. They insisted that £25,000,000,000 was the sum that Germany could produce, and they would not listen to anybody who suggested that such a sum was fantastic and impossible. They also led the people here to think that they were going to have the most wonderful homes built for them; that the conditions of their industry and their labour were going to be lightened; and that life was going to be a better and a happier and a surer thing for all of us.

Precisely the opposite was the truth. Life had got to be a harder and meaner thing than it was before, and if this country ever meant to gather the full results of the victory that had been won for us by the sacrifice of so much suffering and life in France, it was vital that everybody should concentrate their energies on seeing how, by thrift and hard work, they could restore the position which the war had almost overthrown. There was no such word, there was no such suggestion, in any of the Government proposals.

Further, they did something which I regard as equally bad. They attempted to let people think that by the mere process of raising payment you could establish once more equilibrium; that if prices of commodities were high all you had to do was to increase the payments to everybody so that their means of demand might be multiplied, and by those means their position would be exactly what it was before. The amount of money which they spent in bonuses is really beyond belief, and although among the poorer people some such relief was undoubtedly required, yet the essence of their scheme, which was to try to put everybody back in the position in which they were before the war broke out, showed to my mind that they had failed to grasp the fundamental facts of the position, which were that our life never could get back to the position which existed before 1914 until very many long years of struggle and endurance had passed away.

The result of it all is upon us in the unemployment that we have to face. The Government do admit that the result of this must be that very heavy burdens must be imposed upon this country, and for the first time they appear to realise that the burdens which we already carry are sufficiently heavy. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a day or two ago, spoke in another place in terms of gravity of the amount of taxation that we have to bear. But this has been pointed out to the Government again and again during the last three years, and they have made no attempt whatever, until quite recently, to cut down the expenses and embark upon a policy that would enable that taxation to grow more light.

This Bill, as I understand it, is only one of a series of measures that are coming up to us, every one of which, if I apprehend their intent rightly, will involve, or may involve, some considerable addition to the public expense. Twenty-five millions is mentioned as the figure in one Bill; what the estimate is under this Bill, whether it is six or eight or twelve millions, I do not know. What I want to ask is, how is the money going to he provided; what is the source from which it is coming? If it is going to be raised out of Income Tax it will mean another 6d. or 7d. or 8d. in the £on that tax. If it is going to be raised by capital, is it intended to raise a loan, or is the proposal to raise it by the simple process of turning the handle of the printing press? This House has no longer any power whatever over Bills that affect questions of this description, but. I apprehend we none the less have cast upon us the duty of expressing our views upon measures of this nature, and criticising the conditions which have resulted in this trouble.

I can only see that the Government have adopted one course to escape from their difficulties. They do not seem to have considered any of the central causes that lie at the root of this problem. Their only remedy is that we should wade deeper and deeper into the ocean of debt. We have waded fax enough already, and many of us are gasping for breath. It will only require a few steps further, and the retreat, which may even at this moment be impossible, will then be for ever cut off. I raise no opposition to the terms of this measure, but I think that it is desirable in passing it that your Lordships should keep before your mind the central problem, of which this is nothing but a small piece of evidence, and that is my excuse for having troubled you with my comments upon this Bill.

My Lords, before this Motion is put from the Woolsack I wish to say a few words to your Lordships to clear up a misapprehension which I think is rather of a serious nature with regard to this Bill, and to its chance, or its right, to be regarded as a Bill which can pass this House with general approbation, and which it is right and proper to expedite through every stage, as if it were an emergency measure arising in the middle of the war, instead of being merely a Bill to reverse a recent decision of your Lordships' House in favour of a limited number of bookmakers.

I see that my noble and learned friend, Lord Muir Mackenzie, said yesterday, in the course of his remarks introducing the Second Reading of the Bill, two things, both of them of cardinal importance. One of them was that it was a Bill which he did not think ought to proceed, or could proceed, unless there was what might be called general consent to it, and the other was to the effect that the decision of your Lordships' House in a judicial capacity had really turned upon the discovery, in the recent case of Sutters versus Briggs, in which judgment was given a few days ago, of a section of an Act of Parliament which had not been observed in the other Courts; and, upon the argument that by some oversight the law had been discovered to he different from what it had hitherto been supposed to be, my noble and learned friend justified a most extraordinary portion of his Bill, which gave it a retrospective effect, so as to take away from one class of persons their legal rights, which at this moment are perfectly unimpeachable, while I leaving another class of persons entitled to recover the amounts that they may claim I without any defence being possible.

The distinction between the two classes is that the meritorious ones are those who rushed into law, issued writs and took action before October 25, and the unmeritorious are those who kept their money in their pockets and waited to see what your Lordships would have to say to the measure. My noble and learned friend, actuated, I am sure, by the very best of motives, has declared himself in a matter which, I dare to say, does require some consideration. He said that he had spoken to various members of the House whose authority is recognised here, and had found no disposition to disapprove of the measure, and also to many members of the legal profession and Judges of the highest position who did not repudiate the word "ridiculous," which had been passed either upon the Act, or upon the construction which your Lordships put upon the Act— I am not sure which.

All I wish to point out is that so far as I am concerned I have never been spoken to by either the noble and learned Lord or anybody interested in the passage of the measure, for, if I had, I should at once have expressed the astonishment with which I read the Bill for the first time last night and found that it actually provided that persons who have an absolute right to recover their money now are to have that right taken away retrospectively, for no earthly reason except that they did not commence their action soon enough. As I took part in the recent decision I loathe the idea of taking any part in the discussion, but. I deprecate the view that, at the desire of a very limited number of persons, the moment a decision is arrived at in this House upon the construction of an Act of Parliament which is eighty or ninety years old we should bestir ourselves to turn it to the right-about. I do not wish it to be supposed that I have any amour proper in this matter, but I cannot, without a protest, allow it to go forth, as it would go forth, to the House of Commons and elsewhere that this measure had passed your Lordships' House with general assent when it contains a clause which is, first of all, justified by misapprehension, and, secondly, works, as I think, quite unparalleled injustice.

I know of no precedent for an Act which takes away from men who have a statutory right which is quite unimpeachable the right to recover their money by retrospection with reference to past transactions, and distinguishes the sheep from the goats by any such trivial distinction as that the sheep have begun their actions and the goats have not. I do not agree that there has been any such misapprehension with regard to the law. The case of Sutters versus Briggs, I understand, came here for the purpose of obtaining a reversal of the decision in the earlier case of Day versus Mayo, decided, I think, a year or two ago — certainly not very recently. I see my learned friend the Master of the Rolls (Lord Sterndale) present. He was, I think, a party to the decision in Day versus Mayo, and the losing party in that case did not venture to bring it to the House of Lords.

This action of Slitters versus Briggs, as I understand, was brought for the purpose of reversing the decision in Day versus Mayo, and before Day versus Mayo I understand the point had been taken in the Courts below and decided one way or the other. Therefore, it is a total misapprehension to think that certainly for the last two years those who carry on the business of betting have been under any justifiable conviction that there could be any doubt whatever about the meaning of the Act of 1835. If, knowing the risk they ran, they have continued their business on the chance that they would either win when they got to the House of Lords or that no one would be so shabby as to take the point, why is there to be hasty, and agreed, and (I might almost say) hustled legislation to relieve them of the consequences of their miscalculations?

The Bill was printed, so far as I know, for the first time early yesterday. The Second Heading was fixed for yesterday upon the assumption that the Bill, which was not at that time printed, would he in your Lordships' hands in time, and having been passed in the circumstances I have mentioned, the Committee stage was put down for to-day. Of course, I ought to have been here yesterday, and I am not complaining of my noble and learned friend on that account. But one cannot always be here, and as the Post Office, which distributes the Blue Papers, is not a very active institution, I first saw the Bill last night, and it was impossible for me then to put down an Amendment to it to-day. That is why I am afraid I am inflicting upon your Lordships a Second Reading speech on the Motion to go into Committee.

The noble and learned Lord admitted that the Bill could not proceed except by general consent. What I suggest is that the Bill should be proceeded with no further. For my own part I think the right course to take would be to survey the laws, which are said to be in a chaotic state, and reduce them to sense, but do not let the Legislature be invited to take sides, and to take sides in favour of the bookmakers just because, and just after, this House has decided against them.

My Lords, I confess that I am taken by surprise at the attitude taken up with regard to this Bill by my noble and learned friend opposite. It is quite true that I did not speak to him with respect to bringing in this Bill. In fact I refrained from speaking, except in one instance, to any one who had taken part in the decision. I thought that on the whole I had better not. I could repeat to the House what I said last night, that I had communicated with other persons on whose opinions I have relied, and I think that if I were to name them to your Lordships your Lordships would have the same feeling. I said yesterday that I did not think that this Bill could be, or ought to be, proceeded with unless with the general consent of the House. It is the case, no doubt, that the House was not very full yesterday. Certainly, my noble and learned friend was not here, although I do not complain of that; but I am sure that anybody who was here will agree that, so far as one could ascertain, there was general assent to the Bill.

One of my difficulties at this moment, of course, is that I was by no means the most important person who dealt with this subject. I spoke for five minutes, and then the subject was taken up by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who is not now on the Woolsack, and he put the case in a way which was, of course, much better than I could put it. I gathered that he was under the same impression as I was— namely, that everybody who had taken notice of this case at all was agreed in the language which I ventured to use about it, that the state of the law disclosed by the case when it came here might, at any rate, be called ridiculous. I admit that in circumstances of this sort you get very great difficulty in arriving at a decision as to who is to suffer by the remedy that is proposed. Somebody has to give up a right which he may be supposed to have, but which in this case I believe nobody ever supposed he had. It was, I believe, a revelation. The noble and learned Lord has said that it appeared that the matter had been considered in the Courts below. My information was that it had not been, and indeed a learned Judge had used, I think, in one instance the very word which I ventured to use as describing the state of the law.

I do not think that the case for this. Bill, or for proceeding with it now, ought to rest entirely upon an opinion which I can give. I think the House must feel, as I feel, that it is unfortunate that— no doubt for reasons that can be well explained— the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is not here, because I should not like to consent to any course taken by the House on this Bill without hearing what he has to say about it. I do not think I should be behaving courteously towards him. I have already indicated my own opinion that, if there is serious opposition to this Bill, it cannot, and ought not, to proceed. I have said that, and I still think so. It is very difficult to say that the opposition to the Bill is not formidable when it is in the hands of my noble and learned friend, because I know very few people whom I regard as more formidable antagonists on almost any question.

Therefore what I should like the noble and learned Lord and the House to consent to is to allow the Bill to pass this stage to-day, and to allow us to-morrow to discuss the question as to whether or not it should proceed. I appeal to the House not to deal with this question in the absence of the Lord Chancellor. I think it puts a great responsibility upon me, at any rate, to consent to any course being taken when I feel sure that he will have something to say about it.

We are told by the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) that the Bill that has just been read a second time, dealing with the unemployed, will occupy to-morrow, because it is very urgent and it has to pass through its further stages. Would not next week be better for this measure? There is no urgency about it.

I do not agree with that. I think, as I have said before, that this is a matter which, if it is to be dealt with at all, ought to be dealt with at once. But I see now that the Lord Chancellor has returned, and I think I had better stale, in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, what has taken place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, has taken exception to proceeding with this Bill, and has given reasons. I do not, for the moment, deny that there is great force in what he has said, but I have already stated that I could not consent to postpone this measure to-day without the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who has taken a prominent part in the matter, having an opportunity of saying anything that he thinks ought to be said on the subject.

My suggestion (perhaps it is only for my own convenience) is that, being taken by surprise, after what happened before, by the opposition that is now raised, the House should adhere to the attitude which it took up yesterday, which is one of non-opposition, and allow the Bill to go through Committee to-day, and take the discussion on the Third Reading— I should like the Third Reading to be taken to-morrow, because my view is that this ought to be done quickly— or let it stand over till next week, when we can debate the matter after having had sufficient notice.

My Lords, it not infrequently happens that, owing to the compulsory absence of some noble Lord from this House, the considerations that ought to be before this House when a Bill is read a second time are not then urged, and the Motion that the Bill should go into Committee is, undoubtedly, a convenient time when matters of that kind can be raised before the House decides to proceed upon the steps in the progress of this Bill which will certainly end in its ultimately finding its place on the Statute Book.

With regard to this Bill, there are two things which have been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, each of which, I think, deserves considerable attention. The first is this. He says that the Bill, as it stands, draws an arbitrary date at which certain people shall possess rights which the law allows, and when they shall be taken away; and he has complained that the Bill does what is an unusual thing— namely, it deprives people, before the passage of the Act, of existing legal remedies. That, at least, is a matter which needs consideration and could be met, of course, if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill were to say at once— and I was rather astonished that he did not— that he was quite willing that the clause should be so amended that it should speak from the date of the passage of the Bill, and not from an arbitrary, antecedent date. Probably he would have assented. He expressed no sign of assent, and that was one of the most formidable points raised by Lord Sumner.

The other point is also one that deserves great consideration. It is this. Why not take the opportunity afforded by the consequences of this decision to put the whole of the Gaming Laws of this country into something like sense and order? If you tinker with the matter each time that something happens which causes people a little surprise you will never get them put right at all. There certainly would be no objection to that, unless it could be said that this Bill is one of immediate urgency. That something, of the kind will have to be passed imagine most people are in agreement, but that it needs to be passed instantly does not seem to me to be nearly so certain. I must say I thought the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord was not an unreasonable one— either that the Bill, as it stands, should be amended so that it nay speak from the time it is passed, or that the matter should stand over until the whole question can be the subject, of full and careful consideration. Those, at least, were the matters placed before the consideration of the House, and I should think that the House might well take them into account.

My Lords, I am extremely sorry that I should not have been in the House when this discussion, unexpected by me, arose. I was sent for on some urgent public business, and had it occurred to my noble and learned friend who raised the topic to mention his intention to me I should certainly not have been guilty of the apparent disrespect of not being here when a topic was raised on which I have already contributed to the debate.

My intervention then, as now, was, as I made it plain, a disinterested one in this sense, that the Government have always made it clear through me that it was not possible for us, as a Government, to undertake, in the particular circumstances of this session, any collective responsibility for the proposal which is contained in this Bill. I have gathered from the speech of the noble and learned Lent, Lord Buckmaster — to me, I confess, an extremely welcome and useful one— the principal point which I understand the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, to have taken. Let me say at once that I am most clearly of opinion that, unless the House, as a whole, is satisfied with practical unanimity that this Bill ought, in the circumstances indicated, to become law, in my judgment the noble Lord who has become its sponsor would be well advised to drop it at once. It will not have the slightest chance in the other House unless this House is plainly, and with practical unanimity, agreed in passing it through all its stages.

With reference to the point which has been taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, it could, I think, be dealt with in the manner which has been suggested by my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, and I have no doubt at all that my noble friend, Lord Muir Mackenzie, would be prepared to adopt the suggestion which has been made if that satisfies the objections which were taken by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Sumner. But I would certainly say plainly that if an authority who can speak with so much weight in this House as Lord Sumner can upon this or any similar subject, entertains doubt upon it even after an undertaking of the kind indicated, and it is certain that he is reflecting the feelings of those who would be influenced by him, such an atmosphere as that would make it useless to proceed with the Bill any further.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has suggested that opportunity might be taken of these circumstances to reform and re-state the whole law of gaming in this country. My noble and learned friend is sufficiently experienced in these matters to know that he is inviting me to undertake the cleansing of an Augean stable at a moment when controversy on the subject is by no means dormant and leisure is more than usually lacking. I do not in the least say that such a task would exceed the limits of such small ingenuity and knowledge as one might be able to bring to bear, but I should be indeed deluding your Lordships if I pretended at this moment that I discerned a particularly tempting opportunity for commencing this task, And; if the occasion, which is the only justification for this Bill, is as real as those who support it believe it to be, it is not by a large and general proposal of this kind that we shall meet it.

I would, therefore, venture to ask my noble friend, Lord Sumner, to make it plain whether the objection to which he has given most legitimate expression is one that would be likely to be met in the manner suggested by my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, or in any other manner that commends itself to his own ingenuity. If it is not likely to be so met, and he retains his objection, then the Bill has not, in my judgment, the slightest prospect of becoming law, and I would advise my noble friend in charge of it neither to waste his own time nor your Lordships' time upon it.

My Lords, I venture to interpose for one moment before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, replies to what has fallen from the noble Viscount on the Woolsack, because, like him, I was prevented by urgent business elsewhere from being present in the House when this Bill was read a second time. But the point on which I do not feel quite clear is whether my noble friend opposite is convinced, as I gathered he was, that this Bill is really an urgent matter and that it is not the case, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, appeared to conceive, and as, I think, my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, also appeared to conceive, that it did not very much matter from the public point of view as to whether this Bill was passed this autumn or at some future time.

Now I understand that the case is that, quite apart from the question whether certain persons may take advantage of the law as declared by your Lordships' House to repudiate their debts of honour, there are many other persons who, as trustees or executors, find themselves placed in the position of being obliged to do so. That is to say, the law compels trustees or executors to assume that the testator whose affairs they are administering would desire that his residuary legatees should be gainers by a particularly shabby fraud and that trustees have no choice in taking steps which, if they were private persons, would involve their being turned out of any club to which they might belong and of being debarred from the society of decent persons. If that is so, I think it cannot be disputed that the matter is urgent. It is by no means the case, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, has said, that this is a matter of securing the interests of a few bookmakers. I take it that the account books and counterfoils of the cheque books of all deceased persons will he liable to examination in order that claims may be made for the return of money which they paid by cheque. It is by no means a question only of the interests of bookmakers, but the smaller class who have been so fortunate as to win, will be placed, obviously, in precisely the same position.

In those circumstances I cannot help hoping, unless I have stated thecase wrongly, that some means will be found of proceeding with the measure as quickly as possible. It would be, I think, a misfortune if it had to be put off until some time next year, and a still greater misfortune. I venture to think, if it, had to wait until the desire of my noble and learned friend. Lord Buck-master, was satisfied, that all the Gaming Laws of the country— a most confused and difficult subject— could be dealt with and placed in order. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend, Lord Muir Mackenzie, will, so far as he can, persist in his measure, and if it is found that by giving way on some point of date he can meet the opposition of the noble and learned Lord above the gangway without, causing to an excessive extent the unfairness and inconvenience to trustees and executors of wills which I have mentioned, well and good.

I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord has found it necessary to offer opposition to this measure. We all know how much weight his opinion carries in your Lordships' House, but I do not think that his opposition could he regarded as involving a departure from the general consent of the House, if it is found that he stands alone. We can hardly offer to endow the noble and learned Lord with a liberum xeto, and 1 am sure he will agree that if the consent of the House generally is in favour of the passage of the Bill in some form, that he would not consider it reasonable that he should altogether obstruct its passage.

My Lords, I have your Lordships' permission to say a few words although I have no right to do so, and I will express the most practical conclusion that. I can. How it came to be imagined that I could he supposed to have a liberum xeto or any other kind of veto I do not know. Certainly nothing that I have said this evening was intended to suggest, or indeed could suggest, that if the rest of your Lordships approve this Bill. I was anything more than the most insignificant worm in this House. My business was to correct what I thought was a misunderstanding and to oppose in toto that which I conceived to be unjust and unprecedented. If the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, will leave out all the words in Clause 1 after the word "repealed" I am content; that is to say, if he will make his amendment of the Gaming Act of 1835 operative only on transactions hereafter. What. I strongly objected to was the endeavour to say that men who had acquired rights— whether they are shabby rights or not, I do not care— should have them taken away by an Act of Parliament because a considerable number of people had supposed that they had no such rights.

I quite appreciate what the noble Marquess said about the position. I think the difficulty might be overcome by enacting that any executor or trustee should not himself be chargeable for default if he did not take action to assert rights, on behalf of the testator, to recover money which had been paid by cheque as a gaming debt. That would leave the persons who would bring actions to the irreconcilable folks who, having lost, do not like losing, and desire to get their money back. I think, if my own opinion were worth mentioning, I would get rid of the whole lot, and leave people to bet as they pleased, and bring actions to recover their debts. I do not believe in interfering in this fashion, but that is another matter. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to repeal Section 2 of the Gaming Act, and thus make an end of the matter, I for one should offer no opposition. It was not in order to try and get the House to reverse the decision at which it had arrived after full knowledge of all the facts that I intervened; it was simply because I thought it my duty to intervene, at as early a moment as possible, to put right what appeared to me to be an error.

My Lords, I still hold the opinion that this is a Bill that there is no hope of passing in the other House if there is any controversy in regard to it. To leave the position as it is left in the Statute is ridiculous, and I think the sooner it is amended the better. I certainly had hoped that this Bill would be allowed to go through without any opposition. I do not think that anything has been brought by way of surprise before the House. Everybody iii the country was acquainted with, and was interested in, what had taken place, and opinion was, I thought, unanimous in favour of trying to get. rid of the mess into which it appeared the Statute had got. The question is whether I should ask the House to divide now upon the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill. My own impression is that the best course would be to take the Committee stage to-morrow, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to put his Amendment on the Paper, as I have no doubt he would have done if I, under a misapprehension of feeling in the House— not a misapprehension as to the general feeling of the House— had not put down, this Bill for Committee stage today. There is no time for extending the business of the House. If the Bill is not got through quickly it cannot be passed, and I think it will be best that the noble and learned Lord should put down his Amendment and let us discuss it to-morrow.

Why not go into Committee now? I understood that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack seemed to recognise that to be the best course.

I assented to that course, subject to the other Amendment by Lord Sumner being introduced on the Report stage to-morrow. We have no justification for asking your Lordships to hurry a Bill through a session of Parliament like this if it is one in regard to which there is controversy. I suggest that the House should proceed into Committee, and that the noble and learned Lord should move his Amendment, with an understanding that between now and the Report stage to-morrow the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should put down an Amendment which would produce the consequences that appear from these discussions to be desired.

I beg to move that all words after the word "repealed" to the end of the clause be omitted.

had given Notice to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture what was the number of crop reporters, and what was the cost of crop reporting during the past financial year, and what was the number of crop reporters and the cost of crop reporting for the last financial year before the war: and to move for Papers.

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question asking for these particulars is that the number of crop reporters in the year 1913–14 was 220, and in 1920–21, 336. The amount voted for crop reporting in the earlier year was £3,600, and the actual cost £3,137; in 1920–21 the amount voted was £36,500 and the actual cost was £34,117. The increase in the cost since 1913–14 was mainly due to the fact: that in the earlier period the Annual Agricultural Returns were collected by the Customs and Excise. The actual cost of the work to the Customs and Excise in 1913–19 is not known. It was all taken as a block Vote, and the only information we can give on that point is that about thirty years earlier the annual cost was estimated at £11,800; but since 1890 no special provision has been made in the Vote for the work done by the Customs or Inland Revenue under this head, as it has been lumped in with other services. There has been, however, no material change in the character of the work between 1913–14 and 1920–21, and although it is probable that it is more efficiently done under the present system, it may be taken as certain that the collection of the Annual Returns is not more costly than if they were still being collected by the Customs.

The transfer from the Customs was made in consequence of the increased duties placed upon that Department in other directions, and was authorised by the Treasury in 1919, the work relating to these Annual Returns being undertaken from that time by part time officers of the Ministry, known as crop reporters. That is to say, crop reporters, after that time, had to furnish the Annual Agricultural Returns which, up to that time, had been furnished by the Customs. These officers, who received in the aggregate £3,600 in 1913–14 and £5,325 in 1915–16, when other duties were cast upon them, were considered to be underpaid. I think they were complaining that they did not receive enough money, and when this additional work was placed upon them, their remuneration was increased, partly in respect of the new work, and partly in respect of their previous duties.

These persons who, as I have said, number 336, are usually land agents, land valuers, or other persons possessing a know ledge of agriculture in the districts with which they deal. They are paid by fees averaging about £100 per annum, but varying according to the size of the district allotted to them. When the heavy work previously done by the Customs was taken over in 1919, it was considered that this work could only be done efficiently by creating smaller districts than those which had hitherto been used for the Ministry's crop reporting; hence the number of reporters was increased from 220 to 336. The work consists of:—(a) The collection annually of a Return of the area under crops and the number of live stock on holdings of more than one acre; (b) the estimation of the production of the principal crops; and (c) the supply to the Ministry of a. monthly report on the condition of crops and agricultural conditions generally. In addition the crop reporters supply special information as required.

The value of these Returns cannot be questioned. They are the basis of all discussions on agricultural policy, and afford the only real measure of the dimensions of the industry, the changes in cultivation, the number of live stock, the yield of crops, and other question of primary importance from an economic point of view. I may say that this question has been carefully gone into by the Ministry, and I think it is very doubtful indeed if any possible economy can be made in this direction, if the information that is now obtained is still desired. Of course, it is a question of policy, and perhaps a very proper question for the Agricultural council, or some body like that, to state whether these Returns and crop reports need be so full. There is now, as the noble Lord knows, a monthly crop report, but I may say that the Department have examined it very closely, and that it is certainly the general opinion of the Ministry that these reports should be as full and the statistics as careful and as well-informed as they now are. I am afraid it is very doubtful indeed, in fact impossible, that the expenditure upon them can he cut to any large extent.

My Lords, after the very full answer of the noble Earl I do not wish to press any further for the Return for which I moved, I am quite satisfied to get the fullest information he can give me, but I would ask him carefully to consider any representations which may be made to him by agricultural bodies, because I can assure him there is a very strong feeling in the country, having regard to the money paid for the Returns, that we do not get value for them, and that they are quite unnecessary in the present circumstances.

My Lords, on behalf of Lord PARMOOR, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state what progress has been made in providing Credits for Austria; and how far any difficulties which stood in the way of participation by the United States of America have been removed.

My Lords, it will be remembered that in March last the Supreme Council at its meeting in London expressed a desire that the Financial Committee of the League of Nations should examine the financial situation of Austria and seek means of remedying it. After a preliminary survey the Financial Committee stipulated certain conditions as necessary before the restoration of Austria's credit could be undertaken. The main conditions were that the Governments having liens on Austria in respect of reparation and relief credits should agree to postpone those liens for a period of not less than twenty years; that trade barriers between Austria and neighbouring countries should be removed; and that the Austrian Government should itself take stringent measures to improve its internal financial situation.

A delegation from the Financial Committee subsequently visited Austria and returned with assurances from all Parties in Austria that the third of the above conditions would be carried out. The delegation were themselves satisfied with the programme of financial reform which the then Austrian Government drew up and promised, with external assistance, to carry out. The external assistance to Austria which the delegation proposed and the Financial Committee approved was to comprise— (1) temporary advances to cover the period before (2) the issue of an external loan, and (3) the establishment with the help of foreign capital of a State Bank.

The one absolutely necessary preliminary to the putting into operation of this scheme — namely, the release of the reparation and relief credits liens, was, however, still to be assured. From the time that the League of Nations scheme was definitely formulated in June, 1921, the energies of the Financial Committee, assisted very prominently by His Majesty's Government, have been directed solely towards obtaining the consent of the interested Governments to the postponement of the above-mentioned liens, as until such consent is obtained the League of Nations scheme cannot become operative. Of the countries having liens on Austria in respect of reparations agreement in principle has been announced by all countries except Rumania, though in some cases detailed conditions of such agreement remain to be adjusted.

The Governments of all countries having liens on Austria's assets in respect of relief credits have agreed to postponement, with the exception of the United States of America and Holland. The United States Government has expressed its benevolent intentions with regard to the scheme, but is at present without legal authority formally to release its liens: such authority is being sought in the Bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and now before the Senate, upon the passing of which Bill it will be possible, it is confidently hoped, for the United States Government to deal with its liens on Austria in the desired manner. The Netherland Government, the other outstanding Government having claims on Austria for relief credits, is still considering the matter of postponement, and His Majesty's Government are pressing for an early and favourable decision. It will be seen therefore that the conditions necessary to the operation of the League of Nations scheme for assisting Austria are not yet fully assured, but His Majesty's Government is very hopeful that all difficulties will be removed at an early date.

Certain assistance is, however, being given to Austria at this moment. Arrangements have been made for a sum of £250,000 to be placed privately at the disposal of the Austrian Government through the Anglo-Austrian Bank in Vienna and for a further sum of £250,000 to be made available from French sources through the Laender Bank in Vienna. These two advances (which do not necessarily comprise all the credits which might be made available) will be used mainly for the purchase of food supplies outside Austria or for other approved purposes.

My Lords, I am afraid we shall have to invite the House to meet to-morrow afternoon at a quarter past four, in order to proceed with two or three Bills already on the Paper for Second Reading, and a further Bill in respect of the unemployed workers for which Lord Clarendon obtained a Second Reading this afternoon. I shall be very glad if your Lordships will allow Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered and suspended in relation to this Bill to-morrow, because there are several Amendments, all, I believe, except one, of a drafting character, which Lord Clarendon desires to insert, and he is anxious for technical reasons that the Bills should pass into law by Tuesday next, so that the Lords' Amendments will go to the Commons, and if necessary reach us again, in time for the Bill to pass on that date. Lord Peel will also, if convenient, take the Second Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill to-morrow.

My Lords, before the House adjourns I think it would be due to us that the noble Earl should give some explanation of the urgency which demands a Friday sitting. We have not been told, except as regards one Bill, which I understand the noble Earl says for some reason or other ought to become law on Tuesday, what the urgency is. So far as I know there is no special reason for the immediate rising of Parliament. We are not at the end of August, or the beginning of the holiday season, or obliged for any reason to bring about, an early Prorogation of Parliament. My noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, owing to legal business, will not be able to be in the House to-morrow, and I understand from him that he is desirous of speaking on one of the Bills with which it is proposed to proceed.

I do not know whether the noble Earl who is now leading the House supposes that any serious part can he taken in proceedings hurried in this way, by those who have only the chance during the morning of the day on which the debate is to take place of becoming acquainted even with the general provisions of measures. I am sure the noble Earl is as tired as we are of protests being made on behalf of the dignity of this House, or of the desirability of general discussion here, and I do not want to press those protests; but I think it is due from the noble Earl to give us some more reason than lie has given for the necessity for sitting to-morrow at all.

There are two points which arise. One is with regard to the special case of the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Bill, and the other with regard to the Bill which Lord Crewe mentioned, the Trade Facilities Bill. The special reason why we are anxious to get the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provisions) Bill through quickly is that Wednesday, in very large industries affected by this Bill, is often a pay-day, and it is desirable that the adjustment provided for under this Bill should take place as and from the first pay-day after its passage. It is quite possible, I suppose, to put off the Bill for a week, and so postpone it, but the desire of the Government is that it should be passed as quickly as possible, and November 7 is, I think, actually set out in the Bill as the day when it is expected to receive the Royal Assent. That is what induces me to ask your Lordships to take that Bill to-morrow.

As regards the Trade Facilities Bill, if objection is taken I presume it must be postponed, but I should hope that the Bill might make some progress. There is important business on the Paper to-morrow apart from Government business, as Lord Crewe is aware, and I can only say that we are anxious that these Bills should be passed at the earliest possible moment. Whether the House should go on sitting after legislation is finished is a matter about, which, of course; I do not offer any opinion. It raises large question of policy.

Yes, but my point was not the length of the session — although I adverted to that— but the question of the necessity for the suspension of Standing Orders at this stage of the session and the passing of measures through this House, even although a certain proportion of them are Bills which, being Money Bills, are not susceptible of amendment here in Committee. Perhaps the noble Earl would answer one question which I forgot to put with regard to the amendment of the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Bill. Are we to take it that that is regarded as a Money Bill?

No; it is not certified as a Money Bill.

But it is not, I take it, susceptible of amendment by your Lordships' House, because it could not be amended without varying some public charge.

That is the case. It is a Money Bill, but not certified as such. But I think the noble Marquess is under a misapprehension. It is only in respect of that particular Bill that I suggested suspension of the Standing Orders, because that is the Bill that we want to pass by Tuesday. I do not suggest that it should apply to any other Bill at this stage.

I presume the noble Earl in charge of the Bill can assure us that the Amendments he is going to propose are not privilege Amendments?

They are Government Amendments.

But are they privilege Amendments?

Not that I am aware of.

As we all know, it is quite possible for privilege to be waived in another place, which, as the noble Earl opposite will, remember, we invited the House of Commons to do when we carried certain Amendments, at the end of the first part of the session, to the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. The other House did not then see fit to waive its privilege, but it is to be presumed that, on an Amendment carried on behalf of the Government, they might do so. Whether they are privilege Amendments or not may not, therefore, affect the question.