Lords Sitting of 7 July 1903

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 further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Beckenham Urban District Council Bill. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Wood Green Urban District Council Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill; Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill; South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern Railway Bill; Broadstairs Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Wellingborough and District Tram-roads Bill. 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.
Cheshire Lines Committee Bill; Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council Bill; Grindleford, Baslow, and Bake well Railway Bill; Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill: Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Hastings Tramways (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Local Government (Transfer of Powers) Bill. Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill (No. 158); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill (No. 159). Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order) Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill; Local

1499
Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order). Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Hamilton Burgh Provisional Order Bill; Broughty Ferry Gas Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ANKYLOSTOMIASIS.
  Reports by Mr. T. R. Mulvany, His Majesty's Consul-General at Düsseldorf, and Dr. F. Ph. Kœnig, the British Vice-Consul, on the outbreak of ankylostomiasis in the Westphalian Colliery District in Germany. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  HOLYROOD PALACE.
  Reports and correspondence with reference to the sanitary condition of the Palace of Holyrood House. Presented (by Command), and to be printed. (No. 157.)
  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Report, by the Board of Trade, as to dispensing with the consent of the Borden Parish Council in the case of the Mid-Kent Water Provisional Order. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MOTOR-CARS BILL [H.L.]
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I rise to introduce a Bill to amend the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, pursuant to the Notice which appears in my name on the Paper. I gave the Notice in this form rather than proceed in what, perhaps, is the more usual way, because I thought it would probably be convenient to your Lordships, more especially
  1500
  to those Members of the House who take an interest in the subject, that you should know as soon as possible, at any rate, the general outlines of the legislation which is proposed by this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that the principal Act which regulates the use of light locomotives upon the highways of this country is an Act which was passed in 1896, and the form which that Act took was to exempt light locomotives from the restrictions which applied to other locomotives used upon highways. In that Act a limit of speed was fixed, not exceeding fourteen miles an hour or any less speed which might be prescribed by regulations of the Local Government Board. In other respects the Local Government Board was the authority to issue general regulations as to the use of light locomotives upon the highways, as to their construction, and as to the conditions under which they should be used. Shortly after the Act was passed the Local Government Board did issue general regulations, which, in the main, have remained in force up to the present time. Those regulations fixed the maximum speed at twelve miles, and at less than twelve miles if certain weights prescribed in the regulations were exceeded. Those regulations also dealt with other matters, such as the particular weight of the locomotives to be used, the form of their tyres, the width of the cars, the method of carrying lights, the kind of brakes which were to be applied, and other details which I need not specify. But those regulations did not provide either for the licensing of drivers or for the identification of cars. The reason why that has never been done is this, that both the Local Government Board in England and myself, as Secretary for Scotland, were advised by our law officers that the Act did not give power to the authorities respectively in the two countries to make regulations upon those two points.
  Many representations have been received both by the Local Government Board in England and by my Office, as well as, I suppose, by the Irish Office, as to the existing law being very defective; and I am certain that I need not go at length into these points, because I think it is unanimously agreed by all who have studied the

  1501
  subject that the existing position of matters is unsatisfactory in the extreme. Whether everybody will agree as to the particular methods by which the existing state of matters is to be remedied, or not, I do not know, but of this I am perfectly certain, not only from the discussions which have taken place in both Houses of Parliament, but from, as I have said, very many representations which have been presented to both Departments, that the present state of matters does urgently call for a remedy. The Act of 1896 as it stands has been admitted to be far from satisfactory, and not adequate to the improvements which have been made in the machines which it was supposed to regulate, or to the existing needs or practice. I also think that no one, whatever his opinion on the details of the measure may be, is likely to deny the importance of the question to a large proportion of the public, whether they be those who own or use motorcars or whether they do not. I think that one of the most unsatisfactory features of the present law is that it prescribes one rigid limit of speed, utterly irrespective of the circumstances which may obtain in any particular place. The offenders against the existing law are punishable at present only by fines, which, I think, are too often—at any rate it is so represented to us in both Departments—inadequate in amount; they are too often paid with very little difficulty by those who are in affluent circumstances, and they really have no deterrent effect because the same individuals are fined over and over again. Another very common cause of complaint is that at the present time there is no proper or satisfactory means of identifying those who are the real offenders in many cases.
  That being the position in which we find ourselves I will proceed at once to explain the method by which the Government propose to effect a remedy. In the first place the Bill which I lay on the Table to-day proposes to require the registration of motor cars by the councils of counties and of county boroughs. Perhaps I should pause here to say that while, in the few remarks I shall address to your Lordships, I shall
  1502
  use the English phraseology, it will be understood that the Bill I am laying on the Table applies to Scotland and Ireland, as well as to England, in identical terms. It is proposed that there shall be a separate number assigned to each motor-car, and that a mark indicating the number as well as the local authority in whose district the particular car is registered, shall be fixed to the car, and the responsibility for that identifying mark being at all times visible is laid upon the driver of the car. The particular method of fixing the numbers and the details of supplying those general provisions will, it is proposed, be effected by general regulations of the Local Government Board as under the existing Act. It is also proposed that anyone who drives a motor-car for hire or for reward shall be licensed by the council of the county or the county borough; and if anyone so licensed is convicted of an offence under the Act it is proposed that his licence may be suspended, endorsed, or forfeited, as the case may be, at the discretion of the Court before whom he is convicted. It is laid as a duty upon the Court that the Court shall communicate the fact of the conviction to the County Council which has issued the licence. In this case the details of forming regulations for carrying this provision into effect will also come under the power of the Local Government Board.
  Perhaps I should explain why it is proposed that the licence should be only for those who drive for hire or for reward. It is not proposed that this licence should be a test or guarantee of skill. There is no security that it is not sometimes the most skilful man who in these matters is the worst offender, because, relying upon his skill, he takes risks to a greater extent than a much less skilful man would venture to do. I think there is general concurrence in the view that it would not be possible that everyone who drives a car should pass a test in skill, any more than it would be right to fix the same sort of condition for driving horses upon the roads. Consequently it is not proposed that anybody other than those who drive for hire or for reward shall be obliged to take out a licence. The limit of weight of a motor-car, which is now 3 tons unladen, or if there are two vehicles, 4 tons, will in each case be

  1503
  raised by 1 ton. The maximum in future, if this Bill passes, will be 4 tons in the first case, and 5 tons when the motor is drawing another vehicle.
  Now I turn to the question of speed, and I suppose we shall all be ready enough to admit that that is, perhaps, one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, and the most controversial point which has to be faced in regard to this legislation. I hope that I shall carry the House with me when I say that the real test of whether the speed is too great or not is, after all, very much this—whether it causes any danger to the public or extreme inconvenience to others who have a right to use the highway. The proposal in the Bill is to put, in the first place, a prohibition on all reckless or dangerous driving, and it seems to me that, as this is so important a part of the Bill, it would be better that I should read the exact words of the clause in which the new provisions are contained. The first sub-section runs in these words—
  "If any person drives a motor-car on a public highway recklessly or at a speed which is dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition, and use of the highway, and to the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might be expected to be on the highway, that person shall be guilty of an offence under the Act."
  By a subsequent section of the Bill, Section 4 of the principal Act, which relates to the rate of speed of motorcars, is—
  "Hereby repealed except as respects any special limits or places to which that section is applied by a regulation made by the Local Government Board with a view to the safety of the public on the application of any council of any county or county borough in which the special limits or places are situated."
  The effect of this will be that the maximum speed at present existing will remain in urban districts for places where it has been specially applied, but it does not follow that even in these places a less speed may not be prescribed on application from the County Council by the Local Government Board; and whenever any regulation of this kind is made the Bill provides that public notice is to be given of it by the council in a conspicuous place near the special limits within which this maximum speed is prescribed. But over and above that provision there will remain even in
  1504
  those places the fact that actual danger to a known person is not necessary to be proved against the owner of the motor-car. The general provisions of the first clause which I read to the House will remain as the first and pre-eminent consideration as to whether an owner or driver of a motor-car has been properly cautious or not. I venture to think that this is a satisfactory method of dealing with the matter, because it will enable any local authority, for any reasons which seem good to it, to apply to the Local Government Board to have a special maximum speed fixed wherever there are corners or dangerous places, or where for any reason special conditions should be imposed.
  I venture to say that the Bill will have this effect, that it will concentrate the attention of the police upon those places where they are really wanted, instead of their being scattered over places where they are not wanted in the hope of getting a conviction where, though the speed may be high, there is really no danger to the public. I have almost concluded my review of the Bill, but I may add that there is a clause which raises the present maximum of the penalties. The penalties for offences against the Act may be for a first conviction a fine of £20, or three months' imprisonment; for a second or subsequent offence a fine not exceeding £50, or six months imprisonment; but in the case of imprisonment without the option of a fine being awarded by the Court of summary jurisdiction there is a right of appeal to a higher Court. Provision is also made in the Bill to ensure the identification as far as possible of those who commit offences against the Bill, because a person who is guilty of reckless driving, and refuses to give his name and address, or gives a false name and address, is, by that act alone, guilty of an offence against the Act; and the owner of the car, whether actually driving or not, is required to give any information in his power which may lead to the identification or apprehension of the driver who has committed the offence. I have explained, clearly I hope, all the provisions of the Bill, but I refrain at this stage from argument until I hear what is said against it. I

  1505
  think that would probably be more appropriate to the Second Reading stage of the Bill. In the meantime I beg to present this Bill, and to move that it be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: It would be very difficult, my Lords, at this moment, not having the Bill in one's hands, to make any practical observations on the subject, but having taken deep interest in this matter I venture to say that it appears to me that His Majesty's Government have very fairly met, as far as one can judge from the slight sketch given by the noble Lord, the requirements of the case. There are one or two points which one will be better able to understand when the Bill is in print, but I think, on the whole, the measure will meet the main points. I therefore personally hope that we shall get on as soon as possible to the next stage.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, there is one point which was touched upon by the noble Lord who introduced this Bill which seems to me to require rather further consideration than he gave to it—the point dealing with the persons who are to require a licence for driving a motorcar. As I understand the Bill, amateurs are to be excused from taking out licences partly because of the difficulty of extending the licence system to all, and partly because it would be an infringement of the liberty of the subject, because people who drive horses along a public road are not expected to give any proof of their fitness. I do not think the cases are parallel. The horse is a controllable animal, but the motor-car has enormous possibilities of danger to the public if ill-regulated; and I cannot see any reason for the distinction which is drawn between the professional and the amateur driver with regard to the requirement of a licence. In France, if I am not misinformed, everyone who undertakes to drive a motor-car has to give proof of his efficiency and has to take out a licence; and I do not see
  1506
  that the value of the lives of His Majesty's lieges in this country is less than that of the lives of French citizens. I think that no one who has had any experience—and every one must compulsorily have experience of motor-cars as affecting the roads of the country—can doubt that it is necessary to keep under the severest supervision the capacity of those who undertake to drive these cars.
  I confess I should have been glad to hear from the noble Lord that he was prepared to demand from everyone who undertook to drive a motor-car—a vehicle of such pregnant possibilities—some proof of his fitness to undertake the management of that machine. We do not want a number of Phaethon careering in chariots of the Sun all over the country; if so, we shall have many more accidents than have yet occurred. What I want to point out to the noble Lord, which, of course, he has already sufficiently weighed, is that this industry is only in its infancy. What we are seeing now with regard to motor cars is not half what we shall see in a year; it is not one-tenth part of what we shall see in five years. If the figures that are supplied to me are in any way exact, and I suspect they convey a generally sound impression of the facts, they come to this—that there are at this moment about 8,000 motor-cars running over the roads of this country, but that there are under order for delivery no fewer than 10,000 at this moment, which will more than double the number of motorcars that are on the roads. That is a formidable outlook, but it is a mere bagatelle compared with what we have to look forward to in a not remote future. I think it is one of the gravest questions with which the Government can deal. I do not say that they have not weighed very carefully all the pros and cons of the various courses open to them, and I am by no means such an expert as to be able to indicate to them what course they should adopt. But I must say honestly, however, with reference to the particular question of the licence, that as at present advised I am very strongly of opinion that they should include in their Bill a provision to the effect that everyone, whether a proprietor, chauffeur, or merely a casual

  1507
  amateur, before he conducts one of these machines on the highway should be compelled to give to an expert authority some satisfactory proof of his fitness, as is the case in France.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, we must, of course, wait for the print of the Bill before we can form any opinion worth having upon it, but there is one point which, perhaps, the noble Lord can explain to us a little more fully than he did. He said that anyone who drove recklessly would commit an offence under this Bill, but he did not explain to us who was to be the judge of reckless driving. Of course, that is a very important matter. So far as I could gather from his general statement, the restriction as to speed is very much to be left, except in certain cases, to the driver himself. He must not drive recklessly. Nothing, however, was said, at all events by the noble Lord, with regard to speed. I think he stated that different local authorities might apply to the Local Government Board to have regulations made on this subject, certainly with regard to any dangerous corners or parts of the roads within their jurisdiction. I should like to ask—Will it be possible for different regulations as to speed to be made with regard to different counties, or is it intended that the Local Government Board should issue general regulations applicable to the whole kingdom? I should be much obliged if the noble Lord could give us some indication as to how the Bill stands with regard to those points.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I congratulate His Majesty's Government upon the fact that they have at last recognised the existence of motor-cars, and that some measure is being brought in to deal with this important question. I have just returned from Ireland, where I witnessed the motor race a few days ago. I know there are many who are strongly opposed to motor-cars altogether, and think that they are going to run about and kill everybody, but I should like to say that hundreds of motor-cars passed through Dublin last week and through villages, at a high rate of speed, without doing any damage whatever, and many of the streets of Dublin are extremely narrow. One point dealt with by the noble Lord who intro-
  1508
  duced this Bill, and which I think is rather unsatisfactory, is that local authorities are to have power to apply to the Local Government Board to fix a maximum speed over the roads in their jurisdiction. Local authorities are not very much inclined to favour motors, and I think that if some limit of speed were put in the Bill it would be much better than leaving it entirely to the local authorities. The result of the race in Ireland is to show that a foreign nation has produced a car which is far ahead of any this country is likely to produce at the present time, and therefore I think that anything we can do to foster this important and growing industry, in the face of the competition that is now existing in foreign countries we should do. If anything were done by narrow-minded people to hamper this great industry, I think it would be lamentable, because there is no doubt that motorcars are destined to play a most important part in the future, not only in conveying people from one place to another, but in moving the agricultural produce, which now costs such a large sum to transport by train.
  On Question, Bill read 1a.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I propose to put down the order for Second Reading for Tuesday next, subject to the convenience of your Lordships.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It is an urgent matter. The sooner the Second Reading is taken the better.
  The order for Second Reading was then fixed for Tuesday next.

  ALLOTMENTS (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND HEADING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I need only detain the House for one moment in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which has been before your Lordships on one or two previous occasions, but failed to secure a Second Reading. The object of the Bill is to facilitate the provision of allotments by the London

  1509
  County Council and to enable that body to set out pieces of land in small allotments, which would be a great convenience and benefit to a large number of Londoners. At the present moment, under the Small Holdings Act, 1894, it is impossible to set out land except in parcels of over an acre. This Bill would enable the London County Council to let smaller portions of land than that, so as to avoid the great evil which now exists of under-letting. In London we have ninety-one acres let out in allotments, but there are over 12,000 acres in different parts of London available for cutting up and letting in small allotments. It is difficult to conceive why there should be any objection to this apparently harmless Bill, but I believe the great objection to it is that this power is not given to any County Councils in England. I venture to submit that there is a great difference between the County Councils in England and the London County Council. District and Parish Councils undertake this work and do it very well, in the country, but in London the boroughs have never moved in this direction at all. I respectfully ask the House to give us this power, which is, after all, a very small one, for it is only extending to the London County Council, which is responsible for the welfare of 5,000,000 of people, privileges which are given to every District and Parish Council in England.
  Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, I regret that the Local Government Board do not see their way to accept this Bill. The noble Earl was perfectly correct in stating that he had presented the Bill to the House on two previous occasions and on both of those occasions it was rejected—on the first by eighty-seven votes to twenty-five, and on the second by fifty-six votes to sixteen, from which I think it will be seen that the House has not agreed to the principle of the Bill. The Local Government Board conceive it to be more the duty of the Borough Councils to deal with this question, and I cannot follow the noble Earl in his argument that the London County
  1510
  Council would be more fitted to deal with it than other County Councils. The London County Council has to deal with an urban population, and the other County Councils with more rural populations, and if there was anything in his argument it would be in favour of giving to the more rural County Councils the powers which this Bill proposes to confer on the London County Council. Outside London the powers as regards the provision of allotments devolve on the Urban and Rural District Councils, except in cases where the Council may default in their duty. There is no doubt that at present the Metropolitan Borough Councils are not empowered to purchase land for allotments, but looking to the circumstances of London it may be assumed that if allotments are required they can be more properly secured by hiring than by purchase of land for the purpose, and if power for purchase is necessary it should be conferred on the Borough Councils. I hope, therefore your Lordships will not consent to read the Bill a second time.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I deeply regret that the noble Lord should have been instructed by the Local Government Board to offer opposition to this Bill, especially because it seems to me there is no opposition to be offered to the measure on the ground of principle. The principle of the Bill has really been accepted. Even the noble Lord in his speech raised no objection to the principle of the Bill. It was merely a question of machinery that he raised. The most he could say was that this Bill did so far cause a certain difference between the London County Council and other County Councils in proposing to give to the London County Council a power which was not held by other County Councils He did not at all argue that there was any principle violated by giving to an authority in London power to deal with land by means of allotments. I venture to say that there is this difference—which the noble Lord has entirely forgotten—that the London County Council itself is a very special body, and that it differs in a great many ways from an ordinary County Council. The argument that he used

  1511
  that an ordinary County Council dealt with rural districts and a rural population, and therefore was better fitted to deal with allotments, does not apply in London. The London County Council has to meet the wants of an urban population, and may therefore presumably be supposed to be acquainted with the wants of that population and to know how best to deal with them. What is the history of this question? The London County Council has been given power to acquire land for small holdings, it can at this moment acquire and let out or sell land for small holdings, varying from one acre to fifty acres. It can let out portions of land of a comparatively large area, and yet it is not to be entrusted with the power to let out smaller areas. The people of London do not require allotments of ten or twenty or fifty acres; what they want are small garden plots, and these the County Council cannot supply except by what I may call a subterfuge. I dare say the noble Lord is not aware that by a roundabout method the London County Council does manage to supply to the people of London these small allotments, and does so, as I think, in a very unsatisfactory manner; but the demand was so great that we were obliged to find that way, which is always to be found, of driving a coach-and-four through an Act of Parliament.
  Even now the London County Council in seven different districts of London supplies no less than eighty-four and a half acres of land to no fewer than 734 cultivators, or an average of nine per acre. That does not involve any charge on the rates; on the contrary, the County Council, by this method, has managed to some extent to meet the wants of the people without placing any burden whatever on the ratepayers. I find from last year's report that the receipts from these small holdings amounted to no less than £357, while the expenditure on them was £308. Let me just give an instance or two of the rents which the London County Council pays for these lands, and the sums that are paid by the small cultivators. In the Catford district the Council pays £2 15s. an acre for the land and receives from the tenants £5 10s. an acre; in the Plumstead district the Council pays £2 10s. an acre and receives £5 an acre; in the hooters' Hill district the Council
  1512
  pays £2 10s. an acre and receives £2 14s.; and in the Norwood district the Council pays £4 and receives £7 15s. It will be seen from these figures that, though the London County Council is obliged to pay very much more than the agricultural value for the land, the people who are desirous of having these allotments are willing to pay six or seven times the agricultural value for it. All that this Bill asks your Lordships to do is to legalise the system which is now in force, because after all it is only by an evasion of the present Act that the London County Council has been able to do this very valuable work. If the London County Council is to do this work and provide these allotments, it is far better that they should do it in an open and authorised manner than in a roundabout way. The noble Lord said he thinks it better that the Borough Councils should do this, but they have not got power to do it, and have not shown the least desire of wanting power. On the other hand, the London County Council has been doing it, has received the thanks of the people whom it serves for doing it, and has shown that it can do it even with all the present difficulties, without putting a single sixpence on the rates and without embarrassing any body at all. I think that a body which is capable of undertaking all the work which the present Government has thrown upon it in the last three years is certainly fit to be entrusted with the duty of performing in a direct and legal way a service it has already rendered for some years to the people of London in an indirect way. For that reason I hope, in spite of the speech of my noble friend Lord Kenyon, your Lordships will con sent to read the Bill a second time.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I cannot understand why at this period of the session this Bill, which has been more than once rejected by the House, should be brought in and should be pressed when it is obvious, owing to the attitude of the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board, that it has not much chance of passing. I do not think any reason has been shown why the London County Council should be put in this matter in a position different from other County

  1513
  Councils, and it is also perfectly obvious that the London County Council would have to go outside its own district to purchase this land. One reason why the Local Government Board think that if there is any real demand for these allotments the Borough Councils would be the best bodies to provide them is this, that in that case the transaction would be directly under the purview of those whose responsibility would be

  LUNACY ACTS (AMENDMENT) LONDON BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is another small Bill, the object of which is to authorise the London County Council to provide receiving houses for the detention of persons mentally affected, or alleged to be of unsound mind, pending their examination and removal, if necessary, to asylums. This initial procedure is at present carried out, for the most part, in workhouses, and is found to be inconvenient and sometimes harmful. It is believed that the proper treatment of mental disease in its earlier stages, or of symptoms of incipient mental disease, would often obviate the
  pledged for it, because if there was to be any loss by the purchase of the land the loss would fall upon the ratepayers of the district that had embarked in this enterprise. In all the circumstances I do not think a case has been made out for the House reversing the decision it has come to on two previous occasions.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 50.

  CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Crewe, E.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Carrington, E. [Teller.]

  Spencer, E.

  Thring, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Yarborough, E.

  Congleton, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Portland, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Dunboyne, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Glenesk, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Bath, M.

  Portman, V.

  Hatherton, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

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

  Egerton, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Norton, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Morton, E.

  Belper, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Powis, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry-)

  necessity for sending to a county lunatic asylum persons who, under the present arrangements, cannot be otherwise dealt with. The proposed system of receiving houses will thus be not only beneficial but economical in its operation. The receiving houses will be available for the treatment of out-patients, and will be under the supervision of the Commissioners in Lunacy and be conducted in accordance with the law regulating county asylums. In the first instance there will probably be two receiving houses, one for the north and one for the south of London. Each house will accommodate thirty patients and the necessary staff. I understand that the Lord Chancellor told a deputation which waited upon him on this subject that he approved the proposals in principle. The Commissioners in Lunacy have also expressed their approval, the Local

  1515
  Government Board give a general approval to the scheme, and it is approved by more than 50 per cent. of the boards of guardians in London. I hope the Bill will therefore not meet the fate of the one I have just submitted to your Lordships.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Carrington.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I join in the hope expressed by the noble Earl that this Bill will not meet the same fate as the Bill on which your Lordships have just divided. What I told the deputation was that I would be happy to consider the proposals, and assist in passing them if I could, when I had seen what the Bill was. I can redeem that pledge now by saying that I think what is proposed is an improvement which I should be glad to see made law. The present system is undoubtedly unsatisfactory, and I have received a great number of complaints with reference to the mingling of lunatics, or alleged lunatics, and paupers in the workhouses. One or two observations which have been sent to me will, I have no doubt, receive the consideration of the noble Earl and the London County Council. One is to the effect that the Council is rather behindhand in the work they have already undertaken with regard to the provision to be made for lunatics. I do not think-that a conclusive objection to the Bill, because the passing of the measure will relieve the pressure now complained of. It is also urged that enormous expense will be incurred. That may or may not be an objection on the part of the ratepayers, but they can urge it on the County Council, who rule their own finance. It does not concern me in respect of the jurisdiction of the Lunacy Commissioners. On the whole, I think the Bill, if properly amended in one or two directions, which can be indicated in Committee, will be an advantageous addition to the Statute-book, and I will support the Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I assume that as this Bill only amends an English Act it will not apply to Scotland. The Bill has been drafted privately and not by a public Department, and, therefore, probably that point has been overlooked. I do not wish to raise any difficulty about it now, but if the point is not clear—and I have had one or two letters from Scotland asking whether the Bill is intended to apply to Scotland—I think it would be as well to put in a clause to the effect that it does not so apply.
  LORD REAY: It is not intended that the Bill should apply to Scotland, but I am quite willing, if the noble Lord wishes it, to insert a clause to that effect.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The point can be considered before the Standing Committee.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  NEWCASTLE CHAPTER (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  GUINEA POSTAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past, Pour o'clock.