Lords Sitting of 22 June 1922

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

MURDER OF SIR HENRY WILSON.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given private notice—Whether it is true that Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson has been shot at in Eaton Place to-day and dangerously wounded; whether the Government can give us any further information as to the circumstances under which this took place; and whether any arrests have been made?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the shortness of time which has elapsed since the terrible event took place to which the Question of the noble and learned Lord refers has made it difficult to obtain that full and detailed information which the House would naturally expect and require. I fear there is no doubt that as a result of this criminal and murderous assault the Field-Marshal has succumbed. The noble and learned Lord has asked further whether any arrests have taken place. I am informed that two men have so far been arrested, and I understand they were arrested in circumstances which renders their act of complicity in the matter certain. I ask leave not to say more at this moment.
STOCK CONVERSION AND INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED (NORTH WESTERN TRUST) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing on the Paper in my name in regard to these Bills.
Moved, That the order made on the 4th day of May last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the l5th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Termination of tenancies or allotment gardens.
1.—(1) Where land is let by a local authority, an association, or any other person, for use by the tenant as an allotment garden, the tenancy of the land or any part thereof shall not (except as hereinafter provided) be terminable by the lessor by notice to remove or by resumption of possession, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, except by—

(a) a six months' or longer notice in writing to remove expiring on or before the first day of May or on or after the first day of November in any year; or

(b) resumption of possession after three months' or longer notice in writing to the tenant, under a power of resumption contained in the lease, on account of the land being reasonably required for building, mining, or any other industrial purpose, or for roads or sewers necessary in connection with any of those purposes, or in the case of land let by a Government department or a town, county, or parish council, or a corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other undertaking, on account of the land being reasonably required by the department, council, or corporation for any such purpose as aforesaid or for a purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired or held by the department, council, or corporation, or has been appropriated under any statutory provision; or

1060

(c) resumption of possession on account of any irritancy of the lease by the tenant.

LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1) (b), to substitute "one month's" for "three months'." The noble Lord said: It may be useless to press the Amendment, but the effect of this three months' notice will be that owners of land ripe for building will be reluctant to let ground for allotments. Agents have pointed out that feuars often want immediate entry, especially for industrial purposes. It may well be that the occupier of an allotment worth 5s. a year may hold up a building scheme or an industrial extension for three months and incidentally keep a large number of men out of work for weeks. It would be far better in the interests of the community that the allotment holder should clear out at once with the fullest compensation than block development for three months and get no compensation. It is a matter of sonic importance, and if the noble Earl has any doubt about it perhaps he will postpone the question to the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am sorry to have to begin the Committee stage by refusing the noble Lord's request, but I think he will agree with me, before we finish this evening, that the Government have been very amenable, and that we have agreed upon nearly every other Amendment that will come before us. This suggestion has already been negatived in this House, for very good reasons, which were stated on the English Bill, and which I need not reiterate now. Clauses 1 and 2 are, in effect, the result of a compromise between the landlords and the allotment holders, and I think the allotment holders in Scotland would probably feel a grievance if they were not treated so well as those in England. After all, there is not much in this question of three months' notice at that time of the year. It is easy to give your notice well beforehand, and it would practically come in with the termination of a month or a week, according to when you gave your notice. I do not see the necessity of altering it from three months, and I think it would be unwise to destroy the general agreement arrived at between

1061
the two parties concerned. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. We have met him very fairly, I think, in regard to other Amendments later in the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection 1 (b), to leave out "reasonably" ["reasonably acquired for building"]. The noble Duke said: As the noble Duke opposite has said, we have had some opportunity of discussing these Amendments, and, in consequence, I and other noble Lords who are acting with me have reduced our Amendments as much as possible to avoid taking up more of your Lordships' time than is necessary. I do not propose to speak at any length on this question as I understand the Amendment is to be accepted. It was considerably discussed on the English Bill. It is a very reasonable Amendment, and several consequential Amendments which I have on the Paper are, I believe, the same as those moved to the English Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("reasonably")—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, which was arrived at by agreement, and after very detailed discussion by the parties chiefly interested in the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved to leave out all words in subsection (1) (b), after "in connection with any of these purposes," and to insert:
"(c) resumption of possession under a power in that behalf contained in the lease in the case of land let by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, clock, canal, water, or other public undertaking on account of the land being required by the corporation or company for any purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired or held by the corporation or company, or appropriated under any statutory provision."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved in the hope that certain undertakings that were given by the Government
1062
on the English Bill will be held applicable to the present case.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out from ("purposes") in line 23 to ("or") on page 2, line 7, and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD CLWYD: I believe this Amendment is going to be accepted by the Government, and I will not trouble your Lordships with any observations upon it.
LORD STANMORE: As Lord Stuart of Wortley has said, this Amendment follows Amendments already made in the English Bill, and we shall be very glad to accept it, but there are one or two verbal alterations in the drafting that we should like to suggest. I should be very glad if the noble Lord can put it down again on Report, and we can consult in the meantime as to these alterations.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: On that understanding, I shall, of course, be glad to meet the convenience of the noble Lord. Do I understand that they are purely verbal alterations?
LORD STANMORE: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "reasonably", where that word secondly occurs. The noble Duke said: I dare say that my noble friend opposite will see that this Amendment is made in the new clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("reasonably").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Compensation on removing from allotment gardens.
2.—(1) Where land is let by a local authority, an association, or any other person for use by the tenant as an allotment garden, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of this section, and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be entitled at the termination of the tenancy, in removing from the land, to recover from the lessor compensation for crops growing upon the land in the ordinary course of the cultivation of the land as an allotment garden, and for manure applied to the land since the taking of the last crop there from in anticipation of a future crop.
(2) Compensation under this section shall be recoverable only if the tenancy is terminated by the lessor and terminated between the first day of May and the first day of November.
(3) Where under any lease entered into after the date of the passing of this Act land is let to a local authority or to an association for the purpose of being sub-let for use as allotment gardens, this section shall, except so far as is otherwise provided by the lease, apply not only to the tenancy of the sub-tenants but also to the tenancy of the local authority or association notwithstanding that the crops have been grown and the manure applied by the sub-tenants.
(4) This section shall apply to a tenancy (other than the tenancy of a local authority or association) current at the date of the passing of this Act, but not so as to affect the operation of any notice to remove given, possession resumed, or proceedings for resumption commenced before that date.
(5) This section shall apply to the termination of the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land the subject of a lease.
(6) Except as provided by this section or by the lease, the tenant of land under a tenancy to which this section applies shall not he entitled to recover compensation from the lessor at the termination of the tenancy, and the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1908 to 1921, relating to compensation shall not apply to any tenancy to which this section applies.
(7) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the tenant of any land to remove upon the termination of his tenancy any fruit and other trees or bushes planted or erection made by him on the land during his tenancy.
(8).—(a) The compensation under this section from the lessor on the termination of a tenancy to which this section applies, and such further compensation (if any) as is recoverable from the lessor under the lease shall, in default of agreement, be determined by an arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the Board.
(b) Any such agreement or determination with respect to compensation may, if any sum payable thereunder is not paid within fourteen days from the date of the agreement or determination, be competently recorded for execution in the books of council and session or sheriff court books, and shall be enforceable in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral.
(9) This section shall not apply to any tenancy which had terminated before the date of the passing of this Act, or where a notice to remove has been given, or possession has been resumed, or proceedings for resumption have been commenced before that date.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (2), after "terminated," to insert "either (a)." The noble Duke said: This is consequential upon the Amendment which stands next upon the Paper to insert, at the end of subsection (2), the words" or (b) by resumption of possession at any time under paragraph (b) of the immediately preceding section of this Act." It is the equivalent of an Amendment moved by Lord Stanhope in the English Bill,
1064
which was accepted by the Government, and I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be prepared to support me now. In the Bill, as it stands, allotment garden holders receive compensation if they are evicted in the cropping season, but not if they are evicted in the winter season, on six months' notice, because, with that notice, they can arrange to avoid loss, and are not in the least hardly treated. If, however, an allotment holder is evicted after only three months' notice, as may happen under paragraph (b), he may be unable to avoid seine loss, even though the notice expires in the winter season. I am certain that noble Lords opposite, as well as the Government, wish to be perfectly fair to the allotment holder, and do not want him to have any chance of being hardly treated under the Bill. It is, therefore, proposed by the Government to follow the English precedent. I hope noble Lords will agree to that course.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, after ("terminated") insert ("either (a)").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think that what the noble Duke said is quite correct. This undoubtedly gives considerably increased compensation, but it is generally considered quite reasonable, and in conformity with the English Bill, which passed through your Lordships' House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, at end, insert ("or (b) by resumption of possession at any time under paragraph (b) of the immediately preceding section of this Act").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELPHINSTONE LORD ELPHINSTONE moved, in subsection 4, to leave out "other than the tenancy of a local authority or association." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next standing in my name—to insert, in subsection (6), after "1908 to 1921," the words: "and of subsection (9) of Section 26 of the Act of 1894"—should be considered together. Under the Bill, as it stands now, all contracts entered into by individuals as to allotments are cancelled, whereas those entered into by a local authority are not, as I understand it, subject to this retrospective legislation. I do not propose at this moment to start

1065
a discussion on the merits or demerits of retrospective legislation, for I should imagine that we are all of one mind—namely, that this is a very bad principle and one which is, to-day, far too often adopted.
I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill the reason why local authorities are exempted front the provisions which affect the rest of the community. Secondly, I should like to ask him whether we are right or wrong in thinking that, owing to this exemption, the position may arise that the local authorities, Lot being subject to these provisions but remaining within the scope of the Act of 1894, will be entitled to receive from the landowner the fuller compensation provided for by the earlier Act, whereas they would only have to pay to the allotment holder the rate of compensation provided for in this Bill. Considerable doubt exists in the minds of many of us as to the reason for exempting local authorities, and as to the possible consequences which may arise from that exemption.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("ether than the tenancy of a local authority or association"). —(Lord Elphinstone.)
LORD STANMORE: Clause 2 of this Bill, although the form differs slightly, is retrospective to just the same extent as Clause 2 of the English Bill: that is, it will affect existing agreements with allotment garden holders themselves, but only future agreements between landlords and local authorities or associations. In such agreements, the parties, having in view subsection (3) of Clause 2, and knowing the nature of the new compensation to the holders, can make whatever arrangement they choose; but in existing leases to local authorities or associations, the condition of the lease will hold good. I think that the words ought to remain in as they make it clear that the compensation under this clause is, in the case of current tenancies, limited to allotment holders only.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can tell me what will be the position. I think it will arise that the local authorities can get what I may call the fuller compensation under the Act of 1894.
LORD STANMORE: There has been so much change in this part of the Bill that I
1066
should be very glad it the noble Lord would consent to postpone this matter till the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELPHINSTONE LORD ELPHINSTONE had on the Paper an Amendment to move in subsection (6), after "1921," to insert "and of subsection (9) of section 26 of the Act of 1894." The noble Lord said: In the circumstances I do not wish to press this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: There is one thing that I want to ask, and it is this: There is great confusion as regards Section 26 of the Act of 1894, and I would like to ask whether His Majesty's Government would consider this matter carefully before Report., because I think it really does require amendment, and it is very likely that their advisers will be of the same opinion.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I agree with the noble Duke. Section 26 is being quoted very freely in this Bill, and there will have to be redrafting before the Report stage. We quite understand the position.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to leave out subsection (7) and insert the following new subsection:
"( ) The tenant of any land under a tenancy to which this section applies may before the termination of the tenancy remove any fruit trees or bushes provided and planted by the tenant and any erection, fencing or other improvement erected or made by the tenant, making good any injury caused by such removal."
The noble Duke said: I would point out to Lord Saltoun that we are practically embodying in this Amendment all the proposals contained in his Amendments which follow. We have drafted them as one subsection, and are putting that in in the place of the subsection which now stands in the Bill. If we pass this Amendment it will probably negative the whole of his subsequent Amendments, but I would point out that it incorporates everything that he can reasonably want. I think we may take this Amendment in my name as intended to remedy a defect in Section 7 in its present form. The existing Allotment Act of 1892 contains in Section 7, subsection (6), a provision about the removal of fruit trees which this Bill expressly saves. That existing provision, however, applies only to allotments provided by local authorities,

1067
whereas this clause applies to allotment gardens leased from any owner, and we have to bring it on all fours in order to include them. It is proposed to insert this new provision, which is in the form which is to be found in the English Bill, to which your Lordships have already agreed.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 26 to 29, leave out subsection (7), and insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD SALTOUN: I agree that my Amendments are covered by the Government Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection 8, to leave out "Board", and insert "sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the allotment garden is situated." The noble Duke said: This Amendment is very much in conformity with the English Bill. This is one of the arbitration clauses, and it is far more advantageous to have someone in the locality who knows the point at once than to have the Board, who are at a considerable distance. I think the Government more or less agree to this Amendment. There is only one other point—namely, that it is most desirable that there should not be any legal procedure, but that it should simply be done by letter or some other means. It is possible that other words may have to be added to simplify the formula, and I ask the noble Duke to do that on Report, if it be necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("Board"), and insert ("sheriff having jurisdiction in the, place where the allotment garden is situated").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am prepared to accept the noble Duke's Amendment, subject of course, as he has suggested, to the necessity of looking into the drafting of the clause. We want, in the first place, to avoid expensive legal proceedings, and, secondly, to ensure that anybody can get the matter settled reasonably near his own locality, and that the arbitration shall be done by people who understand the locality, as localities differ very much. We do not say for a moment that the Board could not have done this—I think they could perfectly well—but the sheriff substitute exists, and there is no reason why he should
1068
not deal with the matter. As the noble Duke suggests, there is no reason why it might not be done by a letter addressed to the sheriff clerk, to whom the sheriff could then give the necessary directions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, at the end of subsection (8), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) The proper expenses of the arbitration shall be borne by such of the parties or by the parties in such proportions as the arbiter shall direct, but be recoverable by the arbiter from any of the parties, and any amount paid by any of the parties in excess of the amount (if any) directed by the arbiter to be borne by him shall be recoverable from the other party or parties and may be deducted from any compensation payable to such party or parties."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment proposes to insert a new subsection which had its origin in the Agriculture Act, 1920.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Laminglon.)
LORD STANMORE: We are prepared to accept this Amendment. I may possibly want to suggest some revision of the drafting, if my noble friend will agree to that.
LORD LAMINGTON: I agree to that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment of statutory provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land for allotments.
4.—(1)—(a) An order for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments under the Allotments Acts shall no longer require the approval of the Secretary for Socotland, and the references to such approval in paragraphs (5) and (7) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1919, in so far as that schedule applies to any such order, shall cease to have effect.
(b) Paragraph (6) of the said schedule (which relates to orders providing for the compulsory acquisition by leasing of land for allotments) shall be amended by the addition thereto of the following provision—
"(c) It shall not be necessary for the order to incorporate any provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts or of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, other than such provisions as

1069
may be prescribed by the Board under subsection (7) of section twenty-six of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894."
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section twenty-six of the Act of 1894 as amended or applied by any subsequent enactment, any question or difference arising on the termination of a tenancy created by a compulsory lease, or on the resumption of possession of any land the subject of such a lease, with respect to the amount due for compensation for improvements, or for depreciation, or for the loss of the land, or otherwise, shall in default of agreement be determined by an arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the Board.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment counsel shall not be heard in any arbitration under the Allotments Acts, or as to compensation payable for lands acquired for allotments under those Acts, unless the Board otherwise direct.
(4) Paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of section 26 of the Act of 1894 (which restricts the breaking up of permanent pasture on land taken on lease for allotments) shall not apply to land so taken on lease after the date of the passing of this Act.
(5) So much of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1892 as requires that a local authority before acquiring land for allotments shall be of opinion that such allotments cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent and on reasonable conditions by voluntary arrangement between the owners of land suitable for such allotments and the applicants for the same, shall cease to have effect.
(6) For section twenty of the Act of 1919 (which relates to land for allotments) there shall be substituted the following section:—

"(1) If a local authority are unable by agreement to acquire by purchase suitable land for allotments at a reasonable price, the authority may apply to the Board for an order providing for the compulsory acquisition of such land by purchase:

"(2) If a local authority are unable by agreement to obtain on lease suitable land for allotments at a reasonable rent and subject to reasonable conditions, the authority may apply the Board for an order providing for the compulsory acquisition of such land by leasing:

"(3) For the purposes of any application under this section the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect."

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (1). The noble Duke said: This is an Amendment of considerable importance. The paragraph which I propose to leave out gives power to the Chairman of I he Board of Agriculture to sign or confirm compulsory orders. We consider that any order for compulsorily acquiring land should be signed by the Minister responsible to Parliament. In this Bill there might not be great
1070
objections to time exercise of the power, but it is creating a very bad precedent. During the war it was temporarily allowed in England, but the power lapsed. I think it is most necessary to keep the control in the hands of Parliament, and that any of these orders should be signed by the responsible Minister. It may be argued that he is head of the whole Department, and therefore is responsible, but I do not think it is the same thing. My Amendment, after all, only follows out the lines on which the Government have worked in other measures, suck as the Agriculture Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 10 to 16, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD STANMORE: Paragraph (a) was inserted in the Bill a accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Allotments, made, no doubt, with a view to the simplification of procedure. Local authorities in Scotland have never been able, even temporarily, as in England, to make compulsory orders for allotment land without confirmation. They have to apply for an order to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, a Department which, as the noble Duke says, is responsible to Parliament through the Secretary for Scotland, just as the Minister for Agriculture is responsible for the Department in England. It is the case that the Schedule to the Act of 1919, designed primarily for the compulsory acquisition of large tracts of land under Part I of that Act, does require the approval of the Secretary. We do not say that the deletion of this paragraph would mean serious delay or expense in making allotment orders. It is clear that there would be no difference in the responsibility if the noble Duke's Amendment is accepted. The responsibility was, and remains, with the Secretary for Scotland.
LORD SALTOUN: Does the noble Lord accept the Amendment?
LORD STANMORE: I shall not divide against it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON moved to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: My object in moving this. Amendment is simply to elicit information as to the reasons for

1071
the insertion of this paragraph, and to ascertain its precise effect. If it is really intended to facilitate the drafting of an order, well and good; but it would rather appear that it would be in the sole discretion of the Board to decide which clauses are to be included in the order and which not.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 17 to 20, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)
LORD STANMORE: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. Paragraph (b) is truly a drafting Amendment intended to clarify the meaning of Schedule I of the Act of 1919, so far as it relates to the leasing of allotment land. That Schedule, in paragraph (2), directs that the order shall incorporate, with any necessary adaptations, the Lands Clauses Acts, and Sections 70 to 78 of the Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845. Paragraph (6) (b) of the Schedule, which relates specially to the leasing of allotment land, applies Section 26 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, which, in turn, directs that the order may apply, with adaptations, such provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as appear to the Board to be necessary. Many of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act have no possible application to the leasing of allotment land, and it is thought better to make it clear that only the relevant provisions need be incorporated. All such orders have in any case to be in a form prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland, by Article (2) of the Schedule. While the paragraph in the Bill is not of great importance, its retention is thought desirable, as it will make consolidation easier.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELPHINSTONE LORD ELPHINSTONE moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (9) of section 26 of the Act of 1894 (which deals with the compensation payable by a landlord on resuming possession of land compulsorily leased for allotments), compensation shall be payable only to the allotment holders and not to the parish council and the allotment holders."
The noble Lord said: I was very glad to hear from the noble Duke opposite that His Majesty's Government recognise that
1072
Section (26) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act of 1894, so frequently quoted here, is in such an unsatisfactory condition that steps will be taken to put in only that part of it which at present holds good. It is possible that the point I was going to raise may be one of those which are to be dealt with, but at present the section reads—
"… the landlord shall pay to the parish council and to the allotment holders of the land for the time being such sum—"
What I want to ask is whether it is really intended, as appears on the face of it, that the landowner should make what, in effect, sounds like double payment—one payment to the local authority, and the other to the allotment holder. While on the subject of Section 26 of that Act I should also like to draw attention to what I consider the extreme vagueness of what the compensation is really payable for. The words are—
"by way of compensation for the loss of such land for the purposes of allotments."
It is very hard to see on what basis compensation is likely to be assessed. I think it would have been a very good thing if a clause could have been added to this Bill as was done, I believe, in the case of the English Bill, detailing the compensation payable in the case of allotments other than allotment gardens. At the present moment there are at least four Acts dealing with this question, and it is almost hopeless trying to consult them in the endeavour to extract the information required.
This leads me to the question of the definition—or rather I should say the want of definition—of the word "allotment," which urgently requires to be defined. We all know small holdings, and we know market gardens; and allotment gardens are defined in this Bill. So far as I know it is almost impossible at the moment, in spite of the Acts of 1892 and 1894 and the Agriculture Act, to say what is or what is not an allotment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Elphinslone.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I really do not think that the noble Lord's suggestion will make matters very much better. We are well aware of the point he has raised. First of all, as to double compensation, we

1073
have agreed already that we are going to have a competent arbiter selected according to the methods suggested by noble Lords on the other side, and I think we can be pretty certain that the arbiter will be a fair man. I have never heard of anyone—certainly not in my own country—paying double compensation, that is, two compensations for one subject, and I do not think there is any real risk of that. Even if any arbiter suggested it to him, I cannot imagine that the noble Lord, for instance, would pay double compensation for the same thing, or that it would be very easy to extract; and I ant not really frightened of it.
Another point which the noble Lord touched upon is the question of paying compensation to local authorities in the case of resumption. The point there is that they may have had to spend a great deal on the land and it is resumed again very quickly. That:, again, would be a matter for arbitration, and there would be very little to go to the small holder. The main point is to have a fair arbiter; I would far rather take my chance with a fair arbiter than with an abstruse Act. So far as Section 26 is concerned, if there is anything in it which is not clear—certainly I cannot speak for the Government—I will do my very best personally to see that the matter is made clear, and I have no doubt the noble Lord will help me in that.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: I thank the noble Duke for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "not." The noble Duke said: The Amendment on the Paper suggests that pasture is not to be taken as long as arable land is available. I rather fancy the noble Duke opposite does not want to accept this Amendment, but I am afraid it is one which we on this side must press. It was accepted by your Lordships and put into the English Bill, and I do not see any reason why it should not be inserted in the Scottish Bill. As your Lordships are aware, it is very often the case that pasture near a town—it may be for grazing cows or otherwise—is very important, and it is undesirable that it should be broken up if other suitable land is available. In the next Amendment I am suggesting the insertion of the words, "only if it is shown to the satisfaction of
1074
the Board of Agriculture for Scotland that no arable land which is equally suitable for the purpose, is reasonably available." This is not a very strong Amendment and I hope your Lordships will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("not").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The noble Duke has apparently a rather uneasy conscience about this Amendment and thinks that I am not likely to accept it on behalf of the Government. I understand, of course, what he really wants. He knows what happened in the war when a great deal of very fine pasture was broken up and irretrievably spoilt, and I fancy he wants to prevent allotments being taken up and laid out and then, possibly, thrown up again a very short time afterwards, with the result that the allotment is no use and the pasture is ruined. If the allotments were going to remain there I do not suppose the noble Duke would mind. I will not say it is equally important, but it is almost as important to have allotments around a town as it is to have grazing for cows, more especially when the grazing for cows can be put farther away, and the allotments must be closer.
I think it would be a pity to say that no ground around a town which is in grass is to be broken up foe allotments, because that would make it extremely difficult in some cases to get any allotments. We must trust to a great extent to the common sense of individuals. There is agricultural ground, and it is just as important to increase the agricultural ground as it is to maintain the pasture in some cases. I am thinking now of a town in the north where it would be perfectly impossible to have allotments if this were to go on. It is a town where allotments are particularly wanted, because all round there is grazing land which happens at present to be held by auctioneers, and flying stock comes in one day and goes out the next. It is particularly dirty ground which, in my humble opinion, would certainly be much better if it was in arable rather than in its present state. That is the reason why the Government oppose this Amendment. I think we may trust the local authorities and the landlords between them to agree on the subject. I would rather not hypothecate one particular thing for one subject and one for another, but leave it to their common sense.

1075
So far as compensation is concerned, I want to remind the noble Duke that it is a question of compensation. I will say that I am sure he does not mean that, but is thinking on the broad lines; but it is a question of compensation, and there is an arbiter there, and if the pasture is broken up there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the arbiter giving absolutely full and proper compensation. For that reason I do not see my way to accept the Amendment, and I hope the noble Duke will not press it. I am glad to see that conscience has also pricked some of the noble Lords on the other side who, I think, may possibly have been going to support the Amendment.
LORD BLEDISLOE: With a wholly unpricked conscience I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Duke on this side. I do not see, in the first place, why you want to establish a different principle in relation to Scotland from that which we have already admitted and inserted in the Bill in relation to England. What does this Amendment mean? I do not think that the noble Duke opposite has really reasoned along the lines on which the Amendment goes. All it says is that when you have arable and pasture land between which to choose, you choose the arable first and do not unnecessarily break up pasture. In the light of what happened during the war, it seems to me to be a very reasonable Amendment to suggest. Furthermore, as I pointed out when a similar Amendment was under consideration in the case of the English Bill, there is going to be a great temptation in some cases to put pressure on the local authority to plough up pasture land in preference to taking what might otherwise be more suitable arable land. There is a high manurial value in newly turned pasture land from which market gardeners and allotment holders are going to derive a benefit for three or four years. But that is not going to be a sufficient reason in the public interest to tie up pasture land for accommodation purposes, as so much land is in the neighbourhood of large towns, when there is arable land which is equally suitable for the purpose; and that is the whole point. I hope the noble Earl will insist on the Amendment.
LORD LAMINGTON: I hope the noble Duke will persist in his Amendment. The noble Duke opposite spoke with a rather uneasy conscience. I thought his own
1076
speech was very wobbly indeed. It is most indecisive to talk about trusting local authorities and everybody else. We want to see some Security against land being wantonly taken when other land equally suitable is available. I hope, therefore, that the noble Duke will press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am afraid I must press this Amendment. I do not think the noble Duke opposite has quite grasped the point. I would remind your Lordships that the Board will decide this matter, and that it is only if suitable land cannot be obtained elsewhere. That is entirely for the Board to say. This safeguard is in the English Bill, and I think it only right and fair that your Lordships should give it to Scotland. We want to make the provision of allotments as easy as possible, and if people have a fear that their pastures will be broken up they will be less inclined to give the land.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am prepared to accept the noble Duke's Amendment, subject to this: that it will probably be argued over again by other experts in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, at end insert ("only if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland that no arable land which is equally suitable for the purpose, is reasonably available"). —(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) Section 5 of the Act of 1892 shall be amended by the addition of the following provision—
"And it shall be the duty of the local authority with respect to any land acquired by them, under this Act to provide and maintain adequate and suitable approaches thereto."
The noble Marquess said: The effect of this Amendment will be to lay upon a local authority the obligation of providing an adequate approach for allotment holders to their allotments. It will also, of course, have the effect of protecting, in some measure, the owners or occupiers of neighbouring land from the risk of trespass.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE DUKE of ATHOLL: With the intention of this Amendment I agree, as I think everybody must. It would be impossible to have allotments if there were no means of access to them, but I desire to point out to the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment that local authorities already have the powers, as the clause stands, and that the matter is fully covered. I think it is more clear as it already is than it would be if the obligation suggested by this Amendment were adopted, but if the noble Marquess will not press the Amendment I will promise to look into it. If by any chance it is not already clear that proper access will be made by local authorities, then I shall be quite ready to reconsider the matter, but I am certain that what the noble Marquess desires by his Amendment is already provided for.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Is the duty laid upon the local authorities?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: They must, of course, provide access to the allotments which they provide, but if there be any doubt I will let the noble Marquess know. I went into the matter this morning very carefully, and I think it is already provided for.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Is it not the fact that in the present Act this is merely a permissive power, and not a mandatory obligation? I understand that the noble Marquess desires to make it mandatory upon local authorities to provide proper means of access to these allotments, and I should have thought that that was a proper obligation to put upon local authorities. I know allotments to which it is extremely difficult to take a wheelbarrow owing to the miserable condition of the path giving access.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I can only repeat what I have said, that if the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment now we will go into the matter and bring it up again on Report, if necessary. As at present advised I believe the point is covered already by Scottish law.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved, at the end of subsection (6) (2), to insert:
"Provided that in the case of land which has boon acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, or canal under-
1078
taking, such leasing shall be subject to a condition enabling the corporation or company to resume possession of the land when required by the corporation or company for the purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was so acquired."
The noble Lord said: The object, of the Amendment is to place harbour authorities and railway companies in Scotland, in relation to the compulsory leasing of land by local authorities, upon precisely the same footing as they are put in the English Bill. As your Lordships will remember, statutory corporations in England were protected in regard to this by Section 39 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. This protection was affected by the English Bill as it was first introduced into this House, but, substantially, the protection was restored by an Amendment passed in this House to that Bill. The object of this Amendment is to put Scottish railway companies and harbour authorities in the same position as English authorities and railway companies.
I will only say, further, that there has undoubtedly been a difference in the legislative development upon this point as between Scotland and England and Wales, but the fact remains that up to a recent date Scottish companies were protected by this exemption. In the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, however, this exemption was, for some reason, possibly through inadvertence, ignored, and there is no mention of it in this Bill. There may possibly be a doubt as to the necessity of this Amendment, but I think it is on all grounds very desirable that it should be made clear that in this matter of compulsory leasing by local authorities there is no difference between the railway companies and harbour authorities in Scotland and similar authorities in England. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD STANMORE: I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. With respect to allotment gardens, railway, dock and canal undertakings will enjoy special privileges on resumption, given them in Clause 1 of this Bill; and with respect, to land leased from local authorities for allotments, not being allotment gardens, the Bill makes no change in the existing law with respect to such undertakings. The Amendment indicates nothing as to

1079
notice or compensation. I should also like to point out that the right of resumption has been settled in Clause 1 on the noble Lord's own Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: This is no question of resumption but a question of the creation of what you may call new intrusions upon property which really has been appropriated by Parliament for totally different purposes, and it was only done in 1919 when legislation was passing this House, which is describable really as emergency legislation, introduced not during the war but arising out of the war, and as an immediate sequel of the war. It is true that, in view of the fact that a very important transport measure was going through the House at the time, the same attention was not given to the need for an exception being made in favour of statutory companies in this case as ought to have been given. These rights to invade never existed until 1919, and were then only created because of the special necessities.
We submit that it is unreasonable that railway systems and other statutory undertakings, some of which have been grouped together so that English and Scottish railways will be under the same management, should be subjected to different procedure and treated as if they were going to be guilty of arbitrary resumptions. There is no fear of arbitrary resumptions as against allotment holders by railway companies and others. They do not take back into their own hands these little gardens and scraps of spare land for no reason at all. They would only take them back in order to widen railways, or for the erection of warehouses in the neighbourhood of stations. These purposes would require expenditure, and that has to come out of capital which has to be raised. Therefore, I think you have the best possible security against any arbitrary use of the power to resume.
LORD CLWYD: May I ask the noble Lord, if there is any doubt as to whether the two categories of companies in England and Scotland are not upon the same footing, whether he is prepared to accept words on Report which would make that point clear?
LORD STANMORE: I am afraid I cannot give such an undertaking.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
"—(1) The council of any burgh with a population of ten thousand or upwards shall, unless exempted by the Board from the provisions of this section, establish an Allotments Committee, and all matters relating to the exercise and performance by the council of their powers and duties under the Allotments Acts as respects the provision of allotment gardens (except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money) shall stand referred to such committee, and the council before exercising any such powers shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent., receive and consider the report of the Committee with respect to the matter in question, and the Council may delegate to the committee, with or without restrictions, any of the said powers except as aforesaid.
"(2) An allotments committee established under this section shall comprise persons other than members of the council, representative of the interests of occupiers of allotment gardens in the burgh, and being themselves occupiers of such allotment gardens provided that such co-opted members shall be less than one-half but shall not be less than one-third of the total number of the members of the committee.
"(3) The accounts of any receipts or payments by or to a committee under powers delegated under this section shall be accounts of the council and made up and audited accordingly."
The noble Marquess said: I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the Scottish National Union of Allotment Holders. Under the Land Settlement Act, 1919, the allotments committees are purely advisory in their functions. In the English measure the allotments committees are set up on a statutory basis, and have far more power to stimulate interest in the borough councils in allotments than the purely consultative committees in Scotland. When a local authority is disinclined to forward the interest of allotment holders it has been found that these consultative committees in Scotland have been quite unable to do anything for their constituents. Even when these committees have met regularly they have found that many matters concerning allotments have not been brought before them and that they have not been consulted with regard to questions of finance in connection with allotments. There is a sentimental side to this question. Allotment holders in Scotland are anxious to enjoy the same status in relation to a local authority as allotment holders in England enjoy under the English measure.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE DUKE OP ATHOLL: I am very sorry that I cannot agree to the noble Marquess's Amendment. It involves an absolute and entire alteration of the county method by which these matters are dealt with in Scotland. I know that a clause on similar lines appears in the English measure, but I should have thought that the noble Marquess, who is so perfervid a Scot, would have been the last person to advance that as a reason why we should have it in the Scottish Bill. By Section 19 of the Land Settlement Act, 1919, it is already the statutory duty of the town council of every burgh, where the Secretary for Scotland so requires, to appoint annually a consultative allotments committee, and we may be quite certain that if there is sufficient agitation in any place where the local authority has not clone so, the Secretary for Scotland would require such a committee to be set up. That consultative committee can consist of persons not being members of the town council.
I understand that certain allotment holders desire the more detailed provisions of the English measure; particularly, that the committee should include a certain proportion of allotment garden holders who are not town councillors, and that all the functions of the council with respect to allotment gardens should be referred to this committee. This is an absolute novelty, and I do not think the noble Marquess, on reflection, would desire to press it. It means that you are going to say to town councils that they must delegate their power, so far as allotments are concerned, to a non-elected committee. It would certainly be ultra-democratic legislation. The town council is elected by the people, and one can imagine that they are those who are trusted by the voters.
If town councils do not act in the matter of allotments, and there is a sufficient demand in the locality, then it is a simple thing for the electors not to return them at the next elections. To say to a town council, which is given certain powers, that it must put these powers in the hands of another body who have sot been elected at the polls is quite contrary to the spirit of both county and borough legislation in Scotland. That is the real reason why I must oppose the Amendment, and I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree with me if they consider the matter a little further.
EARL STANHOPE: I always knew that Scotland was a very conservative country, but though I am considered a reactionary, being a Die-Hard, I confess that. Scotland is certainly much more Tory than I am. I do not know anything about Scottish local legislation, but may I point out that members of educational committees in Scotland, as in England, need not necessarily be members of the town council, and that there are such persons as co-opted members in Scotland at the present time?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I point out that it is proposed to delegate the whole of their power with it; a very different thing. The only committee I know of that delegates its powers at all is the cattle diseases committee, which is a committee of the county council. In this case it is a new committee right outside the existing authority. I do not say for one moment that they would be unreasonable, but they might be, and the town council would have divested itself of all its powers and obligations towards citizens in the matter.
EARL STANHOPE: It is, in fact, only suggested that Scotland should once more follow England, because, under the English Bill, the co-opted members could not come up to one-half of the elected members of the council, although they have to be one-third, and, therefore, they have no possibility of being in the majority on these committees, and the town councils would not delegate their authority to these ad hoc members, as the noble Duke seems to think. I think it is very essential that allotment holders should have allotments committees, to assist them to obtain allotments, and to see that they are well run. I grant that, under the English Bill, I hoped that His Majesty's Government would agree that these allotments committees should be permissive, that the word should be "may" instead of "shall," but it was most strongly resisted by the Government on the English Bill, and I am bound to confess that it has caused me considerable amusement to hear the arguments put forward by the Government, because they are just the arguments which were put forward on this side of the House against the Government on the English Bill. England and Scotland are not the same country, but they are very similar in many respects, and particularly in regard to allotments.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It seems to me rather difficult in this matter to differentiate between allotment holders in England and Scotland. With all respect to the noble Duke, he does not appear to me to have rightly interpreted the Amendment of my noble friend. He rather assumes that the whole of the powers of the local authority concerning allotments must, under this Amendment, be delegated to an advisory committee. But surely that is not what this Amendment suggests. It says that all matters relating to allotments shall stand referred to the allotments committee, with certain additional members. It goes on to say that the council shall receive and consider the report of the committee. It is open to them, after receiving that report, to adopt and act upon it, or not, just as they choose. It goes on to say that they may, if they choose, delegate—it is absolutely permissive— any of their powers, except the power of levying a rate or borrowing money. It is, therefore, within the option of the local authorities to delegate powers, if they choose to do so, but as regards what is mandatory in this Amendment, all that they delegate is the power of considering allotment questions. I sincerely hope the Amendment will be accepted, because I am certain, as a matter of equity, that it is difficult to argue that the Scottish allotment holders should have less say in the management of their allotments than similar allotment holders in this country.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think, perhaps, it is the fault of their not being Scotsmen, but the noble Lords who have spoken are, no doubt, not aware that there is already a consultative committee in Scotland on the matter of allotments, and any town council can set one up. What we object to is giving them statutory powers to act in the matter. There is a statutory body which could deal with it, but Lord Linlithgow's Amendment would mean that powers were given away by the town council, with the exception, no doubt an important one, of finance. I see that Lord Haldane, who is far more versed in the law of Scotland than I am, shakes his head. Perhaps he will give his view.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Duke is really under a misapprehension. This Amendment does not propose to take any powers from the town council and hand them over to any committee. What it proposes
1084
to do is to introduce the procedure which is usual or universal in connection with boroughs in England. Local Government in England is carried on in this way. There is a committee, which is very often a statutory committee, and certain matters stand referred to it. It has no power over the town council, but merely inquires into those matters and refers to the main body, which may approve its action. The value of that is that it gives new vitality to the boroughs. Instead of providing some sort of sub-committee, which might be set up or not, you have now the statutory committee, which looks into such matters as education and brings them before the town council. There is no question of the town council delegating its powers, but merely of how the town council is to be advised. I should have thought that a better objection on the part of the Government was that this is importing English procedure into the system in Scotland, which has never had that procedure, and that it ought to be resisted on patriotic grounds. I can only say that I consider the English procedure much better than that which obtains in a Scottish burgh, and that the noble Duke need not be apprehensive that he is introducing any dangerous revolution.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I do not think the noble Duke in charge of the Bill would accuse those who have asked me to move this Amendment of being any worse Scotsmen than he is, or than I am, and I am sure he would be the last to dispute that there are some good things for which it is necessary to come to England if we desire to enjoy them. The society which supports this Amendment desires to be put in precisely the same position as the allotment holders in England. If my noble friend quarrels with the wording of this Amendment, I do not stand here to defend it, and, if he will undertake that, at a later stage of this Bill, he will accept an Amendment which shall have the effect of placing allotment holders in Scotland in precisely the same relation to burgh councils as the English allotment holders occupy towards the town authorities in England, I will withdraw my Amendment now.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am afraid I would not fall quite into that trap, because it would be admitting exactly that for which the noble Marquess has been

1085
asking. I am glad to say that I have now the opinion of Lord Haldane that it is a perfectly new type of legislation for Scotland. It is a type which we have never had before, and we have got on very well without it. I would only point out that there is nothing permissive in the Amendment. If the noble Marquess would change the word "shall" to the word "may," and make it permissive I should be glad to consider the question on Report. But this is compulsory. It would be the only case in which it occurred in Scotland. I want to remind the noble Marquess that there is already a committee, and that consultative committees can be set up, although they have no power to vote; that is the difference. The town council have been elected by the people with the power of voting. They ought to retain that power, and not delegate it to other people. But there is nothing to prevent their having as many consultative committees as they like, and they are able to do so, if necessary, by order of the Secretary for Scotland.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: The noble Lord asks me to change the word "shall." It is a small word with a big meaning. I am afraid that I shall have to divide the House upon the Amendment, and I am not without hope that the noble Viscount below me will support me.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am not prepared to divide the House, for the very good reason that I think noble Lords on that side are more numerous than we are at the present moment, and it would be a waste of time. This is, of course, a matter which will be discussed a good deal in another place, and probably time would be wasted if I were to divide the House now. Therefore, I accept the Amendment with the proviso that it does not accord with what the Government desires.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Powers of entry on unoccupied land.
(3) The right of occupation of the council may be terminated—

(a) by not less than six months' notice in Writing to that effect given by the council to the owner in manner aforesaid, and expiring on or before the first day of May, or on or after the first day of November in any year; or

1086

(b) by not less than one month's notice in writing given to the Council in any case where the land is reasonably required for any purpose other than the use of the land for agriculture.

(4) A tenant to whom land is let by a council or association under this section, and whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the right of occupation of the council, shall, unless otherwise agreed in the lease, be entitled to recover from the council or association, as the case may be, such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice to remove given by the council or association, as the case may be.
(5) Any person who is interested in any land on which entry is made by a council under this section, and who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, shall, if he makes a claim not later than one year after the termination of the right of occupation, be entitled to be paid by the council such amount or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss; and such amount or amounts shall in default of agreement be determined by an arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the board: Provided that a periodical payment of compensation in the nature of rent shall not exceed the rental value of the land as defined by this section.
(6) For the purposes of this section the expression "unoccupied land" means land in respect of which no person is entered as tenant or occupier in the valuation roll in force at the date of the notice of intended entry.
The expression "rental value" means the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land if the land had continued in the same condition as at the date when entry was made under this section.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, after ("given") insert ("by the owner").—(Lord Saltoun.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE: I agree to all the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("reasonably")
Page 6, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise")
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("or amounts")
Page 6, line 41, after ("that") insert ("such amount may be paid by the council by way of periodical payments to be determined as aforesaid and that").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
EARL STANHOPE: Might I congratulate the Scottish members of the Government upon understanding a clause which I entirely failed to get the English section of the Government to understand on the English Bill.
On Question; Amendments agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN had given notice to move, in subsection (6), after the first "entry," to insert "and which has not been let and occupied subsequent to the making tip of the valuation roll." The noble Lord said: This is a rather important point. I do not think it will be understood by many of your Lordships, but every now and again it has been found impossible to find a tenant until after the valuation roll has been made up, and it is then entered as "unlet," and the landlord's name is entered as occupier. It may not be long after the making up of the roll before the landlord finds a tenant, who may have entered upon occupancy by the time the valuation roll is published. Of course, the valuation roll remains, until it is made up again the following year, with the landlord's name entered upon it.
If this subsection stands as it is framed such a person, although a bona fide tenant, may be ejected by the town council. That may be a very serious hardship for the tenant, because no compensation under subsection (5) will compensate hint for what would be, possibly, a very serious loss indeed. He might have put his capital in the land and not be able to find another field, and it would be a very serious matter for him. I have been asked to add certain words to the Amendment on the Paper, so that the words to be inserted will read, after "valuation roll," "prior to the receipt by the owner of the notice required to be given under subsection (2) of this section."
LORD STANMORE: I suggest that a simpler form of words to be added after "valuation roll" would be "and before the date of the notice."
LORD SALTOUN: I will move my Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, after ("entry") insert ("and which has not been let and occupied subsequent to the making up of the valuation roll, and before the date of the notice").—(Lord Saltoun.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: "This section shall not apply to land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock or canal undertaking." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in the hope that it will also be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD STANMORE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I beg to move a new clause after Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, at end insert the following new clause.—
("—(1) Where land has been let to a local authority or to an association for the purpose of being sub-let for use as allotment gardens, or is occupied by a council under the powers of entry conferred by this Act, and the landlord, or the person who but for such occupation would be entitled to the possession of the land, proposes, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to resume possession of the land for any particular purpose, notice in writing of the purpose for which resumption is required shall be given to the local authority or association or council.
("(2) The local authority or association or council may by a counter notice served within ten days after receipt of such notice on the person requiring possession demand that the question as to whether resumption of possession is required in good faith for the purpose specified in the notice shall be determined by arbitration under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agriculture Holdings Act, 1908.
("(3) Possession of the land shall not be resumed until after the expiration of the said period of ten days or the determination of such question as aforesaid where such determination is demanded under this section.
("(4) This section shall not apply to any case where resumption of possession is required by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD STANMORE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
".The obligation of a town council under the Allotments Acts to provide allotments shall, if the population exceed ten thousand, be limited to the provision of allotment gardens not exceeding twenty poles in extent."
The noble Lord said: I think possibly this Amendment will be accepted by the Government, and I need not say very much on this subject, because the clause is already in the English Bill (Clause 12). It also follows recommendation number 10 of the Departmental Committee. As a matter of

1089
fact, one-eighth of an acre is sufficient for the purpose. The tilling of an allotment garden is not meant to be a whole-time occupation for a man, but a means of profitably employing his spare time. The area of an ordinary allotment luring the war was 10 poles; therefore, my proposal of 20 poles is double that amount, and this will not preclude a town council from letting a larger area to a single plot-holder temporarily, in the event of plots falling vacant, as they occasionally do. On the other hand, in urban areas it n ay not be possible to supply all the applicants with more than 20 poles each. I hope this Amendment will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, at end insert the said new clause. —(Lord Belhaven, and stenton.)
LORD STANMORE: I regret the limitation proposed, as 20 poles is a very small patch. However, it appears in the English Bill, and in those circumstances I am not prepared to resist it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF KINTORE THE EARL OF KINTORE moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
"—Where an order has been made for the compulsory acquisition of any land, and notice to treat thereunder is not served by the acquiring authority within three months of the said order, so far as it relates to land in respect of which notice to treat has not been so served, shall become null and void.
"(2) Where an order has so become null and void as respects any laud no order authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or any part of such land shall be made within three years after the expiration of the said three months, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Board that there are special reasons justifying the failure to exercise the powers under the original order."
The noble Earl said: I entertain a somewhat confident hope that the reasonableness of the new clause that I propose may appeal to my noble friend, and that he will find it in his power to agree to it. I propose it in order to bring the Bill in this regard into line with the English Bill. As the Bill stands, while there is power in the local authority to make orders for compulsory acquisition of land there does not appear to be any limit to the time during which notice by the acquiring authority to treat must be served, and during which the power must be used. To acquire the land and then do nothing with it would seem to be obviously to the prejudice of the owner.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, at end insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Kintore)
LORD STANMORE: I am very glad to accept the noble Earl's Amendment, but there are one or two alterations of a purely drafting character which I should like to make on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Travelling facilities for occupiers of allotments.
7.—(1) Where a town council as owner or lessee works any tramway or omnibus service the council may charge reduced fares to occupiers of allotments provided by the council when using such service for the purpose of proceeding to or returning from their allotments, subject to such conditions as the council may impose.
(2) Any person who travels at any such reduced fare on any occasion for which it is not available, or who fails to comply with any of the conditions attached thereto, shall be liable on summary conviction to a line not exceeding forty shillings.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved in subsection (1), to substitute "allotment gardens" for "allotments" ["occupiers of allotments."] The noble Lord said: My object is simply to provide that the privilege to be given should be restricted to those who have allotment gardens, and not extended to those who may be working allotments for profit and are not entitled to the concession. Those who have allotment gardens may be some way from them and it is desirable to give them facilities, but I think those facilities should be restricted as I have indicated.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, leave out ("allotments") and insert ("allotment gardens").—(Lord Lamington.)
LORD STANMORE: I think it would be rather difficult to carry out this Amendment. A town council will not have a tramway service of its own unless in the case of a large town, where probably all the allotments would be allotment gardens in any case. In practice I think it would be difficult to distinguish between the two classes.
LORD LAMINGTON: Keep it to the English Bill.
LORD STANMORE: I think the objection would still hold good.
LORD LAMINGTON: The noble Lord has not answered the point that in the case of the English Bill it is inserted.
LORD STANINIORE: My noble friend will agree that it would be very difficult to distinguish between the two classes in a large town and to say who should have these privileges and who should not.
LORD LAMINGTON: I should think it quite possible, but I do not propose to press the Amendment if there is any vital difficulty in the matter.
EARL STANHOPE: Surely the whole point is that the Amendment brings the matter into line with the definition clause, Clause 11 of this Bill. If a piece of land is described as an allotment garden it comes in as an allotment in all kinds of Acts. If you call it an allotment garden here it will make it perfectly clear.
LORD SALTOUN: I asked the noble Lord on the Second Reading if he would define the meaning of the words "allotment" and "allotment garden." The definition may be found in some other Acts, but it is extremely difficult to get at them, and I think it is most important that it should be in the present Big. If there is no definition now of the meaning of the word "allotment," there will be a great dispute about it when a consolidation Bill is brought in.
LORD STANMORE: If the noble Lord presses the Amendment I will not oppose it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON: There is a consequential Amendment, similar to the last, which I now move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("allotments") and insert ("allotment gardens").—(Lord Lamington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Interpretation.
11.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
(2).—(a) In the Allotments Acts, except the provisions thereof hereinafter specified, unless the
1092
context otherwise requires, the expression "allotment" includes an allotment garden.
(b) The excepted provisions referred to in the foregoing paragraph are—
In the Act of 1892, subsection (3) of section seven and subsection (2) of section eight.
In the Act of 1894, provisoes (a) and (b) to subsection (5) and subsection (9) of section twenty-six.
(3) Where under this Act any question arises as to whether land is reasonably required to any particular purpose the question shall be deter-mined—

(a) where the landlord is a Government department by a certificate issued by the department;

(b) where the landlord is a town council or a county council by a certificate issued by the Secretary for Scotland;

(c) where the landlord is a parish council by a certificate issued by the Scottish Board of Health; and

(d) in any other case by a certificate issued by the Board.

And any such certificate shall be final and conclusive.
LORD STANMORE: There is an Amendment to this clause which is consequential to an Amendment moved by the Duke of Atholl.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (6)").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I have also a consequential Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 24 to 37, leave out subsection (3). —(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

THE LATE SIR HENRY WILSON.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to ask your Lordships' leave to interpose a Motion which I will read to the House immediately, and which, I think it will be agreed, is a Motion which ought to be passed, in view of the very tragic circumstance which has taken place this afternoon. I understand that the Motion will be acceptable in every quarter of the House. It is as follows:
"That this House desires to place upon record its detestation of the horrible

1093
crime which has been committed this afternoon, namely, the murder of Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, Member of Parliament, by which the country has been deprived of a most distinguished soldier and public servant, and to express its profound sympathy with Lady Wilson in her sorrow."
Sir Henry Wilson was known to us all. He was a personal friend of most of us. He was a Member of the other House of Parliament, and his great services in the war are fresh in the memory of us all.
His death is accompanied with every circumstance of horror. Here, in the middle of our own Metropolis, he has been murdered. This crime cannot but bring home to us the circumstances in which we live, and in which another part of the United Kingdom has been plunged for so many months. I think we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to the other House of Parliament, to say what we feel in a formal manner, and to show the country how deeply we detest the horrible crime which has been committed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House desires to place upon record its detestation of the horrible crime which has been committed dais afternoon, namely, the murder of Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, Member of Parliament, by which the country has been deprived of a most distinguished soldier and public servant, and to express its profound sympathy with Lady Wilson in her sorrow. —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I make the very brief observations which I will make in support of the Motion moved by the noble Marquess, I think it might not be unacceptable to the House if I added some later information on this melancholy subject. This message was received at Scotland Yard at twenty-five minutes past three—
"At about 2.20 p.m. James O'Brien, aged twenty-four, no occupation, no address, and James Connolly, aged twenty-four, no occupation or address, were seen running from No. 30, Eaton Place and were chased by Police Constable March, who was shot and seriously wounded in tin stomach. Police Constable Sayer who took up the chase was shot in the leg, and both these officers are now in St. George's Hospital. A private individual is also detained in St. George's Hospital—"
who apparently had taken some part in the pursuit—
"suffering from sonic injuries the natur3 of which is unknown. Police Constable Bush with others
1094
joined in the chase and succeeded in knocking O'Brien down with his fist, and a revolver fell from O'Brien's hands. It contained four live and two spent cartridges. The other man, who was overpowered by tie constables, also had a revolver in which there were two spent cartridges, and one live cartridge in his hand or pocket. They are both Webley Service revolvers. Connolly had a holster. Sir Henry Wilson had been shot three times, once through the body, once through the leg, and once through the arm. It is believed that the shooting took place on the threshold of his house IV hen he was about to leave the house. There is some suggestion that there was a third man, but there is nothing at Scotland Yard to corroborate this at the moment. The men put up a very violent resistance and they bear marked traces of violence. They declined to give any account of themselves. They have since said that they ale soldiers, but decline to say in what regiment."
The police say later:
"We have now found a copy of the official organ of the Irish Republican Army on Connolly, and also correspondence, which proves without doubt that he is a member of the Irish Republican Army."
I am glad that the noble Marquess has repaired what might have appeared to be an omission on the part of the House in reference to this subject earlier in the day. The information only reached me a few moments before I stood by the Woolsack to make the announcement, and I only knew that I was to answer a Question upon the subject a minute before I actually rose to reply to the noble and learned Lord. It is in every way right that we should place on record in the most formal manner our sense, of the heinous character of this vile murder, and our sense, too, of the loss which this country has sustained by the death of Sir Henry Wilson.
Forty years have passed since he transferred from his original battalion into the Rifle Brigade—forty years crowded with adventure, with active service, and with brilliant contributions to the military operations of this country. Every one knows that a part which had always been distinguished became almost decisive in the last few years of the war, but only those who were at that time members of one or other of the Governments which were responsible for the fortunes of the war know the full extent of the debt which this country owes to the ingenious resource, the imaginative capacity and the soldierly science of the late Sir Henry Wilson. I sincerely hope that the fact that the gallant Field-Marshal differed, and even differed profoundly, from some of the views and recommendations for which this Government have made themselves responsible,

1095
will not be held a sufficient cause for repelling them or me from the expression, however inadequate, in this House of the heartfelt grief which we feel at his loss and the sympathy which every one of us must feel for the bereaved lady who mourns that loss to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have very few words to add to those which have fallen from the noble Marquess behind me and from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I cannot recall a precedent for the action which has been taken by the noble Marquess behind me in making such a Motion as this, but nobody in the House is likely to make that a cause of complaint, because the circumstances under which the Motion is made are themselves also altogether without precedent. I feel certain that the House will agree with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in thanking the noble Marquess for the course which he has taken. I need add little, indeed scarcely anything, to what has been said about the late Field-Marshal. He was a man of the greatest brilliancy both in his military capacity and generally; and, as the noble and learned Viscount has stated, there are many of us here with whom in political matters he remained in the profoundest disagreement, but that certainly did not prevent us from appreciating those qualities of his which brought him such pre-eminent distinction in the war and enabled him to render such undoubted service to the country. I desire on behalf of those with whom I act to join in the expression of sympathy with his bereaved wife and with all his relatives.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, it is always a very solemn thing to be with a man and then to hear in a few hours that he has been cut off. Such, however, is my sad fate to-clay. Sir Henry Wilson and I were at Liverpool Street station to-day not four hours ago, each taking his own part in the unveiling of the beautiful monument there erected to the soldiers of the Great Eastern Railway who fell in the war. He stood there every inch a man and every inch a soldier, and he had in front of him many, many men and women whose hearts were touched to tears as he spoke to them. Somehow, it now seems appropriate that his last words should have been words of comfort to those who were mourning their lost ones as we now mourn for him. He spoke very
1096
beautifully and he spoke very briefly. Then he heard the last words about the peace of God which passeth all understanding, and that peace is now his. Then he heard the "Last Post." We are glad to know that that was immediately followed by the "Réveilé," and that, too, he has now heard. His speech consisted almost entirely of two quotations, one from an English poet and one from a Latin poet, Horace.
Somehow, in the last few hours, since I heard of his tragic death and since he and I were speaking together, before we bade each other farewell, of the great soldier Lord Roberts who was a common friend of us both—since that time I have found running in my head not the words of Rudyard Kipling, nor the words of Horace, but I thought of the wonderful description given in Virgil's masterpiece of those who are entitled to enter upon the Elysian Fields. Your Lordships will remember that one class of those happy mortals consists of those, Quique sui memores alios fecere merendo—who have built their own memorial by the services they have rendered. Such was he and such is he. Forgive me for intruding upon you in this way, but I was so near to the tragedy itself that I felt that a few words from this Bench might not be considered wholly inappropriate in supporting the Motion of the noble Marquess.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine contradicente.

CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Conviction for manslaughter in certain cases.
1.—(1) Where a woman unlawfully by any direct means intentionally causes the death of her newly born child, but at the time when she so caused its death she had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to such child, and by reason thereof the balance of her mind was then disturbed, she shall, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for this Act the offence would have amounted to murder, be guilty of felony, to wit of infanticide, and may for such offence be punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of such child.
(2) Where upon the trial of a woman for the murder of her newly born child, the jury are of opinion that she unlawfully by any direct means intentionally caused its death, but that at the time when she so caused its death she had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to such child, and that by reason thereof the balance

1097
of her mind was then disturbed, the jury may, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for the provisions of this Act they might have returned a verdict of murder, return in lieu thereof a verdict of infanticide.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall limit time power of the jury upon an indictment for murder to return a verdict of manslaughter, or a verdict of guilty but insane, or a verdict of concealment of birth, in pursuance of section 60 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("unlawfully by any direct means intentionally") and insert ("by any wilful act or omission").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had put down an Amendment to move, at the beginning of subsection (1), after "Where a woman unlawfully," to leave out "by any direct means intentionally." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is really covered by the Amendment already passed, but perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House to say that I assent, and very gratefully assent, to all the Amendments which stand in the name of the learned Lord Chancellor. It may save the time of the House to make that statement at this stage; but there is one Amendment of my own in subsection (1) which I should like to say a word or two upon when we get to it. I do not move my Amendment to leave out "by any direct means intentionally."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("when she so caused its death") and insert ("of the act or omission"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "the balance of her mind was" and insert "her physical and mental condition were." The noble and learned Lord said: I do not intend to press this Amendment if the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has any objection to it. I pointed out at a former stage that the words "the balance of her mind" were difficult words in the sense that they opened the way to calling expert medical opinion upon a matter in respect of which there is much medical difference of opinion, and I hope to avoid that by inserting instead of the words "the balance of her mind was," the alternative "her physical and mental conditions were." I do not care to retain the
1098
word "physical," because it has been pointed out to me that in all conditions her physical condition might be affected, but I hope the Lord Chancellor will enable me to insert the words "mental condition" instead of the words "balance of her mind," and I beg to move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("the balance of her mind was") and insert ("her mental condition was").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not reject this Amendment without consultation with such experienced functionaries as the Director of Public Prosecutions and others specially versed in the criminal law. They greatly prefer the words as they appear in the Bill to the words suggested by the noble and learned Lord. The objection taken by the noble and learned Lord to my phrase is really just as applicable to his own. I understand that he objects to my phrase because it would be necessary to take medical evidence. It would be equally necessary to call medical evidence in order to justify his test that her mental condition was of such a kind. The proper way of making inquiries as to mental stability, and the time-honoured manner in our legal procedure, is by calling experts before a jury and a Judge to give their evidence before the jury and the Judge, and it is for the jury to pronounce upon that evidence under direction from the Judge. I hope the noble and learned Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I shall not press my Amendment after what the noble and learned Viscount has stated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("be") insert ("dealt with and")
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("unlawfully by any direct means intentionally") and insert ("by any wilful act or omission")
Page 1, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("when she so caused its death") and insert ("of the act or omission")
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("limit") and insert ("affect")
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("murder") and insert ("the murder of a newly-born child")
Page 2, line 5, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(4) The said section sixty shall apply in the case of the acquittal of a woman upon indictment for infanticide as it applies upon the acquittal of a woman for murder, and upon the trial of any

1099
person over the age of sixteen for infanticide it shall be lawful for the jury, if they are satisfied that the accused is guilty of an offence under section twelve of the Children's Act, 1908, to find the accused guilty of such an offence, and in that case that section shall apply accordingly").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Short title and extent.
2.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Child Murder (Trial) Act, 1922.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("Child Murder (Trial)") and insert ("Infanticide").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title:

TITLE.
An Act to provide that a woman charged with the murder of her infant child may, under certain conditions, be convicted of manslaughter.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("charged with the murder of her infant") and insert ("who wilfully causes the death of her newly-born"), and leave out ("manslaughter") and insert ("infanticide").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered I may perhaps adopt a course that will be convenient to your Lordships if I make a very short general statement as to what has happened to this immense measure since it left your Lordships' House. The statement will be a very brief one. The measure passed through Committee stage in the House of Commons, and a Committee was appointed by both Houses, and the Bill was referred to that Committee, which made an expert examination of the terms of the Bill, an examination which resulted in many valuable Amendments that were ultimately adopted by the House of Commons on the Report stage. In regard to some of those Amendments I may say that I preferred the form of the Bill in which it left this
1100
House, but, speaking generally, the Amendments are improvements in the Bill, and the Bill is a better Bill in my judgment than it was when it left your Lordships' House. I shall, therefore, speak to any point which any individual member of this House may propose to take, on the next Motion from the Woolsack, That the Commons Amendments be agreed to en bloc.
I cannot let this occasion pass on which so great a revolution has been effected in the real property system of this country without expressing my gratitude to this House as a whole, and to many individuals in it especially, for the assistance which they have given me in undertaking this gigantic task. It is the literal truth that this Bill could never have hoped to become law had it been dependent for its chance upon Parliamentary progress being made in another place. If they could have found the patience, which I greatly doubt, to undertake the examination which your Lordships in three successive sessions of Parliament undertook, they certainly could not have found the time to do so. I myself owe snore than I can say to noble Lords in all parts of the House, who felt many times that they could not agree with some of the provisions of this Bill, but nevertheless co-operated wholeheartedly and successfully with me in the attempt to make it a better Bill.
In particular, expressions of gratitude are due to my noble and learned friends, Lord Haldane and Lord Buckmaster, without whose special and constant assistance the Bill would never have become law. All through the hot summer months of the year, in which our climate was exceptionally unfavourable to Committee work, these two noble and learned Lords devoted their leisure and their great learning to the task of improving the details of this measure in Committee, and without the contribution which they have made, with the more special knowledge of a great deal of the subject-matter than I can claim to possess, this immense reform in our law could never have been effected. I am also in debt to many other noble and learned Lords who would not wish that I should take up the time of your Lordships in mentioning them individually.
I for one have no doubt that this measure will be looked upon for many generations as a great charter in the development of the legal history of this matter. I cannot

1101
hope, and I do not hope, that we have avoided errors. I cannot hope, and I do not hope, that amending legislation will not be found to be necessary, and some of it even before the period in which this Bill is to become operative. But when all these deductions and allowances are made, I am quite certain that we have swept away much that is embarrassing and effected a simplification and cheapening of the whole system of land transfer the like of which was hardly conceived of by the best reforming brains in this country until the days of Cairns and Selborne, and Halsbury and Haldane.
It is exactly thirty-four years ago that a young man, addressing himself for the first time to the study of real property of this country, took out with him on a little walk to assist him in that purpose the work of the late Mr. Joshua Williams on Real Property. I was that young man, and I conceived myself at that date as being far more intelligent than I do at this moment. I addressed myself to that study; I spent many hours upon that book on the first day, and I ended my day's labour with the Statute of Uses. On my way home, as I carried that book, I surveyed that Statute of Uses from every conceivable point of view. I examined it in the concrete; I examined it in the abstract; and I came to the conclusion—I claim some merit for perspicuity in this matter—that it was the barbarous, if necessary, invention of a number of scholastic legal pedants, hut that it had no contact of any kind with our modern life, and I formed the resolution that if I ever attained any high place in the legal hierarchy that I would put an end to the Statute of Uses. Your Lordships will understand the emotion which fills me at this happy moment.
May I add this. I am told that there is one most respected practitioner, grown grey in the practice of the Chancery Law, sixty years of whose successful and brilliant life has been spent in the exposition, not unlucrative exposition, of the Statute of Uses, who, when he heard, not from my lips but from lips perhaps less sympathetic, that at last the Statute of Uses was abolished, definitely and irrevocably announced his intention not to survive it, and that he resigned his practice at once.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Law of Property Bill be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not rise to detain you for more than one moment. As to the Amendments, I think we shall find the advice of the Lord Chancellor quite right. They make no difference to the measure, but ensure its passage. What I wish to do is to congratulate the Lord Chancellor on having accomplished a feat which I think is without precedent. To have passed a Bill of this magnitude through both Houses of Parliament in so comparatively short a time, and with so little friction, is indeed a triumph of which he may be proud. I doubt whether anyone besides himself would have been able to do it. There it stands, a very revolutionary measure.
I cannot say that I part with the Statute of Uses with the light heart that the noble and learned Viscount does. To me it was a very cherished friend for many years. I have no prejudice against it, but by degrees one found himself having passed beyond it; and it has remained for the Lord Chancellor to put an end to its existence. I shed a tear, but that does not check me from the sense of gratitude which and all who are interested in the reform of the Law of Property, have for the tremendous effort the Lord Chancellor has made and his success in carrying through the largest measure of law reform that is contained in our history.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 19.]
Clause 3, page 4, line 45, after the second ("of") insert ("freehold").
Clause 22, page 17, line 23, after ("statute") insert ("nor affect the limitation of or authorise any disposition to be made of a title or dignity of honour which in its nature is inalienable").
Clause 28, page 19, line 39, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(4) Nothing in this part of this Act shall affect the right to enforce any lessor's or lessee's covenants, agreements or conditions (including a valid option to purchase or right of pre-emption over the reversion or the term of years absolute) contained in any instrument creating a term of years absolute the benefit or burden of which run with the reversion or the term, nor render necessary the registration of any land charge in respect of the same").
Clause 65, page 50, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to provision for the repayment of the capital money expended being made in mariner hereinafter provided").
Clause 65, page 50, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to provision for the repayment of the capital money expended being made in manner hereinafter provided").
Clause 78, page 63, line 38, at end insert; ("and the foregoing repeal shall not apply where the

1103
land leased has been assigned, underlet, parted with, or disposed of to a limited company").
Clause 79, page 64, line 18, after ("instrument") insert ("or a certified copy thereof or of such portions thereof as refer to or are necessary to the interpretation of such power")
Clause 79, page 64, line 25, after ("instrument") insert ("or a certified copy thereof or of such portions thereof as aforesaid")
Clause 79, page 64, line 28, after ("instrument") insert ("or a certified copy thereof or of such portions thereof as aforesaid")
Clause 79, page 64, line 35, after ("thereof") insert ("or of the material portions thereof").
Clause 80, page 65, line 12, at end, insert the following new subsection:
("(4) The following provision shall have effect as if inserted at the end of subsection (1) of section forty-seven of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, namely:—
"A statutory declaration by an attorney to the effect that he has not received any notice or information of the revocation of such power of attorney by death or otherwise shall, if made immediately before or within three months after any such payment or act as aforesaid, be taken to be conclusive proof of such non-revocation at the time when such payment or act was made or done.")
Clause 84, page 67, line 12, leave out ("under seal")
Clause 84, page 68, line 11, leave out ("under seal").
Clause 88, page 70, line 11, after ("benefit") insert ("the whole or such part (if any) as may under all the circumstances be reasonable of")
Clause 88, line 12, leave out ("or any part thereof")
Clause 88, line 22, at end insert the following new paragraph:
("(iii) Provided that in deciding whether the whole or any part of the income of the property is during a minority to be paid or applied for the purposes aforesaid, the trustees shall have regard to the age of the infant awl his requirements and generally to the circumstances of the case, and in particular to what other income (if any) is applicable for the same purposes; and where trustees have notice that the income of more than one fund is applicable for those purposes then, so far as practicable, unless the entire income of the funds is paid or applied as aforesaid or the court otherwise directs, a proportionate part only of the income of each fund shall be so paid or applied.")
Clause 90, page 74, line 38, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(11) Where a term of more than seventy years is created in land (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) this section shall, after the expiration of fifty years of the term, apply to restrictions affecting such leasehold land in like manner as it would have applied had the land been freehold. Provided that this subsection shall not apply to milling leases or leases for mining purposes.")
Clause 103, page 84, line 21, after ("Parliament") insert ("or in pursuance of an Act of Parliament or Order having the force of an Act").
After Clause 104, page 85, line 33, insert the following new clauses—
Application of insurance money on completion of a sale.
(".Any money becoming payable after the date of any contract for sale of property under any policy of assurance in respect of any damage to or destruction of property included in such contract shall, on completion of such contract, but subject to any stipulation to the contrary, be held or receivable by the vendor on behalf of the purchaser and paid by the vendor to the purchaser on completion of sale or so soon thereafter as the same shall be received by the vendor.")
Amendment of 34 & 35 Vict. c. 31. s. 7.
(".Section seven of the Trade Union Act, 1871 (which provides that buildings for trade unions may be purchased or leased), shall have effect as if the words "not exceeding one acre" were deleted.
Clause 105, page 86, line 4, leave out ("the eases in") and insert ("contracts by correspondence, and may, but only by express reference thereto, be made to apply to any other cases for").
Clause 107, page 87, line 8, after ("named") insert ("who are able and willing to act").
Clause 108, page 90, line 3, after ("investment") insert ("and where a personal representative has, before the commencement of this Act, retained such legacy, residue, or share, and invested the same in any investments authorised for the investment of trust money, he shall not (subject to any order of the court made before such commencement) be deemed to have incurred any liability on that account or by reason of not having paid or transferred the money or property into court").
Clause 112, pages 92 and 93, leave out Clause 112.
After Clause 113, page 93, insert the following new clause:
Alimentary trusts.
(".—(1) Where any income (including an annuity or other periodical income payment) is directed to be held on alimentary trusts for the benefit of any person (in this section called "the principal beneficiary") for the period of his life or for any less period then during that period (in this section called the "trust period") the said income shall, without prejudice to any prior interest, be held on the following trusts, namely—

(i) Upon trust for the principal beneficiary during the trust period or until he (whether before or after the termination of any prior interest) does or attempts to do or suffers any act or thing or until any event happens (other than an advance under any statutory or express power) whereby if the said income were payable during the trust period to the principal beneficiary absolutely during that period he would be deprived of the right to receive the same or any part thereof, in any of which cases, as well as on the termination of the trust period, which first happens, this trust of the said income shall fail or determine;

(ii) If the trust aforesaid fails or determines during the subsistence of the trust period, then, during the residue of that period, the said income shall be held upon trust for the application thereof for the in maintenance, support, or otherwise for the benefit of all

1105
or any one or more exclusively of the other or others of the principal beneficiary and his or her wife or husband, if any, and his or her children or more remote issue, if any, as the trustees in their absolute discretion, without being liable to account for the exercise of such discretion, think fit, or, if there shall be no wife, husband, or issue of the principal beneficiary in existence, then for the maintenance, support, or otherwise for the benefit of all or any one or more exclusively of the other or others of the principal beneficiary and the persons who would, if he were actually dead, be entitled to the trust property or the income thereof or of the annuity fund, if any, or arrears of the annuity, as the case may be, as the trustees in their absolute discretion, without being liable to account as aforesaid, think fit.

(2) This section only applies to trusts coming into operation after the commencement of this Act, and shall have effect subject to any variation of the implied trusts aforesaid contained in the instrument creating the trust.
(3) Nothing in this section shall operate to validate any trust which, if contained in the instrument creating the trust, would be liable to be set aside.")
Clause 118, page 98, line 23, after the second ("time") insert ("(but not more than once in every three years unless the nature of the trust, or any special dealings with the trust property, make it reasonable)")
Clause 118, page 98, line 24, after ("an") insert ("independent").
Clause 123, page 101, line 22, after ("any") insert ("discretion or").
Clause 127, page 105, line 32, after ("notice") insert ("to the steward, if any, and")
Clause 127, page 106, line 20, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the last preceding subsection").
Clause 136, page 115, line 16, at end insert ("but the lord shall not be entitled to serve such notice till after the expiration of five years from such commencement").
Clause 138, page 127, lines 16 to 21, leave out from the first ("the") to end of clause and insert ("tenant, unless the Minister considers that the conduct of the lord has been unreasonable or that special considerations apply, in either of which cases the Minister may determine by whom and in what proportions, if any, the costs and expenses are to be borne, and in so determining he shall have regard to what would be just, accordingly as nearly as may be to the advantages derived from the extinguishment by the lord and tenant, respectively, or by either of them").
Clause 148, page 134, line 41, leave out ("moiety") and insert ("half")
Clause 148, page 135, line 2, leave out ("moiety") and insert ("half")
Clause 148, page 136, leave out lines 21 to 34 and insert ("Sixthly, for the surviving husband or wife of the intestate absolutely")
Clause 148, page 136, lines 35 and 36, leave out from beginning of line 35 to ("in") in line 36
Clause 148, page 136, line 37, leave out ("other").
Clause 152, page 139, line 15, after ("effects") insert ("domestic animals").
Clause 181, page 178, line 35, after ("shall") insert ("after a consultation with the Law Society").
Clause 186, page 183, line 39, after ("and") insert ("in this definition").
Clause 186, page 183, line 41, at end insert ("or from year to year").
Clause 189, page 188, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("twenty-four") and insert ("twenty-five").
Second Schedule, page 194, line 19, after ("simple") insert ("whetherlegal or equitable")
Second Schedule, page 194, line 32, after ("but") insert ("subject to the term or terms vested in such first or other prior mortgagee and")
Second Schedule, page 196, line 10, after ("mortgage") insert ("but subject to the term or terms vested in such first or other prior mortgagee")
Second Schedule, page 196, line 35, after ("leaseholds") insert ("and to leaseholds for lives").
Third Schedule, page 204, line 48, leave out ("moiety") and insert ("half")
Third Schedule, page 205, line 32, leave out ("moiety") and insert ("half")
Third Schedule, page 205, line 38, leave out ("moiety") and insert ("half")
Third Schedule, page 206, line 8, leave out ("moiety") and insert ("half")
Third Schedule, page 207, line 26, leave out ("moiety") and insert ("half")
Third Schedule, page 209, line 40, after ("permissible") insert ("whether by operation of law or otherwise")
Third Schedule, page 210, line 7, leave out from ("and") to end of subsection (4) and insert ("in any disposition made or coming into operation after such commencement, a husband and wife shall, for all purposes of acquisition of any interest in property be treated as two persons").
Eleventh Schedule, page 258, line 2, leave out ("under seal")
Eleventh Schedule, page 258, line 12, leave out ("in") and insert ("as").
Fifteenth Schedule, page 282, line 4, at end insert:
("(3) If a dispute at; to the amount for which any annual instalment of additional rent ought to be commuted is submitted to the Minister, and if the lessor would (under the lease or under leases subsisting at the commencement of this Act, or any lease or underlease which would have been subsisting if this Act had not been passed and the successive renewal leases or underleases had been renewed in the ordinary course) have had a right to refuse renewal by reason of a default in payment of a fine, then the Minister shall, in the arbitration, have regard to the value of such right (unless compensation has been given for the loss of the right) in like manner as if a corresponding absolute right to determine the term or sub-term created by this Act had, by reason of a corresponding default, been made exerciseable by the lessor at the time at which the renewable lease or underlease would have expired if the lessor had lawfully refused to renew it").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, for the reasons I have already given, subject to any individual anxiety felt by any noble Lord, I move that the Commons Amendments to the Law of Property Bill be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords' in moving that this Bill be read a second time it is perhaps sufficient for me to say that its object is to improve the educational courses which are undertaken by solicitors. It comes before your Lordships' House as a Bill most warmly recommended by the Law Society, who are responsible for the education of young solicitors, and also strongly supported by the Ministry of Education. In these circumstances, although I am prepared to give a detailed explanation of its clauses, I hope your Lordships will be willing to accept this explanation and give a Second Reading to the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Penalty for discharge of oil into navigable waters.
1. If any oil is discharged, or allowed to escape, whether directly or indirectly, into any waters to which this Act applies from any vessel or from any place on land or from any apparatus used for the purpose of discharging oil from or transferring oil from or to any vessel, the owner or master of
1108
the vessel, the occupier of the land, or the person having charge of the apparatus, as the case may be, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall in respect of each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds:
Provided that it shall be a good defence to proceedings for an offence under this section to prove—

(a) if the proceedings are against the owner or master of a vessel, that the escape of the oil was due to, or that it was necessary to discharge the oil by reason of, the vessel being in collision or the happening to the vessel of some damage or accident, and, in the case of escape, that all reasonable means were taken by the master to prevent the escape; and

(b) if the proceedings are against any other person and are in respect of an escape of oil, that all reasonable means were taken by that person to prevent the escape.

LORD SOMERLEYTON LORD SOMERLEYTON moved to leave out "discharging oil from or." The noble Lord said: I will explain the reasons for moving this Amendment, and also the following Amendment which is to insert after "vessel," where that word secondly occurs, the words "to or from any other vessel (whether a vessel within the meaning of this Act or not) or to or from any place." The Bill does not apply to all vessels, but only to those capable of carrying a certain minimum of oil in bulk as cargo or fuel. Your Lordships will see that is so from Clause 8. The object of these two Amendments is to cover the escape of oil from apparatus used for transferring oil from or to such vessels—that is, vessels within the meaning of the Bill—and to or from vessels not coming within the meaning of the Bill, such as, for example, vessels not carrying oil in bulk as fuel or cargo, or carrying not more than five tons of such oil in any one container. The Amendments also cover the escape of oil from apparatus used for transferring oil to or from any place or land.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines if and 10, leave out ("discharging oil from or").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("vessel") insert ("to or from any other vessel (whether a vessel within the meaning of this Act or not) or to or from any place."—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: The next Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("under this Act")
Page 1, line 14, after ("each") insert ("such")
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("in the ease of escape") and insert ("also if the proceedings are in respect of an escape of oil").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH LORD SOUTHBOROUGH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:—
"( ).—(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section the harbour authority may appoint a place or places within their jurisdiction within the area of which vessels which have brought a cargo of petroleum spirit may discharge their ballast water at such times and subject to such conditions as the harbour authority may from time to time determine.
"(b) For the purposes of this subsection petroleum spirit means refined petroleum which is subject to rapid evaporation, and has a flash point below 73° Fahrenheit (Abel close test)."
The noble Lord said: I regret that it has fallen to my lot to propose the Amendments which appear in the name of Lord Bearsted. I have a few Amendments of my own, and I must, therefore, appear in a dual capacity, but I do not propose at this hour of the evening, when your Lordships have an overburdened Order Paper before you, containing matters of considerable interest, to argue my Amendments. My object will be to go through them as quickly as possible, trusting that my noble friend who represents the Government will meet them wherever he can. As regards this Amendment, the Bill relates to oil, and there are, as your Lordships know, all sorts of products of oil. This Amendment is designed to mete out a different treatment to some of those products.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Southborough.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I do not think this Amendment will do any harm. It will be a concession to the oil companies, and I am prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Prohibition of transfer of oil at night.
2.—(1) No person shall during the hours between sunset and sunrise, except where notice in that
1110
behalf has been given in accordance with the provisions of this section, transfer any oil to or from any vessel lying in any harbour.
(2) If any oil is transferred to or from any vessel in contravention of the provisions of this section, the master of vessel and the occupier of the premises from or to which the oil is transferred, or, if the oil is transferred from or to a barge, the person in charge of the barge, shall in respect of each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(3) A notice for the purposes of this section must be given to the harbour toaster of the harbour in which the vessel is lying not less than three nor more than ninety-six hours before the time at which the operation of transferring the oil is to begin:
Provided that in the case of an operation to be performed at a place where such operations are regularly carried on, the notice may, instead of being a notice given to the harbour master within the time hereinbefore provided, be a general notice given to the harbour master to the effect that such operations will during such period not exceeding three months from the date of notice, as may be specified therein, be carried on between sunset and sunrise.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My first three Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("no person shall") and insert ("it shall not be lawful")
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("except where notice in that behalf") and insert ("to transfer any oil to or from any vessel lying in any harbour unless notice of intention so to do")
Page 2, lines 4 and 5, leave out from ("section") in line 4 to the end of line 5.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD SONERLEYTON LORD SONERLEYTON moved, in subsection (2), after "vessel," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or if the oil is transferred from or to a barge the person in charge of the barge." The noble Lord said: As the case now stands, the occupier of premises would not be liable to conviction in respect of operations conducted between the premises and a barge. The object of the Amendment is to make the occupier of the premises liable, as well as the person in charge of the barge.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("vessel") insert ("or if the oil is transferred from or to a barge the person in charge of the barge").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My remaining Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, lines 9 and 10, leave out ("or if the oil is transferred from or to a barge the person in charge of the barge")
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("not less than three nor") and insert ("and shall be of no effect unless given at least three hours and not")
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("is to begin") and insert ("commences").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I am prepared to accept the next Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bearsted.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 19, after ("are") insert ("frequently and")
Page 2, line 24, leave nut ("three") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Southborough.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved at the end of the clause to insert the following new subsection—
"( ) This section shall not apply to the transfer of oil to or from any vessel in the service of the London Fire Brigade."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment for the protection of the London County Council. Your Lordships are aware that they are the authority for the protection of London from fire, but you may not be equally aware that they have fire engines on the river, four floats which are driven by oil, and stationed at various points on the river. They also have store barges, for the purpose of feeding those floats. It is essential that they should be able to do their duty in the prevention of fire on the riverside, and it is important that they should not be interfered with. I take it that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to interfere with the freedom of their operations, but, on reading the Bill, one is bound to see that there is great doubt whether the free transportation and transfer of this oil is not going to be interfered with.
The Bill provides that, before you move oil at night, you have to give notice to the harbour master, and it also provides that you may give periodical notice of three months. That is a somewhat curious way of giving notice. The point is governed by the proviso at the end of Clause 2
"Provided that in the case of an operation to be performed at a place where such operations are regularly carried on—"
1112
and so on. The point is that we are not in the habit of transferring our oil at a "place" at all. We are in the habit of sending our oil up several miles of river, and it is of the utmost importance that it should be clear that we are not interfered with. I hope the noble Lord will accept my Amendment, but, if he cannot, I hope he will make it clear that we are not going to be interfered with in any way in the protection of the riverside of London from fire, and also that this word "place," which appears to me to be objectionable, though I am not a lawyer, will not have the effect which I suggest. I cannot conceive that five miles of river are a "place." I should have thought that they were very much more than that. If he cannot say that they are a "place," will the noble Lord put such words in the Bill on Report as shall ensure that we can carry on the protection of London from fire as we have done heretofore?
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I cannot accept the Amendment as proposed by my noble friend, but, so far as I am advised, there appears to be a little misapprehension on the matter. This Amendment proposes to give the London County Council different powers from those of any other authority, and to make them an exception to the whole rule. There does not, in my humble opinion, seem to be any reason why the London County Council should not give notice like any other public body. It is important that harbour authorities should have a record of vessels transferring oil by night in their harbours, and, as provision is made that general notice can be given in cases where it is intended to carry on the transfer of oil by night regularly, there does not seem to be any reason why this clause should involve any hardship upon the fire brigade, especially if the notice is made annually instead of quarterly, as is proposed in an Amendment which, I understand, is down on behalf of the oil companies.
It is obviously the desire of everybody that the fire brigade should have every facility for protecting the harbours and docks of London wherever they can, and, so far as I am informed, the Bill as it stands gives the London County Council all the

1113
powers they require. The words of the Bill are:—
Provided that in the case of an operation to be performed at a place where such operations am regularly carried on, the notice may, instead of being a notice given to the harbour master within the time hereinbefore provided, be a general notice given to the harbour master to the effect that such operations will during such period not exceeding three months from the date of notice, as may be specified therein, be carried on between sunset and sunrise.
The question between us is whether "at a place" is sufficient for the purpose. As I am instructed, the words "at a place" would cover a notice given by the London County Council that they were going to move oil during the next six or twelve months in any part of the river over which their oil is carried. If that be so, I trust that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment any further. If, however, he desires to press it further, we will consider it on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Keeping of records with respect to transfer of oil.
3.—(1) There shall be kept in the case of every vessel a record, in the form prescribed by the Board of Trade, of all operations in connection with the transfer of oil to and from the vessel.
(2) The record required to be kept under this section shall in the case of a barge be kept, so far as relates to the transfer of oil to the barge, by the person supplying the oil, and, so far as relates to the transfer of oil from the barge, by the person to whom the oil is delivered, and shall in every other case be kept by the master of the vessel.
(3) Every record kept under this section may at all reasonable times be inspected by the harbour master of the harbour in which the vessel is or any person duly authorised in that behalf by the Board of Trade, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland, or the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland.
(4) If the person required to keep a record under this section fails to keep such a record or to make proper entries therein, or to produce the record on a demand in that behalf made by any person having power to inspect it, he shall in respect of each offence be liable on seminary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and if any such person makes any entry in the record which is to his knowledge false or in any material particular misleading, or wilfully fails to make any entry in the record, he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("the form prescribed by") and insert ("such form as")
Page 2, line 29, after ("Trade") insert ("may prescribe").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: The next Amendment is necessary to enable the harbour master to inspect the record where a barge has left the harbour after transferring oil.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, after ("or") insert ("in the case of a barge, was at the time of transfer or by").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("the") and insert ("any")
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("having power") and insert ("authorised").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Liquid contained in spaces used for carriage of oil to be deemed oil for purposes of Act.
4.—(1) Where oil has been contained in any tanks or other spaces in a vessel, any liquid discharged or allowed to escape from those tanks or spaces shall, unless it is proved by the evidence of the master of the vessel that the tanks or spaces have been cleaned of oil, or that the liquid has been freed from oil by means of a separating apparatus, be deemed to be oil within the meaning of this Act.
(2) In the case of proceedings against any person other than the master of a vessel such evidence as aforesaid may be given by means of a certificate signed by the master, and if the master of a vessel gives any certificate under this section which is to his knowledge false or in any material particular misleading he shall on summary conviction be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) In this sect-ion the expression "master of a vessel" means the person named as the master in the agreement with the crew.
LORD SOMERLEYTON LORD SOMERLEYTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "by the evidence of the master of the vessel." The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that it is not desirable that the only method of proof should be by the evidence of the master. He may, for example, have died after the commission of the offence, and an awkward situation might ensue.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("by the evidence of the master of the vessel").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH LORD SOUTHBOROUGH moved, on behalf of Lord BEARSTED, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph:
"The provisions of this section shall only apply to vessels lying in a harbour or waterway in which facilities for removing oily water from the tanks or other spaces in such vessels shall have been provided by the harbour authorities, but nothing contained therein shall prevent shipowners from making their own arrangements for disposal of such oily water."
The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment. The difference of opinion which exists with regard to this Bill can be stated in a few words. The Bill provides that ships desiring to pump out their oil should take it away, outside territorial waters. If they do not do so they are to be liable to a penalty. The other view is that it is a mistake to impose an obligation upon shipowners to take the oil outside territorial waters, and that the better course would be to keep it away from the sea altogether, and pump it out into barges in the harbours and then treat it scientifically, or either sell or destroy it. The object of the Amendment, stated quite shortly, is merely to impose through bylaws upon the authorities an obligation to supply necessary barges. Speaking for myself and not for the noble Lord, Lord Bearsted, it would be quite sufficient to meet the case, in my judgment, if the Board of Trade would give an undertaking to prepare a model form of by-laws and to agree them with the various parties before the Bill came into operation. To set to work to institute prosecutions by the very difficult method of discovering where the territorial waters, and so on, are, as an alternative to the method of agreement by by-law, seems to me to be very unwise, and I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Southborough.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. When Lord Bearsted was in the House the other day I understood that he was satisfied with the explanations which he had received and did not intend to proceed further on this point.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH: If I may say so I drew a distinction between the line taken by Lord Bearsted's Amendment and my own which appears later on the Paper.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: The object of this Amendment is to secure that oily water shall not be regarded as oil within the meaning of the Act unless barges or other receptacles have been provided by the harbour authorities. As oily water is the main trouble that this Bill is intended to mitigate, the Amendment strikes at the root of the Bill, as it implies that the Act is not to be operative unless the harbour authorities are bound by statute to provide barges or other appliances. This question was the subject of long discussion between the shipowners and the dock authorities. Every one agreed that barges would in fact be provided, but the port authorities said they could not accept a statutory obligation to provide them. In the end an agreement was arrived at between the shipowners and the dock authorities which was regarded, and so we are informed is still regarded, by both parties as satisfactory, and there is no doubt that this arrangement will be faithfully carried out.
Under this arrangement the dock authorities are pledged to consider proposals made to them by shipowners whose ships frequent their respective ports. What will happen in practice will probably be that the larger shipping companies and the tank companies will not wait for barges to be provided by the harbour authorities but will provide their own. In other cases probably barges will be provided by the harbour authorities or by private contractors. It must be remembered that the shipowners are well represented on the harbour authorities and are the customers of the harbour authorities, so that they have ample means of making their wishes and needs known to the harbour authorities. The Amendment would not in actual fact do more than will be done in any case, and therefore is really unnecessary, while it would upset a compromise arrived at after a great deal of difficulty by the two interests mainly concerned in this business. There is every reason to believe that this compromise agreement will be honourably carried out, and I therefore trust that the Amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: The next two Amendments standing in my name are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("such evidence as") and insert ("the matters")
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("given") and insert ("proved").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Application of fines.
5. Where any person is convicted of the offence of having in contravention of the provisions of this Act discharged or allowed to escape any oil into any waters to which this Act applies, the court before which he is convicted may on the application of the prosecutor order that the whole or any part of the fine imposed in respect of the offence shall be paid to such person as the court may direct for the purpose of being applied by him in or towards the discharge of any expenses incurred or to be incurred in the removal of the oil so discharged or allowed to escape.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("the discharge of") and insert ("meeting").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to inspect premises and vessels.
6.—(1) The Board of Trade may, if they think fit, either at their own instance or at the instance of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland, or the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland, or any local authority, appoint any officer of the Board of Trade or other competent person to inspect any vessel being in any waters to which this Act applies, and any person so appointed or the harbour master of the harbour in which the vessel is may at all reasonable times enter upon the vessel and examine the measures adopted to prevent the escape of oil.
(2) If it is represented to the Board of Trade, by the Minister of Apiculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland, or the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland, or by any local or harbour authority, that there is reason to suspect that oil is escaping or has escaped, whether directly or indirectly, into waters to which this Act applies from premises adjacent to or in the neighbourhood of those waters, the Board of Trade may, if they think fit, appoint any officer of the Board or other competent person to inspect the premises, and any officer or person so appointed may at all reasonable times enter upon and inspect the premises.
(3) If any person obstructs or interferes with any person having power to enter on any premises or vessels under this section, he shall on summary conviction be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, after ("or") insert ("of").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH LORD SOUTHBOROUGH moved, in subsection (2), after "competent" ["competent
1118
person"], to insert "and impartial." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment as I understand that sonic importance is attached to the word "impartial." It seems that at certain places the competent person who would be appointed to make an inspection might be interested in the local business, and persons who are going to be inspected would not desire that the inspection should be made by a competitor in the trade. The suggestion is that the word "impartial" should be inserted in order to avoid that difficulty.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, after ("competent") insert ("and impartial").—(Lord Southborough.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I do not think the Bill would be improved by the addition of these words "and impartial." They seem to me rather to imply that it is likely that the Board of Trade would appoint men who would not be impartial. If, however, the word "independent" would be acceptable to the noble Lord, I can meet him.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH: Yes, I will accept that and move accordingly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, after ("competent") insert ("and independent").—(Lord Southborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("having power") and insert ("authorised").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Legal proceedings.
7.—(1) Where an offence under this Act is alleged to have been committed by the master of a vessel who thereafter departs from Great Britain and Northern Ireland before the expiration of the period within which proceedings for the offence might have been instituted against him, proceedings for the offence may, notwithstanding anything in the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be instituted against him at any time within two months next after the date on which he first returns to Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
(2) For the purpose of any proceedings for an offence under this Act, the offence may be treated as having been committed either at the place at which it was actually committed or at any place in which the person charged with the offence may at any time be.
(3) Where a fine imposed by any court in proceedings against the owner or master of a vessel for an offence under this Act is not paid at the time and in manner prescribed by the court, the court shall, without prejudice to any other powers of the court for enforcing payment, have power to direct the amount remaining unpaid to be levied by distress or poinding and sale of the vessel, her tackle, furniture and apparel.
(4) Proceedings for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted in the case of an offence committed in or in relation to the waters of a harbour except by the harbour authority, and in the case of any other offence under this Act except by a person authorised in that behalf by special or general directions of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland, or the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: There are two drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("ordered")
Page 5, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("the ease of any other offence under this Act") and insert ("any other case").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD SOMERLEYTON LORD SOMERLEYTON moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "the Fishery Board for Scotland," and, at the end of the clause, to insert "Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to the institution of proceedings in Scotland." The noble Lord said: In the case of Scotland proceedings are instituted by the Procurator Fiscal, and not directed by private bodies or individuals. Hence this alteration is desirable.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("the Fishery Board for Scotland")
Page 5, line 17, at end insert ("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to the institution of proceedings in Scotland").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Interpretation and application.
8.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "oil" means oil of any description and includes spirit produced from oil and oil mixed with water:
The expression "harbour" means any harbour whether natural or artificial, and includes any port, dock, estuary or arm of the sea, any river or canal navigable by sea-going vessels, and any waters in which
1120
sea-going vessels can obtain shelter or ship or unship goods or passengers:
The expression "harbour authority" has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894:
The expression "harbour master" includes any person appointed by a harbour authority for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act:
The expression "master" when used in relation to any vessel means the person having the command or charge of the vessel for the time being:
The expression "vessel" means any description of vessel which is constructed and fitted to carry in bulk, whether as cargo or for bunker purposes, more than five tons of oil in any one space or container:
The expression "transfer" in relation to oil means transfer in bulk:
The expression "local authority" means, in the application of this Act to England, the council of a county or county borough or urban or rural district or a port sanitary authority, in the application of this Act to Scotland the council of a county or burgh or a port local authority, and, in the application of this Act to Northern Ireland, the council of a county, county borough or county district, or a port sanitary authority.
(2) The waters to which this Act applies are the territorial waters of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the waters of harbours therein.
(3) For the purposes of section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act in its application to Northern Ireland shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day.
LORD SOMERLEYTON LORD SOMERLEYTON moved, in the definition of "harbour authority," to leave out "has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894," and to insert "includes all persons or bodies of persons, corporate or unincorporate, being proprietors of or entrusted with the duty or invested with the power of constructing, improving, managing, regulating or maintaining a harbour." The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that a definition of harbour authority in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, includes bodies entrusted with the duty of lighting a harbour, and it is not necessary to include a pure lighting authority, such as Trinity House, in the category of harbour authority for the purposes of the present Bill. Otherwise, the new definition follows the definition in the Act of 1894.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894") and insert the said words.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLWYD: On behalf of my noble friend Viscount DEVONPORT I desire to move the Amendment standing in his name, which I believe is accepted by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 38 leave out from ("vessel") to the end of line 42 and insert ("has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894").—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOMERLEYTON LORD SOMERLEYTON moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of "vessel," to insert "the expression 'barge' includes lighter or light vessel."
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 5, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Somerleylon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLWYD: I desire to move the next Amendment also on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord DEVONPORT.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, at end insert the following new subsection:—
("(2) This Act shall not apply to a vessel which is constructed or fitted so that not more than five tons of oil can be carried in bulk whether as cargo or for bunker purposes in any space or container provided that not more than 25 tons of oil in all is carried in such vessel").—(Lord Clwyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH LORD SOUTHBOROUGH moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—
"( ) In time of peace this Act with the exception of clauses 2, 3, and 6, shall apply to vessels belonging to or for the time being in the service of His Majesty and to persons in the service of and premises in the occupation of the Crown."
The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to make the Bill apply to His Majesty's ships. The object of the Amendment is quite clear. His Majesty's ships are the great oil users of the country. The object of the Bill is to rid the surface of the sea of oil. What we want to know is whether His Majesty's ships will act upon the same principles as those which are being applied by this Bill to the Merchant Service. I am very well aware that it is not the custom in ordinary circumstances to apply the Merchant Shipping Acts, or similar
1122
Acts, to His Majesy's ships. But I am equally aware that in cases of great importance instructions are issued by the Admiralty to His Majesty's ships to conform as nearly as possible to the law of the land, and I have put down this Amendment in the hope that my noble friend may be able to give some assurance and information on that subject.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Southborough.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The Amendment applies the Bill, with the exception of clauses at to the prohibition of transfer of oil at night, and keeping records with respect to the transfer of oil, and the inspection of premises and vessels, to Government ships and Government oil installations in time of peace. There is a great deal to be said for the proposition that Government ships and Government installations should be subject to the same law as private ships and private installations, and there is no desire on the part of the Admiralty that Admiralty ships and Admiralty property should not be subject to as close control as the ships and installations of private owners, but there is an objection in principle to doing it in this particular way, and it is, in point of fact, not necessary. As I think the noble Lord himself is aware, the Admiralty have already issued stringent orders as to the discharge of oil from His Majesty's ships. The case is very similar to that of international regulations for preventing collisions at sea. So far as Great Britain is concerned, these regulations are in force by Order in Council under the Merchant Shipping Act—
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH: I do not desire to interrupt, but on the statement the noble Lord has made I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Short title and saying.
9.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922.
(2) The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of or substitution for any provisions with respect to the transfer of oil contained in any Act, order, rule, regulation, or byelaw.
LORD CLWYD: I understand that the next Amendment which stands in the name of Lord DEVONPORT, and which I move on his behalf, is accepted by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out ("with respect to the transfer of oil") and insert ("for the protection of a harbour as defined in this Act").—(Lord Clwyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH,LORD SOUTHBOROUGH, on behalf of Lord BEARSTED, moved in subsection (2) to leave out "Act, order, rules, regulation, or bye-law," and insert "existing Act or re-enactment thereof or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law made or to be made under such Act." The noble Lord said: I think my noble friend is going to amend this clause in sonic way or other, and if he will accept this verbal Amendment from me I shall be glad.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out from ("any") to the end of line 24 and insert the said words.—(Lord Southborough.)
LORD SOMERLETYON: We do not think this wording is particularly good, but we do not object to the Amendment if the noble Lord presses it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH LORD SOUTHBOROUGH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:—
"(3) No bye-law proposed under the provisions of any such Act relating to matters contained in this Act shall be approved by the Board of Trade until after conference with (a) representatives of the port authority, the shipowners, and the oil companies; (b) corporations and municipal authorities interested in seaside towns in the vicinity of the port affected by the proposed byelaw; and (c) such authorities on bird and fish life and its preservation as the President of the Board of Trade for the time being shall think fit to summon."
The noble Lord said: The whole object of the Government, as I understand, has been to legislate in consequence of a conference that took place between certain parties. That may be good in itself, but the public have not been considered in this arrangement in any way. As well as the trade interest in such a matter as this (which is fast becoming of very great importance) the public interest should be considered also. For instance, the corporations of seaside watering places will take an interest in this matter before long.
1124
Also your Lordships may have observed the correspondence which has been going on in favour of the preservation of bird life. Lord Montagu spoke feelingly of the destruction of swans in Hampshire. There is also the question of the destruction of fish life.
There is nothing in the Bill about any of these matters because the remedy which the Bill seeks to apply is absolutely wrong and unscientific. The only object of this Amendment is to suggest that the by-laws which will have to be made in order to provide for the supply of the tanks and barges, to which my noble friend referred, should not come into force until various parties have been consulted. This Amendment would give an opportunity of consulting not only the trade interests, but those who are interested in bird life and in fish life, and the municipal councils of watering places. If they are not consulted what is going to happen will be this. You will have by-laws put in by Glasgow, or Belfast, or London on their own; there will be no continuity, no satisfaction, and no good administration. If my noble friend cannot see his way to accept this Amendment under which a model code of by-laws could be drawn up in conference, then on the Report stage I will make an appeal to him and to the Government not to bring this Bill into force until, say, the end of the year, in order to give time to the Board of Trade to make up its mind what it is going to put into the by-laws before it sets out to prosecute people in the police court and elsewhere.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Southborough.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I am afraid cannot accept the Amendment of my noble friend. There are in this House a great many who have been associated with the Board of Trade at different times. We have the advantage of their counsel, but I am afraid they do not altogether sympathise thoroughly with the action of the Board of Trade now. The noble Lord, Lord Southborough, would like to concentrate all powers in one place and leave nothing to the local authority and nothing to the man on the spot. The policy of the Board of Trade is that we should lay down certain regulations which apply to all places

1125
affected by this Bill, and that we should then leave them to a great extent to manage their own concerns, because we think it is unnecessary to concentrate all the authority in one place.
I would remind the noble Lord that every harbour authority will desire as far as possible to keep up the trade of its own harbour and to keep that harbour in a fit and proper condition. The object of harbour and dock authorities is not contrary to that of the ship owners and is not contrary even to bird life, much to that of human beings. One of the objects of the present Bill is to supplement the existing powers of harbour authorities who have asked for further powers. The object of this Amendment is to provide that by-laws proposed under the provisions of any Act relating to the discharge of oil and other things should not be approved by the Government until after conference with various bodies. The Amendment would place a new restriction on all harbour authorities in the exercise of their existing powers which were given to them by Parliament at different times. There appears to be no reason for the imposition of this additional impediment to harbour authorities, in my humble view. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. I have done my best to meet Amendments brought forward by noble Lords on every point up to now, and I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH: I am afraid I cannot assent to the interpretation put upon the Amendment as regards its effect on existing legislation. I will certainly withdraw the Amendment now, but I will refer to the matter again later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

CELLULOID AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILM BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

OXFORD AND ST. ALBANS WINE PRIVILEGES (ABOLITION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this is a small Treasury measure which has passed
1126
another place without opposition. All interests are satisfied, and I beg, therefore, to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SIR JOSEPH ROBINSON'S PEERAGE.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether the grounds on which Sir Joseph Benjamin Robinson of Wynberg was recommended to His Majesty for the grant of a Peerage were National and Imperial services in connection with his chairmanship of the Robinson South African Banking Company, Limited;

2. Whether that company was liquidated in 1905; and, if so,

3. What were the services rendered to the Nation and the Empire by that company and by Sir Joseph Robinson up to or since that date?

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that it was only after very much hesitation, and after consultation with several noble Lords of long experience in this House, that I made up my mind to place on the Paper the Question which stands in my name. I am well aware that in another place questions of this character have been ruled out of order. Your Lordships have never delegated your powers as regards keeping order, and it is in the power of any noble Lord, before I proceed further, to move that I be not heard. If that Motion is carried if shall bow to it, as I am sure all your Lordships would, with great respect, but with great regret that I had misconstrued your Lordships' feelings in a matter of this kind.
I recognise, of course, that these Questions are extraordinary and unusual; but the circumstances connected with this particular case are so extraordinary that I conscientiously felt it my duty to bring the matter before your Lordships and the public. Some of your Lordships will remember, no doubt, that in 1917 the subject of the recommendations for honours was discussed at great length on two, if not three, occasions. On the last occasion,

1127
which was in October, 1917, this House adopted certain Resolutions which were accepted by His Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, was then leading the House, and I think it can be justly inferred from the expressions he used that he accepted these Resolutions on behalf of the Prime Minister. The first Resolution provides—there were certain exceptions as regards the Royal Family and others—
"That a definite public statement of the reasons for which the honour has been recommended to the Crown shall accompany the recommendation of the grant."
That is the Resolution with which I am concerned to-day.
There was a second Resolution passed in these terms—
"That the Prime Minister before recommending any person for any such honour or dignity should satisfy himself that no payment or expectation of payment to any Party or political fund is directly or indirectly associated with the grant or promise of such honour or dignity."
With that second Resolution I am not concerning myself to-night. I accept without hesitation the view that in recommending any one to the Sovereign the Prime Minister unquestionably satisfies himself that the provisions of that second Resolution have been complied with.
The first Resolution provides that a definite description shall be given of the ground on which the honour is granted, and in the debate a somewhat discursive conversation took place as to where such declaration was to be made. In the course of the debate Lord Curzon indicated, I think pretty clearly, that the proper place to look for it was the London Gazette, and therefore I have referred to the Gazette. I find, under the beading "Peerages":
"Sir Joseph Robinson, Chairman of the Robinson South African Banking Corporation."
Then there comes a full stop, and following that is:
"National and Imperial services."
As my Question indicates, the Robinson South African Banking Corporation was liquidated in 1905. I submit to your Lordships that laymen reading that Gazette could come to no other conclusion than that the fact of Sir Joseph Robinson being Chairman of the South African Banking Corporation had to do with his recommendation for a Peerage. But there is no such institution. Surely, that is an in-
1128
correct description, and Lord Curzon undertook, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the description should be a correct description. It seems to me to be inevitable that the Prime Minister has not been correctly advised, and that, of course, this incorrect advice has been passed on to the Sovereign.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD HARRIS: There is this additional perplexity. In 1908, Mr. Robinson, as he then was, was made a baronet. That was three years after the liquidation of the bank, perhaps not such a very long time, but one would come to the conclusion that whatever services Mr. Robinson had rendered as chairman of the Bank, and whether those services were national and Imperial, had been recognised by the grant of a baronetcy in 1908. But evidently they were not sufficiently so, or Sir Joseph Robinson, as he became in 1908, has rendered national service to the nation and the Empire between that date and this. I think I can honestly say that no one who knows Sir Joseph Robinson either in the Cape or in this country knows what those services are. I ask my noble friend that they should be described. That was the undertaking on behalf of the Prime Minister—that a definite description should be given of what those services were.
I am very loath, because it is really very disagreeable to me, to enter into any personal question in this matter, and until a few days ago I was only going to deal with the general view to which I have kept up to this moment. But certain information then came to me, and I again consulted my friends, and they assured me that I had no right to keep it back. It is, as a matter of fact, public property, and, therefore, I have the less disinclination to refer to it. During last year, and perhaps preceding last year, Sir Joseph Robinson was concerned in certain cases in the Courts in South Africa. The allegation I believe is contained in the judgment of the High Court. In 1906 Robinson was the chairman of the Randfontein Estates Company, in which capacity he dictated and controlled the policy and operations of the undertaking. There were other directors, but these—and these words are in the judgment—"were completely under his thumb."
In the year mentioned it became Robinson's duty to acquire for the company the

1129
freehold of certain mining properties. His method of performing this duty was to purchase the freehold for himself, and then to re-sell it to the company at an enormously higher price. He concealed from the shareholders the fact that he had made this illicit profit by means of a certain company promotion which the. Court described as a "device to camouflage the transaction."
In 1915 S. B. Joel purchased from Robinson all the latter's interests in the Randfontein Estates and thereafter discovered what bad transpired in 1906. Thereupon the Randfontein Estates sued Robinson. Under judgment by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, Robinson has been condemned to pay a sum, including costs, of over £500,000. In giving judgment the Chief Justice declared that—and here I quote the words of the Chief Justice—"It is wholly inconsistent with the obligation of good faith." I would emphasise to your Lordships the words "inconsistent with the obligation of good faith." Surely, if that means anything, it means faithless. The Chief Justice's words are:
"It is wholly inconsistent with the obligation of good faith that the defendant should have made for himself these profits by the method which the evidence discloses."
The method is the one I have already read to your Lordships—"A device to camouflage the transaction." These are facts, and surely these facts were not before the Prime Minister when he recommended Sir Joseph Robinson for distinction at His Majesty's hands. Surely the Prime Minister must have been misled, and consequently His Majesty was misled.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD HARRIS: I think I had better state here that in consequence of that judgment Robinson has been described in the public Press in this country as a fraudulent trustee. I should have thought that anyone would prefer to clear his name of such an imputation before taking those steps which are necessary to obtain introduction to your Lordships' House. Robinson petitioned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave to appeal. His petition was considered in November, 1921, and was dismissed. The Judicial Committee found that Robinson had failed to show any prima facie reason why the
1130
judgments of the South African Courts should he upset. Therefore, the judgment of the Chief Justice of the Union, which I have read to your Lordships, stands.
I should think my noble friend below me (the Earl of Crawford) will not criticise me for bringing these facts forward publicly, because it will give him an opportunity, if he can, of putting matters straight, if I have given an incorrect description of what I am told are the facts. There is another point of view from which to look at this matter. We, as a House, are as entitled as is the public to a correct description—a a correct and definite description—of the grounds upon which a Peerage is granted, and I submit to your Lordships, from what I have read to you, that the description that has been given in the Gazette, and therefore to your Lordships, is incorrect. We have every right to be proud of our order and jealous of the dignity and reputation of this House. Therefore, in bringing this matter before your Lordships, I hope I have not offended against your feelings in the matter.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, you will understand that it is a very distasteful thing for any member of this House to have to deal with a personal question like this, and I am sure you will believe me when I say that I have no personal feeling in regard to the matter at all. But as it has been raised, and as I have had eight years intimate connection with South Africa, of which Sir Joseph Robinson is a citizen, I feel that I cannot altogether be silent on the present occasion. I am confident that in what I say I am voicing the unanimous feelings of the people of the Union of South Africa. I am not going to deal with the question of the good name or prestige of the House of Lords, nor, indeed, to emphasise what I feel strongly, and what every noble Lord feels, that the reasons for the creation of Peerages ought to be always capable of being openly stated. There ought not to be any private services rewarded or personal influences brought to bear.
I propose to deal solely with the question from the point of view of the relations of the Union of South Africa with the Imperial Government. It cannot be disputed that this matter is one primarily and mainly affecting the Union of South Africa. Sir Joseph Robinson was born there; he lived practically the whole of his life there; all

1131
his interests, financial and otherwise, are wrapped up in South Africa; and, therefore, the matter is one which seriously affects South Africa itself. The noble Lord has given the three reasons stated in the London Gazette as to why this Peerage has been conferred on him. The first was his connection with the bank, as to which I have nothing to add to what Lord Harris has said except that it appears as though the Peerage had been conferred first and that some one was told to look up Who's Who. The other two reasons are that he has performed home and Imperial services, which means, of course, that these services must have been of considerable weight and character in order to entitle him to the Peerage.
As far as Imperial services are concerned those services must have been rendered in connection with South Africa. So far as I know Sir Joseph Robinson has no connection with any other Dominion. The question is: What have been the services which justify the grant of a Peerage to Sir Joseph Robinson? It may be true that thirty or forty years ago he was a prominent person in South Africa; what is called a pioneer, a magnate. No doubt, he had some prominence in the country then. His main activities were in gold and diamonds. That is a long time ago, and as far as those services are concerned he was rewarded by his baronetcy in 1908.
The question is: What has he done since? I have for the last eight years had first-hand knowledge of what has been going on in South Africa, and I am in a position to express an opinion with regard to the activities of Sir Joseph Robinson. When I saw this grant, this appointment, in the Press I confess I was astonished. I searched my memory in vain to find any legitimate reason why this Peerage had been conferred. The war, after all, was a touchstone of public and Imperial services. It gave an opportunity, grasped by many thousands in this country and in the Dominions, of doing real Imperial or local service. But since 1914, when I went out to South Africa, I have never heard Sir Joseph Robinson's name connected with any public service, either by itself or in co-operation with others, and as far as I know—and I am in a position to know—he showed no marked liberality to the various war funds which were inaugurated for the assistance of the dependants of soldiers and sailors.
1132
I think you will agree that, apart from any question raised on legal matters—I put that aside; it is an additional reason against the Peerage—the real test of whether the Peerage, the honour, is justified, is I will not say the universal but the general agreement of the community amongst whom the recipient has lived and moved and had his being. Judged by that test this creation entirely fails. I will undertake to say that no one of any repute in South Africa recommended that this Peerage should be granted. I will undertake to say that no single person in the Union, white or black, considered that either by his services or by his record he deserved this honour. When it was announced in the Press, so far as I can learn, it was received with universal astonishment and mystification; I will not use a stronger or uglier word. At all events, there is no support for the allegation that he has rendered public services as stated in the notification.
The noble Lord has shown that one of the reasons given, that in connection with the bank, was not the fact, to put it mildly. I hope I have shown that so far as Imperial services are concerned the statement is not in accordance with the facts. There still remains his home services. I have no knowledge on that matter. They have not come to my notice, but I think, considering my connection with South Africa, that I should have heard something about them if they had been of any great character. Let us hope they were rendered and that Sir Joseph Robinson is one of those who "Do good by stealth, and blush to find it fame." I think, with Lord Harris, that we are entitled, especially after the Resolution passed in 1917, to a categorical answer as to the actual grounds on which this honour was conferred. That was a very salutary change in 1917, but it would be useless, and worse than useless, if the reasons given are inaccurate and untrue. That is calculated to deceive the public; it is hardly playing the game; my noble friend would say it was "not cricket"; and we are entitled, I think, to have explained to us the actual reasons why this grant was made.
If noble Lords will bear with me only two or three minutes more, I want to put to them another aspect of this matter. I take a very serious objection to the method under which this Peerage has been conferred. It touches not only the prestige

1133
of the House of Lords, and, as my noble friend showed, the honour of those who conferred the grant, but it raises, in my opinion, very grave issues between the Dominion and the Home Governments. Sir Joseph Robinson was born and bred in South Africa, was a South African in every sense of the term, and no one can deny that such Imperial services as he may have rendered have been rendered in South Africa. It has, of late years, at all events, been fully recognised that, when it conies to a question of honours for a citizen of a Dominion, they should, in the first place, be recommended by the Prime Minister of that Dominion to the Prime Minister or other Ministers here for their consideration. The Prime Minister and other Ministers here are not, of course, bound to accept the suggestion of the Prime Minister of the Dominion. On the other hand, no citizen of a Dominion who has performed the services for which he is to be rewarded in the Dominion ever, nowadays, appears in the Honours List except at the initial suggestion of the Prime Minister of that Dominion.
Indeed, I would go further, and say that it was my experience, at least, in South Africa that, if the Home Government here desired to recommend a particular person for public services rendered, over here or otherwise, but not in the Dominion itself, they in the first place consulted confidentially the Prime Minister of the Dominion, to know if he had any objection to that proposal. That would appear to be only common courtesy and ordinary expediency in the relations between the Dominion and the Home Governments. What was the case here? We have it on the authority of the Prime Minister of the Union, in reply to the Question whether he had been consulted, directly or indirectly, in regard to this honour. He said the answer was in the negative. He denied, therefore, that he had in any way been consulted, directly or indirectly, in regard to this Peerage. I can only congratulate Sir Joseph on that fact, because my own impression is that, if there had been any consultation with South Africa, he would not have got his Peerage. I venture to say that both the reasons given and the method adopted are a slight to the Dominion in question, and a flouting of public opinion in that Dominion, very harmful to the trustful and cordial relations which we desire to exist between the
1134
Prime Minister of the Dominion and the Prime Minister, whoever he may be, representing the British Government over here, and deplorable also from the point of view of depreciating the Dominion honours, which we all desire to keep on a very high level indeed.
I have now finished a very distasteful task, and I add only one word which, I think, emphasises the position at the present moment. So far in the history of the Union, one Peerage, and one alone, has been given to a South African, Sir Henry de Villiers. Sir Henry was one of the ablest men in a country which has produced many able men. He had done notable public services. His reputation was the highest possible. When he was created I am quite sure that there was no one of any race, or colour, or politics but felt that he deserved the honour, and that it was a compliment to South Africa. The second Peer is Sir Joseph Robinson. I will finish my speech there.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I am reluctant to enter upon a discussion of the latter part of Lord Buxton's speech, as to the constitutional issue involved with a Dominion, and as to the problem of how far a Dominion Minister will be entitled, in effect, to veto the recommendations made to the Crown by Ministers here. That, as I say, raises a very intricate, though, no doubt, a very important, problem, and it is one about which I should be reluctant to address your Lordships without having had an opportunity of examining with care the statement made by the noble Earl. With regard to the Questions on the Paper, I am afraid that, if the notice in the Gazette, as my noble friend has indicated, gave the impression that this gentleman was recommended to the King in consequence of being chairman of this Robinson South African Banking Company, the description so given was clearly misleading. In fact, as Lord Harris indicates, and so far as the information at my disposal goes, the bank was liquidated in 1905. I at first read the collocation of Questions as indicating that the bank was liquidated under singular circumstances, but I find that it was liquidated owing to the serious hindrance of trade and the depression consequent upon the Boer War. The liquidation did, in point of fact, take place in 1905, and the

1135
bank returned to the shareholders the full amount of their capital in cash.
My noble friend behind me was good enough to tell me this afternoon about the quotation he made from a judgment of the High Court in South Africa about the Randfontein Estates Company. I know nothing about the circumstances of that case. I do not know if there were qualifications or reservations in the judgment, of which a certain portion has been read to us, still less can I tell your Lordships if it is claimed that a different complexion could be put upon the quotation given. As to the third Question, the services rendered to the nation and the Empire by Sir Joseph Robinson, as Lord Buxton reminded your Lordships, Sir Joseph Robinson was born ill South Africa, where he has spent his whole life, and where he has devoted his energies to developing that part of the Empire. He was, as Lord Buxton said, a pioneer in industries which have subsequently extended very largely through South Africa. Lord Buxton indicated that he rendered no services of value to the State.
EARL BUXTON: I did not say in the old days. Thirty or forty years ago I think he may have, but he was rewarded for that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: He certainly rendered valuable services to the Government, both during and after the war, in South Africa.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Which war?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The South African war. I believe that at the request of the home Government he approached President Kruger, and did his best to bring about an understanding, and his influence has persistently been directed towards the removal of racial prejudice and bitterness. He has occupied a public position in South Africa. He was a member of the Cape Assembly when the Cape was a Crown Colony, and was later elected one of the representatives for Kimberley in the South African Parliament. South African statesmen, whatever Lord Buxton indicates, have expressed their appreciation of the services which he has rendered to that country.
EARL BUXTON: When?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I want first of all to correct a misapprehension on the part of my noble friend, Lord Crawford, with regard to something that Lord Buxton said. I am sure that Lord Buxton did not say that the Dominion Prime Minister ought to have a veto over the grant of an honour by His Majesty here on the recommendation of the Imperial Prime Minister. What he did say was that the Prime Minister in England ought never to make a recommendation with respect to a British subject domiciled in the Dominions, without first consulting the Dominion Prime Minister. That is a wholly different proposition.
Allusion has been made in this debate to the debates which I had the honour of initiating several years ago, and which ended in the acceptance by your Lordships' House of those Resolutions of which Lord Harris made mention to-night. I tried very hard on those occasions to get you to go further. I showed you how very grave a scandal this was, in connection with a certain class of honour, and I proposed to you a remedy. That remedy did not commend itself to your Lordships, but I still think that it is the only cure for the condition of affairs with which we find ourselves confronted. Your Lordships, however, did adopt the Resolutions which Lord Harris has mentioned, and the Government did promise that they would always insert in the Gazette the exact reasons why an honour was recommended to His Majesty, and also engaged that the Prime Minister would satisfy himself, always, that there had never been any promise or suggestion of pecuniary consideration, past or future, in respect of an honour.
I do not think this House, or the country, can conceal from themselves that since I initiated those debates the evil has become much greater. It amounts now to nothing less than a public scandal of the first magnitude, and, curiously enough, while Parliament and the Press in the Dominions are alive to this scandal, and resent the Dominions being dragged into it, I must say that Parliament and the Press here have been cynically indifferent to what has been going on. It is not an exaggeration to say that immense sums of money continue to flow into the coffers of the political Party in power at the moment. The whole world knows that. It is the subject of general discussion in society, in the clubs, wherever you meet men. It is a

1137
matter of general notoriety, and yet there is not a single Minister who has any knowledge of a single transaction. It is quite true that they have not. They could go into a court of justice to-morrow and swear, perfectly truthfully, that they know nothing about it.
Hitherto, there has been no personal corruption in connection with these honours—when money has been taken it has been taken for the benefit of a political Party, be it Conservative, or Liberal, or Coalition—but I do not believe that these immense sums can continue to pass it complete secrecy, with no publicity, no responsibility, and personal corruption not ensue. I think there is a real danger, not of the corruption of Ministers, but of corruption on the part of those who, unknown and in the dark, do this dirty work for the Ministry, and I think it is altogether unconstitutional. I put this question for consideration. Is it really consistent with our Constitution that there should be great sums of money at the disposal of any Ministry, without any control from Parliament?
Your Lordships having permitted me those general remarks, I turn now to the particular case with which we are dealing to-day. My noble friend, Lord Crawford, who has, of course, no personal responsibility in this matter whatever, and who knows no more about it than I do, has had put into his hand such a record of services as those who are really responsible for what has taken place can trump up for the occasion. Lord Buxton has quoted what General Smuts said about his responsibility for the recommendation of this honour. Let me also quote what General Smuts said about the qualifications of Sir Joseph Robinson for this honour. He was asked whether he was prepared to state the services which justified such an elevation, and his reply was in the negative. General Smuts was not prepared, in the Cape Parliament, to state what those services were. There are ample means of ascertaining.
Lord Buxton has told your Lordships his experiences. I will tell you mine. I was responsible for South Africa for five years. Never in my humble efforts to serve the Empire was I conscious that the influence of Sir Joseph Robinson was on my side. I go further, and I say that when I went to South Africa he was known everywhere as a pro-Boer. When I went to South Africa, three years after the war, so far as my information went,
1138
his sympathies had never been with this country. But there are two other noble Lords in this House who can speak—Lord Milner and Lord Gladstone. Between us we cover more than twenty years of South African history. Why do not the Government produce a testimonial from Lord Milner or one from Lord Gladstone? Is public opinion going to be satisfied with this dossier from an unknown source, when four High Commissioners and Governors-General in succession, and the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, are quite unable to state the national and Imperial services for which this honour has been granted?
And then there is the question of this lawsuit. I have in my hand a copy of the judgment. Lord Harris has given no incorrect account of it. It is a long document: the judgment of the Chief Justice occupies nearly fifty pages. I will read another extract:
"The scheme devised did not conceal, and could not have concealed, from any one interested the fact that one half of the freehold had been acquired by the Robinson group, but it did conceal the fact that it had been acquired from the defendant, and it gave no inkling of the profit he had made. The explanation now given may satisfy the defendant, looking back upon this long past transaction, but I cannot accept it. To me it is clear that the trust was created to hide his part in the Waterval deal and the resulting profit. No doubt the freehold was most valuable, and I assume that its acquisition, even at the price which the defendant fixed, was beneficial to the plaintiff, but in the process of benefiting the company he was making £210,000 for himself, and that was a fact which it was necessary to conceal. Upon the evidence before us that seems the true inwardness of the arrangement."
What a wonderful Constitution we live under! One day Peerages are conferred on Lord Balfour, or Lord Haig, or Lord Beatty—men who have rendered absolutely transcendent services to the nation and the Empire. And the next day, or within a short time afterwards, Peerages are conferred upon individuals about whom nothing is known except their exceeding wealth, whose services are unknown altogether to their fellow countrymen, and one or two of whom, at least, have been the subject of severe criticism before a public tribunal.
And who really is responsible? Who really knows why these Peerages were conferred? Nobody here knows; nobody in the country knows. The real responsibility for these recommendations to His

1139
Majesty rests with an individual wholly irresponsible, and wholly unknown to any of us. The Prime Minister, I suppose, knows; nobody else knows. The Prime Minister has taken his recommendation from somebody he trusted—I think a little too carelessly. And that person is so cynical that he has taken no trouble to dress up the gazetted reasons with any approach to accuracy or plausibility.
It is not only a wonderful Constitution under which such honours could be granted on the recommendation of a wholly unknown person, but we must also reflect on what nice considerations of delicacy he has shown for the reputation of your Lordships' House. Not only is your Lordships' House, under the present system, laid open to the condition of affairs which I have attempted to describe, but His Majesty evidently receives a recommendation based on inaccurate and imperfect information. Surely this amounts to something not unlike a farce ! If the public, if the Press and Parliament, sit down under this without any further protest or effort to clean this Augean stable, is it wonderful that foreigners accuse us of being hypocritical? But the question to-day is, What do the Government propose to do now that they have been given information, which I do not for one moment believe was in the possession of my noble friend—nor do I expect it was in the possession even of the Prime Minister?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel strongly that this matter cannot be allowed to rest precisely where it is, after what has fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and from other speakers. As the noble Earl truly said, the noble Earl opposite gave a purely perfunctory reply provided for him, without attempting to argue the question at any length, although a number of very important issues were raised on this grave matter, both by the noble Lord opposite, and by other noble Lords who followed him. There are, I think, besides the noble Earl opposite, five other. Cabinet Ministers who sit in this House, and I feel it would be altogether improper, in view of the interest that this Question has aroused among your Lordships, even at this late hour to let it drop now.
The noble Earl behind me in his concluding sentences spoke of the hardship inflicted upon your Lordships' House by such proceedings as those which were described. I am almost more disposed to
1140
ascribe them to the somewhat new-found zeal of His Majesty's Government for the reform of your Lordships' House, it being obviously desirable to show how much this Chamber stands in need of reformation. But I do not want to pursue the subject, now, and holding, as I do, that it ought to be pursued further, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I shall not oppose that.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

RULES FOR PEDESTRIANS.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—

1. Whether it is not a fact that the County Councils' Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils' Association, and the Rural District Councils' Association, these being the representative bodies of all local government authorities in England, have passed resolutions in favour of the rule of the footpath being "Keep to the Left." Whether similar resolutions have not been adopted by the Municipal Tramways Association, and by 56 of the local authorities included in the Greater London area, and whether the Ministry of Transport is not also in, sympathy with the proposed change.

2. Whether it is not a fact that a number of the principal provincial municipalities have passed similar resolutions, and are proposing to put up street notices accordingly; and

3. Whether, having regard to this unanimity of opinion of the representative bodies of local government, the Government will give active support to the proposal to make the change effective throughout the Metropolitan area on the 1st July next.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the' facts as enumerated in the Question show an extraordinary consensus of opinion that the rules with regard to pedestrians

1141
should be changed. Resolutions in favour of the change have been passed by the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Transport, by the London County Council, by twenty-nine authorities within the Metropolis, and by thirty-one authorities immediately adjoining it. All these authorities are going to put up notices advocating the change after July 1.
Those who have followed this controversy have probably observed that the change is opposed on the ground that it will lead to confusion. The fact is that the confusion obtains owing to the present system. If you are crossing a road you will find on a refuge a notice to keep to the left, but when you have proceeded a few yards you are expected to exercise your own intelligence as to keeping to the right. Nothing, I suggest, could be more confusing than that, and in no other civilised country are there two rules of the road—one for wheeled traffic and the other for pedestrians.
I have already mentioned the number of authorities who have specified themselves as being in favour of the change. In addition to these a large number of tow ns, which I will not enumerate, have adopted the suggestion, and the only opposition to the proposal proceeds from the City Commissioner of Police. This gentleman—whom I suspect to be very averse from change of any kind—obtains no support anywhere so far as I have been able to ascertain. Against the City Commissioner of Police, who has the hardihood to pretend that you are safer with the traffic behind you than when you have it in front of you, I can put the Metropolitan Police, the London County Council, and all the authorities enumerated. It is obvious that the only case in which a pedestrian would be safer by keeping to the right hand side of the road would be in a country lane without a footpath where there is practically no traffic at all. In those circumstances I trust my noble friend is in a position to reply in a favourable sense to the Questions I have placed on the Paper.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I will endeavour to be as brief as possible at this late hour. I should like to thank the noble Lord for having brought this matter up again because, until it has been fully discussed on all sides and a very general measure of agreement has been reached,
1142
it would be impossible to advocate a general change. In regard to the County Councils' Association, they said they desired to express an opinion that the left-hand side should be adopted, but we have no information as to the result which that suggestion had on the members of the Association. The Association of Municipal Corporations have recommended it to the favourable consideration of their members. The Urban District Councils' Association intimated an approval of the matter last year and are going to rediscuss it at their annual conference, which, I believe, takes place in June. I am not aware that the Rural District Councils' Association have expressed an opinion on the subject yet. I have not had any information in regard to it.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, they have.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord has more information than I have. They propose to consider this question at their conference which takes place in July. Then the Municipal Tramways Association, which is the other body to which the noble Lord referred, have recommended this new rule to all tramway authorities. As to the fifty-six local authorities included in the Greater London area, my right honourable friend has no information that they favour the change. Am I to understand front the noble Lord that they are actually going to initiate the change on July 1?
LORD NEWTON: Yes, I understand so—on July 1.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord did mention that to me in conversation, before the debate. I have made inquiries and my right honourable friend and the Department have no information, but they have seen in the Press that the matter is going to be recommended to them by the Council. That is what I understand, and I cannot answer the Question any further than that. With reference to the Ministry of Transport, they have brought to the notice of local authorities the recommendations made by the Roads Advisory Committee in 1921.
Now I come to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, as to whether it is not a fact that a number of the principal provincial municipalities have passed similar resolutions and are proposing to, put up street notices accordingly. I

1143
understand it is true that a number of them have passed such resolutions and have either put up notices in the streets or are proposing to do so, but I am not at present in a position to say what is the proportion of provincial authorities who have considered the matter and what number are opposed to the change. I do not know whether the noble Lord has that information.
LORD NEWTON: Only four.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling me that. In regard to the third Question—whether, having regard to this unanimity of opinion of the representative bodies of local government, the Government will give active support to the proposal to make the change effective on July 1 next—the noble Lord has told us that the 56 local authorities included in Greater London are unanimous on this point. I have already told him that, so far as we are aware, we have no information that they are unanimous, but we understood that it was going to be recommended to them by their Council. The City of London, on the advice of their police, are opposed to this change, and I would point out to the noble Lord that there will be a difficulty if the other authorities of London adopted the change and the City were to retain the old system. There would be inconvenience in changing from one system to another when it became necessary to pass through the City.
I should like to say one thing more on this subject and that is that the people who are very largely concerned in this matter are the police. They are divided into areas, and the Chief Constables of Police hold eight conferences. Three of these conferences have consulted on the subject; two are, I believe, in favour of the change, and one prefers the retention of the old system. The Home Office has referred the matter to all the eight conferences of Chief Constables, and has asked their opinion, which will be valuable, doubtless, in eliciting public opinion throughout the country on the subject. Then, of course, we shall also get the result of the conferences of the Urban District Councils' Association and the Rural District Councils' Association.
I am afraid I have no further information to give my noble friend on the subject; I think he really has more at his disposal than
1144
I have. I am grateful for what he has said in regard to the solution of this problem, I and I can assure him that it will be taken into consideration by my right honourable friend.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg to make the Motions which stand in my name on the Paper; they are purely formal.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Burgh of Crieff in the County of Perth, which was presented on the 17th day of May, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Burgh of Kirkintilloch and parts of the Parish of Kirkintilloch in the County of Dumbarton and parts of the Parish of Cadder in the County of Lanark, which was presented on the 17th day of May, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Parishes of Anlaby, North Ferriby, Melton, Welton, Wauldby, Swanland, Willerby, Haltemprice, Kirkella, and Westella, in the Rural District of Sculcoates in the East Riding of the County of York, and for the amendment of the Kingston-upon-Hull Electric Lighting Act and Orders, 1890 to 1915, which was presented on the 17th day of May, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the

1145
Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Burghs of Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Kilwinning, Stewarton and Cumnock, the Parishes of Beith, Dunlop and Stewarton, and portions of the Parishes of Ardrossan, West Kilbride, Dairy, Kilbirnie, Muirkirk, Auchinleck, Stair, Old Cumnock, Ochiltree, Coylton, Tarbolton, Monkton and Prestwick, Stevenston, Irvine, Kilwinning, Dreghorn, Fenwick, Loudoun, Galston, Sorn, Mauchline, Craigie and Symington, all in the County of Ayr, which was presented on the 17th day of
1146
May, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn, except for Judicial business, till Monday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.