Lords Sitting of 5 July 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
HAWKSHEAD MISSION CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LUCAS'S HOSPITAL CHARITY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TANCRED'S CHARITIES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name in regard to these Bills.
Moved, That the Order made on the 26th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 14th 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, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CALNE WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think I should give your Lordships a brief explanation of the situation and of the proposals contained in the Bill. The Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, which is promoting this Bill, was established by Royal Charter in November, 1921, with the object of furthering the cultivation and growing of cotton within the British Empire. The administrative council of the corporation consists of representatives of various organisations concerned in the industry in this country, including the trade unions, together with other bodies interested, such as the chambers of commerce, the Governments of the Overseas Dominions where cotton growing is possible, and certain Departments of the Home Government. The funds of the Corporation are administered by a Board of twelve trustees, six of whom are Ministers of the Crown or their nominees, and six representative of those directly engaged in the cotton industry, including, again, the trade unions.
On the grant of the Charter to the Corporation His Majesty's Government made it a capital grant of £978,715, the proportion due to His Majesty's Government out of the profits made by the control of Egyptian cotton during the war. This grant was subject to certain conditions, the chief of which was that those engaged in the cotton industry should make a substantial contribution towards the funds of the Corporation. Spinners owning ninety-one per cent. of the spindles in this country have agreed to pay a sum of sixpence for every 500 lbs. of cotton consumed by them, on the assumption that it will be paid by
830
all others engaged in the industry. It is estimated that in normal times these contributions will produce a total sum of not less than £75,000 per annum. The Liverpool and Manchester Cotton Associations are willing to undertake the collection of these contributions, but they have no power to enforce them. So long as the contributions are not enforceable it is obvious that a certain number of spinners will refuse to contribute at all, and this will naturally affect the willingness of others to do so, for they will regard it as unfair that they should contribute to the funds of the Corporation while others who do not will equally benefit from the work of the Corporation. The proposal, therefore, contained in the Bill is that the contribution should be made compulsory by legislation. This has been agreed to and approved by a large majority of the owners of spindles. It is supported by the Spinners' and Manufacturers' Associations and also by the trade unions engaged in the industry.
The extension of cotton growing within the Empire is a matter of urgent interest. The United Kingdom is at present dependent for the cotton which is necessary for the weaving of the finer kinds of cotton goods upon Egypt and upon the United States for the bulk of its requirements. The Egyptian crop has declined, and whatever recovery there may be in the next few years it is certain that the United Kingdom will not be able to draw to anything like the same extent on the United States in the future as it has done in the past. Further, the work of the Corporation will be a most practical step towards the development of the economic resources of the Empire, especially of our African possessions.
There is one clause in the Bill which does not deal with the question of contributions, and that is Clause 4, which seeks to repeal the Cotton Statistics Act, 1868. This Act requires forwarders of cotton, namely, railway companies or canal owners, to furnish monthly returns to the Board of Trade of the cotton forwarded or received by them. These returns have now entirely lost their value in view of the fact that the information is contained in the monthly trade accounts and cotton trade circulars. It is therefore desired by this clause to repeal that Act, and th will avoid a lot of unnecessary expense

831
and labour, not only to the Board of Trade but also to the forwarders themselves. This is a brief survey of the situation and of the proposals in the Bill. I may add that the Bill passed through the House of Commons with only formal Amendments and without a Division at any stage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

VOI-TAVETA RAILWAY, KENYA COLONY.
LORD DELAMERE LORD DELAMERE had given Notice to call attention to the decision of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to pull up the Voi-Taveta Railway in the Kenya Colony; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must crave your indulgence in addressing you for the first time to-day. It is with the greatest possible diffidence that I bring forward a subject which may appear on the face of it to be only of local importance at a time when your Lordships' House is concerned with much greater matters. But the question of the Voi-Taveta Railway has much greater significance for the territories involved than appears on the surface, and I feel compelled to ask the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the reasons for a decision against which the weight of evidence appears to lie. I desire to ask of he will lay on the Table of the House any Papers which may give the reasons for that decision. I am sorry someone more capable than myself is not able to plead this question because it is important that a true picture of the railways and the country they pass through should be brought before your Lordships if a true understanding of the subject is to be arrived at.
As your Lordships are aware the great mountain of Kilimanjaro is about two hundred miles from the east coast. When Africa was divided between the Powers, towards the end of the last century, Kilimanjaro
832
should have been on the British side of the border. Your Lordships may remember that the ex-Emperor of Germany made a personal appeal to His Majesty's Government asking that Kilimanjaro should be included in the German sphere of influence, on the ground of the interest taken by the Imperial family in the fauna and flora of that region, where the climate ranged from the tropical almost to the arctic. So the Germans took Kilimanjaro. It was the best territory in all that part of the world. In 1893 they started to build a railway up to Kilimanjaro from the only available port in their territory, the port of Tanga on the east coast. A few years later this railway reached Moschi on the slopes of Kilimanjaro which was the headquarters of the German Government there. Consequently, at the beginning of the war in 1914 there was a railway two hundred and twenty miles long running from Moschi on Kilimanjaro to the sea at the German port of Tanga. In the meantime the Uganda railway had been built, starting from the port of Mombasa in British territory and running almost parallel with the German railway from Tanga to Moschi for about 104 miles. I am sorry to give so many details but without them it is very difficult to understand a subject of this kind.
On the Uganda railway was a station called Voi and this was the nearest suitable point to Kilimanjaro on the British railway. When General Smuts made his advance into German territory in 1915–16 a military railway was built from Voi to Kahé, a point on the Tanga-Moschi railway only a little way from Moschi itself, so that when the war was over and German East Africa was re-named Tanganyika and handed over to His Majesty's Government for administration under the Mandate, Kilimanjaro was served by two railways to the sea, one 220 miles long running to the old German port of Tanga and one about the same length, or perhaps a little shorter, down the Uganda railway to the port of Mombasa. Accordingly, the problem which faced us at the end of the war was whether Mombasa or Tanga was the port to be used for the handling of the large quantity of products produced in the area around Kilimanjaro, and which railway was to be removed and which left.
I confess that there did not appear to me to be any doubt whatever as to which

833
was the right port for Kilimanjaro. Tanga was a difficult port to develop and very large sums of money would be required to make it into a modern port. Ships have to lie a very long way out, and if the cost of handling is to be brought down to anything reasonable it is evident that large sums of money will have to be spent. On the other hand Kilindini, the port of Mombasa, is a very fine natural harbour where ships can lie in quite close to the land, and it already has two wharves, one a Government lighter wharf and the other a private wharf. In addition, there are being built at the cost of about £1,250,000 some large deep-water wharves, so that it would appear on the surface that this is the right port to use. Further, the economic and financial Committee which sat during last year in Kenya had evidence laid before it which showed that 500,000 tons could be passed over the present facilities at Mombasa, and that the only possible excuse or reason for the deep-water wharves was a very much increased tonnage being carried on the Uganda railway. On the face of it, therefore, there does not seem to be much doubt which is the right port to use as the port of Kilimanjaro.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies at that time asked a Special Railway Commissioner, Colonel Hammond, who was already going out to East Africa, to report on the general railway system and to give his advice on that particular subject. I will not read his terms of reference because I do not think it necessary, but his Report was made in March, 1921, and it came roughly to this. He recommended that the Voi-Kahé railway should be bought from the War Office, and that Mombasa should be the port for Kilimanjaro. It will perhaps occur to your Lordships what a strong weight of evidence there must be on the other side in order that the decision which has been announced should have been arrived at, but within my knowledge I have no evidence of any such weight of opinion in favour of pulling up the railway with which we are dealing. The Kenya Government have protested against its being pulled up. The East African section of the London Chamber of Commerce did the same and were supported by the Associated Chambers of Commerce in East Africa. The colonists
834
in the neighbourhood of Kilimanjaro have already protested against the railway being pulled up, and they, after all, are the people who understand the situation, because their living depends upon the cost of handling their produce. In addition, the general manager of the Uganda railway, who had been specially brought up from the Union of South Africa to reorganise the railway, was strongly of opinion that the Voi-Kahé railway should not go.
From the point of view of economy there appears to be no doubt that the right railway to leave was the railway which is being pulled up. It was in direct touch with a port which is a modern port, and the amount of money which would have to be laid out to make the military line a workable one is infinitely less than the money which would have to be found to make Tanga into a port. From a political point of view, I submit that this decision runs counter to the policy of His Majesty's Government in that region, which has always been to try, by linking up the customs, railways, telegraph and post offices of these different territories, ultimately to bring together those territories in some form of federation. I submit that the pulling up of this railway, which is the only railway link between the two territories, is in direct contradiction of that policy. In these circumstances, I beg leave to ask the noble Duke the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give his reasons for his decision, and lay upon the Table of the House such Papers as may be available. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I desire this afternoon, as shortly as possible, to support Lord Delamere in his appeal to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to reverse the decision to pull up this link between the Kenya Colony and the Tanganyika Territory. Lord Delamere, as your Lordships know, has probably been out in East Africa for a longer time than any other settler, if I may so call him, in that Colony. He speaks with undoubted authority for the whole of the white community, and as a member of the Legislative Assembly in Kenya he speaks with equal authority for that body. Now, in the Report of Lieut.-Colonel Hammond, the engineer sent out in 1921,

835
who made a Report to the Colonial Office on the railway system in the two territories, I think can be found the argument that will be used by the Colonial Office for the pulling up of this line. Colonel Hammond says that the main argument used for the destruction of the Voi-Kahé railway is cost—the extra loan charges entailed by the expenditure. I think that the figure which he gives, between £400,000 and £500,000, will probably be found to be a somewhat exaggerated one, and that the figure of £100,000, which they think will be sufficient for what he calls the second scheme, will probably be too low an estimate.
Then they also say that this port of Tanga, which is well known to both Lord Delamere and myself, must eventually be developed to a certain extent. That is perfectly true. Some day or other it is obvious that that will have to be developed, but I do not think that there is any reason for spending much money on that port for a considerable number of years, if the Voi-Kahé Railway is retained. In his report Colonel Hammond refers to the German seisal plantations, which were so successfully worked by the Germans before the war, as "having run absolutely wild," so that what in pre-war days was a prosperous territory producing a large amount of valuable stuff, is now derelict; and in 1921 it was calculated that it would take about seven years to recover. So I think that argument rather goes by the board. Another argument is that some forty miles of the Voi-Kahé line goes through a waterless desert. As the other line, the Tanga line, goes through waterless desert for, I believe, some sixty miles, I do not think there is very much in that particular argument.
Then there is a curious argument that the country tapped for traffic is amongst the best in Tanganyika, and the profits arising from its development should accrue to that territory and not to the Kenya Colony, more especially as the former is a mandated territory. I do not know what will be the future of these mandated territories, but I do know what will be the view of British taxpayers. If the mandated territories are in the future to belong to the British Empire, and become part and parcel of it, I do not see quite what this argument means, although it would be very important for
836
the mandated territories to become part and parcel of the Empire, because at the present moment the mandated territories, with regard to the entrance of their agricultural produce into certain foreign countries, are penalised by being mandated territories, as their produce does not come in under the same tariffs as it would if they were part of the British Empire. A further argument is that all communications between the Government of Tanganyika Territory and the area under review, and all relief and Government stores therefor, would have to pass through the territory of a neighbouring Colony. I do not think we need pay very much attention to an argument of that kind.
I think one might respectfully protest against the Tanganyika territory being favoured in the shape of expenditure of money belonging to the British taxpayer if, in the future, that territory is going to belong to the League of Nations, or, possibly, as may be the case in the event of a Labour Government coming into power, handed back to Germany. By pulling up this railway you are destroying the only land link between Tanganyika Territory, the Uganda Railway, and this Kilimanjaro section of the country, in which there are a large number of European planters, and where we hope there will in a few years be a very much larger number. The old military road which existed before the railway is, I believe, overgrown and useless. I do not think it is possible for the Government to leave these two adjacent countries without any sort of communication between north and south, between the Uganda Railway and Tanganyika. The planters and settlers on all the slopes of Kilimanjaro not only prefer infinitely to use the bettor harbour and better port at Kilindini—and incidentally a route which is thirty miles shorter—rather than the Tanga route, but it is of the utmost importance to them to be within reasonably easy reach of Nairobi and Mombasa, where commodities such as seeds, agricultural implements and other stores are kept in much larger quantities, and, I think, can be obtained at a cheaper rate than they can from Tanga. I feel certain, also, that the interests of the settlers on the slopes of Kilimanjaro will suffer very considerably if this means of communication is destroyed.

837
Lord Delamere has enumerated the various associations and other bodies which have protested against this proposed action. Money is being found and is to be found by the Government for many purposes, and much money has been and is being spent in countries which are not part of the British Empire. I hope it is not too much to ask the noble Duke to reconsider this question once more, and to use his good offices with the lions of the Treasury, who are, no doubt quite rightly, carefully guarding the purse-strings. I heard it said the other day that the noble Duke wished that he might be regarded as the good uncle of the Oversea Dominions and the Crown Colonies. Uncles have various uses, and I dare say that the noble Duke may talk to my noble friend and myself like a Dutch uncle this afternoon. But I should prefer that he should put on the wings of a fairy godmother to this Cinderella of the British Dominions, and possibly the Kenya Cinderella may yet find her way down the resuscitated Voi-Taveta Railway, even if she has to go in an empty and open carriage.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I have not actually seen this railway, but I know something about it, and I very well remember when it was first laid by General Smuts as a military line. No doubt the difficulty which has arisen is precisely that it was not originally laid as a commercial line, but for military purposes. It had to be made hurriedly, and undoubtedly if it is to be an effective part of the railway system of that region it will have to be more or less rebuilt at some expense. What that amount will be is a matter for further consideration. I am not sure that my two noble friends who have spoken have not rather underestimated the probable cost of renewing the railway, re-grading it, and practically rebuilding it. But, at all events, it is admitted that there will have to be a considerable expenditure, and that when that expenditure has been incurred the annual loss for some time, until that country is developed, will be considerable, perhaps £7,000 or £8,000 a year.
It seems to me that the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office have to make out a very strong case indeed in present circumstances if they are actually going to bring an existing railway to an end. Many of us may consider that, in
838
view of the general idea of the development of the various Colonies, to begin by pulling up a railway is not exactly the best way of proceeding in that part of the Empire. It is admitted that this is the only link connecting these two Colonies of Kenya and Tanganyika. We want to get these various Colonies into commercial connection with one another, so that their commercial interests may be, as far as possible, the same, and so that they may help mutually to develop one another. It is admitted, I think, that this link, though it may not be paying at the moment, will in the end assist the development of that part of these Colonies and tend to bring them nearer together.
Looking at the map, and judging from what one knows about the matter. commercially it is obvious that the natural outlet for that particular part of the country to which reference has been made is Kilindini, which is practically the port for Mombasa, rather than Tanga. It is twenty miles nearer, it is easier of access, and it is more accessible than Tanga. Further—and this is a very important point—as Lord Delamere pointed out, the port of Kilindini at the present moment has a very fine harbour, a considerable outlay (I believe nearly £1,500,000) has been, or is being, spent upon it to develop it from the point of view of trade, and it gives every facility to the exporter and importer for trading to the best advantage. On the other hand, Tanga, the rival port, is at the present moment, at all events, a very inaccessible port, all the loading and unloading has to be done through lighterage, and it will require a very considerable sum, which is not forthcoming, to put it into a good and efficient state. In any case, it is much inferior from that point of view to Kilindini. So that, commercially, there is no comparison between the two harbours.
I think it is also a matter of general principle, and it is strongly emphasised by Colonel Hammond in his Report, that on a coast like that it is better to concentrate on the two big ports, namely Dar-es-Salaam and Kilindini, rather than to spend money on trying to bring trade to a third port, which is nothing like so useful for commercial purposes as the other two. That is the commercial position which, on the face of it, seems to me

839
to be very greatly in favour of the proposal of Lord Delamere. And if we simply had to deal with it on that basis, if, for example, it was only a matter of the interest of the Colony of Kenya, I think there would be no doubt about this question. But, unfortunately, the question has arisen as a matter rather of competition and rivalry between the Colony of Kenya and the mandated territory of Tanganyika, and that is where the difficulty really comes in. The Kenya people naturally want the best possible opening and access for their trade in their part of that territory as also in the neighbouring Colony, where these coffee planters and others are making, I am glad to say, considerable progress On the other hand, and not unnaturally, those who represent Tanga and are interested especially in it prefer that this trade should go to their port, that Tanga trade should be with the Tan-ganese, or whatever they are called, and that it ought to go through the Tanga port.
If we look at the matter from the general point of view, if we put aside these competitive difficulties between the two Colonies, I think there is no doubt that, if there was any reasonable likelihood—and so far as I have been able to judge there is considerable likelihood—of this railway being a really useful commercial link, it would be a thing greatly to be regretted if it was brought to an end and finally pulled up and destroyed as a railway. The noble Lord, Lord Delamere, and the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, have admitted that it does raise this very difficult question—that there would have to be considerable capital outlay. I think they put it rather low; but it does not matter what the figure is; it is admitted that there will have to be a capital outlay on this railway and that, for a time at all events, there will be a deficit. I think it is hardly reasonable that the Tanganyika territory should be expected to bear any large share of that particular outlay and deficit, because, from their point of view, the continued existence of this railway is to their commercial disadvantage. Therefore, it would be rather hard and perhaps unfair to ask them to meet the main cost of putting the railway into order and the annual deficits which will exist for a certain time; whereas the Kenya people, have not only a really commercial interest
840
in it but, as a matter of fact, a larger proportion of the railway actually goes through the Kenya territory than goes through the territory of the neighbouring Colony.
Neither of the noble Lords who have spoken entered on the question of who is to bear the cost. I gathered that the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, rather thought that the Imperial taxpayer was to put his hand in his pocket. In any case, I do not think that is likely to be the upshot of the matter. I think it is possible, and probable, that if there was an outlay a loan might be made by the Imperial Government; but at all events that will have to be borne at some time or other by the two Colonies combined or by one or other of them. It would be interesting to know from those who represent the Kenya Colony how far and to what extent they are prepared to consider the question of the proportionate cost. The larger part of the railway is, as I have said, in Kenya Colony and the smaller part is in Tanganyika. The greater part of the trade would go to Kenya and the, smaller part to Tanga port. It would seem to be fair, therefore, that the larger proportion of the capital outlay on the line, if it is to have a continued existence, should be borne by Kenya Colony rather than the other.
What I would press on the Secretary of State for the Colonies is that more time should be given before the irrevocable step is taken of beginning to pull up the railway, and that some further inquiry should be made into the matter, especially into the question of the relative proportions of the burden to be borne by the respective Colonies. We all know that he is extremely anxious not to do anything which would in any sense run counter to the development of these Colonies or any other. In those circumstances I would ask him, as my noble friend has brought the matter up in this way and as we have really had, so far as I can understand, no full or authoritative report in favour of pulling up the railway, whether he would not delay the matter and cause some further inquiry to be made not only into the actual pulling up of the line itself, but, if the line is to continue, as to the relative shares of the cost. I would appeal to him to delay the matter until there is a further opportunity of considering it. I am sure that, so far

841
as he is concerned, he is anxious to give the fullest, consideration to any matter concerning the development of the Colonies.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, before I reply to the Question on the Paper, may I extend a welcome to my noble friend Lord Delamere, who has, I think, addressed your Lordships' House for the first time this afternoon, I know that your Lordships are always willing and anxious to hear any member of the House who is able to bring forward first hand knowledge and information on distant parts of the Empire, and although I am afraid that I shall not be able to satisfy my noble friend's aspirations this afternoon, I hope that he will allow me to thank him for the way in which he has brought this matter forward.
After what has been said by noble Lords who have spoken, there is no occasion for me to go any further into the history of the origin of this line. As they have explained already, this line, ninety-three miles in length, was hurriedly built for military purposes and it was necessarily, in the circumstances, of a rough-and-ready construction. A comprehensive survey could not be made, and the work was, of necessity, of a temporary character. From the last information that I have the line now is practically derelict. It has been possible, I understand, to run a few trains over it; but only comparatively recently an important bridge was swept away by the floods and, therefore, for any practical purposes the line would have not only to be realigned but reconditioned throughout. I have made most careful inquiries, and I am quite satisfied that the realignment and reconditioning of the line could not be carried out at a less expenditure than £500,000. I am also informed that the net annual loss on the operation of the line, at any rate for some years to come, must be from £5,000 to £6,000; that is, of course, without making provision for interest and depreciation or sinking fund.
I quite admit that if the whole of that territory had been in one hand it would probably not have been necessary to have two parallel lines so close to one another, and I equally concur with what has been stated in the debate, that of the two ports Mombasa is by far the more promising and that the greater use can be
842
made of it. But there it is. We have the fact, unfortunately perhaps, but none of us can help it, that there are these two lines running parallel to one another, and the House must remember that in the Report of Colonel Hammond, to which reference has already been made, when he suggested that this military line could be converted into a commercial line, it was part also of his suggestion that part of the Moshi-Tanga line should be taken up. I think, possibly, we should be entirely within our rights in removing part of an existing line in a mandated territory; yet it would be bound to affect very prejudically the future development of that country for which we are now responsible and would be at the expense of that country, for the purposes of benefiting another portion of His Majesty's Dominions.
I feel, therefore, that it would not be right to add the very great cost to the British taxpayer, because it is, after all, the British taxpayer who is going to pay for this. We are anxious, if we can, to induce the Treasury to allow expenditure to be made on development in many portions of the Empire, but I frankly confess that this immediate project is not one which I should have any confidence in submitting to the Treasury for their sanction. The capital expenditure was bound to have been heavy, and although no doubt the line suggested would have been the ideal one if we could have made a fresh beginning, I feel in the circumstances that the decision at which we arrived is the only justifiable one. The mandated territory of Tanganyika is now suffering very considerably from the ravages of the war, and it will take a long time before that country can be placed in a satisfactory position. I am quite confident that if we in any way tended further to impair the capacity of that Colony for developing so much more would we throw an extra charge upon the taxpayers. Therefore, while I fully appreciate the point of view put forward by my two noble friends who have such intimate knowledge of the district and the circumstances, I regret that I can hold out no hope that we shall be able to reverse the policy which we have already accepted.
LORD DELAMERE: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for his answer. I am afraid that the real reason he has taken

843
up the attitude which we have heard, and the reason why your Lordships did not fully understand this question, is that I put is so badly. My excuse is that this is the first time I have spoken in your Lordships' House. The particular matter brought forward by Lord Buxton about the expenditure is quite capable of being dealt with. I am afraid the chance has been missed. I beg to withdraw the Motion which stands in my name.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Somerleyton, I beg to move the Motions standing on the Paper in his name for the approval of Special Orders made under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922. No objection was laid to any of the Orders except in the case of Brentwood, and that has now been withdrawn.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1022, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Mold, in the County of Flint, which was presented on the 29th day of May, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
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 Mears Ashby, Ecton, Sywell, and Earls Barton, in the rural district of Welling-borough, and the parish of Overstone, in the rural district of Brixworth, all in the County of Northampton, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
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 City and Royal Burgh of Elgin, in the County of
844
Moray, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
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 Exmouth, in the County of Devon, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
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 Brentwood and parts of the parishes of Hutton, Ingrave, Shenfield and South Weald, in the rural district of Billericay, in the County of Essex, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
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 borough of Lyme Regis, in the County of Dorset, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
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 borough of Yeovil, in the County of Somerset, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
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 Lees, in the County Palatine of

845
Lancaster, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
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 Crompton, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
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 Royton, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.