Lords Sitting of 4 May 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Exmouth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

HOVE PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I desire to ask permission of your Lordships' House to withdraw the Bill entitled Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, to which your Lordships gave a First Reading about a week or a fortnight ago, with a view of substituting for it an amended Bill. The reason why I propose to ask your leave to withdraw the existing Bill is that, upon looking into it carefully, it was found that it could be simplified and improved and presented in a better form to your Lordships. That being so, I would ask leave to withdraw that Bill and, if your Lordships grant me leave, I shall ask permission to introduce a Bill in substitution.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the Bill in substitution for that which has just been withdrawn is entitled the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill. In substance it is much the same as the old Bill, but I think it is materially improved in point of wording. I ask your Lordships' leave to introduce the Bill, and I move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

IMPORTANCE OF BRITISH FILMS.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT rose to call attention to the importance of showing British films in largely increased numbers throughout the Dominions and the Colonies and all parts of the Empire; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to place this question on the agenda for the Imperial Conference at Ottawa; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to ask the Question and move the Motion which stand in my name with regard to increasing the number of British films for exhibition throughout the Empire. There are few who would be found to dispute that the film has now become one of the most potent influences in modern life. It has a world-wide influence more direct and more important I think in some ways than literature, and week by week, in every country of the world, there are almost countless millions who go as spectators to films. No doubt, primarily, the object is to give entertainment, but the effect of the films has a far deeper and a far wider meaning. Trade and industry are powerfully affected by the exhibition of films. It is an old saying that trade follows the flag. I think it would be true to say to-day that trade largely follows the films, and there is an American saying, perhaps tinged with characteristic exaggeration but containing a considerable amount of truth, which is that a foot of film is worth a dollar of trade. But, besides their influence on trade, films have a further and other influence, and that is this. It cannot be disputed that they exercise a powerful influence for good or for evil on the mental and moral characteristics of people.
If these facts be undisputed, I think it follows, and is abundantly clear, that good British films can be of the utmost value in the industrial and educational development of our Empire. Happily for us there is no nation in the world which has a more fertile field for the production of good national films than our own. Our magnificent literature, the wonderful history of our Empire, the beauty of our
292
countryside afford a wealth of material for the production and exhibition of British films which, if properly utilised, can be of the utmost value, and will enable dwellers in every British land to know and appreciate British achievement, British traditions, and British ideas. Already a beginning has been made. There are in this country a number of well-equipped companies and agencies which are engaged in the production and exhibition of British films. They have achieved considerable success at home, and, under favourable conditions, can penetrate into the overseas Dominions and Colonies all over our Empire. But, in order to achieve that result, a far more complete and co-ordinating effort is necessary.
Attention was drawn to this subject by the Secretary of State for the Dominions and the Colonial Secretary quite recently in two very important communications they made to the Morning Post of April 1 last. Perhaps your Lordships would allow me to quote some of the words of the Dominion Secretary in that communication. He said:
"The film has put a girdle round the earth. Trade, industry and commerce are all directly influenced by this method of appeal. It is of the most urgent importance that the British film industry should provide films fit to portray the deep-felt desire of the Dominions to keep in touch with what is happening in the heart of the Empire.… I look forward to the day when the Dominions themselves will produce their own films which will be shown throughout the United Kingdom."
I pause there for a moment to say how important that aspect of the question is. We know a certain amount of what goes on in the Dominions, but I think the rank and file of our population would be far better instructed if at these cinemas, instead of seeing some somewhat perverted American films, they could see good films produced in the Dominions showing what the Dominions are thinking of and what they have achieved. The Dominion Secretary also said:
"It is our bounden duty to do all we can to increase the power of the British Empire for good and to stimulate inter-Imperial trade. The film provides a quick and sure means for achieving this result."
The Colonial Secretary, in his message to the morning Post of April 1, strongly insisted on the necessity of increasing

293
the supply of British films to our Colonies and more especially to the native races who inhabit those Colonies; and, of course, the same is true of India.
The Colonial Secretary, like others, realised that the impressionable mind of the natives throughout our Dominions and Colonies should not be exposed to what has been well called the alien and perverted representations of our civilisation which reach them from foreign sources. I ought to say before I go further that, unfortunately, owing to a variety of causes which I need hardly enumerate, there has been up to now a deplorable paucity of British films exhibited in the various parts of the Empire. The truth is that the United States of America have built up a colossal industry for national propaganda, for the advancement of American industry, and, I suppose, not least, for the profit of themselves.
I got some figures the other day—I think they were given in the Morning Post of April 1—showing the stranglehold which American films have established throughout British lands and the lamentable scarcity of British films. The figures are these: In the home market, The United States supply nearly 80 per cent. of the films shown, but it is gratifying to know that the quota which was established by legislation in this country a few years ago, which was fixed at 7½ per cent., has now gone up by voluntary effort to something like 20 per cent. That shows what a quota can do. In Canada and South Africa there is almost complete American monopoly. In Australia, only about 5 per cent. of the films exhibited are British. In New Zealand the position is slightly better, because 10 per cent. of British films are exhibited there; but in India and in the Crown Colonies only about 1 per cent. of British films are exhibited. I need not enlarge in your Lordships' House upon the vital importance, especially in a time like this, of increasing the number of British films shown in India and thus letting the many illiterates in India know through the medium of the film what our ideas, our aspirations and our achievements have been in the past. By that means I think we might achieve a very great improvement in public opinion among the native races of India.
This question of increasing British films has already been considered by two Imperial Conferences in 1926 and 1930. Resolutions were passed recognising the great importance of increasing throughout the Empire films of Empire production and suggesting further that the various Governments concerned should take steps to secure this. Unfortunately, for want, as it would seem, of specific proposals, specific remedies and specific recommendations, these resolutions up to now have produced little or no result. It appears to me that unless the Governments assembled at Ottawa can agree upon some general line of action, which should be taken as far as possible by the Governments of the Dominions, of the Crown Colonies and of India, it will be very difficult to get really effective action.
May I say a special word about Canada? The position in Canada is undoubtedly a very difficult one. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a very striking report, dated April 30 last year, which was made by a Commissioner appointed by the Canadian Government to report upon an alleged combine in the motion picture industry in Canada. To those of your Lordships who do not happen to have seen that report, perhaps it would be well to say that it can be obtained at a very small price from the King's Printer in Ottawa. What did that Commissioner find? He found, after an exhaustive inquiry, that a very powerful combine largely controlled by American influences, consisting of producers, exhibitors and distributors, did exist in Canada and was operating to the detriment of the interests of the public in that Dominion. He also found—and this affects this country, I venture to think, very strongly —that as a result of this combine the exhibition in Canada of American films was prevalent to the almost entire exclusion of British films. In those circumstances I venture to submit to your Lordships' House that this question is of the most urgent importance and that it should be brought before the Ottawa Conference for consideration.
It should be brought before that Conference with a view to correcting the present evils under which we suffer, and that should be done with a view to concrete proposals being made and united

295
action taken so far as possible by the various Governments concerned. May I conclude by repeating the words of the Secretary of State for the Dominions in that message to the Morning Post, in which he said:
"The Imperial Conference at Ottawa will provide amongst other opportunities a unique occasion to cement the fabric of the British Empire through the most potent medium of the film."
I beg to move.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, has brought before your Lordships' House a matter of very considerable importance and one to which statesmen and educational authorities give as a rule far too little attention. It is because I had the honour of being Chairman of the Colonial Films Committee which sat for a long time and reported two years ago, that I venture to add a word or two in general support of the Motion which the noble Lord has brought before your Lordships. This matter has been neglected chiefly because people have assumed that films have to do merely with the recreative side of life. The educational, the political, the cultural influence of the film has been more or less ignored. People used to quote the saying of some wise man: "If I can make the songs of the people anybody can make their laws." If he had lived in these times, he would probably have said: "If I can produce the films for the people anybody can make the laws." In any case the film reaches far more people than any other medium we have, and its propaganda value, as the noble Lord has said, is very considerable. It is one, of the great new factors in the world's life at the present time.
The Press may be local, it may be national; religion may be restricted to definite territories; but the film is world wide in its influence, and it goes over national barriers in a way that no other medium does. It speaks all languages, it reaches all classes, it appeals to all ages. It is constant, and its influence extends to the remotest corners of the earth. It is not difficult to understand why that is so. It catches life in the very act of living, and it selects episodes that appeal most strongly to the imaginative faculties of young people. But it has a dangerous side to it. It is like living on a picture book without being able to read.
296
It has another very definite social disadvantage, in that it tends to draw people away from rural into crowded urban areas. So far as the Empire is concerned, it is undoubtedly true, as the noble Lord has said, that millions are influenced, not only by the story that the film attempts to teach, but by the tone given to, by the treatment of, and by the emphasis that is laid upon, particular aspects of the story.
As to what that precise influence is, how far it aids or hinders the general purpose of British civilisation, we have very little knowledge. We are certain, however, that it has an influence upon the type of civilisation that the British Empire aims to present. Those of us who conceive of the Colonies as growing up in due course to a position of something like independence, or as independent sister nations living under the general principles of the British Constitution, are appalled at the material that is fed to these growing nations; and no one who cares for the British traditions on the one hand, or has any hope for the development of the Colonies upon certain lines on the other, can look with anything except dismay at the cultural influences that the film conveys to them.
Without desiring to delay your Lordships for more than a minute or two I venture to suggest that British civilisation does not consist merely in ships and trains, imports and exports, and the rest, but its source and inspiration and meaning are rather on the cultural side—in its literature and art, in the way English people bear themselves towards the problems they have to face. It is the lack of this presentation through this great educational medium that is a matter of the sincerest anxiety to those who look to the future. I am not in the least degree hostile to America. Indeed if I were not British through and through I should prefer to be American rather than anything else. But I like her culture best when it is in its own natural environment and not when showing itself in our Colonies or even in London itself. I very much hope, too, that the music of our mother tongue may be preserved in some sort of way by the development of British rather than of American films. I feel that when an alien culture, even though it is American, is imposed upon peoples such as those living in the Colonies it makes a very deep cut into

297
the established traditions and the historical sanctions of our land.
The noble Lord pointed out that there is a most lamentable lack of British films of the like kind available for distribution throughout the Empire, but the fault is really with our own producers. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say as a criticism of America that she has built up a colossal industry; the industry was open for other people to build up if they had had the initiative and the creative insight that the people of America had in this matter. Our films have not spread because their quality has not been equal to that which could be obtained from elsewhere. Emerson, the fiftieth anniversary of whose death those who have been enriched by his teaching cannot help remembering, once said that if a man made even a mousetrap better than anybody else the whole world would make a track to his door. The reason that we have not a proper organisation of films throughout our Empire and that our films do not win their way is that they are less efficient in make than are those of other countries. It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that the industry is growing not only in extent, but also in quality, and we must wish that it will grow at an increased speed.
What I specially rise for this afternoon, my Lords, is to ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government whether any action has been taken upon the Report which was presented to the Colonial Office in June, 1930, by the Committee over which I had the privilege of presiding. We there made certain quite definite recommendations after having considered this matter in a great deal of detail with the most generous, ready and valuable help of representatives of the film-producing trade, and with all the expert knowledge that the Colonial Office and its advisers could give us. We made certain recommendations pointing out the immense danger of the situation. We made definite suggestions in regard to the future. I should like to ask the noble Lord what has been done. Has the Report been considered at all? Have any of its recommendations been put into effect? Has the Advisory Committee which was then suggested been established and, if so, what kind of people are on it and how far has it got in its work? Whether the question can be dealt with
298
at Ottawa, as the noble Lord has suggested, is not for me to say, but I can support the noble Lord in his contention that the question is of immense importance to the future not merely of the Dominions, for which he mostly spoke, but most of all, in my judgment, for those backward, struggling communities for whom we have some very special responsibility.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble and learned friend for having so kindly given me in a private communication the general outlines of what he was going to ask. I think we must be grateful to my noble friend for having raised this question this afternoon in, if I may be allowed to say so, a very able and attractive speech which was based on the true Imperial traditions in which I know he believes. May I also say with what pleasure we have listened to the noble Lord who sits on the Opposition Bench, and to what I would almost say was his treatise on the films, advanced from a slightly different, but no less attractive point of view—the educational point of view? Before the noble Lord mentioned it I am afraid I was not aware that he had been Chairman of the Colonial Films Committee, but I think I may say on behalf of the House that I am sure, having heard the noble Lord, no better chairman could have been appointed, and before I have finished my remarks I hope I shall be able to answer his specific questions in a way that will give him satisfaction.
In reply to my noble and learned friend I will attempt to give him from information supplied to me the position in this country so far as we know it and in the Dominions and the Colonies. In the United Kingdom the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, requires renters to acquire and exhibitors to show a certain proportion by footage of British films. For the current year, ending March, 1933, the renters' quota is 15 per cent. (rising to 20 per cent. in 1938) and for the current year ending September, 1932, the exhibitors' quota is 10 per cent. (also rising to 20 per cent. in 1938). Some of the largest American renters in this country only acquire, of course, sufficient films to meet their quota liabilities, but others who deal more largely in British films have quotas considerably in

299
excess of the statutory requirement. This is borne out by the fact that for the year ending September, 1931, when the exhibitors' quota was 7½ per cent., the actual proportion of feature films (that is, films over 3,000 feet in length which are the important part of the trade) shown by exhibitors in this country was nearly 18 per cent., as against their quota liability of7½ per cent. It may also be noted that of the feature films registered under the Act for the year ended March, 1932, 154, or roughly one in four, was a British film. Although at first the tendency of United States renters was to acquire cheap British films in order to meet their quota liabilities, there has been a gradual improvement in this respect, and some of the largest renters have now started production units in this country or have entered into contracts for production for reputable British producers.
I pass to the position of Canada. It is understood that Ontario has quota legislation on her Statute Book which is not in operation, and that similar legislation is either before or has passed the British Columbia Legislature. Recently a report was issued by the Commissioner appointed under the Combines Investigation Act of Canada into the film industry. His findings were that a combine existed in the motion picture industry in Canada consisting of Famous Players and its exhibiting associate, the Paramount Publix Corporation of America (the American producer which controls Famous Players), the various renters in Canada, and the organisation known as the Motion Picture Distributors and Exhibitors of Canada, and that this combine has operated and is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public. Subsequently an action was instituted against the Famous Players, apparently by the Ontario Government, but it was unsuccessful, and it remains to be seen whether Ontario will now put her quota legislation into operation. There is no important production of films in Canada, and the market has been almost entirely supplied from the United States. Obviously the Canadian market is a difficult market to enter in view of its proximity to the United States, and particularly owing to the fact that the Famous Players Canadian Corporation referred to has gathered under its wing
300
some 200 of the most important picture theatres in Canada.
I now pass to Australia. There is quota legislation in the State of Victoria on the basis of the exhibition of a certain amount of British footage in each programme, a method which is not altogether satisfactory, as it probably only leads in the long run to the exhibition of Australian-taken news reels. It is understood that the proposals for Commonwealth quota legislation have been shelved partly owing to the difficulties arising out of the division of functions between the Commonwealth and the States; nevertheless British films have made considerable progress during the year in the Australian market. I understand that British films lost ground after the introduction of talking films at the end of 1928, but the leeway has now been made up.
With regard to South Africa, little is known as to the position there. It is understood that the American hold on the market is strong and no move has apparently been made towards any quota legislation. In the Irish Free State, I understand, there are no quota provisions. As regards India, I understand India definitely decided against a quota for United Kingdom films. This market, of course, presents peculiar problems and must largely be a question of the production of the vernacular film.
LORD SNELL: Is the noble Lord able to say whether the production of films in India itself is growing?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I understand that a certain number of vernacular films are produced in India, but we have no information as to whether they are on the increase or not. As to New Zealand, that Dominion has an active quota legislation on the lines of the United Kingdom Act, which is compulsory so far as renters are concerned, but is at present worked voluntarily by exhibitors. I pass to the last paragraph in my summary, as regards the Colonies. I may say here that I was very glad to hear Lord Snell say that he is so British that he likes the American culture in its own environment. It leads me to think he was, like myself, a listener to some of the earlier "talkies" a few years ago. The position in the Colonies requires more lengthy explanation. In March, 1929, the Secre-

301
tary of State for the Colonies appointed the Colonial Films Committee, of which my noble friend opposite was Chairman,
"to examine the arrangements existing for the supply. … of cinematograph films for public exhibition in the Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories, and to consider in what way these arrangements could be improved, with special reference to. … the desirability, on political as well as economic grounds, of encouraging the exhibition of British films."
One of the recommendations made in the report of the Committee, which was published as a Parliamentary Paper (Cmd. 3630) in July, 1930, was that an organisation should be set up in this country, independent of but working in close co-operation with the Government Departments concerned, to undertake the distribution of British films throughout the Colonial Empire. The Committee also recommended that this organisation, when established, should have the assistance of an advisory Committee nominated by the Government to assist in the selection of suitable films for exhibition in the Colonies and to advise generally on questions relating to the distribution of such films. It was not intended that this Committee should in any way replace the local censorship authorities, who would still retain the responsibility for deciding what films could properly be shown in each of the territories concerned. With a view to assisting in the establishment of this organisation, a number of Colonial Governments have, at the request of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in accordance with a recommendation made by the Colonial Films Committee, undertaken to guarantee the company formed for the purpose against loss in its total transactions in the first year up to £1,000.
In order to give effect to the recommendations made by the Colonial Films Committee—here I come to answer my noble friend—the Film Producers' group of the Federation of British Industries formed in October, 1931, the British United Film Producers Company, Limited, to undertake the distribution of British films throughout the Colonial Empire. This company has on its board of directors representatives of the principal film-producing companies in Great Britain. At the same time the Secretary of State nominated as members of the advisory committee to assist the company
302
in the selection of suitable films, two ex-Colonial Governors, the technical adviser to His Majesty's Government on cinematography, and a representative of the Department of Overseas Trade. The company proposes to undertake the distribution of British films through local agents in the Colonies and Colonial Governments have been requested by the Secretary of State to afford to the company and its agents such assistance as can properly be given. The company has already shipped large consignments of British films to the West Indies and to West Africa and hopes to arrange for the shipment of further consignments in the near future, not only to those areas but also to other parts of the Empire as soon as the necessary arrangements have been made. Although the primary object of the company is to distribute British films to the Colonies, it is understood that the company propose, as and when opportunity offers, to extend their activities to certain foreign territories contiguous to the British Colonies in which their films are exhibited.
In addition to this, His Majesty's Government have been considering the possibility of the enactment of film quota legislation in the Colonies, similar in form to the Cinematograph Films Act, which was passed in this country in 1927. The enactment of such legislation is not possible in the majority of our African Colonies owing to our international engagements, but steps are being taken to secure the introduction of such legislation in certain of the West Indian Colonies, and further consideration will be given to the possibility of introducing similar legislation in other parts of the Colonial Empire as soon as an adequate and regular supply of British films can be made available for exhibition in the territories concerned. It will be seen therefore that the film industry in this country is, under the direction of the Cinematograph Films Act, making steady progress towards overcoming the American domination of the screen to which my noble friend drew attention. In the Colonies, too, satisfactory beginnings have been made, but progress in the right direction must inevitably be gradual. In the Dominions as a whole, however, the position is not so satisfactory, and the American producers are still strongly entrenched, no doubt partly through their

303
control of the cinemas themselves. The Dominion position must to a large extent depend on the position here, as the production of films in the Dominions is on the small side.
In the Dominion markets, if the trade are not strong enough to force matters themselves, this can only be done with the co-operation of the Governments concerned. A recent deputation from the Federation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress, which suggested certain amendments in the Cinematograph Films Act, stressed very strongly that efforts should be made to encourage and facilitate the production of good quality British films, and the distribution and exhibition of such films not only at home, but throughout the Dominions and Colonies, and in foreign countries. They pointed to the importance of films as a factor in influencing trade generally, in familiarising the use of the English language as spoken in these islands, and in assimilating British customs and cultural standards. There can, of course, be nothing but complete agreement with these views.
The question of pressing for an Imperial quota at Ottawa, however, raises certain difficulties. The Imperial Conference of 1926 stressed the importance of promoting the production and exhibition of British films in the various parts of the Empire. It did not attempt to draw up an exhaustive list of the methods which might usefully be adopted, but it was pretty clear that the only effective Government action in any part of the Empire to assist in the exhibition there of films made in any other part of the Empire must take the form either of Customs Duties or of quota legislation. The question did not, however, come up again at the Conference in 1930. As regards Customs Duties, many of the Dominions and Colonies give a Customs preference to British films, and in some cases this preference has been increased since 1926. This method of assistance is not, however, of so much importance in the case of films as in the case of many other goods.
As regards Ottawa, I think it will be obvious to my noble friend that it is for the Canadian Government as convenors of the Conference to prepare and circulate an agenda. No doubt following the precedent of previous Imperial Confer-
304
ences, the other Governments will be given an opportunity of making suggestions in regard to that agenda. It is understood that the Governments concerned will prefer to concentrate on major questions having immediate and direct influence on trade, and the preparatory work on this side has been conducted on this assumption. It may of course be argued, and I rather think that my noble friend argued, that the question of films is in itself a major question, and he referred to the message from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the Morning Post. In this connection I am authorised to say that while no promise can be given that the question of films will be placed on the agenda, the Government are impressed with the importance of securing an increasing market for British films in the Dominions and Colonies, and that it is quite possible that some opportunity may arise for dealing with the subject, if not formally, then informally. They are very sympathetic towards the objects which have induced my noble friend to bring forward this Motion, and they will certainly bear this aspect of the general trade question in mind in connection with the Conference.
There are no Papers on the subject of films in relation to the Ottawa Conference which could be laid before the House. While regretting having kept your Lordships for, I fear, rather an unconscionable time on this somewhat complicated, though very interesting, subject, I could not very well have occupied less time without want of respect to my noble friend and his Question and your Lordships generally in connection with this matter.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I only desire to express my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the House to my noble friend for the very informative speech which he has made, and which has given us, and I hope the country at large, a great deal of very valuable information upon this most important question of British films in this country and throughout the Empire. As regards bringing up the question at Ottawa, I rather gathered from my noble friend that the British Government would suggest to the Canadian Government the desirability of putting it on the Agenda.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I should not like my noble friend to go away with any false impression. I was very careful not to give any undertaking on the part of my right hon. friend or the Government. All I can say is that they fully realise the importance of this question, and they will be very sympathetic towards its being brought up. I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking.
LORD DANESFORT: I understand the objection to undertakings; they sometimes turn out to be difficult to observe. But after what has been said I do hope that the Government, without giving any formal undertaking to-day, will find themselves in a position to represent to the Canadian Government the paramount importance of bringing this question before the Ottawa Conference, when some general line of action can be adopted and carried into effect by the Governments concerned. I hope my noble friend will represent to his colleagues the desirability of that course. As regards Papers, I quite understand that there are none to lay, and I therefore withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

KENYA LAND COMMISSION.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON had the following Questions on the Paper—To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the appointment of the Commission to undertake the inquiry into land questions in Kenya, the question of the additional appointment of one or more Europeans who are independent both of land tenure and of financial interests in Kenya, and who are not associated in any way with the Government, and who would represent on the Commission the point of view of the African population of Kenya, will be considered. Further, to ask His Majesty's Government whether the appointment of one or more Africans to the Commission will be considered; and whether the African population will be allowed full opportunities of meeting and discussing the land question during the sitting of the Commission.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on March 23, the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, speaking on behalf of the Government, announced to your Lordships that it was intended to appoint a Commission
306
to undertake an inquiry into the question of the land in Kenya. That decision was, of course, in accordance with one of the recommendations of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Closer Union in East Africa which appeared in November last. On April 12 the names of the Commissioners were published in the Press. The Commissioners are to be three in number, Sir William Morris Carter, Captain F. O'B. Wilson, and Mr. R. W. Hemsted. I wish to make it perfectly clear to your Lordships that I am not saying a word against those three gentlemen nor am I raising any objection to their appointment to the Commission. I am asking for an addition to the Commission. Sir Morris Carter is an ex-Chief Justice of the Tanganyika Territory and has done work in Rhodesia very similar to the kind of work he will have to do in connection with the land of Kenya. Mr. Hemsted is a distinguished ex-Colonial civil servant. I am quite sure that those gentlemen can be relied upon to enquire very conscientiously and very ably into, and to deal very well with, the difficult problems which will come before them.
Had the Commission consisted entirely of men in the position of ex-officials who could not be supposed to be taking the point of view of either the white settlers or the African population, I doubt whether I should have raised this question in your Lordships' House. But Captain F. O'B. Wilson is in quite a different category. He is a white settler and a landowner. It may be, for all I know, that he is actually occupying land which the African population, rightly or wrongly, regard as stolen from them and alienated by the Crown. He has been, I believe, rather closely identified with a section of the settlers who have advocated the alienation of more or of all land by the Crown. Of course, he may be able to keep perfectly impartial on the Commission; I dare say he will. But the African population will not regard him as an impartial member of the Commission, and I think it is not too much to say that some of the white settlers will not expect him to be altogether impartial. He will be looked upon, at any rate, as in the position of a judge who is also one of the litigants.
I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it is of the utmost import-

307
ance that this Commission should be entirely above suspicion, and that it should secure the complete confidence of the African population. As the Commission is at present constituted this state of things will not be assured. Captain Wilson will be regarded both by the white population and the black as representing the views of the 20,000 white people in Kenya. In those circumstances, as Captain Wilson is there in that position, I think it would be looked upon as an act of simple justice that some one should be appointed who should represent the point of view of the 2,500,000 African people. I therefore ask His Majesty's Government to appoint at least one European member and, if possible, two European members to the Commission, men who should have no connection with land tenure in Kenya, no financial interest in Kenya, who should not be in any way connected with the Government and who should be appointed for their sympathy with the native point of view.
It would also be a great advantage, I think, to the Commission if a man of that kind was appointed, that he should have a real knowledge of native land law and also that he should have an understanding of the technical economic questions connected with the use of land for agricultural and pastoral purposes. Such an appointment would go far, I think, to remove the suspicion of the black people and to give them a feeling of confidence. It would very greatly strengthen the hands of the Commission, because a man such as I have suggested who would be regarded as the friend of the natives, would be able to draw from the natives information of a kind which might be very valuable to the Commission but which might not and probably could not be drawn from them at all by people with whom they had not complete sympathy. I feel that such an appointment would add greatly to the value of the Commission and would help very largely towards the production of a really authoritative report.
I now come to my second Question. I think that it would greatly add to the strength of the Commission if one or two Africans could be added to it. That, again, would certainly increase confidence amongst the African people and remove suspicion. It would have the
308
further advantage, I think, that it would be extremely useful in the handling of witnesses before the Commission. Your Lordships, I am sure, understand that natives coming before a Commission of that kind would be very shy and timid and awkward and would find it difficult to express themselves and give the evidence which they wished to give. If they had on the Commission one or two of their own people whom they would regard as their friends they would be much more at their ease, and the native members of the Commission would be able to put questions to them in a way which they would understand, perhaps, better than if the questions came from some of the European members, and would also be able to explain their answers. I feel sure that, with some natives on the Commission you would get a lot of evidence which you would not get otherwise, and which might be very essential for a proper solution of this question. It may be said, of course, that there are difficulties in putting natives on the Commission and making them full members of it. At any rate, if they cannot be made full members, might it not be possible to co-opt two native assessors?
Finally, there is a widespread belief, I am told on very good authority, amongst the African people that very great restrictions are placed on their right of meeting and holding political meetings. Of course, the District Commissioners have very wide powers with regard to prohibiting meetings. I ask the Government to ensure that before the meeting of the Commission and during the sitting of the Commission these powers will not be used in such a way as to prevent meetings of the Africans, so that full and frank discussion of the land question can be carried on amongst them. Everything is to be gained and nothing would be lost by freedom in this matter. I am sure your Lordships are as anxious as I am that this Commission should be a success, and that it should be a means for settling once for all this very difficult land question, which is a constant cause for serious racial friction. I feel sure that the suggestions I have made will help to make the Commission a success, and will enhance the possibilities of getting a really satisfactory report and a satisfactory solution of this very important problem. I very much hope that the noble Lord who

309
I understand is to reply for the Government will be able to give me a favourable answer.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I do not wish to attempt to add anything to the cogency of the representations which my noble friend has made to the House. I think they cannot fail to impress your Lordships. I wish to deal rather more widely with some points on which I should like a clearer statement from the Government than we have yet had. I may say that I regard with great confidence the attitude which the Government have shown in appointing this Commission. I regard it with great confidence, in the first place because they have for the first time made a departure in the direction which noble friends of mine and myself have been urging for many years. We have pressed them to take cognisance of native claims, and never before this occasion have we succeeded in getting the Colonial Office to admit that they would do so. That has apparently been done now, no doubt owing to the representations made before the Joint Select Committee of Parliament. I also have full confidence in the Government because, on hearing the terms of reference given to the Commission, they struck me, as I think I said at the time, as not only satisfactory but as going even a little further than they necessarily were compelled to go by the expression of opinion given by the Joint Select Committee.
The position is that they have to enquire not only into the general accommodation of natives upon the land, but into the validity of claims made by natives to rights in lands which have been alienated, and to recommend how they are to be dealt with. For the purpose of dealing with that reference the Commission has two functions. First of all, it has a judicial function to enquire, and, secondly, it has a political function to make recommendations, With regard to the judicial aspects of the case, I again feel great confidence in the appointment which has been made by the Government of Sir Morris Carter as Chairman of this Commission. Sir Morris Carter is a Judge and a man of great Colonial experience and of special experience of the kind of work which has to be done in connection with this matter. So far as the terms of reference go, if they are clear, I do not think we can have a report that will be unsatisfactory within
310
those terms of reference. You do not require a very large Commission to keep their report to the terms of reference, but you do require a man of judicial experience and judicial discrimination, and that is guaranteed by the appointment which has been made of the Chairman.
What is important in the judicial aspect of the matter is that the greatest possible care should be taken that proper evidence shall be laid, and that the circumstances shall be fully enquired into. That point has been dealt with by my noble friend. I feel great confidence, with a Commission constituted as it is, with a Judge as Chairman, with a former civil servant who was in the Native or Lands Department, and a settler, that they will succeed in eliciting the facts as to the claims of these natives, and more particularly because the subject matter of native claims in land has been very carefully and exhaustively enquired into so far as two principal sections of the Colony are concerned. These are all very able Commissioners, who no doubt will have brought before them a very large amount of evidence which will be relevant to the inquiry that has to be made. The ground has already been worked over, and I do not think we need have much fear that a Commissioner of Sir Morris Carter's antecedents and experience in similar inquiries would fail to go as profoundly as possible into all the evidence that can be obtained, or (I should hope) to take all due precaution to see that no native witness who might be required should be in any degree intimidated. Still, if by having native assessors the confidence of natives in giving evidence before the Commission would be increased, that would be to the good, and I should be glad to see any kind of assistance of that sort given. So much for the judicial inquiry.
There is a further point on which I am rather doubtful whether the reference is quite clear. It ought to be clear and I want to have an assurance that it is so. The reference is:
"To determine the nature and extent of claims asserted by natives over land alienated to non-natives and to make recommendations for the adequate settlement of such claims, whether by legislation or otherwise.
"To examine claims asserted by natives over land not yet alienated and to make recommendations for the adequate settlement of such claims."

311
That, of course, is a new element in the inquiry. Sir William Morris Carter some years ago made a somewhat similar inquiry as to the native lands in Southern Rhodesia, and I want to point out the great difference that there is between the subject that has to be enquired into here and the subject that was to be enquired into by Sir William Morris Carter on that occasion. Sir William Morris Carter on that occasion was enquiring into the policy that should be followed for satisfying the needs of natives in land. And here arises the question of policy. The situation with regard to the rights or claims of natives in lands in Southern Rhodesia was quite different from what the situation is, as we understand it, in regard to the claims of natives to land in Kenya.
The situation to be dealt with in Southern Rhodesia was legally the same as that in Kenya—that is to say, the natives had no rights at all, and they had no claims which a legal mind could recognise, because we had said we did not recognise equitable claims. But in Kenya we have definitely said—and I wish to know whether this is admitted—that we are going to recognise equitable claims founded upon law and custom—such native law and custom as Lord Sumner referred to in the judgment of the Privy Council on Rhodesian lands to which he said natives had no rights. But in this Kenya inquiry I take it—and I wish to have an assurance that it is so—the Commissioners are to take account of native rights according to native law and custom. The discrimination is very clear in the original Charter granted to British Southern Africa in which the British South Africa Company were required to have
"careful regard.… to the customs and laws of the class or tribe or nation, especially in this respect to the holding, possession, transfer and disposition of land and succession thereto."
But when Southern Rhodesia was reconstituted by Order-in-Council, that policy was dropped and the policy which now legally exists in Kenya was substituted. That is to say, that there is no regard to legal customs or the native habit of succession but natives are put where it is most convenient for the Colony to put them.
312
I want an explicit assurance that the Commission will recognise that the situation in Kenya is different from the situation in Southern Rhodesia and that it is the purpose of the Commission really to enquire, as Sir William Morris Carter is eminently qualified to do, into the question of laws and customs of the natives upon which they found their claims to interests in these lands. It is a perfectly clear point which, on the face of the instruction, I take it was intended, but I should like to have that reassurance.
When I come to the second part of the Question, which is, whether the Commission, with the aid of the Kikuyu and other reports on native land tenure and with the aid of such natives as may be called to give evidence, will endeavour to ascertain the rights of these claims, I realise that it will be a rather lengthy investigation to ascertain who are the people who claim the land and what evidence there is to support their claims. How far they are going into these particulars I do not know, but they will have t o make a recommendation of what should be done, "whether by legislation or otherwise." There we enter the question of policy, and a very difficult question of policy, because we have actually alienated to a large number of Europeans the whole of this land over which many of these natives have these equitable claims. As soon as you come to that matter you reach a question of very great importance to the future of the relation of races in Africa. On that account I share my noble friend's feeling that a Commission which is to make a political representation of that sort is one upon which it would be better to have more representatives of the varying interests than at present. I do not press that point, however, because I see the difficulty, and I myself have rather an objection to the principle of setting up a Commission and putting one man on one side and one man on the other in order to have an apparent balancing of interests. Assuming that you can rely on the equity and common sense of the Commission and on the strong determination of the British Government to pursue a just and satisfactory policy, I would rather have a small committee of properly qualified persons than a large committee in which it might be difficult to obtain such unaniminity as was fortunately obtained by the Joint

313
Select. Committee of Parliament under the guidance of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
Therefore, I wish to say that whatever report this Commission may make—and I express no distrust whatever of its character or its constitution—it should be a report for the consideration of His Majesty's Government and a report which will require full consideration by Parliament as to what policy shall be pursued in dealing with native land. On that account I am not disposed to regard this Commission as at present constituted as a final authoritative body which is to decide what legislation should be passed, but as a preparatory Commission for providing His Majesty's Government with full facts on which they may hereafter decide such questions as whether natives are to be allowed to own and occupy land in the highlands, or whether, in any case, natives should be allowed to reside on or rent the land of Europeans except on the very onerous and objectionable condition to which I referred the other day, that they should be bound to work for the owner of the land. It would be very difficult, I think, if we had a large Commission on which natives were represented, to get sufficient agreement to enable the Chairman to make a report. The work of the Commission should be confined, as far as possible, to judicial evaluation of the position and to recommendations as to what claims appear to be equitable. For that purpose it seems to me it would be more easy with a small rather than with a large Commission to present a case upon which His Majesty's Government can arrive at sound and equitable policy. I thoroughly support the caution which my noble friend expressed with regard to points which have to be carefully kept in view, as to the encouragement of natives to give evidence and the careful examination of all interests.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I want to mention only one or two points upon that part of the Question in which the noble Lord asked His Majesty's Government whether the appointment of one or more Africans to the Commission would be considered. In the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Closer Union in East Africa, the Committee said in paragraph 105 (ii):
314
"In view of the nervousness among the native population as regards the land question, a full and authoritative inquiry should be undertaken immediately into the needs of the native population, present and prospective, with respect to land within or without the reserves, held either on tribal or on individual tenure."
If your Lordships who have copies of the Report will turn to page 45 you will see in paragraph 107 the Committee say "the multiplicity of languages is an obvious source of trouble." When you have a number of different languages it means that you have a number of different races. There are no fewer than five distinct language groups in Kenya alone. Each of those groups contains several languages and there are numerous dialects as well. Then in paragraph 108 the Committee say:
"It is not only in the matter of languages that difficulties arise. The many ethnical and tribal divisions carry in their train a great range of variation in customs and tribal laws. To take one instance, the tribal laws governing land tenure are often extremely intricate and are sometimes imperfectly understood."
Those two points were borne out by the evidence before us. You have all over East Africa great differences in the various methods of holding land and great differences in language and race. I think therefore that it would be very difficult to appoint one African to represent all Africans of various races. He could only represent one group, or more probably only one race. He would only speak one language and perhaps only one dialect. He would be likely only to understand one system of land tenure and would be quite at sea in regard to the other difficult and intricate matters which would be brought before the Committee. From another point of view I do not think, on the evidence which the Joint Select Committee heard, that natives of East Africa are sufficiently solidified, if I may use that expression, to make it possible to find one, or even two or three or four representatives who would really give fair representation to native views. I do not think it would be possible at the moment—probably it would not be possible for a very long time ahead—to do that. In saying that I am not saying anything against the ability of the Africans who gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee. The Committee have put on record that they were very much impressed by the

315
manner in which the Africans who were called before them gave their evidence, and the time may come when the most suitable representation of Africans on the Legislative Council would be by persons of African descent.
Therefore, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, and am not disposed to think that the witnesses before this Commission are likely to find much difficulty in expressing themselves. If they are the same as those that came to see us they would show no difficulty and no diffidence, and I should imagine that coming to London for the first time would be far more trying to the nerves than giving evidence in their own country. I think it would be wise to leave the Commission to consist entirely of those of European descent. We formed the opinion that one of the greatest difficulties, if you wanted to put Africans on the Legislative Council, would be to get suitable people. I think you would find the same thing if the question of numbers was overcome. It would be, I think, difficult to get exactly suitable people from other points of view to sit on this Commission. I think the criticism of the noble Lord was perhaps less that there should be persons of African descent on the Commission than that possibly the present constitution of the Commission was not exactly judicious.
I entirely agree with what fell from Lord Olivier as to the desirability of such a Commission as this being small and one that can deal with the subject in such a manner as to present a united report. I believe the Government is actuated by a desire to obtain an authoritative report on the state of affairs in regard to land tenure in East Africa, which was the object of the recommendations of the Commission, and therefore I am disposed to think that it would be undesirable to limit in any way the qualification of the members of the Commission, leaving it to the Government to make the best selection they can. It has been said that one of the members of the Commission, from his situation as a landowner, may be regarded, probably entirely unjustly, as in some way biased. I am content to leave that in the hands of the Government. I am sure they are actuated by a desire to obtain the full information which the Commission recom-
316
mended, and if they have chosen members of the Commission I feel convinced they have done so with the view of obtaining the best information possible. I am entirely content to leave the matter in their hands.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am sure the House will be ready to recognise the sympathetic understanding with which the noble Lord who asked this Question enunciated his case. The Commission to which his question referred was not intended to be a body representative of the various interests concerned, but rather in the nature of a judicial or quasi-judicial body to hear the evidence which those interests may desire to bring and will have every opportunity of bringing before the Commission. For this reason Sir Morris Carter was selected as Chairman of the Commission and it is common ground that he is eminently suited for those duties in view of his knowledge and experience not only on the Bench, but of inquiries into land questions elsewhere in Africa. His Colonial service includes the tenure of the offices of Chief Justice of Uganda and Tanganyika Territory from the latter of which he retired in 1924. He had considerable experience on Committees dealing with native land tenure and settlement and land legislation in Uganda. He was Chairman of the Commission appointed in Southern Rhodesia, in 1925, to enquire into land questions analogous to those to be dealt with in Kenya.
The noble Lord who asked this Question seemed anxious to increase the size of this Commission. I agree with those noble Lords who have put the point that it is desirable on these occasions to keep a body such as this as small as possible. As regards the remaining members of the Commission it was felt that the Commission should combine local knowledge with expert experience, and that it would be preferable to secure the services of two fair-minded local men rather than to appoint persons outside the Colony without local knowledge. It is desirable to encourage the co-operation of the non-native community in the difficult administrative problems which have to be dealt with and this policy is, in fact, in accordance with the passage in the Report of

317
the Joint Select Committee on Closer Union in East Africa which says:
"The Committee are of opinion that the trusteeship of natives must remain the function of His Majesty's Government, but that the assistance of the non-native communities in carrying out this obligation should be encouraged to an increasing extent. In setting up machinery for the detailed administration of the trust the Government should avail itself to the full of the local knowledge and experience of the unofficial elements."
The Secretary of State is satisfied that the capacity, knowledge and experience of Captain Frank Wilson and Mr. Rupert Hemsted render them admirably suited for service on the Commission, and everyone who knows them would agree that they may be relied on to carry out their duties thoroughly and fairly.
Both of them in view of their local experience are well fitted to appreciate the native point of view as represented to the Commission. It may not be out of place if I mention here that the Joint Committee attached importance to local official experience in East Africa in connection with the appointment of Chief Native Commissioner. We have in Mr. Rupert, Hemsted a man who was a Senior Commissioner, who retired and made his home in Kenya, and has had great experience in the administration of native affairs. As regards Captain Frank Wilson, about whose appointment the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, voiced one or two suspicions, he is a settler and—
LORD SANDERSON: I did not exactly voice suspicions, but I felt that they might be entertained by others out there and especially by the African people. I did not suggest any suspicions myself.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I must apologise if I was misrepresenting the noble Lord. Captain Wilson is a man whose knowledge of Kenya is as universal as the respect in which he is held out there by all classes. With regard to adding to the numbers of the Commission I have already said that His Majesty's Government is not desirous of doing this and is of opinion that the numbers already make this Commission well equipped for its task. As to the question of appointing an African I would point out the line which was so ably expressed by the noble Earl, Lord
318
Onslow, that in any case the appointment of an African or Africans would involve the difficulty of finding an individual or individuals sufficiently capable of representing the native community generally.
Perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships that on the Native Land Trusts Board set up by the late Government, under the direction of Lord Pass-field, no African was appointed, but this provision was made in the Ordinance:
"The Central Board may from time to time, if it should deem it desirable, for the purpose of the consideration of any particular matter co-opt the chairman of the local board concerned as a member of the Central Board, and may for a like purpose after reference to any local Native Council particularly concerned co-opt one or more Africans as members of the Central Board.
"Provided that when, in the opinion of the Governor, there shall be an African or Africans who is or are sufficiently capable of representing and speaking for the native community generally, then and in such case the Governor shall, as soon as may be possible, appoint at least one such African to be a full member of the Central Board."
So far it has not been possible to appoint an African for such a position. Equally, with regard to the Council, it has not yet been found possible to make any nominations to the Council, and perhaps I may be allowed to read this passage from paragraph 101 of the Joint Committee's Report:
"The Committee have been much impressed by the ability of the Africans who have given evidence before them, and they feel that the time may well come, if the unitary system of Government is maintained, when the most suitable representation for the African will be by members of their own community. At the present time the suitable education and experience is lacking on any large scale, and indeed it is doubtful if there are any English-speaking natives who would command the confidence of their own tribes."
As to the last point which the noble Lord made in his Question, the Secretary of State will gladly bring the noble Lord's remarks to the notice of the Governor of Kenya, but the Secretary of State is confident that the Governor will be equally anxious to ensure that the natives should have full opportunities for meeting and discussion, not only during the sittings of the Commission but also in the preparation of the representations which they wish to make.
I should like to refer to the point raised by Lord Olivier, and perhaps I may take this opportunity of thanking him

319
for giving us some indication of the questions as to which he wanted an answer given. I am glad that he was able to fall in with the view of the Government in thinking that the personnel of this Commission could not be in any way criticised. He emphasized the sterling worth of these gentlemen who have undertaken to carry out this task for the Government.
LORD OLIVIER: I only emphasized the appointment of Sir Morris Carter, because I do not know the other gentlemen.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord expressed approval which I was very glad to notice. He will recognise that in relation to the Question on the Paper I cannot possibly enter into the question of policy, but I am glad that the noble Lord on the whole is satisfied with the terms of reference to the Commission. So far as the other part of his question is concerned all I can say to him, speaking from this Bench, is that the intention was that the Commission should accept the facts as they exist to-day, and on that basis deal with the native claims upon grounds of equity, and not be prevented from so dealing with them by any considerations of law.
I think that I have dealt with all the questions raised by noble Lords opposite, but I should like to conclude by saying that I think it would be unfortunate, and indeed very unfair, to assume that in Africa there is not a common interest between the native and European communities. Both are concerned equally and vitally in the development of Kenya and in its prosperity. That is the end to which our whole administration is directed, and here too, as elsewhere throughout the world, I think there is no reason to be ashamed of British administration. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude of His Majesty's Government to Sir Morris Carter, Captain Wilson and Mr. Hemsted, for consenting to undertake what will necessarily be a laborious task. The Government trust, however, that they can proceed relying on the good will and cooperation of all sections of the community, and in the knowledge that every section of the community shares the hope of the Government that the outcome of their labours will be a material con-
320
tribution to appeasement by stilling ancient controversies and allaying mutual fears.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I wish to say one word if I may. It is that I have listened with great interest to the speeches, especially that of Lord Onslow, and the conclusion I have come to—and I hope it will be the feeling of the mover of the Resolution—is that the Government have made out a good case in this way, that it is better to have a small Commission. They could not possibly have had a better Chairman than Sir Morris Carter, whose reputation I know in my time was very great and has subsequently grown. It is much better to have a small Commission of three. Everybody knows that it is a great advantage from the point of view of rapidity and of arriving at an agreement, and I agree with my noble friend who has stated the Government's case that these three representatives will really represent not only the views of Europeans but the views of the natives as well.
I agree with him that certainly under present condition's a Commission of this sort will look at matters quite impartially, from the point of view of the natives as well as of the white settlers generally. I also think that the proposal of my noble friend to add a representative of the Africans themselves to the Commission is in present circumstances quite out of the question. Lord Onslow, I think, pointed out quite rightly that you could not in present conditions, and with the great variety of native races and languages, get even two members who would necessarily represent the natives as a whole. In those circumstances, and having given the matter the best thought I can, I am inclined to agree with the Government in their proposal to keep this Commission a small one. So far as the personnel is concerned, I am not personally acquainted with the two other gentlemen, although I know them by reputation, but we could not have a better Chairman, and I feel sure that the results anticipated will be fulfilled when this commission sits and reports.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord for his very courteous reply to my Question.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HENLEY-ON-THAMES WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Henley-on-Thames Water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Hailsham Water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERTFORD WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Hertford Water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELHAM VALLEY WATER AND HERTS AND ESSEX WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Elham Valley Water and Herts and Essex Water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed and referred to the Examiners.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 17th of February and the 21st of April last discharged, and Bill committed.

WARRINGTON EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.