Lords Sitting of 1 August 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

SMOKE ABATEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (VISCOUNT NOVAR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the Smoke Abatement (Scotland) Bill, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Novar.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

POWERS OF SCOTTISH EDUCATION AUTHORITIES.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice to ask the Secretary for Scotland what powers the education authorities have to authorise expenditure for other purposes than the direct advancement of education; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question involves a much larger principle than the actual fact on which it is founded. Some time ago there was a proposal in Lanarkshire to set up a small water area for a district called Hazlebank—a very small area indeed. The cost would be rather considerable, and many ratepayers in the county were opposed to the scheme. I think the total cost was estimated at £3,000. About the same time, the education authority of Lanarkshire proposed to build a new school in that area, and, to assist in the furtherance of the water scheme, they proposed to make a grant of £100 or £150 towards the cost. The actual amount is really nothing; it is the principle involved that has caused me to bring this matter to your Lordships' attention.
In Scotland our educational system is somewhat different from that in England. There are three taxing authorities in Scotland, the Imperial authorities, the local rating authorities, and the education authorities. In this case it means that all the ratepayers in the county of Lanark will be contributing, though it may be a very small amount, to the cost of the water scheme for this small district. The school must, of course, have a supply of water, but I maintain that the people who are going to benefit from the construction of a new water supply should bear the cost, irrespective of the fact that the children are in their own homes or in a school of the education authority. That is the point of my Question. The ratepayers of the whole county are being asked to contribute to the benefit of a small area which wishes to have an improved water supply.
It seems to me the custom, nowadays, to make those who are not going to benefit by new schemes pay for them. I do not know who is able to make a protest against this proposal. The parish council took the matter up and were at once ruled out on the ground that they had no locus standi in the matter. Although they were going to contribute to the scheme they had no power of objecting to it. I hope my noble friend will be able to say something on this point. It seems to me a distinct breach of the principle that those who are going to benefit by a scheme should pay for it.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My noble friend will agree with me that the "direct advancement of education" is a phrase capable of liberal interpretation. In a certain sense it may be said that education authorities have no power of expending money except in the advancement of education, but the Legislature has from time to time added other various services to the primary function of education authorities. From a previous communication with my noble friend, I am aware that his Question had its origin in a proposal of the Lanarkshire Education Authority to contribute towards the cost of the water supply in one of the districts of the county. In reply to the last part of his Question, I have to say that the matter

1501
has not come officially before the Scottish Education Department. The Department, however, understand that the education authority have agreed to a contribution of £150 towards the capital cost of the water supply for the district in which one of their schools is situate. There can be no question as to the power of the local authority to provide water for the school; indeed, it is its duty to do so. While the method they have adopted might in an ordinary case be doubtful, the Department have no reason to think that the Lanarkshire Education Authority have acted without proper legal advice or that their action is not justified by the special circumstances of this particular school. I may remind my noble friend that the scheme was passed in the time of the late Sir Thomas Munro.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for his answer, but I confess I am not much nearer to understanding the exact position. He does not seem to have met my criticism, and he really founded his reply on the fact that the proposal was passed during the time of Sir Thomas Munro. Previous to his death Sir Thomas Munro was a very ill man and, possibly, did not pay the same attention to the case as he would otherwise have done. Neither does my noble friend contest the principle I have laid down that by a side wind they should not get support from the whole of the county towards an improved water supply for a very limited area. That is an absolute breach of a large principle and one which may be carried to great lengths. I know that various other charges have been added indirectly to local education authorities, but I do not think they should be allowed to place a charge on the whole ratepayers of a county for the benefit of a small area. I do not, however, move for Papers.

IMPERIAL RELATIONS.
LORD STRATHSPEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in response to the continued demands of the Dominions for a share in shaping the destinies of the Empire, any definite offer, which might be considered at the Colonial Conference, has been made to them of seats in Parliament.
1502
The matter to which this Question refers is one of great importance to the whole of the Empire. It would be very interesting to know what offers have been made to the Dominions in this respect and also whether this matter is likely to be brought up and properly thrashed out at the coming Imperial Conference. Possibly, it is a matter which concerns the Dominions more intimately than this country, but in my opinion it is a matter of real moment to the whole of the Empire. In order to secure proper unity, solidarity, and perfect trust in the Empire, in my opinion we must have an Imperial Conference, or rather an Imperial Parliament, properly so described, in London. Germany attained her rank as a great Power in spite of the fact that she had only second-rate and third-rate Colonies and none that could compare with those of the British Empire.
This is not a new question. It is already a very ancient one, and I think I am right in saying that in the reign of Henry VIII the City of Calais was allotted a Parliamentary seat by that monarch. In the past many of our great men have championed this cause, but none of them was lucky enough to succeed, possibly because it was too early in the day to solve the problem. After all, no part of the Empire can get on without the other parts. I venture to say that England could not exist for more than a few weeks unless the Colonies supplied her with food and wool. At the same time the Dominions themselves could not exist without England because we know only too well that they are weak in themselves and some Power might come along and capture thorn. We all need one another's support, and any link in the chain is liable to become a weak one if this fact is ignored.
We have a wonderful Empire which contains almost every imaginable commodity, and those commodities which we do not produce could be produced in a great many cases if the effort were made. There is no reason whatever why Australia should not supply the whole of the Lancashire mills with raw cotton, and I am given to understand that Australian cotton, grown to a large extent in Queensland, is superior to foreign cotton. Australia has to work up her trade and to help and support it in many ways, but all this could be done if the matter were inquired into and

1503
thrashed out at the coming Conference, which it is hoped that statesmen from all parts of the Empire will attend. Again, there is no reason at all why New Zealand, Australia and, possibly, other Dominions as well should not grow tobacco and so oust the foreign trade Both Africa and Canada are as greatly in need of development as New Zealand and Australia. All these Dominions are capable of development. They all want settlers, but before they can attract settlers in any great number they must be properly developed. After all, the stronger the Dominions become the stronger will the Empire be. I am putting my general ideas on this subject in book form, with the title: "The Case for Colonial Representation in Parliament." I hope that all these matters will be put before the Imperial Conference and fully thrashed out there.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, before my noble friend below me replies to this Question I would ask leave to say a word or two. Unfortunately, the accounts of our debates in both Houses of Parliament, and outside Parliament as well, on these great Imperial questions sometimes undergo a good deal of alteration and reduction before they reach the further parts of the Empire. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strathspey, who has just spoken, will forgive me if I say that I should profoundly regret it if I thought that it was to go forth to the Dominions that the suggestion contained in his Question, that an offer should be made by England (using the word in the broader sense) of seats in Parliament as a means towards consolidating the Empire, represented the opinion of any considerable body of people in this country. The noble Lord said, with perfect truth, that it is desirable to find some means by which the Empire should be consolidated. With a great many of his views I find myself in entire agreement, and with his remark regarding the power of the Empire to provide for all our needs I entirely concur.
On the other hand, I cannot agree with his suggestion that an offer should be made by this country to the Dominions regarding the form which future consolidation of the Empire from a Parliamentary point of view should take. So far as seats in Parliament are concerned, the noble Lord does not state whether
1504
he means that such seats should be in your Lordships' House or in the Lower House. I may remind him and your Lordships that we already have the good fortune to have in this House as our colleagues most distinguished representatives of different parts of the British Empire. We have in the noble Lord himself one who speaks with knowledge and experience on behalf of the further parts of the Empire.
The problem, as he truly said, is no new one, and it is one of the most complicated of the many problems to which we have to address ourselves in these days. Whether the noble Duke who is at the head of the Colonial Office, and the Government of which he is a distinguished member, consider that this great constitutional question ought to be discussed at the coming Conference I cannot say, but I do know that there is abundant work for that Conference to do in the limited time at their disposal without embarking upon this most complicated question, and I desire to suggest to the Government that proposals of the character adumbrated in the noble Lord's Question would much better come from the Dominions themselves. If they think that the best way to govern the Empire is through a Parliament which contains representatives of the Dominions, let them say so. They have never said so yet.
Not only have we in this House Peers who belong to the Dominions, but in the other House there are at any rate several Members of Parliament who have spent the greater part of their lives in one or other of the more distant parts of the Empire. Merely to offer half a dozen seats in either House to the Dominions would, I venture most respectfully to say, be purely farcical, and as regards the House of Commons may I point out that there is no such thing known to our system as offering a seat? The Government cannot offer a seat. We have all known Governments who would be very glad if they could do so, and who have taken an immense deal of trouble to secure seats for some of their favourites but without any effect whatever except that of putting in the seat the last person that they would desire to see there. You have not got seats to which you can nominate members in the House of Commons. Unless you had a complete change of our constitutional system they

1505
would have to stand for election like any other Member. If you suddenly set up a sort of aldermanic system in the House of Commons it would be striking at the very foundation of our Constitution and destroying the character of the House of Commons. I venture to say that no House of Commons which is likely to be elected in our time would ever entertain such a proposal for one moment.
In that case you are driven to offering seals in this House to representatives of the Dominions. I do not think that that would meet the difficulty. I hope that in this forthcoming Conference there will be some diseassion—and I am sure there will be—as to whether it is possible ultimately to draw up a scheme which will meet our difficulties, but I confess I do not find any suggestion of a solution in Lord Strathspey's Question. Although I have given an immense amount of consideration and study to this matter, I do not see how we are going at present to get much beyond the system that we have now. I believe that the Dominions have already strengthened the position of the High Commissioners. We here have done a good deal in this direction. Incidentally, we have given them an opportunity to be present whenever they choose at the debates in the Lower House. Their general status with regard to Government Departments is very much higher than it was before the war, and I cannot help thinking that it is in the direction of the post of High Commissioner that future connection will be maintained between the Governments of the Dominions and the Government at home.
The proposal made in another quarter that a Minister should be sent over here representing his own Government is one which, I believe, would not succeed at all because a Minister's presence is only valuable so long as he is in touch with his own Government and knows from daily experience what is going on in his own country from the political point of view. The moment you bring a man over and establish him here, even for six months, you are cutting him off from daily connection with the politics of his own country, and I think the position would be no better than it is at present.
What we do want is to settle another question connected with this very great problem, and that is how we are going to take our Dominions into our confidence
1506
and get the benefit of their advice before we embark upon any policy which may result in war if, when the war conies, we have to call upon them for their aid. That is the question which has to be solved and it will not be solved by any such proposal as is made by Lord Strathspey. I believe that already steps have been taken in that direction, it is quite easy to keep the Dominions informed beforehand. We have now a cable system which is on the whole excellent and High Commissioners who can be brought into close communication at any moment. I believe it is in that direction that a solution of the problem will be found. I rose only because I should be very sorry if it went forward to the Dominions that the proposal contained in Lord Strathspey's Question has general support here. On the contrary, I believe that the universal feeling is that any proposals for Parliamentary representation or anything of that kind ought to come from the Dominions and ought not to be made by us to them.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I admit that I find myself in a rather difficult position this afternoon as the noble Earl who has put the Question on the Paper did not in his speech, directly or indirectly, refer to the subject matter of the Question, and I had made preparations to deal not with the larger issues which he was beginning to raise but with the specific point which he had placed upon the Paper. I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord takes a very great and genuine interest in the closer association of all parts of the Empire. He has personal knowledge which he is able to bring to bear on the subject and I am sure that those of your Lordships who are fortunate enough to receive a copy of the book which he proposes shortly to issue will read it with the greatest possible interest.
The subject to which he has referred in his Question on the Paper is certainly no new one. It has been discussed in a variety of forms for many years. From a purely constitutional point of view you will bear in mind that the subject of the representation of the Overseas Dominions in this House, or in the Second Chamber, was referred to, although no definite recommendation was made, in the Report of Lord Bryce's Commission in 1918. I

1507
do not think I need add anything to what has fallen from the noble Viscount, Lord Long, as to the difficulties in the way of arranging seats in another place. We are all aware of the difficulty of finding those seats, and I am afraid that. Lord Strathspey must not look to any solution of the problem in that direction; but, at any rate, on the still wider aspect, what undoubtedly Lord Strathspey had in his mind was a return to the idea—which was prevalent at one time, hut which for a considerable number of years has not, I think, been advocated in any really responsible quarter—of some Federal Parliament.
If it were necessary I could quote many speeches from distinguished Ministers from overseas in which the idea of a Federal Parliament met with complete disapproval and disavowal, and if reference is made to the Imperial Was Conference in the year 1917, it will be seen that this subject was thoroughly and exhaustively discussed. The main objection—there were many—to any idea of a Federal Parliament was that it was an infringement on the autonomous rights of the Dominions, to which both they and we attach the supremest importance. I could quote speeches from the Prime Minister of South Africa, from Sir Robert Borden, and from the then Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Hughes, and others in which not only was any idea of a Federal Parliament disapproved of, but it was suggested that it would be almost a danger instead of an advantage. I can assure your Lordships that the questions of closer association, of the rapid transmission of news, and of seeking advice and guidance from the great Dominions overseas, will certainly be considered at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. But I am bound to say that I see no prospect whatever of any progress being made on the lines indicated by the noble Lord who placed this Question on the Paper.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, your Lordships' House finds itself on this occasion in a position not wholly unusual but still somewhat inconvenient. The Question has been put down on the Paper by the noble Lord on one subject but the speech which he made dealt with another subject altogether. Were it not that I always strive to obey the Rules of order in this House I should be very much tempted to follow him in the remarks
1508
which he made about Imperial trade. But since he spoke, the debate has been raised to the, level of high constitutional authority by the noble Viscount and the noble Duke. I should not like it to go forth from this House that there is any lack of sympathy on our part with any proposal, from whatever quarter it comes, that we should be brought into closer connection with the self-governing Dominions beyond the seas. I am sure that every member of this House would be only too glad to consider in the most favourable light any plan that is suggested and, if possible with general consent, to give effect to whatever recommendations are made.
The noble Duke made special reference to Lord Bryce's Committee. I remember the discussions which took place on that Committee upon this very point. Naturally, it is not for me to say anything on the question as to how far the self-governing Dominions could be represented in another place, but the question of their representation in this House is, of course, a very much easier one and one which we are quite competent to discuss. I am inclined to think that the answer given by the noble Duke is the true answer, and that the difficulty is not likely to come from this country but rather from the self-governing Dominions. When this matter has been raised not only at the Imperial Conference to which the noble Duke made reference, but also on less formal occasions in debates in newspapers and elsewhere, we have generally found that the obstacles are raised rather from the point of view of the self-governing Dominions than from our point of view. We are always glad to see representatives of the self-governing Dominions in this country, whether they are private visitors or official representatives of those Dominions. If they put forward officially such a demand as that which is contained in the Question, I am sure that we should all be only too anxious to consider it favourably and, if it met with the approval of the Empire, to give effect to it.
LORD STRATHSPEY: My Lords, I apologise if my speech did not follow the lines indicated in my Question, and I wish to thank your Lordships very much for what has been said. I am afraid there was a slight misunderstanding. My idea of an Imperial Parliament was not

1509
of one containing a few members from the self-governing Dominions, for, after all, what effect would twenty, or thirty, or even fifty members from the Dominions in the House of Commons have in an assembly of between six and seven hundred Members? They could not do anything' at all. The idea in my mind was rather that of a true Imperial Parliament representing the whole of the Empire, each part of which might have its quota of members, and sitting in London.

DENTISTS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
EDUCATION (INSTITUTION CHILDREN) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POSTAL CHARGES.
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK had the following Question on the Paper:—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the unanimous opinion of the commercial community that an immense volume of postal communications would result from a return to the penny postage, and in view of the unsatisfactory result of increasing the weight of letter packets carried for the minimum charge of 1½d., they will now consider the desirability of reducing the minimum charge for letter packets at home and to all British Possessions, Egypt, U.S.A. and Tangier to one penny, with a corresponding reduction of the weight to one ounce for inland letters and half-an-ounce for other parts of the Empire, U.S.A., etc., thus again realising the idea of Imperial penny postage, which, by increasing communication between this country and the different parts of the Empire, would increase trade and thereby bring increased revenue to the National Exchequer.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which appears on
1510
the Paper in my name I wish to say that chambers of commerce and business men desire to impress upon His Majesty's Government that they should not be timid, but should courageously proceed at once to carry out the sound policy of an Imperial penny postage on the lines suggested in the Question. The reductions in postal charges recently made are not sufficiently great to encourage a vast increase in correspondence. I do not propose to refer to the speech delivered by the Postmaster-General in the House of Commons a few days ago. He considered in detail questions of losses and profits, but the fact is that the present policy of the 1½d. post and the arrangements made in connection with it are not satisfactory, and are not likely to bring about the result that we desire. The delay in announcing the reduction of postal charges has not allowed time for manufacturers and others to prepare their circulars and catalogues for the new season's business, and hence comparatively little progress has been made.
Now is the time to announce further reductions for autumn and New Year business. If an announcement were made immediately that Imperial penny postage, was to be adopted on the lines set out in my Question there would be an enormous increase of postal business before the end of this year, which would mean that our greatest commercial traveller, the Post Office—I have called it by that name before—would be doing a great work in reducing unemployment, setting business going with our Dominions, and, in addition, vastly improving our home trade and increasing the revenue. Whilst my Question deals chiefly with our own Empire, I must add that cheaper foreign postage is urgently needed, too. I should like to commend to His Majesty's Government the splendid, practical letter on penny postage from my noble friend Lord Blyth which appeared in The Times last Saturday. We have every reason to be most grateful to Lord Blyth for the great services he has rendered in regard to cheap postage.
In this connection, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a matter which is not without interest. Sixty years ago it was publicly recognised in this country that our national well-being is linked up with cheap postage and enduring friendship with France. In 1864 the first Albert medal of the Royal

1511
Society of Arts, which has since been annually presented to the most eminent citizen of any country, was awared to Sir Rowland Hill for
"his great services to arts, manufactures, and commerce in the creation of the penny postage, and for his other reforms in the postal system of this country, the benefits of which have extended over the civilised world."
Those are the terms of the presentation. It is a singular thing that in the following year, 1865, the second Albert medal was awarded to Napoleon III for
" distinguished merit in promoting, in many ways, by his personal exertions, the international progress of arts, manufactures and commerce. … and his enlightened commercial policy. … in favour of British subjects."
These are facts of outstanding importance at this juncture when we wish to continue our friendly relations and commercial intercourse with France.
Cheap postage is wanted, not only to improve trade and commerce, but to add to the domestic happiness and comfort of the many millions of our Empire's population, to whom the penny postage would be a God-send. No better instrument, in my opinion, for commercial and social success can be adopted than the penny postage and a system of frequent communications. If I may say so, I am very glad to see sitting opposite me the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, an ex-Governor-General of Canada, an ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the possessor of much experience of our Colonies. I was only thinking that if this matter could be pushed forward before the visit of the Dominion Premiers it would afford a very nice opportunity for the noble Duke to inform them that we propose at the earliest possible moment to adopt Imperial penny postage.
The trade of the country is suffering most seriously at the present moment, in my opinion, from the continual changes in the holder of the office of Postmaster-General. Postmasters-General generally begin their term of office without any particular knowledge of postal matters, more especially of postal charges and the great advantage to the country of cheap postage and postal facilities. Chambers of commerce and business men have had to set to work to educate these successive Postmasters-General, and we have always found them very willing to receive instruction,
1512
to hear our case, and to show great sympathy. Unfortunately, when one is on the point not only of becoming converted but of trying to persuade the Treasury and His Majesty's Government to carry out this reform, another Postmaster-General is introduced, and it seems to me that he starts with anything but a progressive attitude.
Since my noble friend Lord Illingworth was Postmaster-General, the office has been held by Mr. Kellaway, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and Sir William Joynson-ILicks, and is held at present by my right honourable friend Sir Laming Worthington-Evans. I do not know that Mr. Kellaway began in a very progressive frame of mind, but before he left he had made some progress; he had done something and had promised a great deal more. When Mr. Neville Chamber-lain was appointed Postmaster-General it was felt to be a great advantage by the commercial world. It was said: "Here is a business man who knows all about it, "and in almost the first speech he made outside he expressed himself as in favour of a penny postage and promised to help it in every way. We thought that was a great move in favour of carrying out this wise policy. Then Sir William Joynson-Hicks came in as a thorough enthusiast who wanted to do everything, and was going to do everything. He has left behind him some slight improvements. He has been promoted and he may be useful to us because he occupies the important post of Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That is the office which in the past has generally put a little bit of a check on the wheel of progress in connection with this particular postal reform.
I was hoping that the noble Marquess, the Deputy Leader of the House, was going to reply to me, because I have every reason to be very grateful to him for a very sympathetic answer he gave me on a previous occasion, but I see that he is not in his place. What I want to impress upon His Majesty's Government is this. Having regard to the really strong feeling that exists in favour of this reduction of postage, I urge upon His Majesty's Government to have courage and not to be frightened by-some financial authorities among the permanent officials who assert that it-will result in a great financial loss to

1513
the country. It will do nothing of the sort. It is because you keep the postage at 1½d. and make the weight higher than is necessary that the present arrangement is not a success. You will find, if you adopt the policy I propose, that you will have an enormous increase in the quantity of postal matter, that the revenue will be higher and that the change will be a benefit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The fact is that this dear postage, as I have pointed out before, is a great clog on the wheel of progress. There arc certain industries to which cheap postage; is no particular advantage, such as the iron, the coal, and the stool industries, and I have hoard it said by noble Lords and others before now that they wished the postage was half-a-crown instead of 1½d. That is not the sort of thing that I am pleading for in connection with the progress of industry. It is the manufacturers, both large and small, who produce articles for general use who want cheap postage as a means of increasing their trade. Cheap postage will be of very great advantage to the people in our Colonies, not only to those engaged in commerce but to the private citizens to some of whom a 1½d. post is expensive.
I have pointed out on previous occasions that the cause of the penny post is damaged by the people who are using halfpenny stamps and sending in open letters documents of a private and confidential character. They do it for the sake of economy. Rather than pay l½d., they put their private business papers into an open envelope, which they stamp with a halfpenny stamp. You would find that in such cases the adoption of a penny post would have a very large influence. I do not know who is going to reply to my Question, but I hope it will be a noble Lord who will have some sympathy with me and will not give me what I might call the usual cut and dried official answer. I hope he will say that although he is only able to give an official answer this afternoon, we may take it from him that he will use his best endeavours to persuade his colleagues to carry out this policy, which, I am certain, would be of great benefit to the country.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Lord who asked the Question has almost put the answer into my mouth.
1514
Although I am afraid I cannot altogether meet his wishes on behalf of the Poet Office in every respect, still I hope he will find that the Post Office is not unsympathetic. This is not by any means the first occasion on which the noble Lord has introduced to this House the question of cheaper postage. I am sure that he has always done so in a most friendly way and because of his anxiety that the Government should not lose sight of a reform which he rates, and justly rates, so very highly and as so important-to the trade and commerce of the country. I am sure that nobody is better qualified than the noble Lord, with his knowledge and experience extending over so many years, to speak on behalf of the trade and commerce of the country. I can assure him that His Majesty's Government cordially share his views as to the desirability of re-establishng the penny post at the first possible moment, as soon as financial conditions will allow. They fully appreciate the importance of the Question which he has brought forward, which is in regard to the reduction of the inland postage from 1½d. to 1d. with a corresponding reduction of the weight to one oz. for inland letters and half an ounce for other parts of the Empire, and so on.
Now, finance of course comes into this question most of all. It has been estimated that the reduction of postage from 1½d, to 1d. would mean a net loss of £5,000,000, after allowing for any increase of traffic. The noble Lord laid great stress on the fact that a lower rate of postage would lead to what he described as an immense volume of postal communications, but he will perhaps have seen the speech of my right hon. friend Sir Laming Worthington - Evans, in another place last week, in which it was stated that the result of the reduction from 2d. to 1½d. in June, 3922, had been most disappointing in so far as leading to a great increase in postage is concerned. The net gain was only an increase of 4 per cent. in the number of letters, and therefore there was only an insignificant increase to set against the gross loss of revenue arising from the reduction. If there, were a further reduction from 1½d. to 1d. no doubt there would be an increase of business, and it would probably be more than 4 per cent., but it is quite clear that it would not in

1515
any way make good the loss of revenue which would result from such a reduction of the rate of postage.
There is one sentence in my noble friend's Question referring to the, "unsatisfactory result of increasing the weight of letter packets carried for the minimum charge of 1½d." I do not quite understand whence my noble friend gets that information, because his view is not shared by the Post Office. The increase from 1 oz. to 2 ozs. has only been in force about two months, and the Post Office see no reason to suppose that the results will be unsatisfactory. A very small amount is involved in any case, because a very large percentage of the letters are under 1 oz. in weight. I may point out to my noble friend that important concessions have been made by the Post Office this year as regards parcels post, heavier letters, and telephone charges, amounting in the aggregate to £2,500,000 a year.
The other point raised by my noble friend was that of Imperial penny postage. I must point out to him that even if we did reduce the rate from 1½d. to 1d. that would not result in Imperial penny postage, because most of the British Possessions have a considerably higher rate than 1d. The Australian rate is 2d., the Canadian 1½d., the Indian 1d., and the South African 2d. Therefore, my noble friend would hardly get Imperial penny postage if his proposal were adopted by the British Government. I hope that my noble friend will not insist upon the ½ oz. which he suggests in his Question. It is considered by the Post Office that it would not materially reduce the loss of revenue, and that the inconvenience would largely outweigh any saving thereby secured. The noble Lord and I are both old enough to remember when the ½ oz. weight was used many years ago. Then all our friends abroad who wrote to us used the horrible paper which was almost transparent, and through which the pen tore holes. If one wrote with a heavy pen the writing was almost illegible. I am afraid that the re-introduction of the ½ oz. weight for letters abroad would result in our going back to that experience.
I think I have dealt with all the points raised by my noble friend. In conclusion, I can only repeat the answer which I outlined at the beginning, that the Government, while entirely sympathising
1516
with his desire to re-establish penny-postage, consider that it is a reform which the present financial position does not warrant, entailing as it does so much sacrifice of revenue. The question will, however, be fully considered before the next financial year with reference to the estimated revenue and expenditure of the Post Office in 1924–25. It is too early at present to forecast whether the financial situation will justify a further sacrifice of revenue on so large a scale, but the noble Lord may be assured that the matter which he has so much at heart is having the fullest attention of His Majesty's Government.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

JUDICATURE CONSOLIDATION (PRO-BATE, ETC., DIVISION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIRMACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Judicature Consolidation (Probate, etc., Division) Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills of the present Session.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDER.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name. I ought to state that the Order was considered by a Select Committee in another place which heard all the parties interested, and that Select Committee recommended that the Order be agreed to, subject to the modifications and conditions which now appear on the printed Paper before your Lordships.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas

1517
Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Barnsley Gas Company, which was presented on the 24th April, and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications and additions:—
Page 6, at end of Section 25, insert—
"Provided that the Company shall not supply gas under any such contract beyond the limits of supply if and so long as such supply would interfere with the supply of gas within those limits."
Page 10, at end of Section 30, insert—
"Provided that this section shall not apply to any main used by the Company for the supply by them of gas under a contract entered into under Section 25 of this Order."
Page 15, line 1, leave out from the first "the" to "the" in line 2, and insert "1st day of October 1924," and after "fit" insert "on the application of the Company or of the Mayar, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Barnsley."
Page 15, after Section 46, insert Section 46A—
"46A. Until the provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Order shall come into operation, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 31 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, the amount which the Company may carry out of the clear profits of the undertaking after the 1st October 1924, to any reserve fund formed in pursuance of the said Section 31, shall not exceed a sum equal to one per centum per annum on the total authorised capital (including loan capital) of the Company."—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am glad that an agreement has been reached in this case, and I hope your Lordships will concur in the settlement which has been arrived at by the Commons as the result of an Inquiry. That, in my view, is the only proper way in which these Orders, when opposed, can be dealt with. But I hesitate to think what would happen if your Lordships disagreed with the Commons, for the authors of the Act have provided no means for reconciling any difference between the two Houses which might arise in a case such as this, and the moral I draw from that fact is that a Joint Committee of both Houses will be the best tribunal to enquire into future cases.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders
1518
mentioned in the Motions on the Paper, made under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, be approved. They are all simple. No objection has been raised to any of them except the last one, and in that case the objection has now been overcome. I therefore think it would be most convenient to your Lordships if I moved them en bloc.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Coalville, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Ashby Woulds and Shepshed, the parishes of Barden, Blackfordby, Coleorton, Heather, Measham, Normanton-le-Heath, Oak-thorpe and Donisthorpe, Packington, Ravenstone with Snibston, Swannington, Thringstone and Willesley, in the rural district of Market Bosworth, all in the County of Leicester, which was presented on the 23rd day of July, 1923, be approved. (Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Matlock, Matlock Bath and Searthin Nick, North Darley and Wirksworth, the parish of Middleton-by-Wirksworth in the rural district of Ashbourne, the parishes of Cromford and Tansley, in the rural district of Bakewell, and the parishes of Alderwadey, Crick, Dethick, Lea and Holloway, Pentrick and South Wingfield, in the rural district of Belper, all in the County of Derby, which was presented on the 26th day of July, 1923, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Urban District of Budleigh Salterton, in the County of Devon, which was presented on the 26th day of July, 1923, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, for the amendment of the Banstead, Walton-on-the-Hili, and Kingswood Electric Lighting Order, 1914, and the Chipstead and District Electric Lighting Order. 1915, which was presented on the 30th day of July, 1923, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Wooburn, Little Marlow, and Hedsor, in the rural district of Wycombe and the urban district of Marlow, all in the County of Buckingham, and parts of the parishes of Cookham and Bisham, in the rural district of Cookham, in the County of Berks, which was presented on the 30th day of July, 1923, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Formby, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the
1520
31st day of July, 1923, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Order made by the. Electricity Commissioners, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, constituting the North Wales and South Cheshire Electricity District and establishing the North Wales and South Cheshire Joint Electricity Authority, which was presented on the 31st day of July, 1923, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of July 31.]
CHATHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MORLTCY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MACCLESFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (1924) INCORPORATED (MEMORANDUM AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed for to-morrow.
House adjourned at five o'clock till to - morrow eleven o'clock.