HL Deb 01 December 1909 vol 4 cc1347-75

Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, read.

THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP)

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Earl Carrington, who is, I am sorry to say, unwell, I beg leave to move that the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to this Bill be considered.

Moved, That the said Amendments be considered.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, before we proceed to deal seriatim with the Amendments, I should like to offer one or two observations upon the situation with which your Lordships' House finds itself confronted at this moment. Not many hours ago—to be precise, at about half past eleven o'clock last night—the noble Earl who leads the House was deploring in grave words what he described as the indiscriminate hostility of your Lordships to measures put forward by His Majesty's Government, and he dwelt particularly upon what he termed the increasing encroachment of Conservative Peers in their attitude towards Bills presented to the House by Liberal Administrations. There is, I venture to think, another side to the picture, and that other side is presented to us in a somewhat striking fashion by the Motion which will shortly be made by the noble Earl.

My Lords, in the case of this Bill no one can say that there was any approach to indiscriminate hostility on the part of this House. We approached it, endeavouring to exercise our proper functions as a Chamber of revision, in no spirit of hostility, but with a genuine desire to make it a better and more efficient measure. The noble Earl referred last night to my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, and spoke of his high position as a Parliamentarian. The noble Earl will recollect that no member of your Lordships' House took a more conspicuous part in the discussion of this Bill than Lord St. Aldwyn. It is, I think, rather fortunate that your Lordships' House did revise the Bill, for it came up to this House in a state which showed that it required a great deal of revision. When the Bill came to us it contained no provisions for public notices or for the issue of advertisement in the locality. It contained no provision for enabling notices to be served upon owners or occupiers, or public bodies; so that it really came to this, that when the Bill was laid on the Table, it would have been perfectly open for any persons or for any body to whom an advance had been made to make an application by word of mouth to the Development Commissioners in camera, and then and there to obtain from them an order for the compulsory acquisition of any property which might be desired without the owners of that property or the persons interested in it being supplied with any kind of notice or warning.

There was another blot in the Bill which we were able to cure. In the case of Scotland, the treatment was entirely different—unintentionally, no doubt—from the treatment in the case of England. Your Lordships' House corrected these mistakes and corrected other imperfections in the Bill and we also introduced a certain number of Amendments, perfectly legitimate Amendments, which we defended in debate and which were not very seriously taken exception to. Now, my Lords, what is it that we find? We find virtually the whole of these Amendments disagreed with by the House of Commons, and disagreed with, with one or two exceptions, upon the ground that they are contrary to the privilege of the House of Commons. That really discloses a very serious state of things. I notice that in the printed Reasons for disagreeing which have been circulated three different formulas are used. The Amendments are objected to either because they involve an alteration of the persons to whom the advance is made, or because they involve an alteration of the purposes for which the advance is made, or because they involve an alteration of the conditions upon which the advance is made. Of course, the whole object of this Bill is to enable advances to be made for certain purposes of economic development and for making roads, so that your Lordships will see that if we are not allowed to touch either the person to whom the advance is made, or the purpose for which the advance can be made, or the conditions under which the advance is made, we are virtually told that we must not touch a line of this Bill. It is a plain intimation to us to keep our "Hands off this Bill," and that, my Lords, I venture to characterise as an extreme and unwarrantable exercise of the House of Commons privilege.

My Lords, I do not think that any one will get up in this House and suggest that this is a Money Bill. There never was a Bill that could less properly be so described. I have more than once ventured to address this House on the question of privilege. We have to remember that there are two points: first, whether an Amendment made by us touches the House of Commons privilege at all—that is a question for the officers of the House of Commons to decide in the first instance—and the other question is, assuming that there has been an encroachment upon the privilege of the House of Commons, whether that House should insist upon its privilege. And when I say whether that House should insist on its privilege, of course what that comes to is whether the Government of the day which has a large majority behind it should advise the House to insist upon its privilege or not. It would be of course, most improper for me to say anything with regard to the manner in which the high officers of the House of Commons think proper to deal with matters of privilege. I may, however, be allowed to say that so far as I am able to judge from the precedents which are familiar to us, the tendency is to insist more strictly than of old upon the extreme right of the House of Commons. But what I do want to call attention to is the manner in which in these days the Government jumps at every hint from the Speaker that the question of privilege is involved.

May I call your Lordships' attention to what seems to me to be a very striking illustration of what I am saying. Here is the report of the Speaker's observations upon an Amendment made by your Lordships' House to Clause 8. Your Lordships added words enabling the Road Board to make advances to county councils inter alia towards meeting the extraordinary expenditure incurred by highway authorities on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic. Mr. Speaker observed, on this question of privilege— I have had some doubts with regard to this particular Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord—Lord Robert Cecil—that it is undesirable to press a question of privilege too far. It is possible that in a case of this sort the proper maintenance of the road is to keep it in a proper state of repair. I can understand that the best way to improve the road is to fill up the holes that are to be found in it, though that may technically not be a general act of improvement. I did not wish to smell out, so to speak, these breaches of privilege in order to raise meticulous objections to Amendments. These are pretty strong words from the Speaker. My Lords, in spite of that pretty broad hint from the Chair, the Amendment was disagreed with, and it is disagreed with, as stated in the Paper now in your Lordships' hands, upon the ground that it is an encroachment upon the privilege of the House of Commons. Could your Lordships have any stronger example than that?

I should like very much, if your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, to contrast the action of His Majesty's Government in dealing with this important question with the action of other Liberal Statesmen in the House of Commons. The question of privilege was raised at the time when Mr. Abercromby, afterwards Lord Dunfermline, was Speaker of the House of Commons on the question of the Irish Poor Relief Bill in the year 1838. The Speaker then began by saying that he considered the Amendments to be an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons; but he went on— As the Bill was one of a very peculiar character affecting not only the proprietors of land but the great mass of the people of Ireland, and as the principle of rating was necessarily incidental to such a measure, he considered that if the privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case, they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be on all grounds advisable. If you attempt to deal with the question of privilege in this way that is what will happen; it will altogether prevent the Peers from taking measures into their consideration. Upon that, Lord John Russell, expressing agreement with the Speaker, used these words— In cases of Bills of this description, in which taxation was not the sole but rather an incidental object, any latitude consistent with the due observance of the privileges of this House should be allowed to the House of Lords in their legislative functions. He hoped, therefore, that the House would enter upon the consideration of these Amendments, which were, doubtless, framed with the view rather of forwarding the objects of the Bill than otherwise, a description which fairly applies to our Amendments on this Bill. Then later on, in the case of another Irish Bill, Lord John Russell used these words— I should be disposed to inquire, in the first place, whether they do not come within the general principle of those cases in which the House has consented to waive its privileges; and, secondly, whether it is expedient upon the whole that we should waive our privileges in the present instance, and he added— It is a case in which, to use an expression of Lord Dunfermline, we might, by pressing our privileges, rather weaken than strengthen them. My Lords, the only other quotation with which I will trouble you is again from a speech made by Lord John Russell in 1849, in which he spoke as follows— With regard to legislation in reference to the condition of the poor, it must be acknowledged by all to be a subject of very great importance and one concerning which both Houses of Parliament should be entitled to give an opinion. I think legislation is likely to proceed more harmoniously between the two Houses of Parliament if we do not assert our privileges on an occasion of that kind. Now, my Lords, if, instead of the words "the condition of the poor," that passage were to be read thus, "With regard to legislation in reference to the economic development of the country," would not the principle, suggested by Lord John Russell apply with equal force to the case now before your Lordships' House?

I have dwelt at some little length upon this question because it does seem to me to be one of the most extreme importance, and I really have risen at the beginning of this discussion because I think it might be for your Lordships' convenience if, before proceeding further, we obtain from the noble Earl some statement to indicate whether it is his intention and that of his colleagues to persist in debarring this House from any discussion of these different Amendments upon these what I should call purely technical grounds. I do not know—the noble Earl may be able to tell us—what prospects there are of any objection which we may be able to raise on this side of the House receiving any consideration at all from His Majesty's Government. Is the noble Earl asking us to begin with reference to this Bill a mere parade movement, or are we to be allowed to discuss these Amendments upon their merits? My Lords, I do not know whether, considering the atmospheric conditions which prevail at this moment, there is much prospect of our obtaining a hearing in regard to such a question as this. If that is so, then it will be for your Lordships to consider whether there is anything to be gained by the full and careful discussion which these Amendments no doubt in ordinary circumstances would receive. If the noble Earl tells us that what we have to say is not likely to be considered, then I think the House will have to decide whether it desires to persist in its Amendments and take the consequences, or whether, as the Bill is one to which we do not in principle object, we prefer that it should pass into law even without the removal of those blots which we detected in it. But, my Lords, whatever may be the result, I desire to enter my emphatic protest against the manner in which the House of Commons privilege has been made use of, not by the officers of the House, but by the Ministers who control the great majority of the House in order to deny to us the proper opportunity of discussing matters which we were thoroughly entitled to discuss. The noble Earl has told us that we are on the eve of a grave controversy in regard to the relations between the two Houses, and I venture to say that, if such a controversy is indeed to take place, it will be necessary to put in the very forefront of it that question of privilege which I have been endeavouring to discuss—a question which, in my view, deserves the earnest attention of all Parliamentary reformers.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)

My Lords, the noble Marquess has stated with his invariable clearness and with perfect fairness the condition of things as it has obtained in the House of Commons on the matter of privilege with regard to this particular Bill. The noble Marquess drew a very just distinction, which I have attempted to draw on some previous occasions, between the action of the officers of the other House with regard to this matter of privilege and the possible action of the Government of the day in moving that privilege should be waived. I have always, however, endeavoured also to point out that, so far as the position of your Lordships' House in the Constitution is concerned, it is the first point, which is the important one—the fact that the officers of the other House may draw attention to a breach of privilege in a particular instance. Whether that privilege should be waived by the House of Commons depends, as it seems to me, on an entirely different matter, namely, on the merits of the particular proposals embodied in the Amendments which your Lordships have made and sent down to another place.

Those two things are entirely different, and, speaking generally, I am very far from saying that there may not be on a great number of Bills occasions when the House of Commons on the merits ought to waive its privilege, and ought to agree to your Lordships' Amendments as constituting improvements in a particular Bill. I am quite prepared to lay that down as a general proposition, and I should imagine that, if in years to come your Lordships exercise that function of revision, and, if you like, improvement in the particulars of Bills, some of those improvements may infringe the privileges of another place, and undoubtedly in such a case the House of Commons would be wise not to insist on its privilege.

As regards this particular Bill and the question which the noble Marquess put to me at the end of his speech, the position is, of course, a somewhat peculiar one. This Bill is now in the position of a motorcar which is a well-built and well-designed machine, but which has to remain for an indefinite time in its garage because there is no petrol with which to bring it out into the road. This Bill is, of course, as it stands unworkable, because there is no provision for any funds to work it. In those circumstances the question does undoubtedly arise whether it is of immediate importance that it should become law. His Majesty's Government cannot pretend in the circumstances which have taken place to attach at all the same importance to the Bill's becoming law as they would if your Lordships had not taken the action you have with regard to the Supply of the year. I do not think it is likely—for I will be quite frank with the noble Marquess—that a further interchange of views between the two Houses on this subject would in the present conditions lead to any useful result. The insistence in another place on their privilege has undoubtedly been marked in this case and in all the circumstances I cannot profess to be altogether surprised at it.

So far as one is able to judge, looking back over history, there have been some periods when the House of Commons has been more disposed to insist upon its privileges than in others, partly perhaps owing to the somewhat stricter view taken by the officers of the House for the time being, and partly owing to such circumstances as those in which we are at this moment. I agree that the House of Commons is now, so far as I am able to judge, disposed to insist somewhat strongly upon its privileges, and I admit that the proof of that can be found in the manner in which they have dealt with these particular Amendments. I have stated what I believe the position to be, and I have also stated my view to a certain extent on the general question as between the two Houses; and it now really lies with the House to decide whether, after what I have stated, it desires to take the Amendments one by one, or whether it will take the course which I rather gathered from the noble Marquess, it might be disposed to take—that is to say, of insisting on the Amendments made at the previous stage.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the noble Earl who leads the House was evidently hard put to it to defend the assertion of privilege of the other House of Parliament which he was obliged to undertake. I was astonished that he could find nothing better to say, if he will allow me to put it so, than that the officers of the other House were to be supreme in this matter, and that if they held that any particular subject was a breach of privilege then it was a breach of privilege and the question whether the House of Commons chose to waive that privilege was a secondary matter which it was entirely within their competence to decide one way of the other. Undoubtedly the decision of the House of Commons on a matter of privilege is subject to the control of that House and is final in that House, but we can never admit, and never ought to admit, that the authority of the officers of the other House of Parliament in any way binds your Lordships' House.

THE EARL OF CREWE

May I interrupt the noble Marquess to ask for information, as he has been in the House of Commons, and no doubt knows more about this matter than I do. Have there ever been cases in which the House of Commons has against the opinion of its officers, declared that the privileges of the House had not been infringed?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am afraid I am unable to answer that question. I ought first to say that the noble Earl does me a great honour in putting the question to me, but I cannot pretend to be an authority on the procedure of the other House, although I sat in it for seventeen years. As the noble Earl knows, the proceedings in that House are very elaborate and intricate and it is difficult to lay down a definite opinion on any particular point. But I would say with some confidence that the officers of the other House, and even the supreme officer, although he occupies a position of unique importance in the Constitution, are only the servants of the House, as the Speaker often finds occasion to say. The authority of the House of Commons in matters of privilege is vested in the House of Commons itself. Of course, a decision of Mr. Speaker is not only of enormous influence in the House of Commons, but is of great weight wherever his words penetrate; but, speaking of a matter of jurisdiction, we must, with the greatest respect to the Speaker of the other House of Parliament, enter a most emphatic protest against the idea that his decisions, with whatever respect we may regard them, in any way bind your Lordships' House. Each House, as the noble Earl himself is aware, is the supreme judge of its own privileges, and there is no appeal except to the country beyond.

This case presents a very singular feature. The noble Earl asked me whether there had ever been a case where the House of Commons declared a thing not to be a breach of privilege which the Speaker had declared to be so. I am certainly not able to give him any such case, but this particular instance of the Bill under discussion presents a case somewhat analogous to that, inasmuch as it is a case in which the Speaker has not declared the thing to be a breach of privilege, has indeed almost declined to declare it a breach of privilege, and the House has reversed his decision and said it was a breach of privilege. That is one of the things we have to discuss this afternoon. Here is actually a case in which, when the Speaker is appealed to and asked whether it is a breach of privilege, his answer was that he had doubts about it and was not able to state definitely that it was a breach of privilege. The actual words were read out by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition just now. The Speaker used the rather significant colloquial phrase that he was not going to "smell out" privilege—that is to say, he thought any assertion of privilege in this particular case was actually straining privilege. That was the observation made by that great officer in the House of Commons of whom the noble Earl spoke, and spoke with profound respect. But not only that, my Lords. The Government, in order to exercise a sort of malicious revenge upon your Lordships' House, actually stooped to strike out this Amendment on the ground of privilege which the Speaker himself would not declare was a breach of privilege. I think the noble Earl will agree that that is an assertion of privilege of a very extreme character.

I should like to refer to one other Amendment which has also been struck out upon the ground of privilege. Clause 18 deals with the question of unemployment, and on the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture—whose absence, and the cause of it, we greatly deplore—stated in the most emphatic terms that he considered anything in the nature of relief works were exceedingly uneconomical and injurious, and that the Government were not in any way in the world to be understood as desiring to establish relief works. That commanded universal assent in all parts of your Lordships' House, and, if I may say so in his absence, so noted a Radical as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was the mover of the Amendment which struck that clause out of the Bill. It was not a motion made by the aggressive Lords who sit around me—not at all. One of the defenders of His Majesty's Government moved to strike this clause out, but we on this side of the House, immoderate and intemperate men as we are, tried to mitigate as far as we could the blow Lord Russell was dealing at His Majesty's Government, and therefore a compromise was moved from this side of the House; but both the noble Earl's Amendment and our compromise have been brushed aside by the House of Commons on the ground of privilege.

Will your Lordships realise, what that means? The difference between the two proposals was this. The Government proposal, put quite shortly, was that in determining what works should be carried out under the Bill regard should be had to unemployment—that is that the whole question should be dealt with having regard to the conditions of unemployment. It was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and by others, that that proposal created a very great risk of enacting relief works in the Bill, and so the compromise which we proposed, and which your Lordships were good enough to carry, was that although the time of carrying out works might be determined with reference to the demand for employment, the actual determination as to whether there should be works for the unemployed should be independent of that. That was the difference between the proposal of His Majesty's Government and the House of Commons and the proposal to which your Lordships agreed. That compromise was condemned on the ground of a breach of privilege, so that it is positively held that to say works should not be resolved upon with reference to the demands of unemployment is a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. I do not think it is possible to give a more extreme example in concrete form of the undue extension of the question of privilege than the one I have ventured to give your Lordships to-day, because it is quite clear from that that all questions of employment or unemployment where there is any public money involved, all questions of poor relief, and all questions within the vast domain of public policy, are, according to the decision of the House of Commons, breaches of the privilege of that House. If that position were accepted it would be looked upon as a precedent; indeed, it must be so because the officers of the House are bound by precedent, and every such case in the future would be held to be a breach of privilege, and according to the noble Earl it rests entirely with the House of Commons to decide whether they would insist on such privilege or whether they would waive it.

In order to show the extraordinarily capricious character of the action, I am credibly informed that on the night before this extreme assertion of privilege was insisted on in the House of Commons, scores of Amendments made by your Lordships' House to the Assurance Companies Bill, which were equally open to the extreme assertion of privilege, were accepted by the House of Commons. Under those circumstances I think your Lordships will realise that we on this side of the House are entitled to make the most serious protest against such a proceeding. I do not believe that the relations between the two Houses of Parliament can ever be smoothed and made to work properly if these extreme assertions of privilege are insisted on, and I am sure your Lordships have heard with profound satisfaction that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition looks forward to a time when these things can be put on a proper footing, without which I am sure the inter-action of the two Houses of Parliament is practically impossible.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

My Lords, may I say with regard to this Bill, in which I am particularly interested, that I do hope your Lordships will pass the Bill into law. The Leader of the House has asserted that there is no petrol with which to work the machinery of the Bill, but the Bill contains provisions as to how the money is to be provided, and I am quite content to wait until the time comes when the necessary funds are available. This Bill is desired by motorists generally throughout the country; £250,000 has been collected by the petrol tax, and motorists were assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out the undertaking given in the other House.

LORD LOVAT

My Lords, I should like to raise a protest against passing this Bill as a machinery Bill in order that if the money should be forthcoming at a future time these regulations for the improvement of road and motor car traffic may come about. I want to protest against the setting up of such machinery. I think in the discussion we had in your Lordships' House on the Bill it was pretty generally agreed that there was a very strong feeling in the country against this legislation for motorists only. I need not recapitulate any of the arguments then put forward. Your Lordships will remember that there were protests from the united county councils of England and Scotland against some of the main principles of the Bill. There is not the least necessity now, as I say, to go into these points further, but might I just take up one other curious reason for which the House of Commons has rejected some of the Amendments put forward by this House? It objects to the Amendment to Clause 8, page 6, because it would alter the purposes for which advances may be made out of the Road Improvement Grant. The Amendment which your Lordships made to Clause 8 of the Bill added to the purposes in respect of which the Road Hoard might make advances to highway authorities that of contributing towards the extraordinary expenditure incurred in the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic. That is objected to on the ground of privilege. When this Bill was first brought into the House of Commons it dealt with motor traffic, and by your Amendment your Lordships were merely carrying out the original idea of the framers of the Bill. This seems to me to amount almost to a constitutional point, because apparently the House of Commons is able at any period of a debate to alter the whole construction of the Bill and we are unable to make any Amendment. If that is so we would be like a dog barking behind a carriage. As soon as they altered the Bill in one direction we should have to bark in that direction, and then at a subsequent period they might alter it again and we would have to bark in that direction. Really, my Lords, that seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, it does seem to me to be overlooked, when your Lordships are considering the course taken in another place, that the only items that appear on the Paper are merely the instances in which the Commons disagree with your Lordships' Amendments. The instances where they have agreed to your Lordships' Amendments are not shown, so that, just as in the case of the Housing and Town Planning Bill, there is on the face of the Paper, may I say, a kind of false appearance of hostility which does not represent the real nature of the case. There were a number of Amendments made by your Lordships which were agreed to in the House of Commons and to which no reference is made in the Order Paper which your Lordships are now considering.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Would the noble Earl tell us of any of those Amendments?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I can if I look through Hansard, because while the noble Marquess was speaking I made sure of my facts.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We shall be able to judge of the importance of the Amendments if the noble Earl will refer to them.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I hope the noble Marquess will excuse me going through them one by one, but if he will look on page 407 [Vol. 13, H.C. Deb.] he will see that a number of Amendments were agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry to press the noble Earl, but if he can mention even two of the Amendments he refers to we can judge of their importance.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I hope the noble Marquess will excuse me if I do not take the Amendments individually, particularly as I am afraid that were I to make a selection the noble Marquess would not be willing to accept my opinion as to their importance. Supposing that there are Amendments which are disagreed with in another place on another ground, on the ground of their merits as well as on the ground of privilege, is it not the case that the reason which is alleged for disagreement when it comes back to your Lordships' House is invariably the question of privilege rather than the question of merit? Why that may be so, I do not know. Noble Lords who sit on this side of the House know that however much we may urge merit with regard to an Amendment that plea is not always treated with the consideration which we think it deserves, and it may be that in another place it is thought that the assertion of privilege is more likely to meet with respect. The noble Marquess quoted what was said by Mr. Speaker in connection with Clause 8, and made much of the fact that Mr. Speaker then said that he did not wish to "smell out" these breaches of privilege. If the noble Marquess will inquire I think he will find that the Amendment with regard to Clause 8 was not a very important one. We do not deny for a moment that, with regard to these Amendments on Clause 8, Mr. Speaker seems to have treated them on a somewhat different footing from the others, but if the noble Marquess is content to accept without demur in the future the fact that when Mr. Speaker asserts that a breach of privilege has taken place that that is so, the arguments in this House will be very much simplified. The noble Marquess might have strengthened his argument about the way in which His Majesty's Government do accept Amendments which might be considered privileged by reference to another Bill, the Asylums Officers Bill which was discussed in another place a night or two ago. In chat case His Majesty's Government more than once waived the question of privilege. I say that in order to show that His Majesty's Government do not wish to stand too strictly on the letter of the law, but wish to consider in this matter the question of merit as well as privilege.

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, according to The Times report of the proceedings of the other House it appeared that the only Amendments agreed to were drafting Amendments, and every other Amendment was disagreed with except one. In that instance the Government actually moved that the House of Commons should agree with your Lordships' Amendment, but the Speaker pointed out that a question of privilege was involved, whereupon the Solicitor-General withdrew the Motion, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer afterwards said that the Amendment might be harmless, but he did not think it would improve the Bill, and that the Government would not waive any question of privilege on that matter, or, indeed, on any other matter.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out ("or company not trading for profit")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it alters the persons to whom advances may be made out of the Development Fund; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason, may be deemed, sufficient.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment. I find myself in some difficulty with regard to explaining the reasons of the Commons disagreement to these Amendments, because it will be remembered, no doubt, by noble Lords opposite that on another occasion it was suggested that the course of procedure might be somewhat shortened if in the less important instances I merely formally moved that the House do not insist on the Amendment and refrained from explaining the Commons reasons unless I was asked to do so. I propose to continue that procedure on the present occasion if agreeable to your Lordships.

Moved. That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 1, page 2, lines 10 and 11, leave out lines 10 and 11.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it alters the purposes for which advances may be made out of the Development Fund; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved, That this House do not insist on the said. Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 1, page 2, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, "1908") and insert ("any statute")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it alters the conditions under which advances may be made out of the Development Fund; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think, with regard to this Amendment, that we might ask the noble Earl to enlighten us as to the reasons of the Government for disagreeing.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

As the noble Marquess sees, the Commons allege privilege, and, in addition to that, in our opinion the Amendment is open to objection because on an examination of the purposes for which grants may already be made it will be seen that very few of them are subject to any statutory conditions. The most important purpose for which conditions are laid down by Statute is for the construction of light railways. Those conditions are contained in Section 5 of the Act of 1896, but under the Light Railways Act advances can be made to companies trading for profit, and conditions that might be proper in such a case are not necessarily proper where, as in this Bill, associations and companies trading for profit are excluded from among those bodies to whom advances may be made.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation, but it is not convincing. He says that very few of the purposes are subject to statutory conditions. I should have thought, therefore, that the Amendment could not do any harm. I think it shows that this is not a very important Amendment, and that the real ground on which the noble Earl wishes this to be agreed to is that it is a question of privilege.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 1, page 2, line 20, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection—

(4) No advance shall be made to any association of persons trading for profit, except to enable a public authority to secure within its area the construction, maintenance, and working of a light railway by a railway company, or of a pier or harbour by a Harbour Board or Harbour Commissioners.

The Commons disagree to the insertion of the new subsection (4) for the following reason:—

Because it alters the persons to whom advances may be made out of the Development Fund; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 1, page 2, line 20, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:—

(5) Before making any recommendation for an advance under this Part of this Act, the Development Commissioners shall consider the matter with special reference to the magnitude of the undertaking and the interests likely to be affected, and the extent and situation of any land necessary for the undertaking and whether such land is likely to be acquired by agreement, and if a majority of the Commissioners consider that their proposals should be laid before Parliament they shall forward a draft recommendation to the Treasury. The Treasury shall not act upon such draft recommendation until it has lain for thirty days during the Session of Parliament on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House during those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making by the Com missioners of a new draft recommendation.

The Commons disagree to the insertion of the new subsection (5) for the following reason:—

Because it imposes an unnecessary restriction on the powers of the Development Commissioners.

Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I will be obliged if the noble Earl will unfold some reason for this Amendment being disagreed to. The Amendment is disagreed to on the ground that it imposes some restrictions on the Development Commissioners. I should not have so read the subsection. I should have thought it an enabling and not a restricting subsection. If the Development Commissioners consider the matter to be one of sufficient magnitude, they are, under the section, empowered to come to the Treasury and to have their proposals laid before Parliament. There is no restriction upon the powers of the Development Commissioners. It is, on the contrary, a clause which would enable them, if they themselves felt that the issue was one of sufficient importance to resort to this special procedure which would to some extent relieve them of responsibility and give a wider publicity to the question at issue.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

The reason why this Amendment is objected to by His Majesty's Government is briefly this. I think it was a subsection which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. We think the subsection unnecessary for the reason that the money guaranteed by the Bill for the purposes of development is only £2,500,000 to be spread over five years. There are a number of years given to the Commissioners for development purposes, but if they were to inaugurate any very large scheme they would be obliged to get further money from Parliament, and in that way Parliamentary control would be secured. Under the Bill as it stands the sums of money expended will not be sufficiently large to make this recourse to Parliament necessary.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 4, page 4, lines 33 to 37, leave out subsection (4).

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because the information they may acquire in the course of the performance of their duties is likely to place the Commissioners in an advantageous position for framing well considered schemes of development; and it is inexpedient to deprive them of their power of framing such schemes.

Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 8, page 6, line 26, after ("roads") insert ("or towards meeting the extraordinary expenditure incurred by highway authorities on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it would alter the purposes for which advances may be made out of the Road Improvement Grant; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Perhaps the noble Earl will explain the Commons reasons for disagreeing with this.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

This Amendment is one which proposes that the Road Board should be empowered to make advances to highway authorities towards meeting the extra cost of repairing the roads due to motor traffic. I think your Lordships will see that that would mean that at any rate part of the Road Improvement Grant might be used for the purpose of reducing the existing charges on the rates. Similar proposals were made when the Bill was in another place, but they were resisted on the ground that the whole principle of the Road Improvement Grant would be violated if it was allowed to be used for that purpose—that is to say, for the relief of rates. The essential purpose of the fund is development, and it is obvious that if the grant is used for the relief of rates development would not substantially benefit, whereas if it is made applicable only to the construction of new roads and the improvement of existing roads some substantial benefit might be expected from the expenditure of the money, probably more beneficial than if it went in relief of rates.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It might have been inferred by a superficial listener to the noble Earl that the money would be necessarily diverted from development if the Lords Amendment were insisted upon. That, of course, is not the case. It is only an enabling provision. It enables the local authority, if they think fit, to spend part of the money in the maintenance of those roads which have been destroyed by this new motor traffic, which is really, of course, the very origin of this part of the Bill. The Government has chosen to refuse the Amendment. I am perfectly confident that the only part of the Bill which the great mass of the local ratepayers will care to have is that part which was inserted by your Lordships. I speak not only as a member of this House but as a member of a county council, and I knew quite well what the local ratepayers suffer from. They consider it an intolerable grievance that their rates should be raised through the destruction of the roads by other people's motors, motors which do not belong to the county and which pay nothing to the resources of the county. That is the grievance. It has put up the rates in my county many thousands of pounds, and this clause would give some relief to the ratepayers. Your Lordships' House desired to give that relief, but the Government has refused to give it, and I earnestly hope that when they have an opportunity of expressing their opinion the ratepayers will remember who are their friends.

LORD LOVAT

I should like to associate myself with what has fallen from the noble Marquess who has just spoken. I think that the ratepayers, represented by the county councils, are absolutely unanimous on this subject. Scotland, also, which is not supposed to be a particularly Conservative part of the kingdom, is absolutely unanimous. That decision was come to at a meeting of representatives held to discuss this very question.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 9, page 7, line 13, at the beginning of the subsection insert ("Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Part of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, except that the cost of maintenance of every such road shall be borne by the Road Board and")

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out the words ("the cost of maintenance of") and by substituting for the words ("borne by") the words ("maintainable by and at the cost of")

Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment, and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 9, page 8, line 5, after ("authority") insert ("and if, notwithstanding an objection made by a county council within such area, the Treasury consider that the construction of the proposed road shall not have effect unless and until after submission to Parliament by way of Provisional Order, it is confirmed by Parliament")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because the interests of county councils are sufficiently safeguarded without the Amendment; and the Amendment would enable the county Council to throw unnecessary expenditure on the Road Board, and to cause unnecessary delay.

Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Will the noble Earl kindly give us the reasons for this?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Before doing so might I refer to the question asked me by the noble Marquess just now, as to what Amendments of substance had been accepted by His Majesty's Government in another place. Firstly, there was an Amendment which demanded an inquiry before land is purchased for afforestation; secondly, an Amendment by the Duke of Devonshire transferring the appointment of the Development Commissioners to the Crown; thirdly, an Amendment with regard to the accounts of the fund; and, fourthly, one relating to the making of orders for the compulsory acquisition of land which I think your Lordships will find in the schedule. I am afraid I am out of order in answering that question now. With regard to this Amendment, your Lordships will see that it enabled any county council which objected to the construction of a new road by the Road Board to require procedure by way of Provisional Order. Clause 7, subsection (3), in our opinion provides ample safeguard that a fair hearing shall be given to any county council, and we do not think that a county council if it thinks itself aggrieved by the refusal of the Road Board to make an advance should throw upon the Board the expense and delay of a Provisional Order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 11, page 8, line 26, leave out from ("purpose") to the end of the subsection.

The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because the power of acquiring land likely to be benefited by the construction of a new road seems the best method for securing to the Road Board the increment in the value of the land due to expenditure of the Road Board.

Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 11, page 9, line 9, leave out from the first ("Act") to the end of subsection (5) and insert ("and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an order")

The Commons disagree to the said Amendment, but in lieu thereof propose on page 9, line 9, after the first ("Act")to insert ("and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an order")

Moved. That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment, and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 11, page 9, line 13, after subsection (5) insert the following new subsections—

(6) No land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which at the date of the order has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, but such an order may contain power to acquire compulsorily an easement over such land for the purpose of carrying any new road over or under the same, and shall in that case contain all such provisions as the Development Commissioners may deem necessary for the protection of the owners of such land and the prospective development thereof for the purposes of any such undertaking and for securing the safety of the public using the same and the free and uninterrupted passage of traffic thereover.

(7) Where, by the approval by the Treasury of the construction of a new road under this Part of this Act, any property is increased in value, the Road Board or the highway authority, in cases where a highway authority are authorised to construct a new road under this Part of this Act, if the Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, make a claim for the purpose within three months of the approval by the Treasury of the construction of the road, or of an order made by the Development Commissioners authorising the acquisition of land for the purpose of the road, whichever be the later, shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value such proportion of the expenditure of the Road Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, as failing agreement, in the opinion of an arbitrator, such person should pay having regard to the improvement in the value of such property.

(8) Any disputed question as to whether any property is increased in value within the meaning of this section or as to the amount and manner of payment (whether by instalments or otherwise) of the sum which the Road Board or the highway authority is entitled to recover, shall be determined by arbitration under this Act in accordance with the schedule to this Act.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because, as respects the new subsection (6), it may be necessary to acquire for the purposes of the new road land belonging to a corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking; and, as respects the new subsections (7) and (8), because they are proposed in substitution for the provision us to the acquisition of land at the side of the proposed new road which has been struck out by the Lords.

Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Leave out clause 18 and insert the following new clause B.—

B. In arranging the time for the execution of any work which has already been approved under this Act, and which involves the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had so far as is reasonably practicable to the general state and prospects of employment.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it alters the conditions under which advances may be made out of the Development Fund and the Road Improvement Grant, and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may he deemed sufficient.

Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 19, page 11, line 13, leave out from ("Parliament") to the end of subsection (3), and insert ("but this provision shall not apply to the acquisition of any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district:

"Provided that no order of the Development Commissioners under Part I or Part II of this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land which is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or to a private or local Act "of Parliament")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it unnecessarily restricts the power of acquisition of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment, for the purposes of the Bill.

THE EARL OF MEATH

My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships insist upon the retention of your Amendment to Clause 19. This clause has nothing whatever to do with privilege. The Amendments which were introduced by your Lordships were for the purpose of safeguarding commons and open spaces for the benefit of the masses of the people. It has sometimes been said that your Lordships take more interest in land than in any other subject, but it cannot be said that in this matter your Amendments are in any way connected with selfish interest. You are defending the interest of the poorest classes, and why the Government should go out of its way to strike out such Amendments is to me incomprehensible. For over fifty years the trend of legislation has been in the direction of safeguarding open spaces in the public interest, and I for one have devoted the greater part of my life to that object. Open spaces were proposed to be taken by the Commissioners for the purpose of afforestation and for making roads. An Amendment dealing with the latter object, moved by Lord Clinton, has safeguarded roads, but why should commons be covered with plantations? Who has asked for them? I have not met with a single individual who thought the Government proposal necessary, or seen a single line in any newspaper asking for such a thing. It is said that reasonable access will be afforded, but who, with any knowledge of what afforestation means, will put forward that contention? Afforestation means planting for beauty or for profit. If the planting is to be for beauty that means the planting of single trees, and certainly that is not intended. What is meant is the planting of portions of common land for profit. Not many of your Lordships will say that your attempts at afforestation have been profitable ventures. I, like others, have planted, because I think it will be for the good of the country, but my books show that I have not profited by it. It is not possible to grant access to planted land if the trees are intended to prosper; there will have to be close planting, and the land will have to be fenced. Suburban and metropolitan commons, it is said, are safeguarded. They are not safeguarded. There are portions of Epping Forest which are under rural jurisdiction, and this Bill only says metropolitan and suburban commons. Metropolitan means fifteen miles from the centre of London; suburban means five miles from a thickly-populated district; and there are many most useful commons such as Epping Forest, portions of which are open and which the verderers do not want to plant because they are of use to the public. I know the verderers are exceedingly anxious about this, and so also are the City of London, and I do hope your Lordships will insist on your Amendment for the sake of the public. In the other House this Amendment was supported, among others, by Sir Charles Dilke, who spoke strongly of the need of safeguarding our public spaces, and with due respect to His Majesty's Government, I do hope they will not insist on striking out your Lordships' Amendment.

Moved, That this House do insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Earl of Meath.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, the opinion of His Majesty's Government is that the clause as originally introduced provides an adequate safeguard for these open spaces which noble Lords on this side of the House are as anxious to keep open as the noble Earl himself. The subject has been carefully considered in consultation with the Commons Preservation Society, and the clause is assented to both by that Society and by the Government. In these circumstances I think the noble Earl may rest content, without fear of undue encroachment upon common rights. The effect of the Amendment the noble Earl wishes to retain will be to prevent the compulsory acquisition of any common land except by means of a Provisional Order, introducing thus an unnecessary safeguard, because there is nothing in this Bill likely to demand any very large acquisition of land of that kind. In view of the fact that the Commons Preservation Society, which is a society of experts, were content with the Bill as originally introduced, I venture to hope your Lordships will not press the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I am sorry the noble Earl does not see his way to meet my noble friend. This Amendment really stands in a somewhat different position from others. It is not an official Opposition Amendment, and when it was discussed at an earlier stage no objection was offered to it on behalf of the Government. If the Amendment goes too far, surely the Government might suggest some less objectionable formula. In the opinion of all interested in the preservation of commons the Bill, without the Amendment, will leave some of the most interesting and important commons highly vulnerable. Representations have been made to me in particular in reference to Epping Forest to the effect that, if the Bill remains as it is, there will be nothing to prevent the forest being disfigured by unsightly thoroughfares driven through the most interesting parts of it, and by the planting of formal plantations entirely out of harmony with the surroundings, which as each year goes by, under the present admirable management, become more beautiful and more valuable to the public. This is a point with regard to which both sides of the House, so far as general policy is concerned, desire that these open spaces should be protected, and I greatly regret that His Majesty's Government do not see their way to meeting us on this point.

THE EARL OF MEATH

With the leave of the House, might I point out to the noble Earl who replied to me that although it is perfectly true that the Commons Preservation Society agreed to the clause, yet they were forced into that agreement by His Majesty's Government. They have issued a circular with regard to this matter, and if your Lordships will permit me, I will read what they say— Under these circumstances the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society feels itself at liberty to join with the other Open Space Societies in expressing an earnest hope that the House of Commons will assent to these Amendments of the House of Lords, the more so as they are changes made in the interest of the public. The Open Space Societies are of opinion that adequate protection of the rights of the commoners and the interests of the public can only be secured by requiring a rigid adhesion to the established rule that the sanction of Parliament must be given to each scheme of enclosure…. The Open Space Societies venture to hope that the House of Commons will not disagree with the Amendments of the House of Lords to Clause 19 of the Development and Road Improvements Funds Bill, since those Amendments are calculated to protect the interests of the commoners and general public in commons and open spaces, and to uphold the important principle that such land shall not be alienated without Parliamentary sanction in each case.

On Question, Motion to insist on the Amendment negatived.

Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

In the Schedule, page 13, line 33, after ("otherwise") insert—

(5) An order may provide for the continuance of any existing easement or the creation of any new easement over the land authorised to be acquired, and every such order shall, if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired, provide for the creation of such new easements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired.

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out the following words, viz. ("and every such order shall if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired, provide for the creation of such new easements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired")

Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

In the Schedule, page 13, line 38, after ("easements") insert ("or in Scotland servitudes")

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—

Because it is desirable to generalise the definition, of "easement" in the application of the Bill to Scotland.

Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

In the Schedule, page 13, Line 39, after ("land") insert—

(7) In this schedule the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Development Commissioners.

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by adding the following words at the end of the paragraph viz. ("and in Scotland the expression' easements' means servitudes")

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, we did not think it desirable to put the House to the trouble of dividing with regard to these Amendments for reasons which I have already indicated, but we desire, before leaving this Bill, to put on record that we are quite unable to accept the reasons which have been alleged as sufficient for the rejection of the bulk of our Amendments. I will read to the House the Resolution which I propose to move:—"That this House, although not insisting upon the Amendments to the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill, does not accept the reasons offered by the Commons, or consent that the said reasons should hereafter be drawn into a precedent. The Bill, in the opinion of this House, involves questions of policy in which both Houses are concerned, and with which this House has in the past been accustomed to deal." The statements embodied in this Resolution are matters of fact and history, and I do not think it necessary to dwell upon them; but we desire that the Journals of your Lordships' House should contain a record of this kind which will make it clear to those who hereafter have to study these questions what exactly was the attitude taken up by your Lordships' House.

Moved to resolve: "That this House, although not insisting upon its Amendments to the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill, does not accept the reasons offered by the Commons, or consent that the said reasons should hereafter be drawn into a precedent: The Bill, in the opinion of this House, involves questions of policy in which both Houses are concerned, and with which this House has in the past been accustomed to deal."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-contents, 21.

CONTENTS.
Devonshire, D. Onslow, E. Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Marlborough, D. Plymouth, E. Clinton, L.
Powis, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Camden, M. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Hastings, L.
Lansdowne, M. Westmeath, E. Hindlip, L.
Salisbury, M. Wharncliffe, E. Lawrence, L.
Leith of Fyvie, L.
Churchill, V. [Teller.] Lovat, L.
Camperdown, E. Falkland, V. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Cathcart, E. Hardinge, V. Newton, L.
Cawdor, E. Hill, V. Northcote, L.
Clarendon, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) St. Levan, L.
Derby, K. Sanderson, L.
Harewood, E. Iveagh, V. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Lovelace, E.
Mansfield, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) Liverpool, E. Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.) Haversham, L.
Airedale, L. Lucas, L.
Allendale, L. MacDonnell, L.
Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.) Armitstead, L. Pentland, L.
Carrington, E. Colebrooke, L. [Teller.] Pirrie, L.
Craven, E. Denman, L. [Teller.] Saye and Sele, L.
Granville, E. Glantawe, L. Shuttleworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative accordingly.