Sitting of 30 July 1928

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the Clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
FOOD AND DRUGS (ADULTERA TION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PETROLEUM (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (LINE- THROWING APPLIANCE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
RAG FLOCK ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

BOGNOR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to the Bognor Urban District Council Bill, I move the Motion which stands in my name. I move it with some reluctance because I know that the practice of hanging Bills up until the following Session is not one that your Lordships like. But this Bill has only recently reached us. There is, if not a competing Bill, at any rate a very kindred Provisional Order Bill, which I believe in the same way will have
1414
to be held back in order that both Bills may go to the same Committee in the autumn. That is my justification for making this Motion.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session;
That all Petitions presented in the present Session against the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to desire their concurrence.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Paper. The delay has been caused by a proposal to divide the Bill.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (GODALMING EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be dispensed with in order that the further stages of this Bill may be taken to-day. The negotiations in connection with this Bill have been very prolonged and it is most desirable that the Bill should be passed this Session.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be dispensed with.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed; and returned to the Commons.

TITHE (ADMINISTRATION OF TRUSTS) MEASURE.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Tithe (Administration of
1416
Trusts) Measure, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. This is an exceedingly simple but an exceedingly important matter for the clergy. Queen Anne's Bounty practically has the collection and the payment of the tithes throughout the country now, and difficulty has been found on technical grounds about paying the tithe at the proper quarters. This Measure has been introduced to give powers to the Queen Anne's Bounty to borrow money from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to equalise the periods of payment and meet the difficulties of the clergy. There is no opposition, as far as I am aware, to the Measure, and the Ecclesiastical Committee did consider it and recommended its adoption. I can explain the details if necessary, but they are very technical, and I doubt whether your Lordships would really desire it. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Tithe (Administration of Trusts) Measure, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word about what his Grace has stated. I have carefully gone through the provisions of the Bill, which deals with a matter with which I am familiar. What his Grace has said is true; the purpose of the Measure is to enable the incumbents to have their tithe income more conveniently paid and I hope it will be unanimously assented to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLERGY PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I now beg to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. This Measure is yet more technical than the one to which I have just referred, and contains a vast number of details. It is really an amendment of the Measure that was passed a little while ago arranging for clergy pensions. The first year of the working of

1417
the Measure revealed unexpected difficulties and all kinds of pitfalls into which those who had to administer the Act might fall and which could not be accurately foreseen. Such things, for instance, as this. A man has been paying premiums for a pension for many years, then works for a time abroad and comes back; what is to happen with regard to the time that he has been abroad? and so on. The matter is exceedingly technical and full of difficulty, but this Measure has been gone through with great care, and it is an amendment which I am quite sure is desired. In this case, too, the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has recommended that the Measure should go forward for the Royal Assent. The Committee most wisely and rightly, as I think, says it will be a good thing, when this Measure becomes law, if there could be a Consolidation Measure which would prevent the necessity of having more than one Pensions Act to deal with. So far as I am concerned, I would further the passing of such a Consolidation Measure as early as possible. There is really no controversy about this Measure, but the technicalities are such that I hope your Lordships will pardon me if I do not go into them in detail.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Distinction of hereditaments and apportionment of values in valuation lists.
1.—(1) In every valuation list the classes of hereditaments hereinafter mentioned
1418
shall, in the prescribed manner, be distinguished from each other and from all other hereditaments, that is to say, there shall be so distinguished—

(a) agricultural hereditaments;

(b) industrial hereditaments;

(c) freight-transport hereditaments;

and where by this Act the net annual value of any such hereditament is required to be apportioned such apportionment shall be shown in the prescribed manner in the valuation list.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to leave out "freight." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to simplify the Bill and to include in its provisions all forms of road transport. The word "freight," which the Amendment proposes to delete, includes omnibuses, chars-a-bancs, lorries, and a variety of other vehicles on the road. In the case of these forms of road transport they are taxed by the Petrol Tax for the benefit of the railways. In another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the following explanation of this policy. He said:—
"We believe the railways have not had entirely fair play against road competition, heavily subsidised as it has been by reason of the inadequate share which it has paid in respect of damage to the roads."
The clause as it stands definitely taxes the competitive forms of road transport for the benefit of the railways. In a sense it affects "tubes." I understand that the Underground Railway stock fell on the introduction of this Bill. Possibly that may have been because of its association with omnibuses in London. There is more than that in it because the omnibuses and trams have put up their prices to meet the Tax. Sometimes that has meant an increase of 200 per cent. to 300 per cent. Supplementary tickets have been presented to the public which they have had to pay for to make their journey. The consequence is that this clause as it now stands taxes the public for the benefit of the railways. I submit that, though these forms of transport are very beneficial to the public, the public are after all the first party to be considered. I am sure that the loss to the scheme would be very trifling by the deletion of this word and that the gain to the public would be considerable.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, Line 14, leave out ("freight").—(Lord Thomson.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his kindly desire to simplify the Bill but, unfortunately, in that very zealous wish for which I commend him, he will go far to destroy the object of the Bill, because I need not, perhaps, remind him that the great object of this Bill is to deal with a certain limited fund and apply it in the best manner for the assistance of British industry. If you take out the word "freight" then transport would apply not merely to the freight upon the railways but to all the passengers on the railways as well. That is not the object of the Bill. The object is to assist certain industries, not to reduce the price of tickets for passengers. Indeed, it would require a considerable sum outside the money already allocated for that purpose, or else it would mean that the money allocated to the relief of the heavy industries would be frittered away on a number of other objects and the object of the Bill would be defeated. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for moving his Amendment, but I hope, as he is as keen on the objects of the Bill as we are, that he will not press the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I partly understand what the noble Viscount said but I do not think he has met the real difficulty. It may be very convenient as a matter of drafting but it does not meet the question as regards competition in transport, which undoubtedly goes on between the road services and the railway services and which is becoming very acute at the present time. It does place a disability on the one as against the other. If the noble Viscount will look at Clause 5, subsection (2), he will see that
"'Transport purposes' means all or any of the following purposes:—
(a) 'railway transport purposes,' that is to say, all purposes connected with the conveyance or transport by railway of passengers and their luggage, or of carriages, parcels or merchandise, including the construction, maintenance and repair of all ways, works, machinery and plant used in connection with the undertaking."
I should have thought that so far as the railways are concerned you had there a definition which included everything.
1420
I do not know whether that is the view of the noble Viscount, and as we certainly do not desire to create difficulties I think a further explanation would help us.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know that I can offer any further explanation. I have stated quite clearly what is the object of the measure. I am not talking necessarily at the moment about competition with transport on the roads, because that arises on another Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord and I think the subject had better be discussed on that Amendment. The object of the Bill is to limit it to freights and not to give assistance to the passengers. That might be a very useful thing to do, but when you have a limited amount of money you have to think how best to apply it. The whole object of the Bill is to apply it to these particular industries and not slightly to reduce fares to passengers.
LORD THOMSON: I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to add the following proviso:—
"Provided that for the purposes of the apportionment of the net annual values of agricultural hereditaments required by this Act, the apportionment of the net annual values of the farmhouse, farm buildings, and cottages comprised in such hereditaments shall, so long as they are used only for the cultivation of the land, and as from the date when paragraph (c) of section five (Separate statement in valuation lists, etc., of value of agricultural land) of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, shall cease to have effect, be calculated on, the rent at which they could be expected to let to a tenant from year to year if they could only be so used."
The noble Lord said: the object of this Amendment is to get rid of difficulties which arise under Section 5, paragraph (c), of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, which comes to an end this year. That paragraph is as follows:—
"(c) where any hereditament consists partly of agricultural land and partly of buildings, the gross estimated rental of the buildings, when valued separately, in pursuance of this Act, from the agricultural land shall, while the buildings are used only for the cultivation of the said land, be calculated not on structural cost, but on the rent at which they would be expected to let to a tenant from year to year, if they could

1421
only be so used; and the total gross estimated rental of the hereditament shall not be increased by the said separate valuation."
I have been asked by the Central Landowners' Association to move this Amendment, which I hope the noble Viscount will accept. If the noble Viscount cannot accept this Amendment, I would ask him to give an assurance that there shall be some provision in the future for a similar assessment of farmhouses and cottages attached to farms as is provided by the paragraph that I have read. I would remind the House that this provision expires on March 31, 1929. It has to be borne in mind also that the majority of the new valuations under the Act of 1925 will come into force on October 29 next year, so that I think I am justified in asking my noble friend to give us an assurance that the people affected will not be damnified in any sense by the fact that this paragraph may not be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. If he can give an assurance that this provision will be continued, or at any rate this particular paragraph, I shall be satisfied, but I think my noble friend will see that this is a case in which something ought to be done, for otherwise difficulties will be created regarding the assessment of farmhouses and cottages.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have, of course, studied the paragraph of the Act to which the noble Lord refers, and I accept his interpretation of it. He tells us that the Act comes to an end, if nothing is done, in March next year. I understand that the general provision of that paragraph will be embodied in or will take the form of a new Bill before that time, and that no change therefore will take place in the method of the valuation of these houses.
LORD STRACHIE: I am quite satisfied with my noble friend's assurance, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Definition of industrial hereditaments.
3.—(1) In this Act the expression "industrial hereditament" means a hereditament (not being a freight-transport hereditament) occupied and used as a mine or mineral railway or, subject as hereinafter provided, as a factory or workshop:
Provided that the expression industrial hereditament does not include a hereditament occupied and used as a factory or workshop if it is primarily occupied and used for the following purposes or for any combination of such purposes, that is to say—

(a) the purposes of a dwelling-house;

(b) the purposes of a retail shop;

(c) the purposes of distributive wholesale business;

(d) purposes of storage;

(e) the purposes of a public supply undertaking;

(f) any other purposes, whether or not similar to any of the foregoing, which are not those of a factory or workshop.

(4) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Mineral railway" means a railway, tramway, or ropeway used primarily for the transport of minerals from a mine, or from two or more mines, to the railway of a railway company or to a dock and in the latter case includes also such dock:
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (1), after "mineral railway or," to insert "for the purposes of trade or commerce." The noble Lord said: This Amendment brings within the provisions of the Bill shops, warehouses and distributing depots. The intention of the Bill was said to be to give relief to all buildings or other property used for the purpose of production by manual labour. I would ask the noble Viscount what is meant by manual labour in this connection. Is not a distributive trade a trade which employs manual labour? If we are going to draw a distinction between distributive and productive trades, then, for example, is such a trade as distributing goods by lorry all over the country to be excluded on the ground that the man who drives the lorry and looks after it is not doing manual labour? I have sought for a definition of manual labour in Murray's Dictionary, and I am afraid that I have sought in vain for a good one, but this does seem to me to

1423
be manual labour of a very distinct type. Why should a distributive trade be penalised while others that are in competition with it reap all the benefit?
As regards shops and warehouses, under the Bill as it stands—though I think it would be corrected in this respect by the Amendment that stands in my name—shopkeepers, both large and small, and warehouse proprietors get no benefit whatsoever. They bear a very heavy share of the rates. It is true, as the noble Viscount has said, that the object of this Bill is not to benefit them, but I should say that any benefit conferred upon them would in the long run—this Bill will not operate for some time to come—benefit trade as a whole. Have noble Lords opposite come to the conclusion that small shopkeepers are no good productively? In the past they have been very useful to the Conservative Party politically. I should imagine, too, that the clause as it now stands would be objected to rather strongly by the owners of big business premises and warehouses. It does seem to me—though the noble Viscount will perhaps laugh at my wishing to help to make this a better Bill—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very gratified.
LORD THOMSON: —that it could be improved very considerably in this respect, and at no very great cost. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, after the second ("or") insert ("for the purposes of trade or commerce").—(Lord Thomson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am rather sorry that I have to use to some extent the same form of words as I used on a previous Amendment and to remind the noble Lord that the main object of the Bill is to assist by derating the great productive industries of the country. He asks why we should not also derate the distributive industries, and to that I would reply: Why not? It would be a very pleasant thing to do if we were able to do it, but there is a limit to the amount of money available, and that money is better concentrated, I suggest, as in the proposal of the Government, on the productive industries. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that shopkeepers and those who carry on other forms of business are supporters of the Conservative Party. I think they probably are,
1424
and for the very good reason that they possibly understand their interests in relation to this measure as well, if I may say so respectfully, as the noble Lord, and they realise that, if you concentrate relief on the productive industries, the whole body politic will get a great advantage. If you absorb the unemployed, if you have greater production and production on a larger scale, and therefore cheaper, this will benefit the distributive industries and they will share in the advantages of a growth of production.
I may draw one other very simple distinction. The distributive trades are not exposed to competition from outside, as the great productive industries are. They are for that purpose sheltered industries, as compared with unsheltered industries. We strike at the point where relief is most needed, and we believe that, if we can assist those industries, the distributive trades will themselves benefit and will benefit far more than they would do if we gave them a share of assistance and left less for the productive industries themselves.
LORD THOMSON: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation. Am I to understand that the policy of the Government is to tax distributive trades for the benefit of productive trades?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No.
LORD THOMSON: The distributive trades undoubtedly pay the Petrol Tax, and this is used to assist the productive trades. It is a very curious policy to embark upon, to tax one set of workers in the country for the benefit of another and to deprive those who are taxed of any benefits that may arise under the scheme. I submit that this is the only deduction that I can make from the noble Viscount's explanation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to leave out paragraph (c). The noble and learned Lord said: I am afraid that the proposal that I am making must somewhat traverse the same ground as the former proposal, because the effect of my Amendment is to ask that the words "the purposes of distributive wholesale business" should be omitted, and I feel that that matter has already been partially discussed. There are, however, one or two further points

1425
which I should like to bring to the notice of the noble Viscount. The first matter is this: so far as economic production is concerned, that is, not merely looking to the cost of production but to the getting of the commodities to market, distribution is as large a factor as anything else as regards the position of productive industry, and I think that that is one great mistake in the Bill. It is quite wrong in principle, so far as local beneficial rates are concerned, that the workers in one industry should subscribe to the benefits obtained by workers in another industry, which is done if you make the rates only chargeable as to a certain percentage on production and wholly chargeable on distribution.
The noble Viscount made a statement the other day which very much emphasises the injustice of this proposal. He said that the productive industries employ a much larger number of workers. That is quite true, but the industry which employs the greater number of workers inevitably gets the greater advantage out of beneficial local rates—cottages, parks, access, lighting, and in a great variety of ways—and so you are making the smaller number of workers in the distributive trades pay for the advantages derived from this kind of expenditure by the workers in the productive trades. Let me give also an illustration of the practical difficulties of deciding what is a distributive as distinct from a productive trade. Take this illustration. There is going to be, as we know, a large system of electric supply under the 1926 Act, distributed throughout the country. We all desire that and we gave our votes in support of it, but is the supply of electric power distributive or is it productive? I should have thought that it was very largely indeed distributive, because unless you distribute your electricity is useless. Is not that to get the advantage which industries that practically come into competition with electric supply are to get? I do not think that there can be any end to the complications which will arise. Years of litigation must result before the matter is finally settled, for in a very large number of industries there is both a productive and a distributive element.
I would like to say one word with regard to the amount which the noble Viscount has to distribute. It cannot, of course, be more than a certain sum, but
1426
that is no justification for any inequality in the distribution. I do not see how you can possibly say that one industry is to pay for the other, or that you can have this distinction, having regard to such illustrations as I have given. I might give one other illustration. Take the breweries with a large number of tied houses. I understand that brewing is regarded as a productive industry, but it is just as much distributive and in all cases where a commodity is produced and finds its way to market, nowadays, you find the two come together, production and distribution, and the price to the consumer, which means the opening of the market, depends upon both production and distribution. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time further, because my objections to the Bill are fundamental, but when you come to beneficial, as apart from onerous, rates it seems to me impossible that this differentiation can be justified.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think, as the noble and learned Lord said, that this is very much the same point as we were discussing a few minutes ago, because it is the question of whether the distributive wholesale business is to come into the rating scheme or not. As far as I can understand the object of the noble and learned Lord, he wants to suggest that certain industries or distributive industries are going to suffer because they are not treated quite as fairly as other industries, and he wants to arouse their jealousy and make them feel that they are not getting as much out of the Bill as other industries.
LORD PARMOOR: No, that they are paying for other industries.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is a conception alien to him and the Party to which he belongs, but in passing this particular measure we are trying to benefit the country as a whole, and not to measure these little jealousies. That is a conception which is wholly alien to the noble Lord and his Party, but that is what we want to do and we want to concentrate upon the great productive industries. As to the practical difficulties, I have no doubt that there are some questions which the noble and learned Lord might find

1427
it difficult to settle in a Court of Appeal, but they are things which the practical man will settle very rapidly, and I have no doubt that when the matter comes down to detail and settlement, these distinctions will be found not nearly so complicated as the noble and learned Lord imagines.
LORD PARMOOR: I am rather sorry that the noble Viscount, after his admirable protest the other day, should have lowered himself to the Party political view upon what is a complicated financial question. I dare say that he has nothing but national views in his mind. Granted, but I pointed out that having these national views he was applying them in the wrong way, and he seems to have made no answer to that at all. Of course I entirely deny the suggestion that I or the Party to which I belong deal in small jealousies. We want the whole social and industrial structure of the country raised to a higher level. I do not say that the methods which I have suggested are perfect, but I say that they are not so imperfect as those of the noble Viscount. However, I will not trouble your Lordships to go to a Division, and I hope that we have heard the last of this high-faluting and platform style in discussing the Rating Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved to leave out paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to bring within the provisions of the Bill such public services as gas and electricity. I think they may fairly be described as key industries. They are of great benefit to large numbers of consumers, and they also supply power to industries. It may be argued that the relief granted to the railways is going to be refunded to the community, but I fail to see why the relief granted—should it be granted—to this sort of service should not also be refunded to the community. The effect of rates on such industries is very well exemplified by the following statement by the Chairman of the London Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, which appeared in the Financial Times early this year:—
"Like many others the electric supply industry is suffering from the extraordinary burden of rates, a large proportion of which is included in the sum of £358,424 for current purchased. The total sum paid by this
1428
company during 1927 amounted to £85,792, compared with £39,792 in 1925 before the quinquennial assessment. This sum of £85,792 represents more than 41 per cent. of our total fuel costs, and is over 12 per cent. on the whole of the issued ordinary share capital, and over 45 per cent. more than the standard rate of dividend we are this year paying to our ordinary shareholders under the 1925 Act."
The same story comes in from electric supply services in Newcastle-on-Tyne, Northampton and Yorkshire, and I could quote many others. It does seem to me that this principle can be pushed a great deal too far—the principle of taxing one set of industries for the benefit of another, and justifying that on the ground that there is only a little money, that it cannot go all round, and that therefore the railways should have the whole of it in regard to transport matters—because the industries with which we are here concerned are undoubtedly key industries, and this Amendment might help to relieve the situation in regard to two public services which are of real importance to industry as a whole.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Thomson.)
LORD GAINFORD: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on behalf of the Incorporated Association of Electric Power Companies. We view the suggestions made in this Bill with some feelings of alarm, because it seems to us that the policy of the Government, which was incorporated in the Electricity Act of 1926, is not supported by this particular part of the Bill. The object of the Electricity Act was to cheapen electricity and to endeavour to support the statutory undertakers, commonly called "the grid." Under the provisions of this Bill, as now drawn, apparently any private concern which produces electricity would be able to be relieved of the rates to the extent of 75 per cent., whereas a factory obtaining electricity from one of those public undertakings would not be able to get the same benefit.
Obviously, this Bill as it stands puts in a preferential position the smaller undertakings. Let me give a simple illustration. One colliery happens to produce electricity for itself. That plant, under the provisions of the Bill, will receive the benefit of 75 per cent.

1429
reduction in its rates. Another colliery alongside will be receiving its electricity for its operations from a public company, but will not receive the same benefit because there will be no reduction in the rates in connection with that electricity. I know the matter is somewhat complicated and somewhat technical. I do not go so far as the noble Lord who introduced this Amendment, under which the benefit will be passed on to householders, but I do suggest that this matter should be considered between now and a later stage of the Bill, and that the noble Viscount should see whether words cannot be incorporated so as to allow the benefit to be given to the large electrical undertakings, with a proviso that it should be passed on to the industrial users of electricity. That is my point, and I suggest that words are necessary at the end of this clause, in the event of this paragraph being omitted, which would limit the benefit to the industrial users of electricity. In that way I think the objects of the Government would be better secured. I will place an Amendment on the Paper so that the noble Viscount may see exactly my point, and I hope he may feel inclined to consider it before we reach another stage of the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: This Amendment is also on the Paper in my name. The major point which I had in mind is that which has been dealt with by Lord Gainford, and particularly in connection with the Electricity Act, which was to give a national system of distribution of electricity at a total estimated cost of £20,000,000. Everyone knows that that is a very big factor in our production in the future. The representation made to me was that such undertakings would be public supply undertakings. I understand that the word "public" does not connote a municipal undertaking only, but any statutory undertaking. Therefore any statutory undertaking would be excluded from the benefit of this clause. No doubt that would be a very large proportion of all the electricity supply undertakings in this country. The figures which have been shown to me indicate very little distinction between the cost of the public undertaking and the cost of the private undertaking. It would really mean that the public undertaking
1430
would suffer serious disadvantage in what, in many districts, will be and has been competitive supply for electric purposes. I hope the noble Viscount will consider the point; it really is a big matter. Something like 60 per cent. of electricity is already supplied by public undertakings, and when the national scheme comes into operation that will be very greatly increased.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will not say anything at this moment about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, because he said he was going to put an Amendment on the Paper to make it quite clear. Therefore it would be better, no doubt, to wait. In regard to the general point raised by Lord Thomson, I must point out in the first place—because money, as the noble Lord knows, is some consideration in these matters—that the derating of gas and electricity undertakings would be a considerable addition to the burden of the Bill. I believe it is £1,500,000 in the case of gas, and £1,500,000 in the case of electricity, so that somehow or other an additional £3,000,000 would have to be found if the beneficent intentions of the noble Lord were to be carried out.
I will say a word as to why gas and electricity and these public undertakings are not included in the benefits of the Bill. First of all, they are not, of course, exposed to outside competition as these big industries are of which we have been speaking. They are not really so much in need, therefore, of any assistance. They are sheltered industries as compared with the others, which are unsheltered industries. Moreover, the whole object of the Bill is that, as far as possible, the benefit shall be passed on to these productive industries. You cannot secure that in the case of gas and electricity undertakings because they are owned by municipalities and so on, and the benefit would be spread over the whole body of the ratepayers. It is a very good thing to benefit the whole body of the ratepayers; but we want to concentrate the benefit. We do not want to fritter it away by doing a little good to a large number of people. By doing a great deal of good to a more limited number we shall benefit the community generally. That is the main reason why these undertakings have been excluded. The

1431
financial point, of course, is a powerful one—that another £3,000,000 would be necessary.
LORD THOMSON: I did not realise that it would cost as much as that. As a matter of fact I foresaw the noble Viscount's answer, but those I consulted thought the figure would be about £1,250,000.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have given the estimated figures.
LORD THOMSON: The noble Viscount made play as to the industries of which I have spoken being sheltered. Does he say the same thing about the distributive trades as about transport? I think I am correct in saying that, strictly speaking, the railways are sheltered industries?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Certainly; but the noble Lord knows very well that they are merely conduit pipes for the purpose of carrying the advantages to the other industries. We do not buy our electricity in France, as the noble Lord knows.
LORD THOMSON: That is perfectly true, but these other industries can be made to refund in the same way.
VISCOUNT PEEL: How can you do that?
LORD THOMSON: I should have thought on the price per unit of electricity to be charged. Whatever process is going to be applied to the railways could be applied to these industries. However, I do not wish to take up the time of your Lordships' House with this matter. With reference to Lord Gainford's suggested Amendment the noble Viscount said that he would deal with the suggestion later. But as I understand Lord Gainford's attitude, he proposed the deletion of paragraph (e). He agrees with me in that, and when paragraph (e) is deleted he suggests that words should be added at the end of the clause. I think I am correct in interpreting what Lord Gainford said to the noble Viscount. Would the noble Viscount consider that when he comes to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is asking. I cannot, of course, agree to the deletion of paragraph (e).
LORD THOMSON: In that case the noble Viscount's promise to deal with Lord Gainford's point rather falls to the ground, does it not?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No. I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, was going to put an Amendment on the Paper with which we were to deal on the Report stage—the next stage of the Bill.
LORD GAINFORD: That was my intention, and the noble Viscount was kind enough to say he would consider it. I should like the Government to do what they can to deal with my point so as to make the matter clear.
LORD THOMSON: In these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON had given notice to move, in subsection (4), to leave out the definition of "mineral railway" and insert:—
"'Mineral railway' means a railway, tramway or ropeway belonging to the owner lessee or occupier of a mine and used by him primarily for the transport of minerals wrought from such mine or from two or more mines or the manufactured produce of such minerals to the railway of a railway company, or to or towards a dock as defined in subsection (3) of Section five, and in the latter case includes also such dock."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been brought forward at the request of light railway owners especially in the North-East. I notice that the noble Viscount has an Amendment of his own upon the Paper. Does that Amendment cover the point I am trying to cover? I should be glad of some explanation from the noble Viscount on the matter. His Amendment seems to me partially to cover my point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I agree that it partially covers the noble Lord's point, because it enlarges to some extent the definition of these mineral railways. When this question was first considered it was not realised that some of these mineral railways carried coal to the bigger railways and then, perhaps, to certain other mineral railways and so on. I was hoping that the noble Lord would be satisfied with my Amendment because I have some objections to his. It is a little too narrow and a little too wide. It is a little too narrow, I think,

1433
because it confines the benefits to the people who own the mines whereas I understand that in some cases these mineral railways are owned by people who are not necessarily owners of the mines, and I do not see any reason why the benefit should be denied them. The noble Lord's Amendment goes rather beyond what the Government intended by including lines on which there might be the transport of manufactured articles. The technical difficulty, as I am advised, about his Amendment is that it might be construed as making a public dock part of the mineral railway. As the noble Lord knows, docks are dealt with under the freight-transport hereditaments. These railways find their way into the industrial side of the hereditaments, though, perhaps, they ought not to be there, because of the difficulty, as I understand, of dealing with them on the transport side. They appear possibly a little out of their place. I criticise the noble Lord's Amendment on those grounds and also on the technical ground, and I hope he will be satisfied with my Amendment, which does enlarge the rather too narrow definition of a mineral railway.
LORD PARMOOR: The definition of "mineral railway" suggested by my noble friend Lord Thomson is one which, I know, really came from the association of owners of these mineral lines and which is common, particularly in the North-East. The difficulty was in carrying the lines from the mine to the staith where they end. It was doubtful whether that amongst other things was included and also whether the mineral line formed only part of the transport as the noble Viscount has pointed out. I think that the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount goes a very long way and I shall certainly advise my noble friend to accept it. We shall have time, of course, to consider whether any further amendment is necessary. I thank the noble Viscount for having gone a very long way towards meeting the point raised by my noble friend Lord Thomson.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord does not move his Amendment?
LORD THOMSON: No.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in the definition of "mineral railway," after
1434
"minerals," to insert "gotten." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, after ("minerals") insert ("gotten").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in the definition of "mineral railway," to leave out "the railway of a railway company or to a dock" and insert "a freight-transport hereditament or between any two such hereditaments or to any dock not being a freight-transport hereditament." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("the railway of a railway company or to a dock") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Definition of freight-transport hereditaments.
5.—(1) In this Act the expression "Freight-transport hereditament" means all or any of the following hereditaments:—
(b) A hereditament occupied and used wholly or partly for canal transport purposes as part of a canal undertaking whereof the canal is used for the conveyance of merchandise:
(3) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say—
"Dock" includes any harbour, wharf, pier, jetty or other works in or at which vessels can ship and unship merchandise or passengers not being a pier or jetty primarily used for recreation:
"Vessel" has the same meaning as that assigned to it by Section seven hundred and forty-two of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Thomson has been good enough to inform me that he does not intend to move the next Amendment—to leave out paragraph (b) in subsection (1) and insert: "(b) A hereditament occupied and used

1435
wholly or partly in connection with an undertaking for the conveyance of merchandise by road."
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (3), in the definition of "dock," after "jetty" to insert "staith." The noble Lord said: I understand that the definition of "staith" is a waterside depot for coals brought from the collieries for shipment, furnished with a stage and shoots for loading vessels. It seems to me that this small addition would improve the Bill. I have pleaded in vain with the noble Viscount on several other points, and I should be grateful if he would recognise on this occasion my whole-hearted desire to improve the Bill and let me have this ewe lamb of an Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, after ("jetty") insert ("staith").—(Lord Thomson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was melted by the appeal of the noble Lord, and I was looking anxiously at the subsequent Amendments to see whether there was an Amendment which I might reasonably accept. I do not pretend to be an authority on the meaning of the word "staith," but I am advised that this is rather a draftsman's point and that if the word "staith" is not included in "wharf" or "jetty," it is certainly another kind of work at which merchandise can be shipped and therefore it ought to be included.
LORD PARMOOR: It is a place.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is not a very important point. I am told it is unnecessary to add it because it is already included. I am very loath to disagree with the noble Lord in a matter of definition, which possibly he has looked up in the dictionary, and I hope he will not press his Amendment if I assure him that staith is included.
EARL RUSSELL: It is such an attractive word that does not the noble Viscount think he might insert it at this stage and reconsider it before the next stage if there really is any objection to it? It does not seem from the noble Viscount's own account to present any difficulty.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think there is a matter of principle in it. If the
1436
noble Lord is so much attracted by the word and he will not press his Amendment now I will see that it is fully considered before the next stage.
LORD THOMSON: May I say for the noble Viscount's information that I am sure the word "staith" includes a good deal more than either "wharf" or "jetty," or, to put it the other way round, neither "wharf" nor "jetty" quite covers what is meant by "staith."
VISCOUNT PEEL: If it includes a great deal more, then I am getting a little suspicious of the word. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to consider it between now and the next stage.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that will probably be the best way. Apart from any definition the word "staith" is well understood in connection with the coal business on the North-East coast. There are staiths there where you have loading machinery on the waterside without either a dock or a jetty, and it is an exceedingly common thing to use, particularly in the case of small vessels.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved in the definition of "dock" to leave out "and" [ship and unship] and insert "or." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Thomson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a very important Amendment. I am anxious to meet the noble Lord if he really presses this, but I am not quite certain whether it is absolutely essential. If, however, he really presses it I will be prepared to accept it.
LORD THOMSON: I am thankful to the noble Viscount for small mercies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in the last paragraph of the clause, to omit all words after "Vessel" and insert "includes any ship or boat, or any other description of vessel used in navigation." The noble Viscount said: This is really a drafting Amendment. It is put down because the canal companies are afraid the word "vessel" will not include certain boats navigating canals. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, leave out from ("vessel") to the end of line 35, and insert ("includes any ship or boat, or any other description of vessel used in navigation").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Entries in valuation lists as to freight-transport hereditaments.
(3) For the purpose of determining in what proportions a freight-transport hereditament is occupied and used for transport purposes and for other purposes, respectively, the hereditament shall be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes, except in so far as it is occupied and used for the purposes of a dwelling-house, hotel, or place of public refreshment, and except in so far as any part thereof is let out and capable of separate assessment:
Provided that, in the case of a hereditament occupied and used for canal transport purposes as part of a canal undertaking or occupied and used for dock purposes as part of a dock undertaking no part of the hereditament, being a building, yard, or other place primarily occupied and used for warehousing merchandise not in the course of being transported, shall be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (3) to leave out the words "and except in so far as any part thereof is let out and capable of separate assessment," and in the proviso, after "Provided that," to insert:—
"(a) no part of a freight transport hereditament which is so let out as to be capable of separate assessment shall be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes unless it is actually so occupied and used; and
"(b)"
The noble Viscount said: This is very nearly a drafting Amendment. The object is to make it quite clear that certain premises should still be liable to enjoy the benefits, if I may so put it, of derating when they are let to a third party. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, leave out from the beginning of line 20 to the end of line 21, and in line 22, after ("that"), insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Application to Scotland.
9. This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—
(5) The valuation roll shall show by distinguishing mark or otherwise what lands and heritages are respectively agricultural lands and heritages, industrial lands and heritages, and freight-transport lands and heritages:
VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR moved to add to paragraph (5): "and in the case of agricultural lands and heritages, the value of the house and cottages situated thereon shall be shown separately from the value of the agricultural land." The noble Viscount said: The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has reminded us more than once this afternoon that the relief given is for certain heavy industries, and he has greatly deprecated the frittering away of any of this grant on insignificant objects. That is one of the grounds which led me to put this Amendment on the Paper, because money will be frittered away and not devoted to the main object of the Bill if the scheme foreshadowed for Scotland is brought into force. I would emphasise what the noble Viscount has said in regard to the retention of this money for the relief of the main industries. The avowed object of this Bill is the derating of agriculture (as part of a larger scheme of rating relief for staple industries) from artificial burdens imposed by Parliament to finance popular schemes, called social services, imposed on the ratepayer often against the will of his elected representative. No doubt some local authorities are disposed to out-Herod Herod, and the astonishing growth of rates is also due to the great extensions of the franchise which have come to include even the pauper, thus exposing local authorities to pressure from growing sections of the community who are deriving benefit from lavish expenditure. Had local authorities representative of the ratepayer been left to themselves, industry would not now suffer from such devastating burdens.
This Bill as regards agriculture in England is entirely satisfactory, while Scotland, as has happened more than once before, comes off second best. The farm to the North of the Tweed is to be more heavily rated than the one to

1439
the South. A Roxburgh farm or a Berwickshire farm at £1,200 a year is to be assessed at £200—higher probably than any mansion in the County. A Northumberland farm of like value will be assessed possibly at £50. That well-known form of injustice could never have arisen did not the Scottish owner relieve his tenant of three-fourths of the rates. This is his reward. I could show, moreover, that within Scotland itself the treatment meted out to various classes of holdings is even more remarkable. Your Lordships will bear in mind that this measure is designed to give a chance to economic industry, to stimulate production, to give employment, to encourage the application of capital, to remove the excessive burden and the unjust incidence of rates, to reform the whole rating and administrative system of the country. It follows, therefore, that it is the agriculture which produces the food of the country, which stands on its own feet and pays it own way, which is all that counts within the legitimate scope of this Bill.
The small holder or crofter, on the other hand, who is to be a special beneficiary under this Bill, however useful he may be from the social or racial aspect, is from the point of view of economic agriculture a costly burden upon the industry as well as upon the country. And yet this device of assessing rates on one-sixth of the rent, instead of on the value of dwellings, is devised in his interest and to render his privileged position still more favourable as compared with economic agriculture. He stands more than ever, or he will stand more than ever, as a block in the way of a right and rational readjustment of local burdens, such as is being provided in England. The accepted custom and adopted system in this country is that the occupier of any dwelling shall pay his fair quota towards local services, and the only exception hitherto has been the small holder in Scotland. This Bill accentuates that singular anomaly, whereas to my mind it should have brought him into line with the rest of the community. Perhaps but for the imminence of a General Election it might have done so.
At any rate the explanation offered by the Secretary for Scotland for not applying the assessment provisions of the Bill is that it might increase the inadequate rates now paid by that class of person who diminishes our agricultural
1440
resources and who is so lavishly subsidised by the State and by the unfortunate landlord under compulsion by the State. The ordinary small holder, with his judicial rent, his comparative immunity from rates, his buildings provided at the public expense, which his landlord has to pay for if he takes a fancy to quit, whether the holding remains derelict or not, is of all men least entitled to more fancy, special favours under this Bill, the due application of which his sponsors are to render impossible.
I ask your Lordships to note also the extreme contrast between the so-called crofter who keeps a store and is a shopkeeper, or is engaged in some other industry, assessed on a 30s. or a 40s. land rent, and his brother shopkeeper or tradesman in a village or town who pays his feu duty and the whole of his rates on all his buildings without any relief whatever. There are dwellings with buildings which, if possessed by anyone but a crofter, would be assessed on their real value of hundreds of pounds, or even over one thousand pounds, instead of on a pound or two of that land rent which, in England, ceases to be a basis for rating, while his unhappy yoke-fellow, the nominal owner, is apparently to be made to hand over a further proportion of any relief of the rates by which he has been ruined. Thus the crofter becomes rate receiver instead of rate payer. He is left entirely without personal sense of responsibility for local expenditure, and the nominal owner is left to pay the bills of a local authority elected by those who pay nothing.
The effect on the ordinary farmer is apparent where large arable farms have been broken up to settle the small holder. The original equipment of one of the many that have been scrapped, now standing derelict, was worth over £15,000. The equipment since erected for small holders settled on the farm must have cost a good deal more than twice that amount. The result of that huge loss is a group of isolated and mostly discontended State tenants, paying a lower rental on land less productive, with loss in assessable value to be made good by the economic agriculture that remains in the neighbourhood. At present part of the loss is borne by the landlord whose farms are broken up by

1441
the Scottish Board of Agriculture. What could be less defensible or less in harmony with the purpose of this Bill than this entire departure from its intentions by the Scottish Office? Yet it is to the desire to "cocker up" such a system and its failures that is due this vital defect in the Scottish provisions for assessment which impose an arbitrary, indefensible, fixed excessive levy in place of an impartial valuation as in England, with the result that the higher rating on economic agriculture will reduce the wage fund available for the payment of farm servants. Therefore, to create equality as between England and Scotland, equality as between one agriculturist and another, and justice as between occupiers of the same class of property. I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 21, at end insert ("and in the case of agricultural lands and heritages, the value of the house and cottages situated thereon shall be shown separately from the value of the agricultural land").—(Viscount Novar.)
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I desire to support this Amendment, which stands in my name as well as in that of the noble Viscount and of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, who is unfortunately not able to be present to-day. The noble Viscount has dealt very well indeed with this Amendment. We started with the declaration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech that all agricultural land should be derated, although he made a reservation that some special provisions would have to be made with regard to Scotland, where arrangements for valuation are rather different from those in England. I did not hear that speech, but I had occasion to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer the same evening and he told me without any reservation whatsoever what the provisions of the Budget were, and how he proposed generally to derate the whole of the agricultural land. I know, from my own experience, that valuation in Scotland is different from valuation in England and that we do not have separate valuations for houses and for land. I do not quite know why that is so. Under the law as it stood perhaps it did not matter very much
1442
whether we had or had not separate valuation, but the moment you come to deal with this new principle you must have a proper basis on which to make your calculations and give your rebates.
Obviously that involves a separate valuation of the houses, which alone in the future are to be rated in England. You would require the same valuation for Scotland. There would be no trouble whatever about that valuation. I speak with confidence on that point, having been Chairman of the valuation court in my County for over twenty years. We should not have the slightest difficulty in valuing these houses. I do not say that it would be wise to ask for a separate valuation of all the houses on small holdings in Scotland as distinct from the land. They, I think, could be specially dealt with, and I do not think the same method should be asked for. A percentage charge in the case of crofters and small landowners would probably be quite an excellent thing where you would be dealing with a very limited class in point of rental. But a percentage charge to determine the rateable value of farm houses, where a fixed proportion of one-sixth is suggested, would be an absurd proposal. It would leave anomalies of the very grossest kind the moment you got above a certain rental. On farms rented at £600 or £1,000 or £2,000 a year they would be ludicrously rated at one-sixth of the gross value, and the distinction made between England and Scotland would be most unfair and, I think, most unjustifiable.
The whole of the Budget proposals have, in point of fact, been altered by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not know how they have come to be altered to that extent, unless it be that the Treasury, as usual, has been putting its finger in the pie and trying to limit my right hon. friend to the disposal of a certain sum of money, to which he has tried to fit his policy. That is all very well. We are getting rather accustomed to members of the Government speaking with varying voices, but it is rather a strong order when a member of the Government becomes a deputy Chancellor of the Exchequer and proposes his new Budget. That is practically what has been done in the case of land in

1443
Scotland. I think some justification for this distinction, which I cannot myself find, ought to be given to your Lordships' House to-day by the noble Viscount below me, who, I venture to say, now knows this subject from A to Z and will be prepared to deal with it in a very generous and, I hope, in a very liberal spirit.
The question is really a very serious one. I know that the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has not deliberately bound himself to the percentage of one-sixth. He has talked of one-eighth, though even that would be too large a proportion to take the moment we got beyond a certain rental. As my noble friend has said, you would have large country houses and mansions in Scotland rated at one-half or one-third of the figure at which farmhouses next door would be rated. There are some very large farms in Scotland. I have one in mind with a rental of £2,400 a year. One-sixth of that would be £400, while a ducal mansion close by is rated at about £200. It is obvious, therefore, not that this is intended to be a fair rental for a house or that it in any way represents a fair rental, but that it is one way of taking back part of the rebate on agricultural land, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech said would be derated. In that case you take back about £300 of the value of the derating of the land.
I have here some figures which I believe have been checked by the Central Landowners' Association. They provide some very striking comparisons. There are all sorts of differences in rating and in allowances as between England and Scotland, but this, so far as I can make out, is a statement which gives the exact difference in rating value, making all these allowances, of three estates in Scotland as they would be rated under the provisions of this Bill, if the proposal of the Secretary of State for Scotland to take one-sixth of the rental were adopted, and as they would be rated in England. The first is the case of an estate in Ross, where there are five farms and £118 gross value of land without buildings, which, of course, in England would not be rated, but in Scotland is to be rated at one-sixth. In that case the rateable liability of the estate, which includes a certain number of cottages,
1444
would be, if rated on the English plan, £117 a year, while under the plan of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which is not, of course, in the Bill but which has been stated by him, it would be £213, or very nearly double.
The next case is that of an estate in Kinross on which there are five farms. This is rather an interesting case, because there is £487 gross value in grass parks. Grass parks are not to be rated in England, but they are to be rated in Scotland at one-sixth. Accordingly we have a most ludicrous result. If that estate were rated on the English system, it would be on an assessment of £40. In Scotland, at one-sixth of the gross value, it would have a rating value of £160. The third case is that of an estate in Dumfriesshire, a larger estate with a gross annual value of £2,800. If rated on the English system the figure would be £193 7s. 10 d., whereas if rated in Scotland under the provisions suggested by the Secretary of State it would be £466. I will hand those figures to the noble Viscount so that he may check them before the Report stage, but I understand that they are correct, although I suppose it is rather difficult to make an actual comparison where so many allowances are made of one kind and another.
The question is this: Is it fair, is it justifiable, that there should be these differences between the method of rating in England and Scotland? Why should not the English principle of the derating of agricultural land be applied to Scotland in its entirety? Why is it that we in Scotland, as usual—for this very often happens in these financial cases—should have to bear a burden which agriculturists in England are not asked to bear? How can it be justified? I do not think it can be justified, but I will wait to hear what the noble Viscount has to say. We have nothing to do with the money, which is a matter for the Exchequer. We have only to do with policy and principle, and I think your Lordships will realise that it is not right to put the Scottish agriculturists at a disadvantage and to penalise the large farmer as against the smaller one. I think your Lordships will feel that it is not an unfair thing to ask that we should have this separate valuation, so that we may have the same principles applied to us as are applied to farmers in England.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I rise with some trepidation, to reply to my two noble friends on the question of rating in Scotland, because they have, of course, a long personal acquaintance with the subject, to which I cannot pretend at all. There is only one consolation that I do take from this Amendment, and that is that they wish to assimilate the system of rating agricultural land in Scotland to our English system. As an Englishman I feel very much gratified by that, because I can think of no other case where Scotsmen have said that an English system was better than their own, and it is only in this one case that they are prepared to adopt our system.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: Will the noble Viscount allow me to explain? I understand that it was not until 1923 that, agricultural relief being given in England, this system was adopted in Scotland. At that time, of course, we were only too glad to get it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, it goes further back. Noble Lords may naturally suppose that if Scotland is so anxious to adopt the English system it is because there is more money, or they think there is more money, in it than there is in their own system.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: It it not a question of money now, but a question of a new system altogether.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is a question whether under the new system you will get more money, because my noble friend behind me said that they ought to be treated in Scotland with the same fairness as the farmers, or the agricultural interest, in this country. With that I entirely agree, and I will say a word in a moment upon it, but I must make it quite clear that I think there has been a little misunderstanding with regard to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the derating of agricultural land and buildings. My noble friend behind me said that some reference was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to him on the subject, and Lord Novar stated on the Second Reading that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, said that land and buildings were to be derated, and that his undertaking, stated in the Budget speech, had not been carried out in Scotland. My noble friend was not quite
1446
accurate, as he probably knows now, in that particular statement. The statement which he quoted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer applied to England, and I will take out his exact words. He said:—
"A separate arrangement will be required for Scotland, where the incidence of rates and the general conditions differ in important respects from those of England and Wales."
Therefore I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly guarded himself against any suggestion that in this respect Scotland should be treated in exactly the same manner as the agricultural interest in this country.
The first point that I wish to raise is whether under the proposal of my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland—that is, under the proposal of one-sixth—Scotland will receive as favourable terms as or less favourable terms than England does with her system of rating. It is, of course, a matter of complicated calculation, but I am advised that it is so, and that under this arrangement for being rated on one-sixth of the combined subject in Scotland, Scotland will receive her full equivalent, compared with the amount of assistance received by agriculture in this country. Therefore, whatever may be the division, as it were, of the money as between different farms or different agriculturists in Scotland, there can be no doubt that Scotland is not robbed in any way, as compared with agriculture in this country, but receives her full equivalent under that system. I think that English Peers ought fully to realise that the full amount is obtained by Scotland.
Then comes the question of the anomalies in Scotland. On that question, of course, the noble Lords speak with an authority to which I cannot pretend, but I did think that they were not altogether accurate. They took some of these figures of big farms with an annual value of £1,200, £1,600 and £2,000, and said that if you took one-sixth of that how high the farmhouses were rated in comparison with what you would get in England if there were separation between the buildings and the land. I understand, however, that it is not the rating on the farmhouse, but it is one-sixth of the rates on the whole subject, buildings and land. It is quite true that the whole land is not derated in these

1447
big farms but these apparently heavily rated buildings on these big farms share in the one-sixth proposal as applied to the whole thing. Let me make a statement with regard to the one-sixth. I understand that with that one-sixth rating every farmer, small or large, in all Scotland, will be better off than he is to-day, and I am also advised that if you adopt the British system of rating separately farm buildings and land the majority of the farmers in Scotland would be paying rather more than they are paying to-day. Therefore it really is a question in Scotland which lies between apparently the larger farms and the smaller farms, and I do not know whether my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland could be induced to introduce a system for Scotland which is going to increase the amount paid in rates by the majority of the farmers.
My noble friend Lord Younger saw the difficulty, and he suggested, if I understood him aright, that a difference should be made and that the two systems should be adopted in similar cases—that you should have the one-sixth system and in the case of the larger farms apply the other system—that they should have the best of both possible worlds, as it were. If that were so, however, I would point out to my noble friend that we in England would be entitled to something of that kind. If you are going to abolish to some extent your own system, and bring in the English system where it suits you, surely we have the right to bring in the Scottish system where that suits us. In fact it would create great
difficulty. Either you ought to take the present system with its difficulties, or else the English system with its difficulties, and not have both systems, applying one system in one case and the other system in another. That is hardly practical politics at this time of day. The case stands in this way. Under the one-sixth proposal first of all the majority of the farms in Scotland certainly will not suffer as they would under the old system, and the whole of them will get substantial advantage. Secondly, this system will give more help to the industrial farms, the grass farms. As between Scotland and England the balance of advantage in proportion will be very fairly established. That being so, is my noble friend going to press the Secretary for Scotland to alter the system at present in vogue in Scotland and bring in these new anomalies, which it would be very difficult for him to face? I strongly urge my noble friend not to press his Amendment, but to be content with the figure and arrangement which, as between Scotland and England, establish a very fair measure of equality.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I am very sorry that I am unable to accept the explanation, however ingenious, of the noble Viscount. The only fair basis of assessment for the new arrangement is the English system, and therefore I fear I must give your Lordships the trouble of dividing on this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS.

Ancaster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Gainford, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Younger of Leckie, V. [Teller.]

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Lawrence, L.

Morton, E.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Blythswood, L.

Saltoun, L.

Chaplin, V.

Darling, L.

Stanmore, L.

Elibank, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Strachie, L.

Novar, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Bath, M.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Winchester, M.

Sandwich, E.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Bertie of Thame, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Peel, V.

Munster, E.

Wellington, D.

Onslow, E.

Avebury, L.

Biddulph, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Hayter, L.

Cushendun, L.

Greenway, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Desborough, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Faringdon, L.

Hampton, L.

Jessel, L.

Forester, L.

Hanworth, L.

Lovat, L.

Wraxall, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 9 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Provisions for bringing into conformity with this Act Valuation Lists which will be in force on the 1st day of October, 1929.
4. The revenue officer on receiving the copy of a preliminary draft special list or instalment thereof so sent to him shall consider the contents thereof; and if, as respects any hereditament the revenue officer considers that the net annual value or gross value entered in respect thereof is excessive, or differs from any of the other conclusions arrived at by the rating authority, the revenue officer and the rating authority shall consult with each other as to whether the hereditament is to be entered in the list, and, if so, as to the particulars with respect thereto and the net annual value or gross value to be so entered.
7. All the provisions of the principal Act as to—

(i) the preparation, deposit, inspection and revision of draft valuation lists;

(ii) the making and hearing of objections to draft valuation lists and appeals against decisions on such objections;

(iii) the final approval of valuation lists and the inspection thereof;

shall apply as respects draft special lists and special lists, subject to the foregoing provisions of this schedule and to the following modifications and exceptions:—
(b) In so far as the particulars entered in the draft special list with regard to any hereditament are agreed between the rating authority and the revenue officer, or where a claim to have a hereditament inserted in the list has been rejected in pursuance of such an agreement, the assessment committee shall not have power to alter those particulars, or to insert the hereditament, otherwise than in determining an objection:
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER moved to insert the following proviso in Clause 4 after "so entered":—
"Provided that the Revenue officer and the rating authority shall exercise their powers and duties under this paragraph
1450
before the date on which the county or other rate for the year 1929–30 is appointed to be estimated."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to help the county councils, being a member of the county council in my County. If the rating authorities and the Revenue officer do not do their work before such time as the county rate has to be estimated by the county council it will create great difficulties for the county councils. If the Revenue officer, after a county has estimated its rate and provided for the money it requires, comes, as the watchdog of the Treasury, which I understand he will be, and says: "Oh no, you put your rates up far too high; you must put them down," then the finance committee of the council will be in a hole. I do not think this Amendment affects any principle of the Bill, and I am sure that the Government, having put all this extra work on the shoulders of the county councils—because there is a good deal of extra work—will do their best to try to make things as easy as possible for the county councils.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Forester.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The rating authorities and the Revenue officer will no doubt be urged to do their work as quickly as possible; but I trust that my noble friend will not try to pin them down absolutely to February 1. Some of them might suffer from excess of work and not be finished. I do not quite know what would happen if they had not finished their work in time, as there is no penalty imposed by my noble friend. In practice I do not think that any very great difficulty will arise because certainly many local authorties make their rates for the half-year and not for the whole year. In other cases, I am told, the clerks will be able to arrive at an approximate figure by February 1 next. Therefore, I do not think that my noble friend will gain anything by his Amendment. I do not see what particular screw it will put on, nor do I see the point of saying that the work must be

1451
done by that date. I can assure my noble friend that everything will be done to secure that the work is finished by that date. I hope he will be satisfied with that assurance and will not try to tie these people down more tightly.
LORD FORESTER: I have not put down any date. I have only said "before the date on which the county or other rate" is estimated for the year.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am told that is about the date. Will my noble friend be satisfied with my assurance? I appreciate the difficulties, and I am asking him not to tie these people to a particular date but to accept the assurance I have given that everything will be done to accelerate the work.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER moved, in Clause 7, to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I cannot see that any object can be gained by this paragraph, which practically renders the assessment committee useless. They cannot act on their own opinion. Although it is not in the Bill, I understand that this Revenue officer is to be appointed for one year only and that he will retire after that year. After he has retired there is no doubt that the assessment committee ought to be the final arbiter as to what the date is to be, and if you knock them out altogether, as this paragraph does, I think you will be treating them very unfairly indeed. I would humbly suggest, in view of the fact that the Revenue officer is to retire after the first year, that the Government should allow the assessment committee to have at least a word to say about the job which they are supposed to do—assessment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 32, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Forester.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I hope my noble friend understands that the arrangement under this paragraph is merely temporary and is only for the purpose of accelerating the work in this particular case. I do not think he is quite right when he says that the work is taken out of the hands of the assessment committees. In all the cases where judgment has to be exercised and in which there is a difference of opinion between the Revenue officer
1452
and the rating authority or the occupier himself, the assessment committee will have to bring their judgment to bear. I submit that they will have plenty to do in connection with that work and that it will properly occupy them. All that paragraph (b) says is that when there is agreement between the Revenue officer and the rating authority the particulars shall stand. That is done purely in this temporary case, in order to relieve the assessment committee of work and to bring the business rapidly to an end. There is no disrespect, I think, to the assessment authority at all. It is merely a means of preventing their having to go all over the work again in cases where agreement has been reached.
LORD STRACHIE: It is perfectly true, as the noble Viscount has said, that this is only a temporary measure; but I would point out that when these assessments are made they are likely to continue in the future. I think the noble Viscount does not realise, perhaps, that the assessment committees to-day are much more important bodies than they used to be. In the old days they merely occupied the position which is now held by the rating authority, which is a comparatively small one. A rating authority now may be concerned with a third, a fourth, a fifth, and in some cases even an eighth of an assessment area. It seems rather extraordinary that this small body should be allowed to override the assessment committee. Then, the fact that the Revenue officer is appointed for one year only seems rather to cut the ground from under the feet of the noble Viscount. If this officer's work is so important it seems to me that it ought to be permanent. I hope the noble Lord will persist in his Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I suggested that the only reason for the provision was to save time. These assessments must be carried out quickly, and where there is agreement between all the parties it is hardly necessary to lay upon the assessment committee the onerous duty of going through those assessments all over again. They would be fully occupied in dealing with cases where there was disagreement between the Revenue officer and the assessment authority or the occupier, as the case might be.
LORD FORESTER: Might I point out that if this Bill becomes an Act it will go on for ever, whereas your Revenue officer only functions for one year? The Bill also says that the assessment committee has no power to deal with these cases in the future when the Revenue officer is not there. I think my noble friend might meet me in this matter, seeing that my Amendment alters no principle of the Bill. I was present at a
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
First Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I desire to consult your Lordships as to the next stage of the Rating and Valuation Bill. I understand there are several Amendments which will be moved upon the Report stage, and therefore it would be probably convenient for the House to have an interval between this stage to-day and the Report stage. That would lead me to the conclusion that it would be convenient to take the Report stage upon Wednesday, but in that event, if Parliament is to be prorogued on Friday, as our Amendments on this Bill will have to go to the Commons, it will be necessary to finish the Bill
meeting of my own county council on Saturday and I heard there that the rating authorities are very anxious for the deletion of this paragraph. Therefore I ask the noble Viscount to meet me on this particular point.
On Question, Whether paragraph (b) shall stand part of the Schedule?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Malmesbury, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morton, E.

Avebury, L.

Onslow, E.

Biddulph, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Cushendun, L.

Sandwich, E.

Darling, L.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Wellington, D.

Stradbroke, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Faringdon, L.

Bath, M.

Chaplin, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Winchester, M.

Elibank, V.

Hanworth, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Ancaster, E.

Jessel, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Novar, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Peel, V.

Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Wraxall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E.

Forester, L. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L.

Gainford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Greenway, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

in all its stages on Wednesday—not merely the Report stage but other stages. If your Lordships wish the Government to postpone the Report stage till Wednesday, I hope the House will allow me to suspend the Standing Orders and take the Third Reading the same night.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think that is quite reasonable. I do not know that Wednesday would be particularly convenient, but if it is the most convenient day does it mean that the Motion standing in my name on Wednesday will be displaced? That Motion is not likely to take a long time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as to the Motion of the noble Lord being displaced he knows that under an Order already passed by the House Government business has precedence every night.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought it only had precedence if the Government desired it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I could not make an exception; that would not be right. At this stage of the Session I appeal to your Lordships to think what happens in the House of Commons. Usually long before this date the Government have taken the whole time of the House and I have only ventured on this occasion to ask your Lordships to have the whole time of the last week of the Session.
LORD PARMOOR: I understand what the noble Marquess says, but there is nothing so far as I know on the Paper for to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to-morrow.
LORD PARMOOR: Without displacing any Bill in any way would the noble Marquess assent to my Motion being advanced to to-morrow and to take its chance of coming on after the other business? I am anxious to bring it on and it seems to me that to-morrow I should probably have the opportunity. I would desire to do that, and, if the noble Marquess would assent to it, it would take away any difficulty.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord must take whatever course he likes. He will have to put a Motion down to anticipate, which is usually agreed to, but that of course is for him to decide. I can only manage the Government side of the business, and I am afraid I cannot alter what I have said with respect to the Government business.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, may I make a suggestion which I hope will be equally agreeable to both sides? It is this. While the noble Lord's Motion should remain as it is on the Paper for Wednesday, is it too much to take to-morrow the Report stage of the Bill which we have just been discussing? I should have no objection to the noble Marquess taking it to-morrow. Perhaps he would allow me to make yet another suggestion, which may be of some assistance, that is, to put down a general Motion suspending Standing Order No. XXXIX for the remainder of the Session. It has been common in the past to do that ten days, or even more, before the end of the Session. The noble
1456
Marquess has not done it on this occasion, but I am quite sure if the Rating Bill be taken to-morrow we might get that out of the way and leave room for the noble and learned Lord's Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl is a master of procedure in your Lordships' House. I understand the significance of his suggestion to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX. I wish I had asked the noble Earl earlier and very likely the Government would have availed themselves of that concession. As to taking the Report stage of this Bill to-morrow the difficulty is that certain Amendments have to be framed and Notice has to be given of them, and, as responsible for the order of your Lordships' House in a rather prominent degree, I could not ask your Lordships to hurry that particular stage more than is absolutely necessary. I believe, as a matter of fact, that one of the noble Earl's political friends who sits next him expects the Bill to be taken on Wednesday and has a very important matter which he wishes to raise. In the circumstances I think we had better adhere to the arrangement I have suggested—to take the Report stage on Wednesday and the Third Reading immediately afterwards.
LORD PARMOOR: I regret that the noble Marquess has not assented to the suggestion made by the noble Earl. I think he said in the first instance that that Report could be taken to-morrow. There is no difficulty. All the points are known. Surely that would be a fair way of dealing with the business.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I really do not think it is reasonable for the noble Lord to press me. I do my best to arrange the business to meet the convenience of everybody.
LORD PARMOOR: I quite agree with that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lord Gainford is very much interested in the Bill, and he is not here now.
LORD PARMOOR: He will not be here on Wednesday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He has arranged with me that it will be convenient, as far as he is concerned, that the Bill should be taken on Wednesday.

1457
May I say that if the noble Lord wishes to question the Government, as he is quite entitled to do, on foreign affairs, he will have every opportunity on Thursday? The day will be almost at his disposal as far as I can tell.
EARL RUSSELL: Did not the noble Marquess say that it was proposed to take the Committee stage of the Companies Bill on Wednesday? Would he propose to take that before or after the Report stage of this Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it would have to come after the Report stage of this Bill. It will be put down after.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not wish to keep up the discussion, but I must say I think it rather monstrous at this stage to put down for Wednesday what ought to be discussed to-morrow, in order to displace a very important matter indeed.

COMPANIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time, and in doing so I desire to make an explanation of the circumstances in which this Bill comes before your Lordships' House at this stage of the Session. If this were the first appearance of this Bill in any shape it would be impossible, I think, to ask your Lordships reasonably to apply any intelligent consideration to a Bill of this length. But in fact this is not the first appearance of the Bill. The Bill has a history of which I should like to remind your Lordships in a very few words. It was at the beginning of 1925 that the President of the Board of Trade appointed a Departmental Committee to consider and report what amendments were desirable in the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1917. The Committee which the President of the Board of Trade selected for that duty was one of exceptional strength and of an exceptionally representative character. The Chairman was Mr. Wilfrid Greene, most of whom your Lordships know by name, a very prominent authority at the Chancery Bar, and the Committee embraced
1458
representatives, and leading representatives, of the solicitors practising in the City, of chartered accountants and incorporated accountants, of chambers of commerce, of the Federation of British Industries and of the Committee of the Stock Exchange, and indeed of all those persons who are more or less constantly brought into contact with company legislation and company law in the ordinary course of their duties. The Committee consisted of some fourteen members in all, every one of whom would be unhesitatingly selected as a leading expert in his particular branch of company law.
That Committee held, I think, some 38 or 39 sittings, and examined about the same number of witnesses. In May, 1926, some sixteen months after their appointment, they presented a Report in which they suggested a number of alterations in the law. I do not desire to read to your Lordships the whole of their Report, but I would remind your Lordships that the Committee reported that the system of company law and practice in force in this country
"has stood the test of years, and in our opinion should not be altered in any matter of principle except where alteration is imperatively demanded."
After going on to review the very satisfactory general position as regards company law, they went on to say:—
"There are a number of matters of principle as to which we are unanimous in recommending an alteration of the law. These recommendations are set forth in the First Part of this Report which also contains our general observations on the principal matters brought to our attention. In addition, there are numerous alterations of a minor character which we recommend and these are set out in the Second Part of the Report."
On the basis of that Report a Bill was drafted and was introduced into your Lordships' House at the beginning of last year.
That Bill was very carefully examined and considered by your Lordships. We had the advantage of a number of suggestions and criticisms, not so much on matters of principle, as to which I think there was on the whole general agreement, but as to various technical and drafting matters which various societies such as the Law Society and the chartered accountants and others were able to suggest. As a result the Bill was amended in a number of respects and duly passed your Lordships' House

1459
in the Session of 1927. Most unfortunately the pressure of business was such at that time that it was impossible to pass the Bill through the other House before the Session ended, and the result, to the great disadvantage, as I think, of the business community at large, was that the Bill was dropped for that Session. The Government had to consider what steps to take in regard to the present Session. It would have been possible, of course, to reintroduce the Bill into your Lordships' House at the beginning of this Session. The Bill which we determined to introduce was almost verbatim, with one or two slight drafting alterations, in exactly the form in which it had ultimately passed your Lordships' House in 1927, and it seemed to us therefore that it would be rather a waste of your Lordships' time to ask this House again to consider a Bill which they had exhaustively considered and passed in the previous Session. We thought the better plan was that it should be introduced at once into the House of Commons, to enable the Bill to be considered there at an earlier date and give it a better opportunity therefore of passing through another place. That was the course adopted.
The Bill was introduced in another place in substantially the exact form in which it had passed this House in 1927. The Bill so introduced was, in effect, a Bill sent down from this House to the other House. It was exhaustively considered there in the Standing Committee, a number of Amendments were suggested and discussed and some Amendments were made. Most of them, I think, were comparatively small and I need not occupy your Lordships' time with them. Five or six of them, however, were more important, and to those I propose to draw attention in a moment. Ultimately the Bill, after this exhaustive consideration in Committee, passed through another place last week and so comes before your Lordships to-day. In those circumstances I do not think that I should be profitably occupying the time of the House if I were to go through it again as if your Lordships had not already considered it, but I think that I might usefully call attention to the five or six more important alterations—I think there are no more than that—which have been made in the Bill as it passed this House last year.
1460
The first point to which I wish to call attention arises on Clause 3, which is the clause prohibiting alterations in the memorandum or articles of a company which would increase the liability of existing members to contribute to share capital. That clause has been introduced as the result of a decision of your Lordships' House sitting judicially, which held that an alteration could be made which bound existing members to take up further shares and increase their liability in respect of share capital. This has been put right by Clause 3. Then I come to Clause 37, which is the clause which deals with the issue of shares at a discount. That is a matter which has provoked acute controversy. It was discussed, I think, at some length last year and it has been discussed at great length in the Standing Committee in another place. There was one section of opinion which desired to prohibit altogether the issue of shares at a discount, and there were others who desired practically to give companies a free hand. As the result of long discussion a compromise was reached which satisfied both sections. It was that companies should be allowed to issue shares at a discount, but that, before they were able to do so, there should be in the first place a resolution of the company desiring to make such an issue, and in the second place the sanction of the Court should be obtained just in the same way as it is obtained now if a company desires to reduce its capital. That compromise satisfies both points of view and now appears as Clause 37.
The next alteration to which I should call attention is found in Clause 40, which contains provisions as to the form of balance sheet that is required. An Amendment has been made in this clause as it left your Lordships' House which renders it necessary to insert in the balance sheet such particulars as are required in order to distinguish between the fixed and the floating assets, and I am able to tell your Lordships that this alteration has been approved by those members of Mr. Wilfred Greene's Committee who represent the two societies of accountants, the Chartered Accountants and the Incorporated Accountants.
I can now pass, I think, to the clause dealing with the remuneration and fees of directors. Clauses 79 and 80 deal with

1461
the question of how far the remuneration of directors is to be disclosed. This is a matter which is obviously difficult, because on the one hand it is desirable that shareholders should know what fees and emoluments directors are receiving, and on the other hand there are cases in which it is undesirable in the company's interest that its rivals should be in a position to know just how much managing directors and the responsible officials of that character are being paid, because it offers to them at any rate an opportunity of outbidding the present employer. As the result of those conflicting views, Clause 79 provides that the ordinary remuneration of directors shall appear in the balance sheets, and Clause 80 provides that the remuneration of managing directors shall be disclosed if, and only if, one-quarter of the voting share capital requires such disclosure and the company does not by resolution in general meeting determine that such disclosure shall not be made. That, I think, meets the two points of view, and those provisions are to be found in Clauses 79 and 80. In Clause 82 there is a new provision compelling the disclosure of payments received by directors for loss of office or on retirement, a matter which has sometimes in the past led to abuse when there have been amalgamations and sales of the assets of one company to another.
I think that the only other clauses to which I need call attention are Clauses 92 and 93, which deal with what is sometimes described as share-pushing—that is to say, the sale of shares to unwary persons by more or less irresponsible hawkers—and with the prospectuses of foreign companies whose shares are being sold in this country. Some Amendments have been introduced into that clause in order to safeguard the position of those large houses that are carrying on a very important business in this country with great advantage to the country in the sale of shares to their own clients and customers and to such establishments as banks, trust companies and the like. The object, of course, in all these cases is on the one hand to protect the small and unwary investor from being exploited, and on the other hand to avoid the imposition of such restrictions as would hamper ordinary and legitimate business. I think that these two clauses, as they
1462
have been amended, meet the criticisms that have been directed against them, and your Lordships will find the Amendments set out in them.
Those, I think, are the principal alterations in the Bill. There are minor matters with which I do not think I need trouble your Lordships at this stage. I have tried to call attention to the salient points. In effect your Lordships' House is being asked to deal with a Bill which has once been through this House, which has been amended in another place, and with regard to the amendment of which, in the ordinary course, there would be only the one discussion as to agreement or disagreement with the Commons. Owing to the fact that we passed the Bill in one Session and the House of Commons in another it has to go through the longer and more dignified form of passing all its stages afresh in this House, but it is not a Bill that calls for a Second Reading in the ordinary sense as embodying a new principle. It is a Bill that is designed to meet certain defects in company law which experience has shown to exist and which have been detected by most careful and experienced men of business and lawyers. I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and that, after the explanations that I have ventured to submit to your Lordships, there can be no difficulty in the way of its reaching the Statute Book and so, as I believe, conferring benefits upon the community at large. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am entirely in accord with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that this is in itself an admirable Bill. It is a Bill which has been very largely discussed in this House and which, I hope, will find its place upon the Statute Book this Session. It appears to me that there is no reason why it should not do so. I thank the noble and learned Lord for having directed attention to the points of major alteration that have been made in the Bill since it was passed in this House last year. That is what I understand him to have done, and I have made a note of those points. I think that in the other place this Bill in its present form was discussed a long time

1463
in Standing Committee, and no doubt, regarding our position as that of a revising chamber, it would have been a great advantage if we had been able to consider this measure at an earlier date; but I assume that has not been possible, and I do not propose to make any further comment on the Bill at the present time. If any question arises on the particular points to which the Lord Chancellor has called attention they can be more conveniently dealt with on the Committee stage. I see the Leader of the House in his place, and I was going to make a suggestion to him about public business.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Let us confine ourselves for the present to the Companies Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I have said that we do not oppose the Second Reading. I think it is an admirable Bill which ought to find a place on the Statute Book, but there are points of some difficulty that we want to look into. It is not a question of stopping the Bill in any way, but having regard to the way in which the matter has been put forward I would suggest that it might be better that we should take the next stage on Thursday morning, which would lighten the business for Wednesday afternoon, and I think give far more time for us to consider a Bill of this kind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can merely tell the noble and learned Lord that I shall have to confer with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack before making any statement as to business with regard to this Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I thank the noble Marquess.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack told us that we are practically now considering the Commons Amendments, and he therefore suggests that it is a small matter. After the extraordinarily lucid way in which he put forward the five or six important alterations, no doubt your Lordships are inclined to believe that it is a small matter. I am not so disposed. Moreover, there are a very large number of other alterations which may not be so important, and practically we are not considering the Bill which we passed last year, but considering alterations which amount in themselves
1464
to an enormous Bill of very great importance. I have followed this Bill closely from the Report of the Greene Committee to the present time. I quite agree that it has been very much improved since it first came into this House, and that an immense amount of work has been done upon it in Parliament and outside. I think we ought to be very grateful to the Law Society, to the Chartered Accountants, and to others, who have given Parliament such valuable assistance.
For all that, in my opinion this is not a Bill which ought to be passed into law without further consideration. This Bill is a sort of Fools' Charter, and its object is to protect the fool and punish the rogue, and this no doubt would be, if successful, for the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but the danger of this Bill is similar to that of firing into a crowd of rioters, in which you generally find that you kill a few women, who are going about their ordinary business, while the rioters escape. At risk of appearing egotistical, up to the issue of the Report of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons I felt on comparing this Bill clause by clause, that I had a fair grip of the situation, although I estimate there are nine new clauses and twenty-six alterations of substance in the subsections—I do not say as important as those to which the noble and learned Lord referred—not counting verbal and drafting Amendments. Moreover, on Wednesday and Thursday last three new clauses were added, and I think twenty Amendments made to subsections. These may have been Amendments to Amendments—I am not sure. It appears to me that some of these alterations have been made in a hurry. The House of Commons never had an opportunity of considering this Bill as a whole. Therefore one cannot say that the Bill has been properly revised in that House, and there is no time to revise it here. Anyhow, with these alterations I am now in a state of complete bewilderment, and I do not believe that there is a single company lawyer who has followed the discussions who is not in the same condition. I venture to say that this Bill must be studied as a whole before anyone can express a trustworthy opinion about it. Of course I ought to except from that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack,

1465
but I will say anyone else. For my part, although I have endeavoured to get a copy of the Bill at the earliest possible moment I did not receive it until this morning. Your Lordships passed the First Reading of the Bill before it was printed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We always do.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: It seems strange to me. Even if we are to be regarded as contemptibles I suggest that to pass the Second Reading before any of us have had time properly to read the Bill is a little too much. Those who live in London may have got their copy of the Bill on Saturday and therefore spent the day of rest in reading its 118 clauses, but I have not had time to read it at all, and I wish to say, by way of protest, that I have devoted an immense amount of time to this Bill and yet am now quite incapable of forming a considered opinion upon it in anything like the time at our disposal. This, of course, is no concern of anyone else, but I would ask how noble Lords can be expected to take an interest in the affairs of this House when circumstances such as I have described occur regularly at the end of the Session. I believe I am expressing the opinion of the Leader of the House when I say that there is no reason, apart from constitutional usage, why we should not take this Bill at the beginning of next Session, when we should have time to revise it.
I had it in mind to move the rejection of the Bill or to move that it should be referred to a Select Committee, which I think would be the obviously proper course, but I felt that neither of those courses would be acceptable to your Lordships, because I suppose that we have now become resigned to being treated, at the end of the Session, as a registry office and not as a revising chamber. Some of us tried to refer the Landlord and Tenant Bill to a Select Committee and your Lordships may remember the result in the Lobby. It was not very encouraging. I understand that the Landlord and Tenant Bill is an impossible Bill to work, but that some ingenious person has found a way of driving a coach and four through it, and that therefore it cannot do the harm anticipated of it. If any one can drive
1466
a coach and four through this Bill it will be the rogue and not the honest man. Although we are no longer, at this end of the Session, a revising chamber, we still have power to ensure that Bills, before they become law, shall have a chance of revision, if not by us at least by someone, and I shall venture to propose an Amendment of this Bill which, if accepted, will ensure delay. I am afraid I have made something of a Committee speech, but I have done so because I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if he does not agree with my Amendment, of which I have given him private notice, may at least find some better way of ensuring that this Bill is revised before it becomes operative and that your Lordships will be able to insist that it is so revised.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord, with his large practical acquaintance with these matters and with the study which, as he has told us, he has devoted to this Bill and the reports upon the subject, finds himself at this stage unable thoroughly to grasp the Bill itself and the alterations in it, your Lordships will not be surprised if other people have failed even more signally. This Bill was considered—I think I am right in saying—for weeks in Standing Committee in another place and there was every sort of discussion of all the points and every sort of Amendment. Most of your Lordships received this Bill this morning, we are taking the Second Reading to-day and we are to have the Committee stage on Wednesday. I make no complaint of that because what is the use? We cannot help it and it certainly is not the fault of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House; I realise that to the full. If he could have given us more time or got the Bill earlier I am perfectly certain that he would have done so, but it is really reducing your Lordships' House to a farce in a matter of this sort. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke very lightly of the changes, or rather minimised them, but still there are changes, and very considerable changes, which have been the subject of much discussion. As far as I am concerned I see no possible hope of taking any part in the Committee stage—I do not say for a moment that it is any loss to the Bill—and I am sure that other noble Lords find themselves in the same position. It

1467
is really rather regrettable from the point of view of the use this House could be to the country.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon. I have been asked to present the views of the Debenture Corporation, who are distinctly anxious about certain clauses in the Bill. The principle throughout the Bill is to consider that people are guilty until they can prove their innocence. I think that, to begin with, is a transformation in the view that we generally hold about British justice. But there are also some very doubtful clauses in the Bill, especially Clause 73, dealing with companies in liquidation, which raises questions as to the position of a director of a company in liquidation being an officer of the company, and liable for actions taken after liquidation. I had always thought that when a company went into liquidation the director had no further power. But as that clause stands at the present time, we may find that we are subject to very heavy penalties and even to imprisonment. I know that it is not the fault of the noble Marquess that this Bill comes into one's hands only this morning and the Committee stage is to be on Wednesday, but I think the time is too short. I personally have been unable to consult the Trustees Corporation, nor have I been able to put the Bill before the solicitor of the Trustees Corporation.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I have listened to this debate with great interest and I hope that in view of the very large commercial interest involved in the Bill the Government may take some heed of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, and of the noble Marquess who has just spoken. After all, if there is one thing that we are proud of in this country it is our industrial corporations. If they are going to be hit in any way I think it would be a great pity. Is there such great necessity for this Bill? We heard from the speech of the Lord Chancellor that when that powerful Committee was set up to consider whether any amendments would be necessary it was found that on the whole the Companies Act was working rather well. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House said the other day that the new proposals
1468
were not trivial. If they are not trivial we ought really to consider them. In spite of the support given by the Leader of the Labour Party, who has been subsequently disavowed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—
EARL RUSSELL: Not in the least.
LORD JESSEL: Well, the noble Earl did not agree with his Leader, at any rate—I do think that in spite of that the Government might allow this Bill to have a little more time. If that is not possible, can they let it go over to next Session? There is no urgency. I think that after the speech of Lord Hunsdon, who is so intimately acquainted with the City and holds such great position there, some respect should be paid to what he has said. I do appeal to the Government. After all, this is not a political Bill; it affects the business of the City of London and of the country as a whole. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not regard it as an act of hostility on the part of their followers if we ask them to let this Bill stand over till next year.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I recognise—and I tried to make it clear when I was moving the Second Reading—that the time is regrettably very short, and I should very much have liked to have a longer time in order to enable your Lordships fully to consider all the provisions of the Bill. But when the noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, says that this is the regular practice I should like to point out two things. The first is that we are doing our best to try to get things better by the experiment we are introducing of ending the Session at the end of this week and commencing a new Session in the autumn, instead of letting the Session run on to Christmas and beginning the new Session in February. We hope that the effect of that will be that we shall get Bills started at an earlier stage in another place, get them into Committee earlier, and so get them earlier to this House. Secondly, I should like to point out that this Bill is a Bill in regard to which the abuse of which the noble Lord speaks is less flagrant than in an ordinary case, because it is a Bill which was introduced into the House of Commons in exactly the form in which it left this House, and if the present Session were not a

1469
new Session what we should have been doing to-day would have been merely considering the Amendments made in another place. No doubt they are important. But still, it is not the same as if we were asked to discuss a new Bill altogether.
As an illustration, a criticism has been directed at Clause 73, which the noble Marquess said he had had no opportunity to consider and discuss with the trustees of the great Corporation which he represents. Clause 73, which he criticised in that way, was passed through this House in identically the same form only it was Clause 67 a year ago, and there was abundance of time to consider it; there has been more than a year since it was first printed and appeared before your Lordships. Therefore really I think there is no legitimate complaint because we still have in this Bill a clause which was approved by your Lordships more than a year ago in exactly the same form. It only shows that the criticisms are not all quite reasonable.
Then Lord Jessel said there was no great urgency, and could we throw over the Bill till next Session? Having regard to the state of public business likely to ensue next Session, that almost certainly means that the Bill would never become law in this Parliament at all. And respectfully I do not altogether agree with the noble Lord when he says there is no great urgency. It is true that our joint stock company law has worked fairly satisfactorily but there has been no extensive revision of it for some twenty years. The Committee which was appointed did regard these matters which are embodied in this Bill as matters of importance, and, as Lord Hunsdon quite truly remarked, this is really what he called a Fools' Charter, though I should prefer to describe it as a measure to prevent rogues from swindling the unwary public. I think it would be a grave damage to the business of the City of London if no steps were taken to stop these holes, which have been discovered and pointed out by this Committee, and if we were to leave to some unspecified date in the future the opportunity of preventing this swindling and depriving of their means and driving to ruin many people who cannot afford to have their savings thrown away.
1470
I think it would be a very great public misfortune if this Bill did not reach the Statute Book. Although I quite understand and realise that it is a great task to impose upon your Lordships to ask your Lordships to consider Amendments at this late date of the Session, still I hope that your Lordships from a sense of the public mischief which would otherwise ensue, will put aside that difficulty, will face the task and will enable the Government to place this most beneficent measure upon the Statute Book during the present Session. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will see your way to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REGISTRATION (BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill which I recommend to your Lordships only if you are willing to accept it. May I say with reference to the conversation regarding what has just passed that I will not press this Bill through if there is substantial opposition to it in your Lordships' House. I know that my noble friend opposite is anxious to criticise its provisions. I do not say that it follows that the criticism even of so important a Peer as the noble Lord would of itself be fatal; but if there is any substantial wish on the part of your Lordships generally not to proceed with the Bill at this late date I shall not ask the House to carry it through.
Having said so much, may I say that the object of the Bill is to correct certain hardships which have long been felt by the registrars in this country. Three sets of registrars are dealt with—superintendent registrars, registrars of births and deaths, and registrars of marriages. They exist under a system which is long out of date and have great grievances to complain of. Their remuneration is arbitrary, it is inequitable, it is capricious, and they have no proper prospect of promotion in the profession which they have adopted.

1471
For many years registrars of births and deaths and registrars of marriages have asked for relief and have not got it. All these registrars are paid by fees. Sometimes the fees are paid by the public, sometimes by the local authority, and sometimes by the Exchequer. But their whole remuneration is by fee and the scale, which is fixed by Statute, is quite irrational—I mean, that less is paid for work which is more laborious than is paid for work which is less laborious—and in many respects very inadequate. That inadequacy arises from the fact that the fees were fixed a long time ago and that the cost of living, the value of money, and so forth have altered since then.
Lastly, the fees fluctuate in number and there is no certainty about the incomes of these professional gentlemen. Births, as everybody knows, are diminishing, over the whole country, and in different districts the number of births varies; and the same is true of marriages. Then, perhaps, on the borders of a district an institution is built, a hospital let us say, which absorbs a lot of the births and deaths, carrying them out of the district to which naturally they would have belonged and giving the fees, therefore, to another registrar. Those are the sort of incidents which happen and which make the whole system inadequate and capricious. The obvious remedy, and the one which the Bill adopts, is that instead of these gentlemen being paid by fees they should henceforth receive salaries. That is the main object of the Bill. Those salaries are fixed and settled upon a certain standard of service in comparison with other public services in the country. A certain elasticity has to be allowed because, although in general the fee income is less than the salaries which are to be proposed, in particular cases it is not so. Particular registrars would enjoy a better income under the present system than they would under the new system, and their vested interest has to be considered. Therefore, in the case of existing registrars the provisions of the Bill are made optional, and they are not compelled to come under it unless they wish. Naturally, if their fee income is less than the salary they will come under the Bill. On the other hand, if their fee income is larger than the salary, probably they will not come under it.
1472
With regard to existing registrars, as I say, the Bill is optional, but with regard to all future appointments it is not.
In order to provide the money for these salaries, which as I have explained will, on the whole, be larger than the fees, power is taken to increase the fees to not more than 50 per cent. higher than they are at present. All the increment from these increased fees will be paid into a central fund. In the case of future appointments or of registrars who elect at once to come under the new system, the whole of the fees will be paid into the central fund, and that central fund will form a pool out of which salaries will be paid. The system is quite simple.
I have said enough to show the mischief and inadequacy of the present system of remuneration and the remedy which the Bill proposes, and I desire to say a word or two regarding the prospects of promotion in the service. At the present moment the appointment of these registrars lies with the guardians. That is not absolutely without exception but broadly it is true. It is not a good system because the guardians have no responsibility for the conduct of the service. Moreover, in the great majority of cases they have no opportunity of rewarding a good registrar. They have only a very limited area over which they have jurisdiction in appointing the registrars and, as everybody knows, the propects of promotion in a service so limited are very bad. As I have said, they have no interest in the service; consequently, they have merely the patronage. That is not at all a desirable system.
Now that the salaries, if the Bill passes, are to be paid out of a central fund, it would follow that the appointments should be central instead of local. It is proposed in the Bill that the appointments should be made by the Registrar-General subject to certain limitations. The matter, therefore, will be put on a regular footing. The Registrar-General is himself deeply interested in the conduct of the service and, as the master of it, he will naturally take a great interest in the appointments of the registrars. He will have the whole thing in his hands, and, where the conduct of a registrar justifies it, he will have an opportunity, by the exercise of his power as Registrar-General, to

1473
make such promotion as is deserved. The system will, therefore, as we think, work in a thoroughly satisfactory way.
The Bill, is, I need not say, heartily approved by the Association of Registrars of Births and Deaths. They see that this will put their service on a footing far better than it has been on before. I believe the superintendent registrars are not quite so satisfied. That is not because they would be financially worse off, for the interests of all existing registrars are safeguarded under the Bill. They need not come under it unless they please. As a matter of practice the superintendent registrar's office is generally held by the clerks of guardians, and they apparently prefer that the present system should go on under which the office should be held as part of the patronage of the guardians in every case. I do not think that kind of objection, which has nothing substantial about it—there is no loss under the new system even to the superintendent registrars—is likely to have a great deal of weight with your Lordships. Some of the boards of guardians similarly object. They do not want to lose their patronage. There again, once it can be shown that these registrars are entitled to better treatment than they have had in the past, that the present system of payment of fees cannot provide them with that better treatment, and that you must have a centralised system, I do not think your Lordships would wish that objections upon the grounds of patronage should be allowed to prevail. Therefore it seems there is nothing to be said against the Bill.
The only other objection which has been indicated to me is the sort of objection which one so often hears: "Why make a change like this when the Poor Law is going to be overhauled in the near future; better wait until it is overhauled." Accidents do happen, and at any rate it is not fair that these registrars up and down the country, who have for years asked Parliament to remedy their grievances, should be put off merely on the ground that, as I hope will be the case in a few months, a better Poor Law system will be laid before the country. There is nothing permanent in these Acts of Parliament, and if in the new Poor Law system it may turn out to be right to modify this Bill which I
1474
am asking your Lordships to pass, that will have to be considered and Parliament may be asked to make a modification. But as matters stand these gentlemen have come to us for justice and I ask your Lordships to give them justice. I move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lord, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. The reason I do that is that it really is a controversial Bill. I notice that the noble Marquess who leads the House said last week that we had to consider whether a Bill is so little controversial as to be suitable to be dealt with by your Lordships rather than that the interests which are involved of those persons whose positions are dealt with should be allowed to stand by. If it was merely a question of whether underpaid servants of local authorities should have their remuneration raised that would be a very different matter, and I should be the last person to oppose a Bill which was to get rid of any injustice. But this Bill goes a great deal further than that. It really is a Bill for centralisation, and the effect of it in practice will be to create perhaps some two or three thousand more Government officials. At the present moment, for all practical purposes, these officials for the registration of births, deaths and marriages are servants of the local authorities, and are appointed by them, but it is intended by this Bill to alter that entirely. Again, the noble Marquess said, as regards the 650 superintendent registrars, that there was no increase of pay to them and that apparently they were not dissatisfied. They are the most important people who deal with these matters. It seems to me that undoubtedly there is going to be an increase of expenditure both under Clause 7 and Clause 8, and that increased expenditure will have to come out of the pockets either of the taxpayer or the ratepayer. We always find, when there are changes of this sort, when we get more centralisation, that there is greater expenditure.
Why do I say there will be more expenditure? We shall have to pay larger salaries to get this work done by whole-time officers. That, I understand, is contemplated by the Government in the Bill. In most cases these officers at present are part-time

1475
officers. There is not enough work in many areas to occupy their whole time and they are engaged in other directions. I cannot see that there is any objection to that in the case of a registrar of births, deaths and marriages. It is not such an important matter as to take up the whole of a person's time in many places. On the other hand, it has been said that it saves money not only to the local authority but to the working classes who have to register births, deaths and marriages, but I understand from what the noble Marquess said that the fees are to be increased by 50 per cent. That increase will fall very heavily on the working classes. A small increase would not be so objectionable, but an increase of 50 per cent. in order to pay higher salaries to underpaid officials is a serious matter for those who will have to pay the increased fees. It is really impossible to get any explanation of the Bill or to attempt to do anything in Committee owing to the present state of business. One has also to remember that Clause 3 provides for another set of officials to carry out the central fees fund. Again you will have more officials to pay. The present Government always seem to be anxious to increase the power of Whitehall. Clause 4 empowers the Minister of Health to increase the statutory fees payable, and that seems to me very remarkable, for it gives power to the Minister, on his own initiative, to do that. Up to now these fees have been imposed by Statute, and it seems to me an extraordinary invasion of rights to give that power to the Minister.
The more one considers this Bill the more objections one finds to it. I would point out that it is not a Government Bill in the ordinary sense of the word. It is a Bill that was brought in by a private member in another place and when it comes here it is adopted by the Government. It seems rather curious that the Government should have done that. It is not a usual thing for them to do. They did not do it in the case of the Racecourse Betting Bill. Though they support that Bill it is still in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. I cannot see why the Government should take up this Bill. They cannot say it is a non-controversial Bill. I am informed that the Association of Municipal Corporations are opposed to it, and object to its proceeding further. I
1476
also understand it has been considered very carefully indeed by the Poor Law Association, which represents some 620 boards of guardians out of 650, and they have told me to-day that they are entirely opposed to the Bill as it now appears. I do not see that the noble Marquess can say that it is a non-controversial Bill in any sense of the word.
The noble Marquess has himself referred to what will take place in the next Session of Parliament. He has told us that there will be proposals regarding local government, and in all probability, as we know, boards of guardians will be abolished. But that is no reason why this patronage should not be transferred to another local authority, the urban district council. I should have thought that this question was exactly one of those which it was undesirable to prejudge, and that it would have been much better to have waited for the Report of the Royal Commission. You are proposing to throw on these local authorities the burden of providing offices for these registration officers and it is a further hardship, I think, that they should have to provide superannuation for these registration officers. I must say that this Bill can hardly be taken as uncontroversial, and for that reason it does seem to me rather extraordinary that the noble Marquess has asked us to give it a Second Reading at this time of the Session.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord strachie.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like quite briefly to support the Amendment moved by Lord Strachie. This Bill certainly deals with a controversial matter. It is controversial as between the local government principle and the centralisation of officialism in this country. I think that is always a matter of controversy and has been for a very long time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I promised that if this Bill was substantially opposed in the present Session I would not press it. Therefore if he moves the adjournment of the debate I shall not resist it.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in those circumstances I will move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned accordingly.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bills had been endorsed with certificates from the Speaker that they are Money Bills within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this is a Bill to authorise the issue of further capital for telephone development and postal and telegraph business. I could give your Lordships particulars as to the rate at which the telephone business has developed, and other information, but I think at this late hour perhaps you do not wish it. I will therefore formally move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this is, as you know, an annual Bill which is very rarely discussed in this House. I think, therefore, that I need not trouble your Lordships with any details. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE): My Lords, further discussion having taken place with regard to this Bill between the principal parties concerned, it has been found necessary to move an Amendment to Clause 10. As it was not possible to put that Amendment on the Paper to-day, I will ask your Lordships to allow the Third Reading to be postponed until to-morrow.
Motion for the Third Reading put off till to-morrow accordingly.

MARRIAGES (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wraxall.)
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I beg to move as an Amendment to insert at the end of the Motion the words "this day six months." This Bill has been sprung upon the House. I do not know what hour it is, but it is a very late hour. This Bill has never been discussed this Session in the House of Commons at all. There was no public discussion of any sort or kind in the House of Commons. The Bill slipped through by inadvertence and was sent to a Standing Committee. We have no report whatever as to what happened in that Standing Committee. I know from private information that opinion was not all one way, and that there was a division of opinion upon it. I would humbly submit to your Lordships that it would be really something in the nature of a scandal if we at this time of night and at this stage of the Session passed a Bill which completely alters the law of marriage in this country without any more discussion than we had last week, a discussion which lasted for about fifteen or twenty minutes. The Bill came unexpectedly before the House. I do not think a great many members even knew what was in the Bill. I suggest that the Bill will not suffer by being delayed until next Session. There has been no public demand for the Bill. I venture to say

1479
there is not one in a hundred of your Lordships who has received any letter asking him to support the Bill or to press it on. In the circumstances I venture to submit that no possible harm can be done by postponing it until next Session. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
At the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months.")—(Viscount Ullswater.)
LORD WRAXALL: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Viscount is not correct in what he said about the Bill not having been before the country. It is true that during the present Session there has not been much discussion in the other House on the subject, but that is largely due to the fact that last year this Bill was discussed at considerable length and agreement was come to on the subject. As far as my information goes opinion on the subject in the other House was almost unanimous, and though I have no more detailed information than my noble friend possesses as to what happened in Committee I am assured there was complete unanimity when it actually passed the House in its last stages. I cannot agree with the noble Viscount that letters are any criterion about anything. Those of us who have been in the House of Commons know how much we can rely on letters. Over and over again we have had letters from dozens and dozens of people on a comparatively unimportant measure. On an important measure you very often get no letters whatever. I do not suppose that noble Lords would get letters on this subject unless they were in my position of having introduced the Bill. Since I took up this Bill I have had many letters on the subject. I know that those who were responsible for its conduct in another place also had many letters. They have received letters for many years past from people who were waiting, as I said the other day, for this Bill to pass. I must resist the noble Viscount's Amendment.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I venture to support the Amendment of the noble Viscount. The state of this House at the present moment is sufficient answer to those who say that we should pass a measure which really makes a gigantic change in the whole Christian law of marriage. The law of affinity is practically abolished by this measure, and
1480
the law of affinity has been from earliest times part of the Christian law of marriage. I am not trying to say that there are not arguments to be urged in favour of this measure, but I have tried in vain to discover the demand that is said to exist for it. Since the debate of a few days ago I have been making further inquiries and I find that nobody seems to realise that the thing is going on. The absence of demand is most emphatic, and I feel that to try, at this stage of the Session with a House which I ask your Lordships to look round and observe, to pass a measure of this kind after the very brief discussion that it has had here before and the absence of discussion in the House of Commons, is really an unfair thing to do to the people of this country. We are not called upon, and we ought not to be called upon, to make so drastic and far-reaching a change, which will so greatly affect the homes of the country, without a great deal of quiet consideration and examination of the whole subject.
I should be perfectly ready—I should be perfectly ready were I here—to discuss the matter on any future occasion fully and honestly, but I want to see whether or not there is adequate demand for it and to know what is to be said for or against it. I cannot but feel that we should be acting to the discredit of this House were we now to make so large a change at this stage of the Session, at this hour of the night and with the numbers that I see in the House at this time. When people speak about this Bill they forget how far-reaching it is. It is changing something that comes from the very beginning of the Christian marriage laws, and something that goes far beyond that in its origins and character. I will not go into that point, but it is a tremendous change and this is not the way or the time to make it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I confess that I find myself in a very considerable difficulty with regard to the Amendment which has been moved. I am anxious to vote for the Amendment that has been put upon the Paper by the noble Viscount upon the Cross Benches (Viscount Ullswater) for consideration in Committee. It seems to me perfectly impossible in these matters to make a distinction between the two

1481
sexes and, if you give liberty to the man to marry a number of his relations, you ought to give the same permission to the woman. I have too keen a recollection of the disagreeable things that I suffered in the old suffragette days to take any step that is likely to make me undergo experiences of the same kind once more. Accordingly, if we go into Committee, I shall certainly vote with the noble Viscount. Meanwhile, however, there is the other point that has been raised both by the noble Viscount and by the most rev. Primate. I think it is very difficult, if we look at the emptiness of the House, to pretend there is any great keenness in favour of this measure and, because I do not like your Lordships to be asked to consider measures of this kind so late in the Session, I for my part shall vote for the Amendment and, if the Amendment is not carried, for the reasons that I have given I shall vote for the Amendment that will be proposed in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has moved this Amendment was for many years the distinguished guardian of order in another place. I confess that, in view of that fact, the course that he has taken surprised me. Your Lordships have a perfectly well-settled—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not out of order.
EARL RUSSELL: I did not say that it was out of order. I was going to say that your Lordships have a perfectly well-settled course of procedure in regard to Bills. The principle of a Bill is properly discussed upon the Second Reading. This Bill was put down in the ordinary way for a Second Reading and it was available in the ordinary way before the Second Reading for all members of your Lordships' House who were interested in it. The usual course, when there is a strong feeling against a Bill, is to put down an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading in which you challenge the principle of the Bill and upon which, if you so desire, you take a Division. Nobody took that course. This Bill came up here for Second Reading without any one having put down an Amendment. There was a discussion on the Second Reading and, even in that discussion no one moved the rejection of the Bill and no Division
1482
was taken. Your Lordships must therefore be taken to have assented at that time to the principle of the Bill on a Second Reading.
That is the regular and constitutional practice in this House, and now to come to the Motion to go into Committee, when there is on the Order Paper only one Amendment to be moved in Committee, to make on that Motion Second Reading speeches and to treat that Motion as if it were a Motion for the Second Reading, seems to me to be in the highest degree inconvenient. I take up the challenge that there are not many noble Lords here. Why should there be? They had no reason to suppose that any Amendment of this sort was likely to be moved. They had no Notice of it. As to the idea that we cannot pass this Bill in Committee, I have seen much more important Bills than this pass through Committee without many more noble Lords present than there are now, and sometimes a good many fewer, at this stage of the Session. I really hope that, in the interests of order and of the reasonable way of conducting our business, your Lordships will reject this Amendment now whatever steps you take when the Bill reaches Committee. To agree to it would be setting a bad example of order in your Lordships' House, and I hope that the Government will officially oppose it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am afraid that I interrupted the noble Earl in the middle of his speech to say that, in my humble judgment as a member of your Lordships' House, there is nothing out of order in the Motion that my noble friend on the Cross Benches has submitted. He is perfectly entitled, when the Question is put from the Woolsack, to vote against it if he thinks fit, and the ordinary form in which to negative the Motion is to move to insert the words "upon this day six months." Accordingly the Amendment is completely regular in point of order. As regards the matter of procedure, the noble Earl is entitled to his opinion and upon that I do not desire to express on my part any judgment. I really rose to say that this is not a Government Bill. It is not a Bill that was introduced by the Government in another place, nor was it introduced by the Government in this House. So far, therefore, as we on this Bench are

1483
concerned, every member of the Government is entitled to take whatever course he thinks fit.
There is a great deal to be said on both sides. It is perfectly true, as was said by my noble friend on the Second Reading and, I think, again to-night, that this Bill follows consequentially upon legislation that has already passed. That is true, and the Bill does appear to be consequential. On the other hand it does raise very important issues, and it is very inconvenient, as we always hear, as the noble Earl says and as I have said over and over again, to deal with important issues in the condition in which your Lordships' House is, without any time for elaborate consideration. It
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have received the figures of the Division. It appears that there are fewer than thirty Peers present. Therefore under Standing Order No. XXXIII I declare the Question not decided, and the debate thereon adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, this is a Bill which has passed through another place as an unopposed Bill. In fact the Second Reading, Report and Third Reading were all carried after twelve o'clock at night, showing that it was absolutely approved on all sides. Its object is to amend the law with regard to offences against young girls. Under the last Act no proceedings can take place unless taken within nine months of the commission of the offence. In the past it has been found continually necessary to extend that time, because under the
certainly is a matter on which any noble Lord may take either view. Personally I so much dislike the process of forcing through legislation in this House that I have great sympathy with the Amendment, but I cannot deny that, upon the merits of the Bill, I should not be prepared to oppose its passage, because of the history of this marriage question in the past. I merely rose to explain to your Lordships that, so far as the Government are concerned, they take no side as a Government in the issue submitted to the House.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be added shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Apb.

Sandwich, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Gainford, L.

Wellington, D.

Allendale, V.

Lawrence, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Bath, M.

Stanmore, L.

Cushendun, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Beauchamp, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Avebury, L.

Lucan, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Desborough, L.

Plymouth, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Jessel, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Wraxall, L. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Act of 1885 the time was three months, then it was increased to six months, and then to nine months, but in 1926 a Departmental Committee of the Home Office presided over first by the late Sir Ryland Adkins, and afterwards by Mr. Priestley, K.C., reported in favour of an extension from nine months to a year. At this late hour I need say no more, except to recommend the Bill to the House, because I understand that the Home Office are entirely in favour of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: On behalf of the Home Office I may state that they are in full sympathy with the Bill. It has the approval of the Home Office and also of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is a very short Bill, because all it does is to alter the word "nine" in the preceding Bill into "twelve."
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Carrington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

BRIDGWATER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
GOLDSMID ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
WHITBY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Bridlington Harbour Provisional Order.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

HULL GAS ORDER, 1928.
BRIGHTLINGSEA ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
NEW MILLS ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
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 in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BEDFORDSHIRE, ETC. ELECTRI CITY (LITTLE BARFORD GENER ATING STATION) ORDER, 1928.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House, that a Petition against the Order was presented but has since been withdrawn, that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House, and that they have considered the proposed modifications and recommend their adoption to the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.