Lords Sitting of 5 May 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment made by the Lords in lieu of the Commons Amendment to which the Lords disagreed, agreed to.
SIDMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
YORK WATERWORKS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MARRIAGE (NAVAL, MILITARY AND AIR FORCE CHAPELS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to authorise the publication of banns and the solemnisation of marriages in naval, military and air force chapels, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE AND HOW-DENSHIRE EL ECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
MID-LINCOLNSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
BARNSTAPLE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
WHITCHURCH, ELLESMERE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTEN- SION) ORDER, 1932.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, with reference to the four Electricity Orders on the Paper, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.— (The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAW OF PROPERTY (ENTAILED INTERESTS) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Blanesburgh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Definition of "rentcharge in possession."
2. For removing doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "rentcharge in possession" in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section one of the Law of Property Act, 1925, means a rentcharge not limited to take effect in remainder after or expectant on the failure or determination of some other interest, and whether or not the payments in respect thereof are limited to commence or accrue from the time of its creation.
LORD BLANESBURGH LORD BLANESBURGH moved to leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:
".For removing doubt it is hereby declared that a rentcharge (not being a rent-charge limited to take effect in remainder after or expectant on the failure or determination of some other interest) is a rent-charge in possession within the meaning of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section one of the Law of Property Act, 1925, notwithstanding that the payments in respect thereof are limited to commence or accrue at some time subsequent to its creation."
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move to substitute the words which I have placed on the Paper for those which are now in the Bill. It is purely a drafting Amendment. The pro-

325
posed new words are clearer and better than those which they displace. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Blanesburgh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

RATING AND VALUATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, this Bill is designed to secure economy in the preparation of the new valuation lists for all areas outside London made in accordance with the provisions of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. Your Lordships will recollect that the Act of 1925 effected great changes in the procedure relating to the preparation of valuation lists and kindred matters. One of the changes was the introduction of a system of quinquennial valuation, adopting in this respect a system which had been in operation for many years in the Metropolis. Before 1925 the valuation lists were prepared by the overseers of the parish and new valuation lists were made, not at stated intervals, but when ordered by the assessment committee of the then Poor Law union.
The office of overseer is now abolished and under the Act of 1925 the rating authority is required every fifth year to make a valuation list of all the hereditaments within its area with the gross and net annual values of each hereditament. This list is known as the quinquennial valuation list. The first valuation list was made following the coming into operation of the Act of 1925 and the preparation of the second quinquennial valuation list is, in most cases, now about to be undertaken. Representations have been made by local authorities that the existing provision, which requires certain returns to be made by occupiers, owners or lessees as a preliminary to the compilation of the lists, entails much unnecessary labour and expense. Section 40, subsection (1) of the Act of 1925, as the Bill shows, requires the issue by the rating authority in connection with the preparation of each quinquennial revaluation of a notice with a form of return in respect of
326
every hereditament in its area. The rating authority is required to serve such notice on the occupier, owner or lessee of every hereditament, and the person upon whom the notice has been served is required to make the return under a penalty for default.
Section 40, subsection (1) of the Act of 1925 is as follows:
"In every case where a new valuation list is to be made under this part of this Act for any rating area the rating authority shall serve notice on the occupier, owner or lessee of every hereditament in the area or on any one or more of them requiring him or them to make a return containing such particulars as may be reasonably required for the purpose of carrying out this Act. The said notice shall be served not later than such date as will allow a sufficient interval for completing in accordance with the provisions of this part of this Act the various stages in the preparation of the valuation list."
Your Lordships will see that that section requires that the rating authority is to call upon any occupier, owner or lessee to make a return. A form of return is prescribed by the Rating and Valuation Act (Returns) Rules, 1926, and this return requires the person upon whom it is served to state the situation of the property, the name of the occupier, the name and address of the owner, the use to which the property is put, the nature of the business carried on, and various particulars of that kind. This information is intended to be for the assistance of the rating authority and does not affect in any way the right of the ratepayer to challenge his assessment when the valuation list is deposited in draft nor does it affect his opportunity for doing so.
The powers conferred by Section 40 are most useful to rating authorities. Overseers had no such powers and they had to collect information relating to the rateable value of any property as best they could, but experience has shown that Section 40 goes too far. The rating authorities who, as I have said, are responsible for the preparation of valuation lists, while recognising that information obtainable from the prescribed form is in many cases useful, have pointed out that in numerous instances the information so obtained is of no appreciable assistance to them. There are types of rateable property to which the form that has been prescribed is, for practical purposes, inapplicable; for example, public utility undertakings, mines and quarries,

327
schools and other institutions, theatres and hotels. Moreover, even in the case of houses the need for issuing separate forms in respect of large numbers of premises identical in character involves much needless labour and considerable expenditure. An example is a long street of identical houses where there would be no object in requiring every occupier or owner to make a return. Local authorities are in many instances owners of a large number of dwelling houses and other property. Yet under the Act the local authority as rating authority must serve notice on itself as owner requiring a return to be made by itself to itself, or it must serve similar notices on its tenants. All the information which any return could disclose in respect of such property is already in possession of the local authority.
May I give an instance of how the section works out in practice? In Birmingham the Corporation as rating authority will under the present law have to serve over 170,000 notices calling for returns. The Corporation has already full information in respect of the majority of the properties as to which notices will be served. The greater part of the work in serving these notices is thus unnecessary, and if the Corporation were not required to serve notices in all cases but empowered to serve such notices as they deemed necessary it is estimated that £2,000 would be saved in respect of the preparation of the new valuation list. A like sum would be saved in the preparation of each succeeding quinquennial valuation list. The number of rating authorities in England and Wales affected by the Bill in 1,762. The matter thus assumes some importance. Material is not available to form any accurate estimate of the potential saving of these authorities, but seeing that the number of separately rateable properties is in the neighbourhood of 11,000,000 it is apparent that if anything like the ratio of saving in Birmingham obtains generally the economy would be considerable.
It has been represented that all that is necessary to remedy what is complained of is that the rating authorities should be empowered, instead of being required, to call for the returns, and that they should be in a position to exercise their discretion as to the cases
328
in which a return is or is not desirable. The Bill provides for this. With this view the Association of Municipal Corporations are in sympathy and it is understood that it commends itself also to the county councils. The Central Valuation Committee takes the same view and emphasises the desirability of amending the Act in the interests of economy. The committee is a statutory body constituted under Section 57 of the Act of 1925 and is representative of all classes of local authority. In a circular letter, dated April 15 last addressed to the clerks to the county valuation committees, the Central Valuation Committee state:
"It has been suggested that much labour and expense might be saved if the power and duty under Section 40 (1) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, of requiring a return in respect of every hereditament were made generally permissive instead of obligatory. The Central Valuation Committee have accordingly represented to the Minister that, in the interests of economy, it is desirable that the Act of 1925 shall be amended in this respect during the present Session if there is an opportunity of so doing."
Thus the various authorities concerned in rating and valuation are favourable to the amendment of the Act of 1925 in the manner proposed by the Bill.
There is reason to believe that the Minister of Health would also view the proposal with sympathy, particularly in present circumstances. If the Bill becomes law it will relieve many occupiers and owners from the obligation of making unnecessary returns. Preliminary steps for the new valuation are already in hand in most areas and notices calling for returns would be normally served during the ensuing autumn in the case of the great majority of rating authorities. If, therefore, the object of the Bill is to be achieved, it is necessary that it should reach the Statute Book this Session. In those circumstances, I invite your Lordships' favourable consideration of the Bill and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that at last a Bill is introduced which will economise in some directions. I have not seen very many attempts at that, and I am glad to hear that the noble

329
Lord is beginning to proceed in the right way. I am still more glad to hear that corporations are at last beginning to understand that economy is necessary. I have never seen any corporation going that way before, and, in fact, I think they are the worst offenders.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Not in the City of London?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: There are always exceptions. They prove the rule. I would like to ask the noble Lord one question as to what is the actual position, presuming the Bill becomes law, of the ratepayers. There is a fresh valuation. I am a ratepayer. I pay £100 a year for my house. At the present moment I have to return to the rating authority the fact that I pay £100 a year for my house. Under the noble Lord's Bill I shall not have to do that, which, of course, is an advantage. But what is there to prevent the corporation assessing me at £150? Then, as I understand it, I shall have to go to the trouble of pointing out that they have had made a bad assessment. Is not that right?
LORD AMULREE: Yes. The Bill does not affect that question. The Bill only deals with the necessity of making returns in respect of every property in the rating area. The object is to give the rating authority discretion as to which properties they think the valuation should be revised.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: As long as the ratepayer is not damaged, I do not know that I very much mind. I presume that the effect on the ratepayer will be that, whereas, under the present law he has to make a long return, that will not necessarily have to be done under the new law, but that if he is wrongly assessed then he will have to take action. He will only take action in case he is badly assessed. Is that right?
LORD AMULREE: Yes, that is right.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: In the circumstances I have no objection.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, if I have understood the noble Lord aright all that this Bill does is to give a discretion to the local authority where there is an obligation at the present time.
330
That obligation is found to be more than is necessary and therefore it is asked that discretion should be substituted for obligation. I should have thought that every one would have assented to that and I believe myself that it is an excellent proposal.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House more than a few moments in giving my general support to the Bill. On the last occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and myself engaged in discussion on local government administration we found ourselves on opposite sides, but to-day I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill he has introduced which I think is vital to the peace and happiness of the ratepayer. As your Lordships no doubt are well aware, if you have studied this Bill, it merely seeks to remedy a position which was probably not intended when the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 was passed. It introduces a permissive element instead of the obligatory character of that Act. If this Bill becomes law, local authorities will no longer be compelled to demand returns from owners or occupiers with regard to their assessments. That is to say, if a local authority, whether it is a municipal council or a county council, is already in possession of sufficient knowledge, it need not call upon the ratepayer to make a return. Of course, it may still be possible, as my noble friend Lord Banbury has pointed out, for the rating authority to raise the assessment of a house. Equally it is possible for them to reduce it. The local authority, however, as I understand, will not be bound to have fresh returns made if an agreement is come to between them and the owner or occupier. That is a gain.
There are many districts where the value of a house does not materially alter from year to year, or from one period of five years to another. There are other districts where the value of a house may vary very materially in this period. This Bill will give local authorities more elasticity in the exercise of their powers. Where the local authority have the necessary knowledge it will not be necessary for them to worry the owners and occupiers of property to the same extent as they would if this Bill were not

331
passed. There is one other thing I would like to say before I conclude. For a long time, as no doubt your Lordships are aware, there has been a large body of opinion in favour of the postponement of the quinquennial valuation. The Government, I believe, were approached on that subject but did not think fit to postpone that quinquennial valuation and accordingly it will shortly become due and will be duly made. This Bill, however, will remove a great deal of hardship from that valuation and will greatly reduce its cost. On behalf of the County Councils' Association, which no doubt would have introduced a similar Bill if the Associaton of Municipal Corporations had not done so—in fact, it has been done by agreement—I beg to support the Bill.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, perhaps I ought to add that the Ministry of Health are grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this Bill. It will make for economy without prejudice to the accuracy and fairness of the valuation list. It will also reduce the number of unnecessary forms which householders have to fill in, and the Ministry of Health are always anxious to help in reducing the number of unnecessary forms.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WHEAT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Provisions for securing to growers of millable wheat a standard price and a market therefor]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, all the Amendments to Clause 1 on the Paper are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 18, after ("before") insert ("being despatched on delivery after")
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("registered grower") and insert ("person")
Page 4, line 9, after ("quantity") insert ("to the corporation")
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("registered growers") and insert ("persons entitled to take proceedings")
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("those growers") and insert ("them")
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("of a registered grower's own growing")
Page 4, line 28, after ("bought") insert ("from a registered grower").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Quota payments by millers and importers]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the three Amendments to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 42, leave out from the beginning to ("the") in line 44
Page 8, line 10, leave out ("be in") and insert ("come into")
Page 8, line 19, after ("and") insert ("subject to the provisions of this Act relating to the adjustment of surpluses and deficiences in the Wheat Fund.").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [By-laws of the Wheat Commission]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("required to be thereby certified") and insert ("entitling claimants to the issue of such certificates").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Adjustment of surpluses and deficiencies in Wheat Fund]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, leave out from ("expenditure") to ("that") in line 16 and insert ("of the Wheat Commission attributable to").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Provisions as to Millers' Quota Fund]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the two Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 4, after ("distributed") insert ("on behalf of the Flour Millers' Corporation")
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("the Flour Millers'") and insert ("that").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Provisions as to administrative expenses]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the Amendments to this clause standing in my name are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 10, leave out ("during") and insert ("for").
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("during") and insert ("for").
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("to registered growers") and insert ("in respect of any cereal year").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15:
Penalties.
(5) Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or by an auditor by whom any accounts of the body corporate were audited, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "by" ["or by an auditor"] and insert "of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment. It seeks to make quite clear that "consent or approval" and "facilitated by any neglect" govern the word "auditor." That was not clear in the Bill. I understand the Government have accepted the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("by") and insert ("of").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Transitional provisions]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the first Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 10, leave out from the beginning to ("that") in line 11 and insert ("revenue and expenditure of the Wheat Fund attributable to").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 17, leave out from the first ("the") to ("the") in line 18 and insert
334
("revenue and expenditure of the said fund attributable to").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 25, leave out ("during") and insert ("for").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Constitution, and Proceedings of Wheat Commission.
8. No contract to which the Commission is a party shall be avoided by reason only that a member of the Commission is also a party thereto or is interested therein, and a member of the Commission who is a party to, or interested in, such a contract shall not, by reason only that he is a member of the Commission, be liable to account to the Commission for any profit realised by him by reason of the contract, but a member of the Commission must forthwith disclose to the Commission any interest which he has or acquires in any contract concluded or proposed to be concluded by the Commission, and shall not vote upon any question relating to the contract, and if he votes, his vote shall not be counted.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph 8, after the last "Commission" to insert "and shall take no part in any deliberation on." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when I moved an Amendment the other day and quoted the Road Traffic Act the noble Earl poured some scorn on the Ministry of Transport and said they were out-of-date and that his Department was much more up-to-date. On this occasion I have the satisfaction of being able to produce a precedent which not only emanates from his Department, but comes from a Bill of which he was in charge. I refer to the provision in paragraph 3 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Land Drainage Act, 1930. I cannot see any reason why the members of this Commission should have any more facility for taking part in deliberations when they themselves are interested. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 21, after ("Commission") insert ("and shall take no part in any deliberation on").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will accept

335
this Amendment. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable and is advocated by the fact that he himself apparently in another Bill put in the same sort of thing. Quite irrespective of that surely it is well known that if a man is a member of a Committee and has personal interest in a. subject coming before it he neither votes nor takes any part in the discussion. All my noble friend wishes to do is to assert that principle. It is already provided under the Bill, I understand, that he cannot vote, but apparently he can endeavour to influence votes. Surely that ought not to be. I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment and if he does not I think we ought to press it.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, may I associate myself with what Lord Banbury of Southam has said with reference to a practice which seems not only settled, but reasonable, that where a man is interested in the result of deliberations he should not influence a board's decision by making speeches on it? Evidently the draftsman of the Bill feels there is a difficulty, but strangely he has confined the prohibition to a provision not to vote. If it is right to prevent a man from voting surely he should be prevented from doing the next thing—namely, influencing others to vote. I therefore trust the noble Earl will accept this.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment in spite of the reasons he has given to your Lordships, because it is already provided in paragraph 8 on page 31 that any member who has any interest shall not vote, and that he shall disclose the fact of his interest. This Amendment goes further and says a man shall not take part in the deliberations. The trouble is that this body is really one of interested people, for the reason that those who are interested are the people best qualified to know the trade. If we say that these men who are appointed in order that they can give the Commission the benefit of their knowledge of the trade are not to be allowed to take part in the deliberations we really stultify the work of the Commission, and for that reason I hope your Lordships will not ask me to insert this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, after having been instigated by Lord Banbury of Southam and Lord
336
Danesfort to press the Amendment I am somewhat in a quandary. If the noble Earl really thinks that this Bill should be differentiated from the Land Drainage Act on this point I would prefer, rather than withdraw the Amendment, to have it negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Constitution and Proceedings of Flour Millers' Corporation.
5. No contract to which the corporation is a party shall be avoided by reason only that a member of the corporation is also a party thereto or is interested therein, and a member of the corporation who is a party to, or interested in, such a contract shall not, by reason only that he is a member of the corporation, be liable to account to the corporation for any profit realised by him by reason of the contract, but a member of the corporation must forthwith disclose to the corporation any interest which he has or acquires in any contract concluded or proposed to be concluded by the corporation and, if the Chairman so directs, the vote of that member upon any question relating to the contract shall not be counted.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in paragraph 5, to leave out "if the Chairman so directs, the vote of that member upon any question relating to the contract shall not be counted" and insert "shall take no part in any deliberation on and shall not vote upon any question relating to the contract and, if he votes, his vote shall not be counted." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, there are really two parts to this Amendment. The first part is exactly the same as that which has just been negatived and therefore I do not propose to move that part. But I do propose to move the second part—"shall not vote upon any question relating to the contract and, if he votes, his vote shall not be counted." In this instance I can produce a still more recent precedent from this very Bill. Members of the Wheat Commission cannot vote if they are interested. In this case you are, in effect, giving the Chairman two votes, because if he agrees with the vote he can allow it and if he disagrees he can veto it, and for that reason I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 24, leave out from ("and") to end of paragraph 5 and insert ("shall

337
take no part in any deliberation on and shall not vote upon any question relating to the contract and, if he votes, his vote shall not be counted.")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, this seems to me a very reasonable Amendment. I could not support my noble friend on his previous Amendment, but here it does seem to me that it requires a clear explanation why what is sauce for the Wheat Commission should not be sauce for the Flour Millers' Corporation. If you will look at page 31 of the Bill your Lordships will see it says that if a man has an interest in a contract, if he belongs to the Wheat Commission, he "shall not vote upon any question relating to the contract, and if he votes, his vote shall not be counted." If that is right, as it is, because the Government have put it in the Bill, surely it is equally right that the same prohibition should apply to the Flour Millers' Corporation. It may be that there is some difference between a miller and a Wheat Commissioner, but so far as being interested in a contract is concerned it seems to me that Lord Bertie of Thame is quite right to move his Amendment, and I shall support him if he goes to a Division.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, may I express agreement with the noble Lord who has just spoken? I cannot see any reason why, if a member of the Wheat Commission is unable to vote, a member of the Flour Millers' Corporation should be able to vote, although he is interested in a contract. I understand that my noble friend does not move the first part of his Amendment, which says that a member of the Corporation "shall take no part in any deliberation on", but simply confines his Amendment to whether a man who has an interest in a contract shall be able to vote. Under the Bill—the last two lines of paragraph 5—he is allowed to vote unless the Chairman says he is not to. It says that "if the Chairman so directs, the vote of that member upon any question relating to the contract shall not be counted." Therefore, the position is that the Chairman is given discretion to say whether the vote shall be valid or not. Why should the Chairman have such a discretion? If it is wrong, broadly speaking, that a man should
338
vote upon a contract in which he is interested, why should the silence of the Chairman allow him so to vote? At present I see no reason for it, and I shall certainly support my noble friend.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I rather think there is a little difference between the proceedings of the Corporation and the proceedings of the Commission, and I could have understood the clause if it had said that a man might vote although he had an interest in a contract, but I cannot see why the Chairman should decide whether or not he should vote. The Chairman, after all, is only human, and it does seem to be putting the Chairman in a very difficult position. Either the person concerned ought to have the right to vote or he ought not. Why should you leave it to the Chairman, who might be changed or might die? One Chairman might go one way and his successor another, and I think the noble Earl must either give the members of the Corporation power to vote or else accept the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this Amendment most certainly does seem to be very reasonable, until one looks into the functions of the Flour Millers' Corporation. Then you find that for the major part of its functions it would be brought to a complete standstill, nobody being allowed to vote if this Amendment was accepted. If you turn to page 2 of the Bill, Clause 1, subsection (3) you will see that an obligation is placed upon the Flour Millers' Corporation to make a purchase of a certain quantity of wheat. Every single member of that Corporation will be affected by that purchase, and therefore if this Amendment was carried the Flour Millers' Corporation would be unable—every single member—to vote on the subject. In the same way, having purchased the wheat they have got to be able to sell it, and again their business would be brought to a standstill. For that reason I hope your Lordships will see—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I rather agree with the noble Earl, but in that case why give power to the Chairman at all? Why not allow everybody to vote?
EARL DE LA WARR: In some cases the whole work of the Corporation would

339
be held up, because of the general obligation upon all the members of the Flour Millers' Corporation to engage in a particular contract; but there are cases in which one individual member might be particularly affected and interested. In that case I think the Chairman should have a right to decree that that individual shall not take part in the proceedings.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not see what it has to do with the Chairman. Either it is right or it is wrong.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Snowden, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to except certain publications from the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1911; 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, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the House adjourns may I ask the Leader of the House if he can tell us the arrangements for business next week, and also on what day the House will rise for the Whitsuntide Recess, and how long the Recess will last?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I propose to ask you to take the Third Reading of the Wheat Bill on Tuesday next, because by that means it is hoped that in another place they will be able to consider our Amendments, and I hope the Bill may receive the Royal Assent before the Whitsuntide adjournment. Then on the same day, Tuesday, there is the Committee stage of the Patents and Designs Bill, and there is also an important Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the question of disarmament. On Wednesday there is a Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Astor, and in addition I am asking the House to take the Second Reading of the Marriage (Naval, Military and Air
340
Force Chapels) Bill, which has just been read a first time. I do not think that is a controversial measure or one that will take any time. On Thursday I think the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is going to take the Committee stage of the Rating and Valuation (No. 2) Bill, to which your Lordships have given a Second Reading, and then there is a Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Elibank. I understand that in another place they are not adjourning until Friday. If it is possible to have the Royal Commission on Thursday, there will be no business in your Lordships' House for Friday. If, on the other hand, it should be necessary to wait for some Bill from another place, I would ask your Lordships to have a formal meeting on Friday in order that the Royal Commission may be held on that day. At any rate, it would only be formal business. I think that for Whitsuntide it will be convenient, if your Lordships see fit, that we adjourn until Tuesday, May 24.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, may I ask if it would be possible on one of the early days next week to get the Second Reading of the British Museum Bill?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think that probably could be done, but as my noble friend Lord Snowden is in charge of the Bill and is not here to-day, and was not able to put it down, I do not imagine that noble Lords opposite would think that it was any breach of understanding if one were to put a minor Bill like that down for one day next week. Of course, it would not be Tuesday in any event because of the Motion which the noble Lord has on the Paper, but on Wednesday we might very well take the Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose the noble Viscount cannot tell us what business will be taken first after the Recess? It is early days, I know, to ask him, but there is just a chance that he might know.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry. When my noble friend was Leader of the House he could always answer any question. I have not yet got his experience. I hope next week to be able to tell him the answer to that question.
House adjourned at four minutes past five o'clock.