Lords Sitting of 23 June 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: Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Transfer).
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills: Broughty Ferry Gas Provisional Order; Hamilton Burgh Provisional Order.
And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Metropolitan Police Provisional Order; Military Lands Provisional Orders.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed: Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers); Wigan Corporation Tramways; Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway; Romford and District Tramways; Beckenham Urban District Council.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill ought not to be dispensed with, but that the Bill may be allowed to proceed, subject to Clauses 8, 10, and 11 being struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, on a proviso being inserted in the Bill for the protection of the debenture and preference shareholders, and subject to the Bill being submitted to the meeting of the proprietors of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company now summoned to meet.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Stroud and District Tramways Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, subject to the names of James Grainger Bellamy and Alexander Siemens being struck out of the Bill.
  Read and agreed to.
  Gorleston and Southtown Gas Bill. Reported without Amendment.
  Kip's Patents Bill [H.L.], Bangor Corporation Bill [H.L.], Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill. Reported with Amendments.
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1.) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.
  New Hunstanton Improvement Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; Stroud and District Tramways Bill; Romford and District Tramways Bill; Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Private Bill

  195
  brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly.
  Great Eastern Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; Stroud and District Tramways Bill; Romford and District Tramways Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill. Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill; Grindleford Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill. Committed.
  Bradford Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
  South Shields Corporation Bill; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Wirral Railway Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons amended.
  Public Accounts—Message from the Commons for leave for the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House. Leave given accordingly, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
  Glasgow Corporation (Police) Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. (No. 127.) A Bill to confirm a Pro-
  196
  visional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Police).
  Glasgow Corporation Tramways Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. (No. 128.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating, to Glasgow Corporation Tramways.
  Were presented by the Lord Balfour, read 1a; and to be printed.
  Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill; Crystal Palace District Gas Bill; Leigh Corporation Bill; Wellingborough and District Tramrcads Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill; Middlesbrough Corporation Bill; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), E. Mayo, L. Braye, L. Strathspey (E. Seafield), L. Herries (chairman), L. St. Oswald; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Naval Works Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill (No. 130); Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill No. 131). Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

PETITIONS.

  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: of Abbot's Salford, Evesham; Aberavon; Abertillery; Aberystwyth; Abingdon; Acton Burnell; Aiskew; Alcester; Allerton Park and District; Alnwick; Alston and District; Alton; Altrincham; Amberley; Amble (Northumberland): Ambleside; Anderton; Angmering and Cross Bush; Annitsford; Ascot; Ashbourne; Ashford (Kent); Ashford (Middlesex): Ashington; Ashton-under-Lyne; Atherton; Avon Dasset; Backworth; Bacup; Bakewell and Hassop; Banbury; Bangor; Barking (2); Barmouth; Barnard Castle; Barnet; Barrasford; Bartestree and District; Barton-on-Humber; Barton-on-Irwell; Basingstoke; Bath (2); Battle; Beckenham; Bedford; Beeston; Begbroke; Bentham; Berwick-on-Tweed (2); Bexhill-on-Sea; Biddlestone; Bilston; Birchley; Birkdale (2); Birkenhead (4); Birmingham (8); Birtley; Bishop Auckland; Bishops Stortford (2); Bishop Thornton and District; Blackbrook; Blackburn (2); Blackmore Park; Blackpool; Blaenau Festiniog; Blundellsands; Blyth; Bognor; Bollington; Bolton (4); Bolton-le-Sands; Bootle (2); Boscombe; Bournemouth; Bradford (4); Braintree; Brentford (2); Brentwood (2); Brewood; Bridgend; Bridgnorth; Bridgwater; Brierley Hill; Brighouse; Brighton (3); Brindle; Bristol (3); Broadway; Bromley (Kent); Brooms; Brough Hall; Broughton; Broxwood; Brynmawr; Buckland; Buckley; Burgess Hill; Burnham; Burscough and Lathom; Burslem; Burton-on-Trent; Bury (2); Bury St. Edmunds; Buxton; Byer Moor; Cambridge; Campden; Cannock and
  198
  Hednesford; Cardiff (5); Carisbrooke; Carlisle (4); Carlton; Carmarthen; Carshalton; Castleford; Castleton; Catforth; Chatham; Chelmsford; Chepstow; Chester (2); Chesterfield; Chester-le-Street; Chichester; Chigwell; Chippenham; Chipping; Chipping Sodbury; Chislehurst; Chorley (3); Cirencester; Claughton-on-Brock; Clayton Green; Cleator; Clevedon; Clifford; Clifton; Cockermouth; Coedangred; Colchester; Coleshill; Colne; Colwich; Congleton; Corby; Cornforth and District; Cottam; Coughton; Courtfield; Coventry (2); Crawley; Crayford; Crewe; Croft; Crook; Croydon; Dalton-in-Furness; Darlington; Dartford; Deal (2); Denaby Main; Denbigh; Derby (2); Derwent and District; Devizes; Dewsbury; Ditton Hall; Doncaster; Dorking; Dover; Downall Green; Downsine (2); Dudley; Dukinfield; Dunmow (2); Durham; Eastbourne; East Grinstead; East Harptree; East Hendred; Eastleigh; Eastwood; Eccles; Egton Bridge; Ellingham; Eltham; Enfield (2); Epsom; Erdington; Errwood and Whaleybridge; Esh; Esh Laude; Euxton; Evesham; Exton and Oakham; Fairfield; Fairford; Fareham; Farnborough; Farnham; Farnworth; Faversham; Felton; Fernyhalgh; Flint; Florence (British subjects); Folkestone; Fordingbridge; Formby; Foxcote; Frizington; Frome; Gainford; Gainsborough; Garstang; Garston; Gateshead; Gillmoss; Glastonbury; Goodwick; Goole; Gosforth; Grange-over-Sands; Grangetown; Grantham; Grassendale; Gravesend; Grayshott; Great Crosby; Great Eccleston; Great Haywood; Guildford and Godalming; Hainton; Halifax (2); Haltwhistle; Hampton Wick and Teddington (2); Hanley; Harrington; Harrogate Harrow-on-the-Hill (2); Hartlepool; Hastings and Rye (2); Haunton; Haverfordwest; Haydon Bridge; Hayward's Heath; Heaton Norris; Hemsworth; Hereford; Heron's Ghyll; Hethe; Hexham; Hillingdon; Hinckley (2); Hindley; Hoddeston; Holyhead and Beaumaris; Holywell (2); Hornby; Haorsham; Horwich; Houghton-le-Spring Hove; Huddersfield; Hulme; Husbands Bosworth; Huyton; Hythe; Ilford; Ilkley; Ingatestone; Ipswich and Woodbridge; Isleworth (4); Keighley; Kelvedon; Kemerton; Kenilworth; Kendal; Kew; Kidderminster; Kidsgrove and

  199
  Alsager; Kingston-on-Thames; Kingswood; Knaresborough; Knolton Hall; Overton; Knutsford; Lancaster (2); Latchford; Lea; Leamington; Leeds (5); Leek; Leicester (2) Leigh (2); Leominster; Leyland; Lichfield; Lincoln; Liscard; Littleborough; Littlehampton; Liverpool (15); London (101); Longhorsley; Longridge; Longton; Loughborough (2); Louth; Lowerhouse; Ludlow; Lutterworth; Lymington; Maghull; Maidstone; Maldon; Malmesbury; Malvern, Little; Manchester (12); Mansfield; Mark Cross; Market Drayton; Market Harborough; Market Rasen; Maryport; Matlock Bridge; Mawdesley and District; Mawley; Mayfield; Melton Mowbray; Middlesborough; Midhurst; Milford Haven; Millom; Minehead; Minsteracres; Minster-in Thanet; Mold; Monmouth; Morecambe; Morley; Morpeth; Mountain Ash; Nantwich; Neath; Neston, Cheshire; Netherton; Newark; New Brighton; New Brampton; Newcastle on-Tyne (8); New Ferry; Newhall (near Burton-on-Trent); Newhaven; Newhouse; New Mills; Newnham, Paddox; Newport, Mon.; Newport, Salop; Newport, Isle of Wight; Newsham; Newton-le-Willows; New Tunstall; Normanton; Northampton; Northfleet; North Shields; Northwich; Norwich; Nottingham; Nuneaton; Oakamoor: Oldcotes; Olton; Ongar; Ormskirk; Orpington; Orrell; Oscott; Osgodby; Oswestry; Oxford (2); Pantasaph; Parkminster; Pembroke Dock and New Milford; Penarth; Penrith; Peterborough; Petworth (3); Plowden; Pontefract; Port Clarence on-Tees; Portsmouth; Poulton-le-Fylde; Preston (5); Prescot; Prestayn and Llanasa; Prudhoe-on Tyne; Radford; Rainford; Ramsey; Ramsgate (3); Reading; Redditch; Redhill (2); Rhyl (2); Rhymney; Richmond, Surrey (2); Rixton; Rochdale; Rock Ferry; Ross; Rudding Park; Rugeley (2); Runcorn; Ryhope (2); Sacriston; St. Anne's-on-the-Sea; St. Asaph (2); St. Helens (6); St. Helier (3); St. Lawrence-on-Sea; St Leonards-on-Sea (3); Sale; Salford; Salisbury; Scarborough; Scarisbrick; Scarthingwell and District; Scorton; Seacombe; Seaford; Seaforth; Sedgley; Selby; Settle; Sevenoaks; Sheffield (4); Shifnal; Shoeburyness; Shrewsbury; Sidcup; Sittingbourne; Skelmersdale;
  200
  Slindon; Smethwick; Souldern: Southampton (2); Southend-on-Sea (3); Southport; Spalding; Spetchley; Spilsby; Stafford (2); Stains; Stalybridge; Stamford; Stanbrook; Standish; Stanley and District; Stock; Stockton-on-Tees; Stoke-on-Trent; Stone; Stonor; Stonyhurst (2); Storrington; Stourbridge; Stratford-on-Avon; Stroud; Studley; Sturry and District; Sunbury-on-Thames; Sunderland (3); Surbiton; Sutton, Surrey; Sutton Coldfield; Sutton Park; Swansea (2); Swindon; Swynnerton; Tadcaster; Taunton (3); Tenby; Thornley; Thornton; Thurnham; Tichborne; Trimdon; Trowbridge; Tudhoe; Turton; Tynemouth; Uckfield; Ugthorpe; Ulverston; Upton Hall; Upton-on-Severn; Ushaw; Usk; Uttoxeter; Uxbridge; Ventor (2); Wadhurst; Walmer (2); Walsall; Waltham Cross; Walton-le-Dale; Wardour and Tisbury; Warrington (3); Warwick; Warwick Bridge; Waterloo; Waterlooville; Wealdstone; Wellingborough; Wellingore; Wellington; Wells; Wesham; Westby; West Drayton; West Hartlepool (2); Westhoughton; West Kirby; Weybridge (3); Whitchurch; Whitewell and Dunsop Bridge; Whittingham; Widnes (3); Wigan (2); Wigton; Willington; Willows; Wilmslow; Wimbledon (2); Wincanton; Windermere; Windsor; Withnell and District; Wolsingham; Wolverhampton; Wonersh; Woodchester; Woodford; Woodlane; Wooler; Woolhampton; Woolmer; Woolston; Woolston, Hants; Worcester; Workington; Worthing (3); Wrightington; Yarmouth, Great; Yealand; Yeovil; and York (2). Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: of persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EDUCATION.
  Statement of schemes for the formation of Education Committees approved during the month of May, 1903, by the Board of Education under Section 17 of the Education Act of 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Papers, Command Nos. 1564 and 1613 of Session 1903), showing—name

  201
  of local authority; number of the council; number of members of the Education Committee; number of members of the Education Committee who are necessarily members of the council; number of women who are necessarily on the Education Committee, forms of educational experience to be represented on the Committee; recommendations or nominations (if any).

  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series—
  No. 3006. China (Wuchow).
  No. 3007. Paraguay (Paraguay).
  No. 3008. Spain (Malaga).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  Additional rule for the disposal of certain documents.
  Finance accounts of the United Kingdom, for the year ended 31st March, 1903.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Order made by the County Council of the county of Middlesex, altering certain polling districts in the Hornsey Parliamentary Division.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petition for abrogation of: of Roman Catholics in Preston, Lancashire; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE CONSTITUTION OF MALTA.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice—whether it is true that letters patent have been issued making important modifications in the Constitution of Malta, and, if so, whether correspondence on that subject will be laid before Parliament without unnecessary delay.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): The reply to the Question of the noble
  202
  Marquess is in the affirmative. The Papers on the subject will be laid on the Table of the House in a very few days.

  DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, when I last had the honour of submitting to your Lordships' House a Bill containing somewhat similar provisions to the Bill which is now before you, I commended it to your attention in a speech which I endeavoured to make reasonable, temperate, logical, and respectful to this House. Some comments which reached me after that occasion might have led me to suppose that I had succeeded in that endeavour were it not for the remarkable observations which fell on that occasion from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. The usual Motion that the Bill be read a second time that day six months appeared upon the Order Paper, fathered, as might have been expected, by the noble Lord who represents the High Church Party in the Protestant Church, and who endorses the sacramental view of marriage. But that noble Lord and his Amendment were contemptuously brushed aside by the Lord Chancellor, who, in a state of apparent fury, fell upon the remarks I had ventured to make to the House and declared more than once that both my Bill and the observations with which I had endeavoured to support it were an insult to your Lordships. He then proceeded, with the courage of a large majority behind him, to move that the Bill be rejected, a Motion which, so far as I am able to ascertain, has been unknown in the recent history of this House. But that is not perhaps to be wondered at from a member of a Government which has revived several archaic and rusty weapons of the Constitution. Everyone in this House must recognise the conspicuous talent and ability which has raised the noble and learned Earl to the high position he to-day occupies, but many, especially on this side of the House, also regret that he should not yet have acquired that courtesy in debate which we are wont to expect from other noble Lords more imbued with the traditions of this assembly.

  203
  It has not hitherto been held to be an insult to the House to propose in a reasonable manner, and to support by arguments, a measure for the amendment of the law where such may seem desirable. But I must not for a moment appear to wish to alienate the sympathies of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack on this occasion, for I hope I may claim him with some confidence as a supporter. In that very small fraction of his observations which dealt with the merits of my proposals, the noble and learned Earl called attention to a clause in my Bill permitting a divorce after one year's separation on the joint petition of the parties. That clause is not in the Bill now before your Lordships, and as it was the only one to which the noble and learned Earl specifically objected I hope that to-day I shall not be mistaken in looking for his support.
  If your Lordships will refer to the Bill you will see that by the first section it is proposed to extend the causes for which a marriage may be dissolved. The present ground of adultery remains, with the extension of that remedy to a wife who has been wronged as well as to a husband who has been wronged. In addition to that it is provided that cruelty, which is now a ground for separation, shall be a ground for a divorce a vinculo. The third, and to my mind the most important provision of all, is that either party to a marriage may present a petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that during the three years preceding the presentation of the petition the parties to the marriage have lived apart, and that throughout that period either of the parties did not intend to resume cohabitation. The effect of that clause is that when two married persons have lived apart for three years, and during the whole of that period one at least of them has never intended to live as the husband or wife of the other party, then the Court shall be empowered to grant a divorce. In support of that proposal I quoted to your Lordships last year a largo number of authorities with which I do not propose to trouble you in detail on this occasion. But, among others, I would remind your Lordships of the opinion of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone, who was opposed to divorce altogether, nevertheless said that if adultery was a cause for divorce
  204
  there were other causes equally entitled to give relief at law to the husband or the wife who suffered from them, and he specifically mentioned desertion and cruelty. I also called your Lordships attention last year to the fact that the Reformatio Ecclesiasticarum Legum—a document prepared by divines and lawyers of the highest authority at the time of the Reformation, also proposed to grant a divorce for desertion. That document was drawn up by the authority of the Church and under the immediate superintendence of the Church, and nothing but the untimely death of the Sovereign prevented it becoming law in the reign of Edward VI. But the Church has now departed from that attitude. Since I last referred your Lordships to that document I have had an opportunity of considering the actual words in detail, and I find them even stronger than I supposed, for an article of Archbishop Cranmer most expressly says that, where a spouse has been deserted by the other spouse, it is just that the tribunal should grant a divorce with liberty to proceed to a fresh marriage. He also grants the same remedy for offences which he calls mortal enmities, meaning, apparently, the attempt of one spouse on the life of another. The same remedy of divorce is granted in the case of extreme cruelty, and at the end there appears a very significant prohibition. He there lays down that judicial separation should be altogether abolished, because judicial separation has brought into marriage many evils in its train—the very argument I ventured to urge last year in support of these proposals. It is clear that at that time those who were responsible for the conduct of the Church, assisted by eminent lawyers, came to the conclusion that adultery alone should not be retained upon the Statute-book as the only cause for divorce and that other causes which made married life impossible should also be included.
  The effect of the third proposal under the first section is simply to ask that the law should recognise a state of things which in fact exists. The two parties to the marriage must have, to all intents and purposes, divorced themselves before the law is put in operation; they must have lived apart for three years without the intention of living together again. During that period they will have had ample opportunity for changing their

  205
  minds and for reconciliation, and it must be assumed that if at the end of that period they proceed to address to the Court a petition for relief they have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to live together. Last year the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack described the Bill as one to abolish marriage. I hear a noble Lord beside me say, "Hear, hear." The marriage which it proposes to abolish is a marriage which has already ceased to have any element of marriage — it is a marriage in which the spouses have already ceased to have the mutual comfort and assistance one from the other. If that is the ideal of Christian marriage that commends itself to this House, then I do propose by this Bill to abolish marriage. But that is not the sort of marriage which any legislature or Church has ever contemplated—it is a marriage which has ceased to be a marriage in everything but the legal tie. It can no longer have the sanction of the Church, for the Church has contemplated that the parties should live together and support each other. It is a state of things, a separation of two married people, which is immediately productive of immorality and social harm, and if that is what is meant by noble Lords who speak of the Christian institution of marriage, it may, I think, very well be abolished, for the only thing left is merely a legal tie uniting two persons, and preventing them from ever contracting a respectable and legal tie with any other persons of the opposite sex. Therefore, in Clause 7 it is proposed that after the commencement of this Act no petition shall be presented for judicial separation or for restitution of conjugal rights.
  As I ventured to point out last year the attempts at restitution of conjugal rights have a contrary effect. The pretence is to restore the deserting spouse to the arms and to the home of the other spouse, but it is well known that the effect of that action is not to arrive at that happy result. It does not, in fact, restore the two spouses to a united home. It is nowadays used in order that it may proceed to a judicial separation being established on the ground of desertion. It therefore has no longer the effect which the Church that instituted restitution intended it to have. The Church intended that this should be a spiritual
  206
  admonition to two persons to carry out their marriage vows. The idea of forcing a man and woman to whom union is repugnant to live together is abhorrent, and, though the action in form proceeds, the provisions of the Welldon Act have made it inoperative. I may say that the other principle in connection with the dissolution of marriages, which I have endeavoured to establish by this Bill is the principle of equality of the sexes—a principle which, I am sorry to say, seldom commends itself to an assembly of male legislators, and the non-recognition of which was the subject of some very scathing observations by Mr. Gladstone in the Lower House. Women protest, not often vocally, but they protest and suffer constantly from the injustice of the present law, which denies to them the remedy for the same offence for which it grants it to the husband, and many women are unable to obtain the relief to which they are entitled, the protection and the freedom they desire, on account of the inequalities of the present law. I have therefore ventured to propose in this Bill that the same remedies shall be given to both sexes, and that they shall be put upon an equality before the law in this matter.
  It is frequently said that the effect of loosening the marriage ties will be to cause a large number of people to rush to the Divorce Court and to avail themselves of the facilities offered, but under the provisions of this Bill they will have to be people who are already divorced in fact, and it cannot be supposed that other persons, who are not divorced in fact, will qualify for the remedies offered to them in consequence of the Bill becoming law. I am not prepared to admit that the majority of married couples in this country are held together merely by legal sanction or even by ecclesiastical sanction. I hope, and I trust I am not mistaken, that the vast majority of married couples in this country are held together by mutual affection, and have no desire to part, and I have no reason to believe that that affection and mutual devotion will be interfered with by any legislative measures whatever. Legislation is passed for the cases which it affects. There are upon the Statute-book a large number of criminal statutes dealing

  207
  with forgery, burglary, theft, and so on; but it is never suggested that the effect of those statutes is to make people forgers and burglars, or that they affect in any way persons who have no tendency in that direction. In the same way, I submit that the alteration of the law of divorce will in no way affect any except those who would, under any circumstances, be anxious to avail themselves of these remedies.
  The Bill deals with the question of County Court jurisdiction, which I introduced to your Lordships' notice last year, and provides that where the total joint annual income of the parties does not exceed £500, they shall be able to obtain relief from the local County Court. That is a provision which I should have thought would have commended itself to everyone who wished the law to be equal for the rich and for the poor. At present the whole business of divorce is centralised in a Court in London, and all persons living in any part of the kingdom have to come themselves, and to bring their witnesses to this central Court in London in order that their case may be heard. The effect of that is to deprive by far the larger proportion of the community of any remedy at all. If there is a legal remedy to which persons are entitled, surely they should not be deprived of its exercise merely because they cannot afford to come to London to prosecute their suit. This inequality was pointed out when the Act of 1857 was passed through Parliament, and among others who called attention to it was a then occupant of the Episcopal Bench, who said that the measure failed signally to fulfil the avowed intention for which it was introduced—namely, of making a legal remedy available to all. That this provision does work injustice must be known to everyone. It is universally known to solicitors, and those who have to do with the getting up of cases. It should be known to right rev. Prelates, who must be cognisant of cases where, even under the present law, persons entitled to divorce are unable to obtain it on account of the expense. A very striking instance has come under my own observation, in which an unfortunate woman has been
  208
  deserted for nine years by her husband. There is no question that her husband has committed adultery, and the facts are easily susceptible of proof, but the deserted woman has no money with which to prosecute her case; and even if she were to proceed in forma pauperis, the expenditure which would be necessary puts it absolutely out of the question, either for the woman herself or any of her immediate friends to find the money to remedy the injustice from which she is suffering. It is admitted that even under the present law she is entitled to a divorce, but simply for want of money she cannot obtain that divorce from her husband who deserted her nine years ago. If she were able to go to the local County Court, within a few miles of where she is, she would be able then to conduct her case with the minimum of expenditure, and where she would now have to pay pounds she would then only have to pay shillings.
  I can quite understand that those who are opposed on principle and altogether to any relaxation whatever of the divorce laws, and to any extension of the remedies, may think it a good thing that even the remedies which the law now provides should be denied to the poor, but I am surprised that those who profess to desire equality in legislation should support a state of things by which the whole business is centralised in London. That is not the case with other legal business, and until the Act of 1857 such matrimonial legislation as existed could be and was conducted in the local Bishops' Courts of the dioceses. But that Act abolished the whole of the local courts and centralised the procedure in London, thereby putting it out of the reach of persons of very poor means. The present law as to decrees of nullity of marriage is not touched by the Bill now before your Lordships. Clause 5 provides that they shall be heard and determined on the same principles as now exist. There are some alterations in procedure which, however, are matters of detail with which your Lordships should not be troubled at this stage. The Bill proposes to re-enact the present provision as to the performance of marriage of divorced persons by the

  209
  clergy. If your Lordships will look at Sub-section 4 of Clause 16 you will see that it is there provided that—
  "A clergyman shall not be compelled to solemnise the marriage of any person whose previous marriage has been dissolved, and shall not be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure for solemnising or refusing to solemnise the marriage of any such person."
  That, I believe, is the present law, though a recent interpretation given to it by the Bishop of London would seem to show that the censure to which the clergyman is not to be subjected, does not include the censure of his ecclesiastical superior. The Act of Parliament, which is the governing authority of the Church of England, distinctly provided that he shall not be subject to any censure, but from recent proceedings which have appeared in the newspapers, it appears that the re-marriage of divorced persons in this diocese has exposed a clergyman who had the temerity to perform it to censure. I see no reason to suggest an alteration in the present law on this subject. I might remind your Lordships of what, perhaps, bas been forgotten, that in 1857 this House, on no less than three separate occasions, rejected an Amendment proposing individual liberty of conscience to clergymen in the form of the present clause, and insisted that every clergyman should, as a servant of the State, perform any marriage that the State said could be legally performed. However, the truculent attitude of this House towards the Church on that occasion was modified in the more kindly atmosphere of another place, and the present compromise appears to have been the effect of that discussion.
  I do not know whether any noble Lord supposes that there is no ground for an amendment, and that there are no grievous cases of injustice and hardship under the present divorce law, which differs in its stringency from the divorce law of every other Protestant country. I have received a vast mass of correspondence, with some few extracts from which I am compelled to trouble your Lordships. One gentleman writes and says—
  "My wife left me to return to her father after I lost my money more than eleven years ago. There is no deed of separation and no ground
  210
  for divorce, and yet by the law of England I am married and condemned to lead a celibate life with no possibility of relief. Had I committed forgery, burglary, or any other serious crime, I could long ago have expiated my offence, but from an unfortunate marriage there is no release, unless there is cruelty or adultery, which are absent in the case under notice. This state of things I contend is contrary to every law, divine or human, and demands a remedy."
  A woman writes:—
  "Your Bill would be a blessing to many poor women. I married at twenty-one a man who turned out to be a great scamp, thief, and forger. My home was sold up, my belongings seized by creditors. When my son was thirteen months old my husband deserted me and went to Canada fourteen years ago. I have never heard of nor seen him since. My wrist was injured for life through my husband's brutality. I have proof of desertion and cruelty, but what chance have I to obtain a divorce?"
  Another writes and says:—
  "Where the parties have for a number of years been separated and positively refuse to live together again they are, in my humble opinion, ipso facto divorced; why then should measures be refused to make such definite estrangement legal? … Where mutual love exists the man and woman never part; it is the absence of it that brings about the evil. The sooner there is some law permitting the deserted husband or wife to marry again after a lapse of years, the sooner will immorality and dissipation be reduced."
  Another writes:—
  "Are two people grievously unhappy together and without fault or intention, to be literally killed and worn to death, being held together in an unnatural and useless bond, to be made useless to each other and even to their children, while those who live riotously and break all marriage laws are content with them and are often the loudest voiced in upholding them? That is an easy way of carrying out a law impossible often to keep."
  Another writes and says:—
  "Realising the impossibility of obtaining legislative relief in this country, I am forced to consider the expediency of settling in America with a view to obtaining there that relief denied me here."
  Another writes and says:
  "It is remarkable how perverted Christianity is trotted out on every possible occasion to bar real progress. To say that reasonable release would destroy Christian matrimony is simply the dictum of a person very ignorant, and very much of a bigot. The Founder never recommended, and certainly would never have enforced, for it would be abhorrent to all his teaching, that two who had got utterly to dislike each other, and whose presence with each other brought out and acerbated all the evil in the nature of both, should drag on a

  211
  tortured existence together, degrading to both, and leading to all kinds of evils and a strong temptation to murder even."
  A young woman writes that four days after her marriage her husband had to leave on the duties of his vocation as officer in the Royal Navy. For nine years he has not been near her. She has not the money to pursue the evidence for adultery.
  A man who occupies a responsible position writes:
  "I have been married twenty years to a most unsuitable woman, who has never been any help to me, who has persistently got into debt, falsified accounts, confiscated letters, deceived and lied to me so much that it has produced an utter alienation. For seven years we have occupied separate rooms."
  Another writes:—
  "Oh this dull, stupid English law, with Scotland's bright example shining so near."
  You have to go no farther than Scotland to find divorce a vinculo granted for three years' desertion.
  I submit this Bill to the House as an honest attempt to remedy an intolerable state of things. I ask whether among all the Members of this House there are none who recognise that the present marriage laws do inflict upon a vast number of men and women in this country great hardship; that the present marriage laws lead in many cases to the contracting of immoral alliances between separated men and women, and that the granting of a judicial separation is really to throw upon the world two potential adulterers. It is easy to legislate for human nature, but it is less easy to control it after your legislation. The present law offers a divorce as a reward for immoral conduct. It can be obtained where immorality has taken place, but where both parties are unwilling to be guilty of immorality, the present law denies divorce; and where, as so oftens happens, women have been deserted by their husbands for an indefinite number of years, they are precluded from ever contracting a fresh alliance, and are compelled to remain for the rest of their lives neither married nor unmarried, with no possibility of establishing a home and all that is dear to the heart of a woman. Is there no one in this House who feels that this state of things needs a remedy? Are your Lordships satisfied, because in your individual
  212
  cases the law may not bear hardly upon you, to leave such a blot upon the social legislation of this country? The proposals which I have put before you, and I say this unhesitatingly, make for the increase of social purity and for the absence of adultery. They make for a legitimate dissolution of unions that have long since become impossible, and their adoption would tend to purify the marriage relation, to make marriage a more real thing than it is at present, and to make adultery looked upon, as it is not often looked upon now, as a disgraceful, a discreditable, and an unnecessary crime. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Russell.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, the noble Lord, in the course of a great many observations, has referred to some remarks which I made on a former occasion when a Bill of this character was before your Lordships. I do not propose to repeat what I said then, but I adhere to every word of it. When I made that speech I believe it met with the entire approval of your Lordships then present. I gathered that from the course you then pursued. No one intervened in the debate. The Bill was at once rejected. At present I will only call attention to one aspect of the Bill. The noble Lord does not appear to me to understand the gravity of what he is doing. If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to the schedule of the Bill you will find that he has gone through every one of the Divorce Acts and has swept them all away. They are to be repealed by this Bill, and in substitution he has apparently by the first and second sections made the fact of divorce simply a question whether the parties would agree to it or not; and if they are away from each other for three years and they desire that the union should cease that in itself would put an end to it. All I will say is that the policy of the law—I speak not now of the higher sanction, which most of us think to be somewhat more important than the noble Lord appears to consider it—has been to prevent anything like

  213
  divorce by consent. It requires something, at all events, to justify the dissolution of a marriage. That according to this Bill, would be no longer necessary. The prohibition of divorce by mere agreement is got rid of very easily, because the functions as well as the office of the King's Proctor are abolished by the Bill. All you have to do is to comply with the provisions of the Bill and the divorce is easy. The noble Lord has once or twice referred to what he called the iniquities of the marriage law. Whether such iniquities exist or not I will not discuss. This Bill proposes to abolish the whole of the matrimonial law as it exists and substitutes what the noble Lord has described. It appears to me that the mere statement that, as I have pointed out, all the wisdom of the Legislature, all the care that has been taken from the year 1857, when the Divorce Act was passed, down to the present time to cure any defect in the law, would be swept away in a minute, and for that nothing substituted but simply an arrangement enabling the parties if they think proper to get rid of the marriage, is enough for your Lordships. One observation I made on a former occasion seems to have struck the noble Lord as too strong. I do not think myself that I used language too strong when I said that the abolition of the marriage tie, which in one sense the noble Lord has admitted that his Bill would procure, proposed in such a way to a Christian assembly, was an insult, and I repeat the observation. All I have to add at present, I think, is that I invite your Lordships to reject this Bill, and I hope that we may not have the same proposal repeated over and over again, for the noble Lord and everybody else must know that it is only in the nature of a protest by himself against the marriage law as it exists, but even he has not the faintest notion that any such Bill will be sanctioned by your Lordships.
  On Question, Motion negatived.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to offer some criticisms and to ask for some explanation on the Bill which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has just submitted to your Lordships. The Bill, as your Lordships will observe, is one to transfer to the Board of Agriculture powers and duties relating to the fishing industry. The powers which are now exercised by a Department of the Board of Trade with regard to the fisheries of this country are to be transferred to the Board of Agriculture, and that Board henceforth is to be known as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. What I venture to ask the noble Earl is this: whether he will explain what connection there is between the fishing industry of the United Kingdom and the great national industry of agriculture. It must inevitably have been considered by the Government, and I shall wait to hear the explanation of the noble Earl. As your Lordships are aware, the Board of Agriculture was constituted by an Act of 1879, which came into operation in the year 1890. It took over the powers with regard to contagious diseases of cattle and other germane matters which were previously possessed by a Department of the Privy Council under the Lord President; it took over the duties hitherto exercised by the Tithe Commissioners and the Land Commissioners, and it also took under its care the very important and the very extensive business of the Ordnance Survey of the United Kingdom. I think your Lordships will agree that all these matters are cognate to the business of agriculture. But now it is proposed for the first time to transfer to the Board of Agriculture duties that have no reference whatever to the business which the Board was constituted to carry on, and the question that has occurred to some agriculturists, at any rate, is this, what relation is there between the great fishing industry of this country and the great national industry of agriculture? What benefit will such a transference as is proposed by this Bill be to agriculture, and what effect will it have upon the future usefulness of the Board of Agriculture? Although I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be able to give a

  215
  sufficient explanation, I am bound to say that at first view I do not see what connection there possibly is between fisheries and agriculture.
  There may, of course, be some occult reason for this of which I am not aware, and it is for the purpose of eliciting that reason from the noble Earl that I have ventured to put this question to him. I do not for a moment wish to deny that the fishing industry is of the greatest importance to the country, and it may be necessary and right that the duties in connection with that great industry should either be placed under a separate Board or handed over to some other department of the State. It is said that the Board of Trade has too much to do at the present moment and that its Department of fisheries does not receive all that attention that those who are interested in the fisheries would like; but what I venture to say in the name of a considerable number of agriculturists is this, that the Board of Agriculture, which was constituted to assist them in their industry, should not be made the dumping ground for the surplus products of the Board of Trade. So far as the expansion of the Board of Agriculture is concerned, I have no objection to it; on the contrary, I have always advocated it, but I think it desirable that that expansion should be in the direction of those subjects which are beneficial to the agricultural industry.
  If there were no ways in which expansion could be made in this direction I should perhaps not offer any criticism as to the addition of these duties, but there are many directions in which the Board of Agriculture could be usefully expanded in a manner which ought to benefit agriculturists generally. There is the question of the Veterinary Department. I have not a single word to say against those able and capable officers, with whom I have had the honour to work in the past; but I think that their Department might be in some way expanded and made more useful to agriculturists generally. They might be encouraged to make experiments in bacteriological research and other scientific matters which would benefit agriculture as a whole. Then there is the matter of chemistry. I hope to hear that the question of chemistry, which is so useful to the scientific culture of the land, has
  216
  been considered in any view of expansion of the duties of the Board of Agriculture. Then there is the question of botany. I am glad to hear that Kew Gardens have now been taken over by the Board of Agriculture. There was another Board of Agriculture some years ago which was not so fortunate as the noble Earl's Board to obtain assistance from the Treasury to get Kew Gardens under its care. I remember that my attention was drawn very closely to the matter in 1893. Kew Gardens had for years past done excellent and efficient work for India and the colonies in botanical experiments, but I found that nearer home nothing at all had been done for agriculture in this direction. The finances were not so prosperous then as they are now, and if I could have obtained something like £150 a year Kew Gardens would have been under the care of the Board of Agriculture in 1893 instead of 1903.
  There is another of these small Departments which has no political head and which I think the noble Lord might have included in his Bill if he was seeking for the expansion of his agricultural duties, and that is the Meteorological Department. The weather has certainly a great deal to do with agriculture, and any good forecast of the weather which could be obtained and circulated amongst farmers would be of great advantage to that industry. Some ten years ago an experiment was made in that direction, but the forecasts were only issued some twenty-four hours beforehand, and that fact made them rather useless for farmers who did not see them in time to make them of value. If the noble Earl could take over the Meteorological Department, I think it might be of use to agriculture generally. These departments have no political head, but are practically under the Treasury, and I have very grave doubts myself whether it is for the advantage or the efficiency of those particular Departments that they should be solely represented by the Treasury in the House of Commons. The Treasury is certain to do everything possible to promote economy, and I venture to think that if the Departments were gathered under the Board of Agriculture and under a responsible Minister of the Crown, their efficiency would be better looked after.
  I come now to the largest of these Departments which might have been

  217
  included under the Board of Agriculture—the Office of Woods and Forests. It is well known that when the Act was passed constituting the Board of Agriculture, it was then discussed whether the Office of Woods and Forests should not be included as a Department of the Board of Agriculture. There were of course objections, and there may be objections now to such a course, but, so far as I know, the advantages which would accrue to the agricultural interests by such an incorporation would certainly outweigh any objections which I have heard up to the present moment. I imagine that there are very few in the Board of Agriculture who have any practical connection with the management of land. The Office of Woods and Forests manages the Crown lands of this country, and by making that Department a part of the Board of Agriculture, the latter Board would obtain a practical knowledge of the management of land which would be of great advantage, not only to them, but to agriculturists generally. I believe the Treasury object to that proposal on the ground that it might not be so economical, but that is not borne out by contemporary history. The same change which I am advocating took place in Prussia in the year 1879, when the State lands of that kingdom were transferred from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Agriculture, and the result of that transference has been highly beneficial—beneficial from the point of view of economy of management, and in another direction, for it has brought in considerably increased revenue. The Board of Agriculture was constituted to assist an industry which, though it may not be quite so depressed as it was in 1893, is certainly not in that flourishing condition which we should all wish, and therefore it is that I question the wisdom of the transfer of any duty to the Board of Agriculture which is not germane to agriculture as a whole.
  I think there are some agriculturists who would say that if any transference of duties from the Board of Trade to the Board of Agriculture is to be made it had better be that Department which is connected with railways and railway rates rather than the Department con-
  218
  nected with the fisheries of the country. I have ventured to put before your Lordships some criticisms with regard to this Bill, and I hope I shall obtain from the noble Earl the explanations I have asked for. I cannot, however, sit down without saying that we welcome the noble Earl as the President of the Board of Agriculture in this House. I will not go into the somewhat delicate question of whether the head of the Department of Agriculture should be in this House or in another place, except perhaps to say that there is possibly no assembly in this country which is more closely connected with the business of agriculture and which contains amongst its members those more closely connected with practical agriculture than your Lordships' House. I admit that the question is a debatable one. But if you are going to extend the Board of Agriculture and raise it to a position of greater influence and wider scope I do not think it ought to be represented in the other House except by a direct official of the Board. Mr. Fellowes is the representative of the Board of Agriculture in the other House. I had the pleasure of sitting in the House of Commons with Mr. Fellowes and I know him to be a practical agriculturist. I know him to have represented an agricultural constituency and to have taken deep interest in agricultural matters for a long time past, but I think it would be advisable, as he will have to take charge of the Bills as well as the Estimates of the Department, that we should have some direct representative of the Board of Agriculture in the other House rather than a minor Minister brought in as a kind of charwoman. I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, but if the explanation for which I have asked is not satisfactory I reserve to myself the right of opposing or amending the measure in its future stages.
  *LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just spoken will not think me discourteous if I do not go into all the details of agriculture of which he has spoken. I have not the slightest fear that the Minister of Agriculture will be overworked by having the duties with regard to fisheries added

  219
  to those he now possesses. I speak as one who is quite as much interested in agriculture as in fisheries, as one who has been Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture as well as one who is now President of the Sea Fisheries Association, and I do not see why there should not be a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries looking after the harvest of the sea and of the land at the same time. I for one venture to congratulate His Majesty's Government on having introduced this Bill. I know that there has been some delay, but they are in no way to blame for it. I do hope that now the Bill has been introduced it will not only be pressed forward in this House and in the other House, but that no time will be lost in bringing it into operation. I am glad to see that all the duties with regard to fisheries now supposed to be performed by the Board of Trade are to be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture, and I am also very glad to see that the Government have acceded to the request of the Shell Fisheries Association that shell fisheries should also be placed under the same Minister. I would venture to suggest, on that point, to my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, that he will require larger powers than he has now to deal with the oyster question, and I would refer him to a Report of your Lordships' Committee some three or four years ago presided over by Lord Harris, and of which the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Wenlock and myself were Members. We went thoroughly into this question. There was no difference between the Local Government Board, who introduced the Bill, and the Committee except on one point. We were agreed that powers were required to stop the pollution of the oyster beds, and as the local government authorities were most to blame we thought that the Local Government Board ought not to have those powers but that the powers should be given to the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade. On that point we were so divided that the Bill was not proceeded with.
  As I so strongly support the Bill, and knowing that every Sea Fisheries Association, Salmon Fisheries Association, and Shell Fisheries Association are strongly in favour of it, I am sorry to utter one
  220
  note of discord, but I notice in Sub-section 2 of Clause 3 some words to which I do not think we can possibly agree. I am well aware of the reason for which those words have been put in. The Act is to come into force on October 1, but the Treasury are allowed, if they choose, to postpone the operation of the Act till April 1 next year. That is not in the interest of the sea fisheries, or of the Minister who is going to take charge of the sea fisheries in the future. If these duties had been transferred from the Board of Trade ten or fifteen years ago the Department might have been taken over as a going concern, and everyone would have been perfectly satisfied, but the sea fisheries Department of the Board of Trade at the present moment is positively worthless. It is not worth taking over. I am saying what everyone connected with the fisheries industry will endorse. The noble Lord opposite knows perfectly well that resolutions have been passed giving me full authority to speak on behalf of the fisheries on this question. I do hope that an efficient staff will be given to the noble Earl, and that he will hold out for an efficient staff, and not be content to take over men who are thoroughly useless to him. But we would prefer that the Act should come into operation in October and that we should have a Minister, to whom we could go, with full authority to look into all the questions postponed throughout the present year, even without an efficient and thoroughly equipped Department, than that the operation of the Act should be postponed. The deputations which I was requested by the Sea Fisheries Conference at Grimsby to arrange with the Prime Minister had been put off at Mr. Balfour's request during the transfer of the duties from one Department to another, but if the operation of this Bill is to be postponed until April next, it simply means that every one of these questions will have to be deferred for a further year, as there would be no time for legislation. So strongly do I feel with regard to this matter, that I shall move to strike out in Committee the power given to the Treasury in this Sub-section.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Earl on having introduced this Bill. I do so because the Irish Board of Agriculture, to whom the duties of the Fisheries Commissioners in Ireland were transferred, are able to do a great deal more for our fisheries than the old Commissioners did, and they are sympathetic with the wants of those interested in the fisheries. The noble Lord opposite inquired what fisheries have to do with agriculture. I would point out that fish that are cultivated in inland waters are just as much the harvest of the land as coin is. Then the noble Lord went on to say that he hoped the Board of Agriculture was not to be made the dumping ground of the Board of Trade. The real truth of the matter is that the Board of Trade have not very much to dump, because they take no interest whatever in fisheries, especially in inland fisheries. I hold in my hand a Report upon the Salmon Fisheries of Great Britain, and it would make one almost cry to see the effect of river pollution and the stoppages in those rivers which prevent salmon reaching the upper waters. Therefore I welcome this Bill, bearing in mind the good that our Board of Agriculture has done in this matter in Ireland. The noble Lord opposite referred to the date of the Bill coming into force. He Knows a great deal more about sea fisheries than I do, but I must say that the sooner the inland fisheries of this country are looked after by a competent Department the better; therefore I sincerely hope that the Treasury will not "put their finger in the pie" and that the Bill will come into operation on 1st October next.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I ventured to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill without adding any words of my own in explanation of it at the moment, because it is an extremely simple Bill and one which really needs no explanation at all. It is simply a transfer to the Board of Agriculture of duties which have hitherto been performed by the Board of Trade. It is not, as my noble friend opposite appeared to think, a Bill
  222
  for the expansion of the powers of the Board of Agriculture, so I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him into all those duties which, in his opinion, might with greater advantage be transferred to the Board of Agriculture. All I will say is that I sympathise with a great deal of what he said on that subject. I think, so far as I have been able to see in the short time that I have had the honour of being President of the Department, that there are many subjects which might with advantage be transferred to the Board of Agriculture, not necessarily from other Departments, but matters which really are not at this moment under the charge of any responsible Minister, but are under that sort of general omnibus arrangement which gives over everything that is not under the charge of some other Minister to the Treasury.
  I am asked by my noble friend what is the connection between agriculture and fisheries. I admit that the word agriculture in its derivation, does not include the harvest of the sea, but at the same time your Lordships are aware that the fish supply in this country is one of the most important from the point of view of food. The Department over which I preside is essentially the Department which is connected with the food supply of the people, and therefore, I think that as we have already for many years had under our care the loaves, it is not too much to ask that Parliament should add to them the fishes. My noble friend Lord Heneage suggested that further powers in connection with the pollution of oyster beds should also be transferred, not from the Board of Trade, but from the Local Government Board, to the Board of Agriculture. I venture to point out to your Lordships that that is a matter which is connected with a very much wider subject — namely, the public health. Public health has always been under the Local Government Board, and I am not prepared at this moment to ask to take over any of those duties. I believe that before this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, I shall have time to consider the composition of the staff of the Fisheries Department of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

  223
  I trust I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord that that staff will be a sufficient and an efficient one, but I can assure him that the date of the coming into operation of the Act has nothing to do with the question of the composition of the staff. I am as anxious as he is that the transfer should take place at the earliest possible date. I have every reason to believe that it will take effect in the month of October next. The noble Lord must know that there are certain arrangements which have to be made in connection with the Estimates. If this Bill passes into law, it will be necessary to supplement the Vote of the Board of Agriculture by the amount necessary to carry on the business for the rest of the financial year, although, at the same time, of course, an almost equivalent saving will be effected upon the Vote for the Board of Trade. All those things have got to be arranged, and it is only as a precautionary measure that the date may be extended. But if the noble Lord will put down an Amendment I will give it my earnest consideration and see if something can be done to meet his views. I am glad that the Bill meets with approval, and trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not wish to throw cold water on the Bill, or attempt to damp the ardour of those who have so readily accepted it. But I do wish to point out to my noble friend that in assuming the duties of Minister of Fisheries he is assuming no light duties, but duties which will give him a considerable amount of work and bring him a great many communications and not a new protests. My noble friend has attempted to show that the subjects of agriculture and fisheries fall together naturally. I think he will find that there are a great many differences between them, that even the fateful word "protection" is interpreted in an entirely different way by agriculturists and fishermen. But, after all, I am afraid that the powers of the Fisheries Department are comparatively limited The Fisheries Department can, of course, do a great deal in the way of collecting statistics, supplying knowledge, and carrying on scientific inquiry, pro-
  224
  vided always it can get the necessary funds from the Treasury, and of course, so far as in-shore fisheries are concerned, it can do something by way of the promotion of legislation and encouraging district fisheries committees to do their work. After all, these in-shore fisheries are a comparatively small part of the British fisheries. The main fishing ground is in the North Sea, and it is exploited not by British fishermen alone, but by the fishermen of the whole of Northern Europe. My noble friend will find that if his Department really intends to secure improvement in the condition of our fisheries in the North Sea, it will only be possible to do so by calling in his colleague the Foreign Minister and by securing joint action among all the Powers who send fishing fleets into the North Sea.
  Take the question of immature fish. It may be very desirable, and it may do a certain amount of good, to endeavour to secure that in our own inland waters fish get some chance of existence; but, after all, the great home of these young fish is not on our shores but on the shores of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and those great flats opposite our own shores on the other side of the North Sea, and unless you can get the countries bordering on those waters to join with you, unless yon can get those countries which send fleets to the North Sea to combine with you in joint action, you will never be able to make a permanent improvement in the fisheries of the North Sea. With regard to our salmon fisheries, I think there is there a great opportunity for a Minister of Fisheries. The case is ripe to be dealt with. The inquiry necessary before the Government can act is, I believe, complete, and has been carried on under the ægis of the present Government. You have had inquiries and Commissions. There is an extraordinary mass of the latest opinion gathered together, and I venture to urge that the time has come when this question of the salmon fisheries of the British Isles should be taken up in a thorough manner. The first thing you want is uniformity of legislation for the British Isles. This question of the salmon fisheries is not merely one of the propagation and security of the salmon. Involved in it also are the great questions of pollution of rivers and the water supply, so that when you are dealing with the

  225
  question of salmon fisheries you are also dealing in a thoroughly practical manner with two of the great necessities of a healthy existence—namely, the question of the water supply and also the question of the freedom of the rivers from pollution. I do think that these are subjects which might well be taken up by the new Minister of Fisheries. I hope my noble friend will take them up and will make it his business to press his colleagues in the Government to deal with the subject, which I believe is of immense importance, not only from the point of view of the food of the people, but also from the point of view of the health and comfort of the inhabitants of these islands.
  On question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have a Motion on the Paper to submit to your Lordships. But before I do so I ask the indulgence of the House while I say a few words on a matter wholly personal to myself. When speaking the other day from the cross benches, I appeared to have infringed the rules of order of the House, and not to have bowed to the ruling of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. I have no wish to appear in your Lordships' House as an unruly Member, and I desire to explain that my infringement of order was entirely due to my affliction of deafness. Speaking from where I did, I could not hear a word that fell from the Lord Chancellor, and therefore I have to apologise to the noble and learned Earl for having in any way appeared unruly. In order that this may not occur again, when I have to address your Lordships' House in future I shall, with the permission of those who are in the habit of sitting on this bench, do so as near to the Lord Chancellor as I can. That is the reason why I speak from my present position (the bench near the Woolsack on the Opposition
  226
  side) to-night, but I have not abandoned my proper habitat on the cross benches, which I look upon as the Liberia of the House of Lords.
  Now a word in defence of my proposal. Two noble Lords on the last occasion said that my Resolution had no connection whatever with the Bill that was under discussion. I hold in my hand a resolution, which I believe has been sent to every one of your Lordships, passed by the United Property Owners' and Ratepayers' Association of Great Britain, whose headquarters are at Bradford. This resolution states that the object of the County Councils (Bills in Parliament) Bill is to empower County Councils to promote Bills in Parliament without first obtaining the ratepayers' consent. It goes on to say—
  "And this is being done at the very moment the Government has reappointed a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to inquire into the question of municipal trading. It is inconsistent, to say the least, that measures of this character, which give municipalities practically unrestricted powers to promote private legislation, should be brought forward. It is, therefore, submitted that the Bill should not be proceeded with, and the Committee of this Association, representing large and important property interests, respectfully and urgently appeal to your Lordships to support the Motion of Lord Wemyss to defer the Bill until the Joint Committee have reported to Parliament."
  Can anything be more reasonable, more consistent with common-sense, than that opinion with regard to this kind of legislation pending the inquiry by the Joint Committee. The action of the local authorities has been such that they have piled up a debt of £1,300,000,000. The rates of one London parish have gone up to eleven shillings in the pound, and they are going up all round. A few years ago the feeling in reference to this matter was such that it was thought some limit should be imposed. The result was the appointment of a Committee of both Houses, but they did not finish their inquiry. For two years they have been waiting for their reappointment. The reason that they were not reappointed is supposed to be that the local authorities did not like their transactions being inquired into, and the Government did not wish to give offence to the local authorities. But the expenditure grew, and feeling increased,

  227
  until this year the Government consented to the reappointment of the Committee. The Report of the first public sitting of the Joint Committee appears in The Times to-day, and the evidence shows how enormous have been the sums borrowed by local authorities for these purposes. One witness stated that in the present session sixty-five Bills had been promoted by local authorities, of which twelve had been dropped or defeated up to date. I have heard privately that so unsatisfactory were the trading accounts of the Plymouth authority that it was recommended that the accounts should be audited, not by an auditor appointed by Plymouth but by an auditor on behalf of the Government. That shows the state of things which led to the reappointment of this Committee. The Committee has the right to inquire into the transactions not only of municipalities but also of local authorities. Clearly, local authorities are included; therefore, I apprehend that this Joint Committee is appointed to consider everything connected with these Bills, which give power to Councils which they do not now exercise, and which takes away from the ratepayers a security which they now possess.
  What are the reasons given for this action on the part of the Government? They are three. The first is that county councillors, not having this power of promoting Bills, sometimes do it themselves and incur liabilities thereby. The second is a most extraordinary reason to give for passing a Bill. It was stated by one noble Lord on the Front Bench that Mr. Long, the author of this Bill, wished very much that the Bill should pass, but that in itself is no reason for your Lordships facilitating the measure. This raises the question, is this a private venture on the part of the head of the Local Government Board or is it a Government Bill? Has it been considered by the Government? Has it the full consent of the Government? This, I venture to think, raises a very big question. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has a tolerably big team to drive. He has eighteen in hand. They remind me of an incident in the old coaching days, when the driver of a four-in-hand, being
  228
  asked how it was he was driving so erratically, not to say dangerously, replied—
  "Ah! you don't know what it is to drive three blind ones and a bolter."
  The Prime Minister certainly has a bolter, who sometimes perhaps gets over the traces when least expected. How many blind ones there are I should be sorry to specify.
  I now come to the third reason, which was given by a canny Scot—my noble friend Lord Balfour. He said the Bill no doubt gave powers, but that it was not likely that County Councils would exercise those powers. That is an admission, my Lords, that you are giving County Councils powers by this Bill at the very time when you are sending the question, as to whether or not the powers of local authorities should be restricted, to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I feel confident that the result of this inquiry will be that these powers will be restricted and greater checks on the part of the ratepayers established. What those checks should be it is not for me to say. The question is now under discussion. The members of these municipal authorities are supposed, without any training, to be electricians, engineers, architects, builders, contractors, tram and omnibus undertakers, and navigators where there are rivers; and, besides this, they must be surveyors, sanitary professors, florists, landscape gardeners, social reformers, band-masters, concert organisers, and universal providers generally. If these things are undertaken, some knowledge of the best way of doing them should be in the possesssion of those who exercise these powers. The check I should propose is that all those who are elected to County Councils, before they are allowed to act should pass a qualifying examining in all these subjects. That would be a most potent and valuable check. I asked my noble friend Lord Balfour the other day to give me precedents for legislating upon a subject which had been concurrently submitted to a Committee or a Commission for inquiry. The noble Lord did not specify any precedent, but went off into a cuttle-fish speech upon the whole question, and that was where I got into trouble. I had not said anything in putting my question, but after the cuttle-fish speech of my noble friend I rose to answer him and was ruled out of order.

  229
  I cannot help thinking that if there had been any precedents for this kind of legislation the noble Lord would certainly have brought them out. He would not have kept them up his sleeve for no purpose. I know there are many precedents the other way. I will give one. When the Commission on the Liquor Traffic was sitting, all the temperance measures were suspended. But in this case the Government are bringing in Bills at the same time as the inquiry is taking place, and when the subject to which these Bills refer is before a Joint Committee, I contend that this House ought not to be a mere registry for Bills which come from another place. It is the last Court of Appeal in matters of legislation, and if Bills are faulty and wrong in principle, no matter how often they are sent here, your Lordships ought unhesitatingly to do your duty. This Bill, as well as the Borough Funds Bill, may be an excellent measure and very needful, but let the Joint Committee say so. Do not let us legislate on the subject while it is under consideration by the Joint Committee.
  Moved, To leave out from ('That') to the end of the Motion and insert the following Resolution, viz., "In the opinion of this House it is inconsistent alike with Parliamentary practice and sound administrative policy, to legislate on subjects under consideration by Committees or Commissions, and that, inasmuch as the question of the powers of local and municipal authorities, and their exercise of these powers are now under consideration by a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons specially appointed for this purpose, it is neither right nor expedient to proceed with Bills giving increased power to local and municipal authorities, until the said inquiry has been completed and the Report of the Committee has been received."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that we have had a most interesting and amusing speech from the noble Earl. I hope the House will also agree with me that it had not, in at any rate its major part, very much to do with the precise Bill we are now asked to go
  230
  into Committee upon. I will deal first with one or two direct questions which the noble Earl put to me. He made it a grievance that I had not given him precedents the other day.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Not a grievance. I was very glad of it.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think my version is the more correct. He made it a grievance, both on the last occasion and to-day, that I had given him no precedent for the course which the Government is asking the House to take. In the first place, the noble Earl said that if I produced a hundred precedents he would not pay any attention to them, and therefore I thought it a work of supererogation to do so. I also pointed out on the previous occasion that the noble Lord's Motion in regard to the Joint Committee of Inquiry has really nothing whatever to do with this Bill. I will read the precise terms of the reference to the Joint Committee—
  "To consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise."
  The reference to the Joint Committee has to do with the powers of, and the method of the exercise of those powers by, municipal corporations, or, if the noble Earl prefers it, local authorities; but there is nothing whatever in the reference to the Joint Committee to suggest that Parliament has it in consideration, even in the remotest degree, to take away from local authorities the powers of promoting or opposing Bills. All that this Bill does is this. It gives to County Councils certain limited powers to promote Bills for a variety of purposes. The point we have to consider to-day is whether County Councils have, after fifteen years' existence, sufficiently established their reputation for steadiness of purpose and useful work to be entrusted with the power of coming to Parliament when they see fit to promote Bills for certain purposes. The objects for which County Councils desire this power is mainly to take land for the improvement of roads, for the building of lunatic asylums, for improving bridges, and such like purposes, which are strictly within the purview of county council work. I will concede these two points to the noble

  231
  Earl, because I wish to be very fair to him. I will concede, in the first place, that in some cases municipal authorities have gone too far in the direction of municipal trading. It is because we hold that opinion that the Joint Committee of both Houses has been appointed to consider the method of the exercise of those powers, but not whether they shall have powers or whether powers shall be taken away altogether. The second point I will concede is that technically it would be possible for a County Council under this Bill to promote a Bill to enable them to supply gas or electric lighting. But my position in regard to that matter is this—firstly, that there is not the remotest chance of a County Council being so foolish as to do anything of the kind, and, secondly, that if they did it the time to check them is when they come with that proposal to Parliament. There is neither reason nor commonsense in refusing to all the County Councils of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland the power to come to Parliament for certain purposes properly within the scope of their work, because there is the possibility of a remote chance of a County Council doing something in the direction of municipal trading. I do not believe there is that danger, but even if I believed it to be ten times more than I do, I should not think it the slightest reason for maintaining a prohibition which has been found extremely inconvenient in the past. In the extreme urgency of certain cases, and when it was absolutely necessary in the public interest that Bills should be promoted, individual members of County Councils have promoted the Bills, taking the risk of being able to prove to Parliament the absolute
  necessity for them, and if the Bills had failed they themselves as individuals would have had to pay the cost of their enterprise. The noble Earl quoted a resolution to the effect that the object of this Bill was to allow County Councils to promote Bills without getting the ratepayers' consent. I altogether deny that statement. The restrictions upon the power of County Councils are amply safeguarded. They are plainly set forth in the schedule to the Bill, and the whole purport of the noble Earl's speech was that there should be restrictions, but that there should be no power at all.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I do not object to the Bills. I carefully said that. I object to your giving powers, rightly or wrongly, pending the inquiry into the whole of this question.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have endeavoured to dispose of that plea, and I am afraid that if I were to do it again I should have no better success in convincing the noble Earl. The fact is that on this matter he is unconvinceable. There is no foundation for the suggestion of the noble Earl that this Bill is the private enterprise of the President of the Local Government Board. It is a Government Bill, a Bill promoted by the Government, not only because it is the unanimous desire of the County Councils that it should be passed but because we believe, from the useful work and steadiness of purpose of these local authorities, that they may safely be entrusted with the powers which it is proposed to confer upon them.
  On Question whether to agree to the said Amendment, their Lordships divided. Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 75.

  CONTENTS.

  Cawdor, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Munster, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Newton, L. [Teller.]

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Wellington, D.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Ripon, M.

  Ancaster, E.

  Zetland, M.

  Belmore, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Portland, D.

  Carnwath, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Glanusk, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Herries, L.

  Lytton, E.

  James, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Killanin, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Morley, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Norton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Reay, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Belper, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Burton, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Bangor, V.

  Colchester, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Congleton, L.

  Welby, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Foley, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Forester, L.

  Then the original Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid that Lord Kenyon, in introducing this Bill, had told the House that the object was to allow County Councils to promote Bills in the same manner as municipal boroughs. But the Bill gave the power without the existing safeguard. The object of the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was to carry out the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government. The words were those in the existing Act. Unless they introduced them they would be giving County Councils powers which municipal authorities had not hitherto possessed. Moreover, unless they inserted these words they abolished the right of owners to vote. One reason of the great increase in rates undoubtedly was that so many persons had votes but paid no rates. They had, therefore, no direct interest in economy. In many cases, moreover, even those who paid rates were merely temporary occupiers. It would hardly be denied that in the long run rates fell to a great extent on owners. They had not even now a fair share of representation, but if they had so little surely the proper course was to give them a more adequate share of representation, and not to deprive them of what small share they still possessed. At the previous day's sitting of the Joint Committee which was now considering this subject, Sir S. Provis,
  234
  Permanent Secretary to the Local Government Board, was asked whether in his judgment and from his great experience he considered that the ratepayers required more protection, and he replied that he did. But unless the House accepted his Amendment the unfortunate ratepayer would have even less protection than he had at present. The Amendment gave no additional safeguard, but at any rate it preserved to the ratepayers the power they at present possessed, and of which the Bill as it stood would deprive him.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after 'them' to insert 'The powers conferred by this section and by Section 15 of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall be exercised subject to the provisions of the Borough Funds Act, 1872, and of any Act amending the same, in like manner as if the county were a borough, and the chairman of the County Council the mayor of a borough."—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  LORD KENYONsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. The Amendment contemplated the adoption of the machinery of the Borough Funds Act, under which a meeting of owners and ratepayers would have to be held in order to gain consent to the promotion of a Bill. It would obviously be impossible to find buildings large enough to hold meetings of the county owners and ratepayers of London or Lancashire. In the second place, Lord Avebury sought to impose a restriction on County Councils

  235
  in opposing Bills, and therefore was not in order because the Bill did not alter the powers that at present existed as to opposing Bills. He thought the ratepayers' interest sufficiently safeguarded in the Bill as it stood. An absolute majority of the Council was necessary, and the meeting at which that majority had to be obtained would be held after ten days notice had been given by advertisement. Further, no expense could be incurred on the promotion of a Bill unless it was confirmed by an absolute majority at another meeting of the Council after the Bill had been deposited fourteen days in the House. Besides that, in the case of both the promotion of and opposition to Bills, the consent of the Local Government Board, or the Secretary of State as the case might be, would have to be obtained. As Lord Balfour had pointed out, the proper place for ratepayers to object to the promotion of Bills was when the Bills came before Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONagreed that it would be totally impossible in a large county to hold meetings of the kind proposed, and urged the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment. He assured him it was not workable.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the explanation which had just been given by the noble Lord opposite showed that the Bill was quite a different one from what they had supposed. They had no explanation when the Bill was introduced beyond this, that they were told that it was to create exactly the same state of things with regard to County Councils as now existed in boroughs. But it now transpired that it was totally different. With regard to the owners' vote, he contended that there could be no objection to summoning the owners and ratepayers to a meeting. He could not see how the Amendment would take away the power of opposing Bills.
  LORD BELPERinsisted that it was practically impossible to get a meeting of ratepayers in a county that would in any sense represent the feeling of the county. With regard to the effect of the Amendment, under the Act of 1888
  236
  power was given to oppose Bills without the consent of the ratepayers, and the Amendment would overrule that by making the provisions of the Borough Funds Act applicable to the opposing of Bills as well as their promotion. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid it was quite clear from the noble Lord's explanation that the Bill did not merely give to County Councils the powers which had been hitherto enjoyed by municipal authorities. It might be right or it might be wrong, but the Bill gave them totally different powers.
  LORD BELPER: Quite so.
  LORD AVEBURY: Yes, but that was not what was stated to be the intention of the Bill when it was introduced. Continuing, the noble Lord said it did away with the powers which had hitherto been enjoyed by the ratepayers, and handed those powers over to the Local Government Board. It was useless to put the House to the trouble of dividing, and he would therefore withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD AVEBURYthen moved to omit the sub-section which provides that the powers conferred by the clause shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any powers possessed by the London County Council. He wished to know what additional powers the Bill would give to the London County Council.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 20, to leave out Sub-section 4."—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 4 stand part of the clause."
  LORD KENYONsaid he did not think the Bill gave the London County Council any additional powers. The sub-section was only put in as a safeguard.
  LORD AVEBURYasked whether the Government would omit the words, "shall be in addition to."
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. The object of the sub-section was simply to safeguard to the County Council the powers it already had, and to make it perfectly clear that the County Council should not have any of its powers interfered with by the Bill.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid he was not wishing to deprive the County Council of any of its powers, but the words in the section were "the powers conferred by this section shall be in addition to," etc. He understood the Government did not wish to add anything to the duties of the London County Council.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the London County Council, as the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, had the power to promote Bills for the improvement of the Metropolis, and for the public benefit of the inhabitants. The present Bill gave a general power to County Councils to promote Bills under certain restrictions, and the Government saw no reason why the London County Council should be differently treated from other County Conncils; but they wanted to make it clear that the powers now enjoyed by the London County Council were not derogated from.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:—
  LORD AVEBURYmoved to omit the sub-section which repeals the provision in the Borough Funds Act, 1872, that no expense in opposing a Bill shall be charged unless the opposition has had the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the dis-
  238
  trict. He thought it was very undesirable to alter this provision in view of the fact that so many of the voters did not pay rates.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 12, 'to leave out Sub-section 1."—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 1 stand part of the clause."
  LORD KENYONsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment, as one of the chief objects of the Bill was to render it unnecessary to obtain the consent of the owners and ratepayers to mere opposition to a Bill. He thought the local authority might be trusted not to engage in opposition to a Bill against the wishes of the inhabitants. Again, the cost of obtaining this consent was considerable in the event of a poll being demanded. A Bill was very often opposed in order to secure some particular advantage, such as, for instance, a bridge instead of a level crossing, and it was not thought wise that the consent of the owners and ratepayers should be necessary for this course. All the other requirements imposed by the Borough Funds Act of 1872 would be retained.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURYmoved an Amendment to insert after Clause 7 a new clause. When the Act of 1872 was passed there were practically no such things as electric lighting or traction companies, and he suggested that it would be reasonable to treat them in the same way as gas or water undertakings. Perhaps the Government would consider the Amendment on the Report stage if they were not prepared to accept it then.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 7 to insert the following new clause—'Section 2 of the Borough Funds Act, 1872, shall be amended by inserting after the words "Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall authorise any governing body to promote any Bill in Parliament for the establishment of any gas or water works," and

  239
  again after the words 'to compete with any existing gas or water company' the following words 'or electric lighting or traction company.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That that clause be there inserted."
  LORD KENYONsaid they could not accept the Amendment. The question of municipal trading had been referred to a Joint Committee, and this proposal would seem rather to prejudge the matter. It would be perfectly competent for Parliament to reject any proposal that came before it in a Bill promoted by local authorities which in their opinion would render the competition unfair. The Urban District Councils Association was strongly in favour of the Bill for the very reasons which the noble Lord wished to oppose it.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHventured to think there was some misunderstanding in the mind of the noble Lord with regard to this Amendment. He had done his best, but had been unable to understand what it was Lord Avebury wanted to effect. First of all, he did not understand what was meant by a traction company. In the second place, the noble Lord seemed to think that there was no power now to start in competition against an electric lighting company, or against a tramway company. The point was distinctly laid down under the Electric Lighting Acts of 1888 that there was no monopoly given, and that competition might, if necessary, be started. Since the noble Lord's Amendment had been placed on the Paper the Local Government Board had received a communication to the effect that it would be a very serious matter for urban authorities if this Amendment were accepted, because it might be that some company, by obtaining in their district only a few yards of tramway line, might absolutely prevent them from starting a tramway undertaking if they wished to do so, even although that company was not in any way whatever serving their district. The matter was rather a technical one and the Local Government Board believed the Amendment would have an unfair effect upon local authorities.
  LORD AVEBURYthought those who had invested their money in tramways or
  240
  electric lighting were entitled to consideration of the same kind as had been given to gas and water undertakings. Perhaps the words of his clause went rather too far, but he thought the Local Government Board should consider whether investors in electric lighting or traction companies were not entitled to some protection, not against competition as a whole, but against competition by a local authority.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid they were entitled to be protected against unreasonable or pernicious competition, but the noble Lord must bear in mind that the present statutory position of such companies as he referred to, was not the same as that formerly given to gas and water companies, and they could not by a side wind suddenly reverse previous legislation.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid it was competition by the local authority to which he had referred. He would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  LORD AVEBURY, who had given notice of an Amendment in Clause 9, page 3, line 13, after "council," to insert—"The expression 'electors' means 'the persons who would be entitled to vote at an election of a local board under the Public Health Act, 1875, and sections ten to thirteen of Schedule II. to that Act shall apply to a poll of electors under this Act in like manner as if the poll of electors were an election of a local board,'" said that this Amendment raised again the question of the owners' vote, but as His Majesty's Government insisted upon taking away that vote he did not propose to occupy the time of the House by moving his Amendment.
  LORD KENYON: The owners' vote is still there.
  Clause 9 and remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedule 1:
  LORD AVEBURYpointed out that it was provided in the First Schedule that a poll might be required with respect to any resolution by not less than 100 electors or one-twentieth in number of the electors, whichever might be the less. He moved as an Amendment to leave out "one hundred" and to insert "twenty" and to leave out "one-twentieth" and insert "one-hundredth." He quite agreed that the present number who might demand a poll should be increased, but in small places surely 100 was too large a number of electors to require to join in demanding a poll, and in very large places, on the other hand, to insist on one twentieth would make it impossible to carry it into operation at all. That clause, if it passed, would make it almost impossible to demand a poll, and constituted another step in the direction of taking away powers now enjoyed by the ratepayers.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 18, to leave out the words 'one hundred' and to insert the word 'twenty' and leave out the words 'one-twentieth' and to insert the words 'one-hundredth.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one hundred' and 'one-twentieth' stand part of the schedule."
  LORD KENYONsaid the Government could not agree to the Amendment. If they could not find 100, or one-twentieth, whichever might be the less, within seven days to demand a poll, there seemed no good reason for a poll.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Formal Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 2, agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.

  EDUCATION (BORROWING) BILL.
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, this is a Bill to enable the local education authorities to put themselves in a satisfactory condition financially. Many of them have found themselves in a position of difficulty, from a financial point of view, in bringing the Act into operation, owing to the fact that they have not sufficient funds at their disposal during the first year. The object of the Bill is to meet the difficulties that have arisen by enabling the local education authorities, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to borrow, under Section 19 of the Act of 1902 or in such other manner as the Board may approve, such sums as are required to provide a working balance to carry the Act into effect. The Bill has passed through the other House without opposition, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kenyon.)
  THE MARQUIS OF RIPON: I understand from the noble Lord that this Bill is to meet a temporary requirement, namely, the bringing into operation of the Act of last year. But the terms of the Bill are quite general, and they would enable County Councils, with the assent of the Local Government Board, to borrow money for the purposes of putting themselves in funds not only for the special purpose intended but on any occasion whatever.
  *LORD HERRIES: I think it is to be regretted that the Government has not seen its way to give more money to the County Councils to bring the Education Act into operation. When the Government instituted the Act they ought certainly to have anticipated that it would not be possible for the County Councils to provide the money without increasing the rates to a very great extent. We have been obliged to do so in my county for this year, and that has had a great deal to do with the opposition which the

  243
  Act has received in many quarters. I believe that many of those who oppose the Act keep their consciences in their pockets, and that in consequence of finding that they were to be called upon to pay such a high rate they have discovered conscientious motives for not paying it at all. If the Government had kept the corn tax on for another year, that £2,500,000 might have been given over to the County Councils in order to bring this Act into operation. Even if the money is borrowed, it will eventually come out of the rates. The rate which agriculturists will have to pay for education may amount to 10 or 20 per cent. of their net incomes. In some years I daresay they will have to pay more. I know a case of a large tenant farmer paying a rental of £1,200 a year, who probably this year will not have a clear income of £200. Yet he will be called upon to pay 6d. in the pound on £1,200 a year. I must say, on behalf of agriculturists, that I think a great deal too much is expected from them towards bringing the Education Act into operation. In order to relieve the ratepayers to a certain extent the Government bring in this Bill to allow them to borrow money, but I object to this charge eventually falling on the ratepayers.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I wish to raise a much more fundamental objection to this Bill than that which has been raised by my noble friend. It is this. The Bill says that you may borrow such sums as in the opinion of the Board are required to provide a working balance for carrying the Act into effect. Why should Education Committees or County Councils be expected to borrow money at all for this purpose? I happen to be on one of these Education Committees, and I know that we are bankrupt. We have got no money, and a great many parish schools are in exactly the same position. I ventured to point this out to your Lordships when the Bill was before the House. I predicted that we should all be without money, and that is exactly what has happened. I submit that when the Bill was drawn care ought to have been taken to provide for this period of transition. Unfortunately no such care was taken, and all Education Committees, I presume—certainly I can speak for the one of which I am a Member
  244
  —find themselves in very great straits and do not know what to do. Surely the fact that this Bill has to be introduced is in itself a condemnation of the scheme, and shows that sufficient care was not bestowed on the financial portion of the Act.
  *LOED BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The simple reason for this Bill, I think, is to be found in this fact, that the financial year of the schools which have to be taken over, does not in all cases, or perhaps in many cases, fit in with the precise time when the new authority has to commence its work, and for the purpose of having a working balance there must be recourse to this system of borrowing. The safeguards in the Bill are sufficient, because the purpose for which the borrowing is to take place is to provide a working balance for carrying the Act into effect, and it has to be by the consent of the Local Government Board, whose duty it will be to see that a large sum in excess of what is a fair working balance is not asked for by the local authority. I cannot but admit that the circumstances in which some County Councils have found themselves are unfortunate, but in the commencement of a new scheme of this kind, when many institutions have to be taken over whose financial years do not end at the same time, the difficulty is unavoidable, and this is the best means of getting over it.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: The cause of the difficulty is this, that the Government do not pay their contribution to the education expenses as they are incurred, and the County Council have to. If the Government had paid their contributions with promptitude as they became due the difficulty would not have arisen to the present extent.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think there is some ambiguity in the expression, "when the money becomes due." The money becomes due, I understand, after the inspection, and the local authority must carry on the school till the end of the financial year. I believe the contributions at the end of the financial year will balance, but it is to carry the work on during

  245
  the months until the grants are really receivable from the Government that this power to borrow is required.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, under the Act of 1888, the Local Government Board are empowered to make Provisional Orders to transfer to counties and County Boroughs certain of the powers and duties of the Department. In doing so they have to transfer them to all the County Councils and County Boroughs in England. The object of this Bill is to allow the Local Government Board to specify the particular County or County Borough to which they wish to transfer their powers.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Kenyon.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  NEWCASTLE CHAPTER (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, this Bill asks for no public money and raises no controversial questions. It has received the consent of all the parties concerned, and has met with the approval of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Home Office. It is a simple matter of administration to enable the income of the vicarage of Newcastle, together with the income of the canonry established by Order in Council in 1884, to be merged in the deanery, and for some subsidiary objects which it is hardly necessary for me to enter into at this stage. If I include a part as spent in the provision and
  246
  equipment of a house where one of the canons lives with seven young graduates, whom he prepares for the ministry, a sum of about £33,000 has been, contributed by Northumberland laymen for the establishment of a Dean and Chapter of Newcastle, and in addition there will be an annual sum which will eventually come to the Chapter in the next vacancy in the archdeaconry of Northumberland. I venture to think that a diocese which has shown such attachment to its cathedral is entitled to come to Parliament and ask for the removal of statutory anomalies which hinder the free operation of the Newcastle Chapter Act, 1884.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Bishop of St. Albans.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday, the 6th of July next.

  THE HOUSE AND THE FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, who had the following notice on the Paper, "To move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the expediency or otherwise of limiting the discretion given to boards of guardians in dealing with members of friendly societies under the Out-door Relief (Friendly Societies) Act, 1894," said, my Lords, I shall be in the recollection of your Lordships in stating that when the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill came before your Lordships for Second Reading my desire was that it should be referred to a Select Committee. I entertained that desire mainly in the interests of the friendly societies, because the Bill, although supported unanimously I believe at great meetings of friendly societies, contained a clause which altered the power given to boards of guardians by the Act of 1894, in respect to the relief of members of friendly societies. This was a permissive power to consider the cases of persons who had made savings with friendly societies. The Bill then before your Lordships however, turned that permissive power into an absolute enactment that boards of guardians should not consider any amount up to 5s. that was receivable by

  247
  members of friendly societies as sick pay when they applied for outdoor relief. I felt, and I think your Lordships felt, judging by the division which took place, that the case on behalf of the friendly societies was not made out to your Lordships' satisfaction; that there was no proof shown to us that the power given to boards of guardians by the Act of 1894 had not been exercised in favour of members of friendly societies; and my desire was to give to the friendly societies an opportunity of stating their case before a Select Committee of your Lordships, in order that when the question came up again there should be more material before the House for arriving at a decision. Since I put down my notice I have been given to understand that my noble and learned friend opposite, Lord James of Hereford, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and my noble friend behind me, the Earl of Portsmouth, who objects to my Motion for a Committee, would, even if your Lordships assented to the Committee, not be willing to serve on it. I have also reason to believe that the great friendly societies have arrived at the determination, supposing your Lordships were to consent to my Motion, to decline to give evidence before the Committee. I wish to ask the noble Earl behind me whether such is the fact.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: When I received private notice of the Question I took the earliest opportunity of consulting the representatives of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, the Foresters, and other great friendly societies, and the representatives of those societies, which have in the aggregate a membership of over 4,000,000, have unanimously told me that they have no intention if any such Committee is formed to give any evidence before it. They have no desire to act discourteously, but they feel that this is a matter of principle on which they must decline to alter their views at all.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like, after the answer which has been given by the noble Earl, to say a word upon this subject. I think it would be most unfortunate if there were any misunderstanding outside as to the grounds on
  248
  which the Motion will now, I presume, be withdrawn. It is on the ground that the friendly societies decline to tell us on what reason they base their claim for exceptional treatment being accorded to this particular form of thrift. It is not accorded to other modes of saving within the friendly society itself, and it is not accorded to the deferred annuities which the Government itself through the Post Office advocates and guarantees. I and others are most anxious to support this Bill in principle, believing in every fair and reasonable encouragement to thrift, but the Bill says that distinct preferential treatment of the most marked kind shall, without any exercise of discretion, be given, not to friendly societies altogether, or to their thrift funds, but to one particular branch of the friendly societies work—namely, that which relates to sick pay as contrasted with pensions or anything else. I desire with all my heart to foster the friendly societies, entertaining as I do the strongest possible opinion as to the incalculable value of the service, they are rendering to the country, but it is their responsibility and not mine if they decline to give this House the opportunity we ask for when we claim that a Committee should be appointed, before whom evidence may be given to show us why these particular sick funds should be differentiated from every other form of thrift. They may be able to give us conclusive reasons; all that we ask is to be told what these are.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I share with the most rev. Primate the desire that there should be no misunderstanding outside. I am astonished at the position which the right rev. Primate takes up. The grounds of the claim have been stated over and over again, and in consequence of what was stated the House of Commons have unanimously given to the friendly societies special treatment. The Bill has been discussed in this House, and the reasons why friendly societies should be specially treated were stated by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and myself—they were also stated in the other House, and yet the most rev. Prelate, after the Bill has been thoroughly discussed says, "I know nothing about it and the only

  249
  way I can acquire knowledge is by a Committee."
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I by no means say I know nothing about it. I have, I think, read every debate which has taken place on the subject, and all the pamphlets on both sides. What I fail to find is any adequate statement of the reasons for setting apart this particular mode of thrift and distinguishing it from all others.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Nobody has ever asked for this Committee until the present moment, and I think in the circumstances that the proposal is extremely discourteous to the House of Commons and to the friendly societies. Surely the reasons for the preference are to be stated in debate, and not proved by oral testimony. The facts are known, and they can be argued upon in debate.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I fail to see any discourtesy to the friendly societies in asking them to appear before a Committee and give evidence why this particular fund should receive differential and preferential treatment. I think that as the friendly societies refuse to give that evidence, the noble Earl is justified in refusing to go on with his Motion. In the circumstances, it would be only a one-sided inquiry, and that would be absolutely useless.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I want to make my position and that of the Government clear. While the Government accepted the decision of the House with regard to the Bill, they would not object to the Motion of the noble Earl if he proceeded with it.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I deeply regret that the great friendly societies should have thought it consistent with their interests to decline to give evidence before a Committee. The House is not actuated by any hostility to these societies; we recognise their excellent services to the community; but when the House considers that the information at their disposal with regard
  250
  to a particular Bill is not sufficient to enable them to arrive at a conclusion with regard to it, they are entitled to ask for a Committee. But, in the circumstances, it would be futile for me to proceed with my Motion.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.