My Lords, I understand that this is the moment when I may intervene with a word upon this Bill. I understand that the Amendment which appears upon the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Parmoor—to omit the words "or other purposes" from Clause 1 (1)—will not be moved, because the noble Lord is not present. In that case I suppose there will be no other opportunity of discussing the point which this Amendment would have raised. So far as I can at present see, I should not have been prepared to support Lord Parmoor's Amendment. My only reason for that attitude is that I am satisfied, and will perhaps be yet more satisfied, that the Government does intend that the reference to education shall have full emphasis, and that the words "educational or other purposes" shall not be taken as meaning that the money may be used for any purpose on earth that the Secretary of State for the moment may think desirable.

I am quite certain that what we want is educational progress, in the large sense of the words, and that the mass of the money which we are giving back again to China shall be used by the Chinese Committee for that purpose. I hope, now, that there is no question that the actual administration of that money will be committed to people in China and that, although a Statutory Committee is established in this country, the actual administration of the money and the application of the funds available shall be, as in the case of money given back by America and others, applied by the Chinese themselves upon the spot. That seems to me to be quite vital, and I earnestly hope that the mere fact of putting one or two Chinese members upon the Committee in this country will not be regarded as relieving us of the responsibility for seeing that this money is used by the Chinese themselves in accordance with the best type of Chinese wishes. We shall have control over what form that takes, but I cannot help hoping that the Chinese themselves will have the actual administration of the money.

May I ask the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, whether it is not unusual, as is provided in subsection (4) of Clause 1, to provide that a Report shall be laid before the House of Commons only, and to omit any mention of your Lordships' House? Surely the Report should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, because, although this is a financial matter, yet we may discuss things even if we cannot vote upon, or determine, them.

In reply to my noble friend, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that during the Second Reading debate in this House, I made some inquiries and ascertained that the Amendment which was going to be moved by Lord Parmoor was really a privileged Amendment. To-day I have made further inquiries and find that as this is a Bill dealing with money, that is the reason why the Report is only to be laid before the House of Commons.

I should have thought that, even so, it should be laid before both Houses. Surely we may discuss it, although we may not amend it.

Your Lordships are accustomed to Resolutions being laid before both Houses of Parliament, and I have been instrumental in suggesting that it would be wise to insert the House of Lords even where that Assembly has been left out, but I do not know whether, looked at very carefully and taking the Bill as it stands, this is a Report which should be laid before the House of Lords. Your Lordships will see that it is a question of an account to be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and to be laid, together with his Report thereon, before the House of Commons. I do not think that any of your Lordships have ever claimed to have any influence over the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is an official of the greatest importance, but who has dealings with the other House of Parliament only, because he has to do with matters of pure finance. I should not like to put my scanty authority on the matter before your Lordships in any form, bat I should think that it would be very unusual for a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be specially laid before your Lordships' House.

I will remain satisfied with having called your Lordships' attention to the matter.

I am glad that attention has been again directed to what has been called a question of privilege, but it seems to me that it is stretching the question of privilege in the widest possible way if, when we are giving vast sums of money back to China, no opinion is to be expressed by this House upon the way in which the Chinese are to administer the funds. It may be that it is a question of privilege, but, if so, it reaches an extent of privilege which I should find it very difficult to explain and certainly extremely difficult to justify. I do not, however, claim to be an expert in the matter, and I suppose the matter has been thoroughly considered. I should like to know, however, whether the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who has often raised these questions, really feels that when this money is to be spent in China by the Chinese only, under the general control of the Secretary of State, this House should be precluded from expressing an opinion as to the objects to which these funds should be devoted. If it is a matter of privilege, then privilege covers a very large field indeed.

The most rev. Primate has appealed to me, and I should be sorry to lay down any such principle. It is, however, a much wider question than that raised by my noble friend, but as there may be some doubt about laying this Report before one House only, may I enter into this engagement—namely, that the point shall be properly considered before the Third Reading, and if any reason is found why the Report should be laid before your Lordships' House, I will see that an Amendment is put down?

My Lords, the matters which are dealt with in the Bill which it is my privilege to submit to the House this afternoon will not be unfamiliar to your Lordships, for this Bill, or rather its immediate predecessor, was fully debated in this House last year The original Bill was introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, as Secretary for Scotland fin the Conservative Government, just before that Government left office in 1924. It was re-introduced by the Socialist Government, and was read a second time in April of last year on the Motion of the then Lord Chancellor, Viscount Haldane.

Before proceeding further I should like to say how deeply we all regret the absence to-day of Lord Haldane, not only on account of the domestic anxiety which is the cause of his absence, but because Lord Haldane is one of those who have principally contributed to the happy state of affairs to which we have now attained in this matter. The Report of the Departmental Committee which bears Lord Haldane's name is the foundation of this Pill, and it would have been only fitting that he should have been here to-day, on the important occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, in order to give the Bill his approval. In a letter which I have from the noble and learned Viscount he has asked me to mention to your Lordships that, had he not been prevented from attending by the circumstance to which I have referred, he would have been in his place to-day in order to support the measure.

Your Lordships will recollect that, between the Second Reading of the Bill in April last year and the Committee stage, an agreement was arrived at between the representatives of the Church and of the heritors, whereby there was substituted for the compulsory redemption of stipends, which was proposed in Lord Haldane's Report, an arrangement by which the commuted value of stipends becomes a legal first charge upon the land. Amendments giving effect to that agreement were inserted in the Bill during the Committee stage, and, thus amended, the Bill passed through the remaining stages in your Lordships' House, but its further progress was prevented by the dissolution of Parliament. Substantially the same Bill was introduced in another place by this Government on coming into office, and that is the Bill which is before your Lordships to-day. Such changes as have taken place I will deal with in a moment.

The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, on the occasion of the Second Beading last year, with that knowledge and authority which are unrivalled in these questions, not only dealt with the history of matters leading up to the introduction of this Bill, but also entered fully into the mysteries of the teind system, which forms an important part of the Bill. It is therefore unnecessary for me to attempt to cover the whole of the ground which was then traversed, and I may confess that I regard that as a fortunate circumstance, not only for your Lordships but for myself. For, even had I the legal knowledge necessary, and I have not, I have noticed that both legal and ecclesiastical matters—and this Bill partakes largely of both—have one characteristic in common, and that is that controversy in regard to them is as enthralling to those who engage in it as the recital of those matters is tedious to those who are not personally or intimately concerned. I will, therefore, only trouble your Lordships quite briefly with a few facts of history which lead up to the present position.

First, I would remind your Lordships that the great secession from the Church of Scotland which took place in 1843 had to do, not with the principle of establishment, but with what was called the doctrine of non-intrusion; that is, the non-interference of the civil authority in the internal affairs of the Church. And ever since the Disruption, as it was called, a movement towards reunion of the Presbyterian Churches has been taking place. There was in 1847 the constitution of the United Presbyterian Church by the union of various Presbyterian churches outside the Church of Scotland. In 1900 by far the larger part of the Free Church joined with the United Presbyterian Church to form the United Free Church of to-day. That union had as its sequel litigation, which was followed by the Act of 1905, which I mention to-day only in order to remind your Lordships that there was inserted in that Act, at the request of the Church of Scotland, a clause which gave the Church of Scotland greater freedom than she had hitherto possessed in the matter of her formularies.

Negotiations in the direction of union followed between the United Free Church and the Church of Scotland, and extended over a period of years. Necessarily, delay was brought about by the intervention of the war period, but by 1919 a basis had become evident on which the union of the Churches would be possible, a basis upon which the ideal could be realised of a united Church which would be both national and free. But before that basis could be established it was necessary that two things should be done. In the first place, it was necessary that the spiritual freedom of the Church should be recognised in unmistakable fashion by the State; and, secondly, it was necessary that the property of the Church of Scotland should be dealt with in such a way that the Church of Scotland would have the same freedom to enter into union as is possessed by the United Free Church. The first of these essential preliminaries to union was accomplished by the Church of Scotland Act, 1921; the second is the subject of the Bill which is before us to-day.

The absolute necessity for this Bill, which deals with the temporal side of spiritual freedom, is to be found in No. 4 of the Articles declaring the spiritual freedom of the Church, contained in the Act of 1921, to which I have referred. In that Article it is declared, among other things, that the Church has the right to define the spheres of labour of its ministers, and that control would remain entirely inoperative if it were not for this Bill. As matters stand to-day parish boundaries cannot be altered, surplus revenue cannot be diverted from one parish to another, and churches which have become unnecessary cannot be given up and the revenue devoted to the starting of new churches in industrial areas, for instance, where they may be very urgently required. Herein lies the answer to the argument which has been used by some opponents of the Bill and which has been described as the "loaves and fishes argument." It has been made a reproach by these people against the Church of Scotland, and also against the Government, that there is nothing in this Bill but matters relating to property. It has been said that it is a division of the spoils and that there is no religious matter referred to in the Bill.

Of course, the Bill deals with property; that is the whole object of the Bill, and if the Act of 1921 is to be made effective the Bill must deal with property. Besides, I need hardly remind your Lordships that the property of the Church which is dealt with in this Bill is not owned in any selfish right. That property represents a trust held by the Church on behalf of the people she serves. It is a trust which has been faithfully administered in the past, and it is the object of this Bill to render it possible for the Church to carry out that trust more efficiently in the future. Moreover, it is worth emphasising in this connection that the Church of Scotland was under no obligation whatever to come to Parliament for the re-settlement of the funds and properties of her own which she has enjoyed for so many years. If she has done so it is simply and solely to enable the great national purpose of Church union to be accomplished.

There is, in this matter of the control of property and of parish boundaries, an excellent reason for passing this Bill, apart altogether from the question of Church union. The argument is one which becomes much stronger when union comes into view, with the greater redundancy of churches that will require to be dealt with. But, by itself, as I say, even without union, it is a good reason for passing the Bill. Again, apart from union, the commutation of stipends which is effected by this Bill will, in effect, be a simplification of the system of land tenure in Scotland, which will be of benefit to every member of the community. It is of a value which I do not think can be overestimated, though I need not stay to elaborate it to your Lordships to-day.

Turning now to deal with the changes which have been made in the Bill since it was last before your Lordships' House, while there are a considerable number of minor changes and additions, I am able to assure your Lordships that no leading principle of the Bill has been affected, nor, indeed, has its main structure been altered. In these circumstances I need only trouble your Lordships quite briefly with three new points. These have to do with the quoad sacra parishes, the burgh churches and the question of small heritors. The Bill, as it stands, with a new clause, No. 34, now contains provisions with reference to the quoad sacra parishes. Originally the Bill dealt only with the old or original parishes of Scotland, but it was represented to the Government that it would be a matter of practical convenience to the Church if she could deal also in the same way with the quoad sacra parishes, and the Government had no difficulty in accepting the Amendment. There is, of course, the important difference, that in the quoad sacra parishes the complication of relations with the heritors does not arise.

Then, with regard to the burgh churches, these churches have to be handed over by the town councils concerned to the General Trustees of the Church, and while the town councils did not oppose the transfer of the churches as a whole, they felt that it would be right that they should retain the reversion to the site of any of these churches which, in the course of time, might become unnecessary owing to some movement of the resident population which might take place. The potential value in such a case might be considerable. Amendments, therefore, were agreed between the Church and the town councils and accepted by the Government. Broadly speaking, this is the arrangement: that in the event of one of these churches becoming unnecessary at some time in the future the town council will be able to take it over from the Church on payment of such a sum as will provide a new church within the burgh, in the event of such a church being required. If no such church is required, then it is on payment of a sum equivalent to the money spent by the General Trustees of the Church on the building over a period of years. That is an arrangement which the Government considers to be both fair and businesslike.

With regard to the small heritors, the Government attach considerable importance to the Amendments made in their case. Your Lordships will recollect that by the Amendments introduced during the Committee stage last year the commuted stipend was turned into a charge upon the land; but the provision remained that where that stipend was of an annual value of £2 or under, redemption remained compulsory and had to be effected at, eighteen years' purchase, either by a lump sum or by instalments spread over eighteen years. The agreement which was come to between the representatives of the Church and the large heritors, who were represented in this House by my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, was recognised by everyone as not having taken into account the interests of the small heritors. The noble Duke was particular to call attention to that matter and the interests of that class, accordingly, were left to the Government to look after. In those circumstances the Government have introduced Amendments which it is thought meet that case satisfactorily.

Will the noble Lord tell us in what clause that is to be found?

Certainly. It is in three portions which are contained in different clauses. In the first place, an alteration is made, which is given effect to in Clause 14, that instead of the dividing line being £2 it shall be £1. That will have the effect of transferring a number of heritors automatically from the small class to the large, and they, therefore, escape from the liability of compulsory redemption. Secondly, in reference to what may be called the class of smallest heritors, Clause 15 provides for the extinction of liability for stipend not exceeding 1s., and any one whose liability is 1s. or less will escape altogether as from the final completion of the teind roll. In that case, and I think in every other case under the Bill, life interests are protected.

There is a third point, in rather a different connection, in which the interests of the small heritors have been safeguarded. That is in connection with what are known as ecclesiastical assessments. These assessments are levied in connection with the repair of the fabric of churches and manses, and from the fact that they are levied at irregular intervals a good deal of friction and difficulty has arisen in the past. It is perfectly true that as a result of the operation of this Bill these assessments will disappear altogether, but under Clause 28 of the Bill there may be made a final assessment to take effect before the churches are handed over, and, to meet again the point with regard to the small heritors, the Government have introduced a new subsection—subsection (6)—which provides that in making these assessments £30 shall be deducted from the rental in respect of which the assessment is made. That, as your Lordships will see, will have the effect of cutting out any one whose rental is under £30. The heritor whose rental is over £30, and is, say, £35, will pay on £5, and so on. These concessions for small heritors will undoubtedly entail a certain financial loss to the Church, and it is right to say that when the Government approached the Church on this matter they were met with a spirit of helpfulness and good will. It may be hoped that any loss which the Church sustains will be compensated for, not only by the avoidance of difficulty and expense in the collection of small sums, but also—and this is mach more important—by the elimination of friction and the promotion of harmony and good will.

I will now deal in a word with the objections which have been raised against this Bill, for, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, it was not allowed to pass in another place without a certain objection from a section of members. The objections may be summed up, I think, in two words. They came entirely, or almost entirely, from those who desire to see either the disestablishment of the Church or the nationalisation of the land. With regard to the principle of establishment. I have only this to say. There have been those in the past who have seen in disestablishment a way to Church union. To-day there has been found a better way. With regard to the land nationalisers, their opposition, I believe, was based on the apprehension that if this Bill were passed it would be an additional obstacle in the way of the fulfilment of the policy they desired. I think that the principal obstacle in the way of land nationalisation is the difficulty of obtaining the consent of Parliament to that course, and I also think that it will be some time before that difficulty can be overcome, but if in some future time the people of this country should make. up their minds that nationalisation of the land is desirable, then that decision can be given effect to quite as easily after the passing of this Bill as it could have been before. The interests in the land will have to be dealt with somehow. If you are going to confiscate you can confiscate still, and if you are going to compensate you will still be able to compensate.

Again, there has been urged against this Bill—and this is the strangest plea of all—that there is no desire for it in Scotland. As evidence of that we have been told that it was not made an issue at the last General Election. The reason for that is simple. When everyone is agreed about a thing, and everybody wants the same thing, it is not easily made a subject of political agitation. What has happened with regard to this Bill? In the first place, the Coalition Government passed the Church of Scotland Act of 1921, and were pledged to the further legislation which is now before the House. The Conservative Government introduced the Bill, actually carrying out the pledge by introducing it. The Socialist Government passed the Bill through all its stages in this House. It is a decided issue, and the fact that nothing of it was heard at the last General Election is, in my opinion, very much more evidence in its favour than evidence against it. In this connection it is worth noting that there were four Divisions on this Bill in another place. Taking the votes of the Scottish Members alone in those Divisions, not only was there a majority in favour of the Bill in every one, but the majority on every single occasion was not less than two to one in favour of the Bill.

The feeling in Scotland about this Bill not only is not one either of hostility or of indifference, but is a feeling of growing impatience that the necessary delays have been so long. The national interest is Church union. Here we have two great Churches, which embrace within their membership more than 95 per cent. of the Presbyterians in Scotland. There is no divergence between them in doctrine, in worship, or in Church government. Union will bring practical advantages from the redistribution of farces that it will allow, and the economy of energy which will result, but I think the greatest gain to the spiritual life of the country will be from the healing of division itself. If there is a danger to-day of the Church losing her grip or of spiritual things being overshadowed by material things, nothing could contribute more powerfully to that than the continua Lion of division, when there is no reason for division to exist. It is over eightly years since the Disruption. Since then, in times past, controversy has been carried on in a spirit of violence and acrimony which was unworthy alike of the matter and of the men who engaged in it. That spirit has changed, but the breach remains, the building up of which this Bill will render possible.

With the passing into law of this Bill we shall be able to look forward to a time when those eighty years, and all that they have contained, are nothing but an incident in the history of the reunited Church. The two Churches are gathered to-day in their respective Assemblies in Edinburgh, and they await the decision of Parliament in this matter in order to enable them to go forward to union. The passing of this Bill will be a notable milestone upon that road which we can discern stretching back into Scottish history, and which now we can confidently hope will lead us forward into a future which is bright with promise for the spiritual welfare of the Scottish people. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am happy to think that there is nothing controversial in this measure any longer. In this House there has been nothing controversial on this subject since the moment the matter first came before us, and I think we may now feel that to a large extent controversy, both in Scotland and in England, has been removed. There may be a little residuum in certain quarters, but it is probably exceedingly small. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the way he has introduced this measure and made clear what were doubtful or ambiguous points. I should also like to thank him for the words he used with regard to the gain of reunion, which I hope is an immediate prospect. The noble Lord alluded to a criticism which I have also heard—that the measure is one which deals only with very prosaic questions and has nothing to do with the spiritual life of the Church. But it is in the same sense as a man having a house which enables him to do his work, his intellectual and spiritual work, better.

The business part is the basis on which must rest the possibility of carrying forward in the right way the manifold and various work which belongs to the Church's life as a whole. There is nothing strange, indeed, there is something advantageous, in keeping as a separate measure that which deals with such prosaic but essential factors as income and the manner in which it is derived and applied. There has been much difficulty in dealing with this question, and great consideration has been shown in Scotland by those from whom the money is to be derived that is to be paid for the spiritual work of the Church, and as to the manner in which the spiritual independence of the Church is safeguarded all through. It has not been an easy matter to combine the two things—the spiritual independence, which recent measures have emphasised to a degree not emphasised before, and the securing of perfect fairness towards those from whom the money conies which is to be applied in the spiritual work of the Church. These difficulties have been carefully and systematically met by the care of the noble and learned Viscount whose absence we deplore to-night, and by others, both in Scotland and in England, who have been working on this subject. A basis is now given for steady progress on the lines which the noble Lord has indicated towards a reunion which we hope will not be wasteful or controversial; not wasteful because of overlapping or controversial by having rival denominations covering the same ground.

To many of us there is a pathetic side in the fact that the noble Lord who has introduced the measure is carrying on the hereditary work of one whom we all respected and admired—his illustrious father. I can speak after the closest intercourse with him for more than twenty years, and I know how thankful he would be, perhaps is, to know of the stage which has now been reached in the carrying out of a measure for which he wrought so strongly, so steadily and so long. To me it is a matter of real interest that it should be his son who is now putting this measure before your Lordships' House. It is a measure which would have been in the hands of his father had he lived, and upon which we should have heard his wise words of abundant knowledge and counsel which were always so helpful. The noble Lord has said with truth that there was a time when, on this subject, the controversies were carried on with violence and acrimony. That has long ceased, and not less because of the lifelong labours of the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who devoted himself to the subject for so many years. It is because of his labours that we are now in peaceful waters. I believe that by the passing of this Bill an immense gain will come to the whole life of Scotland, and that it will form a satisfactory, although prosaic, basis on which the higher and deeper things can be rightly carried on in the educational and spiritual field.

My Lords, a year ago I troubled you at considerable length on the original Bill, but I do not intend to do so on this occasion. I should like to associate myself with what the most rev. Primate has said. It is very gratifying to Scotsmen in this House, and particularly to those who had the privilege of knowing his illustrious father intimately and of working with him for many years, that this Bill should be entrusted to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is a great satisfaction to all of us and, speaking on behalf of the Scottish Peers, and many other Scotsmen, I hope he will follow his father's example and devote himself largely to the interest and welfare of Scotland. The noble Lord said he had no legal knowledge, but that his task was not difficult. His task, undoubtedly, is an easy one because there is no real opposition to the measure, but if there had been any opposition, if the task had been difficult, I think he would have carried out his duties equally as ably as his father did on many occasions in your Lordships' House.

It is very desirable that this Bill, if possible, should pass into law in the course of a week or so. There are certain difficulties, however. It is a large Bill and it was only circulated on Saturday, so that it has been impossible for those interested in the measure to go through it carefully and see if any amendments are required. So far as I can ascertain at present, the probabilities are that it will not be necessary, on behalf of those I represent—the heritors—to move any Amendments to the Bill. There may not be many new features in the present measure, as the noble Lord said, but there is a great deal of extra printing. In the present Bill there are forty-four clauses as against forty-one in the Bill of last year, and the present Bill covers fifty-six pages as against forty-two last year, so that the Bill has increased in hulk by considerably over twenty-five per cent. But, as has been already stated, the changes are not of great importance. They may, however, be important in this way. Many of the new clauses and the alterations in the present Bill, as compared with the Bill of last year, are probably absolutely necessary for the smooth working of the measure when it becomes an Act. I think it is fortunate that the Bill of last year did not pass into law, because many of these points might have been overlooked, and there would have been considerable difficulty and expense in carrying out that Bill in practice.

Last year I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that the small heritor was not represented in the agreement between the Scottish landowners and the Church of Scotland, hut the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, at a meeting in Scotland, said that the Government would look after the interests of the small heritor and that they would be carefully considered by Mr. Macmillan, the Lord Advocate. The proposal in the present Bill is that nothing under 1s. is to be paid. It is obvious that the expense of collecting 1s. annually from individuals would be more than it is worth. The other so-called advantage to the small heritor is not quite so certain. It has been said in another place that the large heritor has been treated much better than the small heritor, because the large heritor has not been compelled to redeem, whereas certain of the small heritors are so compelled. The conditions, however, are very different. According to the Report of Lord Haldane's Committee, the large heritor was to be compelled to redeem on the basis of Consols, which might be anything over twenty-four years' purchase. In the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Novar, he is compelled to redeem at twenty-two years' purchase, whereas under this Bill the small heritor will be able to redeem at eighten years' purchase, which, of course, is very much more favourable. I have no hesitation in saying that, if a basis of eighteen years' purchase had been offered to the large heritors by the Church, the opposition to compulsory redemption would have entirely disappeared. The Church, however, did not consider that they could afford to make that offer, and the present Bill is the result.

What has happened is that, in the Bill as it left this House last year, all heritors who paid less than £2 a year were compelled to redeem at eighteen years' purchase. As your Lordships will see, the majority of people who have to pay from £1 to £2 a year will much prefer to redeem, if they can possibly do so, rather than go on paying. Everybody knows that these small payments are most inconvenient, and most people like to get rid of them. But, although we have the concession that only those who pay under £1 a year are to be compelled to redeem, if any of those who pay between £1 or £2 wish to redeem they have to pay twenty-four years' purchase or more, instead of eighteen years' purchase. In other words, the heritor paying £1 to £2 would, under the Bill as it left us last year, have had to pay a minimum of £18 and a maximum of £36, whereas under the present Bill he will have to pay a minimum of £24 and a maximum of £48. Accordingly, I am a little doubtful if some of the small heritors will be altogether inclined to thank their advocates in the House of Commons for making this change. In my opinion, if they had asked for a reduction from eighteen to fifteen years' purchase, it would have been very much more satisfactory to the small heritor, and I do not suppose that the Church, who have acted very well in this matter, would have objected. What I want to point out is that it is quite incorrect to say that the small heritor has been treated worse than the large heritor; he has been treated better, for perfectly obvious reasons, and quite rightly.

Another point that has been alluded to is the very considerable concession on the part of the Church with regard to assessment. Heritors will now, so far as I understand it, after the passing of this Bill, be subject to only one levy. There has been a great deal of feeling over this matter. In many cases the expense of collecting has been very great, and in some instances, I believe, the collection could not be made in the case of a number of small sums. Under this Bill no one with a rental of under £30 will be assessed for this purpose. In such a case, of course, the assessment would probably not be very large. As a similar concession to those with a rental over £30, they will not have to pay on the first £30. This is, I think, a concession which will be appreciated, arid one for which the Church deserves the credit.

There is one point that has not been dealt with in this Bill, and that is the very difficult question of the standardisation of teinds. The stipend has been standardised, but I do not intend to trouble your Lordships upon this question, which is very complicated and which I am possibly not qualified to discuss. We have these Courts, known as Teinds Courts, which fix the teinds, and which are most cumbersome and expensive. Under the part of the Bill that concerns the fixation of stipends these Courts will gradually disappear, because, whenever there is a vacancy in an incumbency, the stipend will, practically speaking, come, on to the fixed sum. The Courts will have to continue, however, until all the incumbencies have been vacated and new appointments have taken place, and even when that is done, the teinds will have to be settled by these cumbersome and expensive Courts, which will still continue. I hope that this Government, or some other Government, will before long bring in a Bill to standardise teinds, so that these Courts may gradually disappear and a large amount of money be saved.

Before concluding, I think that it is only right to say that, in drafting this very complicated Bill, His Majesty's Government were very fortunate in the two gentlemen, Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Watson, who successively occupied the position of Lord Advocate. This is an extremely difficult Bill and covers what is probably the most complicated law question in Scotland, though many Scottish law questions are complicated enough. Those of your Lordships who sit in legal cases in this House will recognise the difficulty of this Bill. The present Lord Advocate has the great advantage of having made, perhaps, a wider study of these questions, having acted for the Church for many years, than any one at the Scottish Bar, if it had not been for this, I think that we should have met with great difficulties, but, as such expert attention has been given to these many complicated clauses, I think that your Lordships would be quite justified in passing this Bill through all its stages as soon as possible. It is as good a guarantee, I think, as we can have. Otherwise it would have been only reasonable that a considerable time should have been given for the Committee and Report stages of this Bill, and, if the usual time were taken, it would be impossible to pass the Bill before the adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays. I agree, therefore, with the view that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House outlined the other day, that this Bill should be passed as soon as possible. The Churches also, I believe, are very anxious that it should pass quickly.

If the Bill passes, it is impossible to prophesy what will happen in the future, but, as soon as it becomes an Act of Parliament, the Church of Scotland will have been treated by Parliament with a generosity which is, I think, unparalleled in the history of the Churches. These funds, which have been looked upon in the past as national funds, although belonging to the Church, will be given to that particular Church, other Churches having the privilege, if they desire, of joining in. I think that this is a great advantage to the religious life of Scotland, and a great opportunity. After Parliament has done what it can, it now remains for the Churches to do what they can, and a very great responsibility lies upon them—a greater responsibility, perhaps, than they have ever had before. I hope, and I feel confident, that they will rise to the occasion; but they have this great responsibility and, if this Bill is passed into law, great confidence will have been shown in them by Parliament. I hope that they will realise thoroughly their responsibility and will show that the confidence that has been placed in them has been more than justified.

My Lords, it is always a very bold man who, coming from the South of England, intervenes in any discussion concerning Scottish questions, and he is a bolder man still who interferes in Scottish ecclesiastical questions, but the boldest man of all would be one who said that on a Bill dealing with Scottish ecclesiastical law there was not likely to be some difference of opinion on the part of ecclesiastical lawyers in Scotland. That leads me to the point raised by the noble Duke who has just sat down—namely, when the farther proceedings on this Bill should be taken. Before saying anything on that question, may I be allowed to associate myself with previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord who introduced this Bill upon the fact that it should fall to him to introduce it? I remember speeches made by his father upon this question, in days gone by in this House, and therefore can well imagine what satisfaction it must have been to the noble Lord opposite that it should fall to his lot to introduce the Bill, to-day.

I hope, however, he will allow me to say that the length of his speech shows the importance of this question. The more than half an hour which he took to explain the provisions of the measure shows that it is not a Bill which should be passed too lightly; that, indeed, it is one which is very likely to arouse feeling on the other side of the border, although I am glad to hear from the noble Duke who has just sat down that it is a matter on which there is not likely to be any very serious difference of opinion. I am quite sure that my friends and I are anxious to do all we can to assist in this matter. I understand that the Assemblies are sitting in Edinburgh next week, and that it is important that the Bill should be passed without delay.

Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to say that in days gone by I have myself been accustomed to saying that a Bill must be passed without delay, and that the delay of a day now may mean the loss of a year in further proceedings. I have said that, and I hope with justification, but it is possible I may have said it without real justification, but only because of slackness on the part of the Government, or the representatives of the Government, in another place. I hope on the whole that, generally speaking, I have been justified in making that assertion in the past, but I confess that when I hear that argument to-day I am not perfectly certain that my own sins are not being repeated by other people. Therefore, when I hear addressed to me an appeal that we should immediately pass this Bill, for fear that we may do great harm if we do not, I cannot help asking myself whether the delay in bringing the measure before the House is not partially due to some neglect on the part of those responsible for the measure itself.

The noble Duke who has just sat down has told us that the Bill contains forty-nine clauses, and that it was only circulated last Saturday. Certainly, if this Bill is fortunate enough to receive universal approval in Scotland, I am sure that it is the first Scottish Bill of so great a length which has ever received universal approval on the other side of the border. I venture to ask the Government, anxious as I am not to prevent the Bill from becoming law in time for it to be considered in the Assemblies, whether it would not be possible to consider it in Committee on Thursday next, and to take the Third Reading on an early day next week. On the whole, I agree with what was suggested some time ago—namely, that we should sit on Mondays now. Whether that will be convenient for next week I do not know, but so far as I and my friends are concerned, we will fall in with any suggestion which may be thought desirable. There is, I know, a Motion on the Paper by Lord Banbury to-morrow. It is of some importance, and I know that several Peers, including my noble friend Lord Inchcape, wish to take part in the discussion. It will not be easy to get through that debate in one day, and therefore it may be desirable to sit on Monday and finish it, and also to take the further discussion on this Bill. However that may be, I will end by saying that we on these Benches are only too ready to do what we can to get this Bill through in time for its discussion by the Assemblies next week.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the assistance which he has promised in carrying this Bill forward, but I hope your Lordships will believe me when I say that, upon a Bill of this great importance, nothing would have induced me to suggest the shortening of the intervals between its stages unless it were done with the general consent of the House. I do not think that upon a Bill of this kind it would be an appropriate method of legislating to have only two days between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, unless your Lord ships were generally willing to take that course. Therefore, although I think I trace an innuendo of criticism occasionally in his observations, I am grateful to the noble Earl and his friends that, so far as they are concerned, they will not object to the Bill being taken rapidly through its stages. It remains for me only to ask the Leaders of the Opposition, who are not very numerously represented at this moment, but are still adequately represented, whether they would consent to that course.

As I understand, the suggestion is that we should take the Committee stage on Thursday and the Third Reading on an early day next week. I understand that it is very unlikely, notwithstanding the hints of the noble Earl, that there will be any Amendments moved in Committee. In that case there would be no Report stage and the Third Reading alone would remain. The noble Earl said he was not sure which day next week would be convenient. I understand that there is a very strong feeling among those responsible for the business of the Assemblies in Scotland that it is desirable to have this Bill through by Monday. The reason is obvious. Tuesday is the last day on which the Assemblies will be sitting to debate this question, and therefore, unless this Bill is through on Monday, it cannot be considered as an Act of Parliament, or rather as a virtual Act of Parliament, because it may not receive the Royal Assent on that day. In those circumstances, as the Session is now getting on, I do not think it would be out of place if your Lordships consented to meet on Monday for the purpose of dealing with this Bill and with any other business which may be necessary. As the noble Earl has said, Lord Banbury may find that the discussion which he is to initiate may not be completed to-morrow, and he may wish it to be adjourned until Monday. There may also be other business. Therefore, with the general consent of the House, I should propose to put this Bill down for Committee on Thursday, and Third Reading on Monday.

My Lords, no one has so far intervened in this debate from this Bench, because the position was clearly explained by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, and a statement was made by him with regard to the position of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, and the reasons for the absence of that noble Viscount, who has been in a very special degree associated with this Bill. So far as we are concerned we most certainly acquiesce in the suggestion of the noble Marquess, and indeed, if I may say so, our position with regard to the desirability of the Bill being placed upon the Statute Book speedily had already been made known through the usual channels. I think Lord Beauchamp will also recognise the fact that although the Bill is a lengthy one and is not in the same form as last year, at the same time it is by no means a new Bill; it has been discussed before. And therefore I do not think that in the circumstances any undue speed is involved in the proposals which the noble Marquess has made.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, on the Committee Stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment to delete the words which provide that a farmer was obliged to return the number of men he employs, and my chief reason for doing that was that I was afraid that the Return would be taken advantage of in order to do what, in my opinion, would be a harmful thing, not only to landowners, but to agriculture generally. I am confirmed in my opinion by seeing in last week's Farmer and Stockdealer the report of a speech made by Mrs. Francis Acland at Gloucester, at a meeting of the Women's Liberal Association, in which she said that the land programme of the Liberal Party was to give security of tenure to the farmer. She gave an illustration where a farmer was paying a present rate of £1,500 a year, and she said that under the Liberal programme he would pay £500 a year to the landlord and the remaining £1,000 he would keep in order to provide for the expense of repairs. He was also to have fixity of tenure, subject to one consideration, that he employed per acre as many men as the land would support. I believe, and I always have believed, that the real reason why these words were inserted in this Bill was to enable people who were land nationalises, and were against the agricultural interest generally, to say, "You have got to employ so many men on the, land, or we shall take your land from you, and work it by the State." I thought before we passed the Third Heading of this Bill that I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to that speech, which confirms the fears which I have always entertained in regard to this special provision.

had given Notice to call attention to the not infrequent practice of Coroners' Courts holding inquests on the bodies of deceased persons simultaneously with the hearing by Justices of charges against persons arrested and accused of causing the death of the same deceased persons; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I venture to call attention to what really is, I think, a grievance or, at all events, a very great inconvenience, in some cases where there has been a death in suspicious circumstances. In such cases it is the duty of the coroner, as we all know, to hold an inquest to discover what is the cause of death. To do that it may often be necessary to call a great many witnesses, and in some cases it is necessary to call witnesses who are very expensive, being highly qualified persons who can only be got to give evidence if their proper fees are, paid. But what one must have noticed in some cases lately is that, whereas it is quite light that the coroner should hold a proper inquiry to ascertain how the deceased person came by his death, it has not infrequently happened that the coroner has gone on with this inquiry long after it has become manifest how the death of the person was caused, and long after a person has been arrested by the police, brought before the magistrates, and accused of the crime, and much evidence has been given.

My Lords, the noble Lord has, I think, done a service in calling attention to a matter that has long been debated by those who are interested in this question—namely, the mischief which may follow when a coroner's inquest proceeds alongside an inquiry by a magistrate or a criminal court. The mischief was pointed out, among others, by that veteran of the law Sir Harry Poland, who, some years ago, made a suggestion in regard to it. For myself I do not doubt that mischief does ensue in those cases, and that in more than one way. As the practice now stands, a witness may have to give his evidence no fewer than four times, first before the coroner, then before the justices at petty sessions, then before the grand jury, and, lastly, at the trial of a prisoner on indictment. That is not only a burden and a hardship for the witness, but in some cases, such as cases of an unsavoury character, it is harmful to the public that this kind of evidence should be so often repeated. Further, there is the expense, the needless expense, involved to the persons interested, especially in those cases to which my noble friend has, referred where the evidence of experts must be called; and there is the waste of public time.

More than that, if, after a particular person has been charged with the offence of murder or manslaughter, the inquest continues, there is real risk of prejudice to the person charged. The rules of evidence, so careful of the rights of the accused person, which are observed in a criminal court, do not apply at an inquest, and for an obvious reason. The subject of the inquiry is quite different. The coroner is inquiring into the cause of the death, but the court is inquiring into the guilt or innocence of a particular person, and so evidence which could not be given in a court of justice, evidence throwing suspicion on certain persons, and so on, can be, and is, taken before the coroner. Further, the person suspected is not necessarily present when these statements are made at inquests, nor is he necessarily represented, and yet, on evidence so taken, a coroner's jury may find a verdict either of murder or of manslaughter against the person suspected. It is plain that such procedings, if continued after a criminal charge is made, may inflame public feeling, and may prejudice the trial of the accused person; indeed, it has been said in a case that the accused was a convicted man before he took his place in the dock. In one case which your Lordships may remember, the case of Crippen, about fifteen years ago, these facts gave rise to something like a scandal, and I know that there have been other instances since that date.

What then should be done? Until some criminal charge is preferred the coroner should, no doubt, proceed with his inquiry, because his inquiry may throw light on the question who is to blame, and who should be charged with an offence. Indeed, in some cases it is advisable to complete the inquest before any decision is taken as to a prosecution. But if, and when, criminal proceedings are commenced—proceedings for murder or manslaughter—I agree with the noble Lord that the inquest ought to be suspended until those criminal proceedings are brought to an end. That would not prevent the coroner doing what he alone can do, make an order for a post mortem examination, or give an order for burial, but the inquest should be suspended. Clearly the two proceedings ought not to go on together, and of the two the proceedings in court are, for reasons which I have given, to be preferred. If, after the criminal charge is at an end, that charge has resulted in an acquittal, then of course the inquest will proceed to its natural conclusion. If the criminal proceedings result in a verdict of guilty, then the proceedings before the coroner would become merely formal. That was, as my noble friend said, the course which was taken in the Armstrong case, and I think it turned out to be the right course.

As to the remedy to be applied, my noble friend has made a proposal in terms which make me suspect he is a master of thought reading, because the words which he used were very much those that are to be found in the Government Bill, which was prepared before this question was put down. The Government are proposing to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole question of coroners, and a number of matters which have arisen in connection with coroners' inquests, and they will include in that Bill a clause very much to the effect suggested by my noble friend. The Bill is ready. It is only awaiting approval by some representatives of local authorities in connection with financial matters, and we hope in a very short time to introduce the Bill with that clause and, if possible, to pass it.

My Lords, after the statement of the noble and learned Viscount I have no desire to move for Papers.

had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether, with a view to preventing the ever increasing damage to our roads and the consequential burden on the ratepayers, they will consider the advisability of enforcing the existing Regulations as regards heavy traffic by instructing the police forces throughout the country to resort to all legitimate means for the apprehension and prosecution of drivers of heavy vehicles who exceed the speed limit; and whether they will issue instructions concurrently to the magistracy to deal uniformly with all offenders in this respect; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, I have heard with considerable interest the remarks of the noble Lord who raised this subject of a speed limit for heavy vehicles. It is a subject which has come before your Lordships' House and another place on a great many occasions since 1903, when the present Motor Car Act came into force. As part author of that Act, I may tell your Lordships that it was originally contemplated that there should be no speed limit at all. The Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House without any such provision, the speed limit being inserted at a later date in the House of Commons. In fact, the Bill as originally drafted relied for its discipline in regard to dangerous driving upon Clause 1, which enforced a comparatively heavy penalty for that offence. I still consider that dangerous driving is probably the best test, both in the interests of the public and in the interests of the drivers of motor vehicles.

While the noble Lord was speaking I could not help reflecting that all of us in this House, perhaps even including the right rev. Prelates on my left, are habitual offenders in regard to the speed limit. I doubt whether many of us could honestly say that we have not at some time—very likely on this very day on the way to this House—exceeded the speed limit of twenty miles an hour. It is equally clear that you cannot especially penalise the drivers of heavy vehicles, or, as the noble Lord would prefer to put it, enforce the speed limit against heavy vehicles and refrain from doing so against the lighter vehicles which we all use. The cry would immediately be raised that the law was being enforced unduly against only one class of traffic, for this would manifestly be an unjust thing to do.

When considering this question we must consider it as a whole. A good deal has been said by the noble Lord about the damage done by these heavy vehicles. I sympathise with that complaint, as, no doubt, do many of your Lordships. I could quote figures, though it would take too long to do so to-day, which would show your Lordships that heavy vehicles do a great deal more damage to our roads than is generally supposed. Experiments have been carried out recently in America which show that the impact, as it is called, of heavy vehicles running at high speeds is sometimes three times as much as their weight. In other words, a vehicle weighing ten tons may strike an uneven part of the road with a blow equivalent to that of thirty tons' weight. It follows that, while first-class and possibly second-class roads can bear that kind of blow, third-class or unclassified roads are gradually becoming unfit to carry this kind of traffic. In my opinion it is the third-class and unclassified roads that are going to be the big problem in the future.

With regard to the noble Lord's observations concerning heavy vehicles, it is quite true, as I know from following behind them, that they do exceed the speed limit a great deal too much. I have often thought that the police would be better advised in taking up cases against these destroyers of roads than in prosecuting the owners of light cars, such as the Ford, the Morris Oxford, and similar types of runabout, for exceeding the speed limit of twenty miles an hour, especially in view of the fact that these smaller vehicles do practically no damage to the roads and as a rule, are driven very reasonably.

Anybody who looks into the future will realise that there is every reason in the world why we should have a change of law. The present state of the law is entirely unsatisfactory. The noble Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack and my noble friend Lord Darling will agree with me when I say that there is nothing worse than a law which is not enforced and is brought into ridicule. That is exactly the present position of the speed limit. Many years ago, when the Bill was going through the House of Commons, I had a conversation with the noble Earl, Lord Balfour—I do not know if he will recollect it—and he made what I thought was a very shrewd observation. I pointed out that it was ridiculous, even in those days, twenty years ago, to lay down specific limits. He said that he did not think that in the long run they would be enforced, and I think he added the phrase "solvitur risu." He was perfectly right, for the speed limit has been laughed out of court. There are many parts of the country where the speed limit is never enforced, and. except in relation to damage to the roads, the sooner it disappears the better.

Possibly your Lordships do not know that these heavy vehicles—I am speaking now from a road engineer's point of view—do 90 per cent. of the damage to our roads, though last year they paid only about £6,000,000 out of the £15,000,000 raised by the taxation of motor cars. In other words, the vehicles which did the least damage paid the greater part of the motor taxation. This is obviously inequitable, and I think that the heavy vehicles are not at present paying their fair share. But these things are altering. Already, at Scotland Yard, a public service vehicle has been passed within the last few days with pneumatic tyres. Any of your Lordships who have been in France or the United States lately will know that there is a very strong trend towards fitting all heavy vehicles with pneumatic tyres. Your Lordships may have seen at the Motor Show and other places pneumatic tyres with a thickness of some eight inches or more. The general tendency all over the world is to do away with the solid tyre and to take to the pneumatic tyre, and, if this development is a success, as I believe it will be, very much less damage will be done to our roads by these large vehicles. The owners of them will gain in lessened upkeep of chassis and engine, while we ratepayers will save in repairs to our roads. We ought not therefore to approach this question in too great haste.

Another development, which some of us have been following rather carefully, is the tendency to replace four-wheeled heavy vehicles by six-wheeled heavy vehicles. There is a lorry known as the Scammel, which has six wheels. We are following exactly the same mechanical history as that of the railways, passing from four wheels to six, and I do not doubt that before long we shall have eight wheels, or even more.

There is one proposed action by the Ministry of Transport with regard to this question against which I should like to take an early opportunity of protesting I hear on very good authority that in the new Government Bill dealing with this question an increase of axle weight is to be allowed from eight tons, which is the present maximum, to ten tons. I only tell your Lordships the truth when I assure you that eight tons is quite a heavy enough weight to put on one axle—in fact, it is too much—and to increase it by two tons more would be detrimental in a very high degree to the maintenance of our roads. I hope that the Government, when they consider this question, will think over that point very seriously.

As the noble Lord said, it is very necessary that the Government should deal with this question before long. The law is in a chaotic state, both as regards roads and as regards transport. Nobody knows exactly where he is, and I believe that there are nearly forty Acts of Parliament dealing with locomotion on roads now on the Statute Book. These need to be codified in relation to the conditions of modern transport with which we now have to deal, and it is very hard for those of us who have to deal with those cases as magistrates, firstly to ascertain the facts and, secondly, to take a rightful decision. I do not think, speaking for myself at any rate, that we should welcome very much instructions from the Home Office to prosecute this or that class of person. Nor should we be enamoured of a circular which suggested that we were to enforce part of the law against a certain class of person, and let the rest of the law remain unenforced. I do not think that would be a very good circular to send round to the various benches of magistrates, and I myself should take very little notice of it. I understand that the noble Lord opposite wished to emphasise the great damage to the roads done by heavy vehicles. There I agree with him, but I cannot agree with him in circularising the benches and suggesting that they should enforce one part of the law only. I think that is unworkable.

There is no doubt that the expenditure of rates on the roads is becoming a very serious matter. We are not spending quite so much as we were a year or so ago, when it amounted to as much as £1,000,000 a week, but last year the total expenditure was about £50,000,000, of which £15,000,000 was provided by motor taxes and £35,000,000 from the rates. Before the War the amount provided by the rates was £18,000,000, and so the ratepayer is paying double what he was paying before the War, but, having regard to the increased cost, the actual work being done, on the roads is about the same. The new surfaces which you are giving to the roads nowadays, however, last very much longer, and the arterial roads which are now being put down ought to have from twelve to fifteen years' life at least, and we may look forward to a diminution in the maintenance cost. There is no doubt, however, that £35,000,000 a year is a serious burden upon the rates. I have always felt that it is a fault in our rating system for these national services to fall upon the rates, and that we must deal with that question, rather than deal with the matter piecemeal and say that this or that road shall be restricted to this or that traffic.

The worst hardship of all occurs in some of the districts which are sparsely populated, and which have a very low rateable value. That applies in some of the Scotch counties, but it also applies outside Scotland. I know of a small district outside Halifax, and I might also instance my own district in the New Forest, where a penny in the £ only raises a very small sum. The present system gives rise to great inequalities, because you may have rich counties like Lancashire or Surrey, with a rate of 7d. or less, raising a very large sum for the roads, whereas a county like Hereford with a 3s. 6d. rate hardly raises anything at all. All those inequalities should be remedied, but I think what is wanted is a comprehensive inquiry into these matters by some competent body, such as a Royal Commission on the whole question of the maintenance of the highways, and the use of them by vehicles. It is being done departmentally, but I think that that is not on a sufficiently broad basis. I can assure the noble Lord that the hardship of inequality is recognised all over the country, and I hope that before long the Government may do something to remedy it. One other remark and I have finished. I may say that this question of speed limit is not confined to one class of vehicles only. It is constantly exceeded by tramcars and other vehicles, and if you are going to deal with the matter properly you must do so comprehensively.

My Lords, so far as the speed limit of twenty miles an hour for light motor cars is concerned, in practice it has been laughed out of court, but it has been a rather expensive one for some of the early motorists. It is not many years since I was fined for exceeding the limit on an empty road in Surrey, and on appeal the conviction was confirmed by a bench which included the present occupant of the Woolsack. It must be remembered that the present legislation is twenty-two years old, and was passed when present conditions were not thought of or understood, and the difficulty is to apply it to present conditions. I agree with what the noble Lord opposite said, in contradistinction to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rathereedan—namely, that you cannot possibly say that you are going to enforce an artificial speed limit against one particular section of motorists who use the roads and not enforce it against another section. That would be an impossible attitude to take up. I confess I have often felt that, as an alternative to the present state of things, it would be a good thing if every motor car which exceeded the twenty miles limit, even by one mile, wore prosecuted, because then the position would become intolerable and legislation would have to be passed to alter it. There is no one in this House who does not break the law in that respect every time he goes out, and even the magistrates who impose fines do so, too.

As regards the light motors, I am not sure that prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit have not done much more harm than good, because they have diverted the public mind, and the mind of the police, from that which is the real danger on the road—namely, reckless and dangerous driving. That, I think, has been a. misfortune, because it has educated the public mind wrongly. When, however, you come to heavy vehicles you come to totally different conditions—namely, those not of the public safety but of the public expenditure. They do inflict upon the roads very heavy damage. I rather regret that the noble Lord did riot wait to bring forward his Motion until the full Return was made that I asked for the other day, as to the number of prosecutions which have taken place, but, from the answer which was given to me, your Lordships will gather that the number of prosecutions of heavy vehicles is very small indeed. If those vehicles only exceeded the speed limit by fifty per cent., and only went eighteen miles an hour, the damage would still be very much less than it is. I travel behind these vehicles, and I find that, quite frequently, they go at twenty-four miles an hour—it is not in the least unusual. I have even been behind omnibuses in the Metropolitan area which go at twenty-four miles an hour. Probably your Lordships will hardly credit that, but it is so. It can be done, and it can be done with comparative safety to the public.

But when you come to roads which are not very strongly made, then there is the most appalling damage, because what was said by the noble Lord is quite true. These vehicles jump an inequality on the road, and strike a blow of many tons weight on the road surface, and, unless the road is of extraordinary strength, it cannot, withstand it. What it means is that the ratepayers are contributing to cheap transport, but it also means that transport is being carried on un- economically—because it would not be an economic thing if you destroyed your railways with your trains. If you made your roads strong enough to carry these vehicles, and not suffer damage, well and good, but, till you do, it would be a paying proposition to do something to curb the impetuosity of drivers, and to lessen the damage. Of course, I agree that you cannot send instructions to chief constables or to magistrates. They are independent, and they are not bound to take any notice of your instructions. But I think that the ratepayers themselves, if they understand this question, will probably cry out for something to be done, and for that reason the more the question is ventilated the better.

May I say that, as to the whole question, I endorse everything that was said by the noble Lord opposite? This is only part of the question. The whole thing wants revising. The Act wants redrafting. You can, obviously, impose different speed limits on vehicles with pneumatic tyres from those you can impose on vehicles with iron-shod tyres. I do hope that this Government, which has a large majority at its disposal, and can therefore pass legislation which is generally called contentious because it means that some people are going to make a fuss about it, will use that majority to put through a Bill which is ten years overdue. We want the whole of this question dealt with, and, although something might be done meanwhile, I do not think we shall get any great improvement until it is dealt with. The noble Lord opposite suggested—and it is a practical suggestion—that, instead of taking a particular class and fining them, you might do something the other way by increasing the taxation upon them. Undoubtedly, the taxation on these heavy vehicles is too light at present: there is no question about that. But, then again, you are simply asking them to pay more for the privilege of breaking up your roads. You do not want your roads broken up. The whole thing is uneconomic. What has happened all over my country lately is that the smaller roads have been speckled with notices to say that heavy traffic may not use them, although heavy traffic, if it went at five miles an hour, could probably use those roads with safety.

I hope that the Government in their reply, even if they do not take the particular steps suggested by Lord Rathcreedan, will indicate that they will consider the subject as a whole, and that they are going to present to Parliament some time or other legislation which will do something to save the roads from this unnecessary damage, and to save the ratepayers from having to pay bills which do not profit anybody. Unless something is done very soon the cost of the roads must grow, and you will really be taxing a particular class, and taxing them very heavily in the case of poor parishes—because your Lordships know that under our present system it is very often the case that poor parishes have considerable mileage of main roads to maintain—you will be taxing them very heavily for the benefit of those who get their goods carried cheaply by these destructive vehicles. I hope that we may hear something comprehensive and practical from the Government on this matter.

My Lords, the full speeches we have heard from two experts on this matter have really exhausted the subject, I think. I rise because I feel certain that there exists a feeling in this House, as I am sure there does outside, that something ought to be done in the nature of an inquiry to bring up to date our antiquated Acts. We are now acting on legislation which is out of date, and if my noble friend has done nothing else but draw attention to this matter, we may hope to get something done in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred to the fact that these heavy vehicles are themselves reforming in the matter of weight and of their destructive properties, because they find it more economical to have pneumatic tyres, and because some of them have a larger number of wheels than four. But these things only apply to a few, and it will be many years before they come into general use. Meanwhile the roads are being destroyed, and the ratepayers have to pay for them, and there is very little protection for the ratepayers against the damage from these heavy vehicles.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that you could not distinguish between vehicles of different character, but I thought that later in his speech he did exactly define the difference between the light vehicle and the heavy vehicle. Therefore, it would he possible to legislate on the question of the speed limit for heavy traffic without dealing with the speed limit for lighter cars, because the question of light vehicles is only one of safety, whereas that of heavy vehicles is a question of cost. I think my noble friend is well advised in suggesting that the law which exists at present in regard to the speed limit should be enforced and that, as far as possible, there should be uniformity throughout the country, because, as he pointed out, the magistrates in one case will inflict a fine for a comparatively small transgression of the speed limit, while, in other cases, they do not convict unless the speed of heavy traffic is about twenty-four miles an hour, although that speed is entirely destructive of the roads. I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this matter, and that at the earliest possible moment Parliament may be able to deal with it generally and systematically, and get rid of the antiquated system under which we are now acting, so that the ratepayers, as well as the users of the road, may have justice done to them.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl who has last spoken that we have had a most interesting, but somewhat unexpected, debate on the whole question of motoring in this country. The questions which I expected, and did at first have put to me, were police questions, and therefore I have risen to do my best to answer them. But my task is greatly lightened from the fact that my noble friend's allies whom he called into action have not only deserted him, but have absolutely thrown away his case. They decline to have anything whatever to do with the speed limit and my noble friend behind me (Lord Montagu) went so far as to say that, even if I was able to return my noble friend opposite a satisfactory answer to his question, he in his magisterial capacity would certainly not carry it out. I think, therefore, that the whole of this Question has been almost disposed of before I have had any opportunity of coming into action.

As regards the general question, I agree not only with what the noble Lord has said to-day, but also with what he said in the speech he delivered here on April 1 to very much the same purport. I agree with every word that he said— we will come to the remedy a little later—and I sympathise. I see that my road rates have gone up by something like 400 per cent. over what they used to be and that my roads now consist chiefly of holes. I have been very much interested this afternoon in hearing how these holes have come about. I shall deal merely with the part of the noble Lord's Question which affects the Home Office, because his Question does not relate entirely to that Department. As far as I can understand there are two points raised. In the first place, my noble friend wishes the Home Office to direct the police to be more active and vigilant in prosecuting drivers for exceeding the speed limit—which is not altogether liked by the noble Lord's friends. The second point is whether a round robin should not be sent to the magistrates asking them to put the present law—which is thrown over, in principle, by the noble Lords' friends and supporters—into active force.

As regards the regulations, I think the very best answer I can give has already been given by the noble Lord himself. My information is that if the whole of the police of the country were to watch for infringements of the speed limit—which my noble friend's friends do not like—there would not be one-tenth of the number necessary to ensure the carrying out of the speed limit regulations on the country roads which are specially to be defended. My noble friend Lord Rathcreedan put the matter even more plainly and vigorously. Be said, in the course of a speech which I have had the pleasure of reading, that if the police forces of this country were quadrupled they could not succeed in apprehending one in one hundred of the drivers of vehicles which exceed the speed limit. If that is really the opinion of my noble friend, I must honestly say that it seems hardly necessary for me to go to the Home Office and ask that the inadequate police forces of the country should be instructed to endeavour to enforce the speed limit.

The other suggestion of the noble Lord was that a circular should be sent to magistrates asking them to deal uniformly with all such offenders. My right hon. friend the Home Secretary is very lath at all times to interfere with that impartial administration of justice by the magistrates on which we pride ourselves in the counties. It is not his job. That has been said in rather stronger language by my noble friend behind me. if my noble friend can bring forward cases in which the police have been slack in carrying out these laws relating to the speed limit—which are not, apparently, universally approved of—I think my right hon. friend would be willing to send round a notice directing the attention of the police to the matter. In the Metropolis they come under the Home Secretary. In the counties they are not under his jurisdiction, but in most cases are under the joint and several committees with which your Lordships are acquainted and which are not interfered with more than can be helped.

I am not certain whether my noble friend desires that police constables should be directed to expend all their energies in securing the observation of the speed limit regulations. I do not know whether he wishes to include all vehicles, or only those which are regarded as heavy vehicles I should really like to have an opportunity of saying something about the internal combustion engine and its effect on roads and in other directions. But on the question of the speed limit, so far as it concerns the Home Office, if my noble friend really thinks after this debate that it would be a good fling for me to approach the Home Secretary in that direction, I shall be only too pleased to fall in with his wishes.

It is plain from what has happened here that the whole matter is a very large one and cannot possibly he dealt with in reply to a Question which refers only to the police side, which, apparently, is not wholly approved. I think that my noble friend who replied to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from this Bench promised that a Road Vehicle Consolidation and Amendment Bill should be brought in as soon as possible. That has nothing to do with my Department, but it was said by my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Transport. The introduction of that measure will give an opportunity for the speeches to which we have listened with so much pleasure to-night, and I have no doubt that useful Amendments will be put down which will be considered, not by myself but by my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Transport. I hope I have satisfied my noble friend opposite, but I happen to be able to inform him that I have just been told that he will get his information in three days.

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

I hope the noble Earl will be able to endure the interval, but if I could see him at the close of the debate he would be able to inform me, no doubt, as to the details which he requires. They are rather complicated when you come to speed limits and all these other things. I have nothing more to say. There is plenty more that I would like to say, but I hope that what I have said will satisfy my noble friend.

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the courteous reply he has given to my Question. I might say, in self-defence, that when I brought this Question forward some time ago I had no knowledge that any legislation was to be introduced. We have been promised definite legislation and my desire now is to hurry up that legislation. I suggest that something should be done in the meantime to prevent the destruction of our roads and the property by the side of those roads until this promised legislation comes into force. I might point out that since I last spoke, some few weeks ago, the police in certain counties have altered their methods and, by setting traps for these heavy vehicles, have been able to bring to justice a large number of drivers who have exceeded the speed limit. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not the place of the Government to issue instructions either to the police or the magistrates, but if it were intimated generally to both those bodies that it is desirable that the law of the land should be carried out so far as lies in their power until the law is changed, much good would result. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the position of affairs in Persia. Might I at the outset allude to the lamented absence of one who was a past-master in all matters relating to Persia and always kept him- self abreast of events in that country? I refer to the late Lord Curzon. Only about a year ago, when I raised this question, he took a very prominent part in the discussion and, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, who replied for the Government of the day, gave a very satisfactory account of the improvement which had taken place in the condition of Persia. He stated that brigandage had been suppressed to a very large extent, that order had been restored throughout Persia, and that the finances of the country had been placed on a better footing. I hope this afternoon that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who I understand is to reply to my Question on behalf of the Government, will be able to inform your Lordships that that condition of affairs is being maintained.

I understand there have been differences of opinion with Dr. Millspaugh, the American adviser, regarding the working of the finances of Persia, and that he has threatened to send in his resignation. He found fault with the fact that the Government issued loans and obtained money without the sanction of the Mejliss, the Persian Parliament, and in November last year a Commission came to a certain decision regarding the regulations by which the finances of Persia should be governed. I do not know whether those decisions have been ratified by the Mejliss, or whether last year's Budget has ever been passed. At a, later date in November, on one occasion when the ostensible ruler of the country, Reza Khan, or Sardar Sepah, sent a cheque for money to the Treasury, Dr. Millspaugh refused to have it cashed because there was no money in the Treasury. The Sardar Sepah then sent emissaries clown to the Treasury, and they imprisoned all the officials who happened to be there at that time, including an American financial adviser, Mr. McGaskie. However, they were very soon set at liberty. Dr. Millspaugh sent in his resignation, but was subsequently persuaded to withdraw it. I hope for the good of Persia that Dr. Millspaugh is still at the Treasury there.

In making any statement in connection with Persia I do not pretend to be stating facts, because it is difficult to obtain accurate information. All I am saying is that this information has been brought to my notice from different sources, and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, wilt be able to elucidate any references that I may make to events which may have taken place there. Another incident occurred when the American vice-consul, Major Imbrie, was assassinated in the streets of Teheran, not for any political motive whatsoever. As a result the Persian Government gave a substantial sum to his widow, and also paid a large sum to the American Government to cover the cost of sending a warship to Bushire to take back to America the body of Major Imbrie. I believe that the American Government did not wish to take that money itself, and expressed a desire that it should be set aside for the advancement of education in Persia. I do not know whether the noble Earl can give us any information in regard to that. One difficulty in connection with this matter was this. The Persian Government only wanted to execute one of the assassins because of the law of the Koran which lays it down that only one life should be taken for one life. The American Government were, however, very firm in the matter and in the end two criminals were shot.

One outstanding fact in Persia to-day is the strong character of Reza Khan, or Sardar Sepah. He is remarkable in what he has done for the good of Persia. He is also remarkable in regard to his relations with the Soviet Government. He is strenuously against the introduction of any Bolshevist methods or ideas into Persia: yet he has in no way, I understand, offended the Soviet authorities. A Soviet-Persian Treaty was executed within the last twelve months. This Treaty was for the supposed benefit of Persia, and was to give back to her some of the land on the north-east frontier of Turkistan of which she had been deprived by Russia, and also an island in the Caspian. Persia was also to have handed over to her without compensation certain roads which in former days were controlled by Russia. I do not know how far this Treaty has been for the permanent good of Persia, but no doubt it has created more amiable feelings between the two countries.

The Sardar Sepah, strong man as he is, figured in one unfortunate incident, or at all events an incident which to my mind seems unfortunate. That was an incident regarding the fortunes of the Sheikh of Mohammerah, at the head of the Persian Gulf, with whom we have always been on very friendly, terms; in fact we had some kind of understanding with him before the War, and during the War he was a useful ally. He was, in fact, and always has been, a good friend to this country. Reza Khan sent a force down practically to take the Sheikh of Mohammerah. It was only by our Own friendly but unofficial interference that no serious harm was done, and that warfare was not engaged in, but in doing this I believe we recognised and allowed that Persia was the suzerain Power of Mohammerah, which we had not hitherto recognised. Having come to this agreement, the Sheikh of Moharnmerah was invited up to Persia, and was promptly made a prisoner. I do not know where he is now, or what has happened to him. I hope that some information will be given on this matter.

I am aware that it is a delicate one, but it is important to our country, because our prestige in the Persian Gulf has been somewhat impaired by this incident. Mohammerah being situated on the Persian Gulf, and we having recognised that we have special relations with the Sheikh of Mohammerah, and that he is subject to Persia—these facts put us in a very invidious position. We do not want anything to be done that is calculated permanently to lessen our prestige in the Persian Gulf, at the same time we cannot well interfere between the suzerain Power and one of its subordinates. This point, I think, will be one of great interest and importance to any one acquainted with affairs in Persia, and I hope that we may have some information in regard to it.

Perhaps the noble Earl will also say something about the Shah himself. He has been in Europe for two or three years, and we should like to know whether there is any likelihood that he will return to Persia. The future government of Persia depends a great deal upon whether its hereditary ruler is to take up his duties or not. What is to happen as regards the future control of Persia? Another question that I should like to ask is about the oil concessions in Northern Persia. Two years ago, I understand, there was some competition between ourselves and American oil companies as to who should get concessions in that part of Persia, and some friction was caused and hostility shown to our intervention by the American companies. I have no idea myself what has taken place in regard to those oil concessions.

The most important thing of all is to know what are our present relations with Persia. Unhappily, they have been very much strained in recent years, first of all, owing to that (in my opinion) ill-conceived and very unfortunate Anglo-Russian Convention, which the Persians regarded as threatening the independence of Persia, and which culminated in Mr. Shuster, the American financial adviser, having to leave Persia. Then again, owing to the War it was necessary in our own interests as well as in the interests of Persia for us to take certain military operations in that country. That, not unnaturally, created a certain dislike on the part of Persia. She did not realise the danger, either from the Turks or the Germans. After the War was over there came the Anglo-Persian Agreement, which the late Lord Curzon hoped to get through. It was regarded by Persia as making a serious inroad in her independence and was never ratified. I hope that Persia is now free from any suspicions that we wish to do her any harm.

There is another point to which I desire to allude. Last November I read in a magazine some very hard things which were being said about us in the United States in regard to our action in Persia. Responsible persons made speeches saying that the United States should not do anything to help to draw Persia out of the jaws of Russia in order to place Persia in the jaws of England, and suggesting that we were aiming at a virtual protectorate over Persia. These were very untrue and unfortunate utterances. It is entirely to the interest of this country, with its Indian Empire, to have a free, prosperous, strong and independent Persia, so long as our privileged position in the Persian Gulf is recognised. Lord Curzon, on one occasion, said that Persia is the glacis of the defences of India; and so it is, and I hope the noble Earl who is to reply will he able to say that a better understanding exists to-day between ourselves and Persia, and, incidentally, with the United States, with regard to our attitude towards Persia.

There is a minor matter connected with the internal affairs of Persia on which I should like to ask a question. Is it the case that legislation has been passed for the purpose of improving the hygienic condition of the factories? I learn from different missionary sources that factories on a European scale are being erected and that there is to be a limitation of child labour. Children of four and five used to work in the carpet factories, but the age is to be raised to eight or nine, so that children will not be able to work at such an immature age as before. This will be of great benefit to the health of the population.

I have not given notice to the noble Earl of the point I desire to make with regard to the Parsees. Persia was the original home of the Parsee and I am told there is a movement that they should go back and form a settlement. Up to a short time ago they were liable to religious persecution, but I learn from a Parsee source that they are entirely free from that now, and that there is an idea they should go back and help in the regeneration of Persia. Then I should like to ask whether anything has been done by the Persian Government towards making roads, whether any railway schemes have been adumbrated and whether they are likely to take effect. I understand there is to be an air service from Teheran to Moscow. I do not know whether it has been established or not, but I believe there is to be one, and also an air service from Teheran to Baghdad, so that people going to Teheran will be able to go to Beyruth, also by air service. I do not know whether these services are actually in operation or not, or how soon they are likely to be in operation.

In my Notice I omitted to ask for Papers. Last year, in replying to me, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, quoted from a Despatch, and was called to order by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who pointed out that Lord Parmoor could not quote from a Despatch unless he placed the whole Despatch on the Table of the House. The late Lord Curzon took up the same point. Lord Parmoor, although he did not refuse my Motion, asked that it should be postponed for further consideration. I should like to ask the noble Earl to-night whether he will have a. Persian Blue-book prepared. It is a long time since we have had definite information of that country and it is a country in which we have peculiar and grave interests.

My Lords, my noble friend has ended by suggesting that the Foreign Office should prepare Papers dealing, as I understood him, with the whole of the internal condition of Persia. Without consulting the Foreign Secretary, I am afraid I am not in a position to give him a specific answer on that point, but I confess that, if the practice he desires to see adopted with regard to Persia is to become general with regard to all the independent States in the world, it seems to me that as a taxpayer I should somewhat object to the cost of the Blue-books that would result from the curiosity of noble Lords, and the Foreign Office itself would have thrown upon it an amount of work which I think they would feel extremely onerous and not very conducive to the public service.

Moreover, the noble Lord must remember that it is not always convenient, or always conducive to good international relations, that one nation should publish an account of what some other nation is doing in the matter of roads, internal arrangements, and legislation of all kinds. Those questions, when they directly touch either our interests or our honour, are questions with which we should have to deal and on which it is our business clearly to give Parliament information in order to justify our action or our abstention from action, as the ease may be, but mere general curiosity about the internal conditions of friendly and independent States is a passion which must be exercised with caution and certainly not to an extent which, if made general and not confined to one privileged country like Persia, would flood the public with Blue-books and would be found costly and, I think, embarrassing.

It has been done before.

There have been Blue-books published about Persia but surely only because our honour and interest were concerned, because points had arisen in which British policy was profoundly interested and on which the British Legislature had a right to ask and obtain adequate information. As for the particular questions which the noble Lord has asked me, I will do my best to answer him, though my best, I am afraid, may not be very good, as my knowledge is necessarily imperfect upon the subject with which this Question deals. I think his first point concerned finance. He asked me how the finances of Persia stood. Such information as I have upon the subject indicates that they certainly are not in an unfavourable position. They are far more favourable, in fact, than I am afraid is the case with many States more powerful than Persia. Persia has practically made its Budget meet, and, on the whole, may congratulate itself upon its financial prosperity. This is in no small measure due, I am given to understand, to the efforts of the American financial advisers whom Persia has called into her counsels. Their labours have produced admirable results. I think that the Americans are to be congratulated on having lent these efficient advisers and that the Persians are to be congratulated on having made good use of their services. My noble friend indicated that there had been friction now and then. I have not the least doubt that there has been friction at some time or another, for those who give good advice about money are not always the people who are most popular with those to whom the advice is given.

Then my noble friend asked me about the Sheikh of Mohammerah. He was perfectly right in saying that the Sheikh of Mohammerah was a chieftain in whom we had great confidence, who had proved himself loyal to all his pledges to the British Government and towards whom we entertain the roost friendly feeling. I think my noble friend was not quite correct in suggesting that the Sheikh of Mohammerah had ever been treated by us as an independent Prince. He has always, I believe, been under the suzerainty of Persia, and is under the suzerainty of Persia now. My noble friend referred to an upset which occurred quite recently between the Persian Prime Minister and the Sheikh. I am glad to tell him, and I am sure he will be very pleased to hear, that that incident has ended, so far as my informa- tion goes, in the most friendly fashion, and the relations between the two are now all that could be desired.

With regard to the future movements at the Shah, whom rumour asserts to be at present enjoying himself on the Riviera, I have nothing to say. I have no official information, and I am not at all disposed to think that it will be particularly expedient or decorous to ask what the intentions of that potentate may be. At any rate, I have no information to give my noble friend on that subject. The next point in the Question put by my noble friend related to the oil question in the Northern Provinces of Persia. My noble friend was perfectly right in saying that negotiations between various great oil companies were going on last year, but I am sure that no settlement has been arrived at and I believe that there is no recent official information upon the subject.

The only point that I have not dwelt upon is the final observation of my noble friend in regard to the general relations between this country and Persia. He went back to the Anglo-Russian Agreement, from the policy of which he differs and which it certainly is not my business to defend. But that is ancient history—indeed, it is now obsolete history, for it deals with a condition of things wholly passed away and touches upon controversies which there is little advantage in reviving. Nor do I think that there is much substance in some American criticisms, of which I confess that I had not heard until my noble friend spoke of them this evening, in which some American critics seemed to think that England had behaved, or desired to behave, towards Persia in a manner which would interfere with the independence of that country. I do not know who the critics were; my noble friend spoke of them with respect, and they may deserve respect, but they are clearly very ill-informed on the subject of Persia and on the subject of British intentions with regard to Persia.

This country, under the present Government, as, I believe, under the last Government and the Government that preceded it and, indeed, all British Governments, has had one policy in view. We desire to see a Persia which is independent, which is free, which we can treat as a neighbour on equal terms, and which we justly regard, through its efficiency, its civilisation and its power, as a security for the general position in the East, so far as our own interests are concerned. That view we still entertain. We desire the independence of Persia, we desire the prosperity of Persia, and we rejoice that its independence is secured and that its prosperity is increasing.

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Peel, I beg to move the Motions which stand in his name on the Paper.