HL Deb 27 July 1920 vol 41 cc548-62

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I am moving the Second Reading of this Bill at the express wish of my noble friend Lord Roe, who is now 88 years of age. Though quite willing and anxious to be present in your Lordships' House, he has not fully recovered from a recent illness. When I consented to undertake this duty I was under the impression that it was a Bill against which there would be no opposition; that it was only a formal matter, and that I should have no difficulty in getting your Lordships to consent to the Second Reading. But I have been undeceived about that, because I find on the Notice Paper, in the names of Lord Askwith and the Lord Chairman, the Earl of Donoughmore, Motions for the rejection of the Bill, indicating, of course, a very formidable opposition. We all have the greatest possible respect for the Lord Chairman, who, as we know, has great business capacity and fairness, and that will encourage me to hope that after I have made a few observations, and brought home to your Lordships the exact situation of affairs, I may be able to induce him to withdraw his opposition.

With regard to the Bill itself, it gives English, Welsh and Scottish authorities the same powers which Parliament gave to Irish authorities in 1910. The Council of any borough or urban district may advertise the advantages and amenities of the borough or district, or any part thereof, as a health resort or watering place, by the insertion of advertisements in newspapers not published within the borough or district so sought to be advertised, or by placards or otherwise as they may see fit, and may expend money for the purpose, provided that the sums so expended shall not, in any one financial year, exceed the amount that could be raised by a rate of one penny in the £ on the rateable value of the borough or district.

In its application to Scotland the Act shall be subject to the following modifications: "The town council of any burgh or police burgh or the county council of any county within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Viet. c. 50)," shall be substituted for "the council of any borough or urban district," and "burgh or police burgh or any special district in the county formed under the Public Health (Scotland) Acts or the Local Government (Scotland) Acts" shall be substituted for "borough or district." I have read that because in the condensed form you get the full object of the Bill.

This Bill was first introduced in the House of Commons by my noble friend Lord Roe, who was then the Member for Derby, in 1914. The Second Reading was carried by 185 to 28. It was then referred to a Committee upstairs, and the only Amendment made to the Bill, which at that time did not include Scotland, was that Scotland was included, and the Bill came back. In consequence of the war no further proceedings were taken in 1914, but this year the Bill was reintroduced in the House of Commons by Colonel Burn, and it passed all its stages without a Division. It was referred to a very strong Standing Committee, consisting of twenty-one members. Not a single Amendment was made, and the Bill was sent down to the House of Commons, where, on the Third Reading, although thirteen members of the House voted against the closure, the Third Reading was carried unanimously. This is the Bill to which I am now asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading. I have referred to the Irish Bill. There was a great contest over that Bill when it came to this House, and Lord Onslow, then Lord Chairman, took a step that I fear my noble friend Lord Donoughmore intends to take to-day, but after a long debate he was persuaded to withdraw his Amendment and the Bill passed. During the discussion Lord Onslow warned the House as to what they were doing, and he said— I cannot help thinking that if you allow this to take place, the same thing must be allowed to Margate, Eastbourne and to all the health resorts in England. He tried to persuade them not to do it, but they did it, and the Bill became law, and it is still law. Later on, before withdrawing his Amendment, he said— I have felt it my duty to point out that it will be creating a precedent, and if your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading and pass it into law I confess I do not see how it will be possible either for me, in your Lordships' House, or for the Local Legislative Committee in the other House, to refuse to allow English watering places and seaside resorts to have the same powers in the way of advertising. The Amendment for the rejection of the Bill was, by leave, withdrawn, and the Bill was read a second time and eventually became law.

The same things may be said to-day in opposition to this Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord, notwithstanding the statement of Lord Onslow, will still presevere in his opposition. I hope that will not be the case. We all know how, during the war, our health resorts and watering places have suffered. I think it is admitted that they have had very bad times, and we find our continental friends always advertising in our papers, and their health resorts are so crowded that you will have the greatest possible difficulty in getting accommodation in them. Why, then, should we deprive our own people, in our own country, of the opportunity of making known, not only to people in Great Britain but to foreign nations, that there are places in this country worthy of being visited.

Some critics may say that they will not trust the local authorities. Is it to be all grandmotherly legislation? If we have local bodies, elected by their friends and neighbours, are you going to say you will not trust them? They would not be elected if they wasted money. And, after all, they are not to advertise in their own areas, and so the benefit will not be for local newspapers. Really, I think it will come to this, that it will be a technical point as to whether the Lord Chairman will be able to persuade your Lordships to reject this Bill, or whether some of you will be able to persuade the noble Earl to follow the example of his predecessor and withdraw his opposition. We all know in these days that advertising brings prosperity, and I think it is a very hard thing to deny to our own health resorts and watering places the opportunity of advertising themselves in the same way as similar places in foreign countries are able to do. I, therefore, move the Second Reading of this Bill. I very much regret that the task has not fallen into the hands of Lord Roe, whose hobby this Bill was when he was in the House of Commons, but I hope it will not suffer from the way in which I have asked your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Southwark.)

LORD ASKWITH had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to have to differ from my noble friend Lord Southwark in-this matter, but I desire to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months on the ground that it is undesirable, unnecessary and, above all, uneconomical. The Bill is entitled "Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill," but when you come to look at it you see that it states that any borough or urban district may advertise the advantages and the amenities of the borough or district or any part thereof as a health resort or watering place, and it allows this to be done in certain newspapers, or by placards or otherwise, and permits one penny in the £ to be put upon the rates. We have had a penny put on the rates for housing quite recently. Here is a proposal for another penny to be put on the rates for advertising. It is quite contrary to the custom that has appertained in the past, but, apart from that, the Bill, by its very width, defeats itself. It gives an inequality, and an unfair inequality (supposing things are equal) as between the rich borough and the small one. It obliges practically every borough or health resort or watering place to advertise itself if a neighbouring watering place does so. You have advertisements now respecting the amenities of watering places. You may take up almost any daily newspaper, and you will see advertisements about the silvery sea, or setting forth the various amenities of a particular place.

It is not as if the people of this country did not know to which watering-places to go. They may go to the East coast or to the South coast, and they will find from their friends the places that are most suitable for them. It is undesirable to have, say, on the East coast, Sheringham, Felixstowe, Cromer and Hunstanton all advertising one against another, or on the South coast, Littlehampton, Bognor, Worthing, Brighton, Hastings and Eastbourne all advertising against each other. If those places on the South coast advertise you will not prevent Arundel, Chichester, Lewes and Midhurst also advertising, because of their amenities immediately inland. It is, I believe, true that one town in Great Britain about thirty years ago did get permission to advertise—namely, Blackpool. But Blackpool would have been found out by the miners and weavers without any advertisement. Very few other towns have followed this example, with the exception of places in Ireland. Ireland was advertised at the express request of the Irish members, but it was a country that was practically unknown to the British tourist. It was not like our East or South Coasts, which are known to every one, but was a place where there were few hotels, and where it was as well to tell the British tourist that there were hotels. For my part, on those lovely coasts, it might be a good thing if there was an hotel every few miles; it would do more to settle the Irish question than anything else.

To put a penny on the rate for this purpose would be, I think, unfair as between towns. I also think that it would be unfair in a town itself. There are methods now of advertising with money obtained from the amenities of a place. Let the hotel-keepers and the cinema proprietors and, if you like, the donkey-proprietors, advertise. out of their profits if they wish to push their particular wares, but do not let a rate be placed upon all the inhabitants of a seacoast town, many of whom get no advantage whatever out of it, and very many of whom would wish this advertising to be put far distant from them. I see from the Notice Paper that the Lord Chairman of Committees will probably support. me in this matter, and he will be better able than I am to explain the practice of your Lordships' House. I understand, however, that this has not been the custom for years, and that the example of Blackpool has not been followed. This method of putting charges upon the rates, and extra expense upon local and municipal districts, is quite unusual, and at the present time, I think, most unreasonable. I beg to move—

Amendment moved— Leave out the word "now" and, at end, insert "this day six months."—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD SOMERLENTON

My Lords, I should like to say one word on behalf of this Bill, which is very badly needed in many parts of England at present. It is impossible that our health resorts should be made properly known in these days without advertising. Even in this House we know a good deal of the advertising that is done, and we know how necessary advertising is to ensure success in many'a commercial undertaking. Advertising is very badly needed now in several parts of England with which I have the honour to be acquainted, and I hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment.

THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, Ireland has been mentioned in connection with this Bill, and it is undeniable that advertising has been very useful in the case of that country, but I do not wish to quote that precedent. Lord Askwith said that there would be undesirable competition between the different watering places, and he mentioned a lot of small watering places that might come into competition. But surely this is a matter for the ratepayers to decide. If they do not like this penny in the £ on the rates they will not re-elect the councillors who have put it on. It is optional to those who live in a town. There are many towns which have had a hard time during the war, and they ought to be, allowed to advertise their amenities so as to make them known to the public. The precedent of Blackpool has been quoted. What is the result? Blackpool is one of the most prosperous and best-run watering-places in the whole of the United Kingdom, so far as one reads and hears of it. Therefore, I think, with the precedent of Blackpool More us, one is right and consistent in supporting this measure. Towns are not bound to put on the penny rate, and I am sure the rate payers of the different places can take very good care of themselves.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

My Lords, I had given notice to move the rejection of this Bill, but I am very glad the noble Lord on my left has done so, and I rise to support him. I know that it is rather an unusual thing for the Chairman of Committees to do, but as the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, has reminded your Lordships, I am following the example of My noble friend and predecessor, Lord Onslow, in the case of the Irish Bill. I oppose this Bill not only for technical, but for other reasons, which I will explain. as briefly as I can. The policy of Parliament in this matter has been fairly consistent for the past thirty or forty years. I will mention exceptions in a moment. If this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will reverse what has been the policy of Parliament—the correct policy—in this matter. The Irish Bill is an exception. I note that the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has studied the debate that took place upon the Irish Bill, in which I took a small part, and I am sure he will remember that my noble friend Lord Onslow was only persuaded to withdraw his opposition on being satisfied that the argument which had been put forward that Ireland was an exceptional case would not be taken as a precedent when we came to discuss this matter in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I ought not to put it stronger than this— that he hoped it would not be pushed too far as a precedent in future cases.

I have to confess to your Lordships that in all private Bill legislation it is an unwritten rule that Irish precedents are never admitted in English, Scottish and Welsh cases. That is a matter which I am glad to see is received with enthusiasm by my noble friend on the left, but it is not always received with such enthusiasm when I have to mention it to agents who are permitted to do things in Ireland which are not permitted on this side of the Channel. Your Lordships will, of course, understand that this is a matter over which Parliament has always kept complete control—namely, the question as to what subjects are proper subjects to have money spent on them when raised by rates—and Parliament has consistently refused (with two exceptions to which I shall refer) to permit this expenditure out of the rates. I think the reasons are two—firstly, that Parliament has realised that competitive advertising would defeat this object; and, secondly, that very often people in watering places do not want them advertised. Some people find the attraction of such places in their quietness and in their not being kept in the full swing of so-called gaiety with which your Lordships no doubt are familiar in the case of one or two places. But it has been the practice of Parliament to authorise advertisements out of profits arising from certain amenities, and I might mention one or two of the more recent cases.

I should gladly have supported this Bill if it followed recent practice—namely, if it were proposed that public authorities might advertise the amenities of their districts out of their profits, but not out of the rates. Several places in this country have that power, and I should be glad to see something of that kind adopted here; but that is very different from what is proposed in this Bill. What I might almost. call a model clause is the Brighton clause of 1912. Brighton is permitted to advertise its amenities as a health resort out of the revenue from the letting of chairs and the sale of programmes, and to expend in that process a sum not exceeding a rate of ½d. in the £. Your Lordships will see that this clause lays down the precedent of which I have spoken: There are two other precedents previous to that of Brighton. I will not mention them in detail, but they are Buxton (1904) and Margate (1908). Aberystwyth Corporation (1913) is allowed to use its revenue from the letting of chairs and surplus moneys out of the borough fund; but your Lordships are aware that Aberystwyth is not on a par with any other place in the United Kingdom, because it owns half the borough, and therefore the question of rates is on a totally different basis from that of any other town.

Then the Hove Corporation Act, 1913, applies to revenue from the letting of chairs and the amount allowed was equivalent to the produce of a rate of ½d. in the £. Southport Corporation Act, 1913: revenue from pleasure fairs, marine lakes and foreshore, and letting of chairs; again, an amount not exceeding a ½d. rate. The Bill before the House asks for a 1d. on the rates. St. Anne's-on-Sea Improvement Act, 1914; revenue from letting of chairs; amount, equivalent to ½d. rate. Weymouth and Malcombe Regis Corporation Act, 1914: revenue from letting of chairs, tent sites, bathing machines, concert-platform sites, stall sites, charges for admission to gardens, and enclosures, and sale of programmes; again, an amount equivalent to a ½d. rate. Your Lordships will see that you have not allowed advertising out of the rates, but out of certain receipts arising from the amenities. I do not know what attitude His Majesty's Government intend to take on this matter, but I have no hesitation in saying that Public Departments have persistently reported against the powers asked for in this Bill. I have here a copy of a very interesting Report made by the Local Government Board to Parliament in 1912 in the case of the Brighton Bill. I will not read this Report, but I may say that it elaborates in detail that which I have been explaining to your Lordships. It shows the consistency of Parliament in this matter. The Report mentions that similar clauses to that for which Brighton asked in 1912 were struck out of the Cleethorpes Bill in 1902, the New Hunstanton Improvement Bill, 1903, the Appleby Corporation Gas Bill, 1904; the Ilfracombe, Llandrindod Wells, Liverpool, and Whitby Bills of 1905, Pontefract Bill, 1906, Cardiff Bill, 1909, and the Bristol, Hornsea, and St. Helen's Bills of 1911.

There are two exceptions that I ought to mention. The first is the one quoted by my noble friend—Blackpool. That was in 1879, 41 years ago. I have a note in my office, in the book which was then kept in connection with these matters, which informs me that this clause was allowed to go in by inadvertence. More than that I cannot explain to your Lordships, but that is what is stated in our records. It is only right to point out that in the case of Blackpool the precedent is 41 years old, and that there are scores of precedents for a contrary decision. The other precedent I ought to mention is one which has arisen this session—namely, Llandrindod Wells. That is a small town, in a picturesque part of Wales, containing several very valuable mineral springs. The rateable value of the town is comparatively small. This place has gone ahead very much during the war owing to the absence from competition from Continental springs, and the local authority have been given powers this session to advertise out of money received from their amenities and, in addition, if by any chance the receipts from their amenities are not sufficient to make up an amount equal to a rate of 2d. in the £— which is only a few scores of pounds—they are permitted to take the deficiency out of the rates. Therefore, as your Lordships will see, it is not on a par with the proposal in this Bill which unblushingly proposes that 1d. in the £ should be taken out of the rates. In the case of a place like Torquay the amount involved would obviously be a very large sum.

I am glad that my noble friend who moved the rejection of this Bill pointed out that it is not confined to health resorts, but that it gives powers to every local authority in the kingdom to advertise. Under this Bill the London County Council could advertise London as a health resort. I feel pretty certain that they would not do so, but the power would be given to them to do it if they chose. On the other hand, there are places which. will do it. There is an application before Parliament now, in a Bill from Cardiff which has not yet received the Royal Assent, to be considered as a health resort. Before I sit down may I refer to the point made by Lord Mayo, who says this is in the hands of the ratepayers, who need not advertise if they do not wish to do so. Yes, they must. Competition forces them to compete against each other, and that really is the great evil underlying it. You will not do many a watering-place much good, but you will force them all to spend an amount which may be as much as 1d. in the £ in competition with each other, and you are therefore practically putting 1d. on the rates. in every one of these-places. I think at the present time, of all others, it is most undesirable that we should put such a burden upon them. If the noble Lord goes to a Division, which I hope he will, I shall certainly support him.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, the opposition of my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees in such a case as this is always exceedingly formidable, and a case has to be strong before your Lordships are willing to oppose the opinion which the Lord Chairman expresses on a matter which is in a sense, although not directly, concerned with Private Business. But, holding the views I do, I feel bound to state the reasons why, if my noble friend opposite goes to a Division, I shall support him, and not the noble Lord above the gangway who has moved the rejection of the Bill. I do not want to dwell on the Irish case, although it interests me, because it was during my term of office in Ireland that the tourist movement had its inception, and I had the pleasure of presiding at the original meeting which was held in Dublin, when it was hoped to persuade the inhabitants of Great Britain that there were places in Ireland besides the Lakes of Killarney and the Giants' Causeway—those being the only two known to the British mind—which were well worth a visit. But the cases, of course, as Lord Askwith stated, are not quite on all fours, because Ireland was then an unknown country, whereas, to a considerable extent, these powers are sought for places which are already well known. But I cannot help thinking that there are some strong arguments in favour of my noble friend's proposal.

The advertising of these places now is mainly entrusted to the railways. It is at the railway stations that we see those marvellous delineations of coasts and other scenes, with seas and skies bluer than the Mediterranean ever could boast of, and children playing on the foreshore in the most Arcadian happiness. With the new propositions about railways, the grouping of railways, and the possibility that their success may depend less on their earnings on the traffic to particular places, is it. quite certain that the railway companies will be disposed to give the same advertising facilities—and, indeed, to spend their own money on advertising—in the way that they do at present? That, I think, is a consideration which is worth hearing in mind when the question of permitting local authorities to advertise the attractions of the places which they represent is under consideration.

Then the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, presented the plausible alternative that advertising of this kind might be allowed out of profits, but ought not to be allowed out of the rates. There he comes into the most direct conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, who objects to the undue preference which is given to wealthy and established places as against the more struggling places which would be obliged to advertise for competitive reasons. Of course, it is those places—places like Brighton and some of the others mentioned by the noble Earl—which are in a position to earn large profits already and to spend large sums of money in still further advertising their attractions. But that goes entirely against the proposition of Lord Askwith that everybody ought to be placed on equal terms, and that certain places should not be allowed to have a preference as against others. Indeed, it absolutely accentuates that preference to the fullest possible point.

Then the noble Earl has said that there is a danger that other places, not watering places, may take to advertising, and mulct the unhappy ratepayers for the purpose. It is hardly to be supposed, as the noble Earl admitted, that places that have no attractions for tourists will think it worth while to advertise. There is no reason why a great manufacturing centre should spend its ratepayers' money in advertising for visitors. On the other hand, there may be places, not watering places or health resorts, which do possess some particular attraction in the way of ruined buildings, or of a famous cathedral, or whatever it may be, which, it seems to me, are quite equally entitled, if the local authorities so desire it, to spend some money in advertising. Lastly, the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, used an argument which I desire to combat to the fullest extent. He instanced the case of the wealthy ratepayer who, for purposes of his own, has settled in a health resort and desires to keep it quiet, to be relieved of the influx of possibly vulgar and noisy people, and to keep it as private as possible.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I did not say wealthy. I do not think a man needs to be wealthy to like quiet.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

No, but I say wealthy, because those are the people who would be the ratepayers for whom sympathy is sought. If they were the humbler class of ratepayer, the shopkeeper for example, I think it extremely unlikely to object to be over-run by tourists. Nor, indeed, would the wealthiest of the lot, the landowner, be likely to raise an objection, because he would obviously see that the more people came, the more valuable his land would become. But there is a type of selfish ratepayer who, I quite agree, would take that view. But neither he nor she ought to be, as I submit, the subject of the smallest consideration from anybody. For these and other reasons I shall certainly support the noble Lord if he goes to a Division.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR)

My Lords, I had not intended taking part in the discussion, but the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, asked what the attitude of the Government on this Bill was. Our attitude will be the same as it was in another place. There the Government did not officially adopt the Bill, but left it to the free decision of the House as to whether it should be passed or not. They were, however, so far sympathetic that they gave facilities—that is, time—for the discussion of the Bill. As it turned out, there was a considerable majority in favour of the Bill, and it consequently passed through all its stages. Our attitude will be the same here—an attitude of general sympathy, but leaving it to the free judgment of your Lordships. House.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I desire to say a few words to explain why I, for one, shall vote for the Amendment, and against the Second Reading of the Bill. There are precedents. The precedents are overwhelming in favour of the course which is suggested by my noble friend Lord Askwith, and by my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees. I do not dwell merely upon precedent. Everybody must realise that we live in a time of great financial stress. The burdens upon the taxpayers and the ratepayers are almost more than they can bear, and to come at such a moment as this and ask your Lordships practically to throw a penny rate upon all the watering places throughout the country, seems to me to be a course which would be strictly uneconomic and contrary to public policy at the present moment. I put it, perhaps, rather strongly when I said every watering-place, but I was immensely struck by the observation of the Lord Chairman that if you allow it anywhere, the mere force of competition will practically make it universal, or almost universal. You cannot expect a particular watering-place to allow its rival to advertise and not to compete, and so it will spread from town to town until it becomes almost general. It appears to me that the passing of the Second Reading of the Bill would have the effect of forcing a penny rate upon practically all watering-places. Without pronouncing any opinion upon the actual merits of the case, which can be left to a suitable time, I must say that if we mean anything by our cry for economy and by the efforts we are trying to make to restrict the burdens upon the people of this country, this is not the moment to carry the Second Reading of the Bill.

LORD SOUTHWARK

My Lords, with regard to the observations that fell from the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, may I express the hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, and enable the House to consider in Committee any such suggestions as those made by the noble Lord? There is a misapprehension about this Bill. I have heard it said two or three times—and I think Lord Donoughmore repeated it—that it means a penny rate. It is not a compulsory penny rate. It is only to enable these towns to go to a penny rate, if necessary, and in some cases it would not be necessary at all. Nor is it, as the noble Marquess started by saying, though he corrected himself afterwards, a universal penny rate

Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be for the whole country. It is only where the duly elected local authorities think it will be an advantage to their town to advertise and spend their money profitably, that they have the power to raise money up to a penny rate. That is all it is. Then the noble Marquess referred to the necessity, in these days, of cutting down expenses, and so on. The object of this penny rate is to increase the prosperity of these towns. It is to enable these people, who have suffered so much during the war, to have an opportunity of advertising their watering places and remunerating themselves for past losses, and to encourage the growth and prosperity of their towns in the future.

I am very much obliged to those noble Lords who have supported my Motion for the Second Reading. I certainly shall go to a Division. I may say that in the House of Commons the Government really supported this Bill. Scotland was included in it, as your Lordships know, as the result of a suggestion made in Committee, and it had the support of the Secretary for Scotland, of Lord Edmund Talbot, and others. Even the Treasury supported this Bill in the House of Commons, so that your Lordships must not run away with the idea that it is simply a formal matter. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, because there will be an opportunity of revising it in Committee, and then, if you do not approve of it, the Bill can be thrown out.

On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS
Crewe, M. Astor, V. Rathcreedan, L.
Dufferin and Ava, M. Cawley, L. Somerleyton, L.
Eldon, E. Clwyd, L. Southwark, L. [Teller.]
Mayo, E. [Teller.] Hemphill, L. Strachie, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Wellington, D. Cave, V. Hylton, L.
Goschen, V. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Bath, M. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Newton, L.
Salisbury, M. Ranksborough, L.
Bradford, E. Rotherham, L.
Ashton of Hyde, L. Stanmore, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Askwith, L. [Teller.] Sumner, L.
Balfour, L. [Teller.] Sydenham, L.
Lucan, E. Chalmers, L. Templemore, L.
Lytton, E. Cozens-Hardy, L. Teynham, L.
Malmesbury, E. Desborough, L. Treowen, L.
Morton, E. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) Wavertree, L.
Onslow, E. Weardale, L.
Forester, L. Wester Wemyss, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Hindlip, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

read 2a this day six months.