moved to leave out Clause 26. The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 26 gives power to the Burnley Corporation to sell electrical fittings. The history of this power is as follows. Up to 1902 there were powers given to various corporations to supply and sell electrical fittings, but after that year, there being a strong feeling against encouraging municipal trading, no further powers were given to sell electrical fittings. Powers were given to supply electrical fittings on hire, because it was stated by the corporation that they were in a better position to let fittings on hire than private contractors, and that it would probably encourage the supply of electricity if they were allowed to let fittings on hire, but the purchase of fittings had to be made through a contractor.

My Lords, as the Chairman of the Committee which unanimously gave the power sought for in this Bill I hope your Lordships will allow me to give you some of our reasons for so doing. The Burnley Corporation, in fact, only ask for the same powers to be given to them as are given already to some eighty other local authorities. What is the position? I do not think Lord Banbury of Southam is quite correct as regards the model clause. He talked about it as though it had been turned down by the Committee. The model clause, for all practical purposes, does not exist at the moment. I will tell you what the position is. The model clause came into effect in 1912 and remained in force until 1919. It gave power to the corporations to sell, hire and repair, but not to wire. Up to 1919 that was the state of the law. It was rather a curious position. What happened after that? An alteration was made, although I ought to say that under the model clause, while there was no power to wire, yet there was power allowing a corporation to call in a middle-man, a contractor, and he only had the power of carrying out the work of wiring premises.

We all know that the middleman is rather expensive if you cannot do any work direct. It is hard on the corporation. The corporation had to pay the bill sent in by the contractor and then recover the money from the occupier after the wiring had been done. It was found that the model clause was not workable, was not desirable, and, perhaps, there was also an idea that we should make progress in this matter. I know the noble Lord does not like progress, but in 1919 the Electricity Act gave power to let for hire, repair and maintain and supply motive power. There was no power to sell, except when so authorised by a special Act or Order. It is obvious from that that the model clause was not working well and power was therefore given by Act or Order under that Act in particular eases to sell and manufacture. In this case they are not asking for power to manufacture; they are only asking for power to sell.

Obviously the Act of 1919 went a little further than the model clause. It enables a Committee of your Lordships' House to give this power to sell to a corporation. I can imagine that there may be cases where municipalities are extravagant, do their work badly, where they are in debt, and power would not be given. It is right that there should be discretionary powers, but in this case the Committee was unanimous in considering that the Corporation of Burnley had carried out their electricity powers very well indeed. Their rates were low as compared with many other boroughs and they were conducting the work very efficiently. The Burnley Corporation also own their own gas and water supply and it was shown that the municipality of Burnley consisted of good business men, capable of carrying on the work of the corporation and of being entrusted with further powers, such as the hiring and selling of electric wiring and fittings.

As regards gas and water Parliament has entrusted the municipalities in all these cases with absolute rights. There are no restrictions at all. The municipality often find it useful in the case of people who are not too will off, not only to have power to sell but to have power to sell on the deferred payment system. That is a common system throughout the country. Your Lordships' House have, indeed, gone a step further. In the case of Wakefield and Stoke-on-Trent you have allowed the corporations to hire the wire and fittings to the occupier of the house, and if there is a. change of occupier then the incoming occupier is allowed to buy the fittings and wiring. As a matter of fact, this power is not largely exercised. It is almost a dead letter, and there is no advantage to be gained from the cases of Wakefield and Stoke-on-Trent. This seems to me very desirable in the case of small houses. We all agree as regards the value of electricity. It is not merely a luxury, but in many cases a necessity, and there is no reason why members of the professional class, clerks and so on, as well as working men, should not enjoy the advantage of a supply. I have in my hand figures which show what is happening in the case of Burnley, where the approximate cost of wiring and fitting house of the rateable value of £15 a year is £12, while in the case of a house of the rateable value of £50 a year the cost is £60. A man might be very desirous of having electric light, but he might not be prepared to pay £60 down for it. On the other hand, if he is able to pay by means of deferred payments, he will do so if he desires the benefit of electric light.

Apart from the question of domestic lighting, I am informed that in many cases there is a great demand from people who want to have motive power. I am told that the cost of motors of one-half horse-power is from £9 to £13, and in the case of motors of ten horse-power the cost is from £32 to £40. Here, again, it seems very desirable that these small men should have an opportunity of paying by means of deferred payments when they need motive power to carry on some small industry and cannot afford to pay a lump sum. As regards the question of small houses, I think that the evidence that was given in this connection with regard to Burnley was rather interesting. It was then stated that mains had been laid along certain roads upon which 3,369 houses abutted, but only 1,060 houses were connected with the mains. Many persons not so connected were anxious to be connected and to take a supply of electricity if the difficulty with regard to wiring and fittings could be removed. That, I think, is very natural.

In the case of Barrow I will quote certain figures which, though not actually connected with this Bill, are very interesting. Evidence was given that in Barrow, out of 10,000 houses of a rateable value of less than £16, only some two or three thousand were supplied with electricity. The owners of many of the houses that were not supplied were anxious to have a supply, but could not afford to wire their premises under existing conditions. It will be seen, therefore, that there is a real demand for electricity in working-class houses, even of the rateable value of £16, as is shown by the fact that out of 10,000 houses some two or three thousand have it already, and the same facilities are desired in a very large number. I am sure that your Lordships would do anything that you possibly could to increase the comfort of working, men living in Burnley or in any other large town.

I cannot help feeling in this connection that since, in tin case of gas and water undertakings, it has been thought by Parliament that there should be no restrictions, electricity, which is even more useful than gas in some cases, should be at least upon an equality with it, and there is no reason why exactly the same powers should not be given to corporations in this respect as they have in regard to gas and water. I know that this was, generally speaking, the feeling of my Committee. The expansion of electricity means a cheaper light and power and, in addition, the greater the supply of electricity the greater the demand for fittings, lamps and so on. This, in its turn, means that you get that increase in employment that we are all so anxious at the present moment to facilitate in every possible way.

Let me say, since a reference has been made to municipal trading, that when I went on that Committee I was, if anything, opposed to anything of the kind, but although I was somewhat prejudiced in that respect it was my duty, as a member of the Committee, to put aside any feelings that I might have in that regard and to look upon the question in a judicial frame of mind. There was no kind of prejudice in this matter, and whatever feelings we may have had were not allowed to influence us. I hope that your Lordships will allow this Bill and the other two Bills to go forward in order to give a great boon for the inhabitants of these boroughs.

My Lords, in addition to what my noble friend has said there are one or two other considerations which are material. In the first place, this is a power already possessed by a large number of municipal corporations; and in the second place, it is not a. question which raises the issue of municipal trading. The Government, as is well known, are favourable to affording the country a supply of electricity. If that is done it means putting at the disposal of the municipal authorities and of other bodies much of the control of electrical power. I know from the newspapers and from what has been stated that the proposals of the Government extend to three heads:—(1), the securing of sufficient generation of electricity; (2), the distribution of the electricity so generated all over the country; and (3), the putting of the local bodies, municipal corporations and other authorities in a position to make the power, which for the first time comes into their hands in an adequate form, available to the public within their area.

That being so, it obviously involves a great deal more than exists at the present time. It is all very fine to talk of private people. Private people, no doubt, will come in whenever there is anything that is very profitable. They will come in in the future just as in the past, and if they can supply more cheaply than the municipal authorities then they will get the market. If they cannot, then the public ought not to be deprived of the power which is proposed to be given merely be- cause the private contractors cannot supply as cheaply as the municipal authority. If that is so, it seems to me that there is ample reason for supporting the decision of two Committees, one of which was a Committee of the other House which has investigated this matter and reported in favour of this Bill and the other a Committee of your Lordships' House which has also looked into it and reported in its favour.

This power has been given as regards gas and water fittings and, for the life of me, I cannot understand what metaphysical distinction the noble Lord opposite, who is not given to metaphysics, draws between electricity and gas and water. If we are really to have a, great advance of productive power in this country we require electricity, not only for domestic consumption but for the small manufacturers, and if the latter have it in a satisfactory fashion they must be able to buy from the local authorities which have been entrusted with the power of distribution of such fittings as are required to make this source of power effective. I cannot conceive that your Lordships would throw out a proposition which is not only in accordance with the necessities of the time but is in accordance, in principle, with the proposals which the Government have put before us. These, no doubt, will have to be discussed by Parliament next Session, but they are proposals which, at any rate up to now, have been welcomed with a good deal of public assent because they make for our greater efficiency as a nation and because they supply a, want which we are deeply feeling at this moment.

My Lords, although I have a good deal of sympathy, as I expect have a good many others, with the main principle on which my noble friend has founded his Amendment, I confess that I cannot myself ignore what I believe to be the unanimous recommendations and opinions of the Committee of Parliament to whom these three Bills—because I understand the same Amendment applies to all three—was referred. I only venture to occupy your atention for a few moments because I think there is an important point involved. Some mention has been made, both by my noble friend and by the noble Lord opposite, of a Bill that was before a Committee of this House last year and which was amended by that Committee, of which I was one of file members. I only allude to it to say this, that I have since heard, quite informally, that the clause which we put in, or the Amendment which we made to that clause, has since proved to be quite unworkable.

The fact is, as the noble Lord, who I think was Chairman of the Committee, has stated, that the Act of 1919 entirely superseded the model clause. Before that, Committees had something on which to work. They have now the provisions of an Act which I trust I am not transgressing the rules of the House if I venture to suggest certainly bear more than one-interpretation. I only rise really for the purpose of expressing the earnest hope that a model clause or model clauses may be framed on the new Act. I am sure every member of the House who has served on Committees will agree with me that the model clauses are of inestimable value to us when, in Committee, we have to deal with points raised by learned Counsel who represent the parties. We have something to work on. At present we have only the somewhat doubtful clauses of an Act of Parliament, and I venture very humbly to make this suggestion. I hope also that those clauses may give some directions which will ensure the safety of the installations in these small houses.

My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down has, I think, dealt a little harshly with his own measure. He has alluded to a clause arrived at last year after a great deal of Parliamentary discussion and inserted in a Bill of last year dealing with this subject. My noble friend has described that clause as unworkable. I do not think it goes quite so far as that, but it certainly is not applicable to the difficulties as we now understand them, and for this reason these proposals come before your Lordships this afternoon. As my noble friend has mentioned, the same point arises in all three Bills and no doubt it will be in accordance with your Lordships' convenience that we should continue the discussion of the three Bills together on the one point.

Your Lordships have already realised from the debate that the point is one of considerable importance, and it is one that has an important Parliamentary history. As Lord Strachie reminded us, in the early days seventy or eighty municipal authorities were given power to sell electric fittings. Then their opponents got active and there were proceedings in Paliament and in the Courts, with the result that the model clause of 1912 was drawn up—the model clause of your Lordships' House which forbade any sale of these fittings save through a contractor. The policy of your Lordships was then consistent. We insisted upon that model clause in the House and I insisted upon it very much more elsewhere in private interviews when considering proposals. There were a substantial number of applications during the period from 1912 to 1919 to depart from that model clause but, except in one very special case, I do not think we ever did depart from it.

But a new situation has been created by the Act of 1919, and we are all responsible for it. Lord Bath was rather diffident about criticising the Act of 1919. We have all been taught that fools sometimes rush in where angels fear to tread, and I am not going to hesitate to criticise as sharply as I can the Act of 1919. The clause was said to be the result of agreement, but there is complete disagreement as to what the clause means. It is Clause 23 and it enacts that

"a joint electricity authority and any local authority authorised by special Act or by Order to supply electricity may provide, let for hire and in respect thereof may connect, repair, maintain and remove (but shall not, unless expressly authorised to do so by the special Act or Order, manufacture or sell) electric lilies, fittings, apparatus and appliances …"

The electrical contractors construe that clause as meaning that all authorities who had obtained authority before 1919 to sell fittings should continue to sell them and no more should be authorised to sell them. On The other hand, the municipal authorities construe it to mean that they may not do so unless they are able to persuade Parliament in special cases to permit them to do so.

That, I think, is the attitude taken by the Ministry of Transport and the Electricity Commissioners, because I see that in the course of proceedings in another place a gentleman who represented the Ministry of Transport said the intention of the Ministry was merely to draw attention to the existing state of the law and to leave it to the Committee, having heard the evidence, to decide whether the corporation in question should have extended powers or not. Hence come these applications. They came before me in the normal course, and my first instinct, I confess, was to insist that the practice of 1912 to 1919 should be maintained, but after some hesitation I thought it would not be unreasonable that further inquiry should take place. Therefore, these three Bills were referred to the Committee already mentioned.

May I say, in passing, that I am never nervous when I refer any subject to a Committee of this House because I have complete confidence in their decisions, but if ever I did feel hesitation this is one of the last Committees as to which I should feel hesitation. The Committee consisted of five members of this House, all energetic in assisting me in Committee matters, and three members have had great experience in the Chair on Committees. I have read the proceedings before the Committee from beginning to end and I entirely agree with their unanimous conclusion. Whilst I hope that my noble friend behind me will not force the matter to a Division, if he does I shall vote with the members of the Committees in favour of maintaining the Bill as now printed.

I am much struck by two facts in the proceedings which, to me, are new facts. First of all, there is the fact, already mentioned by Lord Strachie, that without some system of hire purchase or deferred payments, small value houses cannot get electric facilities as quickly as they should. The occupiers cannot afford the initial lump sum to instal, and this has undoubtedly delayed expansion in parts of England. It is quite true, I think, that contractors might have organised some system of hire purchase or deferred payments if they had wished to do so, but there is at any rate no evidence before us now that they have done so.

On the other hand, I am impressed with another fact which is also a new one to me. Parliament has allowed these authorities hitherto to hire out machines, but we are dealing with human nature and the evidence is that it often happens that somebody who has been hiring a machine comes to the authority from whom he is hiring it and says: "I am quite satisfied with this machine. I do not want to hire it any longer; I would like to buy it from you." These municipal authorities who supply electricity cannot sell him that machine and your Lordships will see what will at once happen. The occupier says: "Take your machine back. I will hire it no longer. I will buy one from somebody else." Your Lordships will see the result on the electrical authority: they get left with these machines, which they cannot sell. They are what is familiarly known in the army as "half-worn" and, as such, are completely wasted from the owner's, that is to say the municipal authority's, point of view. That is an unbusinesslike proceeding and it is a second reason which makes me realise that the position has so altered that we are justified, I think, in allowing both Burnley and Barrow these powers, whatever may be the result in the future on general legislation.

Before I sit down I should like to express my anxiety on the greater point. You have now in the country, mainly, three systems under which the municipal authorities supply electricity. You have some with full power to sell fittings; you have some with no power to sell fittings; you still have some, of course, with the power to sell but solely through the contractor. All these three systems cannot each be the best possible system, and I suggest that the best possible system is the only one that we ought to contemplate in encouraging the expansion of the electrical industry in this country, which we know we are only just beginning to see. I would therefore make this appeal to the Government, without asking, of course, that I should receive an answer to-day. I would ask them to consider whether, this autumn or next year, some inquiry cannot be set up as was set up in 1912 to settle this matter once and for all. In 1912 it was a Joint Committee of the two Houses. I am, of course, indifferent as to what form the inquiry takes now.

My noble friend Lord Bath asks that a model clause should be drawn up. That is, of course, the ideal that I hope such an inquiry would have in view. Otherwise I can foresee endless Parliamentary fights. Every municipal authority which has not got these powers, encouraged by the Act of 1919, will come to Parliament and ask for these powers. We shall therefore have a great waste of Parliamentary time and public money in settling a matter that ought to be settled once and for all. It was practically settled from 1912 to 1919. It is now unsettled and we are all to blame. I hope that we may all be given the opportunity of putting the position on a more businesslike and permanent basis which will be of value to the electrical industry throughout the country.

After the speech of the noble Earl it is evident that it would be useless to press this matter to a Division, but I will not withdraw; I prefer to have the Amendment negatived. May I say that this is only one instance of how foolish it is ever to give way on anything? Once you begin to give way you open the door and somebody comes in and says: "If you have done that, now you must do something else."

My Lords, I have listened with the attention which is due to his great authority to the observations of the Lord Chairman and I will take care that his suggestion is transmitted to the proper quarters in the Government.

My Lords, I have an Amendment to this Bill but it was not quite in the proper form when the Order Paper was printed. In order to regularise the matter—it is not a question of controversy—I think it would be better not to take it to-night. On the other hand, if I move now that the Bill be passed it will be too late to move an Amendment to-morrow so I will move to put the question that the Amendment be agreed to and I will ask your Lordships to adjourn the debate on the question till to-morrow. By that time everything will be in order. The Amendment is not on the Paper. It is an Amendment dealing with a clause which has to do with camping. It has nothing whatever to do with what we have been discussing. It is not printed; it is not the kind of Amendment which is printed. As your Lordships know, formal Amendments on the Third Reading of Private Bills are not printed, but I can guarantee that it will be made on the proper copy.

I cannot put the Question without knowing to what clause this is an Amendment.

I think we had better postpone the further stages of the Bill until to-morrow.

That is what I should like to do, but there is no Motion before the. House.

If I may risk the censure of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, I would move that the further proceedings on this Bill be now postponed. I understand that this is a Motion which has never been made before.

I do not see why it should not be made.

moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-five" and insert "expiration of one month after the passing thereof." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name is practically drafting. It is merely a precaution in case, through some accident, the Bill does not pass in this portion of the Session and your Lordships do not meet until October. It provides that the Bill shall come into operation a month after its passing. I beg to move.

moved, in subsection (2), after "Parts II to V," to insert "or Part VIII." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment. Originally there were no restrictions in Part VIII of the Bill, but as the Bill now stands Clauses 82 and 84 have effect in urban districts and are now in Part VIII of the Bill. It is necessary, therefore, to put those words in. I beg to move.

My Lords, I desire to move in subsection (2), after "Act," where that word first occurs, to insert "except as otherwise provided in the Second Schedule of this Act." My reason for doing that is partly to obtain the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack upon a legal question. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 enacts that the Minister of Health may by order apply to any rural district, or contributory place, any provision in Parts II to V of the Bill. Then if your Lordships will turn to the Second Schedule, you will see it is headed: "Provisions in Parts II and III of this Act which cannot be adopted by a rural district council."

On a point of Order, is this Amendment printed on the Paper?

No.

That being so, can it properly be taken at this stage? I submit it is out of order.

I handed it in to the Lord Chancellor and he has agreed. If it is out of order, that is another matter. I only know the procedure in another place, where it would be in order.

The proper course for my noble friend to pursue is to put the Amendment down for the next stage. I really do not think it is needed and I hope I may be able to persuade the noble Lord of that.

I understand that I am to put it down for the Third Reading of the Bill?

Unless I can persuade the noble Lord otherwise.

Then I will do that.

The Amendment to this clause is drafting, and I beg to move.

moved, after "authority," to insert "and any person with their consent and subject to such conditions as they may impose." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to meet a useful suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. It has the object of giving encouragement to people to give drinking fountains and to allow the local authority to accept them. I beg to move.

moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "been", to insert "withdrawn by the urban authority or". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I need not assure my noble friend that if he objects to any of the three or four Amendments I am moving to the Bill I will not press them. I think they are improvements. The Amendment to Clause 17, for instance, deals with the proposed system under which a street can be named. The noble Lord and I have discussed this matter. I do not know whether your Lordships would desire that I should explain it in detail. If there is no objection to it, and as I understand my noble friend agrees, I will formally move.

moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or defaces" and insert "defaces or permits to be obscured." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has reference to the same point. It deals with the desirability of securing that when a street is named, the name shall be legible. It does not go further than that. I beg to move.

My Lords, I do not object to the end which my noble friend has in view, but I question a little whether the words "be obscured" do not got a great deal too far. I imagine that what he is desirous of stopping is the case of a householder allowing a street name to be defaced, say, by a growing creeper or something of that kind. I am afraid in the towns in which we live, not only in London but elsewhere, the name of a street is very often obscured by smoke. Does my noble friend intend to make a house-holder responsible for that? It seems to me to be a little doubtful, and unless my noble friend is quite sure I should have thought the words "be obscured" went much too far.

It is "permits to be obscured."

Yes; so that if the householder allows smoke to come against his wall he will permit the name to be obscured. I should have thought it was rather doubtful. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill is rather drastic in certain respects and it is better that we should not increase its character in that particular unless we are sure.

My Lords, if there is the smallest objection to this Amendment in any part of the House I will not press it.

moved, after Clause 23, to insert the following new clause:—

My Lords, I do not know what advice His Majesty's Government may give to the House as regards this matter, but so far as those whom I represent here are concerned there would be a very serious difficulty in agreeing to part of this Amendment, the part connected with Clause 22. When the Bill was in Committee in another place the promoters and the Ministry of Health agreed with the Central Landowners' Association that this clause should be included both in the First and Second Schedules to the Bill, with the result that it would not be adopted by an urban authority for a district of less than 20,000 population unless the consent of the Ministry of Health was obtained and that it could not be adopted by the rural district, and therefore must, be put in force in a rural district by an Order of the Minister.

The proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 2 enacts that where powers are conferred on a county council by any clause in Part II those powers may be exercised by the council without an adoption by them of the provisions of that clause. The noble Lord's Amendment would, therefore, put in force in the whole of England and Wales without adoption the provisions of Clause. 22 in so far as the clause applies to a main road maintained by a county council. This would be a breach of the arrangements made with the Central Landowners' Association, and I venture to suggest in those circumstances that it would not be wise on our part to accept that part of the Amendment at this stage. The objection of the Landowners' Association to the general operation of Clause 22 was that it would prove onerous to owners in rural areas and it was for this reason that the necessity for consent by the Minister was interposed if the necessity for adoption were removed.

As regards main roads the clause would automatically apply to the most important of the highways in urban and rural districts. With respect to the other part of the Amendment, so far as I am concerned and those whom I represent, we have no objection at all, but to accept that without the other would mean redrafting, and if your Lordships should, as I hope, take my view of the matter, I can suggest an Amendment that I think would meet the case instead of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton.

My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has asked what the opinion of the Government is upon this clause. I may say, for my own part, that in substance I agree with the argument which was put before us by my noble friend behind me (Lord Clinton)—that is to say, I see no reason in the world why county council roads should not be protected just as any other road is protected, and the county council authority in respect of those roads protected. But what the noble Lord opposite has suggested is perfectly true, that that cannot be done merely by an Amendment to this clause. It would want a very extensive amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill, and the question therefore arises whether my noble friend behind me thinks the matter of sufficient importance to press it any further. I could imagine that, though it is reasonable on the face of it, it is not a matter of very great importance so far as the rural districts of this country are concerned. If he thought it of importance, of course he would have to reserve himself, if I may venture to say so, for the Third Reading of the Bill, in order to insert the necessary Amendment in the second clause leading up to this Amendment here. I should hardly think that it is worth his while at the present time so far as the present stage is concerned.

There is no objection whatever on behalf of the Government, any more than on the part of the noble Lord opposite, to the second part of my noble friend's Amendment. As regards the lopping of trees, we are quite content to accept the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands. I think my noble friend opposite is right that a very small change in the drafting of this Amendment, as it stands, could be made to the Clause 22 part of it, and that would leave only the Clause 23 part of it. I should rather suggest that, at any rate at the present stage, my noble friend behind me should adopt the course suggested by the noble Lord opposite and between now and Third Reading he could consider whether it was necessary to draft the substantive Amendment to Clause 2 which would be necessary as enabling him to deal with Clause 22.

My Lords, I admit that I am somewhat seriously alarmed at the awful power that, according to the noble Lord opposite, I have let loose upon the whole of the Kingdom by proposing a very innocent Amendment, and I am rather hastily going to run away from it. But with regard to the second part—that is the Amendment applying my new clause to Clause 23—I understand that nobody has raised any serious objection to it and that no awful results are likely to occur if the clause remains in the Bill. If that is the case I am willing to adopt my drafting or any other that carries out the same object that the noble Marquess would like to suggest.

Perhaps the noble Lord opposite would suggest. a form for the Amendment?

If the noble Lord would look at the Bill at Clause 23, page 9, line 30, he will see that he might add as a new subsection the following:—

"(2) The powers conferred on the local authority by this section shall, as respects any main road maintained by a county council, be exercised by the county council instead of by the local authority, and any expenses incurred by a county council under this section shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes."

There would have to be an additional Amendment in page 9, line 32, after "authority," to insert "or county council." I will give the noble Lord a copy of that.

My Lords, I suggest that my noble friend had better move it on Third Reading as it is rather an extensive change. Your Lordships have an objection to passing words which you imperfectly understand, but, of course, if the House has no objection to accepting the Amendment now there is no reason why it should not be inserted.

I think it would be more convenient to insert it now.

I raise no objection to that. Would it not be more convenient if I withdraw my Amendment altogether and then Lord Emmott can move his Amendments instead?

I beg to move the Amendments which I have already read to the House.

I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Russell, if this is in order.

I do not know that I am the champion of order in this House, but this is merely an Amendment to an Amendment which is on the Paper.

My Lords, might I intervene for a moment It is rather important that your Lordships should arrive at a conclusion as to what may be done on Report stage. I think I am only stating what is right when I say that there is no objection, so far as rules of order are concerned, to moving Amendments on Report stage without Notice. That is perfectly in order, though it is not always a convenient course, for obvious reasons. It differs altogether from the rule as regards Third Reading. In respect of Third Readings it is distinctly contrary to the practice of the House to move Amendments of which Notice has not been given, and I hope your Lordships will be careful to maintain that rule. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, in his place, and I hope he will confirm what I say. I have seen the greatest inconvenience arise from any relaxation of this rule in regard to Third Reading. It is often convenient on Report stage to move Amendments without Notice, and I think I am right in saying that it is not out of order in the least; but I think it is a course that should be adopted very sparingly and only as far as it suits the convenience of the House.

My Lords, I think the noble Marquess is perfectly correct in stating what is the rule of order in regard to this matter, and I join with him in deprecating the moving of Amendments which are not on the Paper. There are occasions, such as he referred to, of an Amendment being moved to an Amendment already on the Paper, such as we have just had; and that stands in a different category. An Amendment to an Amendment on the Paper is generally easy enough for your Lordships to follow, but it is out of order to move Amendments on Third Reading without Notice, and much wiser in my view that they should not be moved without Notice on Third Reading or on Report stage. Every Amendment should always be on the Paper. In this House we can, happily, move Amendments as late as Third Reading, if they are printed.

My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is purely drafting. It is the form preferred by the General Post Office. But it should read "the Telegraphic Acts, 1863 to 1924," and I will move it in that amended form.

My Lords, the first Amendment in my name to this clause is purely drafting and is designed to bring it into the form preferred by His Majesty's Government. It is to make sure that a plan may be modified and approved in its final form when due consideration has been given to it.

My Lords, with your permission I will explain the next three Amendments to this clause together. They arise out of a suggestion made during the Committee stage, and make sure that the land which is dealt with under this clause shall be added to the street and not used for any other purpose. We also had a discussion on subsection (11), and at that time, with the advice I had, I objected to its being taken out of the Bill. Further consideration has led to the view that this subsection is not needed; and there is also a positive reason for leaving it out. There is no such provision in the Town Planning Act and I understand it would raise legal difficulties if it appeared in this Bill and not in the Town Planning Act. I think we are better without it altogether.

moved in subsection (1) after "to" ["to reconstruct"] to insert "repair." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now come to questions which were discussed at some length in the Committee stage and in regard to which I am making an endeavour to meet the wishes of noble Lords. So far as I understood the discussion, the main objection seemed to apply to the repair of a drain on private land communicating with a cesspool also on private land. All that I am asking by the Amendments I have put down is that a man who has his own drain communicating with his own cesspool need not give any notice to the local authority when he repairs it, but that where his drain communicates with the sewer, and. may be a danger to public health if it goes wrong, he ought to give notice to the local authority.

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this Amendment raises a rather difficult point, which was discussed at considerable length when your Lordships were in Committee. The effect of that discussion was to cut the whole element of repair out of the clause and leave merely the question of reconstructing or altering the course of the drain as matters which must be reported to the local authority. My noble friend opposite now comes forward with a sort of compromise. He suggests that we should include the question of repair again, so far as urban authorities are concerned. I understand that, if we inserted the word "urban" as he proposes to do later, the effect would be that, even if this part of the Bill were adopted in rural districts, this particular provision regarding repair would not be applicable to those districts since the notice must be given to an urban authority. The noble Lord proposes also that, generally speaking, the provisions concerning the reconstruction and alteration of the course of a drain may be applied universally. Accordingly the question, as I understand it, really is whether we are to restore the provision which provides that no repair to a drain may be executed without notice to the urban authority, together with the consequential provision that a certain interval must be left before the work is covered up, so that the local authority may inspect it and see what has been done.

I quite understand the reason why my noble friend opposite wishes this clause to be restored to its original form, to the limited extent that he proposes, but I am afraid that my feeling still is that, even if your Lordships enact it in that form—I hope that this will not be considered to be high treason against Parliament—it will be a wholly ineffective provision. I do not think that anybody who has anything wrong with his drains will wait twenty-four hours in order to give notice to the local authority, whether it is a rural or an urban authority, or will leave the work uncovered in order that there may be an inspection afterwards. As a matter of fact, the moment there is the least reason to apprehend anything wrong with a drain everybody will send for the plumber and have it put right at once, leaving the urban or rural authority, as the case may be, to take any remedy which is open to them. As a matter of fact, in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred, the local authority will not pay any attention. Accordingly the clause will be largely a dead letter, and rather hesitate as to whether it is wise for us to insert in an Act of Parliament anything that will be treated as a dead letter. I do not take a very strong view on this point, but I should suggest to your Lordships that it would be wiser to leave the Bill as the Committee left it, omitting the word "repair." On the whole, I think that this would be the best solution.

My Lords, in the absence of any support to the views that I have ventured to put before your Lordships I do not think that I should be justified in asking you to go to a Division, and accordingly I think I had better ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Does the noble Lord move the Amendments that follow, substituting "urban" for "local."

I do; but, in moving them, I should like to explain one point. If your Lordships will look at the Bill, you will see that in line 23 of page 21 the word "repair'' still lingers. With your Lordships' permission I should like to leave that word out. This Amendment would be consequential on that which your Lordships have already clone, and it will come in the middle of the Amendments printed upon the Paper. It is for that reason that I mention it now.

moved to add to the clause:

My Lords, I rise only to say that I entered into an express promise with my noble friend Lord Dynevor when the Bill was in Committee that I would myself confer with the Ministry of Health upon this clause. I desire to assure your Lordships that I have not failed in my promise. I have taken great trouble to consult with the Minister of Health, and it, was in conformity with that consultation that my noble friend opposite moved this Amendment.

moved, in proviso (ii) of subsection (1), after "entertainment," to insert "including what are now known as concert parties." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this because the provincial theatrical people are in doubt whether, if those words are not inserted, legal complications might not arise. Therefore, to make the matter quite clear, I propose to insert these words—

My Lords, as a matter of form I should like to draw the attention of Lord Banbury to the fact that his Amendment hardly reads. After all, an entertainment cannot be a concert party, and I think that if the Amendment were moved it should be moved somewhat in this form: "or entertainment of the nature given by what are now known as concert parties." Though I should like to meet my noble friend I hope he will not press this Amendment. We do not seem to know what a concert party is. Some times it is such a body as the Co-optimists, who do give a variety entertainment, and a variety entertainment is excluded by other words in this paragraph. Sometimes it is the Gresham Glee Singers, who give what is generally known as a concert of the kind which it is agreed that municipal authorities should be allowed to give under this clause. I am afraid that if we put in these words it will give more work and satisfaction to the lawyers than to anybody else. We do not know how they would be interpreted, and I think it would be a bad thing to put in words of which we ourselves honestly do not quite know the meaning. What is objected to by these provincial people who have raised the point is the giving of a variety entertainment. That is expressly excluded by the paragraph, and therefore I do not think the words proposed are necessary.

Will the noble Lord put the words in on the understanding that he can reconsider them afterwards?

It is too late, I am afraid.

The noble Lord does not think they will do much harm, though he thinks they will not do much good. Under these circumstances, cannot I persuade him, in view of the assistance that I have given him throughout the stages of this Bill, to include the words?

I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. He says the words cannot do any harm, but ambiguous words always do harm, and that they are ambiguous really lies on the face of the Amendment, because the words are "what are now known as concert parties." That shows that my noble friend has doubt himself as to what they are, and I hope he will not press the Amendment.

My noble friend has persuaded me.

My Lords, the Amendment on the Paper stands in my name and in the name of Lord Stuart of Wortley. When I put this Amendment down I was not aware that Lord Emmott was going to put the Amendment on the Paper which follows mine. Of course I cannot speak for Lord Stuart of Wortley, but I am satisfied with Lord Emmott's Amendment and therefore I shall not move mine.

had given Notice to move, after "accommodation," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "for their employees." The noble Lord said: Perhaps I had better pro forma move this Amendment, and intimate that as it at present stands on the Paper it involves the exclusion of the remaining words of the clause, so as to limit the new power to matters contained on the face of the Amendment. Your Lordships will doubtless remember the conversations which arose in Committee, when the proposals of the clause, which were left unamended, excited some alarm among certain members of your Lordships' House, lest the contributions of local authorities to hospitals might be made upon such a lavish scale that they could justly claim, and in due course receive, such a great share in the management of the hospitals that on the one hand the magnitude of their, contributions might serve very largely to dry up private benevolence, and on the other hand might virtually convert hospitals, which have attained such magnificent results on the voluntary principle, into bureaucratic and municipal institutions.

I must put it in a slightly different form from that on the Paper.

My Lords, I should like to express the hope that this Amendment will not be inserted in the Bill. I am sorry to differ on any point with Lord Stuart of Wortley, who gives so much of his time to the work of the hospitals in the London district, but I should regret it if the power sought to be given by this clause were limited in the way which he, by his Amendment, proposes. As my noble friend knows quite well, the practice of our voluntary hospitals is to make no distinction. They provide their accommodation, not for any class but for everybody who comes or is sent to the hospital, and I think it is desirable that that system of giving no preference should not be impaired. If this Amendment were adopted there would be a tendency for the local authority to say: "Well, we will give you so much a year if you will give our employees preference over everybody else."

Many hospitals would be unable to make any such arrangement. I know a good deal about the system by which contributions of weekly sums are made by workmen out of their wages and by employers. It is true that by this means very large sums have been provided for voluntary hospitals. I know eases where the yearly amount in these small sums comes to £40,000 or £50,000, or even more, and all these contributions, so great in the aggregate, are made by the workers and their employers without any agreement for any preference. Of course it is true that where the workers in a particular firm have made a large contribution the hospital is most desirous to give accommodation as soon as they can possibly do so. But there is no understanding and I think it is better that there should be no understanding. If this Amendment is passed there is a risk that the local authority would be given power to insist on having some understanding for preferential treatment. I do not myself think that the proposal in the clause to enable the authorities to contribute to a hospital is in the least likely to impair the voluntary system, to which I myself attach the greatest possible importance. I am not at all afraid of the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Emmott) limiting the contribution to a penny rate because I do not think that any authority would contribute as much as a penny rate. I hope that the much more severe limit imposed by this Amendment will not be pressed.

My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has given so much better reasons than I could against accepting this Amendment that I will not attempt to repeat his argument. I do not believe that the clause in the Bill will have the tendency of diminishing voluntary subscriptions. I most sincerely hope that it will not. I think there are a good many cases in which a reasonable subscription, far less than anything that a penny rate would bring in, is almost expected from the local authority and rather adds to the inducements to private people to give. It is with that belief that support the. clause as it now stands. The reason why I put down the Amendment in my name is that, I wanted to meet your Lordships as far as I could and I could not conceive any other safeguard that would be more satisfactory. I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor that there will be very few cases in which any local authority will dream of giving anything like, a penny rate.

I see that your Lordships prefer the fixed limit proposed by the Amendment of Lord Emmott. I may perhaps say in my own justification that if there is any fear of what might be called preferential admission, I am not at all sure that the present law offers any bar to any such agreements. The real bar to such agreements for preferential admission is that you could never get hospital managers to consent to anything of the kind.

moved to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) The expenditure under this section of a local authority shall not exceed in any one year, an amount equal to that which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound on the property liable to be assessed for the purpose of the rate out of which such expenditure is payable, or such higher rate in the pound as may be approved by the Minister of Health."

I hope that. I shall not appeal to Lord Emmott in vain. Would he be kind enough to leave out the words after "payable." The noble Lord has himself said that it is very unlikely that any local authority would go so far as to impose as high a rate as a penny, yet he says at the end of his Amendment:

"or such higher rate in the pound as may be approved by the Minister of Health."

I am quite willing to agree to that.

I beg, then, to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out those words.

My Lords, I understood a moment or two ago that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, said he was prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which it stood upon the Paper. Although I do not profess to be an authority upon these matters, I was discussing them yesterday with someone who is and one can conceive of certain exceptional circumstances where it may be very much to the advantage of the public that this permission should be given. If, however, these words are taken out that could not be done. I very much hope that the noble Lord will adhere to the Amendment as it stands upon the Paper. I agree that it is extremely unlikely that any local authority in the normal case would go so far as one penny; but there might be cases in which a hospital is being moved from the centre of a city to the country and where some exceptional expenditure is required and a special effort is being made. It seems rather unfortunate if the local authority cannot make a subscription in the same way as a private citizen can do.

My Lords, I agree that it is advisable in many cases to restrict the expenditure on matters of this kind by local authorities within limits. In reference to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, after all the local authority could perfectly well subscribe for two or three years running or, if it wore a very large capital expenditure that the locality wished to indulge in, they would have to borrow and go to the Ministry for leave to do so. Then the amount they could spend would be the interest on the capital suns and not the capital sum itself.

moved to insert the following new subsection:—

"(2) The Minister of Health may, for the purposes of this section, make rules prescribing restrictions or conditions subject to which the powers conferred by this section may be exercised."

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for meeting my objection and I think I shall be able to make my peace with the Minister of Health.

had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (6), to leave out" not being part of a street". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I placed this Amendment on the Paper in order that I might move it if I desired to do so. I do not propose to move. So far as I am concerned I am willing to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, if that meets with the approval of your Lordships.

had on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (6):"Where any parking place is part of. a street, regulations may provide for charges to be paid to the local authority in respect of the services of an attendant". The noble Earl said: My Lords, when we were in Committee I promised the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that I would do what I could to assist him in the question of obtaining some charges for the parking of cars. I assured him that motorists as a whole were not averse to paying any proper charge, but that what we objected to, and I am glad to say that the House shared that view, was the idea of charging for the use of the street.

had given Notice to move to amend the Amendment on the Paper by inserting "such" after "street" and by leaving out "in respect of the services of an attendant" and inserting "by the driver of the vehicle for any services required by him of an attendant employed by the local authority." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I support the noble Earl. My only object was to avoid what I thought the very dangerous precedent of enabling the local authority to charge for the use of the highway. That would amount to letting out the highway for a period of time for money. The King's highway is free to all subjects and I think it would be a most dangerous precedent to allow a local authority to charge for the use of it. I recognise that where parking places are specially made and entail expenditure the local authority have the right to make a charge; but where a parking place is in the street a notice could be put up directing cars where to wait and they could then be moved away when their owners returned. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill were not to move his Amendment the noble Earl's Amendment and my own would fall to the ground and that may possibly be the best solution. If the noble Lord prefers to move his Amendment I should not object to it provided the words read out by the noble Earl opposite were inserted as well. That would meet my point.

I have not moved it.

Then there is no need for ours.

On the contrary, I am moving mine in response to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.

If the noble Lord does not move his Amendment no charge can be made for the use of a portion of the street. Am I to understand that this is the case?

My Lords, I am rather puzzled by the noble Earl's Amendment. Apparently he proposes that we should enact that if the services of an attendant are required for an hour there shall be a charge of a shilling, otherwise there will be no charge.

Not a shilling charge, but any charge that the regulations impose.

How can an attendant be attending on a motor car for an hour? What is the attendant supposed to do? Is he merely to be there and see that nobody interferes with the car?

Yes.

My Lords, I think an hour is rather a curious period of time to fix. I agree that you must fix some period of time if you work upon the lines of the noble Earl, but one would have thought that if you had the services of an attendant for fifty-five minutes and were to pay nothing, but if you had the services of that attendant for in hour and you had to pay, that would be rather a difficult matter to work in practice. I should hardly think in those circumstances it would be worth while moving the Amendment.

My Lords, I am not entitled to speak again, but may I say that I only put down the Amendment in pursuance of a pledge that I gave to the noble Lord to do everything that I could to enable the local authority to make some charge? Personally I prefer the Amendment as it is printed. I have only moved it in this form to meet objections.

My Lords, I should prefer the course which the noble Lord opposite has followed. He has withdrawn his Amendment, and I should think that we might leave the matter now.

My Lords, so far as I am concerned I should be glad to do that, but I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether it is a fact that no charge will be made for anything that is part of a street or highway.

My Lords, as I understand it no charge would be made for parking in a street or highway, but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in pursuance of a pledge that he made, put down this Amendment as being the best way of meeting a difficulty that was put to him. He desired that some charge should be made because, as he said, for the most part people who own cars can afford to pay something for this service, and it would only be reasonable, if attendants were required to look after the cars, that some charge should be made. So far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to accept the Amendment as originally printed on the Paper, with the addition of the words "not in respect of the use of the street." The Amendment now moved goes on to settle a charge. I have not the exact words.

No charge for a period of less than one hour.

I think that is going rather far. I do not like the idea of stating a time, but if you are to put in a time I think you must put something much less than an hour. I cannot see why a person should be allowed to have an attendant for just under an hour and not pay any charge. I should put fifteen minutes, but personally I do not like the words at all, and prefer that they should be left out.

My Lords, I think the Amendment, as printed, does give effect to the undertaking which was given in Committee, and is a perfectly reasonable proposal. As regards the addition that has been made to-day, I do not think the words "not in respect of the use of the street" add anything one way or another, because it seems to me that it would be open to the local authority to say: "We make these charges for the use of an attendant, and not for the use of the street." It might also be open to the motor owner to say: "Well, I do not want an attendant; I have put this car in this place for so many hours, and as I do not want an attendant to look after if shall have nothing to pay." Such considerations as these indicate the difficulty. I would rather omit these words, but in any case I do not think it would be right, if you are allowing a charge to be made, that you should say that no charge shall be made for a period less than an hour. It would mean that everybody could in fifty-five minutes take their cars away and pay nothing. In those circumstances the local authority, which has incurred expense in providing a parking place and an attendant, would receive nothing from those persons who took their cars away before the hour was up towards meeting that expense. I hope the noble Earl will adhere to what he originally proposed, and consent to the Amendment being reduced to that.

My Lords, with great deference to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, may I ask whether it is his opinion that the omission of the words "not being part of a street" do not affect the situation? It seems to me that it is rather a dangerous thing to allow the local authority to charge for a vehicle standing in a street merely on the ground that there is an attendant.

I certainly think putting in the words "not being part of a street" has a great effect on the matter. They prevent the local authority mating any charge for that which is technically a street. I think the words do make a great difference, and this is a proposal to modify the effect of the words.

If I am in order I would move to leave out the words of the Amendment which do not appear on the Paper.

May I say that personally I prefer the words on the Paper, but I am not sure that they satisfy my noble friend opposite?

I am willing to facilitate the business of the House, and to say that after the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the noble Earl opposite, I think we can fall in with Lord Emmott's suggestion. At the same time I confess that I should rather like to have seen a time limit put into Lord Emmott's Amendment, in which case we need not have moved our Amendment.

had Amendments on the Paper to move, in subsection (1) to leave out "any article of food," and at the end of subsection (1) to insert "any article of food or clothing or any balloon or other toy." The noble Earl said: The Amendments standing in my name, I understand, do not meet with disfavour if I omit two words from the second one. I will move the first one as it appears on the Paper, and then I will move the second one with the omission of the words "or clothing." I do not press for those words as they have been criticised, and subject to that I will not detain your Lordships by explaining the point at length, though I am quite ready to do so if challenged. I beg to move the first Amendment on the Paper in my name.

The Amendments which appear on the Paper in my name to this Schedule and also to the Second Schedule are drafting.

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Newton, I am asked to move that the Commons Amendments to the Advertisements Regulation Bill be now considered.

My Lords, the Amendments sent back are either purely drafting, or apply portions of the Act to Scotland and make technical alterations, or they are Amendments putting in different words the arrangements which were proposed to be made between county councils and district councils with regard to dealing with advertisements. I have no quarrel with these. The promoters of the Bill desire that your Lordships should agree with all the Amendments made by the Commons, but they wish to disclaim any interest in the Amendment to Clause 2, which says that any expenses incurred by a district council in pursuance of an arrangement made under that clause shall be repaid to that council by the county council by which the arrangement was made. They are of opinion that each donkey should bear its own burden and that the countycouncil should not pay for matters in which the district council is specially interested. They do not wish to risk the passage of the measure, however, and therefore I move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in the Amendments made to the Bill.

My Lords, I should like to raise a point with regard to an Amendment which I propose to move but which is not on the Paper, a matter for which I apologise to the noble Earl. I also apologise for the fact that I was not, unfortunately, able to be present on the Second Reading and notify him then of my intention to move it. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 you will see that it states that the expression "transmission" where used in subjection. (7) of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, "includes, and shall be deemed always to have included, the reception and well as the sending of messages." If that is so then I take it that the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1904 will apply to any person who has a wireless reception apparatus. I ask jour Lordships to look at the provisions of Section 1, subsection (3), of the principal Act. I will read it. It says:

"If any person establishes a wireless telegraph station without a licence in that behalf, or instate or works any apparatus for wireless telegraphy without a licence in that behalf, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds and, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding twelve months.…"

That means that the owner of a crystal set who has not taken out a licence is, as the result of this legislation by reference, liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for twelve months.

That is not what this Bill is intended to moan or what it was explained to us is to mean. We were told that it was simply to enable the Postmaster-General to have proper legal authority to collect licence fees. I am entirely with the Post-master-General in that matter; I am anxious that he should have the fullest power to collect fess from people who use unlicensed sets. I am not even against the powers of search under Section 4 of the principal Act. Those are quite legi- timate in the case of people who are breaking the law and who are enjoying something which they have no right to enjoy, and who are defrauding the Post Office. I am giving the noble Earl notice now that I shall move an Amendment to Clause 1 after "liable" to insert the words "on prosecution on indictment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904." I want to raise the question now in order to give the noble Earl as long a notice as possible. It seems to me to be of some importance.

I am very sorry that I am entirely unable to answer the noble Earl. He only told me five minutes ago that he was going to bring forward this point, and I told him then that I have not had time to communicate with the Postmaster-General and that I shall have to ask him to postpone his Amendment to a later stage of the Bill.

moved, at the end of the clause, to insert" on prosecution on indictment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904."The noble Earl said: I shall really have to press your Lordships to insert these words now even if they require reconsideration at a later stage—which, however, I do not think they will. It is perfectly clear that this is not the intention of the Postmaster-General and never was the intention of anybody connected with this Bill. It has never been made plain that this will be the effect of it. I hope your Lordships will not allow this matter to slip through. It is something far beyond what this Bill did, as explained to us. I have the greatest sympathy with the Postmaster-General in getting these fees, but I do not want to see these absurd penalties imposed on offenders almost by accident. I beg to move.

I do not propose to deal with the merits of this question; no doubt my noble and learned friend beside me will deal with that in due time. But really the noble Earl is taking a very unreasonable course and a very unusual course for him. He is generally most reasonable. He was not present on the Second Reading, no doubt for good reasons, and therefore did not warn us of this particular point. He did not put down an Amendment on going into Committee, for reasons which he has not disclosed but which no doubt are very good reasons; and at the last moment he expects us to deal at once and insert an Amendment which is not on the Paper, to which he has not referred before and of which he has given no notice whatever to the Postmaster-General. I know he will allow me to say this because we are old antagonists and have always got on well together. I do not think he is very reasonable in the course he has taken. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill made an answer which I think any Minister would make—namely, that he would have to ask the noble Earl to postpone his Amendment to a further stage. That is a simple matter, and the noble Earl will be quite able to move his Amendment on the Third Reading of the Bill.

I am sensible of the justice of what the noble Marquess has said, and I confess that I entirely deserve the blame that he imputes to me. There are reasons why I could not be here on the Second Reading; otherwise I should have given notice, but I confess that I am afraid there is no good reason, except my own carelessness, why I did not put the Amendment on the Paper. It is not quite the case that I have not given notice to the Postmaster-General, because I was in communication with him when the Bill was introduced. It may be difficult: to deal with the matter now, but I do not think that it ought to be. Your Lordships have the Bill, and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount opposite quite understands the position. I should be very glad if it could be dealt with now, though I do feel that I have been to blame in the matter, and I must confess that the noble Marquess is quite justified in what he said.

The noble Earl stands, as we say, "in mercy," and I think he ought to withdraw his Amendment to-day and put it down later. I could deal with the point shortly, but I would rather not do so without consulting with the Postmaster-General, because the objections which I see to the Amendment might possibly disappear after conversation with him. Consequently I would far rather leave the discussion on the matter to a later stage.

I feel that I have really so little merit in bringing it on with this suddenness that I must yield to the appeal which the noble and learned Viscount has made, though I ought to say that I fear I may not be here at a later stage.

My Lords, this Bill comes to us from the House of Commons certified as a Money Bill. It adumbrates the coming into force of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, which was passed during the War and has been held in suspense for the last ten years. That Act prohibits the sale of tuberculous milk and, therefore, indirectly compels the slaughter of tuberculous cattle. To enable such slaughter to take place the Tuberculosis Order of 1914, which was similarly suspended owing to the War, is about to be revived, with some modifications, at the same date as that on which the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act is brought into operation, that is, on September 1, under the new title of the Tuberculosis Order, 1925.

The Bill that I am now submitting for your Lordships' consideration gives power to the Treasury to refund to the local authorities seventy-five per cent, of the compensation which will become payable to stock owners under the Tuberculosis Order. I think your Lordships ought to know—and it will interest those who are stock owners—that one-quarter of the total value of animals condemned for tuberculosis will, in the case of animals that are found to be in an advanced stage of the disease, be paid to their owners as compensation upon slaughter, while three-quarters will be paid if the animals are not in an advanced stage of the disease. It is estimated that the total gross compensation will amount to something like £67,500 a year, and of this no less than £50,000 will come out of the Exchequer. The local authorities will bear the whole cost of administration, but this cost will be offset to some extent by the proceeds of the salvage of carcases, which the local authorities will keep for themselves.

In this connection I think I ought to tell your Lordships, and particularly those who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, that, in deference to an appeal which was made by Mr. Alexander, one of the representatives of the Labour Party in another place, the Minister has decided to issue a supplementary Order to the effect that no animal which is killed under the original Order shall be used for human food unless its flesh has been found to be sound and fit for human consumption by the medical officer of health. That supplementary Order has been agreed between the Minister of Agriculture and the Scottish Office and will very shortly be issued as supplementary to the original Order. I ought, perhaps, also to mention, as being of prime importance so far as this main Order is concerned, that in future all animals that are found to have tuberculous udders, to be emaciated with tuberculosis, to be suffering from chronic cough and showing definite clinical signs of tuberculosis, will have to be slaughtered after notification to the police, as the officials of the local authority. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say any more in relation to this Bill except to mention the important fact that the Order has special reference to animals imported in a tuberculous condition from other countries, including Ireland. These will be excluded under the Bill from the operation of the Order, so that no compensation will be paid for imported animals found to be in a tuberculous condition. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, I should like to say a word to welcome this Bill and to express my thanks to the Government for bringing it in. The importance of preventing the extension of tuberculosis, and the possible connection between the human and bovine forms, is so great that it ought not to be left to local authorities to bear the cost. This Bill establishes the principle, which we welcome, that where services are of national importance they should be supported by national funds, and not left so much to the efforts of the ratepayers, as they have been in the past.

rose to call attention to the Return of Peerages called out of abeyance, made in March, 1923, and to move, That a Committee of this House be set up to inquire into the subject of Peerages in abeyance and report to the House on the matter. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in the month of March, 1923, my noble friend Lord Askwith moved for a Return of Peerages called out of abeyance, and in doing so called attention to the practice which had arisen more commonly in recent years of calling out Peerages which had been in abeyance for a very long period and sometimes for centuries, and in favour of the holder of a fraction only of the hereditament. That Return was granted, and if your Lordships will look at it you will see that it bears out what was said on that occasion. There is the case of a Peerage which was called out after 547 years, and in another case it was called out in favour of the holder of one-twenty-fourth, or (on one view of the facts) of one thirty-sixth of the title. It was intended at the time that after this Return was obtained your Lordships would be asked to direct some inquiry into the practice. The matter, of course, touches the Royal Prerogative and I am authorised by His Majesty to say that he consents to the constitution of a Committee for the purpose described in my Motion. I am persuaded that the time is ripe for the inquiry suggested and I accordingly move.

My Lords, I moved for this Return in consequence of having made a study of the curiosities of the Peerage. If any of your Lordships will look at the Return you will see that a very remarkable state of affairs has come into existence—that different principles have governed different Prime Ministers during the last one hundred years, and that it is of advantage that the question should be again investigated. It is now, I think, one hundred years or more since Lord Redesdale's Committee reported, and went into many questions affecting abeyance, but the practices which have grown up since have not been inquired into, nor has it been decided whether an Earldom can be called out of abeyance, whether a person having a very small portion of descent can claim as of right, because he has been the claimant for the calling of the Peerage out of abeyance in his favour, of whether a larger portion of descent ought to be a condition to his obtaining the Peerage. I aril glad to hear from the noble and learned Viscount that he has received His Majesty's approval, because undoubtedly it is a matter which touches the Royal Prerogative.

My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House it would perhaps be convenient if I say that it is understood there will be a Royal Commission to-morrow at 12 o'clock, and therefore the House will not commence public business before 12.15. I am also asked to say that the Unemployment Insurance Bill will reach this House to-morrow, and that it is proposed to take the First Reading to-morrow and the Second Reading on Monday.