Lords Sitting of 22 February 1927

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

BETTING BILL. [H.L.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to betting on betting premises, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I want to say a word or two upon this Bill. I understand that amongst other things it provides for the Corporation conducting all sorts of entertainments out of the rates. Now that is a matter which, I think, has been before your Lordships before and certainly on several occasions, if not on all, that power has been withheld. That is, of course. I know, not a reason for objecting to the Second Reading of this. Bill, but I should like to bring my objection to the notice of the Lord Chairman in the hope that
158
the Committee will take cognisance of it. If not, on Report stage, I should certainly move to omit the clause.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

GAINSBOROUGH BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY ANNUITIES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LITTLEHAMPTON HARBOUR AND ARUN DRAINAGE OUTFALL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MERSEY TUNNEL (BIRKENHEAD ENTRANCE, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
PETERBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WESSEX ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WEST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

PROTECTION OF LAPWINGS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this Bill reproduces in exact language certain clauses from a measure that received your Lordships' approval last year. That

159
Bill was called the Wild Birds Protection Bill and contained a very large number of provisions for the general protection of wild birds. In its course through Committee I moved the clauses that I have now incorporated into this snort Bill. After some discussion in a House that was well attended there was no dissent and the clauses were passed as I had drawn them. That Bill met a rather unfortunate fate. It was introduced on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, and passed this House in abundant time to enable it to be considered in another place, but there were other matters which probably it was thought were more pressing and this unfortunate Bill never had a chance of passing into law. I cannot help thinking that when people are discussing the different ways of reforming this House somebody might consider whether Bills that have passed this House should not be as secure of audience in another place as Bills that have passed in another place are secure of audience here. At any rate this Bill never had an opportunity and unless something is done, and done quickly, it is probable that it will lie in the wastepaper basket whose ample embraces receive such a large number of measures that pass through this House.
The Bill itself is of the utmost simplicity. It provides that it shall be unlawful to sell the eggs of this plover, or to have any bird in possession for human consumption within a limited period of time. The prohibition against the sale of eggs is absolute while the other is limited. Those committing the offence are liable to be punished on summary conviction on the first offence by a fine of £5, and on the second by a fine of £10, or imprisonment not exceeding one month. As I have said, these words are the very words in which the Bill passed your Lordships' House last year. My first point—and I think that every one of your Lordships will agree—is that the lapwing is a bird of exceptional use for all agriculturists. I do not think that even the most malignant slanderer of birds has ever had a word to say against the beneficent activities of the lapwing. It spends the whole of its time when it is not flying in eating leatherjackets, wire-worms, slugs, snails and every conceivable
160
form of agricultural pest. It really has no vegetarian diet at all and I cannot help thinking that, it must be a complete refutation of the views of a large school of modern dietetics.
That the bird's value is recognised is quite clear. I find that in the debates that took place last year it was stated in this House that the Farmers' Unions were all in favour of this Bill and the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, whose experience must be very large, said that he had prevented the taking of eggs over the whole of his estates, so far as he could, and added that it was no use trying to preserve the plover unless the sale of eggs was prohibited. That is perfectly true. That the bird is decreasing is also a fact, as I think every one here who knows anything of the countryside will recognise. My noble friend Viscount Grey of Fallodon, whose experience in these matters is absolutely unrivalled, said in the last debate:
"My point is that, in the part of the country that I know, where in the autumn flocks of lapwings used to cover the fields and were numbered by thousands, now they are only numbered by dozens."
Everybody knows that Lord Grey is not a person to use the language of exaggeration. That the bird is decreasing, therefore, must be known to every one of us and the question is whether or not its decrease should be permitted.
There is nothing that can be said in favour of this wholesale destruction of plover's eggs except that they please a few people's palates. There is nothing more in it than that. The only suggestion that has ever been urged so far as I can see, in favour of the continuance of permitting these eggs to be sold, is that the eggs that are taken are the first set of eggs and that they would be destroyed by the ordinary agricultural operations of rolling and harrowing. In the first place, the places where the plovers lay are not exclusively confined to places that are harrowed and rolled. There are large stretches of moors, meadows and waste places haunted by plover where no roller or harrow has ever been seen or heard of. The next point is that you do not preserve the bird by enabling the first set of eggs to be taken because if, as is assumed, the plover lays again—it is an assumption that. I do not think anybody can make

161
from personal knowledge; but if plovers do so, as many birds do, it is quite certain that they lay again directly, and if you permit the eggs to be taken the only result will be that the second lot of eggs will be taken as well as the first. It is quite plain that within the limits of time within which these eggs are sold there would be plenty of opportunity for taking all the eggs that are laid. Further, if the eggs are disturbed by the harrow it must be remembered that the birds will lay again and, since the fields are not harrowed and rolled twice over, the second set of eggs will be allowed to come to maturity.
Apart from that point I have never heard any one suggest that this taking of eggs is otherwise than mischievous and a destruction of the bird, and, if the bird is useful for farmers—and there is not a single person who denies that fact—it is surely time that steps should be taken to protect it and save it from the wholesale destruction of its nests. These eggs are not used for purposes of food, they are not taken in the interests of science, they are not even destroyed in the pursuit of sport; they are simply taken in order to provide the temporary gratification of rich people's palates for a few weeks in the year, and surely no one can set that use against the general agricultural interest in preserving the birds or against that which I admit is, to my mind, a thing of equal value—namely, the preservation of a creature of astonishing beauty and charm. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I expressed the views of the Home Office at once in reply to the eloquent speech of my noble friend, whose return to this House is welcomed by noble Lords of all shades of opinion. My only hope is that his enthusiasm in his crusade for the plover will not have any evil effects. With regard to the Bill that my noble friend has brought forward, it is, as he has just informed the House, almost in identical terms with those portions that related to the lapwing of the Bill that I had the honour to introduce to the House last Session, and I can assure him that I share to the full his regrets that the measure did not meet with a more
162
favourable reception, or rather, met with no reception at all in another place.
In regard to the Bill itself, there is no intention on the part of the Home Office either to oppose its Second Reading or even to offer any considerable criticism upon it, although there are one or two points on which, if this Bill goes into Committee, they would have to offer a few suggestions. The only difficulty with regard to the Bill is that, as I have no doubt my noble friend is aware, there is in another place a Bill identical with the Bill which passed this House last Session. It is down for Second Reading on March 25 and it must be obvious that there would be a certain amount of inconvenience if the greater Bill, which includes the lesser Bill, and the lesser Bill were to proceed pari passu. Nevertheless the Government have no opposition to offer to a Bill which contains provisions with which they have expressed their absolute concurrence. With regard to some of the remarks of a gastronomical nature with which the noble Lord has regaled the House, I do not think the position is quite as simple as he thinks and no doubt honestly believes.
As to taking the first clutch of plover's eggs ornithological opinion in this country is absolutely divided. There are a number of high authorities who maintain, rightly or wrongly, that to take the first clutch of plover's eggs tends to increase plovers instead of diminishing them. I happened to meet on my way down to the House the Chairman of the Scottish Committee, and he stated that, especially in Scotland, on great moorlands, the first clutch of plover's eggs seldom comes to any good; it is exposed to early frost, the young chicks hatch out at a time when there is very little insect food, and all chicks, whether ducks, chickens, pheasants or partridges, as the noble Lord well knows, very largely depend upon insect food in the early stages of their lives. A friend of my own, who lives in Cumberland and has more experience of breeding ducks in enormous quantities semi-wild than anyone I know, tells me that he makes it a practice, in order to increase the number of ducks, to destroy the early eggs before a certain time because he says they come to no good and the efforts of their parents would therefore be wasted.

163
I give these instances to show that without being greedy it is just possible to maintain that there is a doubt whether leaving the first clutch of eggs is wholly beneficial to the increase of the species. This has been argued over and over again before Committees by those who know a great deal about it and, as I have said, ornithological opinion remains about equally divided. When the Bill was first introduced last Session the first clutches were allowed to be taken, but in view of the representations which were then made by my noble friend that part of the Bill was altered and he moved the plover into the category of those birds which were wholly protected during the whole of the nesting season. That provision remains the same in this Bill and it is also in the Bill which very shortly is going to be discussed in another place. I hope that that Bill will come before this House. Having made these few remarks I only wish on behalf of the Government to say that they certainly would not think of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord, Lord Des-borough, for the very kind expressions he used about myself and to assure him and the House how deeply I appreciate them. For the rest I would just like to say one or two words about the situation which certainly is to me novel. I did not know that another Bill was going to be considered on Second Reading in another place on March 25, and I should still, even although I have the noble Lord's assurance, like to be quite certain that none of those hazards which await a Bill in another place is going to overtake it.
LORD DESBOROUGH: It is a Private Member's Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then I certainly think, having regard to the difficulties attending a Private Member's Bill, that we had better proceed with our own Bill. Even supposing the Commons Bill were to proceed, it will not make the least bit of difference, so far as my Bill is concerned, because if my Bill is passed all they will have to do is to omit certain clauses, which are the same as the clauses in my Bill, from their Bill, or to incorporate them. My Bill does not interfere with the Commons Bill in the least,
164
and unless we proceed with my Bill at once we shall not save these eggs for this season, and it seems to me that time being so important we should proceed urgently with this matter. Let me say one word about the conflict of view about the taking of the first clutch of eggs. How are you going to earmark eggs on the ground?
LORD DESBOROUGH: A date will be given.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If you take the first clutch the second clutch will be then due. One thing which is certain is that the second clutch comes immediately after the first. There is no pause, and therefore to fix a time which will enable you to take the first clutch and leave the second is a thing which cannot be done. If in truth this arrangement, by which poulterers' shops are stacked with these eggs in the spring, does not interfere with the plover, why have these birds disappeared? The plover has very few external enemies. The vermin which might eat the eggs are kept down pretty well and there is nothing which has happened in the last twenty years to affect the numbers of these birds excepting this increasing egg-taking. When you have the fact that people like the Duke of Buccleuch, who knows so much about this subject, and the Farmers' Union, do want to have this egg-taking stopped, I think that ornithologists and those who think you might take the first clutch may for once have their opinion disregarded.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I wish to pass this Bill through as soon as possible, but I do not want to put down the Committee Stage so early as to appear to be rushing it through. If, however, you think I might put down the Committee Stage for Thursday, I should be glad, because it we are going to pass this measure we must do it at once.

POSTAL CHARGES.
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the surplus of revenue over recipts from the postal service during the year 1925–1926 was £7,416,266, and

165
from the telephone service £550,830, making a total of £7,967,096 profit after charging interest on capital; and whether in view of this large profit the Government propose to give the country the benefit of penny postage which is now enjoyed by the United States, New Zealand and other parts of the Empire.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my reason for putting down this Question is that we are approaching a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if my figures are correct, will have to make up his mind what he is going to do with this great surplus from the operations of the Post Office, and he will have to decide whether he intends to assent to the reintroduction of penny postage, which all business men and representatives of chambers of commerce throughout the country believe to be a great moneymaking idea, or to force us to go on paying a higher postage rate than is now paid in foreign countries and in our Dominions. I am well aware that there is at present a loss on the telegraph service, and the cause of that is well known to His Majesty's Government; business men consider that it ought to be avoided, and could be avoided. I want to make it clear that this loss is in no way connected with the postal service. There is no loss connected with the postal service at all. If my figures are correct, when all losses have been deducted the Department, as at present organised, will still be left with a net surplus of £6,667,882.
The present Postmaster-General, or one or his numerous recent predecessors, has definitely and officially stated that the re-introduction of penny postage would mean an increase of some 300,000,000 packets through the post. This largely increased circulation of letters will not, of course, mean that penny postage would be a loss. It would in reality be a great boon to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because the increase of trade to which it would lead would mean increased profits, and therefore increased Income Tax for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Dear postage, at the present time, is therefore keeping out of circulation 300,000,000 postal packets, and penalising trade. I have raised this subject several times, so that your Lordships will be familiar with the arguments. But I may repeat that penny
166
postage is our greatest commercial traveller and our great domestic friend, and it binds together our kith and kin in all parts of the Empire. The introduction of penny postage has been systematically advocated by chambers of commerce year after year Ministers have frequently said that business men are not pushing their goods sufficiently. My hon. friend Mr. Arthur Samuel, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, is an able business man, and he has reminded us that goods do not sell themselves. We quite agree with him; they do not sell themselves, but we want all obstacles to progress and prosperity cleared away, and this is one of them.
On the last occasion when I raised this subject, on June 17, 1925, the spokesman for the Post Office assured the House that—
"the question of the penny post is very much before the minds of the Government, at this time, and will remain so until the next Budget, and that if there is the slightest chance of a return to a penny postage upon anything like economical lines the Government will see to it that the return shall not be delayed in any way whatsoever."
Those who represent our great chambers of commerce consider that the time when that should be done has arrived, and we hope that His Majesty's Government will take the same view. My noble friend opposite who, I suppose, will speak for the Government, always answers my questions on this subject very sympathetically, but the position he holds is not of a sufficiently definite character for him to be able to make promises on his own account. I am sure that if he were able, on behalf of the Government, to say that they were going to adopt my view, it would give him pleasure to be in the position to make that announcement.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this question, as my noble friend has said, is rather a hardy annual. We all know how much he has at heart, this matter, which he has raised several times within your Lordships' recollection. I do not think, by the way, that it was I who answered him in the words which he has just quoted.
LORD SOUTHWARK: It was Lord Somers.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: On the present occasion I am afraid he will consider the answer I have to give him unsatisfactory. The figures which the noble Lord gives are quite correct, as far as they go. He has taken off the deficit on the telegraph service, and that gives, more or less, the balance which he has quoted. But, so far from its being true that the introduction of the penny postage would result in an increase of 300,000,000 postal packages, I am informed that the opinion held at the Post Office is that there would not be much more than about a million recovered, so that if his scheme of penny postage were put into force there would be a net loss to the revenue of something over £5,000,000.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My figure of 300,000,000 was not money but the number of packages. The figure, I may say, was given by the Postmaster-General himself. I did not want, when I spoke, to occupy the House with details, as this matter has been discussed over and over again. We have had answers from the Postmaster-General from time to time, and have been promised that penny postage would be re-introduced, and then we have another Postmaster-General the next week. We have had six occupants of the office, I think, in six years.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I can only assure my noble friend that it is estimated that the reintroduction of penny postage would perhaps result in an increase of about a million in the volume, but that the net sacrifice of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be called upon to make would be something over £5,000,000. Therefore, although I assure my noble friend that the Government equally share with him the desire to cheapen postage with a view to increasing trade, my noble friend will understand that this next year is not a year in which you can expect the Government to put up with the loss of revenue of over £5,000,000. I am afraid, therefore, the answer to my noble friend is that the Government do not see their way to carry out his suggestion at the present moment.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord who represents the Post Office in this House is somewhat
168
disappointing. With the few general observations that fell from my noble friend who raised this Question I think your Lordships would be inclined to agree. He gave some figures which, as I understand, had been given officially by both the present and previous holders of the office of Postmaster-General showing that the probabilities are that if the postage rate were reduced to one penny there would be in a very short time such a considerable increase in the packets delivered that the reduction from 1½d. to 1d. in the postal rate would not result in a deficiency, or at any rate not in a deficiency that would be very large in amount. It is to me very difficult to understand how a reduction from 1½d. to 1d. would involve such a large loss as £5,000,000, especially as it is quite certain there would be a very considerable addition to the number of postal packages dealt with if a reduction in the rate were made. I quite realise that, at the present time it is rather difficult to urge strongly that £7,000,000 should be applied to postal improvements rather than in meeting the deficit which unfortunately exists in the national Revenue this year.
The question has previously been raised as to how far the Post Office ought to be a profit-making department for the benefit of the taxpayer, or how far any surplus which may remain after deducting all expenditure ought automatically to be given back to the users of the Post Office in the shape of cheaper and improved facilities, rather than go into the pockets of the taxpayer. Personally I have the advantage of having been a Postmaster-General who, during some years of office, had a surplus. That is a long time ago. Surpluses are not so common now as they used to be. I was in the position of being able each year to hand over a surplus, but I agree that at the present moment it is very difficult to urge strongly that any such surplus should be applied in the manner that my noble friend proposes. Undoubtedly there will be a deficit on this year's Budget. We hope it is only a temporary deficit due to exceptional circumstances and we look forward to a surplus next year. It will then become a question of whether it is better to give increased postal facilities for the benefit of trade and industry, or to allow any surplus to go in the reduction of taxation, which may be the alternative. Much as I agree with my noble

169
friend in the general principle that he has laid down, I am bound to say that if on the present occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the conclusion that it is better, from the point of view of trade and industry generally, to apply this surplus to the reduction of the deficit rather than to give it to postal users in the shape of cheaper rates, I should not quarrel with his decision in present circumstances.
Those who use the Post Office are, however, entitled to have something further given to them than what has been already said. While the particular surplus of the Post Office might in these exceptional circumstances be used to meet the Budget deficit, I think a general proposition ought to be laid down on behalf of the Government by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that when surpluses are available a considerable part of the revenue of the Post Office should in future be applied to postal reform. If we could get something of that nature stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it would give general satisfaction to those interested in trade and industry, and would do very much to remove the feeling that the Post Office is being used as a sort of milch cow for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I ask my noble friend who represents the Post Office if he will be good enough to put that point, through the Postmaster-General, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those who desire postal reform are not unreasonable persons and doubtless would be prepared to allow this surplus to go under present conditions towards lessening the Budget deficit, but they are entitled to an undertaking that when surpluses again arise the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a considerable part of any postal surplus to Post Office reform.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I sincerely hope that my noble friend and the Government will not accede to the request of the noble Earl. I am extremely glad that there is a surplus and a profit on the Post Office. I am rather surprised that there should be a profit on anything that a Government Department undertakes, but there is apparently a profit on the Post Office. Let us give it to the taxpayer, who is at the present moment groaning under a burden which no English taxpayer has ever before endured. Therefore, instead
170
of returning it to the gentlemen who put a three-halfpenny stamp on their letters instead of a penny one, I desire that this particular surplus should be given to the taxpayers as a whole.
I am not quite certain, but I think I understood the noble Earl to say that if the postal rate was reduced to a penny there would be a large increase in letter writing and consequently that there would be no very great loss resulting from the reduction in the rate. That is a statement which is always made by somebody who wants to get a service more cheaply. It is a statement that was made to the railway companies about two years ago by traders and passengers. I, as a railway Chairman, put very little faith in that statement. I believed that people would travel whether they had to pay 1s. 6d. or 1s. 3d. and I believed that goods would go by rail, provided always, of course, that the rate was not a prohibitive one. It turned out that I was quite right. The railway companies reduced their rates, but they did not find any more people travelling or any more goods sent by rail, and they have now had to increase their rates. The consequences would be exactly the same if three-halfpenny postage was reduced to penny postage. To say that people in the City are going to stop writing letters because they have to put three-halfpenny stamps on them instead of penny stamps is too absurd for words. The only possible result of the suggestion made by the noble Earl would be that unfortunate people like the majority of the members of this House and the majority of the people outside, who have an income of more than £200 a year, would have to pay an increased rate of taxation. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord below me will adhere to the very excellent speech which he made and will not hold out any hopes that any further reduction will be made.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I have only one word to add to the debate, and I only regret that the suggestion which is in my mind cannot be more ably made. It seems to me from the very varied correspondence which I have with all classes of the community that the greatest advantage to be conferred on those various classes would not be the reduction of the letter postage

171
from 1½d. to 1d. but the reduction of the postcard rate from 1d. to ½d. That is all I have to offer on the subject, but I think that particular suggestion may merit the consideration of your Lordships and the Government.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, what is the use of talking about reduction in what after all is a form of taxation? At this moment the country is very short of revenue. It has an enormous Debt which it must pay off. It has to tax whether it wishes to or not, wherever it legitimately can. None of us like being taxed, but on the whole I think we should rather be taxed on the price of our postage than be taxed with an addition to our Income Tax. Postpone paying off Debt we cannot. Therefore this is really a proposal to cut down the process of economy. I should like to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has to say about the matter from that point of view. To me it would seem a great waste of the chances of legitimate taxation to cut down this. At this moment I entirely sympathise with the attitude of the Government, who say they cannot part with any source of revenue. I therefore agree with the noble Lord opposite that having got a good thing we should stick to it. I would only point out for his further comfort that this is a nationalised service which is yielding a profit. Possibly there may be some others.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to ask my opinion and I am quite ready to give it. As compared with other methods of taxation I should prefer an increase in the Income Tax because that is a more democratic measure. That is no doubt why the noble and learned Viscount would be opposed to it.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The following Lords, namely:—

D. Bedford,

D. Wellington,

M. Lansdowne,

M. Bath,

E. Plymouth,

V. Grey of Fallodon,

L. Erskine,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Denman,

172

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Hylton,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Parmoor,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Somerleyton,

with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Standing Orders Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:—

D. Bedford,

D. Northumberland,

D. Wellington,

M. Lansdowne,

M. Bath,

M. Bristol,

M. Lincolnshire,

E. Denbigh,

E. Airlie,

E. Stanhope,

E. Clarendon,

E. Malmesbury,

E. Onslow,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Howe,

E. Strafford,

V. Churchill,

V. Ullswater,

L. Clinton,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Templemore,

L. Oranmore and Browne (L. Mereworth),

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Hylton,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Ritchie of Dundee,

L. Colebrooke,

L. Desart (E. Desert),

L. Ashton of Hyde,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Somerleyton,

L. Chalmers,

173

L. Clwyd,

L. Meston,

L. Darling.

All petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion on the Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Wellington,

M. Bath,

E. De La Warr,

E. Clarendon,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Strafford,

E. Russell,

E. Plymouth,

V. Peel,

V. Allendale,

V. Devonport,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Oranmore and Browne (L. Mereworth).

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Desart (E. Desart),

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Meston.

—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Lansdowne,

M. Bath,

M. Lincolnshire,

174

M. Aberdeen and Temair,

E. Chesterfield,

E. Shaftesbury,

E. Stanhope,

E. Clarendon,

E. Onslow,

E. Bradford,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Strafford,

E. Selborne,

E. Cromer,

E. Plymouth,

E. Midleton,

E. Birkenhead,

V. Churchill,

V. Allendale,

V. Finlay,

V. FitzAlan of Dement,

V. Chelmsford,

V. Ullswater,

V. Younger of Leckie,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Wigan (B. Crawford),

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Hylton,

L. Lamington,

L. Monk Bretton,

L. Ampthill,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Dunedin,

L. Atkinson,

L. Colebrooke,

L. Desart (E. Desart),

L. Islington,

L. Southwark,

L. Parmoor,

L. Buckmaster,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Somerleyton,

L. Lambourne,

L. Ernle,

L. Meston.

—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

PEERS' WAR MEMORIAL.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, with reference to the next Motion, which sets up the Committee on the Peers' War Memorial, I would ask your Lordships' permission to add the name

175
of my noble friend Earl Buxton. He was on the Committee originally and he gave us a great deal of assistance, if he will allow me to say so. His name was taken off when he went abroad, but now he is back and he would be of great assistance to the Committee. I therefore move the list as printed with the addition of the name of Earl Buxton.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to make the necessary arrangements for the erection of the Peers' War Memorial, and to deal generally with matters relating thereto; and that the following Lords, with the Lord Privy
176
Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Lansdowne,

M. Lincolnshire,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Buxton,

E. Oxford and Asquith,

V. Peel,

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Desborough,

L. Arnold.

—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.