Lords Sitting of 19 December 1928

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

*IPSWICH GAS ORDER, 1928.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 27th of November last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BURNLEY GAS ORDER, 1928.

  PETERSFIELD AND SELSEY GAS ORDER, 1928.
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 28th of November last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Is it four o'clock?
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This is private business.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I notice that this Order is on the Paper to be taken at four o'clock.
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Very well, my Lords, I will not move it at the moment.
  At four o'clock:—
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name, that the Special Orders which were presented on the 28th November last be approved.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have really no objection to these Orders, but with regard to the Ipswich Order, which stands earlier on the Paper, I think we should have some assurance that Orders are not going to be taken before the hour at which they are set down. It is really

  687
  not quite fair to the House that Orders should be taken a few minutes before the hour. This particular Order is of no importance, but we must have some assurance that matters of some importance are not going to be treated in the same way as matters of no importance.
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I need hardly assure the noble Earl that I had no intention of doing anything disrespectful to the House. Now that my attention has been drawn to it I will certainly do what I can to see that the Orders of the House are not contravened in any way.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope the noble Earl will call the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the Standing Orders have been grossly disregarded.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

BISHOP'S STORTFORD GAS ORDER, 1928.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 4th instant, be approved with a modification.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRADFORD GAS ORDER, 1928.
  EAST SURREY GAS ORDER, 1928.

    LEEK GAS ORDER, 1928.
    ROCHDALE GAS ORDER, 1928.
    RUGBY GAS ORDER, 1928.
    THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
    Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 4th instant, he approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRANBROOK ELECTRICITY (EX- TENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given in respect of this Order.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 6th of November last, be approved with modifications.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

*IPSWICH GAS ORDER, 1928.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like to ask the view of the Lord Chancellor on the question of the approval of the Ipswich Gas Order which we have just been discussing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): The noble Earl knows very well that the Lord Chancellor has no authority in a matter of this kind, and I think he had better address his question to the Leader of the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Perhaps I might be allowed to ask the noble Marquess whether in regard to this Gas Order he now thinks that that Order has been approved by the House or not, as it was put down for four o'clock but was taken five minutes before that hour.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I was unfortunately not in my place at the time mentioned by the noble Earl. Except in the point of time I gather that there was no question of any irregularity, and as to that I think your Lordships' House is really the judge in its own cause and can do as it pleases. If the House sanctions what has been done nothing more need be said.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I really cannot allow that. It really will not do. In the future, is it to be possible for His Majesty's Government to put down an Order for four o'clock and then take it at a quarter to four or any time that may be convenient to them, when it may happen that those who are opposed to it are not present in the House? That really will not do and we really must insist that this Order is put down for another day and is not regarded as having been approved at all. I am quite sure the noble Marquess, who is generally so anxious that things in this House should be done in order and that proper attention and due regard should be paid to Standing Orders, will agree with me

689
after a little reflection that this House cannot allow Bills put down for a certain hour to be taken even one minute before the hour for which they are put down. Therefore I hope the noble Marquess will allow this Order to be put down for another day.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies I should like to make this suggestion. I do not know whether the noble Earl was here when this Ipswich Gas Order was put to the House—I think he was—but surely that is the time to take the objection. Supposing no objection is taken, and even if there is an informality as regards time, I should have thought it was quite clear that the decision of the House had been given. I quite agree that an Order ought not to be taken before the time fixed. That is another matter, but this Order has been passed It was passed without objection in the ordinary way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think perhaps I can put this right. I am quite sure that I do not yield for a moment to the noble Earl in my desire that the proceedings of this House should be conducted with scrupulous regard to the interests of everybody, and although we are a little irregular sometimes In our proceedings yet I quite agree with him, that to take an Order at a time when it is not expected would be a gross breach of regularity which ought not to be admitted. The noble Earl, however, desires that this Order should be put down another day. I do not think that would be reasonable What I would suggest is this: if an irregularity has taken committed then may we assume that what has taken place is null and void? If that be so, let the question be put again from the Woolsack and in that case if your Lordships are pleased to pass it there will be no question. I would rather not pronounce as a humble member of your Lordships' House upon the regularity or irregularity of the proceeding, but what I do think is important is that there should not be any doubt about it. Therefore, if the noble Earl, who is a very responsible and important member of your Lordships' House, raises the question, let us by all means put it right for greater security and, as we may treat the Question which was put a few minutes
690
before the right time as null and void, may I suggest that your Lordships should ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to put the Question again? In that case I fancy I have the consent of your Lordships to this proceeding, and I beg to move in regard to the Ipswich Gas Order that the Special Order which was presented to the House be approved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Marquess move it in that form or will he move it in the form that the approval of the House which has been given be confirmed, so that we may be technically in order seeing that the Order has already been approved, though the approval may have been irregular?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move, as the noble and learned Lord suggests, that the approval of the Special Order which was presented to the House on November 27 be confirmed.
Moved, That the approval of the Special Order which was presented on November 27 last be confirmed.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am much obliged to the Leader of the House for having so far met my objection, but do hope he will realise what a serious position we are in. Are we never to be able to rely upon the Standing Orders and upon the Notices put upon the Paper in your Lordships' House? A measure of first class importance might possibly be taken when there is not a person in the House. Really it does seem to me that, once an Order is put on the Paper for four o'clock, every member of your Lordships' House has very real ground of complaint if it is taken five minutes before. How can we trust the Government? Really, I do ask myself what reason there is for circulating any Order or giving any information in regard to the time if we cannot rely upon it, and if we cannot be sure that matters of very much more importance than this are not going to be taken when there is not a person in the House. In those circumstances, though I have no wish to object to the passage of the -Ipswich Gas Order, I do wish we could have from some responsible person—I do not know to whom to apply—some kind of promise that this kind of thing will not occur again.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Earl that he has taken the very best means of preventing it ever happening again. He has called attention to it in the most public manner, and he has asked us to put the matter right. I have done my very best to meet him. I quite agree with him in substance, though the matter seems a very slight variation from our Rules. I can assure him that after his protest and after the action the House has taken there upon, he may rely upon it that it will never occur again.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EAST NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELEC- TRICITY ORDER, 1928.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order be approved with the addition proposed by the Select Committee and the modifications.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 8th of November last, be approved with an addition and modification.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I should like to ask a question of the noble Marquess regarding the addition that is proposed to be made to the Order. I do not understand what is the effect of passing that addition. It is arrived at by a compromise between the two parties and, as regards the East Nottingham Company, it binds them to do certain things. We have control over them because they have an Order and are in a position of privilege. But as regards the two coal companies, what control is there over them? They are not under an Order and are not in a privileged position. It appears that they are in precisely the same position as the East Nottingham Company was in before—namely, that all the remedy the East Nottingham Company had before was a remedy at Common Law to go to the Courts for an injunction. What power have we to enforce upon the coal companies the obligations which we can enforce upon the East Nottingham Company?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is aware that all these Orders have been
692
before the Special Orders Committee, who have gone very, carefully into these matters.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, With reference to what the noble Marquess has just said, it occurs to me, as the subject has been raised to-day, that it would be desirable that some words to the effect of what he has said should be put in; because the reason why it is moved and is received by the House without remark is that it has passed that Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Nobody knows more about this subject than the Leader of the House. I had the honour of serving on the Committee that recommended this procedure, and I should like to know very much whether he does not think that some words to that effect has better be put in when these Orders are moved.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will certainly ask the authorities of the House whether they think some additional words should be used. But the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, will remember very well the great difficulty we had in getting this particular procedure established. I might assure him that it was for that very reason—in order to prevent any error in the matter of these Special Orders taking place—that we set tip this Standing Committee before which all these Orders go, in order that the House should not be taken at a disadvantage when they come before the House itself.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, might I, with the permission of the House, observe that that is not an answer to my question? I have no doubt that the Standing Orders Committee saw no objection to this. All I am asking is this: Is it not an entirely nugatory provision and, if not, what is its effect?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes me to answer that question, but the effect of its having been before the Special Orders Committee is this. The Special Order is considered as to whether it complies with the regulations of the House and as to whether it presents any features of novelty, any-

693
thing out of the routine, anything out of the ordinary course to which the attention of the House ought specially to be called. I cannot be sure that I textually remember them, but that is the broad effect of the instructions to this Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ALDERSHOT DISTRICT ELEC- TRICITY (HINDHEAD TRANSFER, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 27th of November last be approved.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WOODSTOCK ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 29th of November last be approved.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

THE RECESS.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before public business commences, I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether he can give us any formal intimation as to the length of the Recess and when we are expected to be back in our places in this House after the adjournment?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As your Lordships are aware, there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow. Therefore, I propose at the end of to-day's sitting to advise your Lordships to adjourn for the Recess. The Government propose that the Recess should last until January 22 next.

IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL of PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to give statutory authority for the sale of the Pacific cable and West Indian cable undertakings managed at present by the Pacific Cable Board, and for the sale of the Transatlantic cables worked by the Postmaster-General. This is an essential part of the scheme for the reorganisation of the Imperial wireless and cable services which was proposed by the Imperial Conference of last July. This particular Bill deals only with those parts of the scheme which involve legislation in this country, but I think that I ought to give your Lordships a brief summary of the situation which gave rise to the Conference and an outline of the solution which it recommended.
Between October, 1926, and September, 1927, beam wireless services were opened between this country on the one hand and Canada, Australia, South Africa and India on the other. The rates of charge fixed for the beam services were very substantially below those in force for cable rates and under the terms of the agreement under which the stations were constructed by the Marconi Company the rates had to be such (and these are the exact words) as to "attract the largest possible volume of traffic with due regard to economic considerations." The immediate result was that, although the introduction of cheaper rates all round led to an appreciable increase in the total volume of telegraph traffic, the cable undertakings—including the Government undertakings—suffered a very large loss of revenue. It became perfectly clear that if unrestricted competition were allowed to operate, the cable services might be crushed and driven out of business; a situation might develop in which the cable companies would feel bound to liquidate their undertakings rather than waste their resources by continuing to run at a loss. I need hardly say that the Government were not prepared to contemplate a situation such as this arising. Although the beam wireless obviously has great advantages, it is only the cable that can give absolute certainty and secrecy. The consideration of these two things is of the utmost

695
importance both from the commercial and from the Imperial point of view, and the Government felt that it was absolutely essential to carry on the cable undertakings in some form or another.
The problem therefore which the Conference had to face was how to preserve the cables while providing for the fullest expansion and development of the new beam services. Their conclusion, after considering the various alternatives, was that the only satisfactory solution lay in the amalgamation of all the wireless and cable interests concerned in a single undertaking which would secure unity of control and direction. The scheme proposed by the Conference has been criticised in certain quarters because this unity of control and direction has not been secured by means of Government ownership. But I would point out these facts. These wireless and cable services cover an area far wider than that of any single government. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain cannot operate wireless and cable plant in the Dominions and in India. Government ownership and control would have meant joint ownership and joint control which, with the best will in the world, could not have secured the same unity of direction as the scheme proposed by the Conference. Furthermore, I can tell your Lordships that the other Governments concerned in the Empire have definitely decided for some years past that they would not run the wireless services as a Government institution, and this to all intents and purposes really makes the proposal quite impracticable and impossible.
But I think I ought to draw your Lordships' attention to another aspect of the situation and it is this. While it is true that direct Government working in so far as the beam service is concerned is to be suspended, at the same time a much larger cable system and an equally large beam system will, if the proposed scheme is put into operation, come under a measure of Government control to which they have not been subjected hitherto. I will endeavour a little later on to explain what I mean to your Lordships. The scheme is designed to combine as far as possible the advantages of State control with the numerous advantages of private ownership.
696
The scheme recommended by the Conference is briefly as follows. A merger company will be formed to acquire all the capital of the Marconi Company and the ordinary capital of the cable companies, thus effecting a concentration of the control of these companies. These companies will retain their investment and manufacturing interests, which are not directly concerned with communication services. A separate company, which is to be called the Communications Company, will be formed on public utility lines to acquire all the assets and to conduct all the business of the companies concerned in the merger so far as relates to communications. It is this latter company which will take over the Government-owned services. It will acquire the two Imperial Transatlantic cables, the Pacific Cable Board's cables, and the West Indian cable and wireless system worked by the Pacific Cable Board, and will hold the lease of the Post Office beam wireless stations.
Now I come to the point I referred to a moment ago. The Communications Company will be subject to such Government control as is necessary to safeguard both the interests of the Empire Governments and of the users of the cable and wireless services. Not only will two of its directors (one being the Chairman) be persons approved by His Majesty's Government, but it will consult an Advisory Committee, which will include representatives of all the Governments concerned, on questions of policy. This Committee will have special powers in regard to the fixing of rates which will enable it to protect the interests of the users. No increase of existing rates can be made without the consent of the Committee. Moreover, a standard net revenue of£1,865,000 from communication services has been fixed as the sum which may be retained for the purposes of the company. If the net revenue exceeds that figure, 12 per cent. of the excess comes to the Government as additional payment for the lease of the beam, and of the balance one half is to be devoted to reduction of rates or such other purpose as the Advisory Committee may approve. I consider that this is substantial and effective control. British control over all the companies will be guaranteed, and the Governments

697
will have the right to assume control of the cable and wireless systems in times of national emergency.
I turn now to the Bill itself. Clause 1 deals with the sale of the Pacific cable which is owned jointly by this country, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This cable was opened in 1901 and for fourteen years there were constant deficits. From 1915 to 1927, mainly owing to War traffic, profits were earned which were largely devoted to duplicating the cable. In 1927–8 the beam wireless service between the British Isles and Australia entered into competition and the traffic receipts fell by£80,000. The cable can at present just earn the interest on its loan capital, but the competition of beam wireless would be only too likely to result in deficits in future. The Communications Company takes over the debt represented by the outstanding loan capital, now amounting to£1,233,000, and pays in addition a capital sum of£517,000, of which this Government will receive 5–18ths or about£1,14,000.
Clause 2 deals with the sale of the West Indian cable which is owned by Great Britain, Canada and certain West Indian Islands. This cable has been run at a loss ever since it was opened. It has a debt in respect of loan capital amounting to£379,000, and will be sold for£300,000. The purchase price will be applied in reduction of the outstanding debt. Clause 3 is not so important. It deals with the dissolution of the Pacific Cable Board at a date which will depend upon the date of completion of the transfer to the Communications Company of the undertakings now managed by the Board. Clause 4 deals with the sale of the Imperial Transatlantic cables owned by the Post Office. On these cables there has been a deficit in each year since 1921. After providing for depreciation and interest the average annual deficit for the years 1923 to 1926 was£37,627 and in the last completed year the loss of traffic owing to beam competition had the result of reducing operating revenue to a figure insufficient to cover depreciation, let alone interest. These cables will be sold for£450,000. Taking the three properties together, the partner Governments are relieved of a debt of£1,233,000 in respect of the Pacific cable, and receive in addition£1,267,000 in cash. This is quite apart
698
from the sums we shall receive from the leasing of the beam wireless service. As the cables at present barely pay their way, and have a prospect of a growing loss resulting from increased competition from wireless and foreign interests, the Government are satisfied that we are receiving fair and adequate terms.
There is one other likely criticism I should like to deal with before I sit down. It will almost certainly be said that the Government is leasing the beam Service at a ridiculously low and inadequate figure. Let me explain the terms on which the beam service is to be leased. For the use of the beam service for 25 years—without the telephone service, that is—the Communications Company is to pay£60,000 down, a royalty of£250,000 a year and 12 per cent. of all profits made above the standard rate to which I have already referred—namely,£1,865,000 a year. On the other side the beam system cost only£240,000 to institute. Now, I will ask your Lordships what would be the attitude of the critics of this transaction if the position were reversed—that is, if the Government were leasing this system from a private company. I venture to say that their criticisms would be very severe. The position is that for what cost us£240,000 we are to receive£60,000 down,£250,000 a year and 12 per cent. of all profits above a certain standard rate which I have already mentioned. The Government are satisfied that this arrangement is a perfectly fair one and certainly not a disadvantageous one to the Government. I do not think there is anything else I ought to say to your Lordships in moving the Second Reading. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR, who had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill he read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, entirely agree with what the noble Earl has said in one respect, and although we shall have to differ oil many points I hope we shall do so in a friendly spirit. I entirely agree that what we are really dealing with this afternoon, and what makes the importance of our discussion this afternoon, is the Report of the Conference to which he has referred.

699
Your Lordships may have noticed that in the Preamble of the Bill itself this Conference is referred to as "a Conference of representatives of the partner Governments and of certain other Governments of His Majesty's Dominions and Colonies," and its purpose is stated to have been "to examine the situation which had arisen as a result of the competition of the beam wireless with the cable services, to report thereon and to make recommendations…"The position is an exceptional one. I have known in my experience cases of this kind in which difficult questions such as arise here have had to be faced, but of course not under the same conditions. An illustration of that is the telephone arbitration and the award of fifteen or sixteen million pounds.
The first point I want to raise is this. The beam service only came into operation very partially in 1926—very partially indeed. In 1927 three other services were instituted, and even from that short experience, as the noble Earl has pointed out, it has turned out that the beam service is extremely profitable, so profitable that it makes competition from what are known as the cable services undoubtedly almost impossible. Therefore you have in the hands of the Government as profitable an undertaking as I suppose has ever been tried as an experiment, either as a national experiment or as a business experiment. On the other side—and a fusion is suggested between them—you have the cable companies who are practically likely to get into a bankrupt condition. The reason of that is very obvious, and it is in this respect that the matter has been discussed both in your Lordships' House on its judicial side and elsewhere. It means that the cable companies have a very large quantity of obsolete or obsolescent equipment which from a commercial standpoint ceases to have any value at all, whereas on the other side, when we come to the question of the beam system, we have, as the noble Earl pointed out, something which has proved extraordinarily profitable, not only profitable in the sense of making a profit but in the sense of diminishing the cost—a very important matter—of Imperial wireless communications between the Mother Country and her various Colonies.
But that is only a very small part of the position. I think myself it is midsummer madness, if I may say so, to attempt at this stage in any way to ascertain what is the value of the beam system to the nation and the Government. I will give an illustration. I happen to have knowledge of these patents from the commencement. That was in my old professional days. But no one can possibly tell at this stage what the development may be of the beam services, either as regards the number of words sent or as regards the profit attached to the business. But this very day, to emphasize my view that anything of this kind is altogether premature at the present time, we have an account of beam wireless development. We know that experiments have been going on for a long time between Canada and this country through Marconi experts, who of course are the experts who are thoroughly cognisant of knowledge of this kind. It is stated in The Times to-day in regard to the latest development of beam wireless that——
"It would make all beam stations, he [an official of the Marconi Company] said, capable of dealing with three times their present traffic."
Just think what that means—three times the present traffic with no additional expense for equipment. Therefore you have here a new system which is only experimental, which was instituted first in 1926, since when only three experimental systems have been instituted, and now in 1928 you have this development. These new experiments show that when the results of the experiments are put into operation all beam stations will be capable of dealing with three times their present traffic, and the report in The Times to which I am referring goes on to say:—
"and would probably lead to the fixing of very reasonable rates for beam wireless in the near future."
I admit that personally, as regards an Imperial matter, I agree that reasonableness of rates for communications is more important than the question of the money involved.
But let us look at it from another point of view. Why should the proposal be made that our Government should part with a property of this kind at this moment? I will deal a little later with the terms to which the noble Earl re-

701
ferred. No one knows what the future advantages may be. No one knows that the property may not be multiplied in value tenfold or even hundredfold, after a preliminary experience and experiment that has gone on only to a very limited extent. We are asked to sanction a Bill which alienates for 25 years all possible additional results from the beam system or to reduce the charges to an almost nominal sum compared with the old charges for inter-communication by electricity between the Mother Country and the various Dominions. I put it to any commercial person here—I see Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon present—whether it is not of the utmost importance that this Imperial communication should be as cheap as possible. That is at the very bottom of our commercial and Imperial position. What is the result of this transfer? It is taking away the ownership of this property from the country and the Government and transferring it to commercial undertakings which at the present time are really in an almost bankrupt condition. I will not, for the moment, deal with the question of terms, but I must deal with them before I finish what I have to say to your Lordships.
I am not exaggerating. Let me very shortly refer your Lordships to one or two passages in the Report to which the noble Earl has referred. It states in the first place that in Great Britain beam stations are owned and operated by the Government. That is as it should be, but the noble Earl suggested that the Dominions or portions of them may have a different view regarding the ownership and operation of the beam system. No doubt the Dominions can do as they like and will do as they like. But their results have not come from a fusion which, to my mind, would be nothing but a disaster: they have come from the operation of the beans services in their initial stage, and if I might instance Canada, which is a very important Dominion, she has, no doubt, leased the operation of the beam services, but she has done it by a licence from year to year, which she has reserved the right to cancel at any time without notice, and the terms of payment are subject to a system, which we have not here, of Court control. The matter is under the same Court as controls railway rates. It is not a mere advisory
702
committee, but a judicial body upon which, in a matter of this kind, I think reliance may be placed.
Let me read from the Report:
"Before the opening of the beam service"—
that was but a year ago, and only on a very limited scale—
"the cables were working with a large margin of animal surplus."
I think that is quite true. What has Peen the effect of their opening?—
"It has been represented to us that the cable undertakings affected by the wireless rate reductions and the Indo-European land-line service have Men brought to a serious position."
I assume that to be true. I do not know who made these communications, but it was probably the representatives of the companies concerned. I always thought that one of the benefits of what we call private enterprise is that, when you become a victim of competition, the loss falls upon the company or persons concerned and is not in the nature of a public or national loss. It appears to me that if this principle is to be introduced and we are to subscribe from our national resources and give up our national advantages in a matter of this kind because the equipment of certain cable companies is either obsolete or obsolescent, we cut at the very foundation of all that has been so often said in this House with regard to private enterprise.
Let me go a little further, for some of these terms are very striking. I have referred to the effect on the companies. The Report says:
"On the other hand, the present beam rates on the Australian, South African and Indian services—assuming the existing traffic"—
which is the result of one year's working—
"to be maintained or the increase to be continued—yield a very high profit."
I do not think that we have the figures of that profit, but the noble Earl indicated something like 100 per cent. He said that from an expenditure of£240,000 we were getting£250,000 a year, or something of that kind.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: That is what we should gat under the proposed new scheme.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought that was what you were getting at present.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not think so.
LORD PARMOOR: I will deal with that point. I do not want to exaggerate at all, but really the history of this matter is a very curious one throughout. I make no suggestions with regard to personal interests, nor would I dream of doing so. I am merely dealing with it as a matter of business and trying to estimate what it means. A very high profit was made on a business that has been in operation for hardly a year. The Report goes on to say:—
"And these rates could be substantially reduced and still give a handsome return on the capital invested in the beam undertaking."
Here are two considerations which I should have thought would have recommended on the strongest grounds that an undertaking of this kind should be a national undertaking. You have an extremely hopeful outlook on the one hand, and on the other hand you can reduce charges drastically, as I understand, in order to have a cheap method of communication throughout the Empire. What are the objections to the present system? There are certainly none to be found in this Report. All that we find in this Report are assumptions of benefits to result from the change, although no facts are published of any sort or kind. I must say that it appears to me a most monstrous proposal that, after a very limited period of experiment and experience, you should, under certain conditions—I will refer to the terms in a moment—alienate a great national property and give up a great source of cheap Imperial intercommunication.
The next point to which the noble Earl referred concerned the terms on which this transaction is going to be undertaken. Let us see what the terms are. I must admit, as I think everyone would, that, so far as the Report of the Conference is concerned, there is no evidence on which any sound opinion could be formed. There is not a syllable of evidence, but only assumptions and inferences which the members of the Conference have themselves drawn. The noble Earl spoke of a sum of£250,000
704
per annum. I understood that that was the£250,000 per annum now being derived from the beam system. Am I wrong in that?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I do not follow the noble and learned Lord.
LORD PARMOOR: I was dealing with the terms. The first of them is the basic sum of£250,000 per annum. Is that the profit or income which is now being derived from the beam system, owned and operated in this country? I understood it was, but if no one knows where that sum comes from it is a bolt from the blue. It might be a fair sum, or it might be a totally inadequate sum. I cannot go beyond that. I did think that there was one firm basis—namely, the£250,000, that was settled having regard to the profits being made at the present time. If that is not so it might just as well be£20,000 or£2,000,000. The second point is the additional 12 per cent. They are getting cent, per cent, at the present time, and as regards this 12 per cent. being taken——
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Those are the profits of the Communications Company.
LORD PARMOOR: There is no Communications Company at the present time. The Communications Company is a thing of the future.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This is the proposed scheme.
LORD PARMOOR: The proposal is that we are to pass over this extraordinarily profitable undertaking, which is in its infancy, and to get a basic sum of£250,000 per annum. How is that sum arrived at? Unless we know that, no business man in this House would give the smallest weight to that sum. I did think that there was some basis for it, but, having regard to what the noble Earl says now, there is no basis for it. Then in certain circumstances there may be an additional 12 per cent. That is no protection whatever. After the 12 per cent. has been taken, in favour of our Government and our national assets, of the remaining or next 100 per cent., 50 per cent. goes wholly to the purposes of the company, and the other 50 per cent. is controlled by the Advisory Committee. What the value of that is I am

705
coming to presently. Assuming, therefore, that you get 100 per cent.—which after all would be a small profit, if the beam wireless system carries out the prospects which everyone is anticipating at present—we do not get any advantage from that. All we get is a sum fixed no one knows how, and the maximum margin is only 12 per cent., in addition, of the earnings of the company. I think any prophecy of this kind is absurd in attempting to adjust figures for a national payment. You have not got the statistics, and you ought to have waited several years before attempting to estimate this national asset. There is also a payment of£60,000, which seems, to be a sort of backsheesh.
I now come to the next point to which the noble Earl referred, and that is the Imperial Advisory Committee. What is the benefit of an Imperial Advisory Committee in a matter of this kind? It has been a system unfortunately very largely introduced into our governmental processes, in order to shunt responsibility from members and Ministers, who ought themselves to make a determination and to justify that determination, whatever it may be, either in this House or in the other House. This Imperial Advisory Committee, which has to deal with the other 50 per cent. of surplus profits, may deal with that money in any way they like, and amongst other purposes for the reduction of the charges. Is it in the least likely that an Advisory Committee of that kind will have anything like effective control? There is one point on which I am entirely in agreement with some noble Lords on the other side. If you are going to have private enterprise, and company enterprise, let us formulate it on a sound basis and then let it have liberty to operate in the way that it thinks most effective. Of all methods the method proposed here is the worst—nominally to hand over this undertaking to private enterprise, and then to hamper it with an Advisory Committee.
I look upon an Advisory Committee of that sort as perfectly useless. I think it was Mr. Parnell who said, with regard to the appointment of an Advisory Committee, that it did not matter what the powers were but it all depended upon the appointees, and this Advisory Committee is likely to have no effect what-
706
ever when this fusion business gets into the hands of these large amalgamated companies. Two of the directors have to be approved by the Government. What protection is that? I would like to ask the noble Earl, if you are dealing with a big combine such as we have at the present time, what the effect is likely to be of the fact that the Government have assented to A. and B. being Chairman and Vice-Chairman. They are chosen and selected by the company itself, and it is only a question of the Government's approval. There, again, if you are going to hand over great undertakings of this kind to private hands, I am one who considers that they should be handed over in the spirit of trust and confidence and without undue and petty interference of this kind.
The underlying principle here is a very big one. Is it justifiable at this stage to hand over a great national asset of this kind, with the possibilities which are known to exist? Only to-day we have had declarations of an invention which gives three times the power to the existing equipment of the beam company in this country. That is to say, although the company has been enormously prosperous and profitable up to now, without any great additional expenditure you may in the future get three times the revenue as compared with that which you are now deriving. Whether you use it in dividends or in the far better system of reducing the cost of intercommunication between the Mother Country and our Dominions, is a matter which this country, this Government and our own Ministers, ought to decide from time to time as and when the occasion arises.
I do not know, my Lords, that there is any other point upon which I particularly desire to trouble you this afternoon, but I want to emphasise this, and perhaps I have had a rather large experience in this respect. On the one hand, can any one justly estimate the value to this country of the beam wireless system after an experience of very little more than a year? As a business proposition, is that possible? Would any one in these conditions buy up what is in itself a new invention, a new method, on a basis of that knd, and more particularly when it is an invention in which from time to time new progress is being made? I do not believe that any one

707
would entertain that for a single moment as a business proposition. Now, look at the other side. How are you to value obsolete and obsolescent machinery? It may be that it is not altogether obsolete or obsolescent, though it certainly will be in a very short period of time. Whenever you have to consider what the value of an undertaking is you absurdly exaggerate the figure unless you make a large deduction in respect of machinery which has become obsolete or obsolescent. I recollect that not long before the end of my professional life I had to argue in this House a case concerning the value of obsolete or obsolescent machinery. Mr. Alfred Lyttelton was the arbitrator, and this Court unanimously decided that if it was obsolete or obsolescent it was worth nothing; therefore the suggested damages for the non-delivery of machinery of that kind ought to be assessed at nothing. As far as I can see, if what is stated in this Conference Report is true, that is exactly the position of these cable companies.
The noble Earl did raise one point. He said it was well that these cable companies should be preserved for certain purposes, or rather that the cable communication should be preserved. It is not suggested that these various cables should not be maintained. Let that be so. It is a matter for the particular district which wants immediate communication to make its own arrangements and adjustments. There is not the slightest reason why the beam company cannot be supported and used, and flourish, and at the same time these other companies carry out any subsidiary duties which are thought desirable.
I am sorry to have been so long but it is an extraordinarily difficult case, and very complicated. In the Report of the Conference we are told that at a certain date, March 14, 1928, a letter was received from the chairman of the Eastern Associated Cables Company and the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company, of which Lord Inverforth is chairman, saying that in certain circumstances they were willing to have a merger fusion. I do not know how that letter came to be written, but it was written. There is not one word in it about the beam system. And then later (I am quoting again from the Report) it is said:—
"It is possible"—
708
I do not know who foretold this possibility; we have none of the evidence—
"that unless the beam installations were transferred to the new company the merger would not, in fact, take place."
What does that mean, and what right had they to base the merger on the beam system being brought into the general consideration? Not a word of it before! We are told the merger is going on, and they suddenly say it will not be possible unless, as part of the merger, we bring in the beam wireless system.
I think that this is really an outrage on the ordinary principles of dealing with property, both as regards the price obtained, seeing that the Government have no evidence whatever as to the right figure, and as regards the payment or consideration given by the merger companies, of which we know nothing. I do not believe for one moment it would have been sanctioned or considered but for those who dislike profitable undertakings of this kind being left in national hands, for national benefit, to be worked from a public point of view as the major and governing consideration. I do not know how often we have heard about the advantages of cheap Imperial inter-communication. We obtained that chance through our ownership and operation of the beam system, and now I suggest that we are throwing it away without any due consideration and without a single figure in this Report which justifies the bargain that has been made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now"), and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the spirit in which he has criticised this Bill, but he really has been dealing with matters of which I spoke in the short speech which I made in introducing the Bill, and I do not think there is very much for me to answer. I think the burden of the noble and learned Lord's charge is that we ought not to have rushed into this question, that the beam service was in its infancy, and we were not in a position to know what it was worth to the country. Well, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would have been prepared to allow the situation to go on as it is at the present moment.
LORD PARMOOR: What I said was that you have got a most interesting and valuable experiment, which ought to be worked out. I think there is no doubt of it.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: In that case it would have meant that the cable companies would almost certainly have been crushed out of existence.
LORD PARMOOR: Why not?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I told the noble and learned Lord in my earlier speech that the Government have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely essential that these cable services should be carried on, because they did ensure certain things which a wireless service could not, ensure, namely, certainty and secrecy, which are of the utmost importance, both from the commercial and the Imperial point of view. After all, it is perfectly clear that in any arrangement of this kind the beam service was an essential part. If we desired to keep these cable services going, and yet to come to an arrangement into which all the various interests were brought, it was absolutely obvious that the beam service would have to be included. The noble and learned Lord—as I did too, I admit—dealt at considerable length with the terms on which the beam service was to be leased to the new Communications Company. He criticised the figure of£250,000, the yearly royalty which the Government are to receive, on two grounds—first, that it was based on an unknown factor, and alternatively that we had been deriving about that sum of money during the last year as a profit from that service. Well, I am led to understand that, as a matter of fact, we did not derive a sum anything like£250,000 during the past year's working.
LORD PARMOOR: Have you the figure?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I have not the exact figure, but I will make it my business to find out, and let the noble and learned Lord know, if he so desires. This sum of£250,000 was arrived at after very full consideration, and with the best possible advice which could be got. I should like to point out that this question of the terms on which the beam service is to be leased to the Communications Company does not really come into the
710
Bill at all, and the House will no doubt have an opportunity of criticising it when it arises later on. I would only like, in conclusion, to repeat that, as the Government have come to the conclusion, as the result of the findings of the Imperial Conference, that some kind of arrangement has to be come to, I consider that the Government have come to a very fair and not at all disadvantageous arrangement from their own point of view.
On Question, Amendment disagreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

PROBATE AND REGISTRY OFFICE, CANTERBURY.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to the threatened abolition of the Probate and Registry Office, Canterbury, and to ask why the petition of the Mayor and Corporation of Canterbury to be granted an interview should have received no attention. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Probate and Registry Office of Canterbury is the successor of a very ancient institution. In 1857 it took over the functions of the Archdeaconry and Consistory Court which had been in existence for some four or five hundred years. It was not unnatural, perhaps, that the Corporation and the neighbourhood of Canterbury should be dissatisfied at the idea of doing away with an institution so ancient. The foundation of the change is that the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, provided for the re-arrangement of the district probate registries, but as the Canterbury Registry had been established before 1857 it could not be discontinued without the command of the President of the Probate Division and the Lord Chancellor. An Order has now been issued—and notice of it was posted on the Registry Office on December 8—terminating its existence as a registry and constituting it a sub-registry.
That act was based on the findings of a Committee which, I am informed, received evidence, with one exception only, from officials and of which no notice whatever was given to the neighbourhood of Canterbury; in fact, they did not know that it was sitting and had no opportunity of giving evidence. I am given to understand that the object of this change is economy, and in these days no

711
one would cavil at that; but this office is doing a great deal more work than it did in 1922 and 1923. The number of grants has increased from 385 then to 539 last year, and the fees from£846 to£1,411. The Corporation became aware in July that there was an intention to put an end to this Registry. They there and then prepared a memorial which they respectfully submitted to the President of the Probate Division and to the Lord Chancellor, but with the exception of an official notification that the memorial had been received, they had no explanation of the reasons for the abolition of the office and no response to their humble petition that they might be received in order to present their case in person. Had they received some reply to that memorial other than the official acknowledgment of its receipt, in all probability I should not have had to trouble your Lordships to-night.
I have shown your Lordships that the revenue of the office is increasing. It is certain to go on increasing because, as your Lordships are aware, the further part of East Kent is becoming a coal field and if the coal measures can be worked at a profit there is no question whatever that the population of East Kent must increase very considerably. What provision is made for that increase of population by those who have to deal with this matter? An official from the head registry is to go down there once a week on Wednesday for about four hours. I do not know why Wednesday has been chosen, but it is not a particularly convenient day for the locality. Saturday is the day most convenient for the locality. It is market day, the day upon which the people of the country around go in and do their shopping and marketing, and it would have been very much more convenient to the public had Saturday been chosen instead of Wednesday.
I am told that 320 personal applications, exclusive of those made through solicitors, were dealt with during this last year. I have shown your Lordships that there is a profit on the revenue and expenses of the office. The building itself, the Registry Office, will have to be maintained; I believe it is going to be maintained. It contains a very large number of most important documents, ecclesiastical and testamentary. It is inconceivable that those will be moved
712
elsewhere, and, therefore, the building has to be maintained. If the building is maintained, there must of course be somebody there to act as caretaker, not only to look after the building and to take care that the documents are not tampered with, but to be able to make searches for such documents as are asked for by the very large number of people who go there to make inquiries and to examine documents. I really do not know what economy will be secured by this change; but it is the fact that the revenue of the office is sufficient to pay not only the fees of the office but of the caretaker who is to look after the documents. Those are the facts that I was asked by the Corporation to lay before your Lordships. As I have already said, had some courteous notice been taken of the petition of the Mayor and Corporation of Canterbury, I do not think I should have had to trouble your Lordships at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no complaint against the noble Lord for raising the Question or for the method which he adopted in bringing it before your Lordships or the light in which he put it before you. But the facts as to the Canterbury Registry are not, I think, as the noble Lord must have led your Lordships to believe, that a registry which has been established for centuries is being closed by the order of the President of the Probate Division and the Lord Chancellor. The facts are these. In 1857 probate registries were set up or continued in various parts of the country, including Canterbury. In 1866 a scheme was brought into operation under which the salaries of the registrars and clerks and their duties were laid down. Since 1866 two things have happened. First of all, there has been a very great change in the distribution of population and in the distribution of work throughout the country. Secondly, the whole ideas of administration, scales of salaries and so on have profoundly altered.
As long ago as 1874, more than fifty years ago, complaints began to arise with regard to the conditions under which these registries were being carried on. From time to time the matter was raised in the Public Accounts Committee, and from time to time suggestions were made for alterations. But those suggestions never fructified. The matter continued

713
to get worse, and by the beginning of this century not only had the centres of population so altered that many of the registries found themselves with very little work for their staff, but also the people who were employed were underpaid; they had no security of tenure; they had no pensions; and they were not, strictly speaking, even servants of the State. The result was that in 1915 the whole matter was investigated, and a Report was submitted to Parliament recommending the abolition of registries—not all, but a very few cases—and suggesting that a small Committee should be set up to investigate further the carrying out of the scheme which was contained in that 1915 Report. There were other legal matters which had to be dealt with first, and it was not till 1922 that a Committee was set up under Mr. Tomlin, as he then was, Mr. Justice Tomlin now, to carry out the recommendations of the 1915 Report. That Committee made a Report in 1923, and in that Report embodied a scheme which gave a greater number of local registries and sub-registries than had originally been approved. That scheme is substantially the scheme which has since been adopted by Parliament.
Based upon the Tomlin Report, a Bill was introduced in 1921. In that Report it was proposed that it should be left to the President and to the Lord Chancellor to determine which registries should be maintained and which should be abolished. Parliament was told that the intention was, substantially, to carry out the scheme of the Tomlin Committee. That was not satisfactory to the House of Commons before whom the Bill came. In Committee there was a great outcry when it was pointed out, as it had to be, what very unsatisfactory conditions existed with regard to the registries, and the Committee insisted on the scheme itself being embodied in the Bill in the form of a Schedule. The Bill never became an Act because of the Dissolution of Parliament, but a new Bill was introduced in the present Parliament, in 1925, and it adopted the plan which the 1924 Committee had insisted upon—that is to say, of stating in the Schedule which registries should be maintained and which should not. That Schedule contained Canterbury as one of the places which was to cease to exist as a registry and was to become a sub-registry.
714
All that the 1925 Act did with regard to the President and the Lord Chancellor was to say that they should fix the dates upon which the new registries which were suggested should come into operation, and upon which the old registries were to be abolished and cease to exist, and power was given by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, on the recommendation of the President and the Lord Chancellor, to modify the Schedule if thought fit. So far as Canterbury is concerned it would be quite impossible for me or for my noble friend, the President of the Probate and Divorce Division, to find any ground upon which to invite either your Lordships' House or the other House of Parliament to modify the scheme in the Schedule. The population of Canterbury is just about 23,000. There are towns having a population in some cases of over 200,000 people which have not a registry or a sub-registry—Hull, Bradford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Stoke, and I could name a very large number of others. Canterbury, in fact, has been extraordinarily favoured in having the status of a sub-registry conferred upon it by the Schedule. If it had not been given special privileges (no doubt by reason of its great antiquity and great traditions) normally it would cease to exist either as a registry or a sub-registry altogether.
The noble Lord says, quite truly, that the number of applications has increased from something over 300 when the Act was passed to 539 in the last year in regard to which there is any record. There has been a similar increase, or a very considerable increase, in applications all over the country, so that it is not a case so much of Canterbury gaining proportionately but for believing, as is the case, that there has been an increase in the business generally. Even if it were the case that Canterbury alone was increasing, 539 applications in a registry, assuming 300 working days, would mean just under two a day. The minimum staff on which a registry can be conducted is the registrar, two clerks—allowing one to be away on holidays—and another employee, making four in all as the minimum staff for the smallest registry. It is difficult to give your Lordships an exact estimate of how much work is required to make a grant. It is difficult because the grants vary, but all difficult cases

715
have to go to London under the Regulations because anything out of the ordinary must be dealt with at Somerset House. The so-called routine cases may take a quarter of an hour or they may take a good deal more. I suppose about half an hour would be a fair average time. There would therefore be, assuming two grants a day, an hour's work, but for one man, and for that purpose you are to keep four people employed continuously and you are to say: "It does not matter doing that because you make a profit if you assume that you have only to pay the salaries out of the fees received for grants." Really it may show a profit calculated in that way, but that is not what I understand as economy.
If we were to say to Canterbury: "You, with your 539 grants are to be raised to the status of a registry," it would be impossible to resist the application of scores of towns which would have two or three or five or six or eight or ten times as many grants. If you were to say Canterbury with its 500 grants is entitled to have a registry they would say: "So are we." The whole scheme would then have to be thrown out. I could not, and the President could not, say that we will ask Parliament to make Canterbury a registry because it has 539 grants, and at the same time say that we will not ask Parliament to make Plymouth or Portsmouth or a score of other places registries, where they have ten or twenty times as many applications as at Canterbury.
The noble Lord has said truly that oral applications are made. I think 300 is the figure with regard to Canterbury. I have no doubt that is true. Your Lordships understand that an application for pro-hate can be done through a solicitor, or can be done by correspondence, or a personal application may be made. Excise officers are charged with the duty of advising people with regard to filling up the application, and there are Excise officers at Canterbury as elsewhere. The arrangement is that there should be an office opened specially one day a week at Canterbury for such people as desire personally to make an application at that particular time. The noble Lord says the day is an inconvenient one. There is nothing of that in the memorial. I suppose the day was not fixed then. But if the day is inconvenient, as suggested
716
by the noble Lord, I am sure the learned President, who fixes the day, would be anxious to meet the convenience of people in the locality, and I will tell him that the noble Lord says that Wednesday is not the best day. I dare say that will be looked into and possibly remedies applied and the day changed to another day of the week.
The noble Lord says the memorial which was submitted stated that there are ancient records which ought to be kept at Canterbury. The noble Lord said that was very important. I have had the figures got out and I find that during last year there were sixty searches in all made at Canterbury, and of those ten were made by local people and fifty by people who had travelled to Canterbury for the purpose of making them. So, from the point of view of convenience, it would have been far better to have removed the records to London where they could have been consulted much more easily, but in fact I am afraid I have hardened my conscience a little in favour of Canterbury by reason of its historic past, and arrangements have been made at my request and with my concurrence under which records are being kept at Canterbury in the custody of the Registrar of the County Court, who is a responsible person, and there will be facilities for those people who want to look at them there. I am not sure whether from the point of view of the general public it is the best arrangement, but it does give weight to the representations which the noble Lord has brought forward as to the historic interest.
Finally he said that there had been some neglect of the Corporation in that a deputation was not received. If any useful purpose could have been served by receiving a deputation I am sure the learned President and I would have been only too glad to do it. It cannot be said that we have not paid attention to the representations made by people living in and near Canterbury. I hold in my hand the dossier of correspondence which has taken place with regard to this change. The noble Lord says the Corporation did not know of it until last July, but in fact there was elaborate correspondence in 1925. The noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, now a member of this House, was at that time the representative of Canterbury in the House of

717
Commons. I had both interviews and correspondence with him and I had correspondence, I think, with a number of Members of Parliament who represented various constituencies in Kent and who had been stirred up in the way which some of us remember by their constituents to make representations, and to whom I endeavoured to make a full reply such as I have just given to your Lordships.
The only reason why, when I received a statement from the Corporation of Canterbury of the facts which the noble Lord has brought before your Lordships, with a request to send a deputation to see me, I did not invite them to do so was that I felt it would be wasting their time and to some extent public money and my own time. If any question of fact had been in dispute, or there was any statement in their memorandum which was challenged or on which I wanted further information, I should have been only too pleased to see them, but on the facts of the case it would have been impossible for the learned President or myself without very grave dereliction of our duty, imposed on us by Act of Parliament, to accede to the request, and if we had been disposed to do it I do not think it would have been possible to hope to induce either House of Parliament to pass the Resolution which would have been necessary to make the modification Canterbury desired. I have done my best to satisfy the noble Lord that the matter has not been dealt with summarily and that there really is a case too strong to be ignored.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I was not aware of the correspondence which he referred to when I put down my Question.

BOLIVIA-PARAGUAY DISPUTE.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether any further information as to the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay can be given, and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to put the Question and make the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, but I do not propose to trouble your Lordships for more than a minute or two on the sub-
718
ject. I think the controversy between Bolivia and Paraguay, although it is from our point of view in a remote part of the world, is one of some importance, and it is particularly of importance because there appears to be at any rate a danger of an outbreak of hostilities between two South American States and the question, of course, arises how far the machinery of the League of Nations call be and ought to be and will be used in order to prevent any further and more disastrous events.
On the substance of the dispute I do not propose to say one word, for the very excellent reason that I know almost nothing about it. As to the relation of the League of Nations to it, I respectfully welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the other House that there could be no question at all that the League was entitled and indeed, as I understand him, was bound to do whatever it could to prevent an outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, I do not think any one who reads the Covenant can be in any doubt about that point. I confess that merely judging by published accounts I felt some little doubt, very likely wrongly, as to whether the actual action taken at Lugano had been quite adequate to the situation. However, I do not propose as things have turned out to say anything about that this evening, because I see in this morning's newspapers a statement, which I trust is well founded, that Bolivia has decided to accept the mediation of the Pan-American Conference and that of course—assuming that Paraguay, as I understand is the case, has also accepted mediation—is a perfectly satisfactory way of disposing of the matter. The object of the Covenant of the League, as your Lordships are aware, is to prevent war, and it is expressly pointed out in the Articles of the Covenant that it does not matter what agency is employed for the purpose provided it is a satisfactory and successful agency. In those circumstances I shall do no more than ask the Question and move the Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is no question, of course, at all, as to the importance of the dispute which has broken out between these two countries in South America. The

719
area in dispute is a very large one and the difference of opinion comes down from remote historical causes. Direct communications to settle it did not begin before 1879, but there have been repeated efforts since then to come to an agreement, the last time being in 1927. Both countries are Members of the League of Nations. Coming down to the more recent events which have produced this crisis, on December 9 a party of 300 Paraguayan troops attacked the Bolivian garrison of Fort Vanguardia in the disputed Chaco area which lies on the frontier of the two countries. The Bolivian garrison of twenty-five were killed or captured. It was announced at La Paz on December 9 that the post had been recaptured by Bolivian reinforcements, the losses on both sides being given as eighty killed. On December 15 a further engagement took place in which the Bolivian troops attacked three Paraguayan forts, from two of which, according to a report from His Majesty's Minister at Asuncion, the garrisons retired without resisting.
As I have mentioned, both these countries are Members of the League of Nations and the position taken up by the League in respect of the dispute is briefly this. The Council of the League have reminded Bolivia and Paraguay of their obligations under the League and have received definite assurances from both countries that they will respect those obligations. I could, of course, have gone in great detail into the letters which have passed between the President of the Council of the League of Nations, M. Briand, and the two contending Governments, but as I propose to accept the Motion of my noble friend to lay Papers upon the Table it will probably suit your Lordships' convenience better to leave the details of what has passed between the League of Nations and the two Governments to those Papers when they are laid. If my noble friend wishes it, I could develop that part of the case further.
Then my noble friend referred to the Pan-American Conference now sitting at Washington. Both countries are represented at that Conference, which is sitting at Washington to draw up a Treaty of Arbitration for the settlement of disputes between American countries. This Conference has offered its good offices
720
for the settlement of the Bolivia-Paraguay dispute, and both countries have accepted the offer. That is our official information, but at the same time I make this statement under a certain reserve, for I have some reason to doubt, at this moment of speaking, whether both acceptances will necessarily hold good. But in point of fact they have accepted. Arbitration by the Pan-American Conference will, of course, as my noble friend has said, be in accordance with the terms of Article 12 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which prescribes that disputes must in the first place be submitted to arbitration or to judicial settlement or to inquiry by the Council of the League. There is, therefore, no conflict between the offer of the Pan-American Conference and the procedure to which the two countries are committed under the Covenant of the League. It was quite evident that it was necessary for the Council of the League of Nations to take action in the matter, but the proceedings in regard to the Pan-American Conference are perfectly in order and in accordance with the Covenant, and it is to be hoped that they will bear fruit. I need not say that the President of the Council, M. Briand, is watching the case very carefully and nothing will be omitted which ought to be done.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say one word of great satisfaction after hearing the statement of the noble Marquess opposite. It would have been a great misfortune to the whole future of the League and the Council if this matter had not been settled in accordance with League procedure. I understand the noble Marquess to have stated that, as matters now stand, everything is in order and, so far as he can tell us, the matter may be settled under the Article of the Covenant that is proper to a case of this kind. He sounded one note of doubt, as to whether it could be quite certainly stated that both parties had accepted the Pan-American Conference as arbitrators or conciliators for the settling of this dispute. I sincerely hope that this doubt will be dissipated, and I think that the noble Marquess has shown very clearly the enormous importance of the League in preserving the peace of the world.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for the reply that he has been good enough to make and for undertaking to accept my Motion for Papers. I join with what has just fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite in congratulating the Government and, if one may say so, the League on what we hope will be a satisfactory settlement of this dispute. I am particularly glad that M. Briand is watching the case, and I understand—I do not know whether it is so—that the Secretary-General of the League is in Paris with M. Briand and is ready, I imagine, to take any action that is necessary. In those circumstances, there is nothing more to be said except to express once more my thanks to my noble friend and to express the hope that, in the Papers that will be laid, there will be contained, if all goes well, the terms of the reply of the Bolivians and the Paraguayans accepting the arbitration or mediation, or whatever it is to be called, of the Pan-American Conference. I say that because there is a little difference in the accounts given in some of the newspapers. Some of them suggest that it was done in deference to the League's remonstrance, but in others I do not think that this is mentioned. I do not know if my noble friend would consider whether he would be able to lay those Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My only doubt is that I do not know whether we possess those Papers yet. My noble friend will remember that I did not speak with absolute confidence regarding the acceptance. I think it is of importance that this should be borne in mind.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move, That the, Earl of Iddesleigh be added to the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills, which are not Private Bills, in the present Session. This Motion has, I believe, the concurrence of the noble Earl.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint an additional member to the, said Committee.

WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND IS- LANDS (TRANSPORT SERVICES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Duke of Sutherland).
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am quite sure that you will be very much obliged to the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, if he will be good enough to explain why there is such a hurry for this Bill. It was read a first time exactly a week ago and, although I have no wish to obstruct its progress, I think your Lordships will naturally be interested to know the reasons why the noble Marquess wishes us to depart from what is now so happily a custom of the House—namely, not to despatch our Bills too quickly and without full opportunity of considering them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, let me say in the first place, in order to clear away any misconception, that although my noble friend the Lord Chairman called attention to the very exceptional character of the procedure under which this Bill has been submitted, yet he authorises me to say that he has no objection to this procedure in all the circumstances of the case. No doubt he would be extremely sorry, as all your Lordships would be, if it became the rule that Bills of this kind should be put through as Public Bills without any limitation, but in all the circumstances of the ease the noble Earl authorises me to say that he has no objection to that procedure. That, I think, is very important, because we rely so much upon the Lord Chairman to keep us straight in these matters.
As regards the reason for the precipitancy with which the Bill has been pushed forward, I think I may state it in this way. There was this service of boats in this area of the Highlands and Islands of

723
Scotland and, owing to a certain amount of friction into which I would rather not enter in your Lordships' House, the service of boats was suddenly brought to an end and the inhabitants of this area and those who were interested were put—I was going to say from one day to another, but that would be an exaggeration—were put in a very brief time in the position of losing this necessary means of communication, and it was necessary for the Government, as represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland, to intervene. The first thing that he did was what any of your Lordships would naturally imagine that he would do. He went to the appropriate railway company and asked them to take over this service of boats. The railway company, as I think I have told your Lordships before, were not prepared to do this. They said that it was of no special interest to them and, if I may use a vulgar phrase, they pointed out that there was no money in it. They were not prepared to do it and, moreover, they were not prepared to promote a Private Bill, which would be very expensive. From the point of view of the interests of their shareholders, they felt that there was no call upon them to take such a course.
Accordingly it came to this, that, except with the direct intervention of His Majesty's Government by promoting a Bill which did not require an appearance before a Private Bill Committee, there was no means of carrying out this necessary provision of communication for this remote part of Great Britain. I think that in the circumstances the Government were bound to intervene, and I do not think that any of your Lordships will have any doubt of that. As to the extreme hurry, there would have been no necessity, I dare say, as regards a few days, if Parliament had not been on the point of an adjournment, but, Parliament being on the point of an adjournment, the question was whether we were to call upon these unlucky people to wait for the replacement of their means of communication for another two months, or whether we were to proceed immediately. I have stated the matter very briefly, and without any notes to help me, but I hope that you will not interpret too literally what I said about things happening from day to day. It was a very brief period which was at the service of these people in order
724
that they should be provided with the necessary communications. I hope that I have said enough to account for the reason why I have been false to my profession of looking after the proper despatch of business in this House, and made an exception, and I hope that the noble Earl, who is a watch-dog even more stern than I am myself to prevent any failure in this respect, will acquit me of any grave dereliction of duty, and will cooperate in passing this Bill into law.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

THE CARRYING OVER OF BILLS.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution in my name standing on the Paper.
Moved, That a Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider how far it would be desirable in the case where a Bill had passed through the House of Commons but where there was not sufficient time properly to consider it in the House of Lords to carry the Bill over so that in the next Session of the same Parliament, notwithstanding the Prorogation, the consent of the House of Commons given in the previous Session might remain effective, and the proceedings on the Bill be recommenced or resumed in the House of Lords:
That the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee—

L. Desart (E. Desart),

L. Charnwood,

L. Cozens-Hardy,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Hunsdon of Hunsdon,

L. Davidson of Lambeth:

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint seven members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1),

Expiring Laws Continuance,

Electricity (Supply),

Public Works Loans,

Western Highlands and Islands (Transport Services),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 6),

Bognor Urban District Council,

Perth Corporation Order Confirmation.