Lords Sitting of 4 August 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Crystal Palace District Gas Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the promoters did not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Mary-port Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
Kingston upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Dover Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Croydon and District Electric Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Rothesay Corporation Order Confirmation Bill; Scottish Episcopal Clergy Widows' and Orphans' Fund Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  SMALL HOLDINGS ACT, 1892.
  Return showing, from the commencement of the Small Holdings Act (1st October, 1892) to the 31st December, 1902—(a) the extent of land acquired by local authorities under the Act, with the date of such acquisitions, and the parish or parishes in which the land is situate; (b) the sum for which the land was purchased, or the term and rent for which it was hired; (c) the amount spent on the adaptation of land for
  1402
  small holdings; (d) the number and total acreage of small holdings sold, with the amount of purchase money; (e) the number and total acreage of small holdings let, with the yearly rent and terms of letting; and (f) the number and total amount of advances made under Part II. of the Act; Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Earl Waldegrave, for the Earl of Onslow.)

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  No. 3049. France (Nice).
  No. 3050. Brazil.
  No. 3051. Egypt (Port Said and Suez).

  SHIPPING CASUALTIES.
  Shipping casualties which occurred on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, from 1st July, 1901, to 30th June, 1902; and shipping casualties which occurred to British vessels elsewhere than on the coasts of the United Kingdom, and to foreign vessels on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of British possessions abroad, reported during the same period; with charts and appendices.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Return of all British ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers, during the period from 1st July, 1902, to 30th June, 1903, to be provisionally detained as unsafe by reason of the defective condition of their hulls, equipments, or machinery, or by reason of overloading or improper loading, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 459 of the Act, giving the names of the owners of those ships which have been dismantled, broken up, or converted into hulks, etc; also of all foreign ships ordered to be provisionally detained during the same period as unsafe by reason of overloading or improper loading, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 462 of the same Act; together with summaries showing respectively the total number of ships ordered to be detained as unsafe, from 1st July, 1902, to 30th June, 1903, and since the 1st October, 1876, distinguishing between those cases in which the ships were found safe or unsafe (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1233]).
  Forty-sixth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Inland Revenue, for the year ended 31st March, 1903.

  INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Administration Report on the railways in India for 1902.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Part I. Orders under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following County and County Borough Councils:
  Carmarthen. For constituting portions of the parishes of Llandybie and Bettws the parish of Ammanford Urban and the Ammanford Urban District.
  Carmarthen. For constituting a portion of the parish of Pembrey, the parish of Burry Port Urban, and the Burry Port Urban District.
  Essex. For uniting to the parish of Witham and the Witham Urban District an area formerly known as "Faul-kbourne Parish (detached No. 1)."
  Ipswich (County Borough). For uniting the parishes of St. Mary-at-the-Tower, St. Margaret, St. Helen, St. Clement, St. Mary-at-the-Quay, St. Stephen, St. Lawrence, St. Peter, St. Mary Stoke, St. Nicholas, St. Mary-at-Elms, St. Matthew, Warren House, Shire Hall Yard, Westerfield-in-Ipswich, Rushmore, and Whitton-cum-Thurlston to form the parish of Ipswich.
  Lancaster. For constituting the township of Bispham-with-Norbreck the Bispham-with-Norbeck Urban District.
  Northampton. For defining the boundary between the parishes of Fotheringhay and Warmington in the Oundle Union.
  Southampton. For uniting the parishes of St. Mary's Extra and Sholing to form the parish of Itchen.
  Salop. For transferring portions of the parishes of Hadley, Wellington
  1404
  (Rural), and Wrockwardine, in the Wellington (Salop) Rural District, to the parish of Wellington Urban and the Wellington (Salop) Urban District.
  Part II. Orders under Section 59 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following County Councils:
  Essex. For amending the County of Essex (East Ham) Confirmation Order, 1900.
  Kent. For amending the County of Kent (Bexley and East Wickham) Confirmation Order, 1902.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SMALL HOLDINGS ACT, 1892.
  Return respecting; laid before the House (pursuant to order of this day), and to be printed. [No. 192.]
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. [No. 186.]
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with respect to the sale of agricultural fertilisers and feeding stuffs: Was presented by the Viscount Templetown; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. [No. 187.]

  ADDENBROOKE'S HOSPITAL BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, the scheme to be confirmed by this Bill has been prepared by the Charity Commissioners, at the request of the General Court of Governors of Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, after a public inquiry held in the Guildhall. The object is to establish a responsible executive elected by the Governors, and charged with the administration of the Hospital. The committee to be elected is to be representative of the Governors resident in the borough, the University,

  1405
  and the surrounding counties, respectively. The scheme defines the mode of election, the powers, and the duties of the committee. The scheme provided by the Act of 1766, under which the Hospital is now administered, gives the management to the Governors at large, and there is no authority for the appointment of an executive committee. The institution has now about 650 Governors, and it has outgrown the limits within which the existing mode of government is efficient. This is a Bill that is agreed to by all parties, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a, (Viscount Cross).
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next

  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  On the Order being read for the House going into Committee on this Bill,
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)said: My Lords, in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, I will take the opportunity of answering a Question which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) put to me on the Second Reading, in regard to the possibility of allowing burghs between the limits of 4,000 and 7,000 population to be represented upon the Appeal Courts. I have again very carefully considered this matter, which was discussed at great length, and, I think, very carefully threshed out in another place. I am entirely unable to agree to the proposal that these burghs should be directly represented upon the Appeal Courts. The reason for making the concession in the case of Royal and Parliamentary burghs between the limits of 4,000 and 7,000, and allowing them to maintain their licensing authority is this, that they have already, so to speak, a sort of vested interest in that authority, and it seemed hard to deprive an urban community of between
  1406
  4,000 and 7,000 of a privilege which they greatly valued. As the Bill was first introduced the limit was 7,000, but, after full discussion, we agreed in another place to lower the limit to 4,000 in the case of the Royal burghs which already enjoyed licensing powers. At the present time they have no representation and no power at all in the Appeal Court, so that the Bill takes nothing from them There is nothing of the nature of a vested interest even in the most narrow sense of the term, and to make the change proposed would enormously complicate the machinery of the Bill, and would, I think, destroy to a large extent the symmetry of the Appeal Court as at present constituted. I have had an interview to-day with the representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs and I am willing to make a concession at a subsequent stage. If noble Lords will look at Section 5, Sub-section 1, a proviso will be found at the end which prevents representatives of these Royal burghs from voting both for the constitution of the county licensing Court and of the Appeal Court. As they have licensing Courts of their own it is obviously right that they should be debarred from exercising any authority in regard to the county licensing Court; but at a subsequent stage I will put down an Amendment which will allow the County Council representatives to take part in the selection of the Appeal Court. By that arrangement I hope it will not be improbable that at times their representatives will be actually sent to the Appeal Court, so that these burghs will have under that Amendment a fair chance of being represented by someone who is actually sent by the constituent body to the County Council.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for having considered the matter. Probably the suggestion he has just thrown out is as far as he can go. As I stated on the Second Reading, I do not myself propose so move in the matter; but it seemed ttrange that a body which was an independent licensing authority should have no representation, direct or indirect, upon the Appeal Court. If the matter had been inquired into from the very

  1407
  beginning I should have advised my noble friend not to give the concession contained in the Bill with regard to these small licensing bodies. I do not myself see the very great difference between a Royal burgh with a population of 4,000 and a police burgh; and, as the noble Lord knows, the police burghs have complained most bitterly, and have pointed out that they in turn ought to be licensing authorities. With that I do not at all agree, and I should not have disagreed with my noble friend if he had struck the others out also; but as they are licensing authorities I am glad he is going to give them some indirect representation on the Appeal Court.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  THE EARL of ABERDEENexplained that the object of his first Amendment was to substitute the word "Authorities" for "Courts" in Clause 1, which enacted that—
  "For the purpose of granting certificates under this Act, there shall annually be held throughout Scotland, in lieu of the general half-yearly meetings held under the existing Acts, two general half-yearly meetings of the licensing Courts to be constituted as hereinafter provided."
  His Amendment might appear, at first sight, to be a merely verbal Amendment, but it was more than that. He thought that possibly the expression "Court" substituted for the well-recognised and well-understood designation "licensing authority" might lead to misapprehension. A Court in the strict sense of the word could only receive evidence in the legal acceptation of the term, but the practice—and he thought it was a very poor practice—in deciding upon licences was for those who constituted the body to be influenced, not only by the actual evidence placed before them, but by their own personal knowledge of the district and its requirements. Misgiving had been expressed that in some way the new term "Court" might indirectly hamper the full discretion of those who had to adjudicate upon these matters.
  Amendment moved:—
  In page 1, line 10, to leave out the word 'Courts' and to insert the word 'authorities.'"—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I sincerely hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I do not agree with him that "authority" is the more generally accepted term. It may be that at the present time "authority" is, strictly speaking, the legal term, but the word "Court" is used invariably in describing the proceedings in newspaper reports and, certainly, in all volumes of judicial statistics, and in all other documents dealing with the proceedings of these bodies. I think there is a certain advantage in giving dignity to the proceedings of these bodies. Though I quite agree that they are not bound by the law of evidence in the same strict way that purely judicial Courts are, I do think there is some advantage in giving them the legal title, which they have practically always borne. It would snake a considerable change in the Bill if I were to accept this Amendment. I really do not think there is much substance in the objection, and I hope it will not be pressed.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid he was glad to hear the statement of the noble Lord that there was no idea of in any way restricting the freedom of the licensing justices. After what the noble Lord bad said, he did not feel disposed to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENmoved an Amendment to place all burghs with a population of 4.000 on the same footing. Clause 2 provided that—
  "For each burgh, being a county of a city, and for each Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh containing a population of or exceeding seven thousand, and for each burgh containing a population under seven thousand but of or exceeding four thousand the magistrates of which have power to grant certificates under

  1409
  the existing Acts, there shall be a separate licensing Court, consisting of the magistrates of such burgh for the time being."
  He moved to delete the words "containing a population of or exceeding seven thousand, but of or exceeding four thousand." Police burghs were just as much entitled to consideration in these matters as Royal burghs. The object of his Amendment was to place all burghs with a population over 4,000 on the same footing in the matter of licensing. In Clause 2 there was at present a distinction. He did not think there could be any danger in his Amendment, because it was subject to the proviso that only burghs, wherein the magistrates had already power to grant licences under existing Acts, should have the power proposed by the Amendment. In fact, it was simply a further recognition of the powers they already possessed. Burghs with populations of over 4,000, even though not Royal burghs, should be on the same footing. He thought this would certainly meet a feeling which existed in Scotland. He was the more disposed to advocate this change because it partook of the spirit, at least, of local option, because in most cases the magistrates referred to would be elected by the people of the district, and in that way the latter would have a voice in this matter.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word 'burgh' to the word 'the' in line 15."— (The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment which the noble Earl has placed on the Paper would go a great deal further than he suggests, because it would not limit the licensing authorities or Courts to police burghs above 4,000 in population. It would give a Court to every Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh, and that, of course, is an Amendment which could not be accepted at this stage; and I am afraid I could not meet the noble Lord even if he proposed to limit it to police burghs above 4,000. The only reason in the case of Royal burghs for cutting down the limit to 4,000 was that they had exercised that authority for a considerable number of years, and it would
  1410
  be hard to take it away from them. If the Amendment were agreed to it would cause more discontent than if the Bill were left in its present form.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to,
  Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid his Amendment to this clause was of a purely drafting character, its object being to get rid of the word "retiral." The word might have appeared in other Acts of Parliament, but he hoped it had not; but, if it had, that was no reason why they should perpetuate so objectionable a word. He had seen the word used in Scottish newspapers occasionally, but he hoped the House would not elevate it to the dignity of being placed in an Act of Parliament. He suggested the substitution of the word "retirement "
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, lines 12 and 23, to leave out the word 'retiral' and to insert the word 'retirement.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThere is no doubt that the word "retiral" does appear in several Scottish Acts. I believe it to be good Scotch for retirement, in spite of what the noble Earl says; but "retirement," perhaps, tells its own tale to the average reader of an Act of Parliament better than the word "retiral," and if the noble Earl presses his Amendment I have no objection to accepting it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I certainly do press it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I propose to insert an Amendment in this clause for the purpose of allowing the urban community known as Anstruther Easter and Anstruther Wester, along with Kilrenny and Pittenweem to retain their licensing authority. The three burghs first mentioned are absolutely contiguous. They form one urban community. Their interests are the same, the population is of the same character, and there is no division between them by a county district. There is a short distance between them and Pittenweem, but there, again, the population is of an entirely similar character. I think it would be a wise concession to the feeling of this community to allow them to retain their licensing Court.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 28, after Sub-section (1.) (c.) to insert as a new sub-section the words: (d.) 'The Royal burghs of Kilrenny, Pittenweem, Anstruther Easter and Anstruther Wester shall be deemed to form one Royal burgh, and the magistrates of the said burghs shall be deemed to be the magistrates of the burgh so formed, and the meetings of the licensing Court for such burgh shall, except as otherwise appointed by the Court, be held in the Royal burgh of Anstruther Easter, and the town clerk of the Royal burgh of Anstruther Easter shall be clerk to the licensing Court; and'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This is really little more than a formal Amendment. Its object is to enable cases to be dealt with at the October Court as well as at the April Court.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 26, to leave out the words 'next ensuing' and to insert the words 'or half-year next ensuring as the case may be.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This is an Amendment asked for by the officers of Inland Revenue, and it is obviously a proper one.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 14, line 23, to leave out the words 'to any party' and to insert the words 'to any officer of Inland Revenue without payment, and to any other person.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I propose at the beginning of this clause to insert a new sub-section. At present a good deal of abuse has occurred owing to the power to transfer at any period of the year simply by a certificate of two justices. It is now proposed that transfers, except in the event of death and bankruptcy and other contingencies, shall only take place at the half-yearly Court. As the Bill at present stands, it may be thought that they can only take place annually. The effect of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that such transfers may take place in October as well as in April.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 20, line 17, at beginning of clause, to insert as a new sub-section the words (1) 'A licensing Court may at any October half-yearly meeting grant to a new tenant or occupant a transfer of any certificate then subsisting for any house or premises as aforesaid.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 33 to 40 agreed to
  Clause 41.
  LORD KINNAIRDproposed to add a sub-section to Clause 41, with a view to giving the licensing authorities power to make by-laws for regulating or preventing the employment of barmaids. The Glasgow magistrates some time ago made a condition in granting certain licences that young women should not be employed. Subsequently some licence-holders thought the magistrates had exceeded their powers, and eventually it was decided that the publicans were right, and that the magistrates had gone beyond the powers vested in them. He thought that the licensing authority should have the power of suggesting to licence-holders that it might not be desirable that women should be employed by them. The system has been tried largely in the United States, and, so far as their case was analogous to ours, there had not been any objection raised to it by those interested in the employment of women. There was not a sufficient number employed in licensed premises to make the proposal a hardship, because there were very many other occupations for young women to which the objection did not hold.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 24, line 31, after the word 'necessary' to insert as a new paragraph the words: (g.) 'For regulating or preventing the employment of barmaids.'"—(Load Kinnaird.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not know that I should differ from the noble Earl that in certain circumstances and in certain environment the employment of young women on licensed premises may be undesirable, but having regard to the habits and customs which exist among us, to legislate in the manner suggested would be an unwarrantable interference with persons who manage a legitimate business in a legitimate way.
  It is perfectly true that the magistrates of Glasgow endeavoured to make a regulation on the subject under the existing law, but, as a matter of fact, it was found to be illegal for them to do so. Before the Court of Appeal gave their decision on the point the magistrates of Glasgow in their effort to regulate this matter had landed themselves in an
  1414
  utterly impossible and illogical position There are many restaurants in Glasgow where there can be no possible objection to women being employed. In some of these customers help themselves and pay at the door, and the establishments are of a perfectly respectable character, and eminently suited for the employment of women. There is hardly a restaurant, I should think, in which women are not employed as waitresses. I believe the Glasgow magistrates found themselves in this position ultimately, that they, managed to regulate the employment of women so far as to prevent their employment behind the bars, where they were really kept to themselves, but they did not manage to do it in those very places where the girls went about among the customers. When one considers the difficulties of the situation and the illogical position, there is nothing to be said for this proposal. As the proposal stands, it would not do. There was a Question asked in another place whether a widow could be a barmaid, and I should like the noble Lord to address his mind to that question. The noble Lord said it was undesirable for young women to be so employed. At what age would he regard such employment as proper? There are all sorts of questions of this kind, and I think the unfortunate Secretary of State for Scotland, who would have to sanction by-laws for the purpose under this Amendment, would find himself in an undesirable situation. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, on the grounds I have stated.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he would explain Sub-section (C.), of Clause 41, which provided that a licensing Court might make by-laws—
  "For requiring all wines and spirits kept by a grocer within licensed premises to be sold in corked or stoppered bottles, vessels, jars, or casks, but the by-law shall not apply to licensed premises where no groceries are kept or sold, and where a bona fide wholesale business in excisable liquors is carried on."
  The first half of the sub-section he understood perfectly, and, so far as he was able to judge, it seemed all right;

  1415
  but what was the meaning of the provision that the by-law should not apply to licensed premises where no groceries were kept or sold? He presumed that these premises were premises separated from the other by partitions, or in some other way, where liquors only were sold. This question of grocers selling liquors was a very debatable one. If grocery was not their business, and if the sale of excisable liquors was, it was very desirable that they should be under the same regulations as ordinary publicans. They had always been told that the object of giving grocers these licences was to enable them to sell liquor in corked or stoppered bottles, or in certain other measures only, and that it was for that purpose the grocers' licences were chiefly valuable. He would like an explanation from the noble Lord of this sub-section.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can easily give the explanation for which the noble Earl asks. In the first place, nothing under this by-law would apply to publicans; it would be confined entirely to those who worked under grocers' licences. A good deal of complaint has been made, and I think justly made, in the Majority and Minority Reports of the Licensing Commission and in the Report of the Grocers' Licences Commission, of abuses in connection with the working of these certificates. When grocers were given certificates to deal in excisable liquors, it was never intended that they should sell what is called loose spirits in an open jug; but the custom of doing so has grown up, and it was found not capable of being stopped under the existing law. This Bill will stop it. The reason for the exemption is this, that there are two classes of places which work under grocers' licences, but which are in no sense grocers' shops. Those wholesale places in which blending is carried on, often by the same person who may have the grocers shop, but in premises separated from those in which he carries on his grocery business, are worked under grocers' licences, and very often wine merchants work to a large extent under one form of grocers' licence. I think that if there is no business of the nature of a grocer carried on in the same premises as the blending of spirits or the sale of spirits, there seems no reason for
  1416
  putting the holder of that certificate under the same restrictions under the by-law.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he quite understood the noble Lord's point with regard to blending. But the grocer, under this sub-section, would be able, in the separate premises, to sell liquor in small quantities, which was the thing the noble Lord said a moment before was so objectionable. He must say he thought publicans had good reason to complain with regard to grocers' licences, and he thought an arrangement of the sort proposed in the clause would enable grocers to trench even more than at present on the trade of the licensed victuallers.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think not. Wherever a grocer's business is carried on corked or stoppered bottles will be required. There can be no open sale of wines and spirits. We have not, however, included beer, because we thought it only right that a jug of beer might be fetched from grocers' shops.
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clauses 42 to 47 agreed to.
  Clause 48.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThis is an Amendment which has been suggested by the Inland Revenue, and the provision more properly applies to the Excise Act than to this Act. The same provision is in the Inland Revenue Acts, and there is no reason for repeating it here.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 28, line 24, to leave out from the words 'in calculating' to the word 'disregarded' in line 25.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 49 to 54 agreed to.
  Clause 55.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause is inserted to allow a dealer in spirituous liquors to give out small quantities on a medical certificate, or on a certificate by the procurator fiscal, if wanted for any medical purpose. The clause as it stands would only deal with hours on ordinary It days that public-houses are closed. It is proposed by the Amendment to allow the same process to be gone through on Sundays, public holidays, and other days when public-houses are closed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 30, line 32, to leave out the words 'at any prohibited hour of any day' and to insert the words 'at any time when such giving out and supply would be otherwise illegal.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment makes sure that the licensing Court knows what is going on under this clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 30, line 39, at end of clause to insert the words 'the procurator fiscal shall transmit a list of such orders received by him, showing the names and descriptions of all persons signing the same during the current half-year, to the clerk of the licensing Court seven days before the day fixed for each half-yearly meeting of Kiel Court.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question., Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 56 to 70 agreed to.
  Clause 71.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause provides that—
  "Where a person is convicted of any offence mentioned in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898, the Court may, either in addition to or in substitution for any other penalty, order the offender to find caution for good behaviour for any period not exceeding six months, and under a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds."
  The object of my Amendment is to add, at the end of this section, the words contained in the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 38, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'and in default of such caution being found to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding thirty days.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 72 agreed to.
  Clause 73.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid it would be in the recollection of the House that when the Motor-Cars Bill was before their Lordships he moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of making other vehicles subject to the same provisions as applied to motorcars under that Bill. On that occasion the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, took objection on the ground that as the Bill was limited to motor-cars, it would not be well to extend it to other vehicles on the highway. He (Earl Russell) recognised the force of that objection, and did not press his Amendment. But their Lordships would be very much surprised to find that in Clause 73 of this Bill, which was for the object of consolidating and amending Licensing Acts, there was an Amendment of the marriage and divorce law of Scotland. He submitted that this was a very inconvenient mode of procedure, and that it would be far better that this clause should be brought up, if if it was a desirable clause, in the proper way, when attention could be directed to it. He submitted that it was a very inconvenient course to choose a Bill of this character to amend the marriage and divorce laws of Scotland. He noticed that the clause was a new one added after the Bill had been introduced, and he hoped that the noble Lord would be able to see his way to withdraw it and let it be brought up as a separate Bill on its merits.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 73."—(Earl Russell.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI see no reason for omitting this clause. As a matter of fact, it was not in the Bill

  1419
  as introduced; but so strong a feeling was developed in favour of Scotland following the precedent of England that the Lord Advocate in another place agreed to accept the clause. It was inserted, I think, unanimously by the Standing Committee, and passed, I believe, without objection in the other House. It is following the precedent of the English Act of last year, and I think the noble Earl will see that it is sufficiently germane to the subject with which we are dealing to make habitual drunkenness a cause for judicial separation. I am informed that it is considered equal to cruelty in actions dealing with judicial separation and divorce in Scotland. I can hold out no hope of giving way on the point.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 73 agreed to.
  Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.
  Clause 76.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 77 to 91 agreed to.
  Clause 92.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This is the last Amendment upon which I shall have to trouble the House with any observations, and it is one of some substance, and, I venture to think, of some importance. In the Standing Committee in the House of Commons a Motion was carried to close all refreshment rooms at railway stations at the same hours as public-houses and grocers' shops, and against that the Government representatives voted, but they were beaten by the narrow majority of one, the numbers being 17 to 16. The decision of the Standing Committee was reversed on Report stage in the other House. It was an open Division, Government tellers not being employed, and by a considerable majority the exemption was inserted. The railway interest, for what that is worth, was divided upon the matter, and I have come to the conclusion not to
  1420
  ask this House to reverse the decision then come to as a whole. I think that probably there is a certain convenience to those who are really travelling by rail that they should get refreshments earlier and later than the ordinary opening hours of public-houses. But then there is the question of Sundays. Rightly or wrongly there is Sunday closing all over Scotland for all public-houses, with the exception of hotels. It has been so for close on fifty years, and, whatever may be noble Lords' opinions of it as affecting England, there is no body of opinion in Scotland, at present, at any rate, in favour of reversing that state of matters. I am sure it will be obvious to your Lordships that if the licensed premises on every railway station are to be open on Sundays, there will be a very serious risk of breaches of the law and of scenes of disturbance occurring. I suppose anyone who bought a railway ticket for a penny to go to the next station would be entitled to be served in the railway refreshment bar. If, as we propose, all clubs are to be dealt with under this Bill, and all public-houses will be closed, our rail, way stations, especially in large towns, would not be particularly orderly on Sunday afternoons. I venture to think that the right thing to do is to close these places on Sundays. I am quite sure that to do so will be in conformity with public opinion in Scotland. I am informed that within five miles of the centre of Glasgow there are no less than fifty-three railway stations at which intoxicating liquors could be sold on Sundays if this proposal were not made. It would to a large extent nullify the good which I hope to get from this Bill if the Amendment is not accepted, and I trust, therefore, that there will be no opposition to it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 49, line 3, after the word 'to' to insert the words 'days or'; and in line 4, after the word 'time' to insert the words 'on any day other than Sunday'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNwas glad that the noble Lord proposed to move this Amendment. He thought it would be a great improvement upon the

  1421
  Bill as it stood, and that it would meet with general approval in Scotland. It had appeared in the evidence taken before the Licensing Commission that a very favourite way of getting drink on Sundays was to take a penny ticket at a railway station and either to travel to the station to which the ticket conveyed the holder and there obtain drink, or remain in perpetual waiting in the refreshment room at the first station for the train by which it was never intended to travel.
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule amended and agreed to.
  Third to eighth Schedule agreed to.
  Ninth Schedule amended and agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported with Amendments to the House: Standing Committee negatived.
  The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed for Thursday next.

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (the Marquess of LONDONDERRY): I have two Amendments to the first schedule standing in my name, and it may be as well that I should say a few words in explanation of the reason why they have been put down. Paragraph 9, of the first schedule was inserted in the House of Commons on the Motion of Mr. Haldane. The provision, however, in its present
  1422
  form is not quite complete, in as much as, it does not deal with the case where the number of the governing body of an institution is limited. In such a case it will probably be convenient that the members of the governing body appointed by the local education authority should be additional members. The Amendments will make this possible.
  Amendments moved—
  "In the first schedule, paragraph 9, page 4, line 16, to leave out the words 'qualifications required by' and to insert the words 'provisions of'; and in line 17, after the word 'institution' to insert the words 'imposing any limit on the number of the members of the governing body or requiring any qualification for those members'; and to leave out the word 'to' and insert the words 'as respects.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Sub-section 11 provides that the managers of all public elementary schools shall not be appointed for a longer period than three years, at the end of which period they shall be eligible for reappointment. The object of my Amendment is to limit the operation of the subsection to managers of public elementary schools provided by the local education authority. The provision should not apply to voluntary schools, whose managers should be left to be appointed under the Trust Deed or under Orders made under Section 11 of the Act of last year. The effect of the Amendment is to make the necessary limitation. I trust that this will meet an Amendment moved at an earlier stage by the Bishop of Hereford. The grammar of the paragraph as it originally stood was not very satisfactory, and consequently exception was taken to it by the right reverend Prelate. That matter is altered by the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the first schedule, page 4, line 20, to leave out the words 'The managers of all public elementary schools,' and to insert the words 'A manager of a public elementary school provided by the local education authority'; and in line 21 to leave out from the word 'years' to the end of the paragraph, and to insert the words 'but may be re-appointed.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  LORD TWEED MOUTHsaid it seemed to him that the Amendment would strike

  1423
  out all limit as to the period of appointment of managers of non-provided schools. The sub-section would read—
  "A manager of a public elementary school provided by the local education authority shall not be appointed for a longer period than three years, but may be re-appointed."
  The result of that would be that, so far as provided schools were concerned, all the managers would have to be appointed every three years, whereas in the case of non-provided schools there would be no limit whatever, whether the managers were foundation managers or managers appointed by local authorities. He did not think that could be the intention of the noble Marquess. In certain cases, where the manager was appointed ex officio, it might be well for him not to come under the three years limit; but surely the other managers whether chosen by the local education authority or the owners of the school, ought to be appointed for three years, it being perfectly open for the people who appointed them to re-appoint them at the end of their term.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYfailed to see where the injustice came in.
  EARL SPENCERhoped the noble Marquess would not press his Amendment, which would have a very serious effect. Under it they would have in non-provided schools managers appointed for all time, and no change would be possible. He thought it desirable that there should be a change, and he trusted that the President of the Board of Education would not insist upon his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhoped the noble Marquess would take the matter into consideration. What object could anyone have in wishing that a manager should be appointed for an unlimited time? He did not think that was in the interests either of non-provided school managers or of provided school managers. Surely there was nothing at all harsh in providing that every manager should be elected once in three years. It was a simple rule and a good one.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I understand there is no limit to the length of time for which voluntary school managers may be appointed in the country generally, and there seems to be no reason why a different rule should apply to London from that which applies to the rest of the country.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he had understood that the noble Marquess's intention was to accept an Amendment which he had moved in order to make the schedule read grammatically, but in framing the Amendment now before the House a new condition had been introduced. He could not but feel that even the ungrammatical language would be preferable to the new clause. What the sub-section was intended to provide was, he imagined, this, that the managers of all public elementary schools should be appointed for a period not exceeding three years. That was the original intention, but it was illogically expressed.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYconfessed to having a great deal of sympathy with the arguments adduced as to the undesirability of permanent appointments of managers being made, either in provided or non-provided schools. But his difficulty arose from what was stated by the noble Duke with great force, that it was inconvenient to make a different arrangement in London from that which was applicable to the country, and he hoped rather that the Board of Education would use its authority to discountenance schemes which did not provide for a triennial election of all managers except those sitting ex officio.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that owing to the rapid transaction of business the other evening, he was precluded from moving an Amendment which stood in his name, and he now desired to bring it forward. It was a very modest Amendment, and its object was to give the local education authority power, by its by-laws dealing with school attendance, to require all

  1425
  children who left school before reaching the seventh standard, or such other standard as might be fixed by the bylaws, to attend continuation classes until they reached this standard, or, failing this, attained the age of sixteen years. The Amendment was of an urgent character, for it dealt with one of the greatest defects in our system of elementary education, and would check, to a large extent, the moral and intellectual waste that was now going on. As long ago as 1891 it was enacted in Germany that through the ordinance of a district council, or any wider communal body, attendance at a continuation school might be made obligatory for all male workers under the age of eighteen. Their Lordships would see how much more drastic this was than the proposal in his Amendment. The State law of Saxony, passed in 1873, enacted that all boys leaving the elementary schools should be required to attend a continuation school for three years, unless their further instruction was otherwise provided for by some approved means. As to the good results of these provisions there could be no question.
  The Director of the Leipzic Continuation School had stated—
  "Naturally boys of fourteen cannot be trusted by their own unaided intelligence to see the advantage or necessity of attending school. Therefore it is a good thing to have the rule. The great majority of the boys, if left alone, would never open a book or write a composition, or work a single sum after leaving school."
  But the most striking part of this teacher's testimony was as to the moral results of this system of continuation schools. He would like to see the principle of this Amendment applied to the whole country. A large number of persons interested in education, and many of the leading employers, were very anxious that attendance at this kind of continuation class should be made obligatory.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the first schedule, page, 4, after paragraph 11, to insert the following new paragraphs—
  '(a) The local education authority may, by its by-laws dealing with school attendance, require all children who leave school before reaching the seventh standard, or such other standard as may be fixed by the by-laws, to attend continuation classes until they reach
  1426
  this standard or, failing this, attain the age of sixteen years; and the minimum number of attendances required in each year shall be ninety of one hour each, it being provided that duly registered attendance at a Sunday school or Bible class shall, if the parents so desire, be reckoned for not more than thirty of the ninety attendances required.
  '(b) Parents and employers contravening such by-law shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings for each offence.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he was entirely in favour of the principle underlying the Amendment; but he believed that his right rev. brother would retard rather than promote the attainment of his object by putting this proposal in the schedule of a Bill dealing only with London education. He hoped that on a suitable opportunity legislation would be proposed giving effect to some proposal of this character and applying the principle to the country as a whole.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid the right rev. Prelate had struck the weakest point in our system of elementary education. It was essential that some such provision as this should be adopted if they were to have anything like true education for the children in elementary schools. When he was a parish clergyman he frequently found that in the course of two or three years lads who had left school at the ordinary period absolutely lost the power of reading intelligently.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The object of this Amendment is to enable the local education authority to make attendance at continuation schools compulsory beyond the age at which attendance at school is now compulsory. Such a provision is a wide-reaching and very important extension of the present law as to compulsory education. It was proposed last year as an Amendment to the general Act, and was resisted on the ground that any extension of the limits of compulsory education should be the subject of separate legislation, and should not be dealt with in a Bill which was dealing primarily with education machinery. These arguments are much stronger against the insertion of such a clause in the present Bill than they were against the insertion of the clause in last year's Act. There is no

  1427
  special reason from this point of view to differentiate London from the rest of the country, and such a provision should certainly not be made in a Bill which deals only with London. As a matter of fact, it is clearly not within the title of the Bill, which is only a Bill to extend last year's Act to London. I am bound, therefore, to ask the right rev. Prelate not to press his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he sympathised with the object which the right rev. Prelate had in view, but he agreed that it was not a subject that could be dealt with in this Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a to-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 189.)

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.],
  Read 3a(according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  POST OFFICE MAINS.
  LORD KINNAIRDasked his Majesty's Government whether in view of the danger and inconvenience to the public, stated to have been occasioned by the laying of Post Office mains under the public streets, without due regard to existing pipes and mains, the Postmaster-General would, before commencing work in any street, cause notice to be served upon the owners of existing pipes and mains of the intention of the Post Office to lay mains therein, and would conform with such reasonable requirements as might from time to time be made by the owners of such pipes and mains for the purpose of protecting them from injury; and whether the Postmaster-General would accept responsibility for the damage he might cause, in the same manner as companies having Parliamentary powers to open up thoroughfares.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I have been asked by my right hon. colleague, the Postmaster-General, to reply to this Question. It is perfectly true that electric light companies have to give notice to various bodies before they open the streets, and I think it only
  1428
  right that private corporations of that kind should be under somewhat stricter obligations than the Postmaster-General. At the same time, the Postmaster-General is under pretty definite statutory restrictions. If I understood the noble Lord rightly, there is some special case of damage which has been brought to his notice. No specific instance is given in the Question, and, therefore, I am not prepared with any answer to the case brought forward; but in a private letter asking me to answer this Question the Postmaster-General distinctly requests me to add that if the noble Lord, or others acting with him, have any specific case of damage and will bring it under the notice of my right hon. colleague he will give it his immediate attention. With regard to the remainder of the Question, I have to say that the procedure incumbent upon the Postmaster-General when he wants to lay underground telegraphs is regulated by a statute. There are three distinct requirements. In the first place, he is obliged to get the consent of the local authority, and he has to come to an agreement with them as to the method of carrying out the work. He has further, when it is resolved to open a public road or street, to give notice, so that the local authorities may have an opportunity of supervising the work. Then he has to give notice to any water or gas company of any alteration which is intended in their pipes. The Post Office engineers are instructed by printed regulations to comply with all the reasonable requirements made by other owners of pipes and mains. This, however, is not a statutory obligation; it is an instruction voluntarily given by the Postmaster-General. I suggest to the noble Lord and to the House that it is not desirable that further obligations or restrictions, such as are suggested in the noble Lord's Question, should be placed upon the Post Office in carrying out works which are for the public service. The fact is, many of the bodies who have pipes and mains under the public roads have no statutory right to be there at all. Of course, no one desires to do any damage to them wilfully, but in law many of them are there simply as trespassers. They are obviously in a very different position from owners, who have

  1429
  a statutory right to have their property under the public streets. There is only one other question to which I think I need refer, and that is the position in respect to damage. I would refer the noble Lord to Sections 7 and 42 of the Telegraph Act, 1863, which regulates the matter; but he will perhaps, excuse me from entering into any discussion upon it just now for this reason—that there is a case under these sections against the Postmaster-General shortly to come into Court, and I think it would obviously be unsatisfactory for the Government to discuss the matter in either House of Parliament at the moment. I have to repeat the promise given, that if any specific case of hardship is brought to the notice of the Postmaster-General full consideration will be given to it.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his answer, which is very satisfactory.

  A WEDNESDAY SITTING.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House, I regret to say I shall have to ask the House to sit at the usual hour tomorrow, in order to receive the Patent Office Extension Bill. That measure will involve the acquisition, by compulsory powers, of sites, and under the Standing Orders it is necessary to give a week's notice within which petitions can be presented against it. I understand that it is intended also to take the Report stage of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and the Third Reading of the London Education Bill will also be put down. Of course if there is any objection with regard to the latter on the score of shortness of notice that Bill will not be proceeded with tomorrow. But I might say that the time of the House for the remainder of the session will be fully occupied, and perhaps it would he better to take the Bill tomorrow than at a late hour on Thursday or Friday night
  THE EARL OF CREWE,in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, said he was not aware of the extent to which the discussion on the Education Bill would go, but he was obliged to the noble Duke for stating that if necessary the Bill should be put down for a later day.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed and to be read 2a on Friday next.—(The Earl of Selbourne. (No. 190.)

  POOR LAW (DISSOLUTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow.—(The Lord Kenyon.) (No. 191.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock till tomorrow, half-past Four o'clock.