My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, if he has any further statement to make with regard to the Recess?

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. Your Lordships may remember that when I last had the honour of speaking concerning the arrangement of business I suggested that your Lordships might adjourn to-morrow until the following Thursday week. That would be a complete fortnight. But certain modifications have been suggested, which I desire to submit to your Lordships. In the first place, it appears that it will be difficult for us to adjourn to-morrow night, because we shall not have completed all the stages of the non-controversial Bills which have to be agreed to before the Recess, and accordingly it is thought better that the Royal Commission should take place on Thursday, instead of Wednesday, and that the adjournment for the holidays should take place after the Royal Commission. The Thursday sitting will, of course, so far as the majority of your Lordships are concerned, be treated, if I may say so, as rather a formal matter. A formal stage of one or two Bills may probably be put through, but all that is really necessary is that there should be a House in order that the business may be wound up for the Royal Commission before the holidays. It is hoped that the House will sit at three o'clock. It would be difficult to take the Royal Commission earlier than that, and it may have to be postponed a little later in order to suit the House of Commons. These remarks concern the beginning of the holidays.

So far as the end of the holidays is concerned, we had designed to meet again on Thursday, June 11, but it has been represented to me that no business is set down for Thursday, June 11, and that there would be only one Parliamentary day in that week, so that it might be found rather inconvenient for your Lordships and the officers of the House if we were to assemble for one single day upon which no business is set down. Consequently, it seems not unreasonable that the holidays should be prolonged until the next Parliamentary day—namely, the following Tuesday, June 16, and accordingly, with your Lordships' permission, we should propose that the adjournment, should take place from Thursday next until Tuesday, June 16.

Before I sit down, there is another matter that I have to mention to your Lordships, having reference to the business before us to-day. I refer to the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Bill, which stands for Second Reading to-day. The Bill is urgent and, I believe, wholly uncontroversial. I put it to several noble, Lords of great influence in the House that there would seem to be no objection to taking that Bill through all its stages on successive days—there is no question of suspending the Standing Orders—though this is not the practice of the House in the case of controversial Bills. If this were agreed to, we should take the Second Reading to-day, the Committee stage to-morrow and Third Reading on Thursday. The same considerations apply to the Air Ministry (Croydon Aerodrome Extension) Bill, which is at present with the Examiners, but will be down for Committee to-morrow and for Third Reading on Thursday, before the Royal Commission sits. I hope that those arrangements of business will be convenient to your Lordships.

My Lords, so far as we on this Bench are concerned, the statement which the noble Marquess has made concerning the Recess is quite agreeable to us. I regret very much that at one moment in his speech I was engaged in a necessary conversation, but I rather gathered that he said that the Scottish Bill down for to-day was non-controversial.

I did say so.

I am afraid we cannot agree to that, but at the same time, having regard to circumstances into which I will not at this moment enter, we do not propose to offer any opposition. I cannot agree, however, that the Bill is non-controversial. Might I further ask the noble Marquess whether he can say anything with regard to the course of business after the Recess? I refer particularly to Mondays. I am not now, of course, referring to the Monday of the week in which we re-assemble, but, after that week, would it be his intention that the House should sit on Mondays for the remainder of the Session?

I am obliged again to the noble Lord. Yes, that was the intention of the Government. We propose that after Whitsuntide, excepting of course the Monday of the week in which we re-assemble, we should sit every Monday.

My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is entirely non-controversial and so perhaps it is not necessary for me to occupy the time of the House with its details. I will, however, explain its provisions if any noble Lord wishes me to do so.

My Lords, this Bill comes to your Lordships from the other House, where it has passed without a Division. It is also, in substance, identical with the Bill passed by this House last year, at the instance of the Government of that day. It proposes a solution of a long controversy. No doubt it contains some elements of compromise, but I think that upon the whole its proposals may well meet with the general approval of this House. The principle of the Bill is, in the matter of guardianship, equality between the two sexes. The proposal of the first clause is that in any matter relating to the custody of infants, or the administration of property belonging to or held en trust for an infant, the Court shall have regard to the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration. So far, I think that accords with the law as now administered by the Courts. The clause adds that the Court shall not consider the claim of the father as being superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother as being superior to that of the father. I need not refer to Clause 2.

Clause 3 provides that an order for custody may be made even though the parents are living together. That means this: As matters now stand a mother who considers that her children are being badly treated, or not properly looked after, by their father, can leave her husband and then apply for the custody of the children; but it is said that that necessity of leaving her husband makes it very difficult for a mother to resort to that remedy, because if she leaves her husband she must, probably, take the children with her if they are being badly treated, and she has no means out of which to maintain them. Further, if after leaving her husband she is not able to obtain an order for custody, she is in a very difficult position. The clause, therefore, provides that a mother may apply for custody even though she is still residing with her husband; but that is guarded, as the result of discussions in this House last year, by a provision that the order for custody shall have no operation while the parents are still living together. Plainly it would be absurd, if the father and mother were living in the same house, that the custody should be taken from one and given to the other. The Bill also provides that if they continue to live together for more than three months, then the order comes to an end, because it is undesirable that an order of that kind should be hanging over the heads of parents for an indefinite period. That, your Lordships will understand, is the fruit of considerable discussion, and I think it results in a compromise between the two extreme views.

Clauses 4 and 5 give power to either parent to appoint a guardian to act with the surviving guardian on death. That provision, however, contains this precaution: that if the surviving parent objects to the guardian appointed by the parent who has died resort may be had to the Courts and the Courts may direct that the guardian so appointed shall not act. There is another provision in Clause 7 of the Bill which gives jurisdiction in matters of guardianship to courts of summary jurisdiction. It is said that resort to the High Court, and even to county courts, involves considerable expense, and for some time it has been asked that courts of summary jurisdiction shall have power to deal with these matters. The Bill, therefore, proposes to give them that power, which is, however, limited by a proviso which prevents a court of summary jurisdiction from entertaining an application as to a child over sixteen years of age, or any application as to the administration of property belonging to or held in trust for an infant, or the income thereof, or awarding the payment of sums for the maintenance of any infant exceeding 20s. a week. Therefore the power given to these courts is strictly limited, and I think that with that limitation we shall be prepared to give this jurisdiction. Other clauses deal with minor matters, and I need not refer to them in detail, although if any explanation is required I shall be glad to give it. I beg to move.

My Lords, I should like to say a few words in endorsement of what has been said by the Lord Chancellor with regard to this Bill. Although a Bill was first introduced in the House of Commons as long ago as 1919, yet for the last three years your Lordships have had Bills before you, and have almost been hammering at the gates of the other place with a view of getting something through upon this important matter. The vicissitudes of Parliamentary Ministries have caused the matter to be deferred. Twice I introduced a Bill. Twice these Bills have been referred to a Joint Committee under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wemyss. With one more meeting in 1923 we could have come to an agreement, and it was in 1924, on a Bill introduced by a lady in another place, that the Government of the day promised that this matter should be taken up. It was taken up last year. Long discussions took place with different Government Departments, and the Bill now before your Lordships, with some slight alterations, is the result of those discussions. The promoters endeavoured to meet all the chief objections made to the Bill, and to produce a Bill that would go through with the support of all parties. I have only one small Amendment that I shall move in Committee, extending the period for holding up orders from three months to six months. Otherwise I have no Amendment to suggest, and I hope that this Bill—which gives an extension which is much desired to those who are unable to come to the High Court, which gives to the lower courts jurisdiction particularly appertaining to the welfare of the children, which is desired in the interests of the children of this country rather than of husband or wife, or any question of equality of the sexes—will go through with the approval of your Lordships.

My Lords, I only rise to put one small point which I have communicated to the noble Lord on the Woolsack. Curiously enough, and I take some blame to myself for not having remembered it before, in the marriage clause there has been what seems to me an omission. Marriages by banns hove been contemplated, and also civil marriages, but marriages with the licence of the Bishop have not been contemplated, so far as I can gather. It has been brought to my notice by a committee of Diocesan Chancellors that this omission is one that ought to be remedied. I speak as a former Diocesan Chancellor myself, and I think it would rather increase than otherwise the facilities under Clause 9 if some words were introduced enabling the Bishops' licences to be granted for marriage as well as those of superintendent registrars.

I may add that, curiously enough, this very sort of question has more than once come before Ecclesiastical Judges. I remember that once, not in my capacity of Bishops' Chancellor but of an official to an archdeacon, I had to determine a very nice question as to the power of the mother in certain circumstances to give the consent in the absence of the father, and fortunately found myself able to allow a licence. I have had communications also showing that one if not two such cases have recently come before Diocesan Chancellors. All I say is that I trust that when this matter is before your Lordships in Committee the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and his advisers will see an opportunity to make the necessary Amendments.

I am obliged to my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore for drawing attention to the matter of Chancellors' licences and I will certainly have the matter looked into.

My Lords, this is another Bill somewhat connected with the one with which your Lordships have just been dealing. It refers to separation and maintenance orders. This Bill also comes from the other House, and it also passed through your Lordships' House last year. The most important effect of the Bill will be to extend the grounds upon which an order for separation and maintenance may be made. In Clause 1 (1) the Bill enables a court to make an order on the ground of cruelty or neglect by the husband, notwithstanding that his cruelty or neglect has not yet caused her to leave him. As the former Act, the Act of 1895, now stands, a woman who is cruelly treated by her husband cannot apply for an order for separation without first leaving him, with the possible result that she has no means to live upon and cannot apply for an order. This Bill enables her to apply without first leaving her husband's house. When the Bill gets into Committee I shall, I think, have to move an Amendment to prevent her making such an application in cases where she has herself deserted her husband. As the Bill is at present worded there may be some doubt on that point.

Clause 1 (2) adds to the grounds on which an order may be made the case where a husband is guilty of persistent cruelty to the children. That is, we deal not only with the case of cruelty to the wife, but with that of cruelty to the children of the marriage; and as a further ground is added the case where a husband has compelled his wife to submit herself to prostitution. Then there is a new provision in subsection (3) which enables a married man to apply for an order for separation on the ground of his wife's consistent cruelty to his children. That is new. There is a provision in subsection (4) that such an order shall not be enforceable while the spouses are living together. I propose, in Committee, to add a provision similar to that in the previous Bill to the effect that the order shall drop if they continue to live together for upwards of three months.

I need not refer to Clause 2 in detail. It is a complicated clause, and I will wait until the Committee stage, unless some noble Lord desires otherwise, before commenting on that clause. Clause 3 proposes to enact that the expression "habitual drunkard" in certain Acts shall include a person who has the opium habit, or takes other dangerous drugs which produce similar effects. Clause 5 enables a provision as to custody to be enforced by courts of summary jurisdiction. There are other minor provisions, but those are the principal provisions of the Bill. I think that, taken as a whole, the Bill would have the effect, of giving further protection, both to wives who are maltreated, and to wives whose children are maltreated by their fathers, and if that commends itself to your Lordships I hope that you will give the Bill a Second Reading.

My Lords, it might be convenient if I were to indicate at this stage that there will be some Amendments which I propose to put down on the Committee stage, with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, dealing with the subject of this Bill. I think that many of your Lordships will be surprised to learn that, although there are these numerous minor causes which enable magistrates to grant separation, they are not able to grant it for the very major cause of adultery. That seems to me a curious omission, and one that ought to be remedied. I propose, therefore, to put an Amendment down in that sense. Then there are difficulties which arise when these orders are to be acted upon. There is one difficulty as to the tenancy of the residence in which these people live. It is, of course, not so easy for the poor to move as it is for other people, and it is a little hard sometimes on an innocent wife that, as the result of her obtaining separation, due to the misconduct of her husband, she should be, so to speak, thrown out into the street, particularly in the present condition of housing shortage. I should propose to put down an Amendment to give a certain discretion to the magistrates in that matter, subject to the approval of the landlord.

There is a somewhat similar question as to the division of the furniture of the joint home. It is often very difficult in these cases to say quite definitely that the furniture of a poor home belongs either to the one spouse or to the other. It may have been provided partly out of some money that the wife had when they were married, or perhaps partly out of their earnings, and, if it is possible for magistrates to do it, it may be convenient that there should be some separation of the furniture when there is a separation of the spouses. It would, at any rate, avoid conflict afterwards, and would be more inexpensive than a civil action dealing with the division of the furniture. I know that both these proposals would give to the magistrates a rather paternal and cadi-like jurisdiction, but I hope it may be possible for me, when the time comes, to show that there are reasons for it.

moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "the House of Commons" and insert "each House of Parliament." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment which stands in my name upon the Paper has been placed there in deference to wishes expressed in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage of the Bill and in fulfilment of an undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. It will meet, I think, the point raised by the most rev. Primate and my noble friend Lord Lamington, and it is hoped that the Amendment will be accepted in another place when the Bill is there considered. I beg to move.

had on the Paper an Amendment to move, after "conviction," near the end of subsection (1), to insert "upon a complaint made by a constable or an officer of a local authority." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have given notice of an Amendment to the Bill to meet a difficulty which it seems to me might arise in the operation of the Bill as a practical matter, having regard to its novelty and the large number of possible new offences it, creates. I ventured to suggest to your Lordships on the Second Reading that it was desirable there should be some restriction upon the right to prosecute; that otherwise it might be at the caprice of any private person to start a vexatious prosecution. This Amendment will put a limit upon the power to prosecute by providing that the complaint upon which magistrates may act shall he made by a constable or the officer of a local authority. That is within the principle of a previous provision of the Bill, and it directs that certain action may be taken upon such a complaint as I have indicated.

It is line 8 in my copy of the Bill. Will my noble friend move it as an Amendment to the first line of subsection (2)?

I move it as an Amendment after the words "summary conviction" in line 6, and the passage will then read—

"he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction upon a complaint made by a constable or an officer of a local authority,"

and so on.

That is the Amendment as it appears on the Paper.

My Lords, I appreciate the force of what my noble and learned friend has said, and I beg to accept the Amendment.

My Lords, I have been asked to express the opinion of the Home Office upon this matter. The Home Office are fully aware of the object of my noble friend Lord Merrivale in moving this Amendment—to stop trivial prosecutions. While the Home Office have the fullest confidence in the ability of the court to deal with trivial offences, they agree with my noble and learned friend that the words he proposes to insert carry the spirit of the Bill a little further and will certainly prevent such prosecutions being taken. Therefore, the Home Office are willing to accept the Amendment, which, I hope, will prove satisfactory to the most rev. Primate.

My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Desborough, whether the Home Office have considered that this Amendment would apparently preclude a prosecution by an officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I should have thought that he was a very fitting person to be allowed to prosecute in these cases. Apparently, unless he can persuade some constable to prosecute for him, or the local authority to move, there can be no prosecution. Surely, it is not desired to exclude an officer of that society from power to prosecute. It is not likely that the society's prosecutions would be trivial.

My Lords, I think that would be so—that the society of which my noble friend speaks would have to proceed through the local authority or a police constable.

May I, by leave of the House, inform the noble Earl opposite why the Amendment was accepted in its present form? It was because in a previous clause a prosecution had to be instituted by a constable or an officer of a local authority, and we thought it better in Clause 4 to conform to the provision in the previous clause. I say that without desiring to suggest in the remotest degree that the officers of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are not fully competent to prosecute in proper cases.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is practically an agreed measure as regards the first portion of it, and I would say in passing that its object is to extend the operation of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act of 1921 for another two years. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, it was illegal before 1921 to give relief under the Scottish Poor Law to any able-bodied person; but in view of the widespread unemployment this temporary Act was passed under which parish councils were enabled to afford relief to the destitute even if they were able-bodied. The Act was extended for a year in 1924, and as the position has not improved, and there are still many unemployed who are not fully or even partially covered by the Unemployment Insurance scheme, it is desired to continue the same powers under this Bill for another two years.

I think the part of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, referred was probably the modification which is to be found in the second portion. Under Section 3 (a) of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923, parish councils were given power to make arrangements with other local authorities for providing work for able-bodied men on the roll of poor. Parish councils were permitted by that section to pay over to the local authorities in respect of any man so employed the amount of aliment that would otherwise have been paid to him as relief. They were, however, expressly debarred from taking any such action where the relief works were let to a contractor. That restriction has resulted in parish councils being able to place relatively few men in employment, and the hope that co-operative schemes of work on an extensive scale might be arranged has not been realised. The great majority of relief works, in fact, are let by the local authorities to contractors so that very little use can be made of the existing provisions in the Act of 1923.

In September, 1923, a meeting, representative of parish councils in Scotland, passed a resolution to the effect that the original provisions embodied in the 1923 Act were hampering parish councils in finding employment for men on their rolls, and the meeting agreed to seek power to enable them to make arrangements with local authorities who were carrying out work by contract labour as well as direct labour. The present Bill proposes to give parish councils that power, and it is hoped that by virtue of that extension of the powers of parish councils local authorities may be induced to undertake further relief works, and that parish councils will be afforded additional opportunities of placing in employment able-bodied men who apply to them for relief. This matter has been debated in another place, and I believe the chief objections to the modification to which I have been referring may be briefly stated.

The first is that public money is being employed for the profit of private individual firms; and the second, that the ordinary business methods of contracting firms tend tell discriminate against the class of person whom it is most in the public interest to assist. The answer to both these objections is that although it is possible for local authorities to abuse any extension of powers which may be made to them, the Government have sufficient confidence in them to believe that the Bill will be administered in the spirit intended by the Government. Both the Unemployment Grants Committee and the superior local authorities already supplement their own schemes by contract schemes, and this Bill only extends the principle. The interests of both the unemployed and the public are protected by two authorities, the parish councils and the county or town councils, and the Government are convinced, after carefully studying the operation of the existing Act, that the advantages of thus extending the scope of employment would far outweigh the disadvantages that it is feared would arise. I beg to move.

rose to call attention to the system known as "cash on delivery," and to ask His Majesty's Government if the General Post Office is willing to adopt the same as practised in some forty other countries in the interests of small producers, and with the object of checking profiteering as well as steadying the prices of food. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is perhaps unnecessary for me to remark in this House upon the continued agitation that is going on in the country for the purpose of reducing the price of food, and also of reducing the great disparity which exists between the prices obtained by the producer and those which have to be paid by the consumer. Those of your Lordships who have looked at the Report of the recent Food Commission will have seen that the difficulty of solving this problem in a practical way was beyond the ingenuity of that very able Commission. I am inviting the attention of your Lordships' House to the system which is known as "cash on delivery," familiarly known as c.o.d., and to the great success which that system has reached in very many countries—I believe somewhere in the neighbourhood of forty—where it has been adopted. In this country it is practically unknown.

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl has brought forward this subject and I desire to support his plea with every argument I can adduce, although he has very effectually covered the ground. Unless my memory deceives me, in the classification adopted by the then Board of Agriculture before the War, no fewer than 80 per cent. of the farms of this country were classified as small farms. In addition, there are the small holdings which have been created in connection with ex-Service men and otherwise in such large numbers since the War, and there are the allotment holdings. Accordingly the number of persons engaged in the production of agricultural produce, who would be affected by the reforms for which my noble friend has pleaded, is very large, and I have no hesitation in saying that all that large class of hardworking and deserving agriculturists, the producers of our home produce, would be immensely benefited by this "cash on delivery" system if it were encouraged by the General Post Office. Then there are all the consumers of this country, who are generally more thought of by Governments in power than the agricultural producers. In this case the interests of the producers and of the consumers are identical, and I think that it is a very strange thing that in this country, where agriculture has so many special difficulties to contend with, no effort has yet been made to establish this "cash on delivery" system.

My noble friend has told your Lordships in how many countries this system exists and that no country which has once established it has given it up. The authorities of none of those countries, I think, deny that the system has been very beneficial to agricultural producers and to consumers alike. But I would speak more especially of South Africa. There the farms are not small farms, and accordingly I may conclude that, if the system has benefited the South African farmer, it might very possibly benefit the British big farmer as well as the small farmer and small holder. This system has been in operation in South Africa for some years and it has been a huge success. If His Majesty's, Government would refer to the Minister of Agriculture of the Union of South Africa, or to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, either of those high officials would speak of the system in the warmest possible terms and would say that it has been of the greatest benefit in South Africa, both to producers and to consumers, and that it was constantly extending its sphere of operation. I cannot but think that the postal traffic produced by this system would in a few years become so large that, under any reasonable scale of postage fees, it would become a paying system.

It is one of the great disadvantages of State trading that there is none of that enterprise which we find in private operations. I am not going to contend to-day with my noble friends opposite on the great subject of individual trading and Socialism, but there can be no doubt whatever that if our General Post Office had been in the hands of a great private firm, headed by a man like Mr. Gordon Selfridge or the founder of Harrod's Stores, we should have seen enterprises more far-reaching than any that the Post Office has hitherto undertaken. I am convinced that this system, reaching into every corner of the land, to every farm as well as to every village and to every cottage door, if necessary, is one that they would have tried long ago and established as a great success. I do sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government, who are looking about for an agricultural policy and who, through the mouth of the Prime Minister, if I remember rightly, have very strongly expressed their wish to help the consumer in these times of high prices and big profits to middlemen, will extend on behalf both of the consumer and of the agricultural producer, their friendly welcome to this suggestion of my noble friend.

My Lords, my noble friend spoke of forty different countries having adopted this system of "cash on delivery." I have been given the names of a good many of whom the Post Office are aware, but I will not weary your Lordships with them, because we grant that there is an enormous number of countries, not only European but overseas—to mention only New Zealand, India and many of our Crown Colonies—that have adopted the system. My noble friend mentioned the very striking example of Canada where, as he said, there was great opposition among the small retailers but where, nevertheless, the system was started in October, 1922. In the first year there were 357,000 parcels and in the second year 667,000, the opposition of the retailers has been overcome by experience, the system is supported in their trade journals and they are large users of it.

My noble friend probably knows that the British Post Office has a "cash on delivery" system with India, New Zealand and many Crown Colonies, as well as with foreign countries, including France, Holland and Belgium. In 1924, 217,000 parcels were despatched, to the value of £565,000 and 13,000, to the value of £24,000, were received, and the Post Office consider this service to be rapidly extending. My noble friend, I know, has served in India, as I have, and he will remember how the system obtained there many years ago. It was then called the "value payable post," and I remember that it was a great factor in facilitating business between tradesmen in Calcutta and Bombay and impecunious and creditless subalterns up country. I am sure that he will remember that.

I understand that wherever the system has been adopted it has been a great success. The countries that have started it have gone on with it. In regard to my noble friend's fears that it might not he economic, I understand that the Post Office consider that an inland service would be quite simple and practicable and could be worked quite as well as the foreign service is worked now. The principal reason why it has not been adopted so far in this country is the known opposition of small retailers in different parts of the country. Their great fear is that it would take custom away from local shops and that people would communicate with, and buy their produce from, the big stores. That is really the chief objection to the system being adopted in this country. It has been shown, however, from the experience of other countries that this has not proved to be the case in those countries where the scheme has been put in force.

The noble Earl, and also Lord Selborne, brought the question of agriculture to bear upon this proposal, and I may say that my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture has sent me word that he is heartily in sympathy with the proposal so far as his Department is concerned, but that he would, of course, not put his views before those of the Post Office. The effect of my answer to the noble Earl is that the Government are fully alive to the notable success of this "cash on delivery" system abroad, and in the Colonies, and also as to the report which they have received as to its utility and popularity. They therefore have felt bound to make inquiries into the matter, and those inquiries are still proceeding. I am afraid hat I cannot give my noble friend any more definite answer than that, but I hope he will understand, from what I have said, that there is no active opposition on the part of the Post Office to the system which he proposes should be adopted in this country.

My Lords, I am sure that all agriculturists are very much obliged to the noble Earl for having raised this Question, because it is a matter not only affecting the small holder and the large holder, but also other classes of people. There is no doubt that since the War prices have not been reduced by the small retailers in the country, and the effect of having this system would be that these small retailers would have to come into line, owing to competition, and sell their goods to agricultural labourers, miners, and other workmen, at much reduced prices. I noticed that it was pointed out that already we have this system of c.o.d. at work in this country, because our foreign competitors are able to send their goods over to this country, and get them paid for by such a system. The English Post Office, while not giving these facilities to the English producer, is quite ready to do it for the benefit of the foreign producer who sends his goods to this country.

The noble Earl who speaks for the Post Office said that he believed that retailers in other countries had not suffered in this matter. I suppose that, having to reduce their prices, they have benefited by a larger turnover and sale, and so, in the long run, have not suffered. The noble Earl said, on the other hand, that retailers in this country had been the principal people who had prevented the Post Office from carrying out a system which, from the Post Office point of view, was quite workable and would not result in a loss. I quite realise, what no doubt is the case, that in another place members have had great pressure put upon them by the small retailers. I only hope that after this general expression of opinion from all quarters of this House, the noble Earl will be able to press the Post Office to take its courage in both hands and not have any regard to the protests of the small retailers in this matter. It is such a big question, and of such vital importance, that I think the Government ought to be ready to say that they will sweep aside these objections, coming from a comparatively small body of people, although I admit that they are influential, and that they will insist in the future, and I hope the near future, upon the same facilities being given to Englishmen as are accorded to people living abroad, who are able to send goods to this country under a system of "cash on delivery," and thus compete on very favourable terms with goods produced in this country.

My Lords, the noble Earl opposite who raised this Question pointed out the unenterprising character of a State institution in this country as compared with private enterprise, and in that he was perfectly correct. He went on to say that were the Post Office run by Selfridge's or Harrods' we should see a great deal more enterprise. He might have added, were it run by a Socialist Government—because Socialist Governments and Socialist theories are by no means in favour of want of enterprise. On the contrary, they regard the Post Office as an important servant of the State, rendering services to the whole community, which should be developed as much as possible. It is admitted by all previous speakers, that we are behind practically all other civilised countries, and in a retrograde position, in this matter. The position in America of what are called mail order houses is really quite remarkable. I do not know whether your Lordships recollect an American novel, which I read recently, in which at the beginning the hero is discovered at a western station in a state practically of isolation, living on his mail order catalogues!

It is true that conditions are not the same, or anything like the same, in this country, but none the less it is true that in a great part of the country people residing there—particularly poor people—are out of touch with anything in the nature of a general store or large shop, and can only go into the nearest towns on market days and choose what they require from a totally inadequate selection, at too great a price, from the small retailer, for whom the Post Office has been far too anxious. It is no part of our policy to encourage want of enterprise and efficiency on the part of small retailers. We believe that if they are induced by competition to get a larger stock it will be all for the good, and even for the good of the small retailers themselves. I was very glad indeed to hear, on behalf of the Post Office, that they are by no means blind to our being behind other countries in this matter, or to the fact that they are working the system successfully for foreign countries and not for us, and that they are considering the matter. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl who raised the Question will continue to press the Government until some system of this sort is introduced.

The noble Lord dealt chiefly with the question of agricultural prices. There are all sorts of things which a general store keeps which, if you have not a car, you cannot get in these country districts, unless you can write for them. What happens now is that you write for some twopenny-halfpenny thing, wait two days at least, and get a pro forma invoice for 3s. 7d. You have got to get that sum and send it back, and then wait a week or so until you get your article. How much simpler it would have been to get the thing by post in a couple of days. and pay the Post Office for it. Of course, it is going to involve certain machinery in the Post Office, and certain cost, and perhaps administrative changes, but a charge will be made for the service and I have very little doubt—and I rather hope from what the noble Earl said that the Post Office have very little doubt—that the service will soon pay for itself. It would undoubtedly confer great benefit upon people living in isolated districts, and greatly add to their comfort. We are anxious to see some check put upon rural depopulation, and this would tend to make the country a more agreeable place than the town. I am very glad of the sympathetic answer which has been given, and I hope that when the matter is raised again we may have a definite assertion that something is going to be done. I have great personal confidence in the present Postmaster-General, and I am sure he is alive to all the possibilities of this matter.