Lords Sitting of 10 July 1922

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 34:
Purchase of tramways by local authorities.
34. The provisions of section 43 of the Tramways Act 1870 shall apply to the intended tramways Provided that in the application of those provisions the period of forty-two years shall be substituted for the period of twenty-one years therein mentioned.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved to omit Clause 34. The noble Lord said: My Lords, by General Order No. 130 under the Procedure Act, when a local authority gets power to work and construct tramways beyond its own district, Commissioners are to insert a clause in the Order on the lines of Section 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870, which gives power to the local authority of the district into which the tramway is carried to purchase the tramway after twenty-one years. In conformity with this General Order the Commissioners, on inquiry into the Glasgow Order at Glasgow in March, 1922, inserted Clause 34 of the Provisional Order, but at the same time they reported that—
"Having regard to these precedents, to the relative uniformity of the intended outside lines and their uselessness apart from the rest of the system, to the advantage to uniformity, and to the consent of the local authority concerned, the Commissioners think that these tramways might be exempted from the operation of Section 43 of the Tramways Act, and recommend that the clause in question should be deleted from the Order at the appropriate stage."
The Government, therefore, propose to follow the procedure adopted in the case of similar Orders in 1901, 1904 and 1905, and, by amendment in this House, to leave out Clause 34 of the Order, the result of which will be that the Corporation will own and work the tramways in perpetuity.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, leave out Clause 34.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

HONOURS.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND rose to ask whether the Government had within the past six months authorised any person to make a direct offer of an honour in exchange for a money payment. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I am asking the Question which stands in my name on the Paper because it has come to my knowledge that there are in this country a considerable number of persons who have recently been writing letters to other persons possessed of means to say that they are authorised to approach them with a view to obtaining an honour in exchange for a contribution to the Party funds. I have seen several of these letters; they are in my possession and, if necessary, I am in a position to read them to the House. But I hardly think it is worth while doing that. It seems to me quite incredible that these persons can be acting on the authority of the Government.
This is not the general question of whether the system of the bestowal of honours is open to objection or not; that is another matter which we are going to debate, as I understand it, next Monday. This is a wholly different question, the question of the direct buying and selling of honours, of a direct traffic, in honours carried on in a more or less open and utterly shameless way. I do not for one moment believe that these persons can be acting on the authority of the Government, but it would be extremely valuable if we could have a direct repudiation of these people on the part of the Government. We should achieve two objects: In the first place, we should clear the way for the consideration of the larger question, the whole question, of the general bestowal of honours and the system under which those honours are bestowed. In the second place, the public would learn that these people are not in any way authorised by the Government, that they are merely swindlers, that the whole business is fraudulent, and that they would lay themselves open to a prosecution for trying to obtain money by false pretences. I beg to ask the Question.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My

311
Lords, so far as the Government is concerned no such authorisation has been given.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl

MILK AND DAIRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Power to refuse registration of, or remove from register, retailers of mill.
2.—(1) Any local authority, by whom a register of purveyors of milk is kept under or in pursuance of any enactment in that behalf, may, if they are satisfied that the public health is endangered by any act or default of his in relation to the quality, storage or distribution of milk, refuse to register any person, being a retailer of milk, who seeks to be registered therein, or may decide to remove any such person from the register either absolutely or in respect of any specified premises, and shall thereupon serve upon him notice in writing of such refusal or decision, as the case may be.
(2) If any person be aggrieved by such refusal or decision, the local authority shall, within twenty-one days from the date thereof, apply to a court of summary jurisdiction, and the court may, if satisfied that such refusal or removal is not necessary in the interests of the public health, make an order directing the local authority to register the person or restore him to the register as the case may be
(3) Where, on any such appeal to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the court make or refuse to make such order as aforesaid the local authority or the person aggrieved as aforesaid as the case may be, may appeal to Quarter Sessions who may, where an order has been made, revoke the order, or, where an order has been refused, make any order which the Court of Summary Jurisdiction might have made (4) The court before whom any person so registered as aforesaid is convicted of any offence under the said Acts or any order or regulations made thereunder, may, on the application of the local authority, in addition to any other penalty, order the removal from the register of the person so convicted either absolutely or in respect of any specified premises for such period as the court may think fit
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved, in subsection (1), after "is" ["the public health is endangered"], to insert "or is likely to be," and to leave out from "default of" to the end of subsection (3), and insert:
"any person being a retailer of milk who is registered or who seeks to be registered therein, in relation to the quality, storage or distribution of milk, serve upon him a notice to appear before them not less than seven days after the date of the notice to show cause why the local authority
312
should not refuse, for reasons to be specified in the notice, to register him or to remove him from the register, as the ease may be, either absolutely or in respect of any specified premises.
"(2) Where, in the opinion of the local authority, the person on whom a notice is served as aforesaid fails to show cause against such refusal or removal, the local authority shall within twenty-one days apply to a court of summary jurisdiction, and the court may, if satisfied that the public health is, or is likely to be endangered as aforesaid, make an order authorising the local authority to refuse to register the person or to remove him from the register, as the ease may be, either absolutely or in respect of any specified premises, and subject to such conditions, if any, as the court may think fit
"(3) Where, on any such application to a court of summary jurisdiction, the court make or refuse to make such order as aforesaid, the local authority or the person against whom the order is made, as the case may be, may appeal to the next court of quarter sessions, who may, where an order has been made, revoke the order, or, where an order has been refused, make any order which the court of summary jurisdiction might have made
"If notice of such appeal from the decision of the court of summary jurisdiction is given within seven days from the date thereof, no order made by that court shall have effect before the appeal is finally determined."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet the views of both Lord Bledisloe and Lord Strachie. During the Committee stage I promised that I would look into the matter again, and I have endeavoured to meet the views of both noble Lords by this Amendment. They have been consulted, or the bodies they represent have been, and I understand that the Amendment gives satisfaction. Briefly, the object is to prevent anyone being interfered with in his business until he has exhausted the last appeal—namely, the appeal to Quarter Sessions. There is also in the amended clause an alteration to meet the noble Lord, Lord Treowen. It is being introduced in subsection (2) and gives the court power to impose conditions in the event of the removal of a person from the register or of refusal to put him upon it. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 16, after ("is") insert ("or is likely to be"), and leave out from ("of") to end of line 19 on page 2, and insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "the said Acts," and insert "this Act, or any other enactment relating to milk and dairies."

313
noble Earl said: This empowers the court to impose a penalty—removal from the register of any person convicted of an offence under this or any other milk and dairies Act. It really is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("the said Acts") and insert ("this Act or any ether enactment relating to milk and dairies").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Milk and Dairy Orders to be laid before Parliament
6. All orders made by the Minister of Health under this Act or under any enactment relating to milk and dairies shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat next after the order is laid before if, praying that the order may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order. If the session of Parliament ends before such twenty days as aforesaid have expired, the order shall be laid before each House of Parliament at the commencement of the next session as if it had not previously been laid.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 23, after ("orders") insert ("relating to milk and dairies")
Page 3, line 24, after ("any") insert ("other")
Page 3, lines 24 and 25, leave out ("relating to milk and dairies").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to Clause 9
Penalties.
9. If any person is guilty of a contravention of, or non-compliance with, the provisions of this Act or any of them, he shall save as otherwise provided in this Act, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the case of a first offence, five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, fifty pounds, and if the offence is a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day during which the offence continues: Provided that when it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the authority by or on whose behalf proceedings are about to be taken—

(a)that the actual occupier of the dairy or owner of the business of milk purveyor by wholesale or retail has used all due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act and the Milk and Dairies Orders; and

(b)by what person the offence has been committed; and

314

(c) that it has been committed without the knowledge, consent, or connivance of the occupier of the dairy or the owner of the business of milk purveyor by wholesale or retail and in contravention of his orders;

proceedings shall be taken against the person who is believed to be the actual offender without first proceeding against the occupier of the daily
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to omit the proviso and insert the following new subsections:
"(2) Where it appears to a local authority that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Act against a purveyor of milk, the local authority shall, if reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of a servant or agent without the knowledge, consent, or connivance of his employer, take proceedings against the servant or agent without first proceeding against his employer;
"(3) A person shall not be convicted of any offence under any enactment relating to the sale of milk in respect of a sample of milk taken after the milk has left his custody and control if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the churn or other receptacle in winch the milk was contained was effectively closed and sealed at the time when it left his custody and control but was not so closed and sealed at the time when it reached the person by whom the sample was taken.
"The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the debate on the Committee stage I accepted the Amendment of Lord Astor, which was moved by Lord Strachie, with a reservation that drafting additions might have to be made at this stage. The Amendment of Lord Strachie and Lord Astor is embodied in subsection (2), and I think it is now in a more concise form than it was originally. Subsection (3) is to meet Lord Strachie's Amendment to safeguard the farmer from being prosecuted for something done to his milk when it is not under his control. I understand that, as now drafted, it meets the noble. Lord's view
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("continues") to end of Clause 9, and insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EART OF ONSLOW THE EART OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:
".If a county council resolve that a district council within the county have failed to exercise or perform any of their powers or duties under this Act or any enactments relating to milk and dairies or any order or regulations made thereunder and make complaint thereof to the Minister

315
of Health, the Minister may after such inquiry as he deems necessary by order determine that all or any of the said powers or duties be transferred to the county council. either for a definite period or until the Minister shall otherwise direct, and those powers and duties shall be transferred accordingly, and section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894, shall apply as if the powers and duties had been transferred under that Act with such modifications and adaptations as appear necessary or expedient."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause was mentioned by me during the discussion of the first Amendment of Lord Bledisloe in Committee. It empowers a county council to take action when a district council has failed to do so in regard to authorising registration. It is optional on the county council, and does not impose any expense. I understand that it is regarded as satisfactory.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I submit this Bill for Second Reading. It extends, and in certain small degrees it amends, the Act of 1920 which regulated the charges of docks, harbours and piers. The 1920 Act was an enabling Act which gave powers to the Ministry of Transport to vary these charges, and it conferred powers upon these authorities to apply to the Ministry, so that where changes were made in nine cases out of ten they were made at the initiative of the harbour, dock or pier authority. Certain authorities have not found it necessary to invoke these powers. Great companies or authorities like the Manchester Ship Canal, the Mersey authorities, and, I think, also the Clyde authority, have obtained their own Acts, and therefore; are to that extent independent.
This Bill fulfils an undertaking which was given by the Government through the Ministry of Transport that as the great bulk of authorities have refrained from promoting a large number of Bills for themselves, this general authority should be conferred upon the Ministry of Transport. It was because of the power I have mentioned that the authorities have not been before Parliament. As your Lord
316
ships are aware all these authorities are limited by Statute. During the war the limitations were of a character which made it impossible for the authorities to make both ends meet. Under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, therefore, powers were given to authorise a variation of the statutory charges. The Minister of Transport was authorised to fix scales of charges which should operate for a period ending on February 15, 1923. The reason for fixing this date was that on that day the then existing, but temporary, powers of charging of the railway companies also ceased to operate. It was thought desirable that temporary powers for dock charges should terminate at the same moment. Meanwhile, the railway rates have been dealt with by legislation that passed through Parliament last year, but it was not possible to make adequate provision that rates charged by the dock-undertakings, whether owned by railway companies or not, should then be dealt with. Thus, it came about that the harbour and dock undertakings pressed, and justly pressed, that either they must promote their own Bills, or that the general statutory power should be continued in the hands of the Ministry of Transport.
The result of promoting their own Bills would have been in many ways unfortunate. There are many of these authorities scattered all over Britain, and there would have been a perfect avalanche of private Bills. This would have inflicted a very serious burden upon Parliament, which would have had to man a larger number of Committees than ever before. Moreover, decisions would have had to be given by Parliament precisely at a moment when the fixation of permanent future charges would have been most difficult and speculative. It was decided, therefore, that the period of duration of the temporary charges should be extended for another twelve months until February, 1924. This Bill extends it still further It proposes that the extension should now be, not till February, 1924, but till February, 1925. This is done for technical reasons which I think are good. In any case, under the Standing Orders, notices would have been required to be presented to Parliament at a time which would be very inconvenient to many of these companies. Your Lordships will know that many railway companies are owners of dock and harbour undertakings. Amalgamation of the railways is now in active process,

317
and will be accomplished before very long. Four great groups will ultimately form the central railway systems of this country, and between them they own thirty undertakings. By that time these thirty undertakings will be reduced to the ownership and control of four railway companies.
One final consideration actuated the Government in asking the House to extend this until February, 1925—namely, that by that time it is hoped that greater financial stability will have been attained and Parliament will be in a better position to fix the permanent charges. This Bill must pass into law, otherwise, next February, all the dock, pier, and harbour authorities will revert to their private Act rates, which are, in effect, pre-war rates, with very few exceptions. I need hardly assure your Lordships that that would bankrupt certain authorities, and some power must be given them to vary their charges. The safeguards are very strong. Traders are fully protected and the Bill has received considerable support from interests which are not harbour, dock, or pier interests. I commend the Bill with confidence to your Lordships' favourable consideration.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government when they propose to introduce the Smoke Abatement Bill. This is one of the smaller problems of our daily life which has never been properly tackled. We have been fiddling at it for a very long time. I did not know for how long until I read in the Report of Lord Newton's Committee that a proclamation forbidding the burning of coal in London was issued in the reign of King Edward I. Since then we have had innumerable Acts and Bills and Inquiries, but we do not seem to have got much nearer to a solution of the difficulty.
Recently, my noble friend, Lord Newton, has been active in bringing this matter before your Lordships and to the notice of the public outside. Early in 1914 he introduced a Smoke Abatement Bill in this House, but did not proceed with it
318
because a promise was given by the Government that an Inquiry into the whole question would be instituted at once. A Departmental Committee of the Local Govermnent Board, as it then was, was set up, but its proceedings were interrupted by the war, and it was not until after the Armistice that the Committee was reconstituted by the Minister of Health, with Lord Newton as its Chairman. That Committee held a long and very full inquiry, and issued an interim Report in June, 1920, and a full Report at the end of last year. I hope that all the labours of Lord Newton and his colleagues, for which they deserve the thanks of anyone who lives in a smoky atmosphere, will soon bear real and tangible fruit, and that the noble Lord who answers for the Government will tell us that a Bill is shortly to be introduced.
There is one point that I desire to put before the Government, and which I hope will be included in the Bill. I am glad to say that it was included in the recommendations of Lord Newton's Committee. It is no good passing a law on this or any other subject unless you provide some means for carrying it into effect. At present, the duty of seeing that the law in regard to smoke abatement is carried out rests in the hands of local authorities. The greatest offenders in regard to smoke are to be found in the small industrial towns, and we shall never do any real good in this matter so long as the duty of seeing that the law is carried out rests with town councils. There are two reasons for this. The first, as will be readily understood, is that in a small industrial town it is inevitable that a large number of the members of the town council should be connected with the great factories and works, either as owners, or employees, or in some other capacity, and anyone can realise the difficult position in which they find themselves. The second reason is that you cannot expect the authorities of one of these smaller towns to do more in this matter than their neighbours. They are afraid, and not unreasonably afraid, that if they give their town the reputation of being particular about smoke abatement they will frighten away people who otherwise would come and establish works there, and in that way the prosperity and trade of the town might be injured.
Therefore, I desire to press very strongly on the noble Lord who represents the Government that the only effective way

319
of getting over the difficulty is to place this duty in the hands of some larger body, preferably in the hands of a Government Department. If a Bill was introduced with a single clause to that effect I think you would find an immediate reduction in the volume of smoke.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies on behalf of the Government, perhaps I may be allowed to thank my noble friend for the interest he has taken in this question. He has every right to speak with authority because he lives in a particularly dirty and polluted neighbourhood. From my own experience I know that some of the residents in his district suffer from such atmospheric conditions that it is only possible to open their windows during Bank Holidays. The Committee of which the noble Lord has spoken was really a good Committee in its way. Everybody on it, with the exception of myself, knew something about the question. Although the Committee worked very conscientiously, examined innumerable witnesses, visited industrial districts, including the neighbourhood of my noble friend, and also visited Germany, myself and another member being their representatives, we never succeeded in getting anybody to take any interest in us, and by no one were we more consistently and ignominiously ignored than by the late Minister of Health, who appointed the Committee.
There was one refreshing interval, which I recollect with pleasure, when we had emerged from obscurity. When I visited my noble friend, who lives in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, I discovered that his wife had been engaged in the Arcadian occupation of harvesting oats, and, during that occupation, she wore a white blouse. During the process of harvesting, that blouse had become black. I induced my noble friend to bring this blouse as an exhibit before our Committee, and, from that moment onwards, we achieved temporary celebrity. Almost every paper in the country had long descriptions of the blouse and the owner of the blouse. It excited so much interest that it was temporarily borrowed by those directing an exhibition in Glasgow, and ultimately found its way, if I am not mistaken, to a museum, where it remains as a sort of monument, not only of the pollution of the atmosphere but of the industry of the British aristocracy.
320
Unfortunately, incidents of this kind were rare, and, when the blouse was forgotten, the Committee were equally forgotten. Nobody took any further interest in us, until a very influential deputation waited upon Sir Alfred Mond some months ago. Upon that occasion, rather to my agreeable surprise—because Governments, as a rule, do not undertake to bring in Bills unless they see that the Bills are going to bring in votes—Sir Alfred Mond agreed to introduce a Smoke Abatement Bill, and he asked the societies interested in the question to frame a Bill. That was done. The Bill was drawn up, and it has been in the possession of the Ministry of Health for some considerable time. I have no doubt that the Government draftsmen have derived immense pleasure from detecting various inaccuracies or expressions of which they do not approve, and have been occupied in improving it to the best of their ability.
I am not going to discuss the details of the Bill, but I submit that the Government are under a pledge to bring in this measure, and I hope that they will do so even at this late period of the session. Personally, I feel grateful to Sir Alfred Mond for making this promise. He is, so far as I am aware, the first Minister who has taken the smallest interest in this question, and I really believe that if he is allowed by his colleagues to do so he is anxious to identify himself with a reform of this nature. All I have to say, in conclusion, is that if Sir Alfred Mond is successful in introducing a Bill and getting it through Parliament, he will be more deserving of a monument than many heroes of the past, whose effigies decorate or disfigure the squares and streets of the Metropolis.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I hope I can give the noble Lord the answer that he foreshadowed. I can assure him that the recommendations of the Committee of my noble friend Lord Newton have received the most careful consideration of the Government, and it is hoped to introduce a Bill on the subject of smoke abatement at an early date. As I think I have said before in regard to this matter, it is unlikely—indeed, at the present moment, I think, it is quite out of the question to expect—that it will be possible to pass that Bill through during the present session.
LORD NEWTON: We are going to have an autumn session.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am coming to that. I hope your Lordships will be able to give the Bill at least a Second Reading during the present session, and that it may then receive public discussion, so that a general agreement may be secured, and its passage next session may be facilitated.

SALE OF TEA BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, this is, as I think your Lordships will find, a non-contentious measure, and will permanently remedy a very real grievance. The Bill proposes to perpetuate certain principles of the Sale of Food Order, 1921, which expires on August 31 next. It provides that all tea sold by retail, whether contained in a packet or not, is to be sold by net weight, and, if tea is packed ready for sale, the package must be labelled with a true statement of the net weight. This is not really a case of prolonging a war-time restriction, because, although the existing Order is a wartime Order, its provisions had been recommended by a Select Committee of the, House of Commons before the outbreak of war, and were intended to prevent the unfair system of weighing the paper with the tea. The experience gained in the administration of the Order has fully justified the recommendations of the Select Committee. The Order has protected the public, and has caused no substantial difficulty to the traders. The Government believe that it would be unfortunate were this measure to lapse, and there is reason to fear that., if the restrictions are removed, the abuse will revive. Your Lordships are accordingly invited to give the Bill a Second Reading.
With regard to the clauses of the Bill, I would point out what the first clause is the. principal clause. In the first subsection of that clause, it is made clear that tea must not be sold by retail except by net weight, in ounces or pounds. This prevents the sale of packets of an unspecified weight. The subsection follows the provision at present in force under the Sale of Food Order, and applies, subject to the exception in subsection (4), to all sales, whether the tea be made up in packages or not. I do not know whether your Lordships would like me to go all through the clauses. I should be very glad to explain them, if your Lordships so desire, but I venture to hope that, as this is, so
322
far as I know, a non-contentious Bill, it will receive the undivided assent of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, following on the Resolution of your Lordships last week, I beg to move that the Lords following be named of the Select Committee to consider the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill, namely:—

E. Mayo.

V. De Vesci.

L. Desart. (E. Desart.)

L. Muir Mackenzie.

L. Southborough.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of July 6.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7).

Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order.

Taw and Torridge Fisheries Provisional Order.

Towy Fisheries Provisional Order.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
To be read 2a on Wednesday next.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
PORT OF LONDON AND MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Debate on the Motion for Second Reading to be resumed on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.