Lords Sitting of 26 October 1909

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS (AMEND MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889—Was presented by The Lord Braye; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 209.)

THE VIVISECTION COMMISSION.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl who represents the Home Office a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can give the House any information as to when the Vivisection Committee are likely to send in their Report.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): I am afraid I am unable, in answer to the Question of the noble Earl, to fix any date. I understand that the draft of the Report is in an advanced stage of preparation, but the Chairman, Lord Selby, is unfortunately very unwell, and it is quite impossible to fix a definite date for the further proceedings of the Commission. I have no doubt, however, that the members of the Commission will take note of the Question of the noble Earl, and accept it as an indication on the part of the public of their wish for a speedy issue of the Report.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments considered (according to order).
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I understand that there are no Amendments to the Commons' Amendments until we come to Clause D on page 3 of the Paper, and therefore I beg to move that the Commons' Amendments down to the words "the City of Westminster" on that page be agreed to.
Moved, That the Commons' Amendments down to the words "the City of Westminster," on page 3, be agreed to.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
The Commons' Amendments embraced in this Motion were—
Clause 2, page 2, line 9, after ("direct") insert ("to the local authority of the district in which the land is situate and")
Clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out ("those") and insert ("such local authority")
Clause 2, page 2, line 13, after ("thereto") insert ("This section shall not apply to any station for transforming, converting, or distributing electrical energy")
Clause 4, page 3, line 8, after ("tramway") insert ("Provided that a Provisional Order authorising the breaking up of roads outside the area of supply of the local authority or company by whom the supply is to be given 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 that case they shall make a special report to Parliament, stating the ground on which they have dispensed with the consent")
Clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out ("authorise") and insert ("permit")
Clause 5, page 4, line 14, after ("laboratories") insert ("or observatories or laboratories now or hereafter erected, owned, or managed in pursuance of any present or future statutory enactment")
Clause 6, page 4, line 24, leave out from ("situate") to ("the") in line 28.
Clause 6, page 4, line 30, after ("situate") insert ("and the undertakers (if any) authorised to supply electricity to such premises"), and leave out ("authorise") and insert ("permit")
Clause 6, page 4, line 32, after ("fit") insert ("Provided that, if in the opinion of the Board of Trade, any consent required by this subsection is unreasonably withheld, the Board of Trade may proceed as if such consent had been given")
Clause 6, page 4, line 39, leave out ("authorised")
Clause 6, page 5, line 10, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:
(4) Nothing in this section shall enable the Board of Trade, without the consent of the undertakers within whoso area of supply the premises are situate, to give such permission as aforesaid to any undertakers where the last-mentioned undertakers are by any Act of Parliament specifically prohibited from supplying electricity within the area of the first-mentioned undertakers.
Leave out clause 13 and insert the following new clause:
A. The Board of Trade shall from time to time make a return to Parliament giving such particulars as they may think proper with regard to the reports made by any auditors appointed by them to audit the accounts of any undertakers, and any action taken on such reports by the Board.
Leave out clause 16, and insert the following new clause:
B. All electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances let by any undertakers on hire or belonging to any undertakers, but being in or upon premises of which the undertakers are not in possession, shall, whether they be or be not fixed or fastened to any part of any premises in or upon

419
which they may be situate, or to the soil under any such premises, at all times continue to be the property of, and be removable by the undertakers, and sections twenty-four and twenty-five of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, shall extend and apply to all such electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances. Provided that such electric lines, fittings, apparatus, or appliances have upon them respectively a distinguishing metal plate affixed to a conspicuous part thereof, or a distinguishing brand or other mark conspicuously impressed or made thereon sufficiently indicating the undertakers as the actual owners thereof.
For the purposes of this section, electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances disposed of by the undertakers on terms of payment by instalments shall, until the whole of the instalments have been paid, be deemed to be electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances let on hire by the undertakers. Nothing in this section shall affect the amount of the assessment for rating of any premises upon which any electric lines, fittings, apparatus, or appliances are, or shall be, fixed.
After clause 20 insert the following new clause:
C. Money borrowed under the Electric Lighting Acts shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of a local authority for the purpose of any limitation or borrowing under the enactments relating to borrowing by the local authority.
Clause 21, page 11, line 20, after ("arbitration") insert ("This section shall not apply to the station of the Westminster Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, at Horseferry Road, in the city of Westminster")
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE*THE EARL OF DUNMORE moved to amend the new Clause D which the Commons had inserted in the place of Clause 22. The Commons' Amendment ran—
Leave out clause 22, and insert the following new clause:
D. Where in any area a local authority, company, or person is authorised to supply electricity under Act of Parliament or under licence or Provisional Order granted under the Electric Lighting Acts, it shall not, after the passing of this Act, be lawful for any other local authority, company, or person to commence to supply, distribute, or transmit electricity within the same area unless such supply, distribution, or transmission is authorised by Act of Parliament, or by licence or Provisional Order granted in terms of the Electric Lighting Acts. Provided that this section shall not prevent any company or person from affording a supply of electrical energy to any other company or person where the business of the company or person affording the supply is not primarily that of the supply of electrical energy to consumers.
The noble Earl said: In moving the Amendment of which I have given notice may I say that I have cut out the words "transmit" and "transmission" in Clause D of the Commons' Amendments. Under this clause, as at present drafted, a company
420
may afford a supply of electrical energy to any other company subject to the provision at the end of the clause. There can be no reason why that same company should not be able by private arrangement to transmit electrical energy subject to the same provision. The question really is one of wayleaves. If any one else's land is in between it will be necessary to obtain power from Parliament, under the clause as at present drafted, in order to transmit the supply of electrical energy across that land. I do not think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will object to my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In new Clause D of the Commons' Amendments, line 6, after the word 'supply,' to insert the word 'or'; to leave out the words 'or transmit'; in line 7, after the word 'supply,' to insert the word 'or' and to leave out the words 'or transmission' in the same line."—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: There is no objection to the Amendment as regards the transmission of electricity.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELPER: The Amendment which I have to propose is also to Clause D, which was inserted in the House of Commons after the Committee stage had been concluded. The effect of the Amendment is to meet a difficulty with regard to a practical agreement which had been come to by the Midland Railway Company to have power supplied to them for some large new works at Derby. The difficulty arose in consequence of part of those works being within the town of Derby; and without wishing to strike out the whole of the Amendments in Clause D I have tried to arrange a reasonable means of meeting the difficulty by the insertion of words at the end of Clause D. The point is not a very large one, but I think it is only fair that some means should be found of meeting such a difficulty, and I think the Amendment that I propose will not only commend itself to your Lordships' House, but also to the other House of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
"At the end of new clause D of the Commons' Amendments to insert ' Provided also that this section shall not prevent any company who at the passing of this Act are empowered by their Memorandum of Association to generate electrical

421
energy from affording a supply to a railway company for purposes incidental to that company's undertaking other than the conveyance of public traffic.'"—(Lord Belper.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: This new Clause D was inserted in the other House of Parliament because certain established undertakers were afraid of an undertaking which had been set up in Scotland whereby certain unauthorised undertakers proposed to give a supply of electricity for commercial purposes. The fear of the authorised undertakers was that these people might take some of the plums of their business, that they might supply to their best customers, and they thought that this was not fair to them. I think the general feeling was that there was a good deal in that contention. However, the Government did not see their way to accept the clause which was originally proposed for the protection of the authorised undertakers, because it would have prevented a man who had a generating station at his residence or works from giving a supply to his neighbours by private arrangement, except with the consent of the authorised undertakers. The Government thought that that clause went rather too far; but eventually another clause was brought forward in the form in which it now appears on the Paper, and that clause the Government accepted. Your Lordships will observe that the prohibition to supply only exists in cases where there is an authorised undertaker in the district, and your Lordships will also observe that it does not apply where the unauthorised supply was commenced before the passing of this Act, I had hoped that this proviso would meet any complaint as to a hard case on account of interference with existing undertakings. Of course, your Lordships will see that it is desirable as a general rule that undertakings for the supply of electricity to customers should be under statutory authority, and we think that it is in the interests, not only of the consumers but of the local authority as well, that that should be so. I am very sorry that the case which the noble Lord has referred to does not come under that exemption, but our position is this, that as the Government accepted the clause in the other House I am not prepared to agree to the Amendment, which the promoters of the clause as it stands may think goes beyond the case aimed at, and it might, in their view, nullify the clause. I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but if he wishes
422
to press it I shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing against it.
LORD BELPER: It is a very important clause to us, and I am certainly going to press it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: The Amendment which I now move provides that this section—Clause D—as amended by the House of Commons, shall not prevent any company from affording a supply of electrical energy to any other company or person who are shareholders, or other persons associated with the company affording the supply. The reason for this is that power companies have often failed to give the supply contemplated, and manufacturers and consumers of electricity have, therefore, not hitherto been able to benefit largely from supplies given by power companies. It is not infrequent for a manufacturer who has a large electrical plant to afford a supply to his friends and neighbours, the result being that through the better load factor and lower cost of supply the cost all round is reduced. Under Clause D of the Commons' Amendments this principle is recognised; but the principle has in certain instances been further developed, and it is not uncommon for a supply on co-operative lines to be arranged for—that is to say, instead of a manufacturer supplying other companies—which he can do under this clause as it stands, subject to the provision at the end of the clause—for those other companies to join in the cost of putting down the plant. To take a concrete case, assume that a colliery company is about to put down coking plant and proposes to adopt the German method of utilising the waste gases and heat for the purpose of driving electrical plant. As Clause D stands, so long as the colliery company finds the capital itself it could supply its neighbours with electrical energy, subject to that last provision in Clause D; but if the colliery company's neighbours join in putting down the plant, it becomes at once a question which is the primary and which is the subsidiary object—that is to say, whether the generation of electrical energy is the primary object and coke the by-product or vice versa. The neighbouring local authority would naturally contend the former and apply for an injunction. I see no objection myself to this

423
co-operative method of supplying electrical energy to two or three companies, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the words 'this section shall not prevent any company from affording a supply of electrical energy to any other company or person who are shareholders in or otherwise associated with the company affording the supply.'"—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I think I have some right to complain that I have only had notice of this Amendment five minutes before the sitting of the House. As the Commons' Amendments have been before your Lordships since the middle of August, I think I have some cause of complaint of the lateness of the notice given of this particular Amendment. But what I would say with regard to it is this. I explained to your Lordships the reason on account of which the Government accepted this new Clause D; it was because we wished to prevent any unauthorised persons from poaching in the areas of the authorised undertakers for the supply of electricity; but we do not wish to prevent a supply between neighbours; nor do we wish to interfere with arrangements which have been entered into before the passing of the Act. I think the suggestion of the noble Lord, however, really goes a good deal beyond that, because, as I understand, what he proposes amounts practically to a co-operative company for the supply of electricity within certainly a limited area, and as that goes very much further than was contemplated when the exception was agreed to I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: As regards the co-operative supply for the provision of electrical energy, they would be subject to the same provision as under Clause D of the Commons' Amendments. They would not be able to supply electrical energy to anybody if their business was primarily that of supplying electrical energy to consumers. It is a small point and it comes to this, whether one company can provide electricity to, say, two other companies for their own consumption, or whether those three companies may join together in putting down plant to provide themselves with electrical energy. That is the whole point of my contention. I do not wish to press my Amendment unless I receive some support from the House.
LORD BELPER: The difference between this Amendment and Clause D as it stands is, as my noble friend says, an extremely narrow one. It is very difficult to see how the Amendment as it stands can be defended, because, as it seems to me, if two of these companies agreed together they might easily have a private agreement for one of them to be the supplier and to supply the others. The line is so very narrow that I hardly see myself how you can defend an Amendment which allows a company to supply to three or four other companies but does not allow two of those companies to join together and each pay their share of supplying it to the two other individuals. It really comes down to a point of very small difference, and the only question is whether it will not be got round even if the clause is left to stand as it is.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Commons' Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I beg to move that your Lordships agree to the remaining Commons' Amendments—viz.
Clause 23, page 12, line 25, after ("gas") insert ("or water")
Clause 24, page 13, line 2, after ("electricity") insert ("to whom the Electric Lighting Acts apply")
Clause 24, page 13, line 6, leave out ("or works")
Clause 24, page 13, line 7, leave out from ("electricity") to the end of line 8.
Clause 24, page 13, line 18, leave out from ("places") to the end of the clause.
Clause 25, page 13, line 29, after ("June") insert ("Section ninety-nine of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as applied by section forty-four of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, shall be read as if the words ' subject to the provisions of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, or any Act or Acts amending or superseding the same 'were repealed")
In the Schedules, First Schedule, page 14, line 16, after ("Acts") insert ("and the expression 'company' in the Railways Act (Ireland), 1851, the Railways Act (Ireland), 1860, and the Railways Act (Ireland), 1864, means the undertakers under the Electric Lighting Acts")
Moved, That the remaining Commons' Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and Bill returned to the Commons.

SMALL DWELLING HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said he desired to move the omission of Clause 12—
12. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of all Acts applicable within the respective burghs in which this Act may be in force with regard to the liability for and the imposition and recovery of any assessment shall subsist in full force and effect, subject to the following provisions (that is to say):—
In the burghs named in Schedule II of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892—

(a) Sections throe hundred and forty-five and three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and any corresponding provisions of any local Act shall not apply or be made applicable by adoption to small dwelling-houses of a rent or yearly value not exceeding ten pounds;

(b) Assessments which may by law be imposed or chargeable upon the occupier of a small dwelling-house may be made payable, should the assessing authority so determine, in such instalments as may be fixed by the assessing authority, and the occupier for the time being shall be liable to pay the instalments of such assessments corresponding with the period of his occupancy, although his name may not be entered as such occupier in the valuation roll: Provided that no occupier shall be liable for any instalment of such assessments for any portion of the year after he has ceased to be the occupier;

(c) Any such instalment of any assessment falling to be paid after the commencement of a financial year and before the date of the imposition of the assessment for that year shall be calculated, charged, and payable on the basis of the corresponding assessment for the preceding financial year, and it shall be lawful for an assessing authority to demand and enforce payment of any such instalment;

(d) The owner of every small dwelling-house shall, in addition to making the returns falling to be made by him in accordance with the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, intimate to the assessing authority every notice given or received by him in terms of the section of this Act the marginal note of which is "Notice to terminate tenancy" within three days of the giving or the receiving thereof, and shall also intimate the name of every new tenant, the rate of his rent, and the period of his tenancy within three days after the commencement of each new tenancy, and any owner wilfully failing to do so, or making or causing to be made any false intimation, shall be liable in a penalty not exceeding forty shillings,

426
and to substitute for it a long clause which their Lordships would see upon the Paper. It was an important Amendment, but it did not in any way go to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill had reference to letting houses, and it was, in the first place, that no agreement should be binding which was made two months before the entry took place; and, in the second place, power was given to any house-owner or tenant to terminate the tenancy, provided that sufficient notice was given, at the time of the next payment of rent. The third portion of the principle of the Bill was that which freed from the right of hypothec the goods of a tenant up to £10. The Amendment which he was going to propose affected only the manner in which rates were to be imposed and levied. That was a subsidiary matter altogether, although in this case a very important one. It was specially important in the case of Glasgow, and really the Bill was started by Glasgow and some of the large towns where the population was migratory, and it had comparatively little effect in and certainly was not taken much interest in by the other towns. They were all indifferent to the Bill, except in so far as they opposed it in its altered form. Their wishes, as he would show their Lordships presently, were met by his Amendment.
The effect of the Bill would be largely to increase the number of what were termed short lets—that was to say, lets which were for less than the term of one year—in the large towns, and it was because those lets would be increased that the whole question of the difficulty of the imposition and collection of rates arose. Under Section 343 of the Burgh Police Act, which had been adopted in most of the towns in Scotland and which it was in the power of all the remaining towns to adopt whenever they saw fit, the landlord was responsible for the rates of his tenant where the let was a short one. The demand for the rates was made upon the occupier and the rate was imposed upon the occupier, but if the occupier failed to meet his obligation then recourse was had to the owner, and their Lordships must bear in mind that that was the essential difference between the system of compounding and the system which was established under the Burgh Police Act. The question really was how ought the increased risk which would fall upon the owners under the Bill to be met.
Ever since the Second Reading of the Bill,

427
a number of their Lordships connected with Scotland who had taken great interest in the matter had had the point under consideration, and when the Bill went into Committee a proposal was made which he himself, he thought, moved, and which they hoped at that time would meet the case. That was taken exception to by the City of Glasgow, and ever since that time the Scottish Peers, with the very able and laborious assistance of Mr. Scott Dickson and Mr. Clyde, who had a very minute acquaintance, as their Lordships were all aware, as leading members of the Scottish Bar with Scottish rating law, had had the matter under almost continuous consideration. In the first place, when the City of Glasgow objected to the clause which now stood in the Bill the house-factors and house-owners also raised objections, and therefore it appeared that it would be useless to insist upon Clause 12 and that it was desirable to find some substitute. It was a very technical matter which could not be at all interesting to their Lordships, and he did not intend to go into the detail of it. They then considered the matter, and devised another clause which they hoped at one moment was agreed to, but unfortunately their expectations were falsified, because the house-owners and factors objected. He put down a clause which he believed embodied agreement and which he had hoped to move on Report, but when the Report stage was reached he found it was desirable not to move the clause. They had been considering the matter ever since, and after a fortnight of more trouble, owing to the change of mind which he thought was chiefly on the part of the house-owners and factors, they had come to the conclusion that their difference was really whittled down to a very small point.
Everybody was agreed, with respect to the additional risk to which house-owners would be exposed, that there ought to be a scale of deduction applicable to them in regard to their liability for the rates of their tenants; and the difficulty really only was with regard to the question whether the scale of deduction should be originated and started by the Sheriff under the Bill, or whether, on the other hand, the Bill should contain a fixed scale of rates of deduction which after a period should be subject to revision by the Sheriff if ten persons who were interested thought it desirable. To cut a long story short, they came to the conclusion that the latter was, upon the
428
whole, the more desirable way of proceeding, and, as their Lordships would see, that was embodied in the Amendment. There were other matters in the Amendment, but they were really matters of detail with which he did not think it necessary to trouble their Lordships at the moment, and therefore he proposed to explain very briefly the contents of the Amendment itself.
He proposed, in the first place, for the reasons which he had given to their Lordships, to leave out Clause 12. With regard to what he proposed to substitute, if their Lordships would turn to the Amendment, they would see in the first four lines the words, "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions with regard to the liability for and the imposition and recovery by an assessing authority of any assessment of all Acts applicable within the respective burghs in which this Act may be in operation shall subsist in full force and effect." The effect of those words was to preserve for all burghs except burghs with a population of above 50,000 their present modes of proceeding in the way of imposing and collecting rates. That was what the burghs originally asked for, and that was part of the clause which their Lordships would see was now in the Bill and which it was proposed to continue by his Amendment. That was all that the burghs asked for, and people ought to be content with obtaining all that they asked for.
If their Lordships read on, they would see that in the larger burghs, those above 50,000, there were certain provisions to apply and have effect. The first would be found in the proviso that where a small dwelling-house was let for a year or longer and the rent was payable more frequently than once in three months, that was to be deemed for the purposes of the section as a letting for less than a year. The object of that was that supposing any one were to let a house for twelve or even for fourteen months, and were to require the rent to be paid at monthly intervals, it would be possible then for him to entirely evade the provisions of Section 345 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act. It seemed to them that that was an undeniable fact, and therefore they thought it was desirable to insert this provision in the clause. The next thing he wished to call their Lordships' attention to was that they had departed so far from the provisions of Section 345 as to limit them to small dwellings instead

429
of land and premises which were the words in that section. His Amendment was one which was distinctly in favour of the house-owners. Again, he had included on the next page, in Section 2 (1), Section 346. That, again, was another change which was asked for by the house-owners.
Then there followed a scale of deductions which was fixed at seven and a-half per cent. in one case, five per cent. in another, and three per cent. in the case of houses where the rental was above £10, but did not exceed £20. The three per cent. in the case of houses of a rental above £10 was also in favour of the house-owners. They had adopted those fixed figures in connection with another Amendment which came later, and which dealt with the question of empty houses. He need not explain it to their Lordships at length, but the result was that where the owner could show that the house was neither let nor occupied during a certain period of the year he would be able to reclaim the amount of his assessment which he might have paid in respect of that house for that period. Those three Amendments would all have to be taken together as part of one arrangement, and they understood that that arrangement, if taken as a joint one, would be looked upon as satisfactory. They had not proceeded, when fixing the amounts, on their own unaided judgment. They had actually been suggested by a gentleman in Glasgow who was very familiar with the house agency business, and on the whole they thought that they could hardly go wrong in adopting the figures which he had suggested. There were other matters in the clause which if their Lordships desired it he could explain, but he thought that he had explained the whole principle of the Amendment. He could only say that the noble Lords representing Scotland who took part in it, and also Mr. Clyde and Mr. Scott Dickson, bestowed an enormous amount of time and trouble upon the matter. It was necessary, of course, to put something into the Bill, and all he could say was that his Amendment represented a conclusion unanimously arrived at after a very long inquiry.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 12, and to insert the following new clause:
12. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions with regard to the liability for and the Imposition and recovery by an assessing authority of any assessment of all Acts applicable within
430
the respective burghs in which this Act may be in operation shall subsist in full force and effect, provided that in the application of section three hundred and forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, in any burgh which, at the date of the census of nineteen hundred and one, Contained a population of fifty thousand or upwards, the following provisions shall apply and have effect (that is to say):—
(1) Section three hundred and forty-five and three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, shall be read and construed as if the following provision were added thereto and contained therein (that is to say):—
Provided that where small dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Small Dwelling-Houses in Burghs Letting and Hating (Scotland) Act, are let for a year or longer and the rent is payable or paid more frequently or at shorter intervals than once in three months, such dwelling-houses shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to be let for less than a year.
(2)—(i) Every assessing authority shall, in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling-houses allow to owners from all occupiers' assessments levied on and paid by them in place of the occupiers, under and in terms of section three hundred and forty-five or section three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended by any subsequent Act, a deduction to cover cost of collection and risk of loss on the following scale (that is to say):—

(A) Where the yearly rent or value entered on the valuation roll exceeds four pounds but does not exceed seven pounds, seven and one-half per centum;

(B) Where the said yearly rent or value exceeds seven pounds but does not exceed ten pounds, five per centum; and

(C) Where the said yearly rent or value exceeds ten pounds but does not exceed the limit of rental fixed by this Act, three per centum:

Provided that, after such scale of deduction has been in operation in any such burgh for a period of not less than three years, it shall be competent for the assessing authority, or for any ten or more persons having an interest, to present a petition to the sheriff for reconsideration of such scale, and the decision of the sheriff, after such intimation by advertisement or in such other manner as he thinks fit, and after such inquiry, if any, as he may deem necessary, shall be final, but after the expiry of a period of not less than five years from the date of such decision, and thereafter at intervals of not less than five years from the date of the final interlocutor by the sheriff on the reconsideration of such scale, the scale may, subject to like procedure, be resubmitted to the sheriff for reconsideration.

(ii) Every such owner shall have relief against the occupiers for the full amount of such assessments without deduction.

(iii) Every such owner shall have the same claims and remedies for recovery from the occupiers of such assessments and rent as for the recovery of rent alone.

(3)—(i) Notwithstanding the payment by the owner of occupiers' assessments in respect of the occupancy of a small dwelling-house, if any small dwelling-house in respect of which such payment has been made shall not be let or occupied for the whole period for which assessments have been paid, the owner shall, upon lodging, on or before dates to be fixed by the respective assessing authorities, with the clerk to any such authority, or with such

431
other officer as such authority may appoint for the purpose, a claim therefor, which shall set forth the period or periods during which the small dwelling-house was not let or occupied and a declaration to the effect that no rent or other consideration was due or was or is to be paid or given for such period or periods, be entitled to repayment from such authority of the proportionate amount of such assessments for the said period or periods.

(ii) In the case of any small dwelling-house appearing in the valuation roll as unlet, the owner, on receipt of a requisition from an assessing authority, shall forthwith furnish such authority with a return containing particulars of any period or periods during which such small dwelling-house has been let or occupied, and the owner shall be liable to pay the proportionate amount of assessments for the said period or periods as if such small dwelling-house had not appeared in the valuation roll as unlet.

(iii) Any owner knowingly making or causing to be made any false statement in or in connection with any claim, declaration, or return under this section, or failing to make any such return, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, I have some observations of a general character to make, and I will postpone dealing with the Amendment of the noble Earl until the Motion that the Bill do pass.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN asked whether they might not at once have the opinion of His Majesty's Government upon the proposal of his noble friend below the Gangway. He spoke with great diffidence upon the subject of Scottish rating, but as far as he understood it the Amendment of his noble friend introduced a new system of compounding.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, not compounding. Compounding was where the owner was directly called upon to pay the rates. The system which was established under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, was that the occupier was rated and was called upon to pay the rate, and if he failed to pay then the owner in the case of a short let always became liable for the rate which the occupier had failed to pay, and the occupier, of course, was not eligible for the municipal register.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN asked if, when the owner became liable, he received the same kind of allowance as was given in England.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN replied in the affirmative.
LORD PENTLAND: No. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for raising that point. There is no allowance under the Burgh Police Act whatever, and the provisions for compounding, if we may so describe it, under the Burgh Police Act consequently have no operation.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN agreed that the noble Lord was perfectly correct with regard to the Burgh Police Act as it stood, but he thought they were speaking of the Burgh Police Act as affected by his clause.
LORD PENTLAND: I beg the noble Earl's pardon.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that his clause did institute certain rates of deduction.
LORD PENTLAND: I did not wish to occupy the time of your Lordships' House at this moment, because I desired to make some comments on the Bill as a whole as altered by your Lordships. The Amendments of the noble Earl who has just spoken are in some degree a reversion to the Bill as it came from the House of Commons, although with certain important differences and modifications which very largely nullify the value of the approximation to the Government proposals which the noble Earl now shows in his Amendment. Your Lordships have taken control of the Bill, and it is not possible for the Government to consider that the plan now proposed by the noble Earl is a substitute for the proposals which were laid before you when the Bill came to your Lordships' House from another place. Therefore I had not thought of animadverting upon the matter at any length.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The noble Lord agrees, however, that the Amendment is an improvement on the Bill as it now stands?
LORD PENTLAND: It is, to a very limited extent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend Clause 17—
17. Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the provisions of section seventy two of the Waterworks Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1847,

433
by leaving out the word "Scotland." He said that his Amendment was purely a drafting one, and that the word "Scotland" appeared by mistake.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 13, to leave out 'Scotland.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN next moved to insert at the end of Clause 17 words providing that owners should not be entitled to any deduction from the water rates payable by them. The Clause stated that nothing in this Bill should prejudice or affect the provisions of Section 72 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847. He would have thought that that exempted Clause 72 of the Waterworks Clauses Act altogether, and it was quite clear that those who were under the provisions of that Act would not be affected. There was an Edinburgh company, however, which supplied water, and which was under an apprehension that unless the Amendment which stood in his name was inserted owners would be entitled to deduct from the water rates which they were now liable for under the Waterworks Act those deductions which had reference to the municipal rate. He himself would have thought it was quite clear that that was not so, but the persons in question were very persistent in the matter and seemed anxious about it, and he did not see that there could be any harm in inserting the words.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 13, after '1874,' to insert 'nor entitle the owners to any deduction from the water rates payable by them in virtue of the said section.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD PENTLAND: It is always objectionable I am informed, as a matter of drafting, to put in redundant or superfluous passages in legislation. That is my objection to the words. I am advised that they are not necessary; but if the noble Earl presses them I will say no more.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do pass, I would like to be allowed to state to you as well as I am able exactly what has happened in regard to this Bill. The Bill came up to your Lordships'
434
House practically with the unanimous support of the Scottish Members—a non-party measure—after being thoroughly considered in Grand Committee and with an unusually large body of Scottish opinion behind it. Your Lordships in Committee amended it seriously at the instance of the noble Earl opposite, and you have now amended it again on his initiative. I well know the great trouble that he and others have been to in endeavouring to grapple with this question, but the result of this alteration of the Bill has not. I think, been a happy one, and I cannot believe that it has secured the support of those interested for the Bill; and from various directions I have indications that this cannot be at any rate considered as the last of the vicissitudes of this measure. In the first place the house-owners, to which the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, made frequent allusion, have, as he knows, protested strongly against the proposals which he has now put into the Bill. I have had communications by letter and by telegram, and I see reports in the papers of meetings which they have had, strongly protesting against this solution which has now been adopted by your Lordships' House.
Then I notice that in the Amendments which have been inserted the noble Earl has made three important changes. His solicitude for the ratepayer feeling the burden of the personal payment that he has to make in respect of rates is gone, because he does not re-introduce the Government provision which was intended to impress upon the ratepayer the amount of his personal share and contribution to I he rates. Then, again, the provision for more frequent collection of rates by municipalities is gone, and as the noble Earl himself pointed out he has been forced to accept some scale, although not considered by them satisfactory, of allowance to house-owners for the collection of rates. There are other grounds on which there is still serious opposition to this Bill. At the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, the limits of rental were introduced. I have a strong protest against that. Again at the instance of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, parish councils were cut out of the Bill. I endeavoured to call his attention, when that operation was being performed, to the fact that the rates collected by the parish councils in Scotland amount to something like thirty-eight per cent. of the total sum collected in rates in Scotland. By cutting the parish councils

435
out of this Bill, which purports to provide for more frequent removals and short lets, your Lordships are placing the parish councils at a considerable disadvantage. The scheme of the noble Earl is intended to meet the difficulties of the municipalities, but he does in no sense meet the difficulties of the parish councils. Parish councils can only recover their rates from the occupier whose name is on the valuation roll. That occupier has a right of recovery from subsequent occupiers, but that is a worthless power because the other occupiers may have gone east, west, north and south, and he cannot recover from them, so that the parish councils are left crippled. They have not the same security under the new system as they have at present for the collection of their rates, and obviously their whole influence will be thrown against the introduction of the system under this Bill. Your Lordships have cut away the security for the collection of their rates, and made no provision whatever for meeting their difficulties, whereas they as bodies all over Scotland are really responsible for nearly two-fifths of the total sum collected in rates. So that your Lordships have the house-owners dissatisfied, you have the working men dissatisfied, and you have the parish councils dissatisfied, the cumulative effect of the whole thing being that practically the scheme of the Bill has been entirely destroyed. Your Lordships have one perfectly clear motive, or rather the noble Earl has, in doing this—namely, the antipathy to compounding. The noble Earl has a strong aversion to compounding.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My aversion is to increasing compounding.
LORD PENTLAND: I will pass from that point. It is a small one. In theory I am perfectly prepared to admit that the practice of composition and compounding is open to grave objection; but, after all, you cannot say that in a world of change everything is to be subject to change except this one very limited question of composition for rates for small houses. The effect of such a proposition would be to lose all perspective; it is altogether too rigid and confined a view. Look at the experience in England under the Reform Act of 1867, by which the composition of rates was abolished. A very violent agitation sprang up throughout the country at the abolition of compounding, and in the following year, 1868, the Government had to appoint a Committee to consider the
436
whole question. So great was the confusion and difficulty throughout the country that they appointed a Committee, on which the noble Viscount opposite served, and also another noble Lord in this House, Lord Eversley. That Committee were divided in their recommendations, and the Government, the following year, when they passed the Bates Act applying to England, threw over the Committee and practically re-introduced the system of compounding for workmen's houses in England. When that is known it is impossible to deny that the claim of the Scottish workmen for a similar privilege is an extremely strong one, and it is impossible also to believe that their claim will ever be forgotten so long as the exigencies of their occupations oblige them to move from place to place, and so long as the limitations of their income make it an extremely important thing to them whether or not they are to have too large a house on their hands and are unable to make a change.
I am afraid that the whole mischief, if I may venture to say so, and the main substance of the antipathy to the system of compounding come from a fear of its indirect influence in possibly increasing the franchise. Some noble Lords who criticised this Bill really see nothing in it but a covert attempt to increase the franchise to these working men in Scotland. A noble Lord says "Hear, hear." If your Lordships would only believe me these working men cannot afford to look at this question from the point of view of political organisers. They are poor men, finding a great difficulty in making a living as it is, and this is a serious subtraction from their slender income which in times of depression of trade makes a substantial difference to them. This agitation draws none of its strength from any desire on the part of the working men to obtain votes. As I told your Lordships on the Second Reading, their habit is to pay for everything by instalments—food, clothes, furniture, everything. They are obliged by the circumstances of their income, which is also paid by instalments frequently, to pay for everything by instalments, and they want this system of house-letting to fit the conditions of their life and their labour.
There are two great classes who are affected by this Bill. In the first place, there is the class of working man who is obliged to follow his labour. He goes from Glasgow to the Tyne, or from the Tyne to Belfast, according as shipbuilding is in progress.

437
He is obliged to follow his work, and his home is broken up, we may say, every year, or at smaller intervals when he goes in search of his work. There is also a very large community of humble people who, either from an increase in their families, in which case they wish to have enlarged dwellings, or because of the death of the breadwinner of the family the widow wishes to limit her expenditure at once. Large classes of these people, who feel their circumstances keenly, wish a more elastic system of house letting, in order to fit their slender circumstances. I only wish I could have any hope that my words would be of the least avail in inducing your Lordships to believe that there is no political motive whatever in the minds of the Scottish working men in endeavouring to see this grievance remedied. The noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, in Committee, speaking with his experience as Lord Mayor of Belfast, said that they must have compounding there. Compounding is the universal experience in England, as I have related to your Lordships, and it is only Scotland which is denied this privilege.
Now, my Lords, may I say one word as to what this dread amounts to. In the first place, these men are all taxpayers, and as taxpayers they are contributing to the revenue of the country, and even as taxpayers their claim to a Parliamentary vote is not an inconsiderable one. But let us look at the considerations from the point of view of rates. Take any figure you like as the probable addition to the number of ratepayers of Glasgow by this Bill. The present system is that they pay their rates in a lump sum at the end of the year, and it may be quite true that they are not able in many instances to pay that lump sum, accustomed as they are to pay for everything else by instalments. It may be quite true that the exacting of that lump sum at the end of the year may cause them to default, and for that reason they may be struck off the Parliamentary roll. To my mind, my Lords, that of itself constitutes a considerable injustice—that the conditions of payment should not be better adjusted to the conditions of work and labour. But may I point out to your Lordships that this is a Bill for increasing short lets and therefore increasing removals, and in proportion as it increases removals it will militate against any extension of the franchise, because the franchise compels a considerable residence as a condition of qualifying for voting. Let
438
me also point out this. It is only when men pay their rates with their rents that they will be so qualified in future. The men who do not pay their rates will probably not pay their rents, and they will be turned out of their houses and will lose their votes. The men who do pay their rents will pay their rates, and they will be properly and fairly qualified, I think, to vote.
As a matter of fact, this is a Bill which would secure, if it were in its original form, results with which I am sure your Lordships would sympathise. It would secure a more regular and systematic collection and payment of rates, because it would make it easier for working men to pay rates than it is under the present system. That is really the source of the support which municipalities give to this Bill, that it would secure a more prompt and full payment of rates, because the conditions which it proposes to introduce would further that end. Incidentally it might increase the franchise. I have given reasons for thinking that that increase would not be considerable, but your Lordships will not allow the beneficent operation of this Bill simply because in your opinion it will increase the franchise to these working men.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Lord Pentland.)
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON was sorry that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland should have charged them with taking the control of the Bill out of his hands, because he could assure him that they had really done nothing of the kind. They had not touched one part of the main principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was, as the noble Lord himself had said, to deal with short lets. Those clauses dealing with short lets remained in the Bill exactly as they were brought before their Lordships' House. The grievance which was complained of in Scotland had nothing whatever to do with the compounding of rates, which was the matter which the noble Lord had given his chief attention to. They had in Scotland, as their Lordships knew, a system of compounding which was different from the system prevailing in England. They only compounded up to £4 in yearly value, and by a clause or two in the Bill before them an enormous change was to be made in that system by raising the limit of compounding from £4 to £26 a year.
LORD PENTLAND: Can the noble Lord point to any place where short lets are current without compounding?
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON said that compounding was the rule in England in every case within certain limits of rental, not necessarily connected with short lets, although they might he the incidental cause of it. He knew that the noble Lord's argument was that they could not have short letting without compounding, but as he was able to tell the noble Lord during the debate on the Second Reading, that was not the opinion held by the Departmental Committee which sat on this very Bill. It was not the opinion either of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. Both those Committees said that compounding was not an essential corollary of short letting. He admitted that it was easier to carry out a system of short letting if they had compounding, but the two things did not necessarily go together. Everybody objected on principle to the system of compounding. The noble Lord himself objected to it, and the noble Earl who moved the Amendment had introduced a scheme which was an alternative to compounding, and one which it was quite possible to carry out in connection with compounding. That scheme was approved by all the burghs in Scotland, and they were responsible for the collection of rates in Scotland. The noble Lord shook his head, but he maintained that that was so.
LORD PENTLAND: I shook my head for this reason, that the Amendments put in on the Committee stage were put in on precisely the same authority. The one thing that all the burghs were united upon was in their opposition to the introduction of these Amendments, and I am afraid that the noble Lord will get no further towards settling this question by appealing to the burghs.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON pointed out that what the burghs really objected to was the whole thing, and they had proved themselves somewhat fickle people to deal with. The real objection was on the part of the house-owners, because the commission granted under the Bill for collecting the rates was not sufficient. That commission was intended to pay them for the additional loss which they might suffer under this new system of short letting. They were already responsible, their Lordships would recollect, for such arrears of rates as might occur under the system of short letting that now existed, and under the Amendment of the noble Earl they would in addition be
440
responsible for such houses as might be let for short periods and also for houses in which, even if they were let for a year, the rents were collected oftener than once in three months. What that additional loss would be no one in this country could tell. Even if it were left to the Sheriff to decide, as the house owners proposed, the Sheriff would have no data to go upon. No one could say what that additional loss would be, and they had thought it better—and they were very strongly of the opinion still—that the wisest course to adopt was the one they had adopted of putting in a covering figure, which they hoped at all events would be a sufficient commission to owners. At the end of three years from this date, they had provided that on the application of anybody the Sheriff himself would decide what the commission ought to be. At the end of that three years the Sheriff would have had sufficient experience, and there would be sufficient data on which he could fix the actual amount of commission. With the exception of the house-owners, he did not think they had any substantial objection to the commission. It might not be perfect, but he was glad to hear the noble Lord say that after all the present Amendment was an improvement upon the Bill, and he hoped it would work satisfactorily in Scotland.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland had addressed to their Lordships a speech which was really almost a repetition of the one which he made upon the Second Reading, and therefore if some of them intruded upon their Lordships a few words which might seem more appropriate to a debate on Second Reading they must not blame them because they were answering the arguments which the noble Lord had used. The noble Lord said, in the first place, that they had interfered with a Bill which was the result of long consideration in Grand Committee. Was the noble Lord aware that the Bill was entirely altered in Grand Committee? He was unable to tell them why it had been altered, or on what information; all he said was that further consideration had taught them more about their Bill. Their Lordships would remember that the noble Lord was absolutely ignorant of the complete transformation that took place in the Bill in Grand Committee, where it was opposed by every burgh of Scotland with the exception, he thought, of Glasgow; whereas the noble Lord, when he (Lord Camperdown) mentioned it to him, told the

441
House that he was not aware of any opposition of the kind.
Then the noble Lord said that in the Amendment he had just introduced he had done away with the personal payment of rates. He had done nothing of the kind, and he did not know what the noble Lord meant. What he had done was to provide that in burghs where at the present time the Burgh Police Act was in force it remained in force; and if any burgh hereafter adopted it—any of those who had not adopted it at present—subject to the scale of deduction it would come into force; and so far from doing away with personal payment of rates, what would happen would be that the occupier would be called upon to pay the rate. If he did not pay the rate and it was a short let the owner would undoubtedly be responsible. That was not doing away with the personal payment of rates. Then the noble Lord asked what was to happen to the parish councils? What had the parish councils to do with a Bill which had reference to letting? Nothing whatever. The parish councils had to do with the Poor Law, and if they wanted to alter the Poor Law let them do it directly and not in that, indirect manner. They were absolutely ignorant, even up to the present moment, of why the parish councils were ever introduced into the Bill at all. The noble Lord had said that there might be some indirect political effect on the register, although he had assured them more than once that no political consideration had anything to do with the matter. But supposing it was proved, as was clear, that the political result must be a very considerable addition to the register in the way of putting persons on the register who had not paid their rates and in respect of whose rates it was possible that no payment would be made even by the owners. If the noble Lord admitted, as he must, that that effect was produced
LORD PENTLAND: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but I do not admit anything of the kind.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that the noble Lord did not admit it, but he wished the noble Lord would show them how it could be otherwise. If a man did not pay his poor rate and if the owner did not pay it either, the occupier's name would still be upon the political register. Then with regard to the increase in the
442
system of compounding, the noble Lord said that the addition which he proposed to make was merely a limited one. So far from being limited, if the Bill came into force in the form in which it entered their Lordships' House, out of 175,000 houses in Glasgow nearly 160,000 would be compounded for. The noble Lord's system of compounding would be almost general, and it would only remain to the authorities to collect the rates on something like 20,000 houses in the whole of Glasgow. The noble Lord alluded to the figure of £26 which the Grand Committee had placed in the Bill. With the exception of the Grand Committee, there was no authority whatever for that figure of £26. Mr. Cross, the Member of Parliament who had introduced seven or eight Bills on the subject, never suggested such a figure as £26, or ever thought of it. The highest figure he ever introduced was £20, and that was the figure which on Lord Clinton's motion was placed in the Bill with regard to Glasgow. As to parish councils they clearly had nothing to do with the Bill, and in his humble judgment it was a very great mistake to introduce them in a Bill with regard to letting—a Bill which altered the Poor Law, and which unquestionably, although the noble Lord said not, would have a considerable political effect. Another thing the noble Lord said was that under the Bill it would not be possible for working men to pay their rates by instalments. The reason why the clause relating to instalments had been dropped out was that in Glasgow at the present time they were just entering upon an experiment of collecting rates three times in the year at an interval of four months, and the burghs generally desired to see the result of that experiment before such a clause was introduced into the Bill. That was the chief reason why the clause did not find a place in his Amendment. He could say a good deal more on the subject, but he was unwilling to detain their Lordships further. A good deal of the discussion, he thought, would have been more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill; indeed they had had a great deal of it already on Second Reading, and he therefore did not propose to discuss it any further on that occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to,
Bill passed accordingly, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 210.)

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVE MENT FUNDS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): I have an Amendment to Clause 1, to leave out "or body corporate or incorporate" and to insert "corporate or unincorporated." I think in Committee I must have mumbled the words and they were wrongly inserted, because "unincorporate" is absolutely necessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 11 and 12, to leave out 'or body corporate or incorporate,' and to insert ' corporate or unincorporated.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: I have another Amendment to leave out the words "or company." Those words are not wanted. The Amendment is consequential on Lord Derby's Amendment in Committee to leave out "or company" in Clause 1, page 1, line 11.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 22, to leave out 'or company.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving an Amendment in Clause 2, to leave out "the House of Commons" and to insert "Parliament," said that his Amendment had reference to the account and report certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General being laid before the House of Commons by the Treasury on or before January 31 in the following year if Parliament be then sitting. He would like to know whether there was any special reason why the account should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament. He was aware that in the Act of 1866 establishing the Comptroller and Auditor-General the House of Commons was mentioned by itself, but at the same time the information contained in the account would be of great interest to their Lordships' House, and unless there was some special reason to the contrary he did not see why it should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 31, to leave out 'the House of Commons,' and to insert 'Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: There is no special reason why the account should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and I offer no objection to the Amendment.
LORD WELBY LORD WELBY pointed out that one of the great reasons why the House of Commons should be mentioned was that it enabled the House of Commons to refer an account of the kind to the Committee of Public Accounts. Apart from that particular reason, which he ventured to think was one of the very first importance, he did not know of any reason why the account should not also be communicated to their Lordships' House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The Amendment I now move to Clause 3, to leave out "and his successors," is consequential upon an Amendment of the Duke of Devonshire whereby His Majesty the King was put in instead of the Treasury. The words "His Majesty" include his successors under the Interpretation Act, so that those words are not necessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 5, to leave out 'and his successors.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE had given notice to move the deletion of subsection (2)—
2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the term of office of a Commissioner shall be ten years. One Commissioner shall retire every second year, but a retiring Commissioner may be reappointed. The order in which the Commissioners first appointed are to retire shall be determined by the Treasury. On a casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation, or incapacity of a Commissioner, or otherwise, the person appointed by the Treasury to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have retired, and shall then retire,
and to insert the following new subsections—
(2) The Commissioners shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.
(3) Every vacancy occurring from time to time among the members of the Commission by reason of the death or resignation of a Commissioner or from other cause shall be filled up by His Majesty.
He said that his proposal was intended as an alternative to the suggestion of the Government that the term of office of the Commissions should only be for the limited period of ten years or less. As, however, he gathered that the feeling of the House was that the time should be strictly limited, he did not move his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved an Amendment to Clause 5 providing that an Order under the clause should not authorise the compulsory acquisition of mines or mineral rights. He said that in Committee he ventured to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill in what position coal and other minerals would be under the working of the Bill. As their Lordships were aware, certain classes of property were excluded from compulsory purchase under the clause—namely, any part of a park, garden, or pleasure ground, or a home farm, or land acquired by any corporation for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking. There was some uncertainty as to whether it would not be possible for the Commissioners under the Bill to acquire the surface rights and properties of companies or individuals connected with coal and other minerals. He did not think it was the intention of His Majesty's Government that property of that character should be acquired by the Commissioners, and he had only placed the Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of asking whether His Majesty's Government intended to allow coal and other mineral properties to be bought for the purposes of the Act, because it was not quite clear whether the Commissioners had or had not that power. If the noble Earl could give him an assurance that there was no such intention on the part of His Majesty's Government, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 35, after 'dwelling-house' to insert 'or which is being used for the purpose of working minerals by the owner of the minerals, or which a lessee under a mining lease is entitled to use for such purposes'; in line 39, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection—
'(3) An Order under this section shall not authorise the compulsory acquisition of any mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals under any land in respect of which an Order under this section is made, except only such parts of any such mines as shall he necessary to be dug
446
or carried away or used in the construction of works for which an advance is made under this Part of this Act.' "—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I can assure the noble Duke that there is no intention of any kind on the part of His Majesty's Government to injure any property, and, least of all, such valuable property as includes mineral rights; but we see no reason why the same rule should not be enforced where land is acquired compulsorily under this Act as exists where compulsory powers are given in other cases. I think I ought to point out that if the proposed new subsection of the noble Duke is inserted it might prevent a light railway, which was desired and which would be of great service to a neighbourhood, from being constructed, because it might be absolutely necessary to acquire some small portion of the surface of land under which there were minerals. I do not think there would be any great danger in leaving the clause as it stands, because the amount of compensation to be paid would be a sufficient check to any unreasonable exercising of the compulsory powers. There is no intention at all on the part of the Government to seize any land under which there are minerals for the purpose of making money out of it or anything of that sort; the power is wanted in order that a scheme of great public benefit should not be prevented from being carried out simply and solely because there happened to be minerals under a particular piece of the land that was sought to be acquired.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE said that his Amendment related more to the surface rights which a colliery or other mineral company might be enjoying for the purpose of carrying on its operations, rather than to minerals under the ground. He did not see why a distinction should be drawn between a colliery company and a railway or dock company who acquired land for the purpose of their operations, but as the intentions of the Government appeared to be so excellent from his point of view and they did not intend that mineral rights should be acquired under the clause, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 8 agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to omit from Clause 8 the words authorising the Board themselves to "construct and maintain"

447
new roads, and to insert other words confining the Board to enter into contracts for the construction and maintenance of such roads. He said that when the question was discussed in Committee the whole point taken on his side of the House was mainly in regard to whether the Road Board should or should not have the power of constructing roads, or should only be able to operate through the local authorities. Where the road was within the jurisdiction of several authorities, he saw no reason why the Board should not have the power, but if the Board in order to do that had to keep up a large and expensive staff of its own, and to have a regular works department such as they had heard a great deal about in connection with some of the large municipalities, he thought there would be a great objection to it. He did not think their Lordships could have failed to note the increase in the course of the last few weeks in the number of commissioners and boards and staffs connected with those boards which had been set up almost haphazard, and which would add tens of thousands of pounds a year to the public charge. If those boards were to be set up, they must have an adequate staff of officials and clerks in order to carry on the work, and he thought they certainly ought to guard against the additional setting up of another great department with a large technical staff empowered to employ its own labour, which he was advised it would be permissible for them to do under the words in the Bill at present. As their Lordships were aware, in a great number of cases highway authorities at present kept up their roads by contract, and there were contractors in almost every district capable of carrying out such work economically. He was convinced that nothing could be more uneconomical than for the Road Board to keep up a large and costly staff for which employment would certainly have to be found, and generally uneconomical employment, because it was always urged that public departments ought not to turn oft their workmen. He had had great experience of turning off workmen in arsenals, and the present Secretary of State for War had had a unique experience in that respect also. He hoped that both sides of the House would be unanimous with regard to his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 9, to leave out 'themselves to construct and maintain,' and to insert 'to enter into contract for the construction and maintenance of.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am sure the noble Viscount will not wish me at this stage of the Bill to enter into any discussion with him as to whether or not haphazard boards should be created, but I confess I was this morning a little puzzled to know what this entirely new Amendment meant. We all know the drastic and resolute policy, if I may call it so, of the noble Viscount opposite with regard to the Works Department of the London County Council which resulted in three thousand workmen being dismissed from their employment and the breaking up of the department. I do not say a word on that subject, but the noble Viscount has a natural horror of any municipality doing work entirely on its own behalf, and seems to think that it would be to the national benefit to throw the whole of this work into the hands of contractors, who might form themselves into a ring, and, of course, command their own prices, as happened some years ago in the case of a particular work given out to contract by the London County Council. I would ask the noble Viscount and the House whether it is wise—whether you are going to exercise it or not is another question—to throw away the only possible means you can have of coping with a combination or ring of contractors? Again, my Lords, it is all subject to the approval of the Treasury, and it would be unlikely, in fact impossible, that the Treasury would sanction any huge universal Works Department. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment and throw us all back again absolutely into the hands of contractors, but that he will allow to remain in the Bill this power, which would be a most salutary and excellent check against any future ring or combination amongst contractors.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY was sorry that the Government seemed unwilling to accept the Amendment, which he should have thought was a quite reasonable one. The noble Earl seemed to make it a matter of complaint that the Amendment had only appeared on the Paper that morning.
EARL CARRINGTON: Not of complaint, of wonder.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said no one knew better than the noble Earl that they had to perform their work very often under a certain amount of stress. In the Bill before them there had been very little

449
time between Committee and Report stage, and they had to make the best they could of the time at their disposal. He thought his noble friend had done very wisely in putting his Amendment in its present form, because it raised the point directly whether they were to have a repetition all over the country of the kind of scandals they had been familiar with in works departments nearer home. They on that side of the House were very averse to allowing the country to enter upon any such course. The noble Earl really had no argument to put forward against the Amendment of his noble friend except that he thought there might be a ring of contractors against the Road Board. He did not think there was the least likelihood of any such contingency arising. In many counties, as the noble Viscount had said, contract labour was employed to maintain the roads, and employed with the greatest possible satisfaction, no difficulty having arisen in the matter of rings; and the noble Earl, he thought, forgot that he took power in his own Bill for the Road Board to contract with county councils if they liked to do so. That would be quite a salutary check on any ring that might be formed. He hoped their Lordships would agree that he had completely demolished the one argument put forward by the noble Earl, and that they would accept the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL did not know whether the noble Marquess was really of the opinion that there was only one argument against the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY pointed out that what he had said was that it was the only argument which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had put forward.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL said that if the noble Marquess would allow him he would endeavour to put forward two or three others. Assuming that every contractor was perfectly honest and worked for the smallest fraction of profit, he really failed to see why it should be cheaper for the Road Board to do their work through a contractor than to do it themselves. If the Amendment was carried, the Road Board would be unable to lure a single road-sweeper or to direct a road foreman to go and inspect a particular piece of road and report upon its condition. The noble Marquess apparently thought that to insist upon a prohibition of that kind
450
would be a gain to the public. It was a matter of astonishment to him, and he was quite unable to appreciate the point of the noble Marquess's argument. The noble Marquess said that a great many authorities contracted at present for the maintenance of their roads. He was of opinion that the majority of the main roads in the country were now maintained by the county councils direct, and that they found it paid them to do the work themselves. Then they were given the bogey, which they had often heard of, of huge works departments. The noble Marquess had referred them without any details to the scandals which they had heard of nearer home. He did not know exactly what those scandals were; but was it not ordinary common sense to suppose that the Road Board would act precisely as a railway company did when they had large works of construction to carry out—namely, that in a case of that kind they would employ a contractor after proper specifications had been prepared and after tenders had been received, and let the contractor carry out the work in the ordinary way in which such work was done by a contractor. But did the noble Marquess consider it necessary that every single piece of road was to be put out to contract, and that the Road Board was not to be able to employ a foreman or repair a particular piece of road and put down stones where necessary except through the intervention of a contractor who was making a profit out of the business? If that was what the noble Marquess wanted, how could anybody conceive that that was going to be a saving to the public and to the Road Board? Directly they came to a question of the Road Board, it seemed to be considered that they were not to be credited even with the ordinary degree of common sense and business ability. Why should it be supposed that the Road Board would adopt the least efficient manner of doing their work? If their Lordships took away the power which the Amendment proposed to take away, it would leave them hampered in many ways quite apart from the operation of rings.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU was bound to support what the noble Lord opposite, Earl Russell, had said, especially on the question of dealing with the abatement of dust. If the money coming to the Road Board was to be used largely in

451
the abatement of dust, it seemed to him that nothing could be better than that there should be a trained squad of men in the employment and under the direction of the Road Board to carry out that work, and those men would be able to go about from county to county and perform their work—a work for which they must be specially trained. Surely they ought not to put it beyond the power of the Road Board to carry out their work in their own way without going to a county council or to a contractor? It seemed to him that that would be cutting out a valuable power in the Bill, the lack of which would take away a great deal from the useful character of the Board. He was sorry to find himself once more in opposition to noble Lords on his side of the House, but he trusted that their Lordships would not accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
LORD BRASSEY LORD BRASSEY said that the question of frugality and economic working all depended upon the ability and integrity of the surveyors employed by the Road Board; it was the surveyors upon whom they must rely for prudent and careful administration.
THE EARL OF JERSEY*THE EARL OF JERSEY was rather disposed to think that it would be better to give full powers to the authority in a matter like this. He recollected that his own district council used to do the work by contract and then after a good deal of trouble they undertook the roads themselves with a very great saving to the ratepayers, and he believed the wisest course to pursue would be to give the Board as full powers as possible.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER thought the difficulty had arisen from the words in the clause "themselves to construct and maintain any new roads." What he took it a highway authority should have power to do should be to construct either themselves or through somebody else. If they were going to make a through road he quite agreed that the most convenient way in many cases would be for the Road Board to do it by contract with the local authorities for the part that went through their districts. They would have their staff on the spot and could do it perfectly well. He was not at all sure that doing it through contractors was always a satisfactory way of carrying work out. As far as maintaining roads was concerned, if the Road Board
452
was to be an authority at all they must have some officers under them, and it probably would be cheaper and more reasonable for them to maintain the roads themselves than to hand them over to a contractor. The discussion, he thought, had been very useful, but he was bound to say he rather agreed with his noble friend Lord Jersey that the Road Board should have the widest possible powers either to construct roads themselves or to do the work in any other way; but he would have liked to have seen some other words employed in the Bill to cover that, because the words "themselves to construct" seemed to suggest that they were to do everything themselves.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH thought the noble Viscount's Amendment went beyond what he intended, and in view of what had fallen from noble Lords opposite he thought it would be better to keep the words in as they stood in the Bill, because otherwise the Road Board would be practically powerless to employ a proper engineering staff and other necessary officials. It had been suggested that a, central body of the kind would be necessarily expensive, but he thought the example which had been set to them by France controverted that idea. The central body in Paris, which controlled the great national roads of France so well and so economically, had a staff of competent engineers, such as it would be almost absolutely necessary for the Road Board in this country to have, and if the power of constructing and maintaining roads was taken away from them they would be shut out from employing persons of that character. Perhaps it would be wise, however, to adopt the alternative of the noble Lord, Lord Belper, and to say "themselves to construct and maintain any new roads, or to enter into contracts for the construction and maintenance of such roads."
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON suggested that if the word "themselves" were left out it would meet his point, as that would leave it to the Road Board to maintain and construct by contract or otherwise. The words as they stood in the Bill, however, were almost a direction to the Board to themselves undertake the work.
EARL CARRINGTON: If the noble Viscount is content with that, I should be very glad to omit the word "themselves."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 9, to leave out the word themselves.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Lord opposite has met me so handsomely that I am very pleased to be able to say that I can meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Viscount St. Aldwyn, by the Amendment I now move to this clause. I propose to leave out the words "Provided that it shall not be the duty of the county councils and other local authorities to maintain any roads constructed by the Road Board."
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 11, to leave out from ' traffic ' to the end of subsection (1)."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN agreed that this met his wishes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 14, to leave out 'in making advances,' and to insert' where advances have been made.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: With regard to the three Amendments standing in my name to Clause 9, might I be permitted to take them together, and to read the clause as it will stand when all the Amendments have been embodied in it? This is to ensure that the Road Board should be absolutely obliged to carry out the maintenance of any new roads. Clause 9, as amended, will read as follows—
"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 every such road shall be maintainable by the Road Board, and for the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement and enlargement of or dealing with any such road, the Board shall have the same powers (except the power of levying a rate) and be subject to the same duties as a county council have and are subject to as respects main roads, and may further exercise any powers vested in a county council for the purposes of the maintenance and repair of bridges, and the Road Board shall have the same powers as a county council for the preventing and removing of obstructions."
454
I have been told that there is an objection on the part of noble Lords opposite to the word "maintainable," and with the permission of the House I would be willing to meet that point.
Amendments moved—
"In page 7, line 35, at the beginning of the clause, to 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 every such road shall be maintainable by the Road Board, and'; in lines 36 and 37, to leave out 'road constructed by the Road Board,' and to insert 'such road'; in page 8, line 2, to leave out from 'bridges' to and in line 5."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN suggested, in order to meet the point between "maintainable" and "maintain," the insertion of the words "except that the cost of the maintenance of every such road should be borne by the Road Board."
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL asked whether the noble Viscount had considered what the insertion of those words would mean. It would mean that the Road Board must pay the whole of the cost of the maintenance of all new roads, whereas, as he understood, the Road Board under the Bill would have power to make arrangements or bargains with local authorities as to maintenance, and he could conceive some bargains being made by which the Road Board would not have to pay the whole of the cost. The words suggested by the noble Viscount would prevent any such arrangement being come to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he wanted to protect local authorities from being squeezed into making contributions towards maintenance, and he therefore moved to insert the words he suggested.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
"To omit the words of the Amendment, 'except that every such road shall be maintainable by the Road Board,' in order to insert, 'except that the cost of the maintenance of every such road shall be borne by the Road Board.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL, in moving to insert in Clause 9 a new paragraph to the effect that the Road Board might make by-laws for regulating the traffic on roads constructed by them and impose a penalty for any breach thereof, said that, although he did not actually move his Amendment before, he recognised that it had been discussed in the House on a former occasion, and he should not have ventured to present it again except that he wanted to give the noble Earl in charge of the Bill an opportunity of reconsidering the question. He did not quite know how far the noble Earl had been able to carry that reconsideration, and he did not feel that he ought to trouble their Lordships by repeating the arguments he used before on the subject. There was only one point to which he wished to call attention, and that was that their Lordships had already given this power to the City of London; and if it was not inserted in the Bill now there would be no other opportunity of doing it. He therefore formally moved it, and would be glad to hear whether the noble Earl could accept it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 20, after 'authority,' to insert the following new paragraph—
'(c) The Road Board may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make by-laws for regulating the traffic on roads constructed by them, and may by such by-laws impose a penalty not exceeding forty shillings enforceable on summary conviction for any breach thereof.'"—(Earl Russell.)
EARL CARRINGTON: This point has been carefully looked into, and I am very sorry to have to tell the noble Earl that I cannot modify my previous attitude of opposition to his proposal. We regret that we are not able to meet the noble Earl, and we hope he will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF JERSEY*THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to insert words in the same clause providing that the approval of the Treasury of the construction of a new road should not have effect until it was confirmed by Parliament by way of Provisional Order. He pointed out that under the Bill the right of absolute veto had been taken away from the local authority and quite rightly, because that right of veto had been the cause of a good deal of difficulty in the past. His Amendment would not in the least restore the right of veto but it would give the county councils
456
an opportunity of feeling quite sure that its objections had been entertained and considered by the Treasury. One knew when objections were sent in that it was common form on receiving them to say that they had been received and would be duly considered, whether they were considered or not was another matter. Under his Amendment, supposing there happened to be a difference of opinion between the Road Board and the county authority, the Treasury would have to decide between those two, and the Treasury might decide without giving the reasons for their decision. But if an opportunity were given of bringing in a Provisional Order in a case where there was a difference of opinion between the Road Board and a county council, he thought it was then quite certain that the Treasury, before they decided, would be very careful in considering the objections, and probably would see some representatives from the county council on the matter. He quite admitted he did not think as the Bill stood that anything very serious would happen, because they must assume that the road authority would be composed of sound practical men who were not likely to go and force roads upon a district where they were not wanted. At the same time, it was possible that there might be a clashing of opinion between the two bodies, and it would seem to be desirable that the county council, which, after all, did represent the public in the matter, should not be absolutely overruled by the Treasury in the circumstances he had mentioned.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 28, after 'authority,' to insert 'and if, notwithstanding an objection made by a county council within such area, the Treasury consider that the construction of the proposed road should be proceeded with, the approval of the Treasury shall not have effect unless and until, after submission to Parliament, by way of Provisional Order, it is confirmed by Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)
EARL CARRINGTON: At first sight there seems to be a great deal in the noble Earl's Amendment, but perhaps I might be permitted to read a portion of the clause. Subsection (2) runs, "Before the Treasury approve of the construction of a new road by the Road Board they shall consult with the Local Government Board and shall satisfy themselves that notice of the intention to construct the road has been sent by the Road Board to every highway authority in the area of which any part of the proposed

457
road will be situate, and shall consider any objections to the proposed road which they may receive." I think your Lordships will agree that this seems to be almost enough protection for everybody. The new proposal is, of course, to put the Road Board to the expense, which will be very considerable, as your Lordships know, and the delay of a Provisional Order. As the noble Earl opposite has pointed out, this would only be in a case where the Road Board and the county council disagreed, and where the. Treasury backed up the Road Board in opposition to the county council; but the noble Earl himself said that was a thing that would be very unlikely to happen, and I hope he will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH said it did seem to him desirable that the various authorities should be consulted where there was a proposal for a new road, more especially as regarded the expense which might be entailed on the rates in some form or another. He had himself an Amendment on the Paper a little further on very much on the same lines as that of the noble Earl's, which would give power to the various local authorities to lodge objections to a proposed road or to a proposed grant being made on the ground of a great additional burden being thrown upon the rates; and he was bound to say that if the present Amendment were carried, although it did not go quite so far as he was going to ask the House to go, it would meet a serious objection. A disagreement would not very often take place, but occasionally there might be considerable hardships put under the Bill upon local authorities, who might receive a gift in one hand and have to pay out more than they gained with the other. If there were power to have that objection, supposing it was a serious one, brought within the purview of Parliament, he thought that would be a fair way of settling what might in many cases be a very serious objection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY did not know what steps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had taken to ascertain the feeling of the great local authorities in respect to the particular provision. Here was a proposal, which in principle their Lordships' House had assented to, that the Road Board should have the right of making roads through any county in England without the consent of the county authority. He wanted their Lordships to recollect that the county
458
councils were very important bodies; they had proved themselves now for many years to be bodies upon whom the greatest reliance could be placed. They did not act obstinately or in any intemperate manner, and were very moderate, judicious, and conciliatory. Further, they were representative of their county; they fulfilled all the canons of democratic government, and were called upon by Parliament to be responsible for the good government and good administration of their counties. He did think, therefore, that they were entitled to a very emphatic voice in every proposed change in their counties, including the provision of roads. There were a certain number of persons who had a conception of great new roads being made in England like the French roads, going through the country from one end to the other. That might be a good thing or it might not be a good thing; but as to the route they were to take and the conditions attaching to them, surely the county councils should have an important voice? They might wish that the roads should pass through certain villages and the Road Board might think otherwise; they might think that there were certain amenities in their county—and some counties had great amenities—which would be destroyed and public feeling outraged if a particular route were selected. It seemed to him, therefore, that the county councils should have a great voice.
What had Parliament done in similar cases? Take the Housing Bill, which had just passed through their Lordships' House. The borough councils were not to be subject to any coercion with regard to town planning under that Bill, and a similar rule ought to apply in this case. In those circumstances some of their Lordships on that side of the House had thought it right to do what he did not think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had done, and that was to consult, so far as the limited time at their disposal enabled them to do so, the local authorities. Consequently a communication had been sent to the chairman of the highways committee of every county council throughout England and Wales asking him whether, in his opinion, the separate road making authority of the Road Board was a good thing; and, secondly, if he thought it a good thing that power should be given to the Road Board independently of the consent of the county council. Those who made that communication had received a great number of replies.

459
In twenty-seven cases—that was to say, from the chairman of the highways committee of twenty-seven English and Welsh counties—they had received a reply to the effect either that they objected to this power being vested in the Road Board at all, or that if it was vested in the Road Board it should only be exercised subject to the consent of the county council. In only eight cases—and that was the outside number because some of the answers were not absolutely clearly expressed—was the proposal as advocated by His Majesty's Government approved.
In those circumstances they had behind them a great body of public opinion on the point, and they submitted, therefore, that the Amendment of the noble Earl ought to be inserted. Even if it was granted that the county council were likely to prove unreasonable, the only power that was asked to be given to them, after all, was merely that they should have an opportunity of appealing from the Road Board to Parliament. That was the general policy which their Lordships pursued in the Amendments they inserted in the Housing and Town Planning Bill—namely, that when dealing with important authorities they should be given the power of an appeal to Parliament itself. That was all that the Amendment of the noble Earl proposed. Such a power was not in the least likely to be exercised unreasonably. It was only likely to be exercised in important cases, because the Road Board and the county council would probably be perfectly sensible bodies, and they would come to an agreement immediately. But in the very rare case where there was a decided difference of opinion, then, and then only, these important authorities in relation to this matter would have a right to come to their Lordships' House on an appeal from the Road Board.
EARL CARRINGTON: I must plead guilty to not having consulted the county councils, but I think the reason is not far to seek. It is because we have sitting amongst us the spokesman of all the county councils, Lord Belper. He speaks for all the county councils; so that that must be my excuse for not having troubled the county councils with any questions on the subject. I think I ought also to say that, after all, there will be no charge cast on the rates now that all the expense of these new roads and of the maintenance
460
of them is thrown on the Road Board.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said that was the very point he would have made himself, if the noble Earl opposite had not already put it to the House. In addition he would point out that it was very unlikely that great trunk roads, say from London to Edinburgh, would be made in preference to short pieces of road round towns and villages, because, to begin with, the funds at the disposal of the Road Board were absolutely inadequate for any such purpose. Secondly, it would be the policy of the Road Board not to make any new roads out of funds provided by one small class of traffic only. He saw no reason whatever why the county councils should not be consulted in the matter; he thought that was the right thing to do, because they had done a great and good work in the past towards fitting the roads for the new traffic that was now in the habit of using them.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he merely wished to disavow that he had any mandate or power to speak on behalf of the county councils. Of course, the whole matter had been before the County Councils Association, and he spoke as representing them, but on these matters of detail with regard to road management, everybody must be free. He did not for a moment pretend that his view expressed that of every county council, but he had endeavoured to express his opinion as far as he could in consonance with their general views.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL said he did not think the noble Lord could expect any other answer than the one he had received from the chairman of the County Councils Association. If they asked any authority whether they would like to have additional power conferred upon them, the chances were that the answer would be "Yes." Everyone must agree that local authorities and county councils must and should be consulted. It was also clear that the proposal, should it unfortunately happen that there was a difference of opinion, must necessarily add very largely to the expense. He did not know whether a county council would have a locus standi if it was proposed to place a railway track through their county.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL said he was not sure whether they would or not, but the case was very similar, because a road had to go through their county for the purposes of traffic. If a county council could compel the Road Board to go to Parliament, he did not know whether the Treasury would back up the Board or not. There was a good deal to be said against having appeals to Parliament in all these cases unless there was some real necessity. It they had a body in whom they had confidence—they had not got the names of the Commissioners yet, although the noble Marquess had asked for them—surely they ought to leave to them the arrangement of these concerns, subject to all the checks which already existed in the Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND did not quite agree with the doctrine just laid down, that if they had confidence in the Board which would be appointed by His Majesty's Government, that Board was to be allowed to over-ride all representative governments on the particular question referred to it. Surely that was an extraordinary doctrine. They might have confidence in the Board without wishing to do away altogether with Parliamentary and local representation. As to railways, he, was under the impression, although he might be wrong, that a county council would have a locus standi, but whether they had or not, there was a great difference between the two cases. A county council was not the railway authority for a county, but it was the highway authority, and one of the strongest speeches in favour of the Amendment was that delivered by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, who pointed out that this sort of case would be very unlikely to arise. Therefore this proposition was, as had been said, almost academic; but the noble Earl also pointed out that when the Road Board had come to a decision there was under this Bill no appeal whatever against it. That was surely a very undesirable thing. He agreed that if they were asking that every urban district authority or parish council should be able to compel the Road Board to go for a Provisional Order, such a proposal might reasonably be objected to; but the case put in the Amendment was that of a whole county, as represented by the county council, rejecting the proposition of the Road Board. Surely they should have an opportunity of coming before Parliament. The fact that such a case would be rare
462
was, in his opinion, an argument rather in favour of the Amendment than against it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Verbal Amendment to Clause 10 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to amend subsection (1) of Clause 11, which was as follows, "(1) Where the Road Board propose to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose." He moved to alter the subsection to read, "Where the Treasury have approved a proposal by the Road Board to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose."
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 7, after the word 'the,' to insert the words 'Treasury have approved a proposal by the,' and to leave out the word 'propose.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH moved an Amendment in subsection (5) of Clause 11—
(5) Where the Road Board or any highway authority are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.
The noble Earl moved to leave out the words "which they consider," and after the word "necessary" to insert the words "for the construction of a new road." He said that this Amendment was in no sort of way one of those Bill-wrecking Amendments which they were supposed to be so fond of on that side of the House. His Amendment did not in any way affect the principle of the Bill, nor would it prevent the making of a road, but it drew a distinction between what was necessary and what might be considered necessary. It was obvious that in the making of a road they should only take what was really necessary for the purpose.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 28, to leave out the words 'which they consider,' and after the word 'necessary' to insert the words 'for the construction of a new road.'"—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am sorry I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment, though I do recognise that it is in no way a wrecking one. At the same time it would entirely prevent the compulsory purchase of land for improvement, and confine it to the construction of new roads. There would be no possibility of improvement in the widening of roads and the cutting off of corners. Even if you put in the word "improvement," it would be better to leave the Bill with the same language as in Clause 5, subclause (1), which defines the conditions under which an application for an order may be made. The Commissioners are clearly the proper persons to determine whether the land is absolutely necessary or not, and I hope that in the interests of the Bill my noble friend will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not think this Amendment was as important as his noble friends seemed to imagine, because it did not matter what the Road Board considered. The question was what the Commissioners considered; it rested with them to make an order, and if they did not think the land necessary they would not make the order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved a drafting Amendment to subclause (5) to give the Commissioners power to make an order for the compulsory acquisition of land where the Road Board or any highway authority were unable to acquire it by agreement on reasonable terms. This Amendment was to meet a point raised in Committee by Lord Camperdown.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 31, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an order.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert in Clause 11 a new subsection providing that where, by the approval of the Treasury of the construction of a new road, any property was increased in value the Road Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, "shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value such
464
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."
Their Lordships would remember that when this Bill was last under consideration there was a discussion rather late at night over an Amendment relating to what they knew as the strips of land on either side of the road. It was proposed by His Majesty's Government that the Road Board should not only have authority to buy land compulsorily for a roadway, but also to buy strips of land on either side. When that part of the Government's proposal was under discussion and one of his noble friends moved to leave out the latter power, the noble Earl the Leader of the House taunted them with being most impracticable people, who would never agree to make provision for any form of betterment or recoupment in return for an expenditure of public money which was likely to improve the value of property. He could not compliment His Majesty's Government upon their efforts to solve this very difficult question. In the Housing Bill they made a proposal which nobody, not even themselves, could defend, by which the whole of the profit which might arise after an improvement was to go to the local authority. On the same principle, if one man made a road to another man's mine, and gave access to it, he ought to have the whole value of what was got from the mine handed over to him. That proposal of His Majesty's Government was, however, rejected.
When they came to deal with the Development Bill, the Government thought they would try their hand again, and they attempted a totally different proposal, which was called recoupment. They proposed that the Road Board should have power to purchase compulsorily these enormous strips of land. The Government did not seem to think that there was any objection to allowing the Road Board to be a land speculator on a large scale. They thought that the experience which local authorities had had from this device was so encouraging that they might follow it in this case. One of the most disastrous failures of this principle was to be seen in London. Their Lordships had only to walk down Kingsway to see what was the result of this effort to buy strips of

465
land on either side of a road for recoupment. It had cost the London ratepayers enormous sums annually, and the difficulty did not appear ever likely to be solved. Their Lordships very wisely refused to allow the Road Board to enter upon any such wild-cat speculation as buying these strips would have involved, and that was cut out of the Bill. But the noble Earl the Leader of the House complained that they had made no proposals to meet the difficulty. Here was public money being expended which might enhance the value of property, and they made no proposals, either by way of recoupment or betterment, to make good to the spending authorities the cost to which they had been put. That taunt he (Lord Salisbury) was now doing his best to meet.
The Amendment seemed rather formidable, but when he told their Lordships that it had already been discussed at very great length a few days ago in that House they would not be terrified. It was exactly the same proposal, mutatis mutandis, as that put into the Housing Bill—that was to say, they proposed that the expenditure of public money where it improved property should be met, as far as the out-of-pocket expenses of the Road Board were concerned, by contributions from the landowners whose property had been enhanced in value. That appeared to be a perfectly fair proposal, and it should be borne in mind that the public would be the gainers by the increased rateable value which would be caused by the improvement. Ex hypothesi the property was to be improved in value, otherwise there would be no betterment. The rateable value would rise, and therefore in exact proportion as the landowner benefited so the public would benefit. To use a common expression, the landowner and the rating authority would be in the same boat. If they added to that increased value the out-of-pocket expenses which the public authority was to be reimbursed to the extent to which it improved the land, then it appeared to him they had covered all the reasonable claims which the public might make in a matter of this kind. He did not pretend that in a matter so subtle and so difficult as betterment his humble effort was perfection. He was very diffident about it, and he knew it was open to a good deal of question. All he could say of it was that it was far better than either of the two plans which His Majesty's Government
466
had proposed. Neither of them would hold water, and therefore, to use an old phrase, the plan he submitted held the field. It had already been sanctioned by their Lordships' House in a very important Bill, and he thought that was sufficient ground for hoping it would be sanctioned a second time in the Development Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 2, after subsection (6), to insert the following new subsections—
'(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 First Schedule to this Act.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I have heard the speech of the noble Marquess with the greatest possible pleasure and satisfaction, but I am sure he will not expect me to follow him in dealing with the details about other Bills. It is difficult enough to get one Bill through the House at a time. As regards Kingsway I do not want to argue that except to say that if the proposals of my friend Mr. John Lewis and other Progressives on the London County Council had been accepted by the Progressive Party, I do not think Kingsway would have been the horrible howling wilderness it is to-day. I am only sorry that my noble colleague the Leader of the House was not here to hear the noble Marquess's speech, because the respectful remonstrance which the noble Earl addressed to your Lordships opposite seems already to have borne most excellent fruit. The proposal of the noble Marquess is a distinct step in advance of the proposal

467
made the other night, which I must say filled me with consternation, and was to the effect that the landlords should have the entire unearned increment of these new roads. I cannot agree with the noble Marquess that his proposal at the present time holds the field, but I do congratulate him on the great advance which he has made. I do not for one moment wish to oppose the Amendment, though I should prefer, like everybody else would, to have my own way, and I still honestly think that our plan is the best means of securing to the public the value of these improvements. In the circumstances, however, I do not wish to oppose the proposal of the noble Marquess, of course reserving to myself and my colleagues all liberty of action at a later stage.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said that local authorities had never got anything out of betterment yet. He congratulated the noble Marquess upon having put forward some logical scheme by which a local authority might get a fair return. He thought that this clause was even better than the one which the noble Marquess had induced the House to include in the Housing and Town Planning Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he noticed that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had welcomed the proposal of the noble Marquess, but he did not think that the noble Earl had sufficiently considered how generous his noble friend had been. The Bill had proposed that 250 yards on each side of a road might be appropriated by the Road Board when they made the road. That was by way of betterment, or to prevent the landowners obtaining the benefit of the new Toad without paying anything for it. But there was no such provision with regard to roads made by highway authorities, and so far as they were concerned the landowners were allowed to take the whole benefit. The noble Marquess had suggested a great improvement in the Bill from the point of view of the Government by extending the betterment to the highway authorities as well. He thought when the Government had fairly considered this they would not only accept the Amendment but thank his noble friend for having improved their Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend Clause 12 (Expenses and Receipts of Road Board) so as to provide that the account of the receipts into and issues out of the Road Improvement Grant, with the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report, should be laid "before Parliament," instead of merely "before the House of Commons."
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 23, to leave out the words 'the House of Commons.' and to insert the word 'Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: I have an Amendment to Clause 16 which is not on the Paper and which has been sent in from the Scottish Office. It is only a drafting Amendment. The first part of the clause reads, "This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications: The expression 'highway authority' means a county council or a town council, and the expression 'road' means any road or street maintainable at the cost of a highway authority." I propose to leave out the words "'road' means," and to insert the words "'roads and main roads' means."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH moved the insertion, after Clause 18, of a new clause with the object of giving power to rating authorities to offer objections to new schemes on the ground that those schemes would place a burden on their rates. He said that this Amendment to some extent covered the same ground as the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Jersey. It was difficult to sketch out in exact detail how this extra burden would always be laid upon the rates. Sometimes a burden might directly or indirectly be laid upon the rates. Clause 1 of the Bill contained very wide powers. It enabled advances to be made to "a public authority, university, college, school, or institution, or an association of persons," any of whom might be concerned with rates already levied by a county council or some other rating authority. It was quite possible that a gift of money might be made to an authority on the one hand, but

469
the authority might lose upon the other. The authority might have more expense in upkeep than they would gain in the way of improvement. He did not know whether His Majesty's Government thought the Amendment went too far in taking in all rating authorities, and whether they would consent to its being applied only to a county council area. He might give one instance where a burden might be placed upon the rates. A giant of money might be made to a new harbour upon the sea coast. That undertaking was of a speculative nature, and should the harbour turn out to be a failure, it might depreciate the rateable value of the area surrounding it. In that case the burden would fall upon the rates, and he thought the Amendment worthy of the consideration of their Lordships.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause—
'19.—(1) Before an advance under this Act which may involve a charge upon any local rate is made, notice of the proposal and of the intention to make an advance in connection therewith shall be sent by the Development Commissioners or the Road Board, as the case may be, to the rating authorities of the area concerned, and if an objection is lodged by those authorities or any of them to an advance being made for the purpose of the proposed undertaking on the ground that a charge would be thereby imposed upon a local rate for the raising of which the authority lodging the objection are responsible, such advance shall not be made unless or until the proposal has been so modified as to meet the objections of such local authority.
(2) The expression "local rate" means a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer is or can be ultimately raised out of a local rate as before defined.'"—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. It goes further than Lord Jersey's Amendment, and it means that if a county council applies for an advance the Development Commissioners or the Road Board would have to send a notice to every parish in the county. Has the noble Lord considered that?
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH explained that what he had in his mind was that advances could be made under Clause 1 without any question of a county
470
council being asked about it, quite independent of any consent being given, or whether they thought it a good scheme or not.
EARL CARRINGTON: Then I take it that the noble Lord does not press that part of the Amendment with regard to having notices sent to every parish in the county. The noble Lord said that a grant might be made for a new harbour, that the harbour might be a failure, and that in that way it would depreciate the rateable value of the locality. I honestly think that is rather far-fetched; and it would be almost legislating for rather far-fetched instances. I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it, because as notice would have to be sent to the overseer of every parish in the county any overseer by objecting might prevent an advance being made.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved an Amendment to Clause 19 (Provisions as to commons and open spaces), to exclude from the operation of the provision requiring an order of the acquisition of a part of any common or open space to be confirmed by Parliament before it had effect "any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district."
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 6, after the word 'Parliament,' to insert the words ' 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.'"—(Lord Clinton.).
EARL CARRINGTON: I can accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said his noble friend Lord Meath, who took a great interest in this question, was not able to be present, but he was anxious that this Amendment should be fully considered before their Lordships accepted it. They would see by the early part of Clause 19 that it was prescribed that in the case of an order being made by the Development Commissioners for the acquisition of land that formed part of a common or open space, it should be provisional only, and was not

471
to have effect without an Order in Parliament. His noble friend Lord Meath was of opinion, and he agreed with him, that no change should be made in the policy of the Bill as set out in the earlier part of this clause because it was clearly an interference with commons. It might be interfering with the general use of a common by people who had heretofore used it and enjoyed it. Why should this particular method of interfering with commons be made an exception from the general rule laid down requiring Parliamentary sanction? It might be that the making of a new road would be a valuable improvement and might be a great convenience, but it required grave consideration, because it might interfere with the use and the amenity of commons.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not think that Lord Ashbourne or Lord Meath, whose opinion on this matter he would receive with every respect, had sufficiently considered the needs of a rural district. It would be absurd to require the Road Board or a county council or highway authority to go to Parliament to ask to be allowed to make a road or to improve a road that ran over a common which was within a rural district. The Amendment could not possibly hurt anybody, and could not interfere with the amenity of the commons. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved to delete from Clause 19 the following subsections—
(2) Before giving any such certificate of equality of exchange the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall give public notice of the proposed exchange, interested to make representations and objections in relation thereto, and shall, if necessary, hold a local inquiry on the subject.
(3) Where any order of the Development Commissioners authorises such an exchange the order shall provide for vesting the land given in exchange and shall afford opportunities to all persons in the persona in whom the common, open space, or allotment was vested, subject to the same rights, trusts, and incidents as attached to the common, open space, or allotment, and for discharging the part of the common, open space, or allotment acquired from all rights, trusts, and incidents to which it was previously subject.
The noble Earl said: This is a matter of drafting, and is consequential on Lord Monk Bretton's Amendment. I should like to be allowed to say, however, that I must
472
not be understood as agreeing with the principle of Lord Monk Bretton's Amendment to which this is consequential. I only move this to make the Bill read properly.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, lines 15 to 28, to leave out subsections (2) and (3)."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Schedule,
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to Clause 1, which provided that where a Government Department, body, or persons proposed to purchase land compulsorily they might submit to the Development Commissioners "an order" putting in force the provisions of the Land Clauses Act. The noble Earl moved, instead of the word "an" after Commissioners, to substitute the words "a draft," so that the phrase would read "may submit to the Development Commissioners a draft order putting in force," etc.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 6, to leave out the word ' an ' and to insert the words 'a draft.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, on behalf of the DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, an Amendment to Clause 2 of the Schedule. The clause provided that Sections 77 to 85 of the Railways Clauses Consolidated Act, 1845, should be incorporated in the Bill. The Amendment proposed that "Section 78" should be substituted for "Section 77."
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 13, to leave out the words 'seventy-seven,' and to insert the words 'seventy-eight.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to paragraph (c) of Clause 2 in the Schedule. The paragraph provided that the arbitrator should have regard to the extent "to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited or injured by the proposed work or road," etc. The noble Earl moved to leave out the words "or injured." He said: Viscount St.

473
Aldwyn moved these words tentatively on the last occasion, and I explained then that we did not think that they were necessary, as the Land Clauses Act gave a right to compensation where land was injuriously affected. That is in Section 62 of the Act of 1845. The matter has been thoroughly considered, and I think I may say that this is absolutely correct.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 37, to leave out the words 'or injured.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I am quite content.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to Clause 3 of the Schedule with regard to the publication of the "order," etc. He moved that the words "the order" be altered to "the draft order."
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 1, after the first 'the,' to insert the word 'draft.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved an Amendment to provide that notice of such an order should also be given "in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries." He said: This is a new Amendment to give notice to the Board of Agriculture, which is charged with the duty of protecting commons. We think they should have notice of any application for a compulsory order in regard to any of the commons.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 4, after the word 'prescribed,' to insert the words 'and in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment also to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved to insert words to provide that where land was acquired compulsorily the order might provide for the continuance of any easement or the creation of any new easement over the land. He said: This is a power that can be usefully exercised to diminish the damage
474
done to a landlord if his land happened to be compulsorily severed, and it has been found to be of great use in the Small Holdings Act.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 16, at the end of the line to insert the following new paragraph:
'(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.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HILL VISCOUNT HILL moved to add to the last Amendment words securing "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 noble Viscount said they had had a long discussion over this in reference to the Small Holdings Act, and after considerable debate it was agreed to. It was most necessary in the case of tenant farmers, and also in the case of small holdings, that these easements should be granted.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, to add to the previous Amendment, after the word 'acquired,' the following words: 'and every such order shall if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired provide for the creation of such new casements 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.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am bound to say that these words are not considered necessary, and they might in some circumstances create difficulties; but I am not prepared to oppose the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment to Clause 6 of the Schedule to make it clear that "easements" should be defined in Scotland as "servitudes." He said that the word "servitude" was the Scottish equivalent to "easement."
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 32, after the word 'easements' to insert the words 'or in Scotland servitudes.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and dispensed with.
EARL CARRINGTON: I move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU appealed to the Government, before the Bill was read a third time, to give the House one bit of very important information. He quite saw that it might be difficult for them to give their Lordships the names of the whole of the Development Commissioners, but he thought they ought to have some information on the subject. The Development Commissioners and the Road Board were going to be very important bodies, and if their Lordships read this Bill a third time without ascertaining the names of the Commissioners, or, at any rate, the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Road Board, they would have no other opportunity of getting the information from the Government. He pleaded especially in the case of the Road Board to the Government to let them know whom they proposed to appoint chairman and vice-chairman. It was a matter of vital interest to a great many people to know that, and it was a piece of public information that the Government ought to give at this stage.
EARL CARRINGTON: I very much wish that I could meet my noble friend's desires on this point, but I have had no information given to me upon it, and therefore I am unable to say anything definite. But I hope my noble friend will not stop the Third Reading on that account. I am certain that the names of the Commissioners will be announced as soon as possible, but I must again urge that these Commissioners ought not to be appointed in a hurry, as if the wrong people were appointed through any insistence great damage to the Bill might ensue.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN thought their Lordships would be far from satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl. There had been no hurry in this matter on the part of His Majesty's Government. It was a long time since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made known to the public generally the provisions of this Bill in bringing in the Budget, and it was some time since the Development Bill was laid before the House of Commons.
476
They had asked more than once for some information with regard to the composition of these important bodies, and they had had nothing but the noble Earl's very courteous replies that he was afraid he could not say anything at the time, but that he hoped to be able to say something some time or other. This Bill would return to another place, and perhaps in a fortnight hence or more their Lordships might be asked to consider the provisions of the Bill again. Surely by that time, at any rate, His Majesty's Government would be able to put Parliament and the public in possession of the names of those whom they intended to appoint on these important boards.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, so far as the present and past actions of the Government are concerned, I think noble Lords have no just grounds of complaints. Noble Lords will remember what happened. It was suggested, and was strongly pressed by the noble Viscount opposite, that the Commission should assume an entirely different character from that which we intended it should assume, by having the Road Board amalgamated with it. That proposal, I am glad to think, was not adopted by your Lordships' House, but it might have been, and what would have happened afterwards when the matter came up for discussion as between the two Houses of Parliament it is impossible to say. But I think noble Lords will agree that in those circumstances it would have been difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer to certain gentlemen an appointment of the ultimate nature of which he could not himself be certain. As regards the further request of the noble Viscount, we will, of course, convey it to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I shall be glad myself if it is possible to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite, although I cannot profess to be sufficiently acquainted with all the circumstances of the case to say whether it may be possible by the time the Bill comes back to us for the names to be announced.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said, with regard to the Schedule, that the noble Earl had that evening inserted an Amendment providing that notice of an order should be given to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Surely a similar notice ought to be given to the Lord of the Manor and the copyholders, who were

477
interested in the commons. If it was difficult to get at the copyholders, as he believed it was sometimes, notice should be given to the steward of the manor. He did not know whether these would be included in the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the land, as mentioned in the Schedule; but, if not, he proposed an Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment so that it would read as follows: "And in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment, also the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and to the Lord of the Manor and copyholders."
Amendment moved—
"After the words 'Board of Agriculture and Fisheries,' to insert the words 'and to the Lord of the Manor and copyholders.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The Board of Agriculture is a sort of god-father in respect of commons. We are in communication with the worthy persons mentioned by the noble Duke, and I do not think these words are necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CAERINGTON: I move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed accordingly, and returned to the Commons and to be printed as amended. (No. 211.)

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I think a very few words of explanation will suffice to enable your Lordships to accord a Second Reading to this Bill. It settles a dispute which has been going on for some time with regard to the appointment of Clerks to the Crown and of the Peace in the county of Cork. I believe it is a Bill which is urgently wanted by legal authorities in Ireland, and I understand it has the approval of the noble and learned Lord
478
opposite, Lord Ashbourne, who is very well acquainted with the circumstances of the case. I move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 8th of November next.

OATHS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE drew attention to subclause (2) of Clause 2, dealing with the manner of administration of oaths. He said that it read, "Provided that in the case of a person who is not a Christian the oath shall be administered as nearly as may be in the form and manner aforesaid, but with such modifications of the words or ceremony as may make the same conformable to the religious faith, or binding on the conscience of such persons." How that was to be found out he really did not know. How was anybody in a County Court or any other Court to find out what was "conformable to the religious faith or binding on the conscience" of a Parsee or an Arab? He asked whether it would not be better to say that in the case of a non-Christian they should be allowed to administer the oath in the way it was now administered with regard to any Christian? They had the uplifted hand, and the Testament, and the use of the words "I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give to the Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." He moved to insert words to provide that the oath should be administered to a non-Christian witness "in any manner which is now lawful."
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 18, to leave out the words of the subclause after the word 'administered,' and to add the words ' in any manner which is now lawful.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no objection to offer to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday the 8th of November next, and to be printed as amended (No. 212.)

POLICE BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order) and Bill to be read 3a on Monday the 8th of November next.
HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As we have read the Development Bill a third time I understand that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will not desire that we should sit to-morrow. Perhaps he will answer that question, and possibly also give us some idea of the business which will come before the House when we reassemble after the adjournment.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, as we have fortunately been able to finish the Development Bill to-day I am able, with the concurrence of noble Lords opposite, to carry out the plan which I indicated on a former occasion—namely, that we should adjourn for a few days at the close of this sitting. As regards the day on which we should resume and the business to be taken on that day, I desire to consult the convenience of noble Lords opposite. I should propose to take the London Elections Bill either on the first day of meeting or a day or two later, whichever would best suit noble Lords. By the end of next week the Amendments both to the Housing and Town Planning Bill and the Irish Land Bill will. I understand, have been considered in another place, so that we should be in a position to consider any Amendments in the course of the week when we meet. Perhaps the noble Marquess could give me some indication as to the date on which he thinks it would be most convenient for us to resume. On the former occasion
480
I mentioned the 8th. I do not know whether the noble Marquess would desire to adhere to that, or whether in his opinion the state of business would admit of our adjourning to as late as the 10th.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think we are, upon the whole, inclined to suggest that we should reassemble on the 8th, and we see no objection to the noble Earl's proposal that the London Elections Bill should be the first business to come before us after the adjournment. With regard to subsequent business, perhaps it would be hardly possible for us at this moment to give any opinion without knowing what the fate of the measures to which the noble Earl has referred is likely to be in the House of Commons. I understand from the noble Earl that he expects the Housing and Town Planning Bill and the Irish Land Bill to be taken by the House of Commons next week?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, I understand that the Housing and Town Planning Bill is likely to be taken on Monday. I am not quite certain about the Irish Land Bill, but I understand the Housing Bill is, at any rate, to be taken on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then I think it will be for His Majesty's Government to put those measures down upon whatever date they think suitable.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I shall be happy to fall in with the suggestion of the noble Marquess, and we will therefore, if noble Lords opposite agree, adjourn till Monday the 8th of November, and take the London Elections Bill on that day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope it will be understood that the judicial business of the House will not be adjourned.
Moved, That the House do adjourn until Monday, the 8th of November, except for judicial business.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock to Monday, the 8th of November, a quarter past Four o'clock.