Lords Sitting of 13 June 1939

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Arundell of Wardour—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LONDON GAS UNDERTAKINGS (REGULATIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEST SURREY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR PLACES OF HISTORIC INTEREST OR NATURAL BEAUTY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill read.
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I may remind your Lordships that the Bill has already been submitted to and examined by a strong Select Committee which, under the Chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Romer, has made material alterations in it. These Amendments are intended to remove, and I hope and believe have removed, the objections and anxieties which were expressed by some
440
of your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill. Undoubtedly the Bill in its present form is in some ways much improved, and should be of greater assistance when application is made to the Court. In addition to that, I think it is true to say that the interests of the remainder man have now been wholly and fully safeguarded. But I think I ought to say that in the opinion of the National Trust it is doubtful whether so many great houses will come to the State from the Bill in its amended form as would have come under the Bill as it was originally drafted. Nevertheless, in view of the difficulty of obtaining legislation of this character and the congested condition of Parliamentary business, the National Trust have decided to proceed with the amended Bill, believing that it is worth their while to do so even if a certain number of entailed estates fail to be saved from the inevitable destruction which will be their fate if their owners are either unwilling or unable to take advantage of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Esher.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
4.19 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, as one who moved the original rejection of this Bill, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my friend the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, and his society for the Amendments which were proposed to the Select Committee and which have now been very largely embodied in the Bill. My colleagues and I feel that the greater part of our objections to the Bill have now been met, and I regret that more of my colleagues are not here with us to-day to express their thanks; but no doubt they are treading pastures which perhaps will not be required to come under the good offices of the National Trust.
4.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, as one who took a certain part in the course which was followed by your Lordships, and was very dissatisfied, as I explained to the House, with the Bill as it was presented on the first occasion, I think perhaps I ought

441
to say a few words now. In particular I ought to say them having very carefully examined the amended Bill as it comes from the Select Committee and is now in your Lordships' hands. That Bill removes, I think, practically all the objections which I voiced before your Lordships in reference to the Bill as it was originally framed. In particular I may mention, without going into details, first, the large alterations that have been made with reference to the lease by the National Trust, which is to replace in the hands of trustees of the settlement the mansion house and grounds and certain lands occupied and enjoyed therewith; and, secondly, the provisions that are to be found in Clause 7 of the Bill with regard to the various matters to which the Court is to have regard in considering an application to approve the proposed transaction. I need not go into any detail on that matter, because I see here my noble and learned friend Lord Romer, the Chairman of the Select Committee, who no doubt will explain to your Lordships any material point in the measure as it now exists to which your Lordships' attention should be drawn.
I will only say one thing more, and that is with reference to the position of the trustees under the Bill if the Bills turned into an Act, because I know that that is a matter which has exercised the minds of some of your Lordships. I apprehend that if a trustee is asked to assent to the proposed transactions, and if his powers are not abruptly taken away from him by a request from some person who is sui juris not to consent to the transaction, that trustee is quite at liberty to say: "The question is one of such difficulty that I am unable to consent, and accordingly I shall take the course of leaving the matter to the Court" That is the only addition that I have to make to the few words which I have addressed to your Lordships. So far as I am concerned, I think the measure is one which your Lordships would do well to accept.
4.25 p.m.
LORD ROMER: My Lords, it has been intimated to me that it might be of assistance to your Lordships if I explained, as shortly as may be, the Amendments that have been made in this Bill, since it received the Second Reading in your Lordships' House, by the Select Committee over which I had the privilege of presiding
442
as Chairman. The greater part of the Amendments which were introduced in the Select Committee are Amendments of a drafting nature, or Amendments of a merely explanatory character. The vital Amendments are really comparatively few in number. In fact I think I may say that there is only one vital Amendment, and that will be found in Clause 5 of the Bill.
Before referring to Clause 5 I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that under Clause 3 a tenant for life under a setttlement is given power to grant, gratuitously or otherwise, to the National Trust the principal mansion house on the settled land, and
"any lands occupied or enjoyed for the purposes of agriculture sport or afforestation the acquisition of which in the opinion of the Council is necessary or desirable for preserving the amenities of the principal mansion house. …"
Those lands are for convenience referred to in the Bill now as "the amenity lands." Everyone knows that the National Trust is not in a position to purchase all those old country houses which it would desire to acquire, and there is no doubt that although Clause 3, subsection (1), says a tenant for life may grant, gratuitously or otherwise, the mansion house and amenity lands, he will in fact grant them gratuitously. An owner in fee simple, an absolute owner, can, of course, do what he likes with his property; but a tenant for life of settled lands cannot defeat the interests of those who are to come after him, and therefore cannot give away settled land without receiving anything as compenstion. The compensation that is to be received by those who come after the tenant for life is the lease, which is referred to in Clause 4, paragraph (c). That will be a lease for a number of years, the number of which will be determined by the Court or trustees, without whose consent this transaction cannot take place.
The number of years will necessarily depend very largely upon the nature of the settlement. As a matter of fact, where a man is absolutely entitled to what has been settled land, but there is still remaining charged upon the settled land a jointure for his wife or, probably, his mother, or portions for his brothers, that land is settled land, and the owner, subject to the jointure and the portions, is a tenant for life; that is to say, he has the powers

443
of a tenant for life. In a case like that, if the Court or trustees come to the conclusion that the jointure and the portions are adequately secured by the rest of the settled estates, the length of the lease which will be granted under Clause 4 may be a very short one. On the other hand, suppose that you have a case like this; a tenant for life, with remainder after his death to his first son in tail, subject however again to a jointure which will arise on the death of the tenant for life in favour of the tenant for life's wife, and subject also to portions for the younger brothers of the tenant in tail. In such a case as that the lease must necessarily be a long one.
Now the lease might be of such a length that it would be substantially as valuable as the mansion house and amenity lands with which the tenant for life has parted. It will not be quite so valuable, for reasons that I will indicate in a moment, but the intention of the Bill is that there shall be handed over to the National Trust, for preservation for the benefit of the nation, the mansion house and the amenity lands, and there shall be substituted as part of the settled property this lease which will be granted by the National Trust to the tenant for life for the benefit of himself and the others entitled under the settlement. In the Bill in the form in which it received a Second Reading at your Lordships' hands there was a provision which entitled the National Trust immediately after the death of the tenant for life to determine that lease. I venture to say that with that provision in the Bill no trustee who was alive to the responsibilities of his office, and no Court would possibly sanction the transaction, because in the case that I have referred to the lease would be worth nothing, the tenant in tail would receive nothing, there would be nothing on which the portions were to be secured or the jointure would be secured to represent the mansion house and the amenity lands which had been granted away to the National Trust. So it seemed good to the Select Committee to delete that provision altogether.
One can well understand why the National Trust wished to have that power of determining the lease. It was not with any intention in fact of determining the lease, because the idea no doubt was that, the lease having been determined,
444
the tenant in tail would be allowed to continue in occupation of the house, and after him his son, and so forth. Because, as one well knows, the object of the National Trust under the country-house scheme is to preserve, for the benefit and the enjoyment of the nation, not a dead museum, but a house which is being occupied and used as an English home, so that members of the public who go to visit such a beautiful place will see it in its proper setting. But nevertheless, when the Court has to act on behalf of an infant, or a trustee has to act on behalf of a tenant in tail, and of those entitled to portions, it would be impossible to sanction a scheme under which the lease would become of no value whatsoever.
That provision being deleted from the Bill, further Amendments were obviously necessary as regards what was to be in the lease, and therefore your Lordships will find that Clause 5, Clause 6 and Clause 7 have been considerably altered with a view to ensuring that the lease should not get into the hands of persons whom the National Trust think undesirable. Because if the lease is not put an end to, the lease will be a valuable one at the death of the tenant for life, and the lease will then become subject to Death Duties, and if necessary the lease may have to be sold by the tenant in tail for the purpose of raising the Death Duties. But nevertheless the mansion house and the amenity lands will remain the property for ever of the National Trust, and through the National Trust of the nation, and the lease will contain covenants by the lessee not to use the mansion house otherwise than as a private dwelling-house, and not so to use the amenity lands as to destroy the object with which they are acquired by the National Trust. Those are, I think, the only substantial Amendments that have been made. We have struck out that power of determining the lease. On the other hand, we have directed that there shall be inserted in the lease covenants which will protect the National Trust.
I only want to say this in conclusion. Your Lordships will find set out in the Bill (I think it is in Clause 7) considerations which are to actuate the Court, and the same considerations are to actuate the trustees in giving their consent or withholding their consent to the disposition by the tenant for life of the mansion house in the way proposed. One of the

445
things that the Court can take into consideration is the value to the other settled land of the preservation of tins mansion house and its amenities, and that is, I think, a consideration which very often will weigh, and in the end may be the determining factor when the matter comes before the Court, or before the trustee. The lease, as I say, will not be quite so valuable, even though it is a very long one, as the fee simple, because of these restrictive covenants—the covenant, which was in the Bill before, to allow the public to visit the mansion house on such days as the National Lust think proper, and the covenant not to use the mansion house except for the purpose of a dwelling-house, and not to develop the amenity lands in such a way as to prevent them from being amenity lands. The lease therefore will not be quite so valuable as the fee simple in the mansion house with which the tenant for life has parted.
On the other hard, as I say, in some cases the difference in the value will be almost negligible. If and when it occurs to those who are concerned with such matters that the preservation of these beautiful old houses is of far greater value to the nation than the comparatively small sum that is paid on them in respect of Death Duties—I say comparatively having regard, of course, to the enormous sums which flow into the Exchequer—I sincerely hope that these leases that are granted under this Bill to the tenant for life in exchange for the mansion house will be free from Estate Duty, or will, at any rate, be subject only to a very much reduced Estate Duty. If and when that is done I have no doubt that trustees and the Court will have no hesitation whatsoever in granting sanction to transactions proposed to be carried out by a tenant for life under this Bill. Unless that is done I fear that in some cases the discrepancy between the value of the freehold in the mansion house and amenity lands and the value of the lease will be so great that the Court and the trustees will have some difficulty in giving their consent. There it; a subsection inserted in Clause 6 which says that:
"Paragraph (a) of Section 97 of the Settled Land Act 1925 shall apply to any consent given by the trustees of the settlement under paragraph (a) of Section 4 of this Act."
In case that is not quite clear to all your
446
Lordships I would add that Section 97 (a) of the Settled Land Act, 1925, says that the trustees of the settlement, or any of them, are not liable for giving any consent. That, I hope, will calm the fears of some of your Lordships who occupy the position of trustees under settlements and are called upon to give a consent under this Bill.
4.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have only one word to say on a point of order. I hope that your Lordships will not think I am taking too great a responsibility in the matter, but perhaps, as I am now growing very old, I may be allowed to say how very disorderly this discussion has been. It is quite possible to dispense with all your Lordships' rules by general consent, but it would be really a little more regular if the thing had been carried out in a rather different way. When the noble Lord desired to raise this discussion, which is a very proper discussion, he should, if he will allow me respectfully to say so, have done so while the Lord Chancellor was still on the Woolsack. The proper opportunity for his speech was when the Question was put, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. Upon that the whole discussion would have been completely in order, and a very useful stage in our proceedings would have been used. That stage no longer prevails in another House of Parliament, but here we have the power, upon the Motion to go into Committee, to have a general discussion on what is going to take place in Committee. As a matter of fact, your Lordships, thinking no doubt of other things, inadvertently allowed that opportunity to pass. When my noble friend the Chairman of Committees took the Chair no Question was put, and the whole of this discussion has taken place without any Question put, which, as your Lordships will agree, is not strictly regular. I hope I shall be forgiven for having pointed this out so that perhaps it may not recur.
4.45 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I was going to call your Lordships' attention to the fact, which has just been brought to your Lordships' notice by the noble Marquess,

447
that we are having a very interesting discussion without any Motion before the Committee at all. That is, of course, entirely out of order; but in view of the fact that several speeches have already been made I may perhaps just say a very few words on the subject of the discussion. I should like first of all to express my gratitude once more to the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, for having devised a procedure as a result of which the Bill, which was in grave danger of being defeated on the Second Reading, has now emerged for the further consideration of your Lordships in a form in which, so far as I can gather, it meets with universal approval. I should like also to express my appreciation of the action of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, first of all in refraining from defeating the Bill on Second Reading. In the second place, I should like to thank him for the words of thanks he has expressed to the National Trust and those concerned with the affairs of the National Trust for the agreement they have given to the Amendments which have been made. I do not pretend that the Bill in its present form will be likely to be quite of as much assistance to the National Trust in securing for the nation the settled estates which are dealt with by the Bill as it would have done in its original form, but I fully agree that when you are interfering with such enactments as the Settled Land Acts you must proceed with great caution.
I venture to echo the hope expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Romer, when he said he hoped the time had come when the Government and the public, as represented by Parliament, realising the advantages of securing for the nation these old historic buildings, would be willing to dispense with the high measure of taxation which is at present making their retention impossible, and would at least agree that the leases to which the noble Lord, Lord Romer, referred should be, if not wholly relieved of Estate Duty, at any rate be subject to a very much smaller Estate Duty than is the case at the present time. Only in that event will it prove possible for the National Trust to carry out the full programme of preservation which it set before itself. I must again make my apologies for my contribution to the disorderly conduct of your Lordships' House, but the proceedings
448
had gone so far that perhaps I may be pardoned for making these few observations.
Bill reported without further amendment.

SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS (REGULATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, the Bill which I now have the honour of asking your Lordships to read a second time is the Charitable Collections (Regulation) Bill. It is a Bill which need not take up a very great deal of your Lordships' time, as it may be considered practically an agreed Bill. It is founded upon the Report of the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, and it was sponsored by the Association of Municipal Corporations, on whose behalf I am speaking, and had the help of the Home Office, to whom I should like to express thanks for the assistance they have given. A charitable collection to come within the scope of this Bill must fulfil two conditions. The first is that it must be an appeal to the public and the second is that it must be an appeal made by way of house-to-house visits. The Government were unable to take up this Bill, so it was introduced by a private Member in another place where it was thoroughly examined in Committee and amended. Now it has been passed to your Lordships' House.
May I remind your Lordships shortly of the history of this matter? In 1916 the Police Factories (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was passed. A part of this dealt with street collections and the experience gained led to a general desire to extend that experience to house-to-house collections. The abuses connected with collections of this kind have increased very considerably during recent years and the police themselves, I believe, pressed the Home Office very strongly to take some action in this matter. The result was that in 1927 a Departmental Committee

449
was appointed. It duly reported and in 1929 the Government of the day introduced a Bill to deal with this matter, but it contained other matters which caused a considerable amount of alarm and so the Bill was dropped. The abuse, however, continued and it became more and more necessary that something should be done. It is not necessary for me to go all through the many abuses which have arisen in connection with this matter. Many were referred to when the Bill was before another place and your Lordships no doubt also have had experience of many of them.
In 1936 the Association of Municipal Corporations took a deputation to the Home Office. That deputation was corn-posed of representatives of the more important corporations, and its views were put before the Under-Secretary of State, who gave the deputation's appeal his sympathy. He regretted that the Government could not introduce legislation on account of the urgency of other business, but said that every facility would be given if a Bill was introduced privately. Lord Stonehaven, therefore, introduced a Bill in your Lordships' House in March of last year. It was given a Second Reading without a Division and was referred to a joint Committee of both Houses. That Committee made very definite recommendations and it is upon the Report of that Committee, which approved the Bill in principle, that this one was drafted.
As was mentioned in the debate last year, this Bill has the support of the great national charities who had a conference before deciding to support it. These national charities include the British Legion, Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the British Empire Cancer Campaign, the National Institute for the Blind, the Waifs and Strays Society, the Church Army and the Salvation Army. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that there is ample ground on which legislation of this kind can be based. Those particular charities, which I have called national charities, do not come immediately under the Bill in that each has to have a licence for collection and they will apply to the Secretary of State for exemption under the Bill. I believe it is intended to set up an Advisory Committee at the Home Office to advise the Secretary of State. An assurance has been given for the Government that the Home Secretary would consult
450
these charities before the regulations that are to come before Parliament are drafted. In granting licences by the police no question of a political character concerning the promoters will arise as it is purely a question whether the charity is a bona-fide one.
There were only about two matters that gave concern in the other House, one of which was in regard to Clause 1, which deals with personal collections. In industrial areas and in other places, especially in mining areas where accidents unfortunately so often occur, frequently friends of the injured or the deceased will have a whip round very quickly in order to raise money for a person injured or for a widow left behind. There is no objection to these collections and they are specially provided for in Clause 1. Many of them will not come under the provisions of this Bill at all because the collections will be made from among friends of the deceased or the injured. In this Bill a charitable collection is strictly laid down as something that is an appeal to the public. In many cases these collections to which I have just referred are purely temporary in character and will not even come to the knowledge of the police; they will probably be pushed through in a very short time and disposed of. When, however, they do come within the knowledge of the police, and the police think it necessary to take action, it is quite possible that the promoters can go to the police and get a licence for the collection. It is not necessary to get that licence beforehand because it is laid down in the Bill that a licence can be obtained while the collection is being taken.
I do not really think that the Amendment which was proposed in regard to that and was thoroughly discussed in the other House would be of any help at all; in fact it would complicate matters very considerably and make it much more difficult where, under the Bill, the procedure is perfectly simple. Another matter which was brought forward was the proposal to bring the voluntary hospitals under Clause 3. That again would complicate matters because, if exemption had to be obtained from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State would naturally have to make many inquiries in different places. If this was done, the voluntary hospitals would be passing over their troubles to the Secretary of State instead of looking after them themselves. I do not think

451
they will suffer at all if they come under the provisions of this Bill and get a licence in the ordinary way.
Clause 1 deals with the licence and subsection (4) deals with purely local charitable collections made on the spur of the moment. Clause 2 deals with the form of the licence. Clause 3 relates to the big national charities and empowers the Secretary of State to issue an order exempting a charity from taking out a licence in each district in which it is carrying out a collection; but of course that does not exempt the collector in the particular area from being properly licensed and having a badge, which he may be called upon to show. Clause 5 deals with badges and Clause 6 with the powers of the police to compel a person to declare himself. Clause 7 deals with delegation of functions and Clause 8 with penalties. In this Bill penalties as recommended by the Committee have been made rather heavier than in the Bill which was introduced previously. Clause 9 applies the Bill to Scotland. I understand that a considerable request has been made that the same provisions should operate in Scotland and Clause 9 makes the necessary alterations to bring the Bill into conformity with the law in that country. Clause 10 is an interpretation clause and defines "charitable purpose," "collection," and other expressions. It will be seen that the word "collection" not only means an appeal for money but for other property. Things are collected from houses and are sold for charitable purposes, and there are a great many abuses connected with that.
I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading because collecting in the name of charity, which is done by some of the racketeers who go about the country—and I am afraid there are a great many of them—has resulted in people being imposed upon, women especially, and a very large profit has been made by those who have organised these collections. It is high time to stop what I think can be called a national scandal. Not only does it injure those who are persuaded to give their money, but by bringing charities into disrepute, it tends to injure genuine charities. If only householders approached by people who go round in the name of charity would demand to see the authority under which they are acting, then, although perhaps
452
it cannot be hoped that the scandal will be ended, at any rate the efforts of these people will be curtailed.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
LORD LUKE: My Lords, as I said on the Second Reading of the original Bill in your Lordships' House, the voluntary hospitals are in favour of the general principle of the Bill. King Edward's Hospital Fund and the British Hospitals Association gave evidence to this effect before the Joint Committee, and also drew attention to certain questions of detail. They have now considered the new Bill and are agreed that in many ways it has been improved, both in the precautions against bogus collectors and in the safeguards for reputable charities. We are, however, still concerned about one or two matters in which it seems to us that the legitimate activities of voluntary hospitals may be hampered. The local hospital is of all local charities the one most essential to its area. Surely therefore it should not be placed in an inferior position to any non-local charity. Yet it would seem that under the Bill a hospital's power of collecting in its own area may be restricted, whereas what the old Bill and the mover of the Second Reading to-day called a "national charity" may be able to come in and collect in the hospital's area without being limited by the same restrictions, because it may be exempted by the Home Secretary from having to get a local police licence anywhere. I refer to Clause 3.
A hospital may serve several police areas but all police authorities may not hold the same views about the grant of a licence; and in the new Bill there is no right of appeal as there was in the old. I hope the Bill will be amended to permit the exemption of hospitals so that they may be put in the same position as the favoured charities in this Bill. Also I hope it will be amended to permit an appeal to the Home Secretary. I feel that no fraudulent promoter would risk going to appeal. Exactly what the effect of the restrictions will be it is difficult to discover from the Bill itself, without seeing the regulations which the Secretary of State may make under Clause 4. To take just two examples: Would a hospital require a special police licence in order to put out boxes as so many do and collect the contents periodically? And

453
would it require a special licence to send a collector to call on its own subscribers, or would this only be necessary if the collectors called at every house down the streets?
I am glad to see that the new Bill provides that the regulations are to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. But the Joint Committee recommended that, in addition to this, they should be drawn up in consultation with charitable organisations. On Second Reading in another place an assurance was given that the Home Secretary would consult the national charities before making draft regulations. Here again, I would submit that hospitals, which are not known as national charities, should not be placed in an inferior position to charities with much smaller needs, but might be consulted through central bodies, such as the British Hospitals Association and King Edward's Hospital Fund for London. You cannot have a list of favoured charities without in some way including the hospitals. The voluntary hospitals of the country expend annually £15,000,000 on maintenance alone and require to find the money more than ever at this moment when they must be prepared for an emergency. No properly conducted hospital should be deprived of its means of financing itself. If you are going to have a favoured list, there probably is no charity on it which has such a claim on the charitable, and if those in charge of the Bill do not produce an Amendment it will have to come from those who sympathise with the hospitals.
If the list of special charities is to be set up under the Bill, I would suggest that to avoid centralisation it should be dealt with on a county basis and hospitals included in it, but if there is only to be one list for the whole country the hospitals might be included through the British Hospitals Association and the King's Fund. Having referred to these points, I should like to say again I welcome the general principle of the Bill and I hope it will succeed in putting a stop to the bogus house-to-house collections from which the public and the cause of charity have both suffered in the past.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I have nothing to add to what the two noble Lords have said, except to give the Bill a general blessing. His Majesty's
454
Government consider it a very good and deserving measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill read.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think the right thing for me to do is to move that this House resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill. I rise rather in fear and trembling lest I should repeat the disorderly conduct to which the noble Marquess referred a little while ago when he very rightly called your Lordships to order. I wish to make a few general observations on the Bill at this stage and I think in that way I shall escape censure. I think your Lordships would like to know that the joint Committee to which the Bill was referred have now ended their proceedings and have published a Report which contains the most important decisions that were reached. The Committee sat for several days under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, whose wisdom was a very great asset to the members of the Committee in their deliberations. They heard evidence from the local authorities in the London area, from the business and professional organisations affected by the provisions of the Bill, and I think I can say from all bodies who might legitimately feel that their work was in any way affected by the provisions of this measure.
In the light of all this evidence the Committee were able to discharge their task to the best of their ability. The main business, of course, was simply to consolidate existing law. They had to repeal some fifteen Statutes in their entirety and to repeal in part some ninety Statutes. In this way I think they have succeeded in laying before your Lordships a Bill that incorporates the whole of the existing law on local government in the London area. Besides that the Committee were called upon to amend the law as it stands in order to bring London into line with the rest of the country. The more important Amendments to which they agreed are referred to at considerable length in the Report, and I shall

455
therefore not weary your Lordships by going into them in detail unless any member of your Lordships' House wishes to raise any point relating to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to:
House in Committee accordingly: The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I beg to move that the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be agreed to en bloc.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be made.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (REGULATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1939.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from
456
the India and Burma Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Wright, may I be allowed to move the Motion that stands in his name? I beg to move.
Moved, That a Committee of three Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bill. That the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Doverdale,

L. Wright,

L. Cautley.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint three members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.