Lords Sitting of 3 May 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
DUNDEE GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Dundee Gas—Was presented by the Lord Stanmore, read lª to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7), deemed to have been read 2ª, and reported from the Committee.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NEWCASTLE- UNDER-LYME) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Newcastle-under-Lyme—Was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read lª; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in accordance with private notice which I have given, I beg to ask my noble friend whether he can give the House any information in respect of the holidays. It is a matter which generally interests your Lordships at this time of year.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to give Lord Salisbury and your Lordships generally any information) upon this subject at present. The position, from one point of view and another, is still somewhat vague, and I am afraid that I cannot promise to give your Lordships information during the present week. If, however, it is found possible to give some, general indication, I suggest that I should communicate privately with Lord Salisbury and invite him to raise the matter on Thursday next, but I am afraid that at the present moment I cannot give any promise that even on Thursday it will be possible to make a final statement.

THE INDUSTRIAL CRISIS.

  MESSAGE FROM HIS MAJESTY.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to read the following Message from the King:—
  " The continued cessation of work in coal mines on the 30th April, 1921, having constituted, in the opinion of His Majesty, a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act, and dated 30th April, 1921, to declare that a state of emergency exists."
  I beg leave to give notice that to-morrow Inv noble friend the Leader of the House will move to resolve, That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated April 30, 1921, shall continue in force, subject however to the provision of Section 2 (4) of the said Act. It is a continuation of the Resolution passed by your Lordships on a previous occasion.
  On behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I likewise give Notice that to-morrow he will move to resolve, That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty thanking His Majesty for his most gracious Message communicating to this House His Majesty's declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed.

FORTH CONSERVANCY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
For protection of Caldwell & Co. (Papermakers),Limited.
87. The following provisions shall have effect for the protection of Caldwell and Company (Papermakers) Limited in respect of the lands at present owned by the said company in the burgh of Inverkeithing (which company and its successors in the said lands are hereinafter in this section referred to as "the company"):—

(1) Nothing in this Order shall prejudice or affect the right of the company to discharge into Inverkeithing Bay the
114
waste liquid products from their present works and from any additional or substituted works on the. said lands Provided that in the exercise of such right no injury or impediment shall be Caused to the navigation of the river nor danger to the shipping thereon:

(2) If the Board shall at any time become bound by reason or in consequence of any operations carried out or work constructed by the Board in the river under this Order to make and maintain reasonable, facilities for the drainage from the said lands the said waste liquid products shall if their disposal in manner aforesaid be cut off or interfered with be deemed to be part of the drainage for which provision has to be made:

(3) Nothing in this Order shall prejudice or affect the right of the company to continue to reclaim the land included in the few contract between the burgh of Inverkeithing and the company dated the twenty-fifth day of August and the ninth clay of September one thousand nine hundred and five and recorded in the burgh register of Inverkeithing the twenty-first day of Al arch one thousand nine hundred and six:

(4) Any difference arising between the Board and the company under this section shall be determined by a single arbiter to be agreed upon or failing agreement by an arbiter to be appointed by the Board of Trade on the application of either party.

PART VIII.

  MISCELLANEOUS
  Agreements will, railway companies.
  88. The Board on the one hand and the Caledonian Railway Company and the North British Railway Company or either of them on the other hand may enter into and carry into effect agreements or arrangements for the exercise by the Board of any of the powers vested in those companies in relation to dredging scouring or cleansing the harbour of Grangemouth or the harbours of Borrowstounness Alloa and Charlestown respectively or the bed and channel of the river ex adverse of those harbours respectively for such consideration and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the Commons made two Amendments in this Bill. The first is in Clause 87 (for the protection of Caldwell and Company (Paper-makers) Limited, the words "at present" being omitted, and the words "which were prior to the application to the Secretary for Scotland for this Order" being inserted. The second Amendment is the addition of the following proviso to Clause 88:
  "Provided always that nothing in this subsection shall prejudice or restrict the right of the

  115
  owners of such bed, soil, or foreshore to compensation for damage sustained by them through the exercise of the powers thereby conferred, and that the powers conferred by this subsection shall not be exercised in any way that might interfere with or prejudicially affect the undertakings or statutory right of any railway company incorporated by Act of Parliament except with the consent of such railway company."
  This proviso was inserted as the result of an undertaking given on behalf of the Admiralty by my noble friend, Lord Onslow, to insert words making it clear that riparian owners would not be debarred from compensation in the event of their suffering any damage from the works or operations carried out under the clause. I move that this House agrees with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said. Amendments.—(Lord Stanmore).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

TREATY OF PEACE (HUNGARY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to say that my noble friend, the Leader of the House, in consequence of the continuance of the Allies' Conference, is unable to be here to-day, and I must therefore invite Lord Newton to consent to the postponement of this Bill, in which he is so much interested. I suggest it should be put down for Thursday next.
LORD NEWTON: Do I understand that it will be taken this week?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I suggest that it should be put down for next Thursday. Lord Curzon is much disappointed that he is not able to be present to take the Second Reading to-day.
Second Reading accordingly deferred till Thursday, May 5.

PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBERCULOSIS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Bill has been introduced in order to meet the situation created by the passing of the
116
National Health Insurance Act last year, under which sanatorium benefit ceases. It also carries out the assurance given by the late Minister of Health on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place—namely, that there will be no hiatus in the change from one method of the treatment of tuberculosis patients to another. Before dealing with the clauses in the Bill, it would be convenient to explain briefly the general provisions in regard to tuberculosis treatment, and also the financial result which the cessation of sanatorium benefit under the Act of 1920 will produce.
Your Lordships will remember that under the Act of 1911 the benefits obtainable under insurance included medical benefit, maternity benefit, sickness benefit, disablement benefit, and, lastly, sanatorium benefit. In respect of the sanatorium benefit, considerable discussion arose, and after somewhat lengthy negotiations and consideration, which I need not go into, an arrangement was arrived at by which local authorities were to be encouraged to undertake schemes for the institutional treatment of tuberculosis, the treatment to be available-for insured and non-insured persons. This was taken up by local authorities throughout the country with general enthusiasm, and opportunities for treatment were created in most parts of England and Wales.
The insurance committees which were set up under the Act of 1911 worked in co-operation with the local authorities, and insured persons were taken by the local authorities for institutional treatment, payment being made by the insurance committee from the general Insurance Fund. The way in which this scheme was financed can best be explained by a concrete example. Supposing the total amount expended was £10,000 per year, 20 per cent. of that amount would be available for the institutional treatment of insured persons out of insurance funds. Therefore, £2,000 of the £10,000 would be payable to the county council by the insurance committee, and that would leave a sum of £8,000 which would have to be met from other sources. The way in which that £8,000 was dealt with was as follows. Half was paid from the rates and the other half from the Exchequer. The half which came from the Exchequer was known as the Hobhouse Grant, called after Sir Charles Hobhouse, who took a leading part in connection with the first Act. That was

117
the situation until the end of last month, April 30, when, under the Act of 1920, sanatorium benefit ceased.
Before going into the actual details of the Bill I might also explain the way in which that part of the cost which formerly fell on the Insurance Funds will be met in future. It is proposed to make a fixed grant, equivalent to the amount which the insurance committees had available towards meeting the cost of treating insured persons during last year. This fixed sum will amount, roughly speaking—exact calculations have not yet been made—to £300,000 per annum. The rest of the cost of the scheme is estimated to amount to nearly £2,000,000 during the present financial year, and that sum, as I have already explained, will be met, half by rates and half by the Exchequer. Therefore, the whole finance of the scheme will in future be met by a fixed grant of approximately £300,000 from tire Exchequer. and half the rest of the cost by what is known as the Hobhouse Grant, also front the Exchequer, and the other half from the rates.
Now I come to the Bill as it lies upon your Lordships' Table. Let me refer first to Clause 1. As I think I have already said, the great majority of the county councils and the county borough councils have already undertaken schemes for the institutional treatement of tuberculosis. These schemes have been approved either by the late Local Government Board or by its present successor, the Ministry of Health. In fact, I can say that of the 145 county and county borough councils in England and Wales, not fewer than 124 have already undertaken such schemes, and all but two of the remaining 21 are taking steps to carry out approved schemes. With these schemes there will be no interference, except on the initiative of any particular council. The clause provides that an approved scheme can only be modified on the application of the council with the approval of the Ministry of Health. The only change will be that the part of the cost which has hitherto been borne from the funds supplied by the local insurance commit tees will in future be borne from the fixed grant of approximately £300,000 with which I have already dealt.
Under subsection (2), if any council objects to make these necessary arrangements, the Minister has power to take action to recover the cost. That is to say, the institutional treatment of tuberculosis,
118
where in the past. it has been optional upon local authorities, now becomes compulsory. But the obligation which the Bill places on the large majority of councils is limited to carrying out schemes already introduced. The object of this is merely to ensure that the very few remaining councils come into line with the great majority. I must draw special attention to the last paragraph of this subsection. The paragraph was added in the House of Commons in Grand Committee in order to meet the objection that if in the future the Government were to withdraw or diminish the grant from the Exchequer, county councils and county borough councils might, be landed with a statutory obligation under the Bill to continue institutional treatment of tuberculosis at their own expense.
The clause was moved by Sir Herbert Nield and accepted by my right hon. friend. Any demur that the Government might have felt in accepting this clause was due to the possibility that the mention of the withdrawal or diminution of the grant under the Bill might conceivably be held to foreshadow the possibility of an intention on the part of the Government to contemplate such a course in the future. Such an intention was never in their mind. The Government wishes it to be distinctly understood that it is their settled policy and intention to carry out the financial provisions of this as described in the White Paper; that is to say, to make a grant of approximately £300,000 a year to compensate councils for the withdrawal of the insurance committees' contribution, and an equal moiety from the Exchequer of the sums contributed from the rates for the institutional treatment of tuberculosis. Thus, the Hobhouse Grant will be continued.
I can quite appreciate the fact that even if this clause removes from councils the obligations to continue institutional treatment, if the Government were to fail in their obligations they would not be able to close down their activities at once, because it would he impossible for them to abandon immediately, or even to diminish, the schemes they have in hand. What the clause does is to provide that, in the event of the Government failing to carry out their obligation, the whole responsibility would be thrown on the Government for ally diminution of institutional treatment carried out by the councils. The clause relieves councils of any responsibility in this respect.

119
My noble friend opposite has placed a Resolution on the Paper which seeks to make the obligation of the Government a statutory one. I would venture to point out that the present tuberculosis grant has always been non-statutory, and has been voted by Parliament each year since 1913. In this respect this grant is in the same position as the grants from the Exchequer for other public health services, such as the grant-in-aid for the treatment of venereal disease, the grant for maternity and child welfare, and the grant for the welfare of the blind, although in the case of venereal disease and the welfare of the blind the grants are in aid of services which the local authorities are under statutory obligation to provide. I think it will therefore be realised that the proposal to make the tuberculosis grant a statutory one raises far-reaching issues and is an entirely new departure. In view of these considerations, and of the serious Parliamentary difficulties which would obviously be involved in the insertion at this stage of any such clause, I trust that your Lordships will be satisfied with the undertaking set out in the White Paper, and repeated by my right hon. friend in another place, and again repeated by me this afternoon.
I now come to Clause 2. This clause was added in another place to the Bill as originally proposed by the Government. It is a useful clause, giving power to local authorities to afford after-care to tuberculous patients. I should point out, however, that the cost of this after-care does not fall upon the funds provided by the Exchequer or the rates for the institutional treatment of tuberculosis. If the councils avail themselves of this power, they must make provision for the cost themselves. Clause 3 gives power to the Minister to withdraw approval from institutions.
Clause 4 gives the councils power to act through sub-committees. As your Lordships, many of whom are members of county councils, are well aware; these functions are generally exercised by the public health committee of the council, or even by a sub-committee of that committee which deals with tuberculosis alone. This clause simplifies the procedure by enabling the committee or sub-committee to be the responsible authority for the exercise of the powers of the council, except, of course, as to the raising of the rates or borrowing money. The clause also gives power to the council to add to any such committee
120
or sub-committee members up to 33 per cent. of the whole who are not member of the council.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the object of this. It is more especially intended to enable councils to co-opt on to these committees members of insurance committees. As the administration of insurance benefit has been in the hands—and, in the opinion of the Government, the very capable hands—of insurance committees during the last eight or nine years, it is clear that every facility should be given for retaining the valuable services of members of those committees in working the new arrangements. This clause gives the fullest facilities to councils to avail themselves of the services of such persons. In a discussion in another place the suggestion was put forward that the co-option of members of insurance committees should be made obligatory upon councils, but it was felt that to make such a provision would he to interfere with the independent rights of councils, and that the proper course would be to give the councils full power and every encouragement to co-opt such members, but not to make it compulsory. This clause, I think, carries out that intention.
Clause 5 enables joint committees to be formed of various local authorities to deal with tuberculosis in any particular area as a whole. In theory, under this clause the 145 county and county borough councils in England and Wales could combine to form one joint committee and administer the act as one authority, but, of course, in practice it is not suggested that this should be the case. In practice, the clause is intended to facilitate a small number of contiguous authorities to join together. Thus, a county council may have some small county boroughs within the geographical area of the county, and it may be convenient for them to join with the county council and to administer the geographical area of the county as one whole; or, perhaps, two or three counties with the contiguous county boroughs may join together to form a group; but this will be left to the discretion of the local authorities. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 gives the legal powers of a body corporate to such joint committees. Subsection (3) maintains in being any joint committee of this kind formed under any previous Act. Then I turn to Clause 6, which gives power to the Metropolitan Asylums

121
Board to treat with county councils for the reception of persons suffering from tuberculosis in their sanatoria. The clause merely re-enacts one of the sections in the National Insurance Act, 1915, and extends the, powers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board to receive into their sanatoria any person suffering from tuberculosis, whether insured or non-insured.
This is the Bill as it comes up from another place. In accordance with an undertaking given by the Minister of Health in another place I shall, in Committee, have to move an Amendment having the purpose of appointing an Advisory Committee to assist the county and county borough councils in making arrangements for the treatment of seamen and other persons employed in the mercantile marine who are suffering from tuberculosis, but I need not refer to that at any length, as it will be dealt with when my Amendment is laid before your Lordships in Committee.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships question the wisdom of this Bill, or wish to criticise the action of the Government in making the institutional treatment of tuberculosis a public health matter, but? I think that the following figures may be interesting. For the six years, 1915–1920, the following deaths took place from tuberculosis: in 1915, 54,295, or 151·5 per 100,000; 1916, 53,858, or 152·9 per 100,000; 1917, 55,934, or 162·4 per 100,000; 1918, 58,073, or 169·4 per 100,000; 1919—here comes a considerable drop—46,312, or 125·8 per 100,000; 1920, 42,545, or 112·8 per 100,000. The fall in the rate from 169·4 in 1918 to 112·8 in 1920 is 56·6 per 100,000. That is attributable partly to the cessation of the war and the better living conditions consequent thereon, but it is also, no doubt, attributable to the valuable and admirable work carried out by the councils, and is proof positive of the immense gain to the nation obtained by this work.
I may perhaps conclude by mentioning the increase of facilities for institutional treatment of tuberculosis afforded by local authorities since July 15, 1912. On that date there were but 1,500 beds and 80 dispensaries provided by the local authoritise. At the end of December, 1918, there were 6,749 beds and 365 dispensaries; now, there are 9,879 beds and 411 dispensaries. At the same time the beds in voluntary institutions have increased from
122
2,800 in 1912 to 7,568 now. The total increase, therefore, in beds, in the eleven years mentioned, is from 4,300 to 17,447, or a total of 13,147 beds. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move to resolve—
" That the Bill be approved subject to the Government undertaking to insert in Committee a clause for the purpose of giving statutory effect to the undertaking given by Sir Alfred Mond to pay to county and county borough councils a grant equivalent to the amount received by those authorities from the insurance committees during the past financial year, and also a grant of 50 per cent. of the balance of the total annual expenditure of those authorities in connection with the treatment of persons suffering from tuberculosis."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion that I have on the Paper was put down by me at the request of the County Councils Association, which had had no opportunity- until the end of last month of examining the Bill. The statement which was made in another place by Sir Herbert Nield, that lie was supporting the Bill as it stood on behalf of the Association, was inaccurate, as it had not been considered by the executive of the Association. I should like to say at once, as regards the Bill as a whole, that the County Councils Association are on the whole, very fairly satisfied. They are very much obliged to the Ministry of Health for the way in which they have considered the many objections which the Association took to the Bill as it was originally introduced, and they are, as I have stated, fairly satisfied with it now.
I can assure the noble Earl that they approach this Bill in no hostile spirit. But the feeling at the executive meeting of the Association was that the Bill makes sanatorium treatment for the first time compulsory upon county councils, and that in the Bill there is no statutory provision for the payment of county councils. It is very natural, when ratepayers are told they have to carry out something under compulsion and not voluntarily, that they should say, "Why should there not be a compulsory provision in the Bill that the

123
Exchequer Grant should equally be compulsory and not simply depend upon the undertaking of the Minister, for the time being, or upon Parliament being ready to vote the particular sum required?"
I understand that in another place a White Paper was circulated with regard to this Bill. I see that your Lordships have not the benefit of it. It has not been circulated to members of this House, and I cannot see that it is on the Table of the House. Therefore, we are under a disability in this matter because we have not the advantage of knowing how the White Paper professes to deal with the situation. I think it would be desirable that in the future, when the House of Commons have an explanatory Paper given to them, we should have an equal advantage and not be kept in the dark in these matters, and have to go to another place for information.
As regards this question of the money, I think, as I have said, it is very natural that local ratepayers, represented by the County Councils Association, should think there ought to be statutory provision. I recognise that in the past it has been done by undertaking, but I would like to remind the noble Earl that the county councils are a little shy of assurances. Assurances have been made in the past, and have not been carried out by the Government, because Ministers change and Governments change, and these undertakings are not always adhered to strictly.
I would like to mention a case that happened in the collection of local taxation licences by local authorities. It was proposed in the Finance Act, 1908, that county councils should have the duty of collecting all these local taxation licences. It was pointed out that the duty would involve considerable expense, and an undertaking was given that £40,000 a year would be paid to cover that cost of collection. On July 13, 1908, a deputation went to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, from the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. That deputation urged that the amount was not sufficient. Mr. Lloyd George said in reply—
"This is an experiment, and, if you find at the end of a year or two that it costs you more than you expected, the Treasury are not shutting the door to the reconsideration at some point. We propose to begin at that figure, and. if you find
124
that it is a much more considerable burden than the sum we have allocated, then you will have a case fur coming to the Treasury and asking for a reconsideration of the amount."
So far, so good. But what happened? As a matter of fact, although there were constant protests with regard to that matter, and there was insufficient in 1911, and again in 1916, no concessions were obtained.
It was not until February of this year that the grant was increased to £60,000. Therefore, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day assured the County Councils Association and the Municipal Corporations Association that if the £40,000 were not found sufficient it would be made up (because that is what it practically amounted to), and although deputations went to the Treasury about the matter, it is only in 1921 that that additional amount has actually been made good to county councils. So that from 1908 to 1921 those county councils have had to bear the loss, sometimes a considerable loss, of the cost due to this cause. I think it is only fair, therefore, to say that county councils have reason to feel rather shy of assurances given, and naturally prefer to have a statutory obligation. No doubt the Minister, when he gives the assurance, has every intention of carrying it out, but apparently, when the thing is done, somehow it is not carried out.
There is also the point raised by the noble Earl himself, when he said that under Clause 1 county councils will not be obliged to carry out treatment in so far as money from the Exchequer is not forthcoming. That is, no doubt, a very fair and proper provision, but at the same time it is not one for which the County Councils Association have any enthusiasm. The noble Earl himself very frankly admitted that county councils have done a great deal in the past in this matter to relieve the country of the burden of this great scourge, and they are not likely to want to diminish their treatment. In many eases also, as I think the noble Earl has acknowledged, it would be very difficult, even if the Government reduced their grant, for the councils to reduce their treatment to the equivalent amount, having already made all their arrangements. Indeed, I think there would be a great outcry in the country if they did so. Therefore, I do not think that provision in the Bill is one for the acceptance of which in another place

125
we have any particular reason to thank the Government.
I have been asked by the London County Council to raise another question, which was dealt with by the noble Earl. It refers to after-treatment under Clause 2 of the Bill. The London County Council were unaware what the provision would be, because it was not made clear, as it has been made clear by the noble Earl to-day, that the Government had no intention of making any contribution towards the expenses of a county council for after-care of tuberculous patients, cured or partially cured. I understand the feeling of the London County Council is that there ought to have' been sonic undertaking given, and some provision made, by which county councils who undertook this after-care under Clause 2 should be reimbursed half the cost, as is the case under Clause 1. I think there is a good deal to be said for the argument of the London County Council, though I am not by any means one who wants to see expenditure increased, either wider local rates or under the Exchequer. But there is this to be said for the point of view of the London County Council—that very often it might be true economy in the end if, under Clause 2, they took steps to treat these people who were thought to be cured and thus to prevent a relapse which would cause them to be put again into sanatoria for further treatment. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider that question at some future time, if it is impossible to do so at the present moment. I desire to move the Motion standing in my name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): This is a Motion which I feel, on grounds of order, the greatest difficulty in putting. The Motion of the noble Earl is for the Second Reading of the Bill. It is quite unfamiliar in my Parliamentary experience that on a Motion for a Second Reading there should be a kind of conditional sanction given to it, on which the House is to pronounce before it has pronounced on the Second Reading. I do not know whether the noble Lord has considered the alternative course, that unless he obtains an assurance from the Government that would satisfy him he should vote against the Second Reading. That is the course invariably adopted in the House of Commons, and I think in your Lordships' House, and I have never known a course adopted such as the one suggested, which I think would be a very unwise proceeding.
LORD STRACHIE: I am entirely in the hands of the House, but I thought there had been Motions framed in this way. May I say, however, that I would move it only in order to get sonic reply? I have no intention of pressing it.
LORD HARRIS: Can the noble Earl now, or will he at some future time, give the House any idea of what will be the percentage proportion of cost contemplated under the Bill thrown upon the rates, and what will be the percentage, thrown upon taxation?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord opposite referred, in the first remark he made, to the fact that the White Paper was not on the Table of the House, and he asked that in future when White Papers were issued by the House of Commons they might be available to your Lordships. I am sorry that this White Paper has not been available to your Lordships, but in future I will endeavour to take such steps as will meet the noble Lord's wishes.
With reference to the ease which the noble Lord mentioned, which was brought by the County Councils Association before the Treasury, I think he said that a promise was given to make good certain costs if the councils found that they were greater than they had expected, and that this promise was not fulfilled until this year. I would point out, with great respect, that this is rather a different case. I do not really know the facts of what took place then, but this is a definite promise on the part of the Government to find a sum of £300,000, roughly speaking, per annum, to reimburse the councils for the sum that they have previously received from the insurance committees, plus a further grant this year of £1,000,000—that is, the Hobhouse Grant, the; equivalent of the £1,000,000 which falls on the rates. That is a definite promise which has been given. I have tried to convey it as explicitly as I could. The promise has been given most explicitly by my right hon. friend, and it is also stated in print in the White Paper.
I can assure the noble Lord that it is the fixed and firm policy of the Government to continue this institutional treatment of tuberculosis. If the Government were to fail in its obligations, as the noble Lord contemplated, the result would be that no responsibility would be thrown on the county councils for the continuance of this institutional treatment. It is per-

127
fectly true, and the noble Lord agrees with me, that county councils would not, or could not, immediately abandon their institutional treatment if this almost impossible case were to arise, but the whole responsibility for any failure to carry out the obligations to tuberculous persons would be entirely on the Government, and not on the county councils. Naturally the councils would not be in receipt of so much money. They would be entirely dependent upon the rates and gradually the facilities for treatment would diminish, perhaps to nothing at all. Therefore, I venture to think it would be really impossible for any Government to go back upon this assurance. I hope that the noble Lord and those whom he represents will accept this explicit assurance which we have given him.
The last point mentioned by the noble Lord dealt with after-care, which is provided for in Clause 2. This was not put in the original Government Bill; it was added in the House of Commons somewhat in the light of an afterthought. If provision were made for this after-care treatment in the same way as for the institutional treatment it would be a matter for discussion when the further measure is brought before Parliament. I do not think it could be introduced at the present moment, but I can promise the noble Lord that the question he has raised will be borne in mind by the Ministry and considered when there is a further opportunity.
I am not quite certain that I followed the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and if my reply does not satisfy him perhaps he will give me another opportunity. In the next financial year it is thought that the total cost will be £2,300,000. Sums of £300,000 and £1,000,000 will he found by the Exchequer —that is, £1,300,000 by the Exchequer—and £1,000,000 by the rates. I do not know whether that answers the noble Lord's question.
LORD HARRIS: That is what I wanted to know.
LORD SYDENHAM: Can the noble Earl say whether the figures he has given represent the maximum annual expenditure which would fall under this Bill?; because, in dealing with these Bills in this way one is always afraid lest they open the door to steadily progressive expenditure. The
128
Ministry of Health now expends £24,250,000 a year, which is rather more than the whole cost of the Army not many years ago. I should be glad to know whether the figures given by the noble Earl may be regarded as final.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think I can say that they may he regarded as final. The block grant of £300,000 may be regarded as final I think, but the sum of £2,000,000 depends upon the amount which the councils spend under the approved scheme each year, which may be more or less. I think that is the answer to the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I should like to ask the noble Earl over what period the expenditure of the £3,000,000 is supposed to be spread. Is it all going to be spent in one year, or in two years? It seems to me an enormous sum to ask the ratepayers to spend at the present time, when the limit of their capacity has already been reached. I do not think they should be asked to embark upon an extravagant scheme of this character, which seems to be a legacy from the late administration of the Ministry of Health. After what happened in this House last session one hoped that there was going to be an improvement. Will the noble Earl kindly tell the House over what period the spending of the £3,000,000 will be extended, and whether it is to be capital expenditure or not?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I do not quite follow the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I understood the noble Earl to say that a sum of £3,000,000 would be expended from the rates.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No; £2,000,000.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Then I was mistaken, but I trust that no additional expenditure will be placed on the ratepayers, considering how heavily burdened they are already.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think the noble Viscount is under a misapprehension. It is not additional expenditure. He knows much better than I do that this institutional treatment has been going on for some time, and that half of the cost has been found by the rates and half out of

129
the Insurance Grant. This is merely prolonging that. The£300,000 will now be found as a block grant from the Exchequer to compensate councils for what they will no longer receive from the Insurance Commission.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, if I have not exhausted my right to speak on this matter, I should like to take this opportunity of entering a protest against the enormous charge which is being thrown upon the rates for this purpose. In concluding his speech just now the noble Earl referred to this as a national object. He said that a reduction of something like 20 per cent, in the number of tuberculosis cases was a great national advantage. It is a very great advantage, but it is a national advantage as the noble Earl said; so why should so large a proportion of the cost be thrown upon the rates? This is merely a continuation of what has already been done. It means that the House of Commons has agreed to it in past years and allowed this extra charge to be thrown on the rates. It is growing every year, and the ratepayers are getting very indignant that these charges should be laid on them almost carelessly by Parliament. Therefore, we are entitled, I think, when we have an opportunity, to enter our protest against it. I do not know how the suggested proportion was arrived at. Why should it not be 25 per cent. on the rates and 75 per cent. on taxation, which seems to me to be a very much fairer proportion?
The fact of the matter is that Government officials, who are paid, are very glad of the opportunity of inducing Parliament to throw upon county councils, who are not paid, a lot of the work they ought themselves to do. Of course, they will go on throwing all the burdens they can upon county councils and local authorities, regardless of the cost to the rates, until a very firm protest is made by those who
represent the local authorities and the ratepayers. I should deem myself neglectful of my duty if, upon every occasion that I find in Bills brought into this House a proposal to increase the gross charges, or rather the gross amount that is going to be spent out of rates upon some national project, I did not enter my solemn protest.
On question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PAY OF RECALLED OFFICERS.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to ask His Majesty's Government what the reason is for the issue of War Office Army Order No. 154, dated 12th April, 1921, three days after the Reserve of Officers had been called up, considering that it is in direct opposition to Royal Warrant for pay, paragraph 518 and paragraphs 496 and 497; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before I submit the Question which stands in my name on the Paper, I should like to offer one reason why I put it down. It is very definitely laid down in Paragraph 496 of the Royal Warrant for Pay and Appointments, 1919, that in case of retired officers the rates to which they refer shall be additional to any retired pay of which they may be in receipt, or irrespective of any gratuity they may have received on retirement. The fact is, as I have stated in my Question, that on April 12, 1921, an Army Order was issued which completely drove a horse and cart through that paragraph of the Royal Warrant.
I have only at this moment received the Royal Warrant. I could not get a copy of it in the Stationery Office this morning. I shall not, therefore, add anything to what I have said, but will merely put my Question. I feel, however, that the Government cannot have recognised the hardships that the passing of the War Office Order has inflicted on many officers in His Majesty's Service, and, in order to try and convince them of that, I may be allowed at 'a future date to go more fully into the matter. Meanwhile, I put the Question which stands in my name.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the noble Viscount opposite is perfectly correct in the quotation which he has given your Lordships from Articles 496 and 497 of the Royal Warrant, which provide that retired officers compulsorily recalled to service in an emergency should receive the full pay of their rank, or payment without reduction of retired pay, and should, on determination of their employment, receive a gratuity of thirty-one days' pay for each year or part of a year. These Articles, however, were placed in abeyance by Royal Warrant in September, 1920. The number of the Army Order is 392 of 1920, so that there is no contravention of the Warrant in the case of officers in the Reserve of Officers. Article 518, to which

131
the noble Viscount refers, does not affect emoluments, hut relates only to the liability to recall of officers on retired pay.
Perhaps I may add that the whole question of the terms of employment of ex-officers is full of difficulty. The fact is the preparation of fresh Regulations involves the co-ordination of the Army, Navy and Air Force Rules—a task of much complexity, which will require great consideration in detail, and it cannot, of course, be dealt with in a short time. It follows that when the present emergency arose there were no Standing Regulations as to the emoluments of retired officers reemployed, and the conditions decided upon, as approved by the Secretary of State, were published by Royal Warrant promulgated under Army Order 154 of 1921. I think that meets the point raised by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I gathered from the noble Lord's reply that an Order has been issued which abrogated the Royal Warrant. Am I right?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Not quite. You cannot abrogate one Royal Warrant except by another, and there has been a subsequent Royal Warrant placing the previous one in abeyance.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: It seems to me that does not do away with the hardships of which the officers complain. There are many cases, which I shall be prepared to quote on a future occasion, showing that these officers, in doing what they have done—which, of course, is their duty—will be very much out-of-pocket as a result.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Another scale of payment is introduced by this Royal Warrant.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I am afraid that I am at a discount at this moment, but I shall go further into the matter on a future occasion.

CASTLECONNELL SHOOTING.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had on the Paper a Question to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state the terms of reference to the Military Court of Inquiry now sitting in reference to the Castleconnell shooting, and whether the findings of the Court will be made public.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, it was not until I came to the House this afternoon that I understood there was sonic difficulty in answering this Question to-day, and of course, I shall not press it. Perhaps the representative of His Majesty's Government will explain where the difficulty lies. I can only remind your Lordships that I put this Question down for to-day on the invitation of my noble friend opposite. He asked me last Tuesday whether I would put the Question down for that day week, and I did so. If I do not ask the Question now I hope your Lordships will understand that the fault is not mine.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, an apology is certainly due to the noble Marquess and to your Lordships that an answer is not forthcoming to-day. It is none the less true that I cannot answer it at this moment, though I hope to do so on the date to which the noble Marquess is good enough to postpone the Question. I cannot inform your Lordships exactly why the information has not been received. I understand that it was telegraphed for, but when I came to the House this afternoon I found to my surprise that the Irish Office had not received from the military authorities the information asked for. I will not make ally observations upon the omission to supply it, because I do not feel that I know enough about it. If the noble Marquess will put down his Question for the day after to-morrow I will give him the fullest answer in my power.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is Thursday next?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask whether any steps have been taken to ensure an impartial and public Inquiry into the circumstances which led to the death of Mr. O'Donovan at the Shannon Hotel, Castleconnell, on April 17, and into the allegations made as to the conduct of the Auxiliaries on that occasion. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I understand it is not inconvenient for the noble Earl opposite to answer my Question, although, in some ways, it is undoubtedly connected with that which the Marquess of Salisbury has postponed. One of the matters I raised before was as to whether the Inquiry was a Court-Martial or a Court

133
of Inquiry, and also, if it was a Court of Inquiry whether special publicity would be given to the result. I am sure all your Lordships who were present will remember that when I used, in the Resolution
which I proposed, the words "impartial" and "public." I used them obviously in a different sense from that in which the noble Earl, speaking on behalf of the Government, used them in answering my Question. I think he is cognisant of that himself, from his saying that he had a feeling at any rate that my criticism went much further than he thought it could be carried by the terms of my Resolution.
I wish to say one or two words both on impartiality and on publicity. So far as publicity is concerned I sent to the noble Lord a telegram which I received. I do not know the person who sent it, but it came from Limerick, and was signed by "James H. Moran, solicitor, next-of-kin." I presume that means Mr. O'Donovan's next-of-kin. Mr. O'Donovan is the man in reference to whom the Inquiry was being held. The telegram read—
" Castleconnell justice demands full independent inquiry. Fear Crawford incorrectly informed regarding facts. Court empty except Press and relatives. Privilege cross-examination farcical. Every question put through President of whose impartiality there is no complaint."
That is a very interesting ending to the telegram. At a later stage I will say a word or two about impartiality. In addition, there have been reports in the papers from correspondents showing that, so far from publicity being allowed in regard to the proceedings, the reports to the various papers have been censored. Of course, a censored report of proceedings of this kind is practically equivalent to no report at all. Not only that, but you may get what is, in fact, a garbled report brought to the notice of the public. Therefore, if this is true, it, seems to me that there is no publicity at all in the real sense.
I want to be very careful about what happened when I raised the matter before. It is a matter, I think, of very great importance, if this is a Court of Inquiry, whether the result will be made public or not. In the case of the Strickland Report, which every one knows was of extreme importance, there was no publication. I am not now going into the reasons of that. It was not published on the ground that the finding of a Court of Inquiry was, in the ordinary course, not made public. There is another matter which came to the front
134
in discussion in another place, and that was that if it is a Court of Inquiry it is not a matter in any sense sub judice. It is merely a Court of Inquiry in order that you may get information on which further proceedings can be taken, such as Court-Martial proceedings, if you have, under the Court of Inquiry, obtained satisfactory prima facie evidence and satisfactory prima facie proof. Though I do not want to embark upon the Question which has been deferred by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I may say that, so far as one has ascertained at present, the question of publicity stands in a very unsatisfactory position. Either one has to take it that there is no publicity, or that the accounts are censored, and I think that is really worse than if the Inquiry were held in secret.
As to the point of impartiality, I think the noble Earl misunderstood what I said about that the other day. No one feels more strongly than I do the desire to have impartiality in a Court of Inquiry or a Court-Martial. I thought I made it quite clear the other day—I am sure many friends of mine in the Army fully appreciate it—that I am making no attack of any sort or kind on the Army. I have always felt that the Army in Ireland, under great provocation, has maintained its discipline in a wonderful manner. What I mean by "impartiality" is a different thing. People may desire to be impartial, but they may not be in a position to be so. They may not have the judicial training by which alone you can get impartiality in the true sense. As a matter of fact, every one is biassed; I do not think any one is impartial entirely; but judicial training, when it deals with these matters, recognises the necessity of great care, and takes precautions that the decision may be as impartial as possible. No doubt the greatest care is taken that there shall be no bias in the nature of interest, certainly no money bias, and no bias in the sense of maintaining the view of an official body in an official Inquiry. One does not make a charge against any one; but that is human nature, and one has to guard against matters of that kind. I hope the noble Earl will answer my Question as to whether any further steps have been taken in the direction indicated.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am afraid Lord Parmoor finds himself faced with the same difficulty as the noble

135
Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and that is, as explained a moment ago by the Lord Chancellor, that the full facts are not in our hands at this moment.
LORD PARMOOR: Would the noble Earl allow me to make an explanation? I asked the Lord Chancellor whether that would be an objection; and I understood that it was not.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am merely going to repeat what the Lord Chancellor said a moment ago—namely, that it is impossible for me to give a full answer, just as it was impossible for him. As to the nature of the Inquiry, whether it would he a Court of Inquiry or a Court-Martial, I confess I believe I used both phrases when addressing your Lordships the other day. Frankly, I cannot charge my memory as to what is the actual nature of the Court, but that point will be made clear when the Lord Chancellor speaks on this matter a day or two hence.
As regards publicity, if I accept the message communicated from Mr. Moran in Limerick as correct, I am afraid I was wrong, and, therefore, misled your Lordships in saying that the Court was open to the public. Mr. Moran denies that that is the case. He may be correct; and if he is correct I owe your Lordships an apology. But that the Court is open to reporters is not doubted in the least. I have had the duty of looking through columns of reports in the newspapers, and so far as the great public of Ireland is concerned, and also the great public generally, the Court is as public as though the inhabitants of Castleconnell were allowed to go and sit in the Court House itself. As to the further point that these reports in the newspapers were garbled—I think he said they were garbled—
LORD PARMOOR: Censored.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The word "garbled" was used, and I have no evidence of that. Certainly the reports, as I read them, do not show any external signs of being "garbled." So far as the case against the Forces of the Crown is reported, it seems to be stated with decision, completeness and fairness, and I am not prepared to admit that the charge is correct.
136
With regard to the question of impartiality, I do not want to get into a metaphysical or ethical controversy with the noble and learned Lord on that point. I imagine he is right in saying that we are all more or less biassed on subjects which interest and concern us closely. But the bias, I would remind him, of the persons who form a Court of Inquiry, or a Court-Martial, is against those shown to have been undisciplined or who have committed breaches of discipline. The bias of a man on a Court-Martial is certainly not in favour of the man who is alleged, on given grounds, to have acted contrary to the laws of discipline. If anything, the bias is against those against whom the charge is brought.
Then about that bullet which Lord Parmoor produced in your Lordships' House the other day. Lord Parmoor had in his hand a bullet which he alleged to be an expansive or dum-dum bullet. That bullet, somehow or other, found its way to the House of Commons. A friend of mine in the House of Commons, a man of much experience in rifles, asked to see that bullet; and it was shown to him. That honourable and gallant friend of mine says that there was no powder in the cartridge, that the cap was spent, and there being no charge, the bullet, as he had it in his hand, could neither have been used nor could have been intended to hurt anybody. I ask your Lordships to reserve judgment upon this allegation of a dum-dum bullet until it has been submitted by Lord Parmoor in the proper manner to the appropriate authorities, and not allow yourselves to be influenced by this scandalous allegation so heartlessly made by Lord Parmoor.
LORD PARMOOR: May I be allowed to say one word in answer to what the noble Earl has just said? As regards the word "censored" I used that word as implying that it was a garbled report. I think it is, in the sense that you do not get a full report of what has happened. As regards the matter of the dum-dum bullet, I beg to say that an Inquiry, is exactly what I want. I have been pressing for an impartial public Inquiry. The allegation as regards the dum-dum bullet was contained in a letter which I read. I showed the bullet to members of this House of the highest military authority, and they informed me that it was such, because the bullet had been turned round with the nose the wrong way on. It was a cartridge which had not exploded. If it had exploded one

137
would not have, found the bullet in the position in which it was found.
I am perfectly aware to whom the noble Earl is referring. The hon. member of the other House is also a friend of mine. I believe lie is referring to Colonel Lane-Fox. Am I right? He has pointed out to him exactly the conditions which I pointed out to this I louse. The allegation was not that the bullet had been fired. It was picked up as spent cartridge. Where did it come from? That was the allegation and there is no one more anxious than I am that matters of this kind should be explained. That is the very object for which I am pressing. I want an impartial and public Inquiry. The sooner matters of this kind are cleared up, and not left as matters of misapprehension or suspicion, the better.
TEE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to say just one word on this matter. It has been my duty more than once to take part in these Irish debates and to observe the consequences of statements and charges made in debate and perhaps not always completely verified by sufficient consideration. The discussion which has just taken place illustrates more clearly than any other incident could, or in my recollection has done, the positive danger, until the result of the Inquiry is in your hands, of noble Lords constituting themselves the advocates of a certain point of view in dealing with facts and circumstances, with the result, the most unfortunate result, of inflaming public opinion. I do not know whether Lord Parmoour is aware that his statement, so dramatically made, is already the subject of discussion in the bazaars of India, and of indictment among our enemies in the United States. Surely the noble and learned Lord would have served his interests more effectively if he hail placed at the disposal of the tribunal who were examining into this matter the suspicions which this incident caused to arise in his mind, and had not, with the authority which the noble and learned Lord's high position in this House gives him, stated it as a proved fact.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, may I say, in answer to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that I entirely agree with him that there should be an impartial and public Inquiry. The statement which I made was read from a letter from my
138
brother. I added nothing to what was there stated. I said at the time that I had been to see him in order to be sure of the accuracy of the statement from his point of view and from my own. I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord as to the great misfortune of not letting matters of this kind be thoroughly and impartially cleared up at the earliest possible moment. Nobody can be more 'pleased than I when an allegation of this kind is finally disproved, if it can be disproved. That result would be one that I should welcome.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I think there is yet another matter as to which some protest should be made. It seems to be assumed by the noble and learned Lord to-day that because this tribunal happens to be described not as a Court-Martial but as a Court of Inquiry, we may therefore, on no better ground than that, proceed to discuss it in one of our legislative Houses. Such a proceeding is contrary to the very best traditions of debate in both those Houses. You do not allow a discussion upon a coroner's inquest, and yet in a coroner's inquest there may be, as yet, no person put upon his trial, because no person has been convicted by the evidence. I think it should also be pointed out that it does not follow that the public are not admitted because it so happens that nobody is admitted but the Press. There may be good reasons in Ireland at the present time why it is not desirable, or even safe, in the interests of the officers and persons holding the Inquiry, to admit the general public. They may not be safe from violence. You have secured all the advantages of admitting the public when you have admitted the Press, because you can then be assured that the public will get some account of what takes place.
When the noble and learned Lord raised this Question previously he committed himself to the assertion that it had been admitted by the Government that the attack was perpetrated by the Black and Tan Auxiliary
Forces. He had not, however, taken the trouble to ascertain whether, as was indeed the fact at the moment when he male that allegation, a Court of Inquiry had been sitting for some time inquiring into this most material fact, which might possibly be an issue in this case.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry to trouble the House again, but I should like to point out that not only was it not an issue but it was admitted.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Who admitted it, and where?
LORD PARMOOR: If the noble Lord at all regards these matters that have been going on, I think he will find it perfectly
140
admitted that this affair was the work of the Auxiliaries. I do not want to use the phrase Black and Tans.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: All I can say is that whether a thing amounts to an admission or not may itself be a most disputable matter.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
[From. Minutes of May 3.]
The Lord Cunliffe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TAF FECHAN VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
TAF YEOMAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Committee to join with the Committee of the House of Commons on the said Bills; (viz.),

L. Monson,

L. Oriel (V.Massereene)

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Farrer;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman and all Petitions referred to the Joint Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills: Then a Message was ordered to he sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room No. 4, on Thursday the 9th of June next, at Twelve o'clock.

CATTEDOWN WHARVES BILL. [H.L.]
  HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.

LYMINGTON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Committed for Tuesday next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2).
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Anglo-Continental Supply Company, Limited. [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WEST HAM CORPORATION
(PETITION FOR BILL).
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD
(VARIOUS POWERS)
(PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION).
ANGLO-CONTINENTAL SUPPLY COM-PANY, LIMITED
(PETITION FOR BILL).
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (OSSETT AND WAKEFIELD) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Ossett and Wakefield—Was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read lª; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

HARROGATE GAS BILL.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION WATER WORKS BILL.
NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION BILL.
COLNE CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and referred to the Examiners.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES) BILL.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
LEE CONSERVANCY BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the said Bills do meet the Lords' Committee in Committee Room 3 on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock as proposed by their Lordships.