Sitting of 15 June 1926

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

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Balfour, I beg leave to present a Bill to make further provision with respect to the University of London, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

TEIGNMOUTH AND SHALDON BRIDGE BILL.
Read 2a.
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL.
Read 2a.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BERWICK-UPON-TWEED CORPORA TION (FREEMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES ENDOW MENT FUND BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF CLARENDON): My Lords, I do not think that I need detain your Lordships for any length of time over this Bill, but I ought to make a few observations on its provisions in moving that it be read a second time. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, the participating Governments contribute to the expenses of the Commission in proportion to the number of the graves of their dead. The United Kingdom has 452,730 graves; in other words, 81·52 per cent. of the total. Part VI of the Commission's Charter, which is dated May, 1917, provides, amongst other things, that the Commission is authorised and empowered to establish an endowment fund consisting of such part of its funds as shall from time to time be treated as capital. In the second place, it is empowered and authorised to receive the income which is produced from that fund and to apply it, together with all other income of the fund, for the purposes of the Charter. The endowment fund, when established, is vested in three trustees, whose names I will give your Lordships in a few moments; they are appointed with the approval of the President by the Commission itself under their Common Seal. Finally, the trustees are empowered to invest and to change the investment of the fund from time to time when they consider it is expedient so to do.
The Governments represented on the Commission agreed last summer that the work of the Commission had reached a stage when it was necessary to make a beginning towards setting up an endowment fund which would provide sufficient income to ensure the standard of maintenance of the graves in perpetuity. The income which it is estimated will be required amounts to something between £200,000 and £250,000 a year, and it is calculated that that income will be derived from a capital fund of something in the nature of £5,000,000 sterling. The British Government have therefore undertaken to ask Parliament to provide its share, which, as I have stated, is 81·52 per cent. of the total. This share will not be made over in a capital sum, but will be contributed by instalments, and since we are at present contributing
400
fairly substantial sums towards current maintenance of the graves and also for certain constructional work which has to be completed during the next four years, these contributions from the Imperial Government will be small during the early years. The sums which it is proposed to ask Parliament to provide are as follows:—£50,000 for the years 1925–26, 1926–27 and 1927–28, £125,000 for the years 1928–29 and 1929–30, £300,000 in the year 1930–31, and a similar amount for each subsequent year until the capital sum thus accumulated at compound interest reaches the total of the British share of 81·52 per cent. of the total of £5,000,000 sterling. Assuming that these instalments accumulate at compound interest of 4⅜ per cent., they will provide our share of the £5,000,000 — namely, £4,076,000—in fifteen years, that is, by about 1940. The Dominions and other Governments concerned will contribute their shares either proportionately with that amount, or by means of instalments, whichever may be more convenient to them.
I said a few moments ago that I would give the names of the trustees. They are General Sir Herbert Lawrence, managing partner of Messrs. Glyn, Mills and Co., and a member of the Coal Commission. Mr. E. R. Peacock, who is a partner of Messrs. Baring Bros. and Co. and late director of the Bank of England, and Major General Sir Fabian Ware, who is permanent Vice-Chairman of the War Graves Commission. These proposals having been agreed, it was found that before the endowment fund could properly be set up legislation was necessary to confer certain powers on the trustees themselves. In the first place there is nothing whatever in the Charter of 1917 to incorporate these trustees, and in view of the fact that the trustees will have to administer the fund in perpetuity their incorporation is absolutely essential. That is provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill. Further, the Government having been advised that a special Act of Parliament is necessary to allow a corporation to settle funds on trust for accumulation, this point is dealt with in Clause 2 of the Bill. I think I ought to mention in this connection that as the headquarters of the trust are situate in Great Britain it is absolutely necessary that the trust should conform to our laws.

401
Before I sit down I should explain to your Lordships that this Bill is slightly different in form from that in which it was introduced. When it was on its way through the House of Commons the Bill, being a hybrid Bill, was referred to a Select Committee, and that Select Committee cut out certain provisions which were in the original measure. The provision that the Imperial Government's contribution should be invested in British Government securities was struck out and in its place a private undertaking was given by the Commission itself that this fund would be so invested. Next they deleted the provision that our contributions should be accumulated until the fund reached £5,000,000 or such less sum as the contributing Governments might substitute therefor. The Government were advised that under the Commission's Charter the Commission would be bound to apply the income of the endowment fund to the actual maintenance of the graves and that legal authority would be necessary to enable the Commission to accumulate the income in the Fund. On reconsideration, therefore, it has been decided to do this by supplemental Charter rather than by legislation. Lastly, a third provision was cut out from the original Bill, that the Imperial contributions should be subject to examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General. This provision was cut out because it was thought that if this was done so far as imperial contributions were concerned, no doubt the same procedure would be followed by the respective Governments and Dominions interested, and this would mean that the fund would have to be split up into four or five parts,
each with its separate auditor. That would complicate matters very much and therefore this particular provision was waived. I beg to move that the Bill he now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, notwithstanding that the times are such that economy at every turn is required in the national expenditure, I think you will feel as I feel that the maintenance of these graves is a sacred duty of the nation which we willingly recognise. The noble Earl has made a very clear exposition of the nature of the Bill and there are only
402
two points on which I should like him to enlighten me. The first is this: Why is our contribution so great as 81 per cent?—our contributions to the numbers of the graves cannot be nearly as large. Secondly, is the contribution of the Dominions a contribution in aid of our contribution or is it a contribution supplemental to it? In the latter case my first difficulty becomes even greater. Subject to these two points I have not the least objection to the Bill, which I think is a thoroughly right one.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, in answer to Lord Haldane's question as to why our proportion of the total is so large, I am afraid I have not had time to work out the sum myself, but the total number of graves for which the United Kingdom is responsible is 452,730 out of a total number of 550,379, so I do not think that our proportion is very far short of being correct. With regard to the second question, so far as I am aware the contribution from the Dominions is supplemental to our own.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

TRADE DISPUTES ACT, 1906 (REPEAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, in deference to a request of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, I propose to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill until Tuesday, July 20, but I hope that before that date the Government will have introduced legislation to effect something like the same object as my Bill. I think it is clearly necessary, if only one sees what happened to a firm who gave their experience in a letter to The Times, signing it in their name, to the effect that having taken on during the strike three volunteers, the trade unions attended and informed them that if they did not dismiss these three volunteers and take in their place three trade unionists no Government Department, no corporation and no county council would ever give them any more business. That that sort of thing is permitted in a civilised country shows that there is need for legislation of this sort. I observe that it is stated in The Times this morn-

403
ing—I do not know with what truth—that the Government intend to consider whether or not it will not be possible to bring in some legislation to deal with this subject in the Autumn Session. I hope they will not postpone the matter till so late a date. The longer a thing is postponed the less chance there is of anything being done. I am sorry also to see that an Autumn Session is contemplated, because the longer the House of Commons sits after passing the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Finance Bill the more mischief it does.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I gather that my noble friend does not move the Second Reading, but I should like to ask the leave of your Lordships to express my thanks to my noble friend for having been good enough at my request, as representing His Majesty's Government, to postpone his Bill. I asked him for the very same reason which I gave to your Lordships on a previous occasion—namely, that the subject appears to be one which, if it is to be dealt with at all, should only be dealt with by His Majesty's Government. My noble friend expressed a hope that the Government would deal with this subject. I only desire to say on that head that he must not think that there is any understanding of that kind. That is not the case. We remain absolutely uncommitted upon that point.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I understand that if this Bill is postponed it will have to be postponed with the consent of the House, and I have a right therefore to say one or two words in reference to what has fallen from the noble Lord.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have not moved.
LORD PARMOOR: I know, but the Question of the postponement will have to be put. I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess has said. I think everyone must agree that a question of this extreme importance could only be approached through a scheme brought forward by the Government itself. The idea of dealing with a matter of this kind by legislation promoted by an individual member is unthinkable and quite impossible. I see present a noble Earl who, in 1906, expressed his approval of
404
the Trade Disputes Act, going to the length of saying that he could not understand, after the explanation then given in the House of Commons, any one taking objection to it, or words to that effect. Of course, we know that the Act itself was based upon the Report of a Royal Commission.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to interrupt him for a moment? I think that, as Lord Banbury has expressed his wish to postpone the Bill, it would be inconvenient for us to go into the merits of this subject. I cannot help thinking that most of your Lordships would agree.
LORD PARMOOR: I entirely agree with the noble Marquess; I am not suggesting going into the merits of the subject. I wish, however, that the noble Lord had said nothing on the subject. I have said all that I desired to say—namely, that when the matter comes to be discussed it will require very serious consideration.
Second Reading of the Bill put off till Tuesday, July 20.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, this is a measure which I hope will prove to be quite uncontroversial. It is a measure to extend until December 31, 1927, the dates on which certain provisions as to unemployment insurance at present by Statute terminate. There are three such dates. The first is as to the unemployment insurance itself. Under the Act of 1924, by an Amendment which was inserted in the other House, unemployment insurance terminates altogether on June 30 this year. Of course, the object was not to terminate unemployment insurance then, but to give an opportunity for reviewing the question when — as it was hoped might be the case—a more normal state of affairs would have arisen. That state of affairs unhappily has not arisen yet, and it is obvious that that date ought to be extended. I will come to the reason for choosing December 31, 1927, in a moment.

405
Then there is another date. Under that same Act there was imposed, as your Lordships probably remember, a certain condition on the payment of unemployment insurance—namely, that the unemployed person should have paid thirty contributions within two years. It was provided in the Act itself that that should not come into operation until October 1, 1925, on the ground that it would be too severe a measure, and it was afterwards extended from that date until, I think, some date in this year, and it is now proposed to extend it still further. Unless that step were taken a very considerable hardship would be inflicted, and what is done is to give the Minister the right to waive that condition until the date fixed. In point of fact, as I understand it, the practice is to require that eight contributions should have been paid within two years, or thirty contributions altogether. But even that, in the case of disabled ex-Service men, is relaxed in special cases. It is proposed also to extend that date until the end of 1927.
There is one other date that is affected. By the Act of 1920 it was provided that unemployment benefit might be paid through certain associations—in effect, trade unions. What is done is that the Government money is handed over to the trade unions, who pay the beneficiaries. But that can only be done if the trade unions have an unemployment benefit of their own, and that unemployment benefit must provide that they shall pay at least, under the Act of 1920, one-third of the benefit provided by the Government scheme. At that date that amounted to 75 s. in the year, because the Government scheme of that time provided for a payment of 15 s. a week for fifteen weeks; therefore they had to provide at least 5s. for fifteen weeks, which was 75 s.
Later the amount of the assistance under the Government scheme was very considerably extended, as your Lordships are aware. It was extended from 15 s. to 18 s. a week, and from fifteen weeks to twenty-six weeks standard benefit, and another twenty-six weeks extended benefit. To have asked for one-third of the sum would have been excessive, and under the Act 75 s. was kept as the amount that they must provide, but by the Act of 1924 that 75 s. was raised to 5s. a week for thirteen
406
weeks and 2s. 6d. a week for the remainder of the time. It was found that under very great financial stress that would be too severe a burden and would have ended in the insolvency of a great many of these associations. Accordingly, that provision was postponed until July 31, 1926, and it is now proposed to extend it for the same reason until December 31, 1927, so that all these dates will now be December 31, 1927.
The reason why His Majesty's Government have fixed on that date is very simple. In the autumn of last year a Committee, presided over by Lord Blanesburgh, was appointed to look into the whole question of unemployment insurance and make recommendations thereon. That Committee has not reported as yet, but it is hoped that it will report in time for its Report to be considered and, if necessary, legislation introduced in the course of next summer. December 31, 1927, is accordingly fixed in order to give time for that legislation to be introduced and considered. That is the whole of this Bill and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill was scrutinised in the other House and no objection was taken to it. We do not propose to take any objection to it here.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MIDWIVES AND MATERNITY HOMES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Amendment of s. 1 (2) of Midwives Act, 1902.
1. The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2) of section one of the Midwives Act, 1902, (which relates to certification of midwives):—
"(2) If any person, being either a male person, or a woman not certified under this Act, attends a woman in childbirth otherwise than under the direction and personal supervision of a duly qualified medical practitioner, that person shall, unless he or she satisfies the court that the attention was given in a case of sudden or urgent necessity,

407
be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds:
"Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the case of a person who, while undergoing training with a view to becoming a duly qualified medical practitioner or a certified midwife, attends a woman in childbirth as part of a course of practical instruction in midwifery."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to add to the clause the words: "recognised by the General Medical Council or by the Central Midwives Board." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of a suggestion made by my noble friend behind me, Lord Knutsford, upon the Committee stage of the Bill. Ho thought that the exemption which was provided in Clause 1 for medical students and pupil-midwives was not sufficiently guarded. We had upon the Motion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanmore) inserted an Amendment and we had provided in the Amendment that this exemption should apply only to students who were undergoing a training with a view to becoming duly qualified medical practitioners or pupil-midwives who were anxious to become certified midwives. But my noble friend behind me thought that was not sufficiently guarded and he suggested some words which I have embodied in this Amendment. I propose to put them in at the end of the clause so that we may be quite clear that these persons are only exempted if the course of practical instruction through which they are going is recognised by the General Medical Council or by the Central Midwives Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page, 2 line 4, at end insert ("recognised by the General Medical Council or by the Central Midwives Board").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:—
Power to exempt certain institutions from Part II.
".—(1) A local supervising authority may grant exemption from the operation of this Part of this Act in respect of—

(a) any hospital or other premises for the conduct of which a duly qualified medical practitioner resident therein is responsible; or

(b) any hospital or institution not carried on for profit and not used mainly as a maternity home.

(2) A local supervising authority may at any time withdraw an exemption granted by it under this section.
(3) Any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of a local supervising authority to grant exemption under this section in respect of any hospital, premises or institution, or by the withdrawal of any such exemption previously granted by the authority, may appeal against the refusal or withdrawal to the Minister of Health, and the Minister, after considering the matter, shall give such directions therein as he thinks proper, and the authority shall comply with any directions so given."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment I have put down on the Paper is entirely a matter of form and drafting, and does not touch in a single syllable the substance of the Bill. In the course of the Committee stage certain provisions found their way into the Definition Clause, where they are out of place. I had some communication with the Ministry of Health on the subject to see whether they thought that the provisions should remain in that position in the Bill and, having learned from them that my suggestion on the subject was one that might be adopted, I put down this Amendment transferring those provisions from the Definition Clause to a substantive clause at the end of the regular clauses of the Bill. I believe that the noble Marquess who has charge of the Bill approves of that being done and, if that is so, I dare say it would be convenient for the House if I simply move that this and my other Amendments be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 6, line 15, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble friend opposite is an undoubted authority on drafting and I agree, even if the Amendment stood on his own authority alone, that that would be sufficient to recommend it, but, as a matter of fact, we are of opinion that it is an improvement, and I am very glad to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Interpretation.
11.—(1) In this Act unless the context otherwise requires:—
The expression "maternity home" means any premises used or intended to be used for the reception of pregnant

409
women or of women immediately after childbirth, but shall not include—

(a) any hospital or other premises maintained or controlled by a Government Department or local authority, or by any other body of persons constituted by special Act of Parliament or incorporated by Royal Charter; or

(b) any hospital or other premises for the conduct of which a duly qualified medical practitioner resident therein is responsible which may for the time being he exempted from the provisions of Part II of this Act by the local supervising authority; or

(c) any hospital or institution not carried on for profit and not used mainly as a maternity home which may for the time being he exempted as aforesaid;

(2) Any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of a local supervising authority to grant exemption from the provisions of Part II of this Act in respect of any hospital, premises or institution, or by the withdrawal of any such exemption previously granted by the authority, may appeal against the refusal or withdrawal to the Minister of Health, and the Minister, after considering the matter, shall give such directions therein as he thinks proper, and the authority shall comply with any directions so given.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move to omit paragraphs (b) and (c).
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("charter") to the end of line 6 on page 7.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 10 to 19, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to appoint Indian Judges, etc., as additional members of the Judicial Committee.
1.—(1) His Majesty may by Letters Patent appoint two persons qualified as pro-
410
vided in this section to be members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and may from time to time fill any vacancies caused by death or otherwise in the offices of the persons so appointed.
(2) A person shall be qualified for appointment under this section if he is a Privy Counsellor and is or has been a Judge of a court which is a High Court within the meaning of clause (24) of Section three of an Act of the Indian Legislature known as the General Clauses Act, 1897, or is a barrister or advocate of not less than fourteen years standing who practises or has practised in British India.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE) moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or advocate" and insert "advocate or vakil." The noble and learned Viscount said: The Bill provides as a qualification for appointment to this office that a person shall be, or shall have been, a Judge of one of the High Courts in India, or shall be a barrister and advocate of not less than fourteen years standing who practices or has practised in British India. There is, as your Lordships well know, a class of pleaders in India known as vakils who obtain a very considerable part of the practice in the Courts and many of whom are men of considerable legal attainments. I believe it is intended very shortly that all the vakils shall become advocates of those Courts and the word "advocate" was put in the Bill with a view to including those gentlemen when they became advocates. It has been pointed out to me that a vakil who had only just become an advocate but who had been a vakil for many years might not come within the clause as drafted. The intention is that the vakils shall stand on the same footing as other advocates for the purpose of this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("or advocate") and insert ("advocate or vakil").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: This Amendment is obviously right. A vakil is very often, I think, as good as any advocate in India and it would be very hard to exclude them from the provisions of this Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ilfracombe).

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5).

Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Passmore Edwards (Tilbury) Cottage Hospital Charity Scheme Confirmation.

Allhallows and Marwood (Honiton) Charities Scheme Confirmation.

Robert-Earl of Leicester's Hospital Charities Scheme Confirmation.

Brighton (London Road) Congregational Chapel Charities Scheme Confirmation.

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Oldham Extension.

Rhymney Valley Water.

Paignton Urban District Council.

Shoreham Harbour.

Wolverhampton Corporation.

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:

National Gallery (Lane Collection) [H.L.]

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL.
  STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (STAFF SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Committees to meet on Tuesday next.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
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 29th of April and the 19th May last discharged, and Bill committed.
RAMSBOTTOM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  BERMONDSEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (STREET TRADING) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
TEIGNMOUTH AND SHALDON BRIDGE BILL.
LEATHERHEAD GAS ORDER, 1926.

  TAWE VALE GAS ORDER, 1926.
  CHAPEL WHALEY AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1926.
  INVERNESS ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
  DUNBARTONSHIRE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
  LLANTRISANT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing

  413
  in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 7) BILL. [H.L]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L]
Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES ENDOW MENT FUND BILL.
Committed for Thursday next.
INDIAN AND COLONIAL DIVORCE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Thursday next.