Lords Sitting of 23 July 1889

THE STANDING COMMITTEES.
  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  Lord BRABOURNE: I beg to give notice that if I survive till next Session I intend to move that the Standing Committees of your Lordships' House be not appointed to sit concurrently with the sittings of the House except by special leave of the House.
  TELEGRAPHS (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee for General Bills without Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  WINCHESTER BURGESSES (DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL) BILL (No. 137.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY BILL (No. 144.)
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Henniker.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I would like to ask my noble Friend whether there is now any objection to giving the name of the generous donor who has come to the assistance of this poor country and built a National Portrait Gallery at his own expense?
  LORD HENNIKER: I do not know who the donor is, and therefore I cannot give my noble Friend the information he asks for. I understand that the donor has particularly stipulated that his name should not be made known, and therefore I do not regret that it is not in my power to give any other answer, for I could not, in any case, disclose it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a (according to order): An Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE BILL. (No. 125.)
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan]).
  LORD DENMAN, in moving that the Bill be read a third time this day three months, said that the measure had been hurried through the House in an extraordinary manner. He was convinced it was not needed by the farming interest, and even as far back as 1851 he had seen nine cows come to the centre of England, which had to be killed from pleuro-pneumonia; but since that time, the Privy Council, aided by Mr. Lennox Peel, had satisfied the farmers. He was satisfied that the Bill conferred too large powers upon the Treasury, and that it was wholly unnecessary.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and add at the end of the Motion, "this day three months."—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): I hope your Lordships will

  1071
  read this Bill a third time. It has passed through all its stages in this House, and I think the noble Lord has advanced no argument why it should be rejected upon this occasion.
  On Question whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed and sent to the Commons.

  ADVERTISEMENT EATING BILL. (No. 163.)
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 104.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee (on Re-commitment), read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: As my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) is engaged in another part of the building he has requested me to ask that the Committee stage of this Bill may be postponed until Thursday.
  Order discharged: House to be again in Committee (on Re-commitment) on Thursday next.

MASTER AND SERVANT BILL. (No. 111.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  LORD BRABOURNE: My Lards, I do not object to the Third Reading, but I would call your Lordships' attention to a circumstance which illustrates the importance of the Motion which, as I stated just now, I intend to move next Session, and the great inconvenience of the Standing Committees being allowed to meet during the Sittings of your Lordships' House. A noble and learned Lord who is in charge of two Bills is engaged at this moment before the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, and the result is that one of these Bills has to be postponed, and the other to be taken up by another noble Lord.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT—"HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, it is about a year ago since I laid on the Table of the House the Report of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which was appointed to consider the question of the reporting in Parliament. The occasion of the appointment of the Committee last year was that the contract under which Mr. Hansard had for many years reported the Debates in both Houses of Parliament came to an end at the expiration of the year 1888, and it was necessary that fresh arrangements should be made in order to secure adequate reports of the proceedings of the two Houses. The main questions which the Committee had under their consideration were, the length at which the Debates should be reported and the manner in which they should be printed and circulated. Upon those questions the Committee reported, and their recommendations have so far been carried out that a new contract has been signed with another firm, to produce reports of Parliamentary Debates in the same form as that in which they were formally issued by Mr. Hansard, and under the name of Hansard, although produced by other persons. It is not my intention to allude to those portions of the Report this evening. My Motion refers chiefly to a point which came incidentally before the Committee in that inquiry—namely, the difficulty under which the reporters labour in taking notes of the proceedings of this House owing to the deficient acoustic properties of the House, a deficiency which to a more limited extent exists in the House of Commons also. I do not think it is necessary that I should read to the House any of the evidence which we had before us bearing upon that subject; but I may say that we had evidence, especially from my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack and other noble Peers, that they were aware of the impossibility of properly reporting speeches from the gallery in which the reporters are now placed, and they all recommended that some change should be made. Another Committee, of which my noble Friend, Lord Beauchamp, was Chairman, sat upon this subject in 1880, and they recommended various changes in the alloca-

1073
tion of seats for the reporters, to all of which there appeared to be some objection. Experiments were tried, and I believe it was suggested that the gallery should be lengthened, then that it should be widened, and a third suggestion was that the reporters should be seated between the Peers in the centre of the House. But to each of these suggestions there appeared to be some objection, and at the end of the Report I find the following paragraph:—
"It is necessary that a report, such as suggested, to he efficient, must be made by a shorthand writer not far removed from the speaker. The Committee have considered the most suitable position in which to place Mr. Hansard's reporter, and are of opinion that a small movable table might be placed in the body of the House."
My Lords, I think there are now still stronger reasons than in 1880 why we should take some steps to provide the representatives of Hansard's Debates with a suitable position for the purposes of their work in the House. In accordance with the recommendations made by the Committee of last year, we have enforced more stringent conditions as to the production of these reports. The firm who have undertaken the work are now required to report not only discussions on second Readings and other stages, which it had been usual to report, but also to give complete and accurate reports of the discussions in Committee; and it is quite obvious that if we require more to be done by the reporters who take the notes of our proceedings we must give ampler facilities than they have been accustomed to hitherto. I am bound to say, and I think that noble Lords on both sides of the House will agree, that, considering the difficulties under which reporters have laboured in this House for many years, the only wonder is that the reports have been as full and as accurate as they have been since the House was built. At the same time, there is a great deal left to be desired; and I believe that on consideration your Lordships will see that there is no alternative but to provide a seat for the Hansard reporter at or near the Table of the House, and in the body of the House. My Motion is worded so as to leave some latitude to the Black Rod Committee as to the position which the reporter's table should occupy. I do not say that the reporter should be placed at the table,
1074
or near the table; but in my Motion I merely use the words "within the precints of the House." If your Lordships will refer back to the Report of the Committee presided over by my noble Friend, you will see that a map was then supplied showing two positions in which a reporter might sit on the floor of the House. I know that there are some objections to a reporter being present in the midst of us. It has been said that reports would be taken too literally and too much verbatim. Again, I may, perhaps, refer to the recommendation of the Committee, in which we pointed out that, in our opinion, reports should not be taken verbatim; and it is quite obvious that if every word which fell from every noble Lord were reported a great deal of editing would be required, and difficulties would occur which would be almost as great as those which we have to face now. As regards the question of the desirability of admitting a reporter into the body of the House, I have made inquiries as to the practice in other countries. In America, in each House, the reporter is seated in front of the desk of the Chief Clerk. In Germany, in both Houses, the reporter is seated in the House near the President's Chair. In Prance, the reporter is seated at the foot of the Tribune, and the same is the case in Belgium. Therefore, it would not appear that any practical inconvenience has been found in other Legislative Chambers to arise from the presence of reporters in the body of the House; and I can only express the hope that some means will now be found for securing an end which, I believe, is highly to be desired. I was moved to bring this matter before your Lordships by an occurrence which took place in this House a few days ago. A Motion was made upon the subject of a report in Hansard in reference to a Debate, to which I need not more particularly allude. In the course of that Debate a letter was received by the Marquess of Lothian from the representative of Hansard. I moved that that letter should be printed and circulated to your Lordships, and from which, perhaps, the House will allow me to read a few lines. Mr. Walpole says:—
"I am afraid that satisfactory reporting will never be done from the gallery of the House of Lords. What is required is (as I believe

1075
the Marquess of Salisbury has himself pointed out) to have a shorthand writer at the Clerk's Table. The great objection to such a proposal hitherto has been that it has been said to be necessary to have frequent changes of reporters, and one can well understand how inconvenient—in fact, utterly impracticable—is any scheme which involves the constant passage of strangers along the floor during the progress of debate. The proposition of the present contractors—and I am only anxious for some convenient opportunity of placing it before the House—is that their note-taker should take his seat at the Clerk's Table at the commencement of each sitting, and be relieved at the expiration of four hours. This means that only on two or three occasions during each Session would there be the passage of a stranger along the floor, because the sittings of the House rarely exceed three hours."
Therefore, my Lords, one of the objections which I believe was advanced in the year 1880—namely, the inconvenience of the passage of reporters to and fro—is practically obviated under the present proposal. Then, my Lords, it will be in your recollection that on a recent occasion Lord Wemyss read to the House a letter from a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Grimthorpe, in which Lord Grimthorpe said that he would have been very glad to be present to take part in the Debate, but it would be of very little use his coming down, because if he did he would not be properly reported. Now, if that is really the case, and if, under the present circumstances, it is difficult, if not utterly impossible, to report in this House, I think your Lordships will agree that it is high time that some action were taken in the matter. My noble Friend's Committee reported in 1880, and after the expiration of nine years, and more than one Debate having taken place on the subject, nothing at all has been done, and we remain under the disability under which we have laboured for so long. I venture, therefore, to make the Motion of which I have given notice, and I may perhaps be allowed to recommend it to your Lordships on the ground that, at all events, the change might be tried even temporarily. It is not necessary that we should commit ourselves for ever to the presence of a reporter in this House. If it is not agreeable to your Lordships, or if it is found inconvenient in any way, the arrangement can be put an end to at any time. I do not think I need say anything more upon the subject. If your Lordships are good enough to pass
1076
the Motion of which I have given notice, I shall propose that the details of the plan should be left to be settled by the Black Rod Committee, and the time at which the new arrangement should be carried out should be left also to that Committee.
Moved, "That the Black Rod Committee be-instructed to provide accommodation for the representative of Hansard's Debates within the precincts of the House of Lords."—(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogdn.)
LORD DENMANsaid, the noble Earl had not condescended to call him as a witness before the Joint Committee. Only twice during the last 35 years had he been fairly reported, and he was very glad not to have been reported. The Motion proposed a reference to the Black Rod Committee; but, in his opinion, Black Rod had the power to allot a place to anyone who desired to report. It was desirable that the truth should be known by the public, and he suggested that the evidence of Mr. H. W. Lucy, who wrote a description of that House in 1885, must be received as authentic. That gentleman wrote upon the acoustics of the House of Lords, and said that whenever any noble Lord was worthy to be reported he always was reported. Noble Lords could send up their speeches if they liked, and they could also if they liked make themselves heard. The article he had just referred to appeared in the Christmas number of the English Illustrated Magazine for 1885. He bought up all the copies of it, because he thought the article was calculated to bring discredit upon their Lordships' House. The Times charged 25s. a year for the reports of speeches, and he supposed that those noble Lords who subscribed were well reported. The experiment had been tried of placing the reporters-in the Peeress's Galleries, but it had not been found satisfactory. After all, perhaps it was well that certain conversations which occurred in that House should not be reported. He had on one or two occasions struck out from the proof sent him observations which he had certainly made, but which, after consideration, he considered were unworthy of a permanent record. Mr. Hansard had expressed the opinion that all the speeches should be recorded, whether the speakers liked it or not. He quite dissented from that

1077
view, holding that noble Lords had the copyright in their speeches. He did not oppose the placing of the Hansard reporter in a suitable position; but he considered that Black Rod himself had the power to make the necessary arrangements, and if that view were correct the present Motion was unnecessary.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words upon this subject, as my noble Friend has referred to the Committee of which I was Chairman some nine years ago. I think that all the arguments for a change in the method of reporting in this House are based upon the assumption that there is a difficulty, if not an impossibility, in reporting under the present conditions, and certainly that was represented very strongly to us in the Committee which sat in the year 1880. But this year a new system has been inaugurated in the publication of Hansard's Debates, and I now think that the difficulty and impossibility have been very much exaggerated, because the reports this year have certainly been of a very much higher and more accurate character than any reports that have been given us before. The change is very marked indeed, and certainly disposes of the allegation that there is any particular difficulty or impossibility in reporting speeches made by your Lordships. The imperfect and inaccurate reports which are made are due to other causes, which I need not specify in detail. Many matters of public interest are discussed not only in Parliament, but also out of Parliament, and the space formerly allotted to Debates in Parliament is very much curtailed as compared with that which used to be allotted in former times. I do not think we must entirely ignore that circumstance; but it is a mistake to suppose that there is any inherent difficulty or impossibility in reporting the Debates in this House. As the matter is proposed to be referred to the Committee of the Black Rod, I will not pronounce any opinion upon the subject itself, though I think there are objections of a serious character to the propriety of importing a reporter on to the floor of the House. That is an arrangement which ought not to be agreed to unless your Lordships are satisfied that there
1078
is no other way of obtaining what is desired; I remember, in the Committee of 1880, evidence was given to us that one of the most convenient places for hearing all that went on was in the very large ventilating chamber which exists below your Lordships' feet. There is a very large chamber below us, used partly for the purpose of ventilation, and, although I have not myself had the opportunity of listening to a Debate from that quarter, I believe you can hear very distinctly all that goes on. A reporter would not hear those who are immediately above him, but he hears the speeches that are delivered in other parts of the House; and, considering the space that exists below, I do not see why the reporter should not change his place from time to time, if necessary, according to the position of the speaker. I think that that experiment should be tried before we consent to the presence of a reporter on the floor of the House. There is one suggestion which I may venture to throw out—I am not quite certain whether it formed a part of the recommendations of the Committee of the year 1880, but I think it did—fthat the position of the Lord Chancellor and of the Woolsack should be changed during your Lordships' Debates. Though we address the whole House, and not the Lord Chancellor, who is the Speaker of this House, still there is a practice which prevails of turning either to the Lord Chancellor or to the Throne; and the result of that is that anyone who so turns his back to the Reporters' Gallery does no doubt increase the difficulties under which the reporters labour. I certainly thought at the time the Committee were investigating the matter that it would be quite worth while to try the experiment of placing the Woolsack at the Bar, so that everybody would be heard distinctly when speaking in that direction, rather than in the opposite way, and I think the difficulties which the reporters experience would be mitigated if that expedient were adopted. And I do not think there is any serious difficulty in the arrangement. The Cross Benches could be placed where the Woolsack now is; and your Lordships must remember that when judicial business is carried on in the earlier part of the day there is always a very considerable shifting of furniture, and any re-arrangement that might be

1079
necessitated by the suggestion I am now referring to could be easily made. Of course, when there is a Royal Commission, and when the House of Commons is summoned to attend your Lordships, seats are placed in front of the Throne upon which the Lords Commissioners sit, and that arrangement, I apprehend, must be strictly adhered to; but for our ordinary business I cannot help thinking that it would be advisable to try the experiment. As the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal said, we are not pledging ourselves to any proposal for all time; whatever scheme we choose to try can be put an end to if it be found inconvenient; and I certainly think that during the remainder of this Session we might try the experiment of placing the Woolsack at the front of the Bar. In that way the reporters would hear more clearly than they do now, if there really is any obstacle to the efficient reporting of your Lordships' debates; but I must say that my desire for change has been very much diminished by the experience which we have had during the present Session, if I may judge from the reports in Hansard's Debates which have been submitted for my revision. As the noble Lord appealed to me, and to the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, I have thought it right to explain why I do not entertain so strong a view upon the subject of reporting as I did when that Committee made its Report.
THE EARL OF MOELEY: As a member of the Black Rod Committee, I may be permitted to say a few words upon the Motion of my noble Friend opposite. I confess that the prospect of a verbatim report of speeches adds a new terror to those which already exist in addressing your Lordships; but, still, if verbatim reports are required, I venture to think that the suggestion made in the Motion now before your Lordships is one which we should do well to adopt. The suggestion of the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp), with regard to the mysterious chamber underneath the House, had already struck me, but I am informed that there is this grave objection to it—that the most important speeches are (obviously) delivered from the two Front Benches, and noble Lords who speak from those Benches speak from the Table, and would, consequently, be very imperfectly heard from
1080
the Chamber beneath the House. Therefore, I do not think that the suggestion of the noble Earl would work satisfactorily. It seems to me, also, that there-are great objections to the removal of the Woolsack to the Bar of the House, objections that I confess I do not see any way of getting over. If an experiment is to be tried, surely the most simple experiment would be to place, for a longer or shorter time, according as the House may think fit, a reporter's table immediately behind the seats of the Clerks at the Table. I believe that by pushing back the last three Benches so that the last may touch the Bar, ample space would be afforded for such accommodation. As the noble Lord suggests that the question should be-referred to the Black Rod Committee, I will not trouble your Lordships with any further remarks on the subject, except to support the Motion that is before the House.
THE DUKE OF ABGYLL: My Lords, I do not believe there is any difficulty whatever in reporting the speeches in your Lordships' House. In my opinion, the acoustic properties of this House are admirable. My own impression is that they are only too good I have been present at the judicial sittings of your Lordships, and have remarked that counsel at the Bar, speaking in the gentlest tones of voice, were clearly heard all over the House. The truth is that every Member of this House who is listened to by his Peers is invariably well heard in the gallery, and admirably reported, if the editors of the papers wish to have the reports. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we owe very much to the reporters. Whenever Ministers make important declarations or announcements, or other Members of the House speak to whom great weight attaches, the speeches are reported verbatim if the editors wish it. When a Peer is not reported it has nothing to do with the reporters; it rests with the editors of the papers. The real truth is that the forum of public discussion on political matters has been to a large extent widened. It is no longer the forum of Parliament alone, or principally; it is the forum of the Press, of public meetings, even of addresses at railway stations. I support the proposition of my noble Friend, because I think it is expedient that your Lordships should

1081
have an authorized report of the speeches made in this House, even if they are never reported in the Press at all.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AEPAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I venture entirely to take exception to the view of my noble Friend that there is no fault to be found with the acoustic properties of this House, or with the reports of the speeches of your Lordships. It is my fate occasionally to address audiences in other places where the reporters are seated close to me, and I have hardly ever had any reason to complain that my meaning has not been ascertained. But in this House the contrary is the case. It is not as though we were complaining, as my noble Friend seems to think, of our speeches being abridged. I have no doubt that many speeches are abridged; but it is that the meaning is often entirely inverted, or nonsense is substituted for sense. And that is no fault of the reporters in the Gallery. I believe that they do their work admirably; but the conditions under which we place them are such that it is impossible for them to do their work properly. My noble Friend who has just sat down says that he is always accurately reported. But I submit that my noble Friend is really no judge in this matter, because he is blessed with such an organ that if the reporters were placed on Westminster Bridge he would, be properly reported. This is not a matter merely of individual self-complacency, where a man is discontented because his speech is not properly reported. You must remember that speeches made in Parliament are part of the documentary evidence and proceedings of the present day; and that Ministers are not only held to what they say, as deliberate statements on their part, but in every part of the world Governments and Statesmen act on the assumption that what a Minister says is accurately reported. I remember three or four cases where very grave misapprehension has been caused by a misreport of what Ministers said at this Table. I remember when the noble Earl opposite was Foreign Secretary he made some statement about Shere Ali, and exactly the reverse of what he said was telegraphed to India. Lord Northbrook telegraphed back in the greatest possible alarm:
1082
Shere Ali received the mutilated report; and it had a very serious effect. I remember another case—some 10 years ago—in which the question was whether one Power would follow the recommendations of two other Powers, England being one of them. That Power would only follow those recommendations if the two Powers were unanimous. A statement was made in this House, and it was reported in exactly the opposite sense. The second Power, thinking that she had been abandoned by her ally, gave way, and the third Power no longer felt herself bound to follow the plan which she had engaged to follow at the wish of the other two Powers. That was a very serious matter, because, on the faith of reports of speeches made in this House, and which could not afterwards be corrected, pledges were given which could not be retracted. That is an instance of the sort of inconvenience which may arise from deficient reporting. I remember also a very absurd case last year where Lord Rosebery and I were made to hold the most impossible conversation with regard to the proceedings of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, neither of us having said one word attributed to us. I remember in the Debates we used to have on the Afghan question I was very roughly used for something I was supposed to have said in a speech with reference to Shere Ali. What really happened was that my speech was entirely and utterly misreported, and when it came to me for correction I was abroad, and I had no means of remembering accurately what I had said. The result was that observations were printed which I had never made. I do not think, my Lords, that you have a right to inflict a disability of this kind upon those concerned. If you attach the importance that you do attach to speeches that are made in Parliament, you are bound to take every reasonable means of having those speeches accurately reported. And remember that this is a matter which concerns this House rather seriously. Owing to many causes, partly perhaps to the extreme labour in the other House of Parliament, it has happened that those Departments which have to do with Foreign and Colonial and Indian affairs are more often than not represented in this House, and therefore it becomes a matter of considerable public importance that the

1083
reporting in this House should be accurate. I wish again to say that in all that I have said I do not attach the slightest blame to the reporters; they do their work exceedingly well. The blame is with us, who do not give them proper facilities for performing their duties. The proposal of my noble Friend is one to which there is no objection; there can be no objection whatever, except one of a most puerile character; and I earnestly hope that the House, after having meditated over this matter so long, will at length take effectual means to provide that one of the most important functions of public life shall be performed under proper conditions.
EARL GEANVILLE: I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that, on this subject, the noble Duke is the worst possible authority, and, on the other hand, I think I am one of the best authorities. When my noble Friend gets up we all know that we shall hear a very remarkable speech; we remain perfectly silent ourselves; and there is no difficulty in his being heard. My claim to be a great authority is that I do not know a noble Lord in the House who has been so frequently reported to have been "perfectly unintelligible in the Gallery." As to the acoustic properties of the House, I agree that everything can be heard below the Bar; but Members of the other House and others assemble there, and as soon as they begin to whisper among themselves it is almost impossible for the reporters above them to distinguish between their general conversation and the particular speech which is being made. There is one other thing. We, the Opposition, are only separated from Her Majesty's Government by a narrow table, and although we are bitter political opponents, we are good personal friends across this table; and unless the steam is got up it is almost impossible in addressing men only two or three yards away not to adopt a very colloquial tone in our speeches, and although we ourselves may hear, it is impossible for the reporters, situated as they are so far away, to catch what is said. I really think that this Debate is rather of an academic character, because it is quite clear that if we are to be reported at all we ought to give the greatest facility to the reporters, and, when a very simple plan of this kind is
1084
suggested, I cannot conceive that there can be any objection to adopting it.
THE LOED CHANOELLOR: As part of the suggested reform appears to be to shift the Woolsack to the Bar of the House, I would like to say that if that experiment is to be tried I trust the Black Rod Committee, of which I have the honour to be a Member, will take care that there are proper provisions against the draught caused by the constant opening and shutting of the doors behind your Lordships' Speaker, because that may have a disastrous effect upon him.
EARL CADOGAN: I will not detain the House for more than one minute; but inasmuch as I have advanced the deficient acoustic properties of the House as one of the chief reasons for this experiment, may I be allowed to read a few lines which occur in the Report of the Committee of 1880? The Committee say—
"So bad are the acoustic properties of the House found to be, that evidence was given to the effect that it often takes a reporter three to three and a half hours to write out his notes in the House of Lords, as compared with two hours in the House of Commons; consequently there is a necessity, if the speech is an important one, to cobble and tinker it up, and very often it is really a matter of guess-work, only broken sentences being heard."
I am obliged to read this much in my own justification. While I do not venture to put my opinion against that of the noble Duke opposite, it seems to me that when we have such evidence as that, there must be some doubt as to whether the acoustic properties of the Chamber are so perfect as the noble Duke thinks.
LORD TRURO: It has occurred to me more than once that if the centre table were enlarged, and the Cross Benches put back, there would be no difficulty in the reporters coming up by trap-doors from the chamber below, which would meet what has always been felt to be the serious objection of having reporters passing to and fro along the floor of the House.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I think my noble Friend has forgotten that the arrangement which he proposes would precisely assimilate the position of the reporters' box to that of the dock in a Court of Justice, which is invariably entered by a passage from below.
EARL CADOGAN: In reference to the remarks of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, I may point out that my suggestion was to seat the reporter at or near the Table. I think it was my noble Friend Earl Beauchamp who made the suggestion with reference to the change of the position of the Woolsack, and personally I trust it will not be adopted.
On Question, agreed to.

MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) ACT, 1887.
Return (1) of all market authorities in England and Wales included in Parliamentary Paper, No. 221., of Session I., 1886, who have machines for weighing cattle under the 50th and 51st Victoria, chap. 27.; (2) of the authorities whose markets and fairs have been exempted from the provisions of that Act by orders of the Local Government Board, and the periods for which exemption has been granted; and (3) of the authorities who have no machines for weighing cattle under the Act: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 1 6.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, with Amendments: the Report thereof received; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 177.)
INTERPRETATION BILL. (No. 92.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, with Amendments: the Report thereof received; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 178.)

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 36.)
Order of the 11th of April last, committing the Bill to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.