Lords Sitting of 10 December 1926

Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, I am conscious of the inconvenience of the hour and of the day, and also of the state of the Order Paper, and I will therefore be as brief as I can in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. Its main and immediate object is to relieve certain Roman Catholic charities from being deprived of the benefits of the Finance Act, 1921. It has been suggested in some quarters that this Bill, or any other Bill with that object in view, is quite unnecessary, and that all the Statutes that we seek to wipe out are already spent, dead and obsolete, and are never enforced. I am willing to admit that there is some truth in that contention, but those who put it forward either ignore or are unaware of the fact that religious orders in this country are illegal bodies and are exposed to difficulties and serious disabilities on that account.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, in a judgment which, I understand from competent authorities, is held to be one of the most illuminating judgments on record—namely, that in the case of Bourne versus Keene, in 1919, I think—pointed out that religious orders are excluded from the Roman Catholic Charities Act, 1832, and similarly, I may add, from the Act of 1860. Accordingly, being still illegal bodies, gifts to them for the purpose of their work are illegal, and in the same case they were declared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, whose absence we all deplore and also by the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Parmoor, to be void and invalid, and on this account illegal. The Inland Revenue authorities not long ago refused to a charity carried on by an order the relief
1488
given to all other charities by the Finance Act, 1921.
Then again, no property can be held on trust for a religious order, and accordingly their property has to be held privately by beneficial owners, with the result that on the death of the holder Death Duties become payable. That, as your Lordships will at once see, is a very severe and heavy handicap on some of these orders. Again, if one of these beneficial owners dies, then on the appointment of a new man in his place the 1 per cent stamp duty ad valorem has to be paid instead of the 10 s stamp duty on the ordinary appointment of a trustee. Again, you will see, a heavy burden is imposed in many cases. Certain Statutes and old penal laws, though they have become obsolete for other purposes, still declare gifts to orders to be gifts for a "superstitious use."
It has been argued in some cases that the question of superstitious use is also dead, obsolete and of no effect; but that is not the case. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, in the judgment to which I have already referred, while it is true that he adjudged gifts I for Masses not to be for superstitious use, did say: "That is not to say there are now no superstitious uses or that no gifts for any religious purpose can be invalid." In the same case Lord Wrenbury used these words—
"I may say, however, that the Statute 23 and 24 Vic. Cap. 134, does in my opinion recognise and affirm that there are tenets of the Roman Catholic religion which are superstitious and trusts which are superstitious are not lawful heritable trusts."
I therefore hope that in the few words which I have uttered so far as I have gone I have been able to show to your Lordships that we are under distinct disability and that it is not accurate or correct to say that we do not want legal relief therefrom.
What we ask is that the illegality of religious orders may be done away with. We ask that all provisions which exclude them from the benefits of the Roman Catholic Charity Acts and which make gifts to them gifts which are regarded by the law as given for a "superstitious use," should be removed, and that those orders should be put on

1489
an equal footing with all other religious bodies in this respect. We ask for no privilege. We are not asking for anything new to be given to them which does not already appertain to other religious bodies. I venture to remind your Lordships that these religious orders at the time of the War gave their full share to the work of chaplains during that conflict and you have only to ask their padre comrades of the Church of England to realise that they did their work with zeal, courage and devotion. I would also ask you to remember that many of these orders run schools—high class schools like our own great public schools in England, as well as schools for the middle classes and the poorer classes—and if your Lordships could see the figures you would realise that those schools turned out boys who gave their lives in the War in full proportion to those turned out by our great public schools. Is it asking too much to ask that they should be relieved from these disabilities?
I should like to assume for the sake of argument that it is accurate to say that all these Statutes are obsolete and of no effect whatever. I have shown that that is not the case, but I will assume that they are obsolete. After all, our religious convictions to us, as are yours to your Lordships, are very sacred things, and it is offensive to us that there should be on the Statute Book expressions which are offensive to our religion and the retention of which, as we now understand, is of no use and the removal of which will do no harm to anybody. If any friend of mine regards me as being superstitious he is, of course, quite within his right to hold that opinion, but is that any argument why his opinion should continue to be embodied in a so-called obsolete Act of Parliament?
I do not know that I need say anything more except on the Bill itself. I should like just to run through the clauses. Clause 1 speaks for itself. Clause 2 is, I believe, pure surplusage. It was put in on purpose by the promoters of the Bill in Grand Committee upstairs so as to make clear that we had no wish whatever or intention to interfere with the question of processions in this country. This Bill does not affect the question of processions at all. Whatever the law
1490
may be now with regard to processions it will be the same if and when this Bill passes. An attempt was made in the other House to bring in an Amendment dealing with processions and Mr. Speaker ruled it out of order. These are his words:
"The next Amendment, I am afraid, is not in order. It is outside the scope of the clause, and I think also would have been outside the scope of the Bill as a whole."
Still, Clause 2 was put in as a bona fide attempt to prove to everybody that we did not, in any item at all, wish to make any change in the law as regards processions. Indirectly there is a change, because, if your Lordships grant us this Bill, a Roman Catholic priest will be relieved from the possibility of a penalty if he attends processions in his canonicals. Under the law as it stands, he is liable on conviction to a line of £50, and we ask that that should be removed. I think that is all it is necessary to say on Clause 2.
Clause 3, I believe, also is really unnecessary, but we are very glad to have it inserted in the Bill, so as to make sure that no change whatever takes place under this Bill with regard to the presentation to livings, benefices and so on. That clause has been inserted in the Bill after full consideration and co-operation with various members of the Church of England, and in another place, I am glad to say, they gave us enormous help. The Bill itself, in fact, was in charge of a member of the Church of England, and this clause was the result of complete agreement between all parties interested in the matter. The last clause reads:—
"This Act may be cited as the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1926, and shall not apply to Northern Ireland."
There is something rather humorous about that, because naturally the Government of Northern Ireland, having a Parliament of their own, do not want this Bill extended to them, and we were only too glad to meet their views. I am not sure, however, that it is necessary, because it may seem strange to your Lordships, but our co-religionists in the North of Ireland already enjoy all the advantages which we are asking you to give us in this country. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, wiped out in regard to Northern Ireland all that by

1491
this Bill we ask your Lordships to wipe out in regard to this country.
I now come to the schedule. The first Act there mentioned is an Act of 1549, which forbids books of Roman Catholic ritual "ever to be kept in this realm." There are some very odd names of books in that Act, books called scrales, others called pies, others called portuyes, and others called cowchers. If I want to have a cowcher—I do not know what it is—may I not be allowed to have it without being troubled by the guilty sense of offending against the law of 1549? We come next to an Act of 1559, which characterises the religious orders as "superstitious," and makes orders illegal bodies unable to enjoy the privileges which other bodies are able to enjoy.
There is also the Act of 1791, which excludes from the benefit of the Act any priest who officiates in any place of worship with a bell and steeple. He can apparently officiate anywhere else, in any church or building which has no bell or steeple. I am afraid that for many years we have seriously offended in that way. I know I have attended service in many churches with bells and steeples. We ask that that absurdity should now be removed. Then we come to the question of funerals. It is illegal now for a priest to attend a funeral. We all die and we must all be buried somewhere and those of my religion want to be buried by a priest. The result is that the priest is exposed to the dangers and penalties of the law, if they were enforced, and we ask that that disability should be removed. Another section of the same Act provides that nothing in the Act shall make it lawful to establish a society of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion and that all uses, trusts and dispositions which would have been deemed superstitious and unlawful before the date of the Act should continue to be so deemed.
Then we come to what is generally known as the Catholic Emancipation Act. Section 26 enacts that if any priest exercises any of the rites of the Roman Catholic religion or wears the habits of his order save within the usual place of worship of the Roman Catholic
1492
religion or private house he shall forfeit £50 for each such offence. Section 28 provides that members of religious orders must register with the clerk of the peace of the county and forfeit £50 for every month during which they remain in the United Kingdom without having so registered. Section 29 provides that any member of a religious order coming into this realm is to be banished for the term of his natural life. Section 30 permits any such persons being natural-born subjects to return to this Kingdom provided they register under Section 28, and the next section enables the Secretary of State to grant licences to such persons to remain in the United Kingdom for not more than six months. Section 32 provides for an annual return of such licences. Under Section 33 any such person who admits any other person to become a member of a religious order is guilty of a misdemeanour. Section 34 provides that any person so admitted shall be sentenced to banishment for life. Section 35 provides for the deportation of a banished person not departing within thirty days after sentence. Section 36 provides that any person sentenced to be banished and found at large after the end of three months shall be transported for life. Two later Acts, the Roman Catholic Charities Act, 1832, and the Roman Catholic Charities Act, 1860, continue the provisions of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1829, respecting the suppression of the religious orders.
May I say in conclusion that when this Bill reached its last stages in another place the comparatively small minority who were opposing it most generously gave way and allowed the Bill to come up to your Lordships' House without dividing against it; therefore it has come up to your Lordships with unanimity. I venture to express a hope that your Lordships will equally be unanimous in your reception of this Bill so that it may go forth from this Parliament as a message of peace and goodwill not only to my co-religionists in this country, whom it directly affects, but also to those millions of Catholics throughout the Empire who will be only too grateful to accept such a message.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount FitzAlan of Derwent.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope you will give a Second Reading to this Bill. The noble Viscount has stated the facts respecting it with characteristic clearness, reasonableness and courtesy. I will not follow him into the legal questions with which he began his speech respecting the working of the law about charities. I have neither the general knowledge nor the detailed legal experience which would enable me to judge about it. I am certain that we should all wish to remove any restrictions, if such there be, which hamper Roman Catholic charities on account of the faith of the beneficiaries or of their membership in a religious order.
I think it may plausibly be argued—I do not so argue—that not much was or is to be gained by legislating for the removal of existing provisions or restrictions which are practically inoperative. Once the principle of freedom of public religious worship has been conceded, as it happily has, no one to-day would think of contending for the retention of such detailed and even petty restrictions of that freedom, as for example, that no priest shall officiate in a church with a steeple or bell, or at any funeral outside, or wear in the open air the habit of his order. I imagine there is no one in England who would now suggest that those rules ought to be put into practice. They have long been dead. It is not difficult to follow the history of how they originally came into being. The conditions are entirely changed and I hope they will disappear from the Statute Book.
On the other hand I think I perfectly understand the feeling to which Lord FitzAlan has given eloquent and pointed expression. It is natural that the members of a great religious community should resent the fact that there are certain normal practices of their religious life which everybody agrees that they should perform and which nevertheless are still, according to strict Statute law, illegal. I suppose your Lordships will agree that on general principles it is an eminently harmful thing that laws should exist and should be by common consent disobeyed. That does harm in many directions. Law as law is a sacred thing. We ought not to tamper with it, and if our Roman Catholic friends desire
1494
to do so they can, I think, rightly and reasonably claim that an amending Statute should be passed to set them free from these anomalies even if the restrictions exist only in Statutes hard, as the records of these debates show, even to discover, and some of them certainly not in common circulation or brought to the notice of ordinary people. I for one am entirely ready to meet the wishes of my Roman Catholic friends in that respect.
I feel bound at the same time to emphasise that there still remain what the noble Lord himself, I think, alluded to and what can rightly and truly be called disabilities of a certain sort. The foremost instance is, of course, the Act of Succession. Nobody has ever whispered any desire to change its provisions. A Roman Catholic cannot sit upon the Woolsack. The. Woolsack has great duties to discharge towards the Church as well as the State and the Law Courts, and, in ancient phrase, he is the keeper of the King's conscience. We enact at present that the office cannot be held by a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Again, I think it is indisputably right that one who is a Roman Catholic and holds what we call the patronage of livings in the Church of England should be bound to leave to others actually as well as nominally the decision about each appointment.
If it be asked why we need retain these disabilities or any disabilities at all and why we should not make a clean sweep of the whole thing, as one or two people have suggested in the course of these debates, the answer lies in the history of England. The last, thing I wish is to say a single unkind or discourteous word, but we cannot obliterate from our history or from memory occasions when what I would venture to call the spirit of the Papacy has threatened our liberties. Further, it must be said that even in the present attitude of that great communion there is sometimes evidence of the persistence on the part of its ecclesiastical chiefs of a spirit or a system which is out of touch with our normal and characteristic English spirit in Church and State. While that system persists the reason for retaining some safeguards is not far to find. Happily in the Bill before us the abolition of these restrictions is not even

1495
suggested. What the Bill does effect is the removal of anomalies which no longer correspond to the facts of present-day life, and I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount said in this respect. I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I desire most heartily to support the Second Reading of this Bill and I re-echo the hope of the noble Viscount who moved it that there may be a unanimous expression of opinion in that direction in this House as there was in the concluding stages in another place. The most rev. Primate has already expressed a view with which I entirely agree about the omission from this Bill of any reference to the topics to which he has himself referred and, therefore, I do not desire to refer to them again. But I think it is a mistake to retain upon our Statute book Statutes which are said to be obsolete but which from time to time may be referred to as though they were still operative for certain legal purposes. I have looked very carefully through the schedule of these Statutes and the reference to them in the Memorandum and I am entirely in accord with the view put forward by the noble Viscount opposite.
The main point which strikes me is that no great Christian community ought at this stage to be put under any special disabilities and that all Christian communities ought to rejoice in thinking that the main test is sincerity, and sincerity is best obtained not in attempting to get a rigid uniformity but in recognising that faith and Christian hope can be expressed under different terms and in different ways. The only other point about which I wish to say a word is the case of Bourne versus Keene. I see the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, is now in his place. I had the honour on that occasion of taking part in the decision when the noble Earl was Lord Chancellor, and my recollection is that that decision dealt especially with what is known as superstitious uses and particularly with the fact that legacies left for Roman Catholic charities should not be curbed but should have full liberty. My recollection is that that is the chief point. I sent for the book, but I am sorry to say that I have left my glasses at home. However, I entirely agree that the decision does not go the
1496
length for which the remission of these old Statutes is sought in this Bill; but the spirit, the motive, and the underlying current of thought are much the same in both cases.
I do not want to repeat myself beyond saying that I believe all those with whom I act in political life are agreed that this Bill should be passed and all are in substantial if not in actual agreement—I am in actual agreement—with the very words and phrases used by the noble Viscount on behalf of his own religious community in presenting this Bill for Second Reading in your Lordships' House. I heartily hope that a Second Reading may be unanimously given.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NAVAL RESERVE (OFFICERS) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BLIND PERSONS FACILITIES) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
CLAUSE 2.—Definition.
(2) In the application of this section to Scotland "county borough" has the same meaning as in the Blind Persons Act, 1920.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND) moved to insert at the end of subsection (2): "and the expenses incurred by a county or town council under this Act shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses under the said Act." The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has already approved of it, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, at end insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill to provide for the more adequate housing of rural workers. As your Lordships are aware, various measures have been introduced by successive Parliaments to meet the shortage of housing all over the country, but statistics show that rural workers have, on the whole, profited less than their colleagues in the towns. The reasons for that, I think, are fairly obvious. Firstly, the cost of building in isolated country villages is much higher compared with the cost of building blocks of houses in towns and there is also a possibility of owners of houses in towns charging a rent which bears some economic relationship to the cost of the building, whereas, even with a subsidy, it is very difficult in an agricultural area to do this. Therefore, on statistical grounds alone, think it can be proved that rural areas do require a little extra attention. Apart from this, as has been admitted by Parliament, it is unreasonable and impracticable to expect a man to take £400 out of a gilt-edged investment earning £20 a year in order to invest it in a cottage from which he may expect in rural areas to get only £8 a year, exclusive of rates. Surely it is equally unreasonable to expect a man to invest £100 or £1,000 in improving rural cottages from which, as your Lordships are well aware, he can very often expect to obtain nothing at all.
It is in order to prevent many of these cottages falling into decay and becoming uninhabitable by reason of this very simple economic law and also in order to render habitable many cottages that are at present insanitary, at a time when habitable cottages are very necessary, that the Government have taken what seems to be a perfectly logical and economically justifiable course of extending to cottage improvements the same kind of facilities that have been already applied to cottage construction. I know that in normal times subsidies are undoubtedly wrong, but we all know that times are not normal. This scheme has the advantage of securing benefits to rural workers at a much cheaper proportionate rate to the public than under previous Housing Acts, and particularly the 1924 Act. I would point
1498
out that this Bill is designed to operate through private enterprise and has been, therefore, criticised in another place by some supporters of noble Lords opposite, who seem to have an idea that no owner of property will ever do anything unless he is compelled to do so by law. In regard to that may I observe that there are at present many sanitary authorities who could exercise their statutory powers of compelling landlords to effect certain improvements if they thought the landlords could reasonably be expected to meet the expenditure thereby entailed and this Bill will undoubtedly put sanitary authorities in a stronger position in this respect. The cases I am referring to are not so much those of repairs as drainage and other schemes which your Lordships know much better than I do.
The idea of this scheme is really quite simple. It is designed to enable local authorities to make grants to owners for the carrying out of certain improvements which will have to be previously specified and approved by them. The cost of half these grants is to be borne by the State. There are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the whole of the benefits shall go, not to land owners but to agricultural labourers, and also that those improvements shall be substantial ones, and that in other ways abuses shall not arise. If your Lordships will turn to the Bill you will see that by Clause 1 local authorities may (and if so required by the Minister shall) submit to the Ministry of Health a kind of estimate setting out the sort of requirements their districts are likely to need. These estimates will form the basis of what I might describe as a prospectus to be circulated or published for the benefit and information of the owners. These schemes must indicate the type of case for which assistance will be given by specifying the value of the works after completion. Your Lordships will see from a later clause that no assistance can be given where the value of these houses after improvement exceeds £400. The schemes must also specify the nature of the works which local authorities wish to render eligible for assistance. The types of improvement contemplated under this Bill are the addition of a further bedroom, the conversion of two back to back cottages into one good cottage, the raising of the roof, the provision of damp courses or larder, or the conversion into

1499
a dwelling-house of a building which has not hitherto been used as such. Works of ordinary repair are expressly excluded except in so far as they are incidental to or connected with works falling within the scope of the scheme. The scheme must also lay down a time limit for carrying out the work after approval by the local authority.
In Clause 2 the powers of the local authority to give assistance are defined As your Lordships see the grants may be made either in a lump sum or by contributions over a period, and loans may also be made. You will also see that the value of the cottage when completed may not exceed £400. There are also limitations in regard to the amount of the subsidy. Assistance cannot be given where the estimated cost of works is less than £50. The object of this is to assist in the carrying out of fairly substantial works which will ensure good re-conditioned cottages. It is not desired to fritter away the money in carrying out what might be described as small repairs or patches. There is a special provision in regard to cases in which it is desirable to make an improvement affecting more than one cottage where the cost will be less than £50 per cottage The type of case which is contemplated under this proviso relates to the water supply or better means of sanitation. The local authorities must be satisfied in any case that the reconstructed building will be a satisfactory house and they have full discretion to refuse assistance where they think fit.
As regards grants, your Lordships will see that they may not amount to more than two-thirds of the estimated cost as approved by the local authority and are subject to a maximum of £100 per house. Then there is the breach clause. These loans or grants are repayable with compound interest in the event of any breach of the conditions imposed by the Bill. The local authority may in certain circumstances, with the consent of the Minister, waive these conditions. In addition to grants, loans may be made, as I previously mentioned, up to 90 per cent of the value of the dwelling after completion of the work, and advances up to 50 per cent. of the value of the work done may be made during the progress of the work. Then follow certain details regarding the
1500
manner in which owners' applications are to be entertained and also the method whereby payments are to be made to them. I think that matter is fairly simple.
In Clause 3 the conditions are defined which are to be imposed on any house for which assistance is given by way of grants or loans. Your Lordships will see that assistance is to be given only for a period of 20 years. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) contains a definition of the type of person who is to occupy these cottages during this period. The owner of the cottage is to be included as well as the rural worker tenant. There is an interesting proviso which enables an agricultural labourer who has risen in his employer's service to some other post to remain in occupation of a dwelling to which this Bill applies. In paragraph (b) of the same subsection there is a special provision regarding the rent. The rent is not to exceed the normal agricultural rent for the district subject to an extra allowance equal to 3 per cent, of the amount expended on the improvement by the owner out of his own pocket. If an owner takes money from investments bearing 5 per cent. and puts it into improvements on which he can only by law get 3 per cent it will be seen it can never be a particularly profitable transaction for him. There is a definition of what the normal agricultural rent is to be and how it is to be calculated.
In paragraph (c) there is an instruction that the owner is from time to time to give the local authority a certificate regarding the safeguards as to occupation and as to rent. He has to show that these conditions are being fulfilled. There is also a provision enabling the local authority to obtain an injunction regarding any breach of conditions in such matters. Special provision is made enabling the owner, with the consent of the Minister and the local authority, to repay to the local authority at any time during the twenty years the amount of the grant received with compound interest. Thereupon the house will be released from the conditions. That gives a certain elasticity to local authorities in the direction of allowing them to give permission to landlords to sell.
Clause 4 deals with Exchequer contributions to local authorities. These will

1501
be made by annual payments for twenty years equal to half of the estimated average loan charges falling to be borne by the local authority. Clause 5, which has given rise to a certain amount of controversy in another place, defines local authorities for the purposes of the scheme. It has been decided that the local authorities shall be the county councils and the county borough councils, although the Minister may, after consultation with the county council, agree to a district council becoming a local authority for the purposes of this scheme. This has been discussed at some length and as it is really a Committee point I need not dwell on it now. Clause 6 provides that a person who receives assistance under this Bill is not to be disqualified from being a member of a local authority or any committee thereof. It was thought fair to put this in as it is impossible for any owner to make any profit out of this Bill at least for a generation and even then his chances are very small. There is a further provision prohibiting a member of a local authority or of any committee thereof voting on any question in relation to any house in which he is personally beneficially interested. That is to say, he can vote on questions relating to other houses in his district but he cannot vote on questions relating to houses in which he is likely to be beneficially interested.
Certain criticisms have been levelled against this Bill on which I really need not touch at the present time except to say that it has been suggested that public funds are being utilised by this Bill to subsidise landlords. I must confess I have seen remarkably little reference to the extent to which rural landlords have subsidised the public during the past few years. All I can say in answer to that criticism is that this is a Bill to provide more adequate housing facilities for rural workers. I think the degree to which this object will be attained and the cheapness with which it will be attained do merit a certain priority of attention. I do not suggest that this is a very startling Bill, or one which will completely solve the housing problem in rural areas, but I submit the Bill can do nothing but good and that this good, for a whole generation at any rate, will be limited entirely to the benefit of the agricultural labourers, who I think are a most deserving class. I further submit
1502
that the safeguards against abuses are sufficient and that the results will be obtained with a minimum of cost to the public. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that His Majesty's Government are to be congratulated upon their selection of a spokesman to present this Bill to your Lordships' House, not only because of the complete lucidity and capability with which the provisions of the Bill have been explained to us, but also because the noble Viscount, if he will allow me to say so, is one of those fortunate persons whose personality indicates transparent integrity and complete public spirit. If this Bill had been brought before your Lordships' House by some person who had been all his life acquainted with rural housing conditions and the mariner in which they might be best amended—such, for instance, as my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture—or if I had had to bring forward such a Bill, I could not have described it with quite so much undiluted enthusiasm and belief as so obviously inspired the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading.
We on this side of the House recognise that the Bill, in so far as it aims at providing proper and decent housing for the agricultural classes in this country, is long overdue and we are thoroughly in sympathy with it. We do not object to the general principle of the Bill, and, although part of this measure provides that assistance should be given by loans, I am not going to deal except very superficially with that, part of the question. But we do object, upon grounds which, if your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to go into rather closely, to the provision in regard to grants to be made under this Bill. Broadly speaking, I am going to indicate that the objections that we have to them are such as have been adumbrated by the noble Viscount. First of all he said that we might object as a general principle to the making of grants out of the public taxes to the owners of property in aid of their property. That is so; and we also feel, as was almost admitted by the

1503
noble Viscount, that the operation of this Bill will really benefit only agricultural landowners and agricultural labourers who occupy the cottages of those agricultural landowners.
This matter of rural housing is one in which I happen to have taken a great interest all my life. I have lived in various parts of the country and observed rural housing conditions in two or three Counties—in Wiltshire, Hampshire and, of recent years, in North Oxfordshire. I am going to speak of the actual concrete conditions in North Oxfordshire, with which I am extremely familiar. There we have a large number of cottages that were built some time in the eighteenth century. They were excellent cottages when they were built, but now they are falling into disrepair. In the district with which I am most familiar we have not many tied cottages belonging to agricultural landowners or farmers. Perhaps the majority of the cottages belong to small people, and it is especially these cottages, which are at present in great demand, that have become ruinous, out of repair and unfit for human habitation.
I see that one of the provisions of the Bill is that the grants are not to be made for repairs. I want a little interpretation on that point, because what is wrong with most of these cottages is, first of all, that the roof has begun to fall down. These are old stone-built cottages, generally with walls 21 inches thick and a gable about a pole wide, and they generally have four or five rooms. The roofs are stone-tiled all over North Oxfordshire—no doubt the noble Viscount is perfectly familiar with that region—originally built with heavy oak beams and oak laths and, if they were kept in repair, they would last for a great many years. Everyone is supposed, I think, to keep his own roof in repair, so that if the roof has fallen in owing to lack of repairs I want to know whether the provisions of a new roof will be sanctioned under the terms of the Bill.
In many cases, of course, no amount of repair will keep these roofs in order because, like the roof of Westminster Hall, after two hundred years the worms have eaten up the beams, the walls of the cottages have been thrust out, water has come in and ruined the floors, the windows have fallen into disrepair
1504
and the cottages are beginning to fall down. Long before they actually fall down they become unfit for human habitation. The great majority of that kind of cottage, which is really in great demand for the housing of the rural population, belong to the occupier, in many cases an old widowed woman, or to the descendants of people who have been better-to-do. In many cases they belong to small investors, and a number of cottages in my own and adjacent villages belong to the heirs of someone who owned a village shop or a small business in adjoining country towns, such as Witney. These people have bought cottages and times have become harder and they have not been able to keep them up.
With regard to these grants, I think the noble Viscount will see that, where £40 and £50 is needed to put a roof back into condition, none of these small people are going to spend £16 or £20 of their own money on it. They will not expend their own money at a return of only 3 per cent. Consequently this Bill does not help in that respect. They will not spend their own part of the money because they cannot do it. Many of these cottages are falling into ruin and are occupied by very poor people, some of whom are what are called bad tenants. In that case we have this vicious circle: The tenant says: "I will not pay my rent because you will not mend my house"; and the owner says: "I will not mend your house because you will not pay your rent"; and so the thing goes on from bad to worse. That is constantly happening. Then the local authority steps in and condemns these cottages. It has repeatedly condemned dozens of them, but the people go on living in them because the local authorities feel that they cannot turn these people out into the workhouse or elsewhere. Where are these people to go? They cannot pay a higher rent. Most of the cottages are rented at £4 a year, or 1s. 6d a week, and some at £5 a year, or 2s a week. Accordingly, in the four or five villages in my neighbourhood, you have families living year after year in cottages that were condemned a dozen years ago, because they have nowhere else to go.
If I were asked my own policy in regard to this, I should say that when the

1505
local authority has repeatedly condemned a house as unfit for habitation, then, if the owner does not put it in order, the house should be forfeited, taken possession of by the local authority and put into a condition of repair so long as the present inhabitants have the privileges of the Rent Restrictions Acts allowed to them, and pay the agricultural rent. When those tenants go out the local authority should be able to sell the cottages, as they perfectly well can, or let them at a proper economic rent. By that means, if the local authority were authorised to acquire these cottages, to condition them and carry them on, you could redress these conditions. But under the present Bill these small owners and owner-occupiers will not, so far as can judge from the part of the country that I know, be enabled to put their cottages into repair.
The only thing that could possibly result in their being put into repair would be for some small local builder to buy them, put them into repair and re-let them. But such a builder could not get a grant under this Bill because he could not re-let except at such a rent as is now being paid by the worker of the agricultural class, which, as I have told your Lordships, is £4 or£5 a year. Consequently the small local builder cannot take these cottages in hand under this Bill. I am not quite sure whether he will be able to take any of them over under the loan provisions of the Bill, because I do not know whether the provisions in regard to loans entail the same restriction to an agricultural rent as the provisions in regard to grants. So far as I can judge from the Bill they do not, but perhaps the noble Viscount will make that clear. Nobody who repairs a cottage with a grant under this Bill can let it at more than an agricultural rent of £4 a year, or £4 12s, a year if £20 had been spent upon it.
There is a very great demand in all the district round about Oxford, and I dare say round about other progressive towns, for cottages for workers, who, unfortunately, have to go in and out of the town for their work. We live fourteen miles from Oxford, and from the villages all round about scores of men go every day into Oxford on motor bicycles and in lorries to their work at the motor works there. They have to come out to these
1506
wretched cottages, for which they pay 17 s. and 18 s, a week rent. There is really a demand at economic rents for cottages, if those cottages can be properly conditioned. In some cases the small holders have succeeded in evicting the tenants on the pretence of wanting the cottages for members of their family. Then, the member of the family having said he did not want the cottage, the owner has reconditioned it and let it to town workers, who pay more than what is called an agricultural labourer's rent.
Apart from those provisions of the Bill which I do not think will operate at all in aid of the ordinary small householder or small house owner in that part of the country, the Bill can be used by agricultural landowners and farmers for the improvement of the cottages in which their agricultural labourers are living. That is a part of the Bill to which, for reasons which I will state, we object. If the benefits of the Bill are to be restricted to that, although we should all agree that it is a good thing that labourers' cottages should be improved, we do object that you are granting out of public funds a, subsidy and assistance to the owners of agricultural house property, to establish and perpetuate what we call the tied cottage system, under which the owner has cottages which he lets at less than an economic rent—1s. 6d. per week—and which he so lets not as an economic investment, but because he wants the labour of those agricultural labourers for carrying on the work of his estate.
I am not one of those who, for a moment, suppose that you can prohibit all tied cottages, but I am prepared to say this distinctly, that where you have the institution of the tied cottage it ought to be let at a fair economic rent, that the rent of the cottage should be provided for out of the agricultural wages of the labourer, and that the owner of those cottages should not be able to get what is really a subsidy out of public funds in aid of wages, in this indirect manner. He is enabled to repair his cottages and to continue to let them at 1s. 6d. per week because he is going to get a grant or subsidy out of public funds. We, as a Party, say that wherever property is not properly equipped for human habitation it is the duty of the owner to keep and maintain

1507
it in proper repair out of the proceeds of his estate, and not out of public funds, and that if the public has to intervene to put private property into repair, then the public should remain and continue to be the landlord, and let it at an economic rent. Those are my criticisms on that part of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord has followed them.
With regard to the safeguarding provisions of the Bill I do not think that much is to be said, except that anybody who has to administer the Bill will be appalled at the number of restrictions and safeguards which there are, and at the number of pettifogging charges which any transaction is likely to impose. The provision with regard to loans seems to me to be substantially fair and reasonable, but I rather want to know whether under the loans provision there is any limitation on the economic rent that may be charged. I see that the rate to be charged by the local authority is to be a prescribed rate, and I see that in the definition clause the expression "prescribed" means "prescribed by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury." Then I see, also, that the Treasury is going to bear one-half of the estimated average annual payments falling to be made by the local authority in respect of the charges on account of loans raised by the authority, and I suppose those charges include a sinking fund if the money is got from the Public Works Loans Commissioners, and the final expenses of the loan. That is to say, the Treasury is going to refund one-half of all those charges.
Now, when the local authority is making its loan to the undertaker of the repairs, I presume he is to have the benefit of the whole of that one-half reduction, so, assuming that the charges for these expenses are at a rate of six per cent, he would be paying, I suppose, on an average, three per cent. He still would be getting a certain amount of subsidy out of public funds, but I do not altogether object to that, so long as he is paying something, and public interest is maintained in the property by the form of mortgage. It would not be an absolute endowment, and I do not object to the State providing money for the repair at a low rate of interest. I should, however, like to have information from the noble
1508
Lord upon the point whether the rate to be charged to the undertaker is to be just one-half of the cost to the local authority. I have no desire to criticise the Bill in its main purposes, but I think that so far as the grants go it is quite inadequate for dealing with the situation, which can only be dealt with in the manner which, from time to time, has been advocated—namely, that when the local authorities deal with insanitary property they should take it over. Our objection to the Bill is that it is inadequate, and that where it is adequate it will allow the owners of tied cottages to repair their property out of public funds, and to do things which should be done out of the owner's private estate. We do not propose to oppose the Bill on its Second Reading, but when it goes into Committee we shall, I think, have some Amendments to move in respect of that portion of the Bill which deals with grants.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, so far as those who sit on this side are concerned we welcome this Bill in all respects but one, and that is that it does not, perhaps, go far enough. I am rather inclined to think that to some extent it is a shop window Bill, but, unlike noble Lords on the Labour Benches, we have no reason to complain of the Bill and have no reason for obstructing its passage through the House, all the more because, at this time of the Session, if any serious Amendments were made it might be very difficult to secure the passage of the Bill.
I notice that this Bill is not restricted entirely to agricultural labourers, and that it applies also to "persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers." That provision is of great advantage, because under it would come cases like that of an agricultural labourer's widow, and other small occupiers of that kind. As regards Clause 2, I am rather sorry that the suggestion made in another place to increase the limit of value of houses to which the Bill applies from £400 to £500 was not accepted, because, certainly in a large part of the country, at present £400 is rather a small figure. Then again, I am a little doubtful whether it would not have been better, in the case of that provision which excludes works costing less than £50 from the benefits of the Bill, if an option had been left to the local authority,

1509
or possibly the Ministry. I think in a matter of this sort it would have been better to allow a little more freedom, both as regards the capital sum of £400 and the £50 minimum for repairs and alterations.
Clause 2 is very long and complicated. It covers practically three pages of the Bill. I wish the Government had introduced the Bill in a less complicated form, because it will have to be administered by small local authorities. I imagine that as a rule county councils will not themselves operate it, but will take advantage of the provision which enables them to delegate the duties to the "county districts," as they are here described. I do not quite understand the meaning of the term "county districts"; I suppose it means a rural district council or urban district council, for I cannot imagine that the Government means to create some new kind of county district.
I observe that subsection (4) (c) refers to the compound interest payable on a grant in the event of a breach in the conditions under the Act. It practically means that any man who gets a small subsidy for putting his house into better condition—a subsidy which cannot exceed £100—will for twenty years be very restricted indeed in his use of that house. I am very doubtful whether on an ordinary estate a man would be ready to tie up himself and his successors foe twenty years, as regards the use of that particular house. It may be said that there are small people who would be willing to do that, but I think in the case of a small owner it is even more doubtful, because, if he dies it will probably be necessary to sell the house to provide for his widow and children. Of course, I shall be told by the noble Viscount: "Yes, but you can pay the money at compound interest for the term that you have it." That might be easy for some people to do, but it is very doubtful whether the ordinary landowner will wish to avail himself of this opportunity, in view of the restrictions in the Bill. In the case of the small man, he also will be under great restrictions, and will find it difficult to borrow money under this clause. I note that there is no definition of the percentage of the compound interest. The Bill in one place speaks of 3 per cent.; here it may be
1510
5 per cent., and if it is, there would be a very large sum to repay at compound interest. It would make people rather shy of making application for the subsidy.
As to the Government contribution towards expenses, it is not indicated what those expenses are likely to be, or what amount the Ministry is likely to give, but I hope that in all matters of that sort the Ministry will take a liberal view, and not put the local authorities to any expense in administering the Act. I am sure the noble Viscount is aware that, owing to present conditions, and especially as a result of the strike organised by the Labour Party, the rates in some places are simply enormous, and it is very desirable that the cost falling on the rates should be as small as possible. Owing to the restrictions in the. Bill we think that its provisions may not be availed of as much as they ought to be, but we will give all assistance in our power to pass it into law, and we shall not move any Amendments to the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord should say that the Party to which I belong desires to obstruct this Bill, and still more that he interpreted the speech of my noble friend Lord Olivier in the way that he did. I think these taunts flung by one political Party at onother are extremely futile and uninteresting. As I understand from the noble Lord, he himself regards this as a cumbrous Bill, which undoubtedly it is, and he hopes that some Amendments may be made in order to make certain points clearer and thus enable the Bill to come into more general operation. I have had a good deal of practical experience of these matters in my part of the country. I look at this Bill entirely from one point of view. Is it likely substantially to improve the housing conditions in the country districts, and particularly of the agricultural labourer? That is the foundation of all improvement in the position of the agricultural labourer. He wants better housing, and the question is: Will he get it under the terms of this Bill? If he can get it (I am only speaking for myself) I should willingly put on one side all minor points in order to support to the utmost of my power what I consider a great social improvement of that character.

1511
At the present time I am directly connected with something like ninety cottages, which, of course, are a source of considerable loss every year. That is an experience familiar to everybody who takes the slightest trouble to bring his cottage property up to a decent and respectable level. Lord Olivier has referred to the cases of cottages held as a local investment by small investors. That is a very important factor in many parts of the country. Where I live there are a great many commons, and the squatters on the commons certainly constructed the most terrible hovels in the old days, but they are there in freehold possession. How can that be dealt with under the terms of the Bill as it stands? I agree with Lord Olivier that if you were to put into operation the principle that in sanitary dwellings are not to be allowed to continue, and that the owners of insanitary dwellings should have no advantage from them, that would be right. But I have looked at this Bill very carefully, and I cannot see any possibility, within its provisions, of the poor investor, the small man, being induced to make any improvement at all. In fact, he cannot do it. We often discuss the question of subsidies. I will not go into that, but evils of this sort must be put right by public money because there is no other money to which recourse can be had. That is one point in which this Bill, I think, is insufficient. It will leave untouched what is the greatest abuse in the country as I know it—the condition of cottages held by poor investors who under present conditions are unable to spend any money either in improving or keeping those cottages in repair.
The other point has regard to the grants to landowners. My view is that a landowner has a social duty to do what he can to keep his rural cottages in repair. No one can approach this question for a moment as though it was an economic proposition. It is impossible to do so. It is not the difference between 3 per cent and 5 per cent or whatever it is. There is no percentage at all. If you are to give these cottagers the convenience which I think ought to be given to enable them to live under decent conditions there is no return at all. I cannot imagine anyone with property in the country coming to any other conclusion
1512
—whether he does so or not is another matter—than that it is a social duty and not an economic matter at all. It lies with him to keep the cottages in proper order and to make such improvements as are necessary to bring them up to modern requirements. In some cases the 3 per cent. or 5 per cent. may make some difference, though I doubt it very much indeed.
One other point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Olivier struck me very much because there is rather a difference between the system in this country and that in some foreign countries. My noble friend mentioned the case, I think, of labourers who lived fourteen miles from Oxford and went to work at Morris's motor works. I do not care what the name is, let us call it, by any name. I think we shall have to face the fact in this country that in the circumstances there will have to be an obligation on people who employ labour to provide adequate, up-to-date and decent accommodation for their working people. I know it is done to some extent already. There is no use in blaming people because you never get any result from that. But where is the obligation, apart from that referred to by the noble Lord? The primary obligation is upon the employer, and as a matter of justice and equity it should be placed upon him in the first instance.
I wish to repudiate entirely the sort of criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has applied particularly to the part of the country to which I belong. We simply want a great social evil of this kind rectified and we do not think that this Bill will do much. So far as it does anything I shall certainly heartily support it; but I think the question will have to be dealt with from a wider and more public point of view, particularly now that large works are being erected in country districts. Those who erect such works must take it as part of the cost of production, so to say, and of the position which they hold to provide decent, up-to-date, wholesome accommodation for the working people they employ. We shall certainly do what we can on this side to further this Bill. Any Amendments we may think necessary will be entirely in that direction and I hope the noble Viscount will regard from that point of view any suggestions we may make.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to this very interesting debate. I listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill and I should like to add my congratulation's to those already offered on the way in which he performed his task. I was very pleased to hear from the Labour Benches that they blessed the Bill to a certain extent, for the reason that they hoped it would be of some use in the open villages where cottages are owned by small shop-keepers who are sometimes in indigent circumstances. I think the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, will agree with me that the houses in those villages are worse than in villages owned by the ordinary agricultural landlord.
May I say a word for the agricultural landlord especially as the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, spoke of the landlord's social obligations? I honestly think that the great landlords of England have acted very well and very nobly and that they recognise their obligations. I was Chairman of the Royal Commission on Land in Wales. We sat for three years, we slept in eighty different towns in the Principality and we held a very large number of meetings. I can say with perfect truth as Chairman of that Commission that in no case did we find any serious cause for complaint on the big estates in the Principality. All the landlords did their duty nobly and well. There was a great deal to be found fault with and some terrible instances that I need not allude to now, but all those cases were not on the big estates but on the small estates.
Landlords have some little difficulty in these matters and I should like to mention one case. When the Housing Bill was before the House an. Amendment was moved from these Benches to enable tenants for life to grant, in the same way as if they held the fee simple, ten acres of land in every village to the local authority for the purpose of building cottages, in the same way as in urban districts where two acres were allowed for the purpose. I have property in twenty different parishes and I wrote to all the different local authorities and told them I was perfectly ready to hand over ten acres under the Act as agreed. It was taken up, I think, in every case; but in one case in the north of Buckinghamshire
1514
where the cottages are very old, some of them being over 300 years old, about sixteen houses were built on the land in question. And what was the rent of them? Eleven shilling a week. What agricultural labourer could pay such a rent? The result was that all those houses were taken by men working elsewhere in the same way as those referred to by the noble Lord as working in the motor industry in Oxford. The men for whom the land was given and the cottages built remained in the old cottages or cabins for which a rent of 9d., 1s., or 1s. 6d. a week was charged. There is the great difficulty.
Another great difficulty is one that people who live in towns do not altogether understand. I refer to the sort of affection that people in villages have for the cottager in which they were born and bred. I will give your Lordships an instance. Noble Lords may remember in the time of the great Queen Victoria a principal page of the backstairs named Waite, who was an esquire by law. Mr. Waite was a son of an old woodman in a village in the north of the County of Bucks and he went into service as a footman. He remained in Royal service for between thirty and forty years and was the finest specimen of an Englishman in demeanour and appearance it is possible to conceive. When Queen Victoria died he came home and said: "I shall want to go back to the cottage in which I was bred and born and where I wish to die." It was a family house. He went back there and died in the cottage in which he was born and he is buried in the old churchyard of the village he loved so well. The feeling of affection for their cottages is very great and any eviction of a man from his cottage is as much to him as it would be to many of your Lordships to be turned out of one of your own houses.
I dare say the Bill is not a perfect one. I hate the idea of a subsidy, but a subsidy in this case, as was said from the Labour Benches, is really in the interests not of the big landlords like the Duke of Bedford, or the Duke of Buccleuch, or the Duke Northumberland, but is in the interests of the small owners whom it will help to put their cottages in the open villages into a better state of repair until the millennium comes which was foreshadowed by my noble friend Lord

1515
Olivier. Until that time comes we must be content with what we can get. Therefore I most heartily support the Bill.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not think I need reply at any length to the criticisms of the Bill. Two speakers complained that the Bill does not go far enough in helping landlords and two speakers complained that it goes too far. I may take it, therefore, that on the whole it is satisfactory and will do what it sets out to do. I think I may answer the criticisms of the noble Lords, Lord Olivier and Lord Parmoor, by saying at once that this Bill does not, as I stated originally, solve the whole problem in rural districts but simply sets out to help to solve it and I submit it does that. The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, asked several questions. He asked under what category repairs to roofs came. Your Lordships will see by reference to the Bill that the county council is the local authority and is given a wide discretion in these matters. It can suit the conditions to the particular problem which confronts it in the area which it administers. In regard to tied cottages and small owners I am sure we should be very pleased to go very much further if it were possible at the present time. I will not specify how we should deal with the problem of small cottages owned by people who are too poor to carry out improvements even with assistance that could be obtained under this Bill. I would point out to the noble Lord that the Exchequer is extremely poor at the present time, largely owing to the industrial unrest which has prevailed during this year and the Treasury really cannot afford to do anything beyond provide the cheapest form of subsidy.
The point made about the loan is really a Committee point. As the noble Lord is going to raise it in Committee, I will deal with it then and I hope satisfactorily answer his questions. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, state that he supported the Bill. I must point out in answer to the the criticism he made about the valuation, that the £400 valuation is made on a rental basis and not on a possible selling basis. I do not think there was any further Second Reading criticism with which I need deal at the present time. I was very pleased to hear Lord Parmoor promise his support to the Bill
1516
and state that it should be regarded from the aspect primarily of how far it is going to house rural workers. I think that is the main principle to be borne in mind.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, this is a short Bill which has been passed in another place. Its object is to abolish the present statutory requirements in regard to prisons which may be discontinued. It is designed to amend the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, so as to provide that any prison which may fall out of use should not be put up for public auction. An instance has arisen in Edinburgh where the Old Calton prison is discontinued. Your Lordships will agree that it would be very regrettable if it were to fall into the hands of a purchaser who might desire to use it in a way that would be prejudicial to the interests of the City of Edinburgh. This Bill proposes to give power to the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury to dispose of it as may seem fit. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 61]
Clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert ("An order made under this subsection for including any process amongst the processes

1517
specified in Section three hundred and thirty-four of the Act or for excluding any process therefrom may contain conditions and limitations subject to which the inclusion or exclusion is to take effect.")
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Government Amendment. Its object is to empower the Minister to impose conditions and limitations if he includes a process among those which are exempted from the smoke law or if he excludes a process from the exemption. I do not think it is controversial in any way and it seems to be very rational. I beg to move that we agree with the Commons.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 3, line 23, leave out from ("shall") to the end of the clause and add ("as soon as practicable after he has become aware thereof, notify the occupier of the premises on which the nuisance exists, and, if that notification was not in writing, shall, within twenty-four hours after he has become aware of the nuisance, confirm the notification in writing")
Clause 1, page 3, line 28, leave out from ("of") to ("for") in line 29 and insert ("smoke of such colour, density, or content as may be prescribed by the byelaws, and where such byelaws are in force the emission of smoke of the character so prescribed")
Clause 1, page 3, lines 35 to 37, leave out subsection (2).
Clause 5, page 5, line 7, after ("heating") insert ("or cooking")
Clause 5, page 5, line 22, after ("may") insert ("cause an inquiry to be held, and, if satisfied from the result of such inquiry that the local authority have failed to carry out their duties adequately, may")
Clause 5, page 5, line 39, after ("every") insert ("county council or other").
Clause 9, page 6, line 1, leave out from ("ship") to end of clause and insert ("habitually used as a sea-going ship, or affect the enactments in force at the commencement of this Act with respect to smoke nuisance and smoke consumption in any such ship")
Clause 9, page 6, line 6, at end insert the following new clause:
Powers of local authorities to conduct researches.
(".—(1) A local authority may undertake or may combine with other local authorities in undertaking investigations and researches into problems relating to
1518
atmospheric pollution and the abatement of smoke nuisances, and may contribute towards the cost of similar investigations and researches undertaken by other bodies or persons.
(2) The Minister of Health may, for the purposes of this section, make rules prescribing restrictions or conditions subject to which powers conferred by this section may be exercised.")
line 25 leave out ("three") and insert ("four")
line 31, at end insert ("Provided that in the application to London of such other provisions of this Act as aforesaid the Expression 'local authority' shall mean the sanitary authority within the meaning of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, save as otherwise in this Act provided")
line 35, leave out ("January") and insert ("July").
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the remaining Commons Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I hope the House will pardon me offering a few remarks on Third Reading. I was not aware it would come on so late and therefore I will endeavour to be very brief. I must first of all congratulate the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill on the way he has conducted it in this House. It is a highly technical subject and I think he has mastered it extremely well. Though I have not agreed with all he has said I thank him for having met me on some points.
I must remind the House that scientific opinion, outside a number of electricians, is entirely against this Bill. It is, I think, a very bad step in the wrong direction. There are other means of power coming along in the near future which may render the use of electricity over long lines of transmission quite uneconomic. The gas industry has made great strides. From the Ruhr coalmines

1519
the Germans are putting down huge gas mains and using them for conveying gas over long distances for industrial purposes and giving up electricity to a certain extent. There is no loss in the conveyance of gas over long distances whereas there is a great loss in the conveyance of electricity. There are all kinds of new developments in the use of power in other directions, such as by the production of oil from coal, and it may very well be that before long a great portion of this Bill will have been rendered quite unnecessary. There is the problem at the pit mouth whether you are going to gasify or electrify coal. It is quite an open question at the moment whether it will pay to gasify or electrify your coal. We have the fact that in Stafford-shire, where there is the Mond gas industry, electricity has made no headway, nor has it in the district around Manchester, because it really does not pay to use it.
But the greatest argument against the Bill is that no fewer than six great industries will not be affected by it in any way—namely, shipping, coalmining, the railways, the cotton industry, agriculture and road transport. This Bill does not affect them at all. In addition to that, London is out of the scope of the Bill altogether, so it is really rather difficult to see what remains. A certain number of engineering shops will take electricity undoubtedly, but beyond that I do not see much future for the really widespread use of electricity. The cost of transmission is going up day by day although the cost of power is coming down. The cost of cables, standards, the taking up of roads and of labour are all going up and therefore the transmission of electricity is costing more all the time. A sum of £33,000,000 is to be guaranteed by the Treasury but it will only benefit a certain number of trades and I have a very grave doubt whether it will ever pay. As regards the country districts, we know from what the noble Viscount said that it is very unlikely they will get a cheap supply of electricity. As time goes on the small sets which produce electricity in the homes and on the farms of England in the country districts generally, such as the Petter sets from Yeovil, become more efficient, so that it is doubtful whether
1520
electricity from main trunk lines will be of much service. Almost all the members of the younger generation can handle a spanner and mechanics no longer have any terrors for them.
The comparison with the position of electricity in the United States is, I think, erroneous. We shall never approach anything like the low cost of electricity in some other countries, such as that produced at Niagara or the dam over the. Mississippi which produces power at £2 10 s. per horse power year. It is useless to think you can ever rival that low cost of electricity in this country. I will conclude by saying that I deprecate Government interference in the electrical industry. I think it will only lead to trouble and waste of public money. My only hope is that it will do as little harm as possible.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I have really never heard in such a short speech a more melancholy list of prognostications applied to any Bill. I am obliged for the courteous things the noble Lord has said, but. I feel that perhaps he made a mistake in not voting against the Second Reading of the Bill if it is going to have all the terrible results he anticipates. He made an interesting survey of the possibilities of other forms of power being developed. I have never heard of any business moving forward on progressive lines when someone has not got up and said: "Ah, in a few years there will be some fresh development that will make futile everything you are doing." General experience is against that. As new forms of power come in they do not entirely displace old forms of power, but work with them and each assists the other. I remember perfectly well being told a few years ago that electrical cables would be entirely done for and rendered futile by wireless transmission. It has not done so up to the present. Both things are going on side by side. I believe the development of gas and electricity will be complementary, and will not injure each other.
All I would say is that if you are going to produce electricity for Heaven's sake let it he produced in the best and most economical way, get rid of the little patches and produce on a large scale, and produce also, as you will under this

1521
Bill, in touch with the finest scientific knowledge not only here but in Germany and America as well. Whatever other forms of power there may be, surely there can be no reason for not producing electricity under the best advice and subject to the highest scientific knowledge. There is only one other point I would refer to and that is my noble friends statement that you cannot really compare figures here with the figures in the United States, Possibly you cannot, but the way in which I dealt with the figures was that from whatever point of view they were taken, and however you examined them and took different tests, the same result, unfortunately, came out that we are behindhand. We live in a small, compact, highly-industralised island and I do not think any community on the face of the earth, except possibly Belgium, ought to be able to produce electricity more usefully and cheaply than this country with its coalfields near the source of supply. I cannot share the melancholy look into the future of my noble friend Lord Montagu. On the contrary I am much more hopeful. I believe that if this Bill is worked and developed it will give great assistance to British industry and that a great many more forms of British industry will use electricity than do to-day.
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
Clause 1:
Constitution of Central Electricity Board.
(11) Where the chairman or other member of the Board becomes disqualified for holding office or is absent from the meetings of the Board for more than six months consecutively, except for some reason approved by the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Transport shall forthwith declare the office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do not propose to trouble the House with the first two Amendments which I have put on the Paper because I have had an opportunity of consulting with my noble friend Viscount Peel who assures me that the points they deal with are already covered by the Bill. I desire to move, however, in subsection (11) after the first "transport," to insert "or fails to comply with the foregoing provisions of this section." These words were suggested on the Report
1522
stage and the matter was then gone into so thoroughly that I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any observations on them.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, after the first ("Transport") insert ("or fails to comply with the foregoing provisions of this section").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [General powers and duties of Board]:
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("exercise by them on behalf of the Board") and insert ("delegation to them").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Special provisions as to London.
19. Where any obligation to carry out any technical scheme imposed on a joint electricity authority, local authority, company or body by or under the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, or the London Electricity (No. 1) Act, 1925, or the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925, conflicts with any obligation arising out of a scheme under Section four of this Act which is imposed by or, under this Act, on any such authority, company or body, the last mentioned obligation shall prevail.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to add to the clause: "so far as any such technical scheme has not been entered upon." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is proposed in consequence of the clause having been altered upon Report. As it stands at present it puts the London companies in particular in a very difficult position. The clause now gives power for the last-mentioned obligation to prevail. In 1925, as the noble Viscount may be well aware, two Acts of Parliament were passed with agreements scheduled under them, and it was provided that the companies should take steps to centralise their generating resources in one company, and they had also within twelve months to report to the Commissioners on a technical scheme.
All this has been done; the plant has been amalgamated as required, and steps have also been taken in regard to the

1523
generation and the mains; but all this work may be stopped by the Commissioners stepping in, altering the scheme and, in fact, putting an end to it. These people want to know what is to happen during the next few years. Here is a body which is not yet arranged and which cannot begin work for some years. The demands of London are increasing and an extra supply will have to be arranged for in 1927, as the present supply is not sufficient, but all this expenditure may be thrown away and the efforts sterilised, for the whole of the technical scheme can be over-ridden in the manner that is made possible by the clause as it stands at present. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 23, after ("prevail") insert ("so far as any such technical scheme has not been entered upon").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I am advised that this Amendment of my noble friend is not necessary, for I am further informed that these London schemes have not yet come up to the Commissioners for approval, and accordingly nothing has been approved. Let me further point out that when they do come up for approval, the Commissioners also have to frame a scheme, and though theoretically the scheme sent up by the London companies may be in conflict with it, exactly the same body deals with both schemes. I think the matter may therefore fairly be left to the discretion of the Commissioners, who are not likely to approve one scheme and then, immediately afterwards, approve another which is in conflict with it. Being in control of both schemes, I think they may be trusted to act with ordinary reasonableness and secure harmony between the two schemes. In those circumstances I do not think that my noble friend's Amendment is necessary.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the noble Viscount is rather banking on the same Commissioners being there, or on the same Commissioners being alive at the comparatively remote period when this matter comes forward. It is strongly felt that some provision should exist whereby that which is being done during the next few years should continue to stand. If, however, the noble Viscount assures me that he considers this Amendment
1524
unnecessary, I must accept his assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Protection, of Government observatories, &c.]:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Section twenty-six of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, and any enactments incorporated by that section, as amended by Section twenty-five of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919 (which contain provisions for the protection of the Postmaster-General) shall, in their application to the Board, have effect as if references therein to the Postmaster-General included references to any other Government Department."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to safeguard the position of the Admiralty as regards their wireless stations. I apologise to the Admiralty for classing them, as it were, en bloc with "any other Government Department" but my noble friends will see that if I described the position literally I should have to name all the other Government Departments, and so they will acquit me of any want of respect.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 10, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29:
Power to Treasury to guarantee loans to Board.
29.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the Treasury may guarantee in such manner as they think fit, the payment of the interest and principal of any loan proposed to be raised by the Board, or of either the interest or the principal:
Provided that the aggregate amount of the loans, the principal or interest of which may be so guaranteed, shall not exceed thirty-three and a half million pounds.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Danesfort to move, after "manner" in subsection (1), to insert "and subject to such conditions." This is a very simple Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 29, after ("manner") insert ("and subject to such conditions").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39:
Provisions as to companies with large area of supply.
39.—(1) Where after the commencement of this Act a special order is made authorising a company to supply electricity, and the area of supply is, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, adequate in extent, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the right of purchasing their undertaking:—
(c) The purchasing authority—
(i) where the area of supply is situate wholly or mainly within the district of a joint electricity authority, shall be the joint electricity authority: Provided that if the area of supply is situate partly within the district of one joint electricity authority and partly in that of another, the right of purchase shall be exercisable by such one of those authorities, or shall be divisible between them as the Electricity Commissioners may determine;
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (1), after Paragraph (c) (i), to insert:
"(ii) where the area of supply is not situate wholly or mainly within the district of a joint electricity authority but is situate wholly within the district of a single local authority, the right of purchase shall be exercisable by that local authority."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is consequential upon an Amendment that I accepted from my noble friend Lord Askwith. He, I think, was going to move this consequential Amendment on Report, but unfortunately he did not do so, and accordingly he has thrown upon me the burden of moving it on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 33, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for having found out that I ought to have moved something that I did not move, and for putting me right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47:
Supply of electricity to railway companies, etc.
47. Where any authorised undertakers may supply and are supplying within their district or area of supply electricity for
1526
haulage or traction to any company or authority being the owners or lessees of a railway, tramway, dock, harbour or canal undertaking situate partly within and partly without that district or area, such authorised undertakers may, subject to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, so supply electricity to be used for any purposes of such undertaking, whether within or without such district or area of supply, and such company or authority may, subject to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, use the electricity so supplied for any purposes their undertaking for which they are titled to use electricity:
Provided that such company or authority shall not supply to any other persons electricity supplied to them under this section and such electricity shall not be used on any part of the premises of such company or authority which is not in their occupation.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to substitute the following proviso for the one in the clause:—
"Provided that no such supply shall, without the consent of the Minister of Transport, be used by such company or authority for purposes of lighting, other than the lighting of vehicles or stations and other premises in the occupation of such company or authority."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I accepted an Amendment—or at any rate I did not refuse it—which was to protect the rights of the undertakers in supplying electricity to the railway companies, but the Amendment as accepted went, I think, a little too far because, although it safeguarded the position of the authorised undertakers, it to some extent infringed the existing rights of the railway companies. This Amendment puts the matter right and assists the undertakers without taking away any of the existing rights of the railway companies.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Interpretation]:
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 39, after ("1909") insert ("or by a special Act passed for the like purpose").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Peel.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships would like to part with this Bill without paying a tribute to the noble Viscount who has been in charge of it throughout the proceedings. No member of His Majesty's Government has worked harder in the concluding weeks of this Session than has the noble Viscount, and I am bound to say that his knowledge of all the technical details involved in this Bill has found me amongst his warmest admirers. The noble Viscount has not, perhaps, been so generous in dealing with some of the critics of the Bill as those critics would have wished him to be but, on the other hand, he has always shown an admirable desire to argue the case, to put his side of the question and to deal with the Bill from the argumentative point of view.
There is, indeed, if he will allow me to say so, some little point of criticism, for, in suggesting that some of these Amendments would not be acceptable in another place, it may be that he has done something to encourage another place not to accept them. I venture to hope, however, that that will not happen. The noble Viscount knows that there is some disposition on the part of some noble Lords behind me to dislike the appointment of a new Board and a new public service. I wonder whether, in connection with that, he would be able to give us the names of those who are going to be appointed on the Board, or, if not, an assurance that they will be made public before very long. I quite understand that they are not generally made public during the passage of a Bill, or at all events not until the very last stage of it, but I hope we may be given these names before very long. I confess I do not share the melancholy prognostications uttered by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu a few moments ago, nor do I share the optimism of the noble Viscount, but I think we may all join in hoping that the result of the Bi11 will be some co-ordination in the supply of electricity and that increased production in bulk may bring power and light to new users at a cheaper rate than has been possible before.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I will endeavour to see whether at a later stage—if there is a later stage of this Bill when the Amendments come back—I can give to the noble Earl those names of the Board which he desires. I am really very much obliged to him for the courteous observations which he has made about myself. I can assure him I appreciate them very highly. In addition he has taught me another point in procedure, because I did not know that one was able to speak on the Motion that this Bill do now pass. That is one of the advantages I get from listening to the noble Earl. I shall now be able to make a speech on any Bill on this Motion. I did not know it before.
On Question, Bill passed, with the Amendments, and returned to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in moving that the House do go into Committee on this Bill I think that some explanation is due to your Lordships as to why the Amendments, which were foreshadowed at an earlier stage, are not being moved. The items which were affected were the Coroners (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1917, and the Juries Act, 1918, which depended upon whether the Coroners (Amendment) Bill was going to pass or not. The Home Office have decided that this Bill, even if it is passed, shall not come into operation for four or five months, and it is therefore necessary to continue the two Acts I have mentioned for that period. The other doubtful item was part of the Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920. It has been decided to include this in the schedule in case the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill does not receive the Royal Assent this Session. If it does pass then Part I of the Sale of Food Order—the Order affected—can be revoked at once. The power to do this is contained in the portion of the Ministry of Food Act continued in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NORTHERN IRELAND BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, there is one observation which I should like to make upon the Third Reading of this Bill. I refrained from intervening the other evening as the hour was so late, and what I have to say will be contained in a few sentences. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in moving the Second Reading, said that the Bill would effect a saving of £2,500 a year£500 on each of five salaries. That is true, nominally, but the actual financial saving will be less than that, and I think it is worth while calling attention to the reason why it will be less. It will be less because when these salaries are reduced there will be less Income Tax to pay on them, and if that is taken into account it will reduce the savings not merely by 4s. in the £ but, averaging out Super-Tax—for I suppose the recipients do pay Super-Tax—I should say that the deduction from the saving on account of loss of Income Tax and Super-Tax would be not less than 5s. in the £. Therefore the actual savings would possibly be only £1,750. I think that is a point which is
1530
well worth bearing in mind, because it has a larger application. We frequently hear that if we can save 1 per cent. on the internal Debt, which, is about £6,000,000,000, we shall be saving about £60,000,000 a year. The first comment I make on that is that about half the Debt cannot be converted for a very long time, but even if it could be the saving would at the most be £45,000,000 a year, owing to the loss on Income Tax and Super-Tax; and as we are constantly exhorted to watch points of finance, I think that is a matter which should be borne in mind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, so far from objecting to the observations of the noble Lord, I am glad that he is taking notice of the fact that, when a man is said to receive a certain salary he in fact receives considerably less, owing to Income Tax. It is often forgotten that when a Judge is said to receive £5,000 a year he in fact receives considerably less than £4,000 a year, and if a County Court Judge is said to receive £1,500 a year, he in fact has to be content with something less than £1,200 a year.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past two o'clock.