Lords Sitting of 27 April 1909

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
SOUTH WESTERN AND ISLE OF WIGHT JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on March 17 and 30 last discharged, and Bill committed.
LISBURN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on March 2 and 30 last discharged, and Bill committed.
HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported without amendment.
STOCK CONVERSION AND INVESTMENT TRUST (NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY CONSOLS) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with amendments.
WALLASEY TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
Read 2a and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LITTLEHAMPTON GAS BILL.
Read 2a and committed.
THAMES TUNNEL (NORTH AND SOUTH WOOLWICH) BILL.
Read 2a and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
RIO TINTO COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order) and committed.
WEST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
INDIAN COUNCILS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next. (No. 32.)
JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the One hundred and fortieth Volume of the Journals (8th Edward VII, 1908), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding Volumes of the Journal have been delivered.
CHILD MURDER (RECORD OF SENTENCE OF DEATH) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to enable sentence of death to be recorded without being pronounced in the case of a woman convicted of the murder of her infant child—Was presented by The Lord Alverstone; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 33.)

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS):My Lords, when this Bill was being considered in Committee yesterday I undertook to frame words which would satisfy the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, and to move their insertion to-day in lieu of the Amendment which I had then on the Paper. The Amendment standing in my name to-day will, I hope, meet the noble Earl's point.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, page 3, line 25, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert the following new subsection:

639
'(2) The powers and duties transferred to the Army Council by this section shall as from the commencement of this Act be deemed to be business within the meaning of the Order in Council dated the tenth day of August nineteen hundred and four regulating the distribution of business amongst the members of the Army Council. The Secretary of State may however reserve to himself any part of such business; and
'(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and to Parliament.'"—(Lord Lucas.)
THE. EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to draft this Amendment and to show it to me after the House separated yesterday. I readily accepted it, as it seemed to entirely meet the case. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for acceding to my wishes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW):My Lords, before your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two. I have been in communication with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and a number of the Amendments standing in his name will go a long way to meet the objections entertained to the Bill. But there are some other matters, dealing principally with Clause 4 (Supply of electricity to railways, tramways, and canals partly outside area of supply). On the question whether procedure should be by the Order of the Board of Trade simply or by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament, I have not been able to agree with my noble friend; and I shall, therefore, ask your Lordshpis to consider some Amendments at the next stage of the Bill. It may be necessary for me to make some observations to-day on the Amendments to be moved in the course of the proceedings in Committee, and, if so, I shall ask your Lordships to permit me to leave the
640
Chair for that purpose. Lord Avebury has some Amendments to Clause 15, but they only appeared on the Paper this morning. I have been in communication with the Municipal Corporations Association, who speak for the larger boroughs mainly concerned in matters of electric lighting, but I have not yet been able to ascertain whether the proposal of the noble Lord would meet with their approval. Therefore I would ask my noble friend to be good enough to defer his Amendments to Clause 15 till we reach the next stage of the Bill.
LORD AVEBURY:My Lords I will, of course, readily comply with the request of my noble friend. I am sorry I was unable to put the Amendments to Clause 15 on the Paper earlier, but there were various people interested in the matter who had to consider them. In the circumstances, I am quite willing to defer those particular Amendments and to move them on Report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to insert, after Clause 1, the following new clause—
"It shall not be lawful for any undertakers after the passing of this Act except with the consent of the Board of Trade to construct any generating station on any land acquired by them after the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and nine unless the construction is authorised and the land is specified in a special Act or Provisional Order and the Board of Trade shall not in any case give such consent until notice has been given by advertisement or otherwise as the Board of Trade may direct to owners and lessees of land situate within three hundred yards of the land upon which the generating station is to be constructed and an opportunity has been given to those owners and lessees of stating any objections they may have thereto."
He thought the Amendment conveyed within its own phraseology the object he had in view in placing it on the Paper, and he was hopeful that His Majesty's Government might be able to accept it. Therefore he would not at the present moment do more than simply outline the case on its behalf. An electricity generating station was not altogether a thing of beauty. It was an evil in almost any district; but it was

641
possibly one of those things which came within the category of necessary evils, which must be endured where they could not be altogether got rid of. The present position was that when any body of undertakers desired to construct a generating station and to acquire a site compulsorily for the purpose, they specified the site in their Bill or Order, in regard to which any one could appear before the Committee and make such objections as might seem fit. When, however, compulsory powers were not sought, there was a modified procedure, and in that ease also, if the undertakers sought power to regulate their procedure, objection could be taken and parties could appear. But there was a third way of constructing a generating station—namely, on land acquired by agreement, In that case, if the undertakers proceeded to set up the generating station they were, of course, liable to the ordinary law as to nuisance. That, however, was not a very satisfactory position, because the law of nuisance took no account of amenity, and amenity might be a very serious thing in certain localities in which it was proposed to construct a generating station. He instanced the large generating station constructed close to the Greenwich Observatory, and said that if what had taken place there had been fully realised beforehand steps would have been taken to obviate it. There was an instance in the University of Cambridge where a generating station had been erected in close proximity to a college, and other cases could be mentioned where important buildings had been seriously damnified from the amenity point of view by the erection of large generating stations. The Office of Works had been alive to this, and, being able to watch all these Orders, had secured protection where they thought it necessary. The suggestion made in his proposed new clause was that hereafter, when any undertakers proposed to construct a generating station for either electric power or electric lighting, they should be required to get the sanction of the Board of Trade, a body which in a matter of this kind would obviously be regarded, not only as the most fit, but as an impartial, tribunal. The undertakers would have to publish notice and a local inquiry would be held. As at first drafted, his proposed new clause would have applied to land purchased before or after March 31 last, but, on the suggestion of the Board of Trade, it had
642
now been confined to land acquired after March 31; and he hoped, in those circumstances, having regard to the extremely reasonable character of the proposal, the Amendment would meet with acceptance.
Amendment moved—
"To insert, after Clause 1, the following new clause:
'It shall not be lawful for any undertakers after the passing of this Act except with the consent of the Board of Trade to construct any generating station on any land acquired by them after the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and nine unless the construction is authorised and the land is specified in a special Act or Provisional Order and the Board of Trade shall not in any case give such consent until notice has been given by advertisement or otherwise as the Board of Trade may direct to owners and lessees of land situate within three hundred yards of the land upon which the generating station is to be constructed and an opportunity has been given to those owners and lessees of stating any objections they may have thereto.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid this was one of the matters on which the Board of Trade had been in consultation with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. The Board were much impressed by the reasonableness of the proposal, and in the shape in which the clause was now proposed they accepted it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLmoved to amend this clause, which provided that—
"For the purpose of enabling electricity to be brought into an area of supply from a generating station situated outside that area or for enabling a supply of electricity in bulk to be given the Board of Trade may by Provisional Order apply to any roads railways or tramways situated outside that area the provisions of the Electric Lighting Acts which authorise or enable the Board of Trade to authorise the breaking up of any road railway or tramway so far as those provisions do not already so apply,"
by inserting, after the words "generating station," the words " belonging to any undertakers." The object of this Amendment was, he said, to make it clear that the facilities were to be given only to authorised undertakers as they were understood in the sense of the Electric Lighting Acts.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 2, after the word 'station,' to insert the words 'belonging to any undertakers.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLmoved to delete the words "or for enabling a supply of electricity in bulk to be given." These words were to be omitted because the object which they were to effect could be better secured by the words proposed to be inserted by the next Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'or for enabling a supply of electricity in bulk to be given.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHmoved to amend the proviso—
"Provided that a Provisional Order authorising the breaking up of roads outside the area of supply shall not be granted by the Board of Trade except with the consent of the local authority in whose district the road is situate unless the Board of Trade in any case in which the consent of any such local authority is refused are of opinion that having regard to all the circumstances of the case such consent ought to be dispensed with and in I that case they shall make a special report to Parliament stating the grounds on which they have dispensed with the consent,"
by omitting the word "local" where it first appeared. His object in moving this Amendment was to clear up a doubt, but the real Amendment was the next one on the Paper—namely, to leave out the words "in whose district the road is situate" and to insert the words "which is liable for the maintenance of the road." The point with regard to the word "local" was that there was no definition in the Bill of a local authority, and the definition contained in the Electric Lighting Act of 1882 did not include a county council. The object of his Amendment was to embrace any local authority. But if the noble Lord was of opinion that the words "local authority" included a county council, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 12, to leave out the word 'local.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid that though the Amendment appeared at first sight a very simple one, it really embodied an important principle and one to which the Board of Trade could not consent. The object of the clause was to allow a supply of electricity to be brought
644
into a district from a generating station situated outside that district, and for that purpose the clause provided that the roads might be broken up. In the part of the clause which the noble Lord wished to amend, it was laid down that the local authority through whose territory the main was to pass should have a qualified veto—that was to say, they might oppose the laying of the main, but their refusal might be appealed against to the Board of Trade. What the noble Lord asked by this Amendment—
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid that the noble Lord was dealing rather with his (Lord Clifford's) second Amendment, to which he had only referred but which he had not yet explained or moved.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLreplied that he understood that the noble Lord had dealt with the two Amendments together. At any rate, the Board of Trade objected equally to both Amendments.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he would raise no objection, if the the noble Lord in charge of the Bill thought it advisable, to leaving in the words "in whose district the road is situate," but adding the words "or which is liable for the maintenance of the road." The question divided itself into two. First, there was the authority in whose district the work might be going on, and, second, the authority on whom fell the duty of keeping the particular road in order; and it seemed to him only reasonable to provide that both authorities should be given the qualified veto to which the noble Lord had referred. The point in regard to the words "local authority" was only as to whether or not they included a county council.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid that in regard to the latter point there could be no doubt that, in the meaning of the Electric Lighting Acts, a county council was not a local authority for the purposes of electric lighting. What the noble Lord's two Amendments, read together, would do would be to substitute the county council for the local authority within the meaning of the Electric Lighting Acts—that was to say, that if the road to be broken up was a county road the council would then become the authority to be allowed to oppose the proposal, instead of the urban

645
council, or district council, or municipality as the case might be. The reason for giving the veto to these local authorities was that by the Electric Lighting Acts they were given priority in the matter of the supply of electric light within their districts, and also when the time came for the purchase of electric light undertakings they were the authorities which had the right of purchase. County councils did not exercise any of those powers, and therefore from that point of view there was no reason for making the county council the authority which should be allowed to object under this clause. County councils were fully protected by Section 14 of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899. That section provided that undertakers desiring to execute works in main roads must serve a notice, together with a plan, of the proposed works upon the county council, and the county council had power to approve the plans with such Amendments as they might think fit, or to disapprove of them, subject always to an appeal to the Board of Trade. The reason the Board of Trade objected to the noble Lord's Amendments was that as regards roads the county council were fully safeguarded by the section to which he had referred, and that as regards electric lighting they had no interest in the matter.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid that, in the circumstances, he would not press the Amendment to omit the word "local," and would not move his second Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLmoved to add at the end of subsection (1), which ran—
"The Board of Trade unless they are of opinion that by reason of the character or magnitude of the proposed undertaking the matter ought to be dealt with by private Bill may by Provisional Order—

authorise any local authority or company to supply electricity in bulk;

provide for any supply so authorised being compulsory; and

make such other provisions as appear to them necessary for adapting the Electric Lighting
646
Acts to any case where a local authority or company are authorised to supply electricity in bulk,"

the words—
"including the application to roads railways and tramways along the route along which lines are authorised to be laid for the purpose of giving the supply in bulk of the provisions of those Acts which authorise or enable the Board of Trade to authorise the breaking up of any road railway or tramway."
This addition was to effect the purpose intended to be achieved by the words "or for enabling a supply of electricity in bulk to be given," which words the Committee had omitted by the adoption of his last Amendment. The object of Clause 3 was to allow a local authority to supply in bulk to another local authority or electric light undertaking passing through the territory of an intervening district, and the Amendment was moved in consequence of a suggestion made by the Lord Chairman that this was a more easily understandable and more regular way of effecting that purpose than by the words which originally appeared in the clause.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 30, after the word 'bulk' to insert the words 'including the application to roads railways and tramways along the route along which lines are authorised to be laid for the purpose of giving the supply in bulk of the provisions of those Acts which authorise or enable the Board of Trade to authorise the breaking up of any road railway or tramway.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLmoved to amend subsection (3)—
"(3) The Board of Trade may if they think fit by order authorise any undertakers to supply electricity in bulk to any other undertakers upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order if the supply can be given without breaking up any streets except such as the undertakers giving and the undertakers receiving the supply are authorised to break up,"
by adding, at the end of the subsection, the words—
"but the Board of Trade shall not in any case make such an order until notice of the intention to make the order has been given by advertisement or otherwise as the Board of Trade may direct and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the Board to be affected of stating any objections he may have thereto."

647
He explained that this Amendment was also proposed in consequence of a suggestion made by the Lord Chairman. The order provided for in the subsection did not have to come before Parliament. It was a simple order of the Board of Trade, and the Amendment provided machinery by which those who were interested might be given an opportunity of stating objections before the order was made.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 11, after the word 'up' to insert the words 'but the Board of Trade shall not in any case make such an order until notice of the intention to make the order has been given by advertisement or otherwise as the Board of Trade may direct and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the Board to be affected of stating any objections he may have thereto.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid the Amendment standing in his name to this clause was exactly similar to the last Amendment to which the Committee had agreed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 18, after the word 'canal' to insert the words 'but the Board of Trade shall not in any case give any such consent until notice of the application for the consent has been given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as the Board of Trade may direct and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the Board to be affected of stating any objections he may have thereto.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
LORD AVEBURYexpressed very great doubt as to this clause, which seemed to him to constitute an additional interference with private enterprise over and above
648
anything that had been done hitherto. The clause provided that—
"If an auditor appointed by the Board of Trade to audit the accounts of any undertakers who are not a local authority reports to the Board that the undertakers have declined or neglected to comply with any of his recommendations or requirements the Board may if they think fit after giving the undertakers an opportunity of being heard make an order directing the undertakers to comply with such recommendations and requirements with or without modification as may be specified in the order subject to an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners or any two of them who shall finally decide the matter and confirm annul or amend the order as they may think fit."
Surely such a provision ought to apply equally to local authorities, who should be placed on the same footing as companies. He therefore moved to insert a new subsection to make the section applicable in the case of any auditor or auditors appointed under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, or by the Local Government Board, to audit the accounts of any undertakers who were a local authority. There was a strong impression out of doors that local authorities did not make proper provision for depreciation and reserve, and the Amendment would make it possible for their auditors to report to the Board where the authority declined or neglected to comply with their recommendations or requirements. At present they had no such power, and the result was that reports were sometimes submitted which were quite fictitious.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 12, after the word 'fit' to insert the following new subsection:
'(2) This section also apply in the case of any auditor or auditors appointed under the provisions of the Public Health Act 1875 or the Municipal Corporations Act 1882 or by the Local Government Board to audit the accounts of any undertakers who are a local authority and where the undertakers being a local authority have declined or neglected to comply with any of his or their recommendations or requirements and for such purpose this section shall have effect as if the Local Government Board was substituted for the Board of Trade.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid the Amendment was one which the Board of Trade could not accept. The audit of the electric light undertakings of local authorities was not in the hands of the Board of Trade, but, in the case of the majority of those bodies, in the hands of the Local Government Board auditors, and in the case of municipal boroughs the

649
audit was carried out by auditors elected by the municipality. The change which the noble Lord proposed might or might not be a good one, but it was rather a strong order to alter the whole system of auditing the accounts of municipal bodies, certainly as regards the supply of electricity, by a clause in a Bill of this kind. It was not for him to say whether the audit of all municipal authorities was as effective as might be desired. He could conceive that that was a matter which it might be worth while to inquire into. Indeed, it had been gone into very fully in the course of the inquiry into municipal trading generally. He thought the House would see that the change proposed was too drastic a change to introduce in this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether the Committee were to understand the noble Lord to say, on behalf of the Government, that the audit was effectively carried out already by other Government Departments.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLreplied that the audit was carried out in the case of most local authorities by the Local Government Board auditors. He had no reason to think that that duty was not most efficiently done; he had every reason to suppose that it was. But he could not speak from personal knowledge of the way in which the elected auditors of municipalities carried out their work, because it was really not a matter into which he had had an opportunity of inquiring.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that the impression he gathered from the statement of the noble Lord was that the audit was far from being satisfactory. Unless the audit was effective it was not only no good but a positive evil, because it misled the public as to the financial soundness or otherwise of the undertakings. He hoped that a more complete answer would be given on this subject at a later stage, for the question was an important one.
LORD AVEBURYurged that the Government apparently proposed to introduce a drastic amendment of the law which was to apply to the companies only. The amendment, however, was just as necessary in the case of local authorities, and certainly the Joint Committee on Muni-
650
cipal Trading were not at all satisfied with the audit. The general impression outside was that in many cases the audit was not satisfactory, and the whole object of his Amendment was to provide that in respect of the local authorities the same principle should be applied.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)My Lords, as it happened that I presided over the Joint Committee to which the noble Lord referred, I may, perhaps, say one word. It is quite true that, as regards the general question of municipal audit, the Committee did make certain recommendations, but neither the Government of noble Lords opposite, which was then in power, nor the Governments which have existed since have seen their way to alter the whole system of municipal audit, although I, for one, think that in some respects it might be improved. But the point made by my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade seems to me a perfectly sound one—namely, that, whatever may be our opinion on that point, the consideration of this clause of this particular Bill cannot be made the occasion for a complete alteration of the system of municipal audit. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESindicated that he had in consultation agreed to certain words, which might be inserted at a later stage of the Bill, to confine the recommendations of the auditors of companies' accounts to such matters as would affect either the value of the undertaking which might hereafter be purchased by a local authority, or which might affect the sliding scale on which dividends were reckoned and the price at which electricity was to be sold. If the clause was so limited it would not apply to municipalities at all. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment at this stage. If, at a subsequent stage, words were introduced which would confine the recommendations of auditors in the manner indicated, he thought their Lord ships could safely allow the clause to pass
LORD AVEBURYagain insisted that it was most desirable to have a good audit in both classes of undertakings; but he would

651
accept the suggestion to withdraw the Amendment at the present
stage.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid that the Government were as anxious as the noble Lord to secure an efficient audit, and he would be glad to consult with him before the next stage of the Bill was taken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
LORD AVEBURYsaid that it was not his intention, at the present stage to move the Amendments standing in his name to this clause.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to amend Subsection (1)—
"Nothing in any Provisional Order whether confirmed before or after the passing of this Act shall in any way limit or affect the powers of any county council to re-build alter widen or repair the structure of any bridge upon which any work authorised by the Order may be constructed or impose upon the county council any liability which was not by law imposed upon them prior to the commencement of the Order,"
by inserting, after the words "affect the powers of any county council," the words "or railway company." The proposal in the Amendment seemed to him an eminently fair one, having regard to the fact that the Government were altering the present state of the law in favour of county councils. He argued that in a case in which a railway company owned a
652
portion of a road and was for all practical purposes in the position of a county council the company ought to have the same facilities and privileges as the county council. If a road had to be widened and the electric plant removed the expense was now placed on the body that wanted to make the alteration; ii the Bill passed in its present form the onus of paying the expense of removal would in all cases where roads were vested in county councils be put on the undertakers who were the owners of the plant. He thought that was not unreasonable, because they were, so to speak, intruders on the property. But if that principle was fair in the case of a county council the same consideration applied with great force to railway companies. Take the case of a bridge carrying a railway. That bridge was, of course, the private property of the railway company, but, in spite of that, if he read the clause rightly, it would still be obligatory on the railway company, if they desired to widen the bridge and the bridge carried an electrical plant, to pay the expense of altering the position of the electrical plant. That seemed to him very unfair, and he submitted that if a relaxation was to be given to the county council the railway companies as owners of a bridge were in a stronger position.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 9, after the word 'council,' to insert the words 'or railway company.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLpointed out that when a railway interfered with a road the obligation of the railway company was to restore that road by making a bridge so as not to interfere with its free use by the public. The same principle applied to those who used the road in accordance with their statutory powers, such as electric light undertakers. It was obviously wrong that if a railway company found it necessary to make an alteration in a bridge any expense should be put upon the electric light undertaking.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHcould see no reason why a railway company should be put in a different position from that of a county council. There was no difference in the physical conditions. A county council wishing to make a change for public purposes was to have the privilege of compelling the electric light undertakers

653
to pay the expense of moving their plant while the alteration was made. If a railway company, it might be for public purposes too, desired to make a change, why should they be placed in a worse position? The noble Lord had not said a word about the case where the railway was carried over a bridge and the electric mains ran along the bridge which carried the railway.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLconfessed that he did not quite understand the last point. When a county council made a bridge they constructed it over some natural obstacle, probably over a river, and therefore they were not in the same position as a railway company, who were obliged by Act of Parliament to carry the bridge over an obstruction which they themselves had created. The difference appeared to him to be a perfectly obvious one.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the railway company and their bridge were there first, and the electric light undertakers were, so to speak, intruders on existing property. It would, therefore, be fair to put railway companies in the same position as county councils. Suppose a railway line crossed a public road and the bridge afforded a convenient means of carrying an electric light company's mains from one side of the road to the other. The railway company was compelled to allow that to be done; but if they had to make a quadruple line instead of a double line, how could it be fair that they should be compelled to bear the expense of altering the electric mains? The noble Lord would find that the Board of Trade were perfectly familiar with the point. From previous communications and some knowledge of the subject he had anticipated that the answer of the Board of Trade to his Amendment would have been that they did not, as a matter of practice, give such powers in these cases. If that had been the noble Lord's answer he was prepared with this reply, that that was a mere matter of administrative convenience and that there was no obligation on the Board of Trade to maintain that policy. It might be changed at any moment, and if it were changed it would be a serious grievance and a great expense to railway companies placed in that position. If it would be more convenient he was perfectly willing to postpone his Amendment, but he should do so in the
654
earnest hope that the Board of Trade would consider the point in a judicial spirit.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHmoved an Amendment to extend the principle of the clause to diverting, widening, raising, draining, or improving any road. He said that the late President of the Board of Trade, in replying to a deputation from the County Councils Association on this subject, had expressed sympathy with county councils, and had admitted that there was a great deal to be said for their contention in the matter of bridges, since in most cases electric light undertakings were private concerns run for profit. The right hon. gentleman, therefore, agreed that it was rather hard on county councils that they should be put to further expense in regard to electric mains when they were obliged, in the public interest, and in the public interest alone, to make alterations in their bridges. But he (Lord Clifford) was unable to see any difference between a bridge and an ordinary road. It was for the public use alone that a county council were obliged to alter or widen a road, and therefore they ought not to be put to any additional expense in respect of electric lighting mains when they did so.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 10, after the word 'bridge' to insert the words 'or to divert widen raise drain or improve any road repairable by them.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid the Bill provided that where electric mains had been laid in a road which crossed a bridge, and where it was found necessary to alter or rebuild that bridge, the local authority responsible for the bridge should not be put to any expense on account of the existence of the electric mains. What the noble Lord now asked the Committee to do was to apply the same principle to all alterations of roads. He admitted that it was not easy to say what difference there was between roads and bridges in this connection. He supposed it might be argued that the hospitality which the undertakers received in a road was not quite of the same value as that accorded them on a bridge, and that the expenditure of the local authority on paving the road was not to the advantage of the undertakers but rather to their disadvantage, because they had to dig through and replace an expensive

655
surface, whereas in the case of a bridge they actually reaped the benefit of the money which had been spent because they found the chasm, or whatever it might be, already bridged for them. But that was not the point he wished to press. He would confess at once that what the Board of Trade had done was in the nature of a compromise. As their Lordships knew, a compromise was very useful, but it was not always possible to defend it on strictly logical grounds. What the local authorities said, and said very rightly, was that it was hard that when they had to alter a road in the public interest they should be put to additional expense in consequence of electric mains. But the undertakers also held that it was very hard that they should be put to expense in carrying out their statutory obligations to supply electric light because the local authority could not make up their minds as to the best place for the road. The arrangement which had been arrived at was a compromise. He also pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted there would be one law for county roads and another for non-county roads.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that when a matter was stated to be one of compromise it was generally supposed that that concluded the discussion. He confessed that he rather pitied the noble Lord for having to defend a compromise with so little material. Here were two cases which seemed to be exactly parallel, the case of the road and the case of the bridge. Both belonged to the public authority and existed for the benefit of the public, and the undeniable force of the argument in the case of the bridge seemed to him to apply equally to the road. It was a distinct hardship on local authorities that the Government did not give way on this point. He did not believe that the expense which would be thrown upon electric light companies would be a very serious matter. It was not as if local authorities were in the habit of capriciously diverting roads. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had spoken of a county council not being able to make up its mind where the road should be. There was no question of that kind. The diversion of a road was a serious matter, involving a great deal of inconvenience to many persons. It was never undertaken except after careful consideration and with the greatest reluctance, and if in those
656
very rare cases the electric light company had to share the inconvenience and expense to which the public itself was put, that did not seem to him to be a very great hardship on the company. He did not know how far his noble friend intended to press the Amendment, but on the arguments submitted to their Lordships the Government did not appear to have much of a case.
LORD JOICEYthought the noble Marquess's argument tended rather to show that it was unwise on the part of the Government to admit bridges. Alterations to roads had been spoken of, but the words in the Amendment were "divert widen raise drain or improve" any road. If a charge of the kind in question were placed upon electric light companies, who, after all, were serving the public and in many cases supplying electricity at fixed figures, it would completely alter the whole of their arrangements. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as it would undoubtedly place a very heavy increased expenditure upon these companies.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHannounced that in the circumstances he desired to press the Amendment to a division. The noble Lord who spoke for the Board of Trade rather suggested that electric light companies obtained no advantage at all from taking their cables along the high road, and seemed to think they were under a disadvantage in willingly selecting a macadamised road; but it was obvious that they gained great advantage thereby. Moreover, it was much cheaper than obtaining compulsory powers for taking the plant over the fields of adjoining landowners. For this reason he failed to see why any difference should be made between a bridge and a main road. The only argument that at all impressed him was the argument that the matter was a small one, and that local authorities seldom diverted, widened, or altered their roads. It was, therefore, contended that it would only be in a few cases that his Amendment would be applicable; but he regarded that as equally an argument for passing the Amendment as for rejecting it. He would, therefore, divide the Committee on the Amendment.
On Question, whether the words proposed should be inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Cross, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Hindlip, L.

Goschen, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Cathcart, E.

Abinger, L.

Ludlow, L.

Cawdor, E.

Balfour, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Denbigh, E.

Barrymore, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Morley, E.

Blythswood, L.

Saltoun, L.

Onslow, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Sanderson, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

Sinclair, L.

Clinton, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Churchill, V.

Colchester, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, L.

Joicey, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Brassey, L.

Lochee, L.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Lucas, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Fitzmaurice, L.

Mac Donnell, L.

Glantawe, L.

Marchamley, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Pentland, L.

Chichester, E.

Haversham, L.

Pirrie, L.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHmoved to further amend Clause 21 by providing that the company should to the reasonable satisfaction of the county council keep the portion of all roads repairable by the county council which should be broken up by the company for the purpose of constructing, laying, or repairing any works authorised by the Order in good repair for twelve months after replacing and making good the same, and should compensate the county council for the extra repair rendered necessary by concentration of traffic on any portion of the road not broken up by them. He said that very often these works occupied a considerable time, and the whole, perhaps, of a very heavy traffic was meanwhile concentrated on the half or smaller portion of the road not broken up. The result was that that section of the road came to be repaired very much sooner than would otherwise be the case. The undertakers, on the conclusion of their work, reinstated the portion of the road which they had taken up, but did nothing to repair the damage caused to the other portion which they had not touched but upon which there had been a great concentration of traffic. He submitted that it was perfectly reasonable that the undertakers should be liable for any damage which could be clearly proved to be due to this concentration of traffic.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 32, after the word 'out' to insert the words 'The company shall to the reason-
658
able satisfaction of the county council keep the portion of all roads repairable by the county council which shall be broken up by the company for the purpose of constructing laying or repairing any works authorised by the Order in good repair for twelve months after replacing and making good the same, and shall compensate the county council for the extra repair rendered necessary by concentration of traffic on any portion of the road not broken up by them.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
LORD HAMILTON of DALZELLadmitted that there was a good deal to be said with reference to concentration of traffic in the case of the laying of tramways, which meant, as many of their Lordships must have noticed in motoring in and out of London, the blocking up of roads for a considerable time. But the laying of electric light cables was a very different thing. It only necessitated a trench some twelve inches wide, and the extremely hard nature of the surface of the road made the undertakers unwilling to break up more of it than could be helped. He did not think that the concentration of traffic caused by a trench twelve inches wide was such as to render it necessary to insert a provision dealing with it in an Act of Parliament. He therefore resisted the Amendment as unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday, May 6 next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 34.)

DISCLOSURE OF ADMIRALTY DOCUMENTS.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH:My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to a letter written by Captain Bacon, R.N., to the First Sea Lord in April, 1906, commenting on what he describes as "the Service agitation headed by Lord Charles Beresford and Admiral Lambton," for what purpose the letter was published and circulated; whether the Board of Admiralty as a whole consider that the letter in question with the sentiments expressed in it was a proper one to have been written by a junior captain to a First Sea Lord; whether they approve of its printing; and whether they approve of its publication and circulation.
THE EARL OF CREWE:My Lords, I am not sorry that the noble Earl has put this series of Questions, because the matter, I understand, is one which has aroused some little interest in the Press and has led to Questions in another place. I understand that the letter referred to was a private letter written by Captain Bacon to the First Sea Lord, he having been previously at the Admiralty in a subordinate position closely associated with the First Sea Lord. The letter was not circulated or published. It is true that it was printed, but, as noble Lords opposite who are acquainted with the working of public Departments know, it is by no means an uncommon thing for a purely private letter to be printed for the convenience of the head of the Department. In this case the letter was printed for the convenience of Lord Tweedmouth, who was at that time First Lord of the Admiralty, and the printing was simply carried out for the purpose of convenience of record. That is a frequent practice. The noble Viscount opposite, Lord Midleton, who has been Secretary of State for India, knows that I am right in saying that practically every private communication received from India is printed. Therefore to assume, as the noble Earl, or those who have advised him, seem to assume, that the printing of a document of this kind implies in any sense publication is to be entirely mistaken as to the facts of the case.
The noble Earlthen asks whether the Board of Admiralty as a whole consider that the letter in question with the sentiments expressed in it was a proper one to have been written by a junior captain to a First Sea Lord. As a rule I strongly deprecate questions as to the opinions of particular members of the Board of Admiralty, or of the Army Council, or of any other kindred body. It is a custom—I think a very unfortunate custom—which has grown up of late years to attempt to go behind the opinion expressed by the political head of a Department and endeavour to discover what his permanent advisers think of a particular question. In this case I have no quarrel with the noble Earl for asking the question, because it is, of course, a personal matter, and one affecting the honour of individuals, and consequently it is relevant to ask what the opinion of the members of the Board may be. I am able to say that all the members of the Board of Admiralty, without exception, consider that the letter was a perfectly proper one to have been written by Captain Bacon to the First Sea Lord.
Then the noble Earl asks whether they approve of its publication and circulation. In one sense, as I have pointed out, the letter has not been either circulated or published; but in another sense, I am sorry to say, it has been published, or, at any rate, parts of it have been published, and it can only have been published through a flagrant breach of confidence on the part of some person; and, so far as that kind of publication is concerned, I am quite certain that not only the Board of Admiralty, but also everybody else, will strongly disapprove of the action which has been taken.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH:Would it be indiscreet to ask whether any steps can be taken to find out who is responsible for the circulation of the letter?
THE EARL OF CREWE:I will inquire.
House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.