Lords Sitting of 21 March 1901

The Lord Bishop of Oxford took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Worcester Tramways.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Watford and District Tramways Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramway No. 7 and such parts of Tramways Nos. 1 and 11 as are within the district of the Watford Rural District Council be struck out of the Bill.
Read, and agreed to.

LONDON (CITY) SCHOOL FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [H.L.]
  LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reports of His Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
KING'S NORTON AND NORTHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS RILL [H.L.]
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
    BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned this day at Two o'clock; and pray leave not to sit again till Monday next; read, and leave given.
ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CHRIST'S HOSPITAL (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
BETHLEM HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  BRIDEWELL HOSPITAL RILL [H.L.]

    LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    LONDON (CITY) SCHOOL FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [ILL.].
    Read 2ª (according to order).

LLANELLY AND MYNYDD MAWR RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 8th March and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed.
LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been? withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 8th March and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed.

ASPATRIA, SILLOTH, AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the

635
Table. The orders made on the 8th March and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed forthwith.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION RILLS.
Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 27th day of June next; That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Thursday, the 9th day of May next; That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 27th day of June next; That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendment these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended; That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Thursday, the 9th day of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Friday, the 17th day of May next; That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday, the 17th day of May next.
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 24.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ARMY.
  I. (Royal Military Academy, Wool-wich)—Report of the Board of Visitors for 1900.
  II. (Royal Military College, Sandhurst)—Report of the Board of Visitors for 1900.
  III. Finding of a Court of Inquiry, held at Barberton on 25th September, 1900, to investigate the circumstances under which Lieutenant-Colonel B. E.
  636
  Spragge, D.S.O., 13th Battalion Imperial Yeomanry, and others, became prisoners of war.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
  No. 2562. France (Havre).
  No. 25G3. Italy (Ancona).
  No. 2564. Japan (Hiogo and Osaka).
  Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATIONAL DEBT (ANNUITIES).
  Account of the gross amount of all bank annuities and any annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all sums of money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of years which have been granted for the same, and contracts for payments on death, which have been made within the year ended 5th January, 1901; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

SCOTTISH PRIVATE ILL LEGI SLATION—LOCAL INQUIRIES.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether it is the case that the meeting of the Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, fixed for the 22nd instant, is to be held in Edinburgh;. whether it is the case that three Provisional Orders referred to the Commissioners relate to localities in the West of Scotland; whether the actual inquiry in this case is to take place in Edinburgh or in the localities; and whether, under Section 6 of the Act, it does not rest with the Commissioners themselves to fix the place of inquiry. These are rather important questions for those who are interested in Private Bill procedure in Scotland. This is the first meeting which the Commissioners hold under the Act, and it is therefore important that the procedure should he in all respects such as may form a good precedent for the future. The holding of the inquiry in Edinburgh for those Bills which concern the West of Scotland, appears to be rather an unfortunate

637
mode of procedure, because it would seem to indicate that it is the intention in future to hold all inquiries in Edinburgh. If that is the case, it really means that we do not have the advantage of the Parliamentary counsel in London, but have to take Parliamentary counsel in Edinburgh. The intention of the Act was that the inquiry should be held as near the parts concerned as possible. Without saying a word against the excellence of the Parliamentary Bar in Scotland—if there is a Parliamentary Bar—I would point out that in Aberdeen, Glasgow, and other towns in Scotland, there is plenty of legal ability and forensic power, and lawyers in those parts of the country might easily take up the cases in which those parts are interested. That, I submit, is the intention of the Act, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to state that it is not intended that all future inquiries shall be held in Edinburgh. If that is the intention it will be necessary to amend the Act. Section 6 of the Act lays down that, subject to a General Order, the Commissioners shall hold the inquiry at such place in Scotland as they may determine, with due regard to the subject-matter of the proposed Order, and the locality to which it relates. An inquiry in Edinburgh in the case of these Bills affecting the West of Scotland would not be held in a place with due regard to the subject-matter of the proposed Order and the locality to which it relates.
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving me notice yesterday of his intention to put this question. It is the case, as stated by him, that under the Act passed the year before last, it does rest with the Commissioners to fix the place at which the inquiries are to be held. The circumstances under which Edinburgh was fixed for the first inquiry are as follows: The panel of Lords available was only secured on the 12th of the present month, and it was found impossible to get the requisite four Commissioners from the Members of the two Houses by the 14th instant. If we had delayed beyond the 14th, there would not have been time to have the inquiry before the natural Easter
638
recess. Under those circumstances, and keeping in view the importance of holding the inquiry into a group of Orders before Easter, and to the requirement contained in the General Orders that seven clear days notice of the time and place of the inquiry must be given, I thought it undesirable to delay the announcement of the place of meeting. I therefore consulted the noble Lord who I knew would be, in all probability, and has been since, appointed Chairman of the Commission, as to the place that would be most convenient. Four out of the seven Orders which are in the list of those set down for inquiry in Edinburgh come from places for which Edinburgh is certainly the most convenient place of meeting. There are three others—one relating to Hamilton, one to Ayr, and one to Ardrossan—included in the group; but we knew that the opposition to the Hamilton Order was about to be withdrawn, and we only included that pro forma in case the opposition was not withdrawn. Since that time the opposition has been withdrawn, and it will go on as an unopposed Order. With regard to the other two Bills, we did what we could to consult the promoters. In the case of the Ayr Bill, the promoters preferred Edinburgh to Ayr, Glasgow, or any other place, and neither in that case nor in the case of the Ardrossan inquiry, have I received any intimation that the parties concerned would have preferred that the inquiry should be held in any other place.
It is not my intention to guide the Commissioners, who may hereafter be appointed, in the direction of fixing Edinburgh as in all cases the place of inquiry. I think it most probable that the next inquiry will take place in Glasgow; but, of course, that is not yet decided, and cannot be decided until the Commissioners are appointed. I can only say, generally, that in all future cases, when the system which has just been inaugurated is in working order, it would be right and proper that the parties concerned should indicate to my Department any views they may have as to where the inquiry should he held, and I would pass them on. It is not our intention to concentrate the inquiries in Edinburgh; but in the case to which

639

the noble Lord has referred, owing to pressure of time we thought it on all grounds less undesirable that the inquiry should be at once appointed for Edinburgh than that it should be postponed until after the Easter recess. I hope my answer will be satisfactory to the noble Earl, and I can assure him that I am anxious to do the best I can for all parties.

EARLY CLOSING OF SHOPS.
The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered except to members of the Committee until further order.
NEW BILLS.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the arrangement of polling districts in Parliamentary boroughs. (No. 22.)

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make further provision with respect to the arrangement of polling districts for the election of county councillors. (No. 23.)
  Presented by the Lord Ribblesdale; read Ia; to be printed, and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.

CHINA—ANGLO-RUSSIAN DISPUTE AT TIENTSIN.
EARL SPENCER: I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he has any information he can give the House as to the incident at Tientsin, in which the public are much interested.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): I shall be very glad to give the noble Earl whatever information I have in my possession. The House will recollect that this dispute has reference to a somewhat extensive area on the left
640
bank of the Pei-ho River, which in the autumn of last year was occupied by Russian troops and claimed by them as belonging to them by right of conquest. We were subsequently informed that an agreement had been entered into between the Chinese Government and the Russian military authorities, through the medium of Li Hung Chang, by which this area was to pass under Russian occupation. The area in question comprises several plots of land which are held to belong to the Northern Chinese Railway Administration, and which therefore form part of the security of the British bondholders who are interested in these railways. The line at Tientsin forms part of the railway which was originally occupied by Russian troops, but of which a portion was lately transferred by the Russian military authorities to Count von Waldersee, who again transferred it to the British military authorities. Since that transfer it has been worked by them, aided by the staff of the railway.
It appears that it was necessary for the convenience of the allied forces that a railway siding should be constructed on one of the reserved plots to which I have referred, and we learn that the presence of the British working parties on that plot was treated by the Russian military authority as a trespass upon Russian territory. It was subsequently alleged that Russian boundary marks had been removed by our soldiers, and an affront consequently offered to the Russian flag. In the circumstances wetelegraphed on the 16th instant to the authorities in China that in our opinion the right of British and Russian troops to occupy certain disputed points was a question which could most appropriately be disposed of by Field-Marshal von Waldersee, the Commander-in-Chief of the allied forces; and we instructed General Gaselee to invite the Field Marshal to settle the immediate difference which had arisen between the Russian and British military authorities, reserving for future examination all questions concerning the validity of the concession itself and of alleged private rights within its limits. That was on the 16th, and we instructed General Gaselee that in the meanwhile he should avoid using force except for the purpose of repelling aggression.

641
On the 20th, the alleged removal of the Russian boundary pillar having meanwhile occurred, we again telegraphed to our representative at Peking, instructing him that as it was alleged that British troops had encroached upon Russian territory and removed Russian boundary marks, and as there was a dispute as to the facts, we were ready to refer those facts to Count von Waldersee, or, indeed, to any court which Count von Waldersee desired to appoint for the purpose, on the understanding that if either side had been found to have committed an irregularity that side should offer suitable apology to the other. We added that, in our opinion, the construction of the siding, which we believed to be a matter of some importance to the allied forces, should continue, but under whatever conditions Count von Waldersee might think fit to impose. My Lords. I am glad to say that we have heard this morning from our Ambassador at St. Petersburg that Count Lamsdorff had mentioned the matter to him and desired our Ambassador to propose immediately to His Majesty's Government that we should agree to reserve all questions of title and proprietary rights for examination between the two Governments, and that meanwhile we should at once send orders for the withdrawal on both sides of the troops at the disputed point so as to avoid the risk of accidents.
Count Lamsdorff went on to say that the Russian Minister of War would telegraph specific instructions in this sense if His Majesty's Government would agree to the proposal, and he ended by expressing in very moderate and statesmanlike terms his desire to avoid any cause of friction between the two Governments. I need not say that we at once telegraphed expressing our entire concurrence in the views Count Lamsdorff had expressed, the more so because those views were entirely in accord with the policy we had indicated in the telegrams, the substance of which I have just read to your Lordships. We accordingly sent to our military authorities instructions to carry out a simultaneous withdrawal from the disputed points. We added that we thought that it might be desirable that that withdrawal should be carried out to the satisfaction of Count von Waldersee, so that there might be no room for, or risk
642
of, misunderstanding on matters of detail. I hope the effect of the correspondence I have indicated goes to show that the incident is virtually at an end, and that what really was a very small matter of strictly local importance will not be allowed to disturb the relations between the two countries.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (SALE TO TRAVELLERS) BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I feel that perhaps some apology is due to your Lordships for intruding upon you with a request, a third time within eight days, that a Second Reading should be given to a Bill dealing with the liquor licensing laws. But, on the other hand, I think that anyone who is observant of the signs of the times, and especially of the signs of the times in both Houses of Parliament, will feel that there is a general desire at this moment that matters of this sort should be dealt with, and, further, a sense that if the Government does not take them up and make itself responsible for dealing with them, they can be best dealt with in a series of small Bills rather than by attempting a large consolidating measure. The Bill to which I am now asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading aims at combating one specific evil, and one specific evil only. I hope it is not open in any way to the criticism which the noble Marquess at the head of the Government brought the other night against some legislation proposed in this matter— namely, that it is apt, in trying to punish the, guilty, to give undue inconvenience or hurt to the innocent. The speech of the noble Marquess last Thursday† was full of interest and suggestive-ness to those who are engaged in endeavours of this kind. I do not desire now to discuss the principles which were then laid down as to the manner in which legislation on all these questions ought to proceed, because I hope that this Bill lies altogether outside the range of the noble Marquess's criticism on that occa-
† See preceding volume of Debates, page 1511.

643
sion. Barely and bluntly stated, the noble Marquess appeared to object to almost all preventive legislation, as contrasted with punitive legislation. I am quite sure the noble Marquess had no intention of making so sweeping a generalisation as that, and I am very certain that in his long Parliamentary experience he has many and many a time given votes in favour of measures which have inflicted very real harm on innocent people for the time in view of the larger interests involved, and of the greater gain that would ultimately be arrived at. I now pass to the Bill before your Lordships. Perhaps for a moment I may remind the House of what the existing law is on this matter. Throughout England and Wales there is virtually a large measure of Sunday closing obligatory upon licensed houses. The law, as your Lordships are aware, is that public-houses are to be closed on Sunday, with the exception that in London they may be open from one o'clock till three p.m., and from six to eleven p.m., and in the country from 12.30 to 2.30 p.m., and from six to ten p.m. Except for that, they are at this moment closed by law, and I am not aware that any appreciable body of opinion exists in favour of a relaxation of that measure of closing which is now enforced. When' Parliament enacted that public-houses should be closed to that extent, it was quite obvious that some provision had to bo made to meet what might be the legitimate needs of persons travelling, either by road or rail, or otherwise. Therefore, in the Acts of 1872 and 1874 it is provided specifically, not that a traveller, but—mark the phrase—a bona fide traveller, shall be provided with refreshment if he is more than three miles from home and applies for it, or if he applies for it at a railway station when starting by train or arriving. It is of some importance to notice the actual, words. The Act of 1874 provides that its provisions "shall not preclude a licensee from selling liquor at any time to bona fide travellers"—who are defined as having lodged three miles from the place of sale—nor shall they" preclude the sale at any time at a railway station of intoxicating liquors to persons arriving at or departing from such station by railroad."
The intention of those clauses is obvious, and it seems to me most excellent; but
644
what I hope to show is that the provisions laid down as to the legitimate relief of bona fide travellers are at this moment being grossly abused, and that the enactments Parliament has made are being flouted every Sunday by those who are taking advantage of provisions enacted for quite a different purpose. The evidence to that effect comes from literally every part of England and Wales, and it is absolutely accurate to say that both parties on the Royal Commission, and I think every member of the Royal Commission, recommended that some definite change should be made for meeting that specific evil. There is a mistake, for which I am bound to apologise to the House, in the Memorandum I prefixed to the Bill as explanatory of its provisions. I inadvertently quoted, as my authority for saying that the Majority Report recommended such a change, a paragraph which refers only to Ireland; but it does not matter in the least degree, because a similar paragraph, which refers to England, goes not only as far, but even further. I will read it—
"We do not think it necessary to maintain the right of the bone, fide traveller to he served during prohibited hours, but the needs of genuine excursionists cannot be entirely left out of sight. We consider that a limited number of licensed premises, where travellers may he served at specified hours, should be selected by the licensing authority, and that a special licence duty should be exacted in respect of this privilege. The statutory distance might be extended to six miles."
These are the words of the majority of the Royal Commissioners, and you would expect, I think, inasmuch as that majority included some members who sat with the avowed object of protecting the interests of the trade, and particularly the interests of the retail trade, and that two of their members—Mr. Hyslop and Mr. Walker— signed a large number of reservations in regard to many of the recommendations of the Report, to find this recommendation objected to by them. But we do not find such to be the case. The "reservation" runs as follows—
"In numerous localities, in which the resident population is but small, there are special circumstances connected with the habits of persons travelling, and so forth, which would lender the shortening of the hours of opening on Sundays a source of the greatest inconvenience and irritation."
We do not in this Bill, except in the most indirect way, suggest any shortening of

645
the hours of opening; we suggest provisions respecting the hours when public-houses are closed to other people, but open to the bona fide traveller. The practical unanimity of the Royal Commission on that point is really not wonderful, as the evidence before the Commission was overwhelming. I would ask your Lordships to notice two things—what it is that is happening at this moment, and, next, what we propose to do. What at this moment does happen? The law is meant to provide for the necessities of those who, from business or pleasure, are travelling on Sundays, but, as a fact, instead of people getting drink because they are travelling, they travel, if you can use the word, to get drink; in other words, they travel in order to evade the law which would otherwise press upon them. That seems to me a travesty and a mockery of the provisions which were laid down by Parliament for the comfort and convenience of those who might be travelling on Sundays. The difficulty in giving instances of the evil, as explained by the witnesses before the Royal Commission, is really to choose from among the witnesses. They are so numerous, and come from every part of the country with such a uniform tale as to the difficulties which arise, that the task before one is not to find evidence, but to make selections from it. I will refer to a few examples, purposely chosen from different parts of England. I would ask your Lordships to read, for example, the evidence of Colonel Moorsom, chief constable of Manchester, who describes the system of what is known as "three-mile houses" and the mischief they do. I turn to the south of England. A solicitor in Brighton, who has acted for the county police for ten years, and for the county council for the eastern division of the county, and who has had large experience in licensing matters, said—
"I think I should abolish the bona fide traveller. I thick the law at present operates most undesirably. A great many of those persons who are served as bona fide travellers are in no sense of the term bona fide, travellers, but merely loafing about for the purpose of getting Sunday drinks, and I think they are a nuisance to the licensees and to the neighbourhood. There are a great many of the better class (licensees) who would be very desirous of seeing him abolished. I have certainly heard that opinion expressed by several of them."
646
To go to another part of England, I will quote the opinion of Mr. Charles Roundell, who not only has had experience as a Cheshire magistrate and as a member of the House of Commons, but who was specially selected as Chairman of the Committee of the Magistrates of Cheshire appointed to consider this particular subject. He said—
"For the three-miles limit I would substitute a six-miles limit, but I would go further still, and I would abolish the bona fide traveller. I believe him to be a fraud, and simply a pretence for getting drink. It is a most serious public evil."
I now go to Yorkshire. Mr. John Thornton, clerk to the justices of Leeds, said—
"The distance of three miles seems to me to be quite inadequate to meet the case. Persons go from one part of the town to another simply to make use of these houses."
Mr. William Beilby, superintendent of police, West Riding, Yorkshire, said—
"I instructed a sergeant and some constables to visit five licensed houses and one beerhouse in a village about three miles from Sheffield, and they took over fifty names one Sunday, not one of whom we were able to trace afterwards. They were all persons resident in Sheffield. On a subsequent Sunday, in the same houses, the police found one hundred and eleven persons drinking. They all alleged they were bona fide travellers, but on being asked by the police what their business was, the universal reply was that they had gone to get a drink."
Mr. Beilby stated that the same state of things existed in other places from his experience. He added—
"In Bradford men would enter a public-house at 12.30 and drink during the legal opening hours till 2.30, would catch a train at 3.8 p.m. to Shipley, just three miles away, and drink there till 6 p.m.; and then catch the 6 p.m. train back to Bradford. In many instances, to my own knowledge, men have drank from 12.30 till closing time, 10 p.m."
That is the evidence of a superintendent of police in Yorkshire. Mr. Beilby added that the bona fide traveller was the cause of much disorder in the streets in the evening. To come nearer home, I will quote from the evidence of Superintendent Lucas, of the Clapham Division of the Metropolitan Police. He said—
"A number of persons in my district call themselves bona fide travellers, but they are really men who go out on the tram or 'bus on Sunday morning for the purpose of getting drink. They travel the limit of three miles, and, of course, have a right to be served."

647
I hope your Lordships will notice that all this is evidence, not of those who could be described as temperance enthusiasts, but of officials who are bound to look into the matter from a public point of view. If these people were genuine excursionists I for one should wish in every possible way to meet their reasonable requirements. It is not with the least desire of enacting a sweeping measure of closing public-houses on Sunday that I am advocating this Bill, but I ask anyone that reads that evidence—I have only taken specimens which could be multiplied ad libitum—to say whether these are the people who were contemplated when the provisions were made to meet the requirements of the bona fide traveller. One gentleman, who gave evidence from Leytonstone, Essex, said—
"I question whether the bona fide traveller exists. Speaking from our standpoint, he is not a bona fide traveller. I think it would puzzle anybody— the publicans themselves admit it to me—to find in our district on Sunday a bona fide traveller in the sense in which I think the Act meant it."
I need not labour the point, because the evidence is clear that in the opinion of the witnesses the evil is a real one, and one that requires some drastic remedy.
With, regard to railway refreshment rooms, the law, as I have mentioned, is that a man can be served if arriving or departing by train. But the way in which this is worked is that a penny ticket is taken by a large number of people, who immediately call for drink on the ground that they are, or mean to be, travelling by railway, and in some cases they make a journey of a few miles and at each end of the journey call upon those in charge of the refreshment room to provide them with such refreshment as they want, because, forsooth ! they are bona fide travellers.
Such, my Lords, are the facts. What do we propose? Not what these witnesses whom I have quoted ask for—the abolition of the bona fide traveller; not even what the Minority Report ask for. I simply ask that, in accordance with the recommendation in the Majority Report, we should increase the distance from three miles to six miles, and—although the distance is not specified in the Report of the Royal Commission—that every railway traveller
648
should travel twenty-five miles before he is entitled to claim to be served with refreshments as a bona fide traveller. We further propose that in each district the licensing authority should have power—again in accordance with the Majority Report—to select certain houses which should, on payment of an addition to their licensing fee, be specially licensed to serve the bona fide traveller. That is what the trade members of the Royal Commission themselves voted for, and it seems obvious that there cannot be any great hardship inflicted on the trade if effect is given to this recommendation. Will it, then, my Lords, inflict any hardship on the genuine excursionist? After much searching in the many volumes I cannot find any evidence in support of the contention that inconvenience will be caused on that side. There are those who say they do not see the need of such a change, but no specific inconvenience which would be caused is pointed out. There was one witness on behalf of the trade to whose evidence I ought, perhaps, in fairness to call attention. Mr. C. Deakin, a licensed victualler, who occupies many official posts in connection with licensed victuallers' associations, was evidently impressed by the dishonesty of the present system. He said—
"I think the words 'bona fide' should be taken out of the Act, and the word 'traveller' only should be used; that any person who has travelled three miles should be entitled to refreshment if he requires it. No one can deny that they are, at all events, travellers."
That is clear, but we should not be in any way furthering the desire of Parliament if we followed this advice. Mr. Deakin was asked—
"If a man takes a twopenny tram and goes three miles, or takes a threepenny ticket and, goes by train for the purpose of getting drink, is he thereby constituted a traveller?"
And the answer which the witness gave was—
"Yes, I think a man who goes three miles should be called a traveller."
I would ask your Lordships to remember that those who thus travel find the public-houses wherever they go open from 12.30 to 2.30 in the day and from 6 to 10 at night, or in London from one to three and from six to eleven.

649
One witness after another said this ought to suffice absolutely for the legitimate needs of those who are travelling, and I fail to find any evidence on the other side. I feel most strongly that this provision of the Act of Parliament is being made a farce of, utterly twisted from its original intention, and flouted in the face of magistrates and other authorities throughout the land. That has an indirect as well as a direct harmful result. It does not merely result in the evil against which the Act was intended to provide. It leads to an attitude towards legislative enactments in these matters which seems to me distinctly pernicious, and one which we ought, if possible, to prevent. I am not asking your Lordships to legislate now upon new lines. I did so last Thursday, and the noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, told us we had not gone far enough.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): But you were reasonable then.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I am glad the noble Marquess thinks we were reasonable. What we did then, reasonable or not. was to ask for something new, the provision of a black list, and I hope we may see that provision on the Statute Book before the session ends. We only ask to-night for such an enactment as will preserve the intention of the existing law. I am perfectly prepared if this measure goes into Committee, to accept amendments with regard to details. I do not profess to say that the details are not, in many of their words, challengeable. I have read the document circulated to your Lordships by the trade, and there are certain points in it which are worthy of consideration. We suggest that the justices should have absolute discretion, and that there should be no appeal from them; but if that provision were struck out I should not feel that the Bill was greatly harmed. The same remark would apply to the minimum of twenty-five miles distance by rail, and points of that kind. I am quite willing to accept Amendments on those points in Committee. But we do want this Bill in its essence and general drift. Not only is Parliament at this moment being literally put to
650
despite, but the existing state of things is a source of incalculable harm.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. (The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
LORD NORTON: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate boasts that he is proposing nothing new. I wish he was proposing, something new. He has shown how futile the existing provision of the law is, and ho proposes a provision which will be quite as much open to evasion. What we ought to do is not to place ingenious impediments in the way of people getting drunk, but to deal with drunkenness as a public nuisance. I agree with the right rev. Prelate that the country is most anxious at this moment to deal with this subject, that there is a feeling in the country that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the existing state of the law; but I do not agree with him that the feeling of the country is that the law should not be consolidated on general principles.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I entirely agree with my noble friend. The feeling of the country is in favour of that, and in favour of it being done by His Majesty' s Government.
*LORD NORTON: What the country wants is not piecemeal legislation and a patching up of the existing law. The light rev. Prelate began his speech by apologising for having introduced three Bills of this character in the course of the last fortnight. Only yesterday, in a another place, there was a long debate upon a Rill to prevent the sale of liquor to children. The consequence of this patchwork legislation will be absolute confusion, so that nobody will know what the law is, and there will be reaction against the very object which you have in view. The right rev. Prelate instanced the working of the existing law with regard to bona fide, travellers, and showed how not only evasion, but reaction is created. The law is not only evaded, but resistance is absolutely invited by such a provision. Moreover, it further complicates the compensation question. It is the abuse, and not the use, of drink which the Legislature ought to deal with, but the whole object of

651
recent legislation seems to be to put down the use of liquor, and it is hoped in this way to arrive not at temperance, but at abstinence. I object to the phrase "intoxicating drinks," because liquors only become intoxicating when their use is abused. You might just as well call water a drowning fluid. Drink should be sold at proper times and places, as it is wanted.
Public-houses guilty of allowing drunkenness, rioting, or adulteration of drink should be punished by inflicting penalties appropriate to the offence, and by the severest penalty the law now enforces— namely, the forfeiture of licences—when these offences are repeated, which would shut up a number the present system has viciously multiplied. What the law should provide against is the illegitimate demand for drink, not legitimate use. There is no reason why public-houses, so checked by the law, should become dangerous places. In parts of the Report of the Royal Commission we were warned against familiarising people with public-houses, as if they were necessarily wicked places. There is no reason why public-houses, if legitimately conducted, should be anything more than ordinary refreshment rooms; and I would appeal to the noble Earl opposite, Lord Spencer, who himself is a publican to a very considerable extent, for he has public-houses in six parishes, of which he is entire owner, whether those public-houses are unfit places for a child to go to, or for any traveller to resort to at proper times. I protest against this patchwork legislation. The proposition of the right rev. Prelate is just as much open to objection as the law he seeks to amend; and, as the Government have more or less promised to deal with this question on a large scale, I hope he will see his way to postpone the Bill, or, if he wishes to keep it alive, hang it up, until the Government introduce this larger Bill for dealing in a comprehensive way with the subject.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I think those of your Lordships who have read this Bill, or have listened to the speeches that have been already delivered upon it, will agree that it stands in a very different category to the two Bills which the right rev. Prelate introduced the other night, and which were read a second
652
time by general assent. Those two Bills were accepted practically unanimously, while it is clear that this Bill raises very strong differences of opinion. I am not disposed to waste any arguments on the point to which the greater part of the right rev. Prelate's speech was directed—namely, the unsatisfactory character of the person who has been created by statute a bona fide traveller. No doubt, a certain number of people who take advantage of the Act are in no sense bona fide travellers; but how does the right rev. Prelate propose to deal with the matter? He proposes, in the first place, to extend the limit from three miles to six. I venture to think that he has not shown that in making this suggestion he is doing anything to meet the objections he has himself quoted. No doubt the man who goes six miles would be rather more a bona fide traveller than the man who goes three miles; but I would ask your Lordships to remember that since the bona fide traveller was created the methods of travelling have been greatly changed, and that now in the neighbourhood of all the large towns flocks of bicycles and motor-cars are to be seen on Sundays skimming along at between twelve and fourteen miles an hour, and I cannot see how it can be said logically that six miles is the proper limit. The fact is, you are begging the question entirely by fixing a six-miles limit. If you wish to deal with this on any principle which can be a permanent solution, you must look further than to an alteration of the limit from three miles to six miles. I agree that the Bill differentiates between different methods of travelling. The Bill proposes that no one who is travelling less than twenty-five miles by rail shall be served during prohibited hours. I would venture to ask on what principle is that suggested, when a man who rides a bicycle or in a motor-car is left practically where he was before?
The Government do not feel that they would be justified in giving their assent to a measure which alters the law upon this small point, unless that alteration is likely to prove a satisfactory and permanent solution, and this solution certainly will not prove so. With regard to the railway clause, providing that a man must travel twenty-five miles before he can get refreshments, I would ask,

653
How is it to be enforced? Who is going to enforce it? Are there to be detectives on each railway station to find out whether a man asking for a drink has travelled twenty-five miles? or are the ladies in charge of the refreshment rooms to add to their other qualifications the art of cross-examining travellers on the subject, or to judge themselves how far a man has travelled, or is about to travel? A clause of this sort is open at once to the objection that it will be constantly evaded. A man may walk five miles by Toad to the station, and then travel twenty miles by train, but in neither case would he be able to get a drink, although he may have been much longer on his journey than the man who had travelled twenty-five miles by train. He would be liable to a penalty of five pounds if he-asked for a drink at the railway station, but, under this Bill, he might go into the neighbouring hotel—which is very often practically the same establishment, the railway bar being connected with it— and there obtain the refreshment, because he is six miles from home, and the law could not touch him. However desirable it is to make some alteration in the law with regard to railway stations, you will not achieve your object by this Bill. I was surprised to find it stated in the Memorandum of the Bill that this clause is intended to give effect to the recommendations of the Majority and Minority Reports of the Royal Commission. If that is so, I can only say that the intention is not carried out by the provisions of the Bill. To take this particular proposal, the Majority Report said nothing about a limit of twenty-five miles, and the Minority Report, while admitting the evil, made proposals entirely different from those in the present Bill. The Minority Report said that railway companies should be required to draw up regulations for the approval of the Board of Trade, and that these should include precautions against the indiscriminate sale of intoxicating liquors at their railway stations; and I would say that, knowing something about the management of railways, I should have much more confidence in such regulations than in the present haphazard proposals.
There is one other important point. The Bill proposes to give absolute power and discretion to the licensing authori-
654
ties, not only to select what houses in their districts should be opened to bona fide travellers, and to prevent all the other houses being open to bona fide travellers at all, but to arrange the hours during which these houses should be opened, the conditions on which they should be opened, and a number of other things which the clause specifically refers to, and, as the Bill is drawn, all this without any power of appeal. I notice that the right rev. Prelate has already thrown over the provision which does not allow power of appeal. He has expressed himself as willing to accept alterations and modifications in the measure, but what I would point out is, that this is an entirely novel proposal. It proposes not only to grant local option, but to give the licensing authorities absolute discretion, without specifying any principles upon which they are to act, or compelling them to give any reasons for the course which they propose to follow. There is also this difficulty with regard to opening only certain houses for a certain time for the purpose of being used by travellers. How on earth is a traveller who comes from a neighbouring county to know what the houses are which have been selected to be kept open by the licensing authority, and what the, hours are? I find in the Majority Report special mention of the inconvenience which would arise if the hours of opening and closing are left to the discretion of the licensing authorities. They say—
"Many temperance reformers advocate that the question of hours should be placed within the discretion of the licensing authority, but it would lead to public inconvenience if the regulations as to hours of closing should vary according to the views of each licensing authority, in some cases exercising their powers in small areas."
I am well aware that that refers to the general hours of opening and closing, but if that is true with regard to general hours, it is still more true with regard to the particular class of houses under discussion. On the whole, dealing with the general provisions of the Bill, I am instructed to say that the Government do not see their way to support the Second Reading of the Bill. Although they admit there are evils, which have been pointed out by the Commission and by the right rev. Prelate, they do not believe that this Bill deals with those evils in a way which is likely to be a practical or

655
permanent solution of the question. It is very difficult to draw the line. It may be that the law as it at present stands does not draw it exactly at the right place, but the Government deprecate peddling with these small questions unless they are perfectly satisfied that the proposals are likely to be satisfactory, and are able or likely to be enforced without giving rise to evasion and dissatisfaction.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I have no doubt your Lordships listened with every attention to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. When he stated that the Government recognise that there are anomalies and objections in regard to the administration of this portion of the licensing laws I thought that possibly he would go on to say that, recognising that fact, His Majesty's Governmerit contemplated bringing in a measure dealing with the question, because they did not think the present measure adequate. But we had no such indication, and I cannot help feeling that the statement made by the Government will be received with much disapointment throughout the country, for as the right rev. Prelate remarked, the whole question has occupied great attention. There is expectation that something must shortly be done. The fact that the right rev. Prelate stated that he was prepared to assent to modifications in some parts of the Bill ought not to be regarded as a sign of want of earnestness or conviction on his part, but simply as a recognition of the great difficulties attached to any legislation at all on this subject.
In the absence of any large and comprehensive measure, it is only reasonable that an attempt should be made to deal with the question, if only in detail. I fail to see how the Bill will affect the riders and drivers of cycles and motorcars, because the extension will not touch them in the least. Sixty miles would not deter them. The object of the Bill is that if we cannot altogether secure a bona fide traveller, we can, at any rate, secure one more so than at present. I am, aware that representations rather deprecating the main provisions of the Bill have been made by the trade, and I fully admit that a good
656
deal is to be said on behalf of those engaged in the sale of liquor. In any case, those persons have a very short Sunday, and it seems hard that their few hours of leisure should be invaded by sham and bogus travellers. I trust that the Bill will receive the support of many of your Lordships. It is certainly supported by many in the country, who feel that, if we cannot get a large measure of legislation, something is better than nothing.
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I venture to submit that the argument which was addressed to the House by my noble friend Lord Belper is not one which ought to influence your Lordships to reject this Bill. What was the case which the right rev. Prelate made? He showed that the bona fide traveller was an undoubted evil, to deal with which something must be done, and he said there were two ways of dealing with the evil. Either you might abolish the bona fide traveller, or else introduce some legislation of this kind which would extend the distances which at present define and constitute a bona fide traveller. How did the noble Lord who spoke for the Government meet that? He began by saying he would not enter into the character o>f the bona fide traveller. He was most wise in that decision. Indeed, I think the noble Lord rather hinted that he was aware that the bona fide traveller was by no means a traveller bona fide. And then ho went on to ask what this Bill amounted to, and stated that to increase the distance from three to six miles was only a peddling proposal. I think there are many people who would infinitely prefer to walk three than six miles, and I think that the provision to extend the distance both by road and rail will have a wholesome effect.
I was struck by the observation of my noble friend Lord Belper that this measure does not contain any provisions which are likely to bring about a permanent solution of the question. At all events, it does something. Are the Government prepared to bring in a Bill which will do more, which will abolish the bona fide traveller? because, if so, I am sure that the friends of this Bill will be only too glad to support

657
such a measure when they see it. It is all very well to talk about legislating on this temperance question in a piecemeal manner. I submit that there is no other way of dealing with it. If you bring in a large measure the opponents of one clause add their forces to the opponents of another, and the very length of the Bill contributes to its defeat. It is impossible, consequently, that any Bill which embraces all the subjects relating to the temperance question, of which so many, as we know, are contentious, can pass into law. The objections which Lord Belper took to this Bill seem to me to be objections for Committee. I am sure I for one would be perfectly ready to accept regulations drawn up by my noble friend. I do not know anyone more likely to draw up sensible regulations; but that difficulty is one which we can discuss and deal with in Committee; and if the railway companies are ready to draw up these regulations I think it is very likely that the right rev. Prelate would be prepared to accept any reasonable proposal that might be made in that direction. We want to do something in this matter. There is a strong feeling throughout the country on these questions, and if we cannot solve them all at one time—I for one do not believe we can—let us, at all events, solve some of them, and this is essentially one branch of the problem with which your Lordships might be easily able to deal.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think that in the course of this debate it has not been sufficiently borne in mind that the bona fide traveller does not exist except on Sundays, and that even on Sundays he can always obtain refreshments during the hours when the public-houses are ordinarily open. We have not yet closed the public-houses all through the day, and this provision only applies to the intervals between. If a traveller cannot wait during those intervals, he must really bo so fond of his liquor that he is not far from being the sort of person who ought to be checked. Very often, in addition to the mischief he does by disturbing the more sober in habitants—not at all an uncommon thing—he desecrates the Sabbath. Why should we have any difference between Sundays and week

658
days in this matter? Why have we any legislation at all by which the public-houses are prevented from being open all the day long? Why is it that there is interference by the supreme authority of the nation with the way in which people are to gratify their wants, or their fancied wants, if there is no reason why wo should interfere with them? The reason why public-houses are closed at all on Sundays, except within definite hours, is clear enough. It is part of the same legislation which endeavours to provide that the Day of Best shall indeed be a day of rest, and shall not be desecrated, as it very often is, so far as we can prevent it.
The drink evil interferes very much with that observance of Sunday which is an important part of the habit of this country. I think we should find that it would be a very serious evil to the whole nation if the general respect for the Sunday were to be broken down, and there is nothing which breaks it down more effectually than to have drinking bouts here and there and people arriving home from some excursion or journey in a tipsy state, and who, in the presence of all their neighbours, flout the proper feeling with which Sunday is regarded This feeling ought not to be flouted simply because some people cannot wait a little longer till the public-houses are opened. That the evil is considerable we have very strong evidence, and that the present law, whilst professing to restrain it, does not really restrain it as it should be restrained, is equally clear. This is a small Bill, no doubt, but it professes to make some improvement in the working of the existing law, and that it will make some improvement I do not think there can be any question at all. The Bill may be open to considerable modifications, and those who support the Bill, as I do myself, will be quite willing to assent to such modifications if they are proposed in Committee. All the objections I have heard against the Bill are really objections that ought to be dealt with in Committee, and not on the Second Beading. If it could be said that the Bill could not effect any improvement, there would be a legitimate cause for voting against it; but [venture to say it will effect a very real improvement, and I trust your Lordships will not lightly cast it aside.

659
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, we have been told to-night that there is nothing to be gained by these attempts at what is called patch work legislation, or, as the Government prefer to call it, peddling legislation, and that the only thing to do is to pass a general measure. If the Government will take the matter up and bring in a measure, I am sure the peddling legislation will subside and wait. I remember five years ago introducng a peddling piece of legislation myself for restricting the hours during which public-houses should be open on Sundays. The noble Duke the Lord President of the Council then told me that the Government were appointing a Royal Commission to deal with this subject, and it would be a pity to introduce a small measure of that kind until the Commission had reported; but now the Commission has reported, and if there is to be no great measure introduced surely peddling legislation has a right to be heard.
The noble Marquess at the head of the Government knows that it would be quite impossible for any private Member to introduce any such legislation as has been indicated. If it is to be introduced at all, it must be introduced by the Government, and it seems to me unreasonable that because the Government, who alone could pass a large measure, will not do anything, those who wish to do something should be prevented from doing what they can. If that criticism is a reasonable one it would be equally reasonable to say of the unhappy war that we are now carrying on. "Why are all these partial attacks made here and there? Why do you not join together and sweep the Boers off the face of the earth?" That resembles the kind of criticism with which these measures are received in your Lordships' House. If those who have the power will not introduce a Bill, I think individual Members of the House are perfectly justified in doing what they can to remedy what are very serious and very real evils; and I hope the Bill of my right rev. brother will be read a second time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not blame the Bill simply because it is a small one, but because it seems to me to be ill-adapted to gain the
660
end for which it is brought in. I attach no importance whatever to the appeal of the noble Lord that we should at least do something. Lord Melbourne used to say that there was no more deplorable state of mind for public legislators to get into than to conceive the idea that they ought to do something without any very clear idea what that something was. That, I think, is the case with much of this temperance legislation. There is a great deal of evil, but it does not follow that every measure, large or small, introduced for the purpose of checking that evil will have that result, and it does not appear to me that this has been made out in the present instance. At present people who have not travelled three miles on Sunday are excluded from a public-house during prohibited hours, and cannot obtain the refreshment they desire to have. If they have gone more than three miles they can obtain it. But if the Bill passes they will not be able to obtain it until they have been six miles. Consider what those distances mean to a large part of the population.
The noble Lord says His Majesty's Government would not like to walk six miles a day. I entirely subscribe to his opinion, and in that we are very much like a large number of our countrymen. Three miles is a very effective limit. But everybody does not walk, and the class that seeks to obtain this liquor, I take it, is a little higher than the class that would confine itself entirely and exclusively to walking. Up to very recently, I imagine, carts and horses had something to do with that part of the population who, it is said, congregate at these public-houses on Sunday. Now, with the progress of invention, they are no longer confined to that means of locomotion. I think the noble Lord opposite referred with some contempt to bicycles.
*THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: No, with respect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether he bicycles himself, but I think he draws his analogies too much from the class to which he himself belongs. The bicycle is spreading very far down in the social scale, it is becoming

661
cheaper every day, and that is a change that cannot be ignored. Now in the case of a bicycle we know that six miles are not much more than three.
*THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I said sixty miles would not deter a bicyclist.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord is taking an exaggerated view. In my part of the country they are not as thirsty as that. I believe six miles will be no barrier at all, and, being no barrier, it will be the cause of dispute and of uncertainty to the police authorities. Really the law even as it stands is ambiguous and unintelligible, and when it has been manipulated by the right rev. Prelate it will enjoy those qualities in a, much more marked degree. I do not see any prospect of advancing by this Bill the one object that we ought to have in view—namely, the prevention of drunkenness. It strikes me very much that drunkenness has tumbled out of this discussion altogether. I think one noble Lord did express a desire to prevent drunkenness, but as a rule the expressed object was to prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor, and as long as that was done, no matter whether the consumption was in excess or in moderation, the great object was to have been attained. Can one imagine how such an arrangement would work— that nobody might drink at a refreshment room unless he had travelled twenty-five miles or was going to do so? I imagine everyone would be going to travel twenty-five miles. This would lead to disputes. It is evident that to make such a regulation would inflict the greatest hardship in some cases. Think what it would mean to be dropped at a railway station, and, having lost a train, and having to wait a long time for another, to sit there hour after hour and be told that you are not to have a drop of refreshment unless you get into a first-class carriage and go twenty-five miles. I cannot imagine that such a provision would be enforced by reasonable people.
And that really brings me to what in my judgment is the weakness of all your present policy. You are carrying a vehement and well-organised section with you, but you are not carrying the
662
opinion of the people with you. There is a very great dislike on the part of many people to this perpetual interference, and a much greater dislike to subjecting their necks to the pitiless Puritan yoke. I feel sure that this legislation will not be popular in the widest sense; and though the people whom it affects are not accustomed to take action through large organisations, yet the result of the legislation will be to do that very thing which was deprecated by the right rev. Prelate—namely, to disincline them to the provisions of the law, to inspire them with a desire to evade it, and to banish from their minds any sympathy with the objects, aims, or methods of the legislators. I think the object which you are seeking is trivial in the extreme. You are producing a great deal of disturbance with very little result, and remember that all the result which you do produce—it is not large—is produced at the expense of the sober consumer. It is he whom you have to surround with impediments and difficulties in order to trip up the occasional drunkard for whom you are on the watch. That will not make the law popular. If I were to put forward a view of my own —and it is only my own view—I confess that where the object of your legislation, as in this case, is to avoid disturbance and uproar that may be unpleasant to the people of the locality, your wisest course is to place the power in the hands of the people of the locality, and to let them settle the matter for themselves. I believe that is the only way in which this one particular question can be settled.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: That is local option.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Local option is a very good thing in many places. I am not now advocating local option generally for all these subjects; but where the matter at issue is the comfort and welfare of the people of the particular locality, they ought to be consulted, and it is only from them that you can get wise and useful guidance. I think this measure a very small one, and, as far as it goes, a measure in the wrong direction. Therefore I cannot support the Second Reading of the Bill; but if the

663
right rev. Prelate will enter into the question in rather a broader and more philosophic spirit, especially if he will banish that secret lurking desire which impels so many who support this Bill to come forward—namely, the lurking desire to prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor—if he and they will confine their efforts to the prevention of drunkenness, I do not think there will be any insuperable difficulty in dealing with a question of this kind. You ask me to promise to deal with this question. Look across the hall, and I ask you whether it is any good promising a measure of this kind. There are many measures which must attract the attention of His Majesty's Government before they can deal with a measure of this kind. The impediments, which I need not dwell on, are far too great at present. I merely make these observations that you should not say that I abandon all hope of dealing with these difficulties hereafter. I think that they will be dealt with, but they can only be dealt with by people who are single-hearted in the effort to stop drunkenness, and who do not mix it with the further desire to exterminate a perfectly legitimate indulgence.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, we on this bench very often differ from the occupants of the right rev. Bench on many questions brought before the House. We always regret that, but on this occasion I think it is incumbent on us to express a lay view in support of the proposal of the right rev. Prelate. The Bill is a movement in the direction of reform which, though small, will have considerable effect. The noble Marquess who has just sat down spoke against the measure, and said it would be practically evaded. I venture to think that the noble Marquess is wrong. If the argument of the noble Marquess goes to prove anything, it is that the bona fide traveller should be altogether done away with. I am not prepared to say that. There is no doubt that new and different conditions of travelling have come about with the introduction of motor-cars, bicycles, and tricycles, and it is because that is so that it is impossible at the present time altogether to do away with the bona fide traveller. I think it would be unjust to
664
leave those who seek fresh air on Sundays to obtain refreshment only during the hours when public-houses are open.
The noble Marquess has given us his views, and in listening to them I almost thought ho had given his adherence to a principle for which many of us have been severely attacked—namely, the principle of local option. Though he guarded himself by saying that he was not in favour of it generally, he said he would apply the principle to this particular grievance. I rejoice to find that, even in such a small way, the noble Marquess has gone so far towards the principle of local option, It is true that this is a small measure, but it will certainly put this matter on a better footing than it is now. We all know what abuses attend the bona fide traveller exemption, and there is a general desire to diminish those evils; and, notwithstanding what the noble Marquess has said, I believe the Bill will go a long way in cheeking drunkenness. It has been said that there will be great difficulty in carrying out these changes, but the right rev. Prelate is quite willing to listen to suggestions and modifications in the provisions of the Bill, and therefore that need be no objection. I cannot see why there should be any greater difficulty in carrying out the limits in this Bill than there is in carrying out the present limits. For these reasons I shall certainly support the light rev. Prelate if he goes to a division.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I am sure I am only voicing a general feeling which will prevail in the country when I express the profoundest disappointment and regret that we have not had from the noble Marquess any indication of what His Majesty's Government intend to do. I confess that this is a Bill to which I am personally not very much attached, as I do not care for these small and peddling bits of legislation. Taking the Bill, however, on its merits, I believe it will tend to strengthen the existing law. I am certain that it would be difficult to find in either House of Parliament any Member who would venture to propose the abrogation of the provision which the right rev. Prelate proposed to strengthen, and no one can live in the country without feeling that this Bill, if passed, will confer a very real benefit on

665
many persons in certain neighbourhoods. My reason for interposing, however, is to endeavour to get from the noble Marquess an indication of the intention of the Government. I cannot but feel that before we are asked to vote on these smaller measures, to which the noble Marquess has such strong objection, we have some right to know what other measure, if any, the Government propose, and what guarantee we have that within a reasonable period the Government will give us anything better.
I am inclined to think that those who have any interest in temperance reform will act wisely in giving their support to a measure like this, because, if we are to put the natural interpretation on the language; used in debates on the subject, we shall have to be thankful for small mercies. That being so, I do trust that this Bill will receive support. My still more earnest desire is that the noble Marquess will be persuaded to let us know what the Government intend to do. We had our attention drawn to this question in the debate which took place last night in the other House, but in the course of that debate it was impossible to gather what the attitude of His Majesty's Government is in regard to these questions. The representative of the Government who spoke in that debate said, as I understood, that he was only speaking on his own behalf and that of the Home Secretary, and not on behalf of the Government. One cannot but feel that this is very candid on the part of Ministers, but at the same time it takes away all the value from their statements. Reading the remarks of the subordinate members of the Government on this question, I can only draw this inference, that they are letting I dare not wait upon I would.
But when I listen to the noble Marquess I have a different feeling, the feeling that he does not believe in this kind of legislation at all, and that he is so devoted to the principle of individual liberty, or of laissez faire, in these social matters that he thinks we are better as we are. But if the noble Marquess had the kind of personal experience which a great many of us who live in the country and go about in the meaner streets of our cities have he would take a different view of the matter. It is not
666
merely with the prevention of drunkenness that we have to deal it. is a question of whether the State shall do its duty in regard to what is a dangerous trade. One distinguished Member of this House —the late Prime Minister—said not long ago, if I remember light, that we were under the influence of this traffic in drink, drifting perilously near the corruption of our political life, and I venture to think that that is the great question which lies at the root of this matter. If the noble Marquess had the leisure to study the evidence which was produced before his Royal Commission I cannot but believe that he would be convinced that, unless the Government take up temperance reform in earnest, there is danger of the corruption of our municipal and political life. I hope the noble Marquess will give us some guarantee that something will be done either during the present Session or within a reasonable time. I could give instances of towns in which municipal administration does seem to have been brought perilously near to becoming corrupt owing to the influence of the drink traffic; and, as I am given to understand, there are persons who have been decorated, whose connection with these matters the Prime Minister, I am sure, could not have known, or he would have been unwilling to see them so decorated, persons who were connected with maladministration of municipal affairs in regard to the drink traffic.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think this is rather libellous. The right rev. Prelate should name the persons whom he is attacking.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I could give the instances, but the point of my argument is that if the Prime Minister could give attention to the details of the evils connected with the drink traffic at the present time he would, I venture to think, be converted and become a more earnest temperance reformer than he has been hitherto. I cannot but believe, while holding firmly, as I do, to the great value of individual liberty and the importance of never neglecting the principle of laissez faire in polities, that temperance reform is one of the most pressing matters of the time, and it is our duty, a duty

667
involving no interference with devotion to the principle of individual liberty, to take measures to regulate a dangerous trade.

BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent, to the Commons.

LUDGATE HILL AND SNOW HILL RAILWAY STATIONS.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords. I rise to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade to the dangerous condition of the Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill passenger stations, and to ask whether the matter has been brought to the notice of the Board, and whether the Board can take any steps to compel the South-Eastern
On Question, their Lordships divided: —Contents, 45; Not Contents, 51. Resolved in the negative.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Scarbrough, E.

De Freyne, L.

Bedford, D.

Spencer, E.

Heneage, L.

Hobhouse, E.

Ripon, M.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Wolseley, V. [Teller.]

Muncaster, L.

Camperdown, E.

Northbourne, L.

Carlisle, E.

Aberdare, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Carnwath, E.

Acton, L.

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Annaly, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Dartrey, E.

Brassey, L.

Sandhurst, E.

Feversham, E.

Braye, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Lichfield, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Northbrook, E. [Teller.]

Crofton, L.

Wantage, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Davey, L.

Welby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Morley, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Northesk, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Roberts of Kandahar, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Stanhope, E.

Haliburton, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Priry Seal.)

Strange, E. (D. Athole.)

Harlech, L.

Tankerville, E.

Hothfield, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

James, E.

Marlborough, D.

Verulam, E.

Kelvin, E.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Ailesbury, M.

Westmeath, E.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Hertford, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Lindley, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Manners of Haddon, E. (M. Granby.)

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

Llandaff, V.

Montengle of Rrandon, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Manchester. L. Bp.

Newton, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Rochester, L. Bp.

Raglan, E.

Robertson, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Aldenham, L.

Rosmead, E.

Harewood, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Sinclair, E.

Howe, E.

Avebury, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Bateman, E.

Stanmore, E.

Lindsey, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, E.

Lucan, E.

Btythswood, L.

Windsor, E.

Mansfield, E.

Cotville of Gulross, L.

and London, Chatham, and Dover Bail-way Companies to make more adequate provision for the safety and accommodation of the public. In calling attention to this matter I am acting with the approval of the Corporation of the City of London. The facts with regard to Ludgate Hill Station are as follow: The Corporation of the City of London called attention to the state of this station as far back as the end of 1898, and in January, 1899, they made a specific complaint to the Board of Trade. Sir John Monckton wrote—
"I am directed to point out that the station is merely a timber structure, badly lighted, and has more the appearance of a temporary building than a station of considerable

669
importance; that the approaches to the station and platforms are inadequate and badly arranged; that the platforms, which have to serve both the up and the down traffic, are very low and narrow, and are in consequence a source of danger to passengers, particularly where the staircases occupy a large portion of the platform; that there is insufficient lavatory accommodation, and that the arrangements, generally, are ill-adapted to the exigencies of modern requirements and the increasing traffic."
The Board of Trade took the matter up, and the City Corporation heard nothing more about it till the end of October, 1899, when the Hoard of Trade sent to the Corporation a, letter from the General Manager of the railways, in which it was stated that plans were being prepared showing what improvements could be effected, especially with regard to the access to the platforms. But from that time to this nothing whatever has been done, except to improve the lighting of the station. What the company say is that if they are to do any good they must spend a, large sum of money to obtain compulsory powers to purchase. The City Corporation do not admit the plea of the companies that they can do nothing without compulsory powers of purchase; on the contrary, they (the Corporation) think that a very great improvement could be effected by utilising the vacant land that the companies have at the station itself, and that, comparatively, at small expense.
With regard to Snow Hill Station, the question of the insufficiency of the accommodation was originally taken up by the County Council in April, 1899. The Council complained of inadequate traffic accommodation, and made various suggestions, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships. Three days afterwards—on 8th April— the secretary to the companies replied to the effect that he hoped to be in a position to write definitely in a week or two. There the matter rested till 9th January, 1900 — about nine months— when the County Council thought it was time they got an answer. They wrote asking for a reply by 15th January. They got no answer, and up to 22nd November last they had received no answer to their letters beyond a formal acknowledgment. The County Council then handed the correspondence over to the Corporation of the City of London. This is the statement
670
of the City Corporation with regard to this station—
"The station is entirely in a tunnel, and the line is on a curve at that point. It is extremely dangerous by reason of the steam, smoke, etc., having no means of escape, and consequently obscuring the lights. The want of ventilation is aggravated by bad sanitary accommodation on the platforms."
One would naturally suppose that in a matter of this kind the Railway Commissioners would have jurisdiction, but I am told that the Board of Trade have come to the conclusion that the Railway Commissioners have no jurisdiction. I am also told that the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction, and it does not seem that there is any power anywhere to compel these railway companies to do that which it is their obvious duty to do. These companies have come to your Lordships' House for a Bill to give them further powers. Under the circumstances, I should have thought that their conduct was so contumacious that I should be justified in moving an instruction to the Committee that they should take into consideration the condition of those stations before agreeing to the Bill. But I do not propose to take that course, for I know your Lordships have a great objection to interfering with the discretion of any of your Committees. It certainly does appear to me, however, that as there is apparently no other means of compelling the railway companies to do their duty, this is a case in which the Committee might very well take into consideration the conduct of these companies with regard to these stations. I hope the, noble Lord who will reply to this question will say that this is his view also. Perhaps he will at the same time say whether he does not consider it to la; an unsatisfactory state of things that neither the Railway Commissioners nor the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction, in this matter; and I hope that when the Bill which is being promoted by these companies gets before the Committee there will be some indication on the part of noble Lords that they think it desirable that the Committee should take some cognisance of the dereliction of duty to which I have called attention.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: In the absence of my noble friend the Secretary

671
to the Board of Trade, I have been asked to reply to the noble Lord 's question. Towards the close of his speech the noble Lord suggested that I should express my private opinion on certain matters connected with the, powers of the Board of Trade over this railway companies. I am sorry that I cannot do more than read the answer which has been forwarded to me from the Department. The Board of Trade have received no recent communication with regard to Snow Hill Station. As to Ludgate Hill Station, the attention of the Department has more than once been called to the matter, and they have been in communication both with the railway company and the Corporation of the City about the accommodation provided. The Board of Trade are not in a position to say that an improvement in the accommodation of Ludgate Hill Station is not desirable for the convenience and, to some extent, the safety of the public, but it must be obvious that any adequate alteration of the station would cost an enormous sum of money, and a comprehensive scheme might necessitate the alteration of the viaduct over Ludgate Hill, which would be a doubtful advantage to the public, and the Corporation would probably have good reason to object. The Board of Trade possess no legal powers under which they can compel the company to make alterations in either case, but the Department has used its good offices, with the result that the company have agreed to meet the Corporation with the view to the preparation of a plan for altering Ludgate Hill Station. The Board of Trade will continue to use their good offices, and, if necessary, instruct one of their inspecting officers to confer with the City Corporation and the company on the subject,

THE ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move the resolution standing in my name, which I read to your Lordships on Tuesday. As far as I know, there is no opposition to the motion on the part of the noble Lord. The only thing that it is necessary I should mention is that something has been said with respect to referring the Coronation Oath to the same Committee,
672
and making in it alterations which undoubtedly will have to be made. But the two subjects are not at all similar, and it would have been impossible to put the Coronation Oath into this reference. If, later, it should be thought wise to use the same Committee for the purpose of considering the matter of the Coronation Oath, I probably shall see no difficulty in that. But I have no doubt that it will be necessary to have legislation upon the Coronation Oath, because at the present time we should be asking the King to swear that he will maintain all the rights of the Church of Ireland.
Moved, To resolve that it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Declaration required of the Sovereign, on his accession, by the Bill of Rights (1 Will. III. cap. 21 s. 1); and to report whether its language can be modified advantageously, without diminishing its efficacy, as a security for the maintenance of the Protestant succession.—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It would be easy to insert the words "Oath and Declaration required of the Sovereign." The Oath and the Declaration have, in other documents, been referred to together. But, as the noble Marquess says there seems to be a difficulty, no doubt he is right.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "His accession" would not represent "on his coronation." Again, there is some doubt how far the Coronation Oath is a security for the maintenance of the Protestant succession.
EARL SPENCER: It is certainly desirable that they should be treated in a different manner, and, as the noble Marquess undertakes to do that, no further criticism need be made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only undertook to do that if it was necessary.
LORD HERRIES: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the names of the Committee, as he promised to do on Tuesday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was not aware, when I promised to give the names on Tuesday, that it is usual to wait until the names of Peers and Commoners have been selected before they are proposed. The Commons have not yet agreed to the Joint Committee.
LORD HERRIES: I presume the number has been fixed?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether it has been fixed. We always contemplated a Committee of ten or eleven, but I should not bind myself if a reason occurred for having a larger Committee.
EARL SPENCER: And it will be after Easter?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Surely.
On Question, agreed to; Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.
House adjourned at five minutes before Seven of the clock till to-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.