HL Deb 30 July 1928 vol 71 cc1417-49

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:


Clause 1:

Distinction of hereditaments and apportionment of values in valuation lists.

1.—(1) In every valuation list the classes of hereditaments hereinafter mentioned shall, in the prescribed manner, be distinguished from each other and from all other hereditaments, that is to say, there shall be so distinguished—

  1. (a) agricultural hereditaments;
  2. (b) industrial hereditaments;
  3. (c) freight-transport hereditaments;
and where by this Act the net annual value of any such hereditament is required to be apportioned such apportionment shall be shown in the prescribed manner in the valuation list.

LORD THOMSON moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to leave out "freight." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to simplify the Bill and to include in its provisions all forms of road transport. The word "freight," which the Amendment proposes to delete, includes omnibuses, chars-a-bancs, lorries, and a variety of other vehicles on the road. In the case of these forms of road transport they are taxed by the Petrol Tax for the benefit of the railways. In another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the following explanation of this policy. He said:— We believe the railways have not had entirely fair play against road competition, heavily subsidised as it has been by reason of the inadequate share which it has paid in respect of damage to the roads. The clause as it stands definitely taxes the competitive forms of road transport for the benefit of the railways. In a sense it affects "tubes." I understand that the Underground Railway stock fell on the introduction of this Bill. Possibly that may have been because of its association with omnibuses in London. There is more than that in it because the omnibuses and trams have put up their prices to meet the Tax. Sometimes that has meant an increase of 200 per cent. to 300 per cent. Supplementary tickets have been presented to the public which they have had to pay for to make their journey. The consequence is that this clause as it now stands taxes the public for the benefit of the railways. I submit that, though these forms of transport are very beneficial to the public, the public are after all the first party to be considered. I am sure that the loss to the scheme would be very trifling by the deletion of this word and that the gain to the public would be considerable.

Amendment moved— Page 1, Line 14, leave out ("freight").—(Lord Thomson.)


I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his kindly desire to simplify the Bill but, unfortunately, in that very zealous wish for which I commend him, he will go far to destroy the object of the Bill, because I need not, perhaps, remind him that the great object of this Bill is to deal with a certain limited fund and apply it in the best manner for the assistance of British industry. If you take out the word "freight" then transport would apply not merely to the freight upon the railways but to all the passengers on the railways as well. That is not the object of the Bill. The object is to assist certain industries, not to reduce the price of tickets for passengers. Indeed, it would require a considerable sum outside the money already allocated for that purpose, or else it would mean that the money allocated to the relief of the heavy industries would be frittered away on a number of other objects and the object of the Bill would be defeated. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for moving his Amendment, but I hope, as he is as keen on the objects of the Bill as we are, that he will not press the Amendment.


I partly understand what the noble Viscount said but I do not think he has met the real difficulty. It may be very convenient as a matter of drafting but it does not meet the question as regards competition in transport, which undoubtedly goes on between the road services and the railway services and which is becoming very acute at the present time. It does place a disability on the one as against the other. If the noble Viscount will look at Clause 5, subsection (2), he will see that 'Transport purposes' means all or any of the following purposes:— (a) 'railway transport purposes,' that is to say, all purposes connected with the conveyance or transport by railway of passengers and their luggage, or of carriages, parcels or merchandise, including the construction, maintenance and repair of all ways, works, machinery and plant used in connection with the undertaking. I should have thought that so far as the railways are concerned you had there a definition which included everything. I do not know whether that is the view of the noble Viscount, and as we certainly do not desire to create difficulties I think a further explanation would help us.


I do not know that I can offer any further explanation. I have stated quite clearly what is the object of the measure. I am not talking necessarily at the moment about competition with transport on the roads, because that arises on another Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord and I think the subject had better be discussed on that Amendment. The object of the Bill is to limit it to freights and not to give assistance to the passengers. That might be a very useful thing to do, but when you have a limited amount of money you have to think how best to apply it. The whole object of the Bill is to apply it to these particular industries and not slightly to reduce fares to passengers.


I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to add the following proviso:— Provided that for the purposes of the apportionment of the net annual values of agricultural hereditaments required by this Act, the apportionment of the net annual values of the farmhouse, farm buildings, and cottages comprised in such hereditaments shall, so long as they are used only for the cultivation of the land, and as from the date when paragraph (c) of section five (Separate statement in valuation lists, etc., of value of agricultural land) of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, shall cease to have effect, be calculated on, the rent at which they could be expected to let to a tenant from year to year if they could only be so used.

The noble Lord said: the object of this Amendment is to get rid of difficulties which arise under Section 5, paragraph (c), of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, which comes to an end this year. That paragraph is as follows:— (c) where any hereditament consists partly of agricultural land and partly of buildings, the gross estimated rental of the buildings, when valued separately, in pursuance of this Act, from the agricultural land shall, while the buildings are used only for the cultivation of the said land, be calculated not on structural cost, but on the rent at which they would be expected to let to a tenant from year to year, if they could only be so used; and the total gross estimated rental of the hereditament shall not be increased by the said separate valuation. I have been asked by the Central Landowners' Association to move this Amendment, which I hope the noble Viscount will accept. If the noble Viscount cannot accept this Amendment, I would ask him to give an assurance that there shall be some provision in the future for a similar assessment of farmhouses and cottages attached to farms as is provided by the paragraph that I have read. I would remind the House that this provision expires on March 31, 1929. It has to be borne in mind also that the majority of the new valuations under the Act of 1925 will come into force on October 29 next year, so that I think I am justified in asking my noble friend to give us an assurance that the people affected will not be damnified in any sense by the fact that this paragraph may not be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. If he can give an assurance that this provision will be continued, or at any rate this particular paragraph, I shall be satisfied, but I think my noble friend will see that this is a case in which something ought to be done, for otherwise difficulties will be created regarding the assessment of farmhouses and cottages.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strachie.)


I have, of course, studied the paragraph of the Act to which the noble Lord refers, and I accept his interpretation of it. He tells us that the Act comes to an end, if nothing is done, in March next year. I understand that the general provision of that paragraph will be embodied in or will take the form of a new Bill before that time, and that no change therefore will take place in the method of the valuation of these houses.


I am quite satisfied with my noble friend's assurance, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Definition of industrial hereditaments.

3.—(1) In this Act the expression "industrial hereditament" means a hereditament (not being a freight-transport hereditament) occupied and used as a mine or mineral railway or, subject as hereinafter provided, as a factory or workshop:

Provided that the expression industrial hereditament does not include a hereditament occupied and used as a factory or workshop if it is primarily occupied and used for the following purposes or for any combination of such purposes, that is to say—

  1. (a) the purposes of a dwelling-house;
  2. (b) the purposes of a retail shop;
  3. (c) the purposes of distributive wholesale business;
  4. (d) purposes of storage;
  5. (e) the purposes of a public supply undertaking;
  6. (f) any other purposes, whether or not similar to any of the foregoing, which are not those of a factory or workshop.

(4) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:— Mineral railway" means a railway, tramway, or ropeway used primarily for the transport of minerals from a mine, or from two or more mines, to the railway of a railway company or to a dock and in the latter case includes also such dock:

LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (1), after "mineral railway or," to insert "for the purposes of trade or commerce." The noble Lord said: This Amendment brings within the provisions of the Bill shops, warehouses and distributing depots. The intention of the Bill was said to be to give relief to all buildings or other property used for the purpose of production by manual labour. I would ask the noble Viscount what is meant by manual labour in this connection. Is not a distributive trade a trade which employs manual labour? If we are going to draw a distinction between distributive and productive trades, then, for example, is such a trade as distributing goods by lorry all over the country to be excluded on the ground that the man who drives the lorry and looks after it is not doing manual labour? I have sought for a definition of manual labour in Murray's Dictionary, and I am afraid that I have sought in vain for a good one, but this does seem to me to be manual labour of a very distinct type. Why should a distributive trade be penalised while others that are in competition with it reap all the benefit?

As regards shops and warehouses, under the Bill as it stands—though I think it would be corrected in this respect by the Amendment that stands in my name—shopkeepers, both large and small, and warehouse proprietors get no benefit whatsoever. They bear a very heavy share of the rates. It is true, as the noble Viscount has said, that the object of this Bill is not to benefit them, but I should say that any benefit conferred upon them would in the long run—this Bill will not operate for some time to come—benefit trade as a whole. Have noble Lords opposite come to the conclusion that small shopkeepers are no good productively? In the past they have been very useful to the Conservative Party politically. I should imagine, too, that the clause as it now stands would be objected to rather strongly by the owners of big business premises and warehouses. It does seem to me—though the noble Viscount will perhaps laugh at my wishing to help to make this a better Bill—


I am very gratified.


—that it could be improved very considerably in this respect, and at no very great cost. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 12, after the second ("or") insert ("for the purposes of trade or commerce").—(Lord Thomson.)


I am rather sorry that I have to use to some extent the same form of words as I used on a previous Amendment and to remind the noble Lord that the main object of the Bill is to assist by derating the great productive industries of the country. He asks why we should not also derate the distributive industries, and to that I would reply: Why not? It would be a very pleasant thing to do if we were able to do it, but there is a limit to the amount of money available, and that money is better concentrated, I suggest, as in the proposal of the Government, on the productive industries. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that shopkeepers and those who carry on other forms of business are supporters of the Conservative Party. I think they probably are, and for the very good reason that they possibly understand their interests in relation to this measure as well, if I may say so respectfully, as the noble Lord, and they realise that, if you concentrate relief on the productive industries, the whole body politic will get a great advantage. If you absorb the unemployed, if you have greater production and production on a larger scale, and therefore cheaper, this will benefit the distributive industries and they will share in the advantages of a growth of production.

I may draw one other very simple distinction. The distributive trades are not exposed to competition from outside, as the great productive industries are. They are for that purpose sheltered industries, as compared with unsheltered industries. We strike at the point where relief is most needed, and we believe that, if we can assist those industries, the distributive trades will themselves benefit and will benefit far more than they would do if we gave them a share of assistance and left less for the productive industries themselves.


I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation. Am I to understand that the policy of the Government is to tax distributive trades for the benefit of productive trades?




The distributive trades undoubtedly pay the Petrol Tax, and this is used to assist the productive trades. It is a very curious policy to embark upon, to tax one set of workers in the country for the benefit of another and to deprive those who are taxed of any benefits that may arise under the scheme. I submit that this is the only deduction that I can make from the noble Viscount's explanation.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD PARMOOR moved to leave out paragraph (c). The noble and learned Lord said: I am afraid that the proposal that I am making must somewhat traverse the same ground as the former proposal, because the effect of my Amendment is to ask that the words "the purposes of distributive wholesale business" should be omitted, and I feel that that matter has already been partially discussed. There are, however, one or two further points which I should like to bring to the notice of the noble Viscount. The first matter is this: so far as economic production is concerned, that is, not merely looking to the cost of production but to the getting of the commodities to market, distribution is as large a factor as anything else as regards the position of productive industry, and I think that that is one great mistake in the Bill. It is quite wrong in principle, so far as local beneficial rates are concerned, that the workers in one industry should subscribe to the benefits obtained by workers in another industry, which is done if you make the rates only chargeable as to a certain percentage on production and wholly chargeable on distribution.

The noble Viscount made a statement the other day which very much emphasises the injustice of this proposal. He said that the productive industries employ a much larger number of workers. That is quite true, but the industry which employs the greater number of workers inevitably gets the greater advantage out of beneficial local rates—cottages, parks, access, lighting, and in a great variety of ways—and so you are making the smaller number of workers in the distributive trades pay for the advantages derived from this kind of expenditure by the workers in the productive trades. Let me give also an illustration of the practical difficulties of deciding what is a distributive as distinct from a productive trade. Take this illustration. There is going to be, as we know, a large system of electric supply under the 1926 Act, distributed throughout the country. We all desire that and we gave our votes in support of it, but is the supply of electric power distributive or is it productive? I should have thought that it was very largely indeed distributive, because unless you distribute your electricity is useless. Is not that to get the advantage which industries that practically come into competition with electric supply are to get? I do not think that there can be any end to the complications which will arise. Years of litigation must result before the matter is finally settled, for in a very large number of industries there is both a productive and a distributive element.

I would like to say one word with regard to the amount which the noble Viscount has to distribute. It cannot, of course, be more than a certain sum, but that is no justification for any inequality in the distribution. I do not see how you can possibly say that one industry is to pay for the other, or that you can have this distinction, having regard to such illustrations as I have given. I might give one other illustration. Take the breweries with a large number of tied houses. I understand that brewing is regarded as a productive industry, but it is just as much distributive and in all cases where a commodity is produced and finds its way to market, nowadays, you find the two come together, production and distribution, and the price to the consumer, which means the opening of the market, depends upon both production and distribution. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time further, because my objections to the Bill are fundamental, but when you come to beneficial, as apart from onerous, rates it seems to me impossible that this differentiation can be justified.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 21, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Parmoor.)


I think, as the noble and learned Lord said, that this is very much the same point as we were discussing a few minutes ago, because it is the question of whether the distributive wholesale business is to come into the rating scheme or not. As far as I can understand the object of the noble and learned Lord, he wants to suggest that certain industries or distributive industries are going to suffer because they are not treated quite as fairly as other industries, and he wants to arouse their jealousy and make them feel that they are not getting as much out of the Bill as other industries.


No, that they are paying for other industries.


It is a conception alien to him and the Party to which he belongs, but in passing this particular measure we are trying to benefit the country as a whole, and not to measure these little jealousies. That is a conception which is wholly alien to the noble Lord and his Party, but that is what we want to do and we want to concentrate upon the great productive industries. As to the practical difficulties, I have no doubt that there are some questions which the noble and learned Lord might find it difficult to settle in a Court of Appeal, but they are things which the practical man will settle very rapidly, and I have no doubt that when the matter comes down to detail and settlement, these distinctions will be found not nearly so complicated as the noble and learned Lord imagines.


I am rather sorry that the noble Viscount, after his admirable protest the other day, should have lowered himself to the Party political view upon what is a complicated financial question. I dare say that he has nothing but national views in his mind. Granted, but I pointed out that having these national views he was applying them in the wrong way, and he seems to have made no answer to that at all. Of course I entirely deny the suggestion that I or the Party to which I belong deal in small jealousies. We want the whole social and industrial structure of the country raised to a higher level. I do not say that the methods which I have suggested are perfect, but I say that they are not so imperfect as those of the noble Viscount. However, I will not trouble your Lordships to go to a Division, and I hope that we have heard the last of this high-faluting and platform style in discussing the Rating Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD THOMSON moved to leave out paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to bring within the provisions of the Bill such public services as gas and electricity. I think they may fairly be described as key industries. They are of great benefit to large numbers of consumers, and they also supply power to industries. It may be argued that the relief granted to the railways is going to be refunded to the community, but I fail to see why the relief granted—should it be granted—to this sort of service should not also be refunded to the community. The effect of rates on such industries is very well exemplified by the following statement by the Chairman of the London Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, which appeared in the Financial Times early this year:— Like many others the electric supply industry is suffering from the extraordinary burden of rates, a large proportion of which is included in the sum of £358,424 for current purchased. The total sum paid by this company during 1927 amounted to £85,792, compared with £39,792 in 1925 before the quinquennial assessment. This sum of £85,792 represents more than 41 per cent. of our total fuel costs, and is over 12 per cent. on the whole of the issued ordinary share capital, and over 45 per cent. more than the standard rate of dividend we are this year paying to our ordinary shareholders under the 1925 Act. The same story comes in from electric supply services in Newcastle-on-Tyne, Northampton and Yorkshire, and I could quote many others. It does seem to me that this principle can be pushed a great deal too far—the principle of taxing one set of industries for the benefit of another, and justifying that on the ground that there is only a little money, that it cannot go all round, and that therefore the railways should have the whole of it in regard to transport matters—because the industries with which we are here concerned are undoubtedly key industries, and this Amendment might help to relieve the situation in regard to two public services which are of real importance to industry as a whole.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Thomson.)


Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on behalf of the Incorporated Association of Electric Power Companies. We view the suggestions made in this Bill with some feelings of alarm, because it seems to us that the policy of the Government, which was incorporated in the Electricity Act of 1926, is not supported by this particular part of the Bill. The object of the Electricity Act was to cheapen electricity and to endeavour to support the statutory undertakers, commonly called "the grid." Under the provisions of this Bill, as now drawn, apparently any private concern which produces electricity would be able to be relieved of the rates to the extent of 75 per cent., whereas a factory obtaining electricity from one of those public undertakings would not be able to get the same benefit.

Obviously, this Bill as it stands puts in a preferential position the smaller undertakings. Let me give a simple illustration. One colliery happens to produce electricity for itself. That plant, under the provisions of the Bill, will receive the benefit of 75 per cent. reduction in its rates. Another colliery alongside will be receiving its electricity for its operations from a public company, but will not receive the same benefit because there will be no reduction in the rates in connection with that electricity. I know the matter is somewhat complicated and somewhat technical. I do not go so far as the noble Lord who introduced this Amendment, under which the benefit will be passed on to householders, but I do suggest that this matter should be considered between now and a later stage of the Bill, and that the noble Viscount should see whether words cannot be incorporated so as to allow the benefit to be given to the large electrical undertakings, with a proviso that it should be passed on to the industrial users of electricity. That is my point, and I suggest that words are necessary at the end of this clause, in the event of this paragraph being omitted, which would limit the benefit to the industrial users of electricity. In that way I think the objects of the Government would be better secured. I will place an Amendment on the Paper so that the noble Viscount may see exactly my point, and I hope he may feel inclined to consider it before we reach another stage of the Bill.


This Amendment is also on the Paper in my name. The major point which I had in mind is that which has been dealt with by Lord Gainford, and particularly in connection with the Electricity Act, which was to give a national system of distribution of electricity at a total estimated cost of £20,000,000. Everyone knows that that is a very big factor in our production in the future. The representation made to me was that such undertakings would be public supply undertakings. I understand that the word "public" does not connote a municipal undertaking only, but any statutory undertaking. Therefore any statutory undertaking would be excluded from the benefit of this clause. No doubt that would be a very large proportion of all the electricity supply undertakings in this country. The figures which have been shown to me indicate very little distinction between the cost of the public undertaking and the cost of the private undertaking. It would really mean that the public undertaking would suffer serious disadvantage in what, in many districts, will be and has been competitive supply for electric purposes. I hope the noble Viscount will consider the point; it really is a big matter. Something like 60 per cent. of electricity is already supplied by public undertakings, and when the national scheme comes into operation that will be very greatly increased.


I will not say anything at this moment about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, because he said he was going to put an Amendment on the Paper to make it quite clear. Therefore it would be better, no doubt, to wait. In regard to the general point raised by Lord Thomson, I must point out in the first place—because money, as the noble Lord knows, is some consideration in these matters—that the derating of gas and electricity undertakings would be a considerable addition to the burden of the Bill. I believe it is £1,500,000 in the case of gas, and £1,500,000 in the case of electricity, so that somehow or other an additional £3,000,000 would have to be found if the beneficent intentions of the noble Lord were to be carried out.

I will say a word as to why gas and electricity and these public undertakings are not included in the benefits of the Bill. First of all, they are not, of course, exposed to outside competition as these big industries are of which we have been speaking. They are not really so much in need, therefore, of any assistance. They are sheltered industries as compared with the others, which are unsheltered industries. Moreover, the whole object of the Bill is that, as far as possible, the benefit shall be passed on to these productive industries. You cannot secure that in the case of gas and electricity undertakings because they are owned by municipalities and so on, and the benefit would be spread over the whole body of the ratepayers. It is a very good thing to benefit the whole body of the ratepayers; but we want to concentrate the benefit. We do not want to fritter it away by doing a little good to a large number of people. By doing a great deal of good to a more limited number we shall benefit the community generally. That is the main reason why these undertakings have been excluded. The financial point, of course, is a powerful one—that another £3,000,000 would be necessary.


I did not realise that it would cost as much as that. As a matter of fact I foresaw the noble Viscount's answer, but those I consulted thought the figure would be about £1,250,000.


I have given the estimated figures.


The noble Viscount made play as to the industries of which I have spoken being sheltered. Does he say the same thing about the distributive trades as about transport? I think I am correct in saying that, strictly speaking, the railways are sheltered industries?


Certainly; but the noble Lord knows very well that they are merely conduit pipes for the purpose of carrying the advantages to the other industries. We do not buy our electricity in France, as the noble Lord knows.


That is perfectly true, but these other industries can be made to refund in the same way.


How can you do that?


I should have thought on the price per unit of electricity to be charged. Whatever process is going to be applied to the railways could be applied to these industries. However, I do not wish to take up the time of your Lordships' House with this matter. With reference to Lord Gainford's suggested Amendment the noble Viscount said that he would deal with the suggestion later. But as I understand Lord Gainford's attitude, he proposed the deletion of paragraph (e). He agrees with me in that, and when paragraph (e) is deleted he suggests that words should be added at the end of the clause. I think I am correct in interpreting what Lord Gainford said to the noble Viscount. Would the noble Viscount consider that when he comes to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford?


I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is asking. I cannot, of course, agree to the deletion of paragraph (e).


In that case the noble Viscount's promise to deal with Lord Gainford's point rather falls to the ground, does it not?


No. I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, was going to put an Amendment on the Paper with which we were to deal on the Report stage—the next stage of the Bill.


That was my intention, and the noble Viscount was kind enough to say he would consider it. I should like the Government to do what they can to deal with my point so as to make the matter clear.


In these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD THOMSON had given notice to move, in subsection (4), to leave out the definition of "mineral railway" and insert:— 'Mineral railway' means a railway, tramway or ropeway belonging to the owner lessee or occupier of a mine and used by him primarily for the transport of minerals wrought from such mine or from two or more mines or the manufactured produce of such minerals to the railway of a railway company, or to or towards a dock as defined in subsection (3) of Section five, and in the latter case includes also such dock.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been brought forward at the request of light railway owners especially in the North-East. I notice that the noble Viscount has an Amendment of his own upon the Paper. Does that Amendment cover the point I am trying to cover? I should be glad of some explanation from the noble Viscount on the matter. His Amendment seems to me partially to cover my point.


I agree that it partially covers the noble Lord's point, because it enlarges to some extent the definition of these mineral railways. When this question was first considered it was not realised that some of these mineral railways carried coal to the bigger railways and then, perhaps, to certain other mineral railways and so on. I was hoping that the noble Lord would be satisfied with my Amendment because I have some objections to his. It is a little too narrow and a little too wide. It is a little too narrow, I think, because it confines the benefits to the people who own the mines whereas I understand that in some cases these mineral railways are owned by people who are not necessarily owners of the mines, and I do not see any reason why the benefit should be denied them. The noble Lord's Amendment goes rather beyond what the Government intended by including lines on which there might be the transport of manufactured articles. The technical difficulty, as I am advised, about his Amendment is that it might be construed as making a public dock part of the mineral railway. As the noble Lord knows, docks are dealt with under the freight-transport hereditaments. These railways find their way into the industrial side of the hereditaments, though, perhaps, they ought not to be there, because of the difficulty, as I understand, of dealing with them on the transport side. They appear possibly a little out of their place. I criticise the noble Lord's Amendment on those grounds and also on the technical ground, and I hope he will be satisfied with my Amendment, which does enlarge the rather too narrow definition of a mineral railway.


The definition of "mineral railway" suggested by my noble friend Lord Thomson is one which, I know, really came from the association of owners of these mineral lines and which is common, particularly in the North-East. The difficulty was in carrying the lines from the mine to the staith where they end. It was doubtful whether that amongst other things was included and also whether the mineral line formed only part of the transport as the noble Viscount has pointed out. I think that the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount goes a very long way and I shall certainly advise my noble friend to accept it. We shall have time, of course, to consider whether any further amendment is necessary. I thank the noble Viscount for having gone a very long way towards meeting the point raised by my noble friend Lord Thomson.


The noble Lord does not move his Amendment?



VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in the definition of "mineral railway," after "minerals," to insert "gotten." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 30, after ("minerals") insert ("gotten").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in the definition of "mineral railway," to leave out "the railway of a railway company or to a dock" and insert "a freight-transport hereditament or between any two such hereditaments or to any dock not being a freight-transport hereditament." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("the railway of a railway company or to a dock") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Definition of freight-transport hereditaments.

5.—(1) In this Act the expression "Freight-transport hereditament" means all or any of the following hereditaments:— (b) A hereditament occupied and used wholly or partly for canal transport purposes as part of a canal undertaking whereof the canal is used for the conveyance of merchandise:

(3) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say— Dock" includes any harbour, wharf, pier, jetty or other works in or at which vessels can ship and unship merchandise or passengers not being a pier or jetty primarily used for recreation: Vessel" has the same meaning as that assigned to it by Section seven hundred and forty-two of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.


Lord Thomson has been good enough to inform me that he does not intend to move the next Amendment—to leave out paragraph (b) in subsection (1) and insert: "(b) A hereditament occupied and used wholly or partly in connection with an undertaking for the conveyance of merchandise by road."

LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (3), in the definition of "dock," after "jetty" to insert "staith." The noble Lord said: I understand that the definition of "staith" is a waterside depot for coals brought from the collieries for shipment, furnished with a stage and shoots for loading vessels. It seems to me that this small addition would improve the Bill. I have pleaded in vain with the noble Viscount on several other points, and I should be grateful if he would recognise on this occasion my whole-hearted desire to improve the Bill and let me have this ewe lamb of an Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 3, after ("jetty") insert ("staith").—(Lord Thomson.)


I was melted by the appeal of the noble Lord, and I was looking anxiously at the subsequent Amendments to see whether there was an Amendment which I might reasonably accept. I do not pretend to be an authority on the meaning of the word "staith," but I am advised that this is rather a draftsman's point and that if the word "staith" is not included in "wharf" or "jetty," it is certainly another kind of work at which merchandise can be shipped and therefore it ought to be included.


It is a place.


It is not a very important point. I am told it is unnecessary to add it because it is already included. I am very loath to disagree with the noble Lord in a matter of definition, which possibly he has looked up in the dictionary, and I hope he will not press his Amendment if I assure him that staith is included.


It is such an attractive word that does not the noble Viscount think he might insert it at this stage and reconsider it before the next stage if there really is any objection to it? It does not seem from the noble Viscount's own account to present any difficulty.


I do not think there is a matter of principle in it. If the noble Lord is so much attracted by the word and he will not press his Amendment now I will see that it is fully considered before the next stage.


May I say for the noble Viscount's information that I am sure the word "staith" includes a good deal more than either "wharf" or "jetty," or, to put it the other way round, neither "wharf" nor "jetty" quite covers what is meant by "staith."


If it includes a great deal more, then I am getting a little suspicious of the word. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to consider it between now and the next stage.


I think that will probably be the best way. Apart from any definition the word "staith" is well understood in connection with the coal business on the North-East coast. There are staiths there where you have loading machinery on the waterside without either a dock or a jetty, and it is an exceedingly common thing to use, particularly in the case of small vessels.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD THOMSON moved in the definition of "dock" to leave out "and" [ship and unship] and insert "or." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 5, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Thomson.)


This is a very important Amendment. I am anxious to meet the noble Lord if he really presses this, but I am not quite certain whether it is absolutely essential. If, however, he really presses it I will be prepared to accept it.


I am thankful to the noble Viscount for small mercies.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in the last paragraph of the clause, to omit all words after "Vessel" and insert "includes any ship or boat, or any other description of vessel used in navigation." The noble Viscount said: This is really a drafting Amendment. It is put down because the canal companies are afraid the word "vessel" will not include certain boats navigating canals. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 33, leave out from ("vessel") to the end of line 35, and insert ("includes any ship or boat, or any other description of vessel used in navigation").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Entries in valuation lists as to freight-transport hereditaments.

(3) For the purpose of determining in what proportions a freight-transport hereditament is occupied and used for transport purposes and for other purposes, respectively, the hereditament shall be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes, except in so far as it is occupied and used for the purposes of a dwelling-house, hotel, or place of public refreshment, and except in so far as any part thereof is let out and capable of separate assessment:

Provided that, in the case of a hereditament occupied and used for canal transport purposes as part of a canal undertaking or occupied and used for dock purposes as part of a dock undertaking no part of the hereditament, being a building, yard, or other place primarily occupied and used for warehousing merchandise not in the course of being transported, shall be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (3) to leave out the words "and except in so far as any part thereof is let out and capable of separate assessment," and in the proviso, after "Provided that," to insert:— (a) no part of a freight transport hereditament which is so let out as to be capable of separate assessment shall be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes unless it is actually so occupied and used; and (b)

The noble Viscount said: This is very nearly a drafting Amendment. The object is to make it quite clear that certain premises should still be liable to enjoy the benefits, if I may so put it, of derating when they are let to a third party. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 20, leave out from the beginning of line 20 to the end of line 21, and in line 22, after ("that"), insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:

Application to Scotland.

9. This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:— (5) The valuation roll shall show by distinguishing mark or otherwise what lands and heritages are respectively agricultural lands and heritages, industrial lands and heritages, and freight-transport lands and heritages:

VISCOUNT NOVAR moved to add to paragraph (5): "and in the case of agricultural lands and heritages, the value of the house and cottages situated thereon shall be shown separately from the value of the agricultural land." The noble Viscount said: The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has reminded us more than once this afternoon that the relief given is for certain heavy industries, and he has greatly deprecated the frittering away of any of this grant on insignificant objects. That is one of the grounds which led me to put this Amendment on the Paper, because money will be frittered away and not devoted to the main object of the Bill if the scheme foreshadowed for Scotland is brought into force. I would emphasise what the noble Viscount has said in regard to the retention of this money for the relief of the main industries. The avowed object of this Bill is the derating of agriculture (as part of a larger scheme of rating relief for staple industries) from artificial burdens imposed by Parliament to finance popular schemes, called social services, imposed on the ratepayer often against the will of his elected representative. No doubt some local authorities are disposed to out-Herod Herod, and the astonishing growth of rates is also due to the great extensions of the franchise which have come to include even the pauper, thus exposing local authorities to pressure from growing sections of the community who are deriving benefit from lavish expenditure. Had local authorities representative of the ratepayer been left to themselves, industry would not now suffer from such devastating burdens.

This Bill as regards agriculture in England is entirely satisfactory, while Scotland, as has happened more than once before, comes off second best. The farm to the North of the Tweed is to be more heavily rated than the one to the South. A Roxburgh farm or a Berwickshire farm at £1,200 a year is to be assessed at £200—higher probably than any mansion in the County. A Northumberland farm of like value will be assessed possibly at £50. That well-known form of injustice could never have arisen did not the Scottish owner relieve his tenant of three-fourths of the rates. This is his reward. I could show, moreover, that within Scotland itself the treatment meted out to various classes of holdings is even more remarkable. Your Lordships will bear in mind that this measure is designed to give a chance to economic industry, to stimulate production, to give employment, to encourage the application of capital, to remove the excessive burden and the unjust incidence of rates, to reform the whole rating and administrative system of the country. It follows, therefore, that it is the agriculture which produces the food of the country, which stands on its own feet and pays it own way, which is all that counts within the legitimate scope of this Bill.

The small holder or crofter, on the other hand, who is to be a special beneficiary under this Bill, however useful he may be from the social or racial aspect, is from the point of view of economic agriculture a costly burden upon the industry as well as upon the country. And yet this device of assessing rates on one-sixth of the rent, instead of on the value of dwellings, is devised in his interest and to render his privileged position still more favourable as compared with economic agriculture. He stands more than ever, or he will stand more than ever, as a block in the way of a right and rational readjustment of local burdens, such as is being provided in England. The accepted custom and adopted system in this country is that the occupier of any dwelling shall pay his fair quota towards local services, and the only exception hitherto has been the small holder in Scotland. This Bill accentuates that singular anomaly, whereas to my mind it should have brought him into line with the rest of the community. Perhaps but for the imminence of a General Election it might have done so.

At any rate the explanation offered by the Secretary for Scotland for not applying the assessment provisions of the Bill is that it might increase the inadequate rates now paid by that class of person who diminishes our agricultural resources and who is so lavishly subsidised by the State and by the unfortunate landlord under compulsion by the State. The ordinary small holder, with his judicial rent, his comparative immunity from rates, his buildings provided at the public expense, which his landlord has to pay for if he takes a fancy to quit, whether the holding remains derelict or not, is of all men least entitled to more fancy, special favours under this Bill, the due application of which his sponsors are to render impossible.

I ask your Lordships to note also the extreme contrast between the so-called crofter who keeps a store and is a shopkeeper, or is engaged in some other industry, assessed on a 30s. or a 40s. land rent, and his brother shopkeeper or tradesman in a village or town who pays his feu duty and the whole of his rates on all his buildings without any relief whatever. There are dwellings with buildings which, if possessed by anyone but a crofter, would be assessed on their real value of hundreds of pounds, or even over one thousand pounds, instead of on a pound or two of that land rent which, in England, ceases to be a basis for rating, while his unhappy yoke-fellow, the nominal owner, is apparently to be made to hand over a further proportion of any relief of the rates by which he has been ruined. Thus the crofter becomes rate receiver instead of rate payer. He is left entirely without personal sense of responsibility for local expenditure, and the nominal owner is left to pay the bills of a local authority elected by those who pay nothing.

The effect on the ordinary farmer is apparent where large arable farms have been broken up to settle the small holder. The original equipment of one of the many that have been scrapped, now standing derelict, was worth over £15,000. The equipment since erected for small holders settled on the farm must have cost a good deal more than twice that amount. The result of that huge loss is a group of isolated and mostly discontended State tenants, paying a lower rental on land less productive, with loss in assessable value to be made good by the economic agriculture that remains in the neighbourhood. At present part of the loss is borne by the landlord whose farms are broken up by the Scottish Board of Agriculture. What could be less defensible or less in harmony with the purpose of this Bill than this entire departure from its intentions by the Scottish Office? Yet it is to the desire to "cocker up" such a system and its failures that is due this vital defect in the Scottish provisions for assessment which impose an arbitrary, indefensible, fixed excessive levy in place of an impartial valuation as in England, with the result that the higher rating on economic agriculture will reduce the wage fund available for the payment of farm servants. Therefore, to create equality as between England and Scotland, equality as between one agriculturist and another, and justice as between occupiers of the same class of property. I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 21, at end insert ("and in the case of agricultural lands and heritages, the value of the house and cottages situated thereon shall be shown separately from the value of the agricultural land").—(Viscount Novar.)


I desire to support this Amendment, which stands in my name as well as in that of the noble Viscount and of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, who is unfortunately not able to be present to-day. The noble Viscount has dealt very well indeed with this Amendment. We started with the declaration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech that all agricultural land should be derated, although he made a reservation that some special provisions would have to be made with regard to Scotland, where arrangements for valuation are rather different from those in England. I did not hear that speech, but I had occasion to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer the same evening and he told me without any reservation whatsoever what the provisions of the Budget were, and how he proposed generally to derate the whole of the agricultural land. I know, from my own experience, that valuation in Scotland is different from valuation in England and that we do not have separate valuations for houses and for land. I do not quite know why that is so. Under the law as it stood perhaps it did not matter very much whether we had or had not separate valuation, but the moment you come to deal with this new principle you must have a proper basis on which to make your calculations and give your rebates.

Obviously that involves a separate valuation of the houses, which alone in the future are to be rated in England. You would require the same valuation for Scotland. There would be no trouble whatever about that valuation. I speak with confidence on that point, having been Chairman of the valuation court in my County for over twenty years. We should not have the slightest difficulty in valuing these houses. I do not say that it would be wise to ask for a separate valuation of all the houses on small holdings in Scotland as distinct from the land. They, I think, could be specially dealt with, and I do not think the same method should be asked for. A percentage charge in the case of crofters and small landowners would probably be quite an excellent thing where you would be dealing with a very limited class in point of rental. But a percentage charge to determine the rateable value of farm houses, where a fixed proportion of one-sixth is suggested, would be an absurd proposal. It would leave anomalies of the very grossest kind the moment you got above a certain rental. On farms rented at £600 or £1,000 or £2,000 a year they would be ludicrously rated at one-sixth of the gross value, and the distinction made between England and Scotland would be most unfair and, I think, most unjustifiable.

The whole of the Budget proposals have, in point of fact, been altered by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not know how they have come to be altered to that extent, unless it be that the Treasury, as usual, has been putting its finger in the pie and trying to limit my right hon. friend to the disposal of a certain sum of money, to which he has tried to fit his policy. That is all very well. We are getting rather accustomed to members of the Government speaking with varying voices, but it is rather a strong order when a member of the Government becomes a deputy Chancellor of the Exchequer and proposes his new Budget. That is practically what has been done in the case of land in Scotland. I think some justification for this distinction, which I cannot myself find, ought to be given to your Lordships' House to-day by the noble Viscount below me, who, I venture to say, now knows this subject from A to Z and will be prepared to deal with it in a very generous and, I hope, in a very liberal spirit.

The question is really a very serious one. I know that the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has not deliberately bound himself to the percentage of one-sixth. He has talked of one-eighth, though even that would be too large a proportion to take the moment we got beyond a certain rental. As my noble friend has said, you would have large country houses and mansions in Scotland rated at one-half or one-third of the figure at which farmhouses next door would be rated. There are some very large farms in Scotland. I have one in mind with a rental of £2,400 a year. One-sixth of that would be £400, while a ducal mansion close by is rated at about £200. It is obvious, therefore, not that this is intended to be a fair rental for a house or that it in any way represents a fair rental, but that it is one way of taking back part of the rebate on agricultural land, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech said would be derated. In that case you take back about £300 of the value of the derating of the land.

I have here some figures which I believe have been checked by the Central Landowners' Association. They provide some very striking comparisons. There are all sorts of differences in rating and in allowances as between England and Scotland, but this, so far as I can make out, is a statement which gives the exact difference in rating value, making all these allowances, of three estates in Scotland as they would be rated under the provisions of this Bill, if the proposal of the Secretary of State for Scotland to take one-sixth of the rental were adopted, and as they would be rated in England. The first is the case of an estate in Ross, where there are five farms and £118 gross value of land without buildings, which, of course, in England would not be rated, but in Scotland is to be rated at one-sixth. In that case the rateable liability of the estate, which includes a certain number of cottages, would be, if rated on the English plan, £117 a year, while under the plan of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which is not, of course, in the Bill but which has been stated by him, it would be £213, or very nearly double.

The next case is that of an estate in Kinross on which there are five farms. This is rather an interesting case, because there is £487 gross value in grass parks. Grass parks are not to be rated in England, but they are to be rated in Scotland at one-sixth. Accordingly we have a most ludicrous result. If that estate were rated on the English system, it would be on an assessment of £40. In Scotland, at one-sixth of the gross value, it would have a rating value of £160. The third case is that of an estate in Dumfriesshire, a larger estate with a gross annual value of £2,800. If rated on the English system the figure would be £193 7s. 10d., whereas if rated in Scotland under the provisions suggested by the Secretary of State it would be £466. I will hand those figures to the noble Viscount so that he may check them before the Report stage, but I understand that they are correct, although I suppose it is rather difficult to make an actual comparison where so many allowances are made of one kind and another.

The question is this: Is it fair, is it justifiable, that there should be these differences between the method of rating in England and Scotland? Why should not the English principle of the derating of agricultural land be applied to Scotland in its entirety? Why is it that we in Scotland, as usual—for this very often happens in these financial cases—should have to bear a burden which agriculturists in England are not asked to bear? How can it be justified? I do not think it can be justified, but I will wait to hear what the noble Viscount has to say. We have nothing to do with the money, which is a matter for the Exchequer. We have only to do with policy and principle, and I think your Lordships will realise that it is not right to put the Scottish agriculturists at a disadvantage and to penalise the large farmer as against the smaller one. I think your Lordships will feel that it is not an unfair thing to ask that we should have this separate valuation, so that we may have the same principles applied to us as are applied to farmers in England.


I rise with some trepidation, to reply to my two noble friends on the question of rating in Scotland, because they have, of course, a long personal acquaintance with the subject, to which I cannot pretend at all. There is only one consolation that I do take from this Amendment, and that is that they wish to assimilate the system of rating agricultural land in Scotland to our English system. As an Englishman I feel very much gratified by that, because I can think of no other case where Scotsmen have said that an English system was better than their own, and it is only in this one case that they are prepared to adopt our system.


Will the noble Viscount allow me to explain? I understand that it was not until 1923 that, agricultural relief being given in England, this system was adopted in Scotland. At that time, of course, we were only too glad to get it.


No, it goes further back. Noble Lords may naturally suppose that if Scotland is so anxious to adopt the English system it is because there is more money, or they think there is more money, in it than there is in their own system.


It it not a question of money now, but a question of a new system altogether.


It is a question whether under the new system you will get more money, because my noble friend behind me said that they ought to be treated in Scotland with the same fairness as the farmers, or the agricultural interest, in this country. With that I entirely agree, and I will say a word in a moment upon it, but I must make it quite clear that I think there has been a little misunderstanding with regard to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the derating of agricultural land and buildings. My noble friend behind me said that some reference was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to him on the subject, and Lord Novar stated on the Second Reading that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, said that land and buildings were to be derated, and that his undertaking, stated in the Budget speech, had not been carried out in Scotland. My noble friend was not quite accurate, as he probably knows now, in that particular statement. The statement which he quoted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer applied to England, and I will take out his exact words. He said:— A separate arrangement will be required for Scotland, where the incidence of rates and the general conditions differ in important respects from those of England and Wales. Therefore I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly guarded himself against any suggestion that in this respect Scotland should be treated in exactly the same manner as the agricultural interest in this country.

The first point that I wish to raise is whether under the proposal of my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland—that is, under the proposal of one-sixth—Scotland will receive as favourable terms as or less favourable terms than England does with her system of rating. It is, of course, a matter of complicated calculation, but I am advised that it is so, and that under this arrangement for being rated on one-sixth of the combined subject in Scotland, Scotland will receive her full equivalent, compared with the amount of assistance received by agriculture in this country. Therefore, whatever may be the division, as it were, of the money as between different farms or different agriculturists in Scotland, there can be no doubt that Scotland is not robbed in any way, as compared with agriculture in this country, but receives her full equivalent under that system. I think that English Peers ought fully to realise that the full amount is obtained by Scotland.

Then comes the question of the anomalies in Scotland. On that question, of course, the noble Lords speak with an authority to which I cannot pretend, but I did think that they were not altogether accurate. They took some of these figures of big farms with an annual value of £1,200, £1,600 and £2,000, and said that if you took one-sixth of that how high the farmhouses were rated in comparison with what you would get in England if there were separation between the buildings and the land. I understand, however, that it is not the rating on the farmhouse, but it is one-sixth of the rates on the whole subject, buildings and land. It is quite true that the whole land is not derated in these big farms but these apparently heavily rated buildings on these big farms share in the one-sixth proposal as applied to the whole thing. Let me make a statement with regard to the one-sixth. I understand that with that one-sixth rating every farmer, small or large, in all Scotland, will be better off than he is to-day, and I am also advised that if you adopt the British system of rating separately farm buildings and land the majority of the farmers in Scotland would be paying rather more than they are paying to-day. Therefore it really is a question in Scotland which lies between apparently the larger farms and the smaller farms, and I do not know whether my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland could be induced to introduce a system for Scotland which is going to increase the amount paid in rates by the majority of the farmers.

My noble friend Lord Younger saw the difficulty, and he suggested, if I understood him aright, that a difference should be made and that the two systems should be adopted in similar cases—that you should have the one-sixth system and in the case of the larger farms apply the other system—that they should have the best of both possible worlds, as it were. If that were so, however, I would point out to my noble friend that we in England would be entitled to something of that kind. If you are going to abolish to some extent your own system, and bring in the English system where it suits you, surely we have the right to bring in the Scottish system where that suits us. In fact it would create great

difficulty. Either you ought to take the present system with its difficulties, or else the English system with its difficulties, and not have both systems, applying one system in one case and the other system in another. That is hardly practical politics at this time of day. The case stands in this way. Under the one-sixth proposal first of all the majority of the farms in Scotland certainly will not suffer as they would under the old system, and the whole of them will get substantial advantage. Secondly, this system will give more help to the industrial farms, the grass farms. As between Scotland and England the balance of advantage in proportion will be very fairly established. That being so, is my noble friend going to press the Secretary for Scotland to alter the system at present in vogue in Scotland and bring in these new anomalies, which it would be very difficult for him to face? I strongly urge my noble friend not to press his Amendment, but to be content with the figure and arrangement which, as between Scotland and England, establish a very fair measure of equality.


I am very sorry that I am unable to accept the explanation, however ingenious, of the noble Viscount. The only fair basis of assessment for the new arrangement is the English system, and therefore I fear I must give your Lordships the trouble of dividing on this Amendment.

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 35.

Ancaster, E. Ullswater, V. Gainford, L.
Beauchamp, E. Younger of Leckie, V. [Teller.] Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Mar and Kellie, E. Lawrence, L.
Morton, E. Mildmay of Flete, L.
Blythswood, L. Saltoun, L.
Chaplin, V. Darling, L. Stanmore, L.
Elibank, V. Elphinstone, L. Strachie, L.
Novar, V. [Teller.] Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Bath, M. Plymouth, E. [Teller.]
Winchester, M. Sandwich, E.
Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.) Stanhope, E.
Cranbrook, E. Stradbroke, E.
Iddesleigh, E.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Lucan, E. [Teller.] Bertie of Thame, V.
Malmesbury, E. Peel, V.
Munster, E.
Wellington, D. Onslow, E. Avebury, L.
Biddulph, L. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Hayter, L.
Cushendun, L. Greenway, L. Howard of Glossop, L.
Desborough, L. Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.
Faringdon, L. Hampton, L. Jessel, L.
Forester, L. Hanworth, L. Lovat, L.
Wraxall, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

First Schedule: