Lords Sitting of 12 March 1903

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.
  Mid Yorkshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]: Derby Gas Bill [H. L.]; Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]; Preston and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [H.L.]
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 1A, and 1B be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Macclesfield and District Electric Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13A, 17, and 17A be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the local and road authorities to the said tramways be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramways Nos. 3 and 4, be struck out of the
  518
  Bill, unless the consent of the Atherton Urban District to the said tramways be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramways Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18 be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7 be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the—
  Wakefield and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramway No. 1 be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Ardsley East and West District Council be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
  Fife Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Tramways (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]; Hexham Gas Bill [H.L.]; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [H.L.]; Nantwich Gas Bill [H.L]; South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [H.L.]; Wellington (Salop) Gas Bill [H.L.]; British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [H.L.]; Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Dudley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Pelican and British Empire Life Office Bill [H.L.]; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill [H.L.]; Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [H.L.]; South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [H.L.]; Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Exeter Railway Bill [H.L.]; Faversham Gas Bill [H.L.]; Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; South Wales Mineral Railway Bill [H.L.; Western Trust Bill [H.L.]; Wirral Railway Bill [H.L.]; Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [H.L.]; Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage Bill [H.L.]; Committed.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Manchester Southern Tramways (Cheshire) Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the necessary consents of the local and road authorities to Tramways Nos. 1, 2, and 3 be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Manchester Southern Tramways (Lancashire) Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the necessary consents of the local and road authorities to Tramways Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Croydon and District Electric Tramways Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 6 to 16 inclusive be struck out of the Bill; and the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 4, 4A, 5, 5A, and 5B be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Penge Urban District Council to those tramways be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Lancashire and Dumbartonshire Railway Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, provided that Clauses 28 and 29 be struck out of the Bill.
  I That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1 and 2 be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Sheffield Corporation Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 2 and 2A be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Railway No. 1 be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 2 and 4 be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 2, 8, 8A, 9, and 9A be struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill
  ought to be dispensed with.
  Head, and agreed to.
  Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Harbour District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a.
  Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [H.L.]; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill [H.L.]; Hexham Gas Bill [H.L.]; British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [H.L.]; Nantwich Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Nantwich Gas Bill [H.L.]; Old Bridewell Burying Ground Bill [H.L.]; Cleveland and Durham County
  Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [H.L.]. 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 Northesk,
  E. Dartrey (Chairman),
  L. Saltoun,
  L. Lilford,
  L. Carew;
  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday 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.

LONDON COUNTY ASYLUM (RECEIVING HOUSES) BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I may as well say at once that in deference to the view of the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees I do not propose to press the Second Heading of this Bill as a Private Bill. I do not in the least suggest that the judgment arrived at by the noble Karl is not a perfectly correct one, or that there is any grievance at all on that score; but in withdrawing this Bill I should like to say just a word or two about it. It will, I believe, reappear very much in the same form—perhaps in exactly the same form—as a Public Bill. This is a Bill to enable the County Council to establish Receiving Houses for alleged lunatics, to enable them to detain alleged lunatics there for six weeks, and to provide not only indoor treatment for the lunatics in the Receiving Houses, but also outdoor treatment for other persons whose condition may make it desirable that they should be treated in that way. Under the present law every alleged lunatic who is not under proper control must be brought into the workhouse, and that has been for a long time a great grievance. It is a grievance to the friends and relations of the persons brought in, because very often they are not paupers at all and do not wish the stigma of pauperism to rest upon them; and, in the
  522
  second place, it is a very wasteful procedure, as there are thirty Boards of Guardians in London, every one of which must keep up a separate set of lunacy accommodation. Moreover', it is felt very strongly by medical men that if there was a better intermediate system for persons who are suspected of lunacy, and if they could get immediately better treatment than they now receive, there would be very much more chance of their ultimate recovery, and perhaps of their not having to be sent to an asylum at all. It is a rather curious thing that nearly half of the persons who are detained in workhouses as alleged lunatics do not go to asylums at all, but are sent back again.
  This Bill was received with a perfect chorus of approval. It was received with approval by the Lunacy Commissioners, who thought a very strong and urgent case had been made out for legislation. It was received with approval by the Boards of Guardians, and a deputation waited or the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and they considered that the noble Earl had given them a very satisfactory assurance indeed with regard to his approval of the principle of the Bill. The London County Council were never anxious that they should bring forward this measure themselves. They had no desire to put themselves forward in the matter, and they would have been only too glad if His Majesty's Government could have seen their way to have introduced a Bill on the subject; but, hearing that that course would not be pursued by the Government, the County Council introduced the Bill as a Private Bill. They introduced it as a Private Bill thinking that it would have much more chance of becoming law than if introduced as a Public Bill. But they entirely bow to the decision of the Lord Chairman, which they do not for a moment dispute, and all I have now to say is that some member of the London County Council, probably in your Lordships' House, will introduce a Bill having the same objects in view as the Private Bill, which I now withdraw.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I think my noble friend opposite has taken a very proper, and, if I may say so, judicious course with regard to this Bill, and I am very glad that he has

  523
  called the attention of the House to it before withdrawing it on Second Reading. I feel very great sympathy with all he has said and with the County Council on this subject. I think it is a point that requires very serious consideration whether the law on the subject of lunacy, in particular, with respect to which this Bill deals, should not be amended as soon as possible, but when I came to investigate the Bill I found that it dealt with such very large amendments, both of the Lunacy Laws and of the Poor Law, that I did not think it was right—at any rate I felt very great doubts on the subject—that it should be allowed to proceed as a Private Bill. Having those doubts, I consulted my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and he agreed with me—I believe he also sympathises very much with the objects aimed at—that those objects ought to be effected by public rather than by private legislation. I think there is a very great evil to be obviated, and I sincerely hope that my noble friend will be successful in promoting legislation with regard to this subject in a Public Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, so far as understand them, a great many of the provisions contained in the Bill are very judicious provisions and might very properly be passed into law, but I think my noble friend himself will recognise that this is not a proper matter to be dealt with in a Private Bill. I doubt very much whether a Private Members' Bill dealing with such a subject would ever be carried into law, because it interferes with two important parts of government. As to the advisability of dealing with this matter, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. He will, perhaps, remember that I have twice introduced in this House and succeeded in passing. Lunacy Law Amendment Bills dealing with the same subject, and I regret that time has not been found, owing to the congestion of business in another place, for these Bills even to be discussed there. They passed your Lordships' House, but nothing more was heard of them. For the last two sessions I have abstained from bringing forward Bills, because I do not think it is respectful to your Lordships that Bills passed here should
  524
  never come on for consideration in the other House. I entirely concur with what my noble friend has done on this occasion, and if I could promise him my help I would; but, for the reasons I have given, I do not think a Private Bill can properly deal with such a subject. I do not wish to discourage the noble Lord, but I am afraid I cannot encourage him.
  Order for the Second Reading discharged.
  Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn,

PETITION.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) HILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of: of shop assistants of Great Britain and Ireland; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Officers compulsorily retired or dismissed the Service.
  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series, No. 2942. United States (New Orleans and District).

  MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1. (1903).
  Reports on the laws on marriage and divorce in foreign countries (in continuation of Miscellaneous, No. 2 (1894)").
  Presented [by Command and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOAN SOCIETIES.
  Abstract of accounts of Loan Societies in England and Wales, furnished to the Central Office, for the Registry of Friendly Societies, for the year ended 31st December, 1901: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  SHOP BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to shops—Was presented by the Lord Sudley (E. Arran); read la; and to be printed. (No. 12.)
  BANK HOLIDAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed. No. 13).

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve on the Standing Committee:—

  L. Archbishop of Canterbury.

  V. Falkland.

  V. Sidmouth.

  E. Halsbury. (L. Chancellor.)

  V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen)

  L. Archbp. of York.

  V. Hampden.

  D. Devonshire. (L. President.)

  V. Cross.

  V. Knutsford.

  D. Bedford.

  V. Llandaff.

  D. Northumberland.

  V. Goschen.

  D. Argyll.

  V. Ridley.

  M. Lansdowne.

  V. Churchill.

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Bp. London.

  M. Bath.

  L. Bp. Hereford.

  E. Clarendon. (L. Chamberlain.)

  L Bp. Rochester.

  L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

  E. Derby.

  E. Denbigh.

  L. Windsor.

  E. Stamford.

  L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

  E. Chesterfield.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  L. Barnard.

  E. Jersey.

  L. Saltoun.

  E. Lauderdale.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Carnwath.

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

  E. Stanhope.

  E. Waldegrave.

  E. Portsmouth.

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

  E. Hardwicke.

  E. Spencer.

  L. Ribblesdale.

  E. Mansfield.

  L. Harris.

  E. Malmesbury.

  L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

  E. Westmeath.

  E. Onslow.

  L. Poltimore.

  E. Grey.

  L. Denman.

  E. Morley.

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

  E. Beauchamp.

  E. Vane. (M. Londonderry.)

  L. Leigh.

  L. Elgin. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  E. Cawdor.

  E. Camperdown.

  E Yarborough.

  L. Belper.

  E. Innes. (D. Roxburghe.)

  L. Brougham and Vaux.

  E. Dartrey.

  L. Kinnaird.

  E. Northbrook.

  L. Lawrence.

  E. Lytton.

  L. Wolverton.

  E. Selborne.

  L. Sandhurst.

  E. Ancaster.

  L. Aberdare.

  L. Crewe.

  L. Reay

  L Tweedmouth.

  L. Burghclere.

  L. Northbourne.

  L. James.

  L. Herries.

  L. Heneage.

  L. Monks well

  L. Coleridge.

  L. Ashbourne.

  L. Fermanagh. (E. Erne.)

  L. Brassey.

  L. Thring.

  L. Norton.

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Lamington.

  L. Ashcombe.

  L. Rowton.

  L. Newton.

  L. Ludlow.

  L. Hawkesbury.

  L. Glanusk.

  L. Stanmore.

  L. Avebury.

  L. Welby.

  L. Alverstone.

  L. Davey.

  L. Allerton.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act. viz:—
  E. Stamford,
  L. Muncaster;
  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I commend this Bill to your Lordships as not being a Party Bill, and T think I can also recommend it to the House as a body,' and to your Lordships as individuals, on the public grounds of advantage and necessity. I daresay it will be within your Lordships' recollection that in the House of Commons the other night, on Mr. Price's Motion on the Address, there was a quick-firing debate on this very subject. The public grounds of advantage and necessity to which I have alluded were admitted on both sides of the House, and in that respect two main propositions were well stated by Mr. Asquith as now being matters of common agreement. The first of these propositions was the gravity of the evil which this Bill is drafted to remedy, and the second proposition was the inefficiency, so far, of voluntary effort to deal with the evil. Alas, from its very nativity, my Bill attracted the attention of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) who guards with such zeal and capacity the

  527
  paradise of liberty and property. His flaming but ever chivalrous sword leapt from its scabbard, and, if the House will forgive a mixed metaphor, he put a Motion down at once on the Paper for the rejection of my Bill. I feel that I shall have to address one or two observations to the noble Earl, and the first question I should like to ask him, though I quite admit the sonorous sound of the "liberty of the subject," is whether in social matters then are any such things as abstract rights, or absolute principles, or indefeasible laws. I hold with Hobbes the philosopher, that in these days the liberty of the subject is very like the desolate freedom of the wild ass, and I think that telephones, motor cars, and wireless telegraphy have more or less upset most of our ideas of being able to carry abstract notions of that sort into everyday life. However, my Lords, I quite recognise that this is not a debating society—I sometimes wish we were a little more like, one—and I will not therefore pursue this rather unfertile inquiry further. I will come down to more common ground.
  I think the noble Earl might very justly say, "Why should a man who pays rent, rates, and taxes, and takes the risk of business, and so on, not be allowed to keep his place open as long as he likes, as long as he can get people to work, and to conduct his business in the way which he chooses and which he considers suits his particular trade best?" My answer there again depends upon the two propositions which Mr. Asquith put in the House of Commons, and I say that what I think would justify us in preventing him doing so in these days, is the welfare of the community and our general responsibility to do all that we can to improve a certain set of social conditions, which, as I have just said, it is a matter of common agreement on both sides, merit and justify attention, or, as the noble Earl, I suppose, would describe it, interference. I will try to convince the noble Earl of the moderation of my Bill, and also of the fact that its provisions are drafted with due regard to sensitive and complicated considerations, which I recognise quite as fully as the noble Earl does, and which make this a difficult, and at the same time an interesting, question. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the vantage ground—the
  528
  "jumping off place"—of my Bill is the Report of the Select Committee on Shop Hours in 1901, and that it gives expression to what I conceive to be not merely the spirit, but the letter, of Lord Salisbury's recommendation. I think the House will agree that Lord Salisbury's opinion on any question of this sort will always be entitled to great consideration. But I would remind the House that Lord Salisbury served upon this particular Committee, that he heard all the evidence, that the case which was being investigated before him and the Committee was to the satisfaction of the Committee proved up to the hilt, and that it was agreed that something must be done; and I feel convinced that in these circumstances Lord Salisbury's special recommendation that Town Councils should be given the power to grant provisional orders to deal with this question of shop hours is entitled to every acceptation from your Lordships.
  Now, my Lords, I turn to the other Bill which is to come before you to-night—viz., the one standing in the name of Lord Avebury. That is a Bill with which we have already been made familiar. I think it has been introduced in this House twice, though perhaps not in the same form; and I hope, although I am running, as it were, a Bill of my own, that the noble Lord will allow me to pay him the high tribute to which I feel he is entitled for the work he has done in regard to this question. I look upon him as the Admirable Crichton and the past-master in the matter of shop hours and a great many social subjects of the same kind. But at the same time I should also like to remind him that when we were very feeble folk on this question, when opinion was not at all formed into the mass that it now assumes, I was one of a minority of those who voted, against the opinion of my own Front Bench, with the noble Lord behind me. I have been thinking over this Bill a long while, and have had a great many conversations with those who know something about the question and are in touch with the people most affected, and with every regard for the noble Lord's Bill, I very much prefer my own. I will state briefly the grounds of preference. In the first place, I claim that my Bill sticks more topically to the Report of the Select Committee, and especially to Lord Salisbury's recom-

  529
  mendation. In the next place, I claim for it greater simplicity and flexibility; and thirdly, I attach great importance to this, that my Bill is more obedient to the wise tendency of the present day, which recognises that the success of this kind of legislation must largely be a matter of circumstance, and which therefore trusts the local authorities to adopt the principle, to deal with details, and to frame provisions to meet the needs and the convenience of the communities they represent.
  I will now pass to my Bill, and explain it as clearly as I can. Fortunately, in addition to being simple, it is very short. In the first clause, my Bill goes a little beyond the recommendations of the Lords Committee by empowering both Urban and District Councils, as well as Borough Councils, to make these Provisional Orders. The reason for that, I think, is simple. There are big urban districts, larger and more important than many boroughs, which could not very well be left out. Some rural districts are really more urban in character than rural. I will take, for instance, the mining districts in South Wales, and I have no doubt instances could easily be multiplied. The distinction, indeed, is only technical. As your Lordships know, rural districts now have, under the general law, means of acquiring the sanitary powers of Urban District Councils.; Here I would point out that the making of a provisional order is purely voluntary under this Bill. It is almost only an enabling Bill, and there is nothing to enforce early closing in any form in a reluctant district.
  Now I come to the only coercive part of the Bill. In the second clause I use the word "shall" instead of "may." I make it absolutely compulsory on the central authority, which I define later in the Bill, to lay the Provisional Order before Parliament; that is, the central authority have not the power under my Bill to rejecter to amend it. I have, unfortunately, come away without the reference in my pocket, but I believe there is a precedent for that—I don't say an exact analogy—in the Allotment Act of 1887. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I don't attach very much importance to it one way or the other. I think it is a good clause by itself whether it has a precedent or not. It
  530
  would be wasting a good deal of time if the whole matter was gone into after the Provisional Order had been put before the central authority by the local authority, and the principle of my Bill is the principle which noble Lords opposite followed so implicitly in their own Education Act of last year, when they handed over the whole of the education of the country to local authorities.
  As to the third clause, which deals with expenses, I think that is quite plain sailing. It would have added considerably to the length of the Bill if I had defined exactly the source from which the money to be paid, for the expenses consequent upon getting the Provisional Orders, was to be found in each case. Nor have I found it necessary to limit expenditure, though I believe some limit of expenditure was suggested in the recommendations of the Committee. The definitions call for no comment. I am glad to see that my definitions are practically in agreement with Lord Avebury's. My "shop" definition is the same as Lord Avebury's, except that he includes the barber, and I do not. I leave it to the local authority to define and to specialise particular shops. That, I think, concludes my explanation. of the Bill.
  I might here go into the ethical and hygienic aspects of this question,—I might, but I will not. I think those are very fully dealt with in the Memorandum to Lord Avebury's Bid, besides which I see around me many noble Lords, both spiritual and temporal who have given great attention to this subject, who have studied it longer than, I have, and who no doubt will have something to say with authority on these matters. I think we shall all agree that people who have to serve very long hours in shops, often in bad air, must lead rather dull lives. The man who is known as the "Guv'nor"' may derive a great deal of amusement out of keeping his shop open late, but I am thinking more of the shop assistants, who arenot dealing on their own account, and are kept long hours at the dull business of serving customers. That, of course, I only put forward in a very general way, and I leave it to other noble Lords, who are more competent to

  531
  do so, and especially to the noble Lord behind me, to enlarge upon that aspect of the question. I need hardly say that I prefer my own Bill. I declare to win with mine if I can, but I shall be very glad to win with either. My noble friend and I both recognise that we are working towards the same end. If I cannot get my Bill I hope my noble friend will get his; but I confess I can hardly conceive, having regard to what the Home Secretary said in the debates in the House of Commons on Mr. Price's Amendment to the Address, that there will be any hostility on the part of the noble Lords opposite to my Bill. Encouraged again by what the Home Secretary said in the House of Commons, and inasmuch as my Bill sticks closely to Lord Salisbury's recommendation, and to the Report of the Select Committee, I hope that it may be given a cordial welcome, and that its passage will be facilitated in another place. I address myself once more to those who may be disposed to follow the noble Earl on the Cross Benches in the "undue interference "ground of objection which I assume he will take to this Bill, and I would remind them of a maxim which may serve to appease their conscientious objections—Salus populi suprema lex.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY): I interpose thus early in the debate because I think your Lordships are somewhat embarrassed by the form in which these two Bills appear. It seems to me that the noble Lord who has just sat down has, by Parliamentary tactics, obtained precedence over Lord Avebury, who I certainly think is entitled to precedence by reason of the attention he has given to this subject, and the made in which he has brought it forward from time to time. Personally, I should vote against the Bill now before the House, and in favour of Lord Avebury's Bill. It seems to me that it would be extremely unfair to Lord Avebury, who has taken so much trouble over the matter, and whose Bill is very detailed and deals with a great many of the difficulties, if, as would be the case if Lord Ribblesdale's Bill were rejected, he was prevented
  532
  from moving his. For your Lordships could not, after having rejected one Bill, receive another almost identical with the one you had thrown out, during the same session. Lord Ribblesdale has taken credit for his Bill on the ground that it is a short one; but it is a short one because it has, by not mentioning them, avoided all the difficulties with which Lord Avebury has attempted to deal. The Motion I make is that your Lordships adjourn this debate. You would then be able to hear what Lord Avebury had to say in moving his Bill. I do not think it would be in order to discuss both Bills together. It would be possible to refer both of them to a Committee, but neither of the noble Lords, I understand, desires that that should be done, because it would be regarded, and justly regarded, as a mode of shelving the question. To put your Lordships in a position properly to decide on this question, I move that the debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill be now adjourned.
  Moved, "That the debate on the Bill be now adjourned."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Should I be in order in moving the rejection of the Bill as an Amendment to that Motion?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. The Motion is that this debate be now adjourned.
  EARL SPENCER: Do I understand that if the noble and learned Lord's Motion is agreed to, Lord Avebury will introduce his Bill?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: But I put it to the noble and learned Lord, with a view to obtaining the very object which he has in view, that it would be better to adjourn the debate after the debate has been held to some extent; otherwise you are going to burk all discussion of Lord Ribblesdale's Bill. That, I submit, is not fair.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question is—
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: Before the noble and learned Lord puts the Motion, I must say that I do not think the treatment I am receiving is at all fair. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that I was hardly entitled to bring forward this Bill, because I bad not given the same attention to the subject as the noble Lord behind me. I am sure Lord Avebury will bear me out in saying that I recognise to the full all he has done, and that I am only too anxious to work with him. I deny that I have resorted to any Parliamentary wiles in order to obtain first place for my Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: I respectfully submit that I am receiving a scant measure of justice at the hands of the noble and learned Earl.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question is—
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Before we come to a decision on this subject, I think we should hear what the Leader of the House has to say. The noble Earl on the Woolsack has accused my noble friend of having indulged in Parliamentary wiles—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg your pardon, I did nothing of the kind. I said "tactics."
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I accept the noble and learned Lord's correction. I do not see there is much difference between "wiles" and "tactics." But whatever the charge against my noble friend may be, I submit that you will
  be dealing scant courtesy to him if you adjourn the debate in the way proposed. I and many other noble Lords think that Lord Ribblesdale's Bill is a better Bill than Lord Avebury's, and if by no unjustifiable methods, and after reasonable and due notice, my noble friend's Bill happens to have got precedence of Lord Avebury's, I hold that in fairness your Lordships should give first consideration to Lord Ribblesdale's Bill. Decide on that Bill, and, if you reject it, then take Lord Avebury's Bill. For my own part, I hope my noble friend will not consent to an adjournment of the debate, but will test the feeling of the House by going to a division.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): I do not think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack either made, or intended to make, any accusation against the noble Lord opposite.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Hear, hear.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: All that is suggested to the House is that considering Lord Avebury's long connection with this question, and also looking at the manner in which the two Bills deal with the subject, it would be more convenient to take the general discussion upon the Bill which happens to stand second rather than that which stands first. The Motion for the adjournment will not get rid of Lord Ribblesdale's Bill, and if Lord Avebury's Bill should not commend itself to the House, it will be in the power of Lord Ribblesdale to put the discussion on his Bill down for another day.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 33.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Denbigh, E.

  Hampden, V.

  Halsbury, E (L. Chancellor.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Morley, E.

  Mount Edgenmbe, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Barnard, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Belper, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  James, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Kinnard, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Norton, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Acton, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Camperdown, E.

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

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Chesterfield, K. [Teller.]

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Ducie, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Grey, E.

  Davey, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Denman, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Romney, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Russell, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Kilmarnock, L, (E. Erroll.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Gordon, V. (F. Aberdeen.)

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Wentworth, L.

  Peel. V.

  Northbourne, L.

  EARL SPENCER: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack having managed to get rid of one Bill by tactics of a kind that we have not been accustomed to in this House, I should like to ask whether it is right and in order, after a Bill has been shunted in this way, to bring on immediately afterwards an almost identical Bill. It seems to me that if the first one was out of order, the other one is too, and I should be disposed to say that the second Bill ought to be adjourned as well. I have never known of a Bill having been got rid of in this manner before. By the Motion which the House has just accepted, Lord Avebury's Bill can now be discussed, whereas Lord Ribblesdale's Bill has been refused any discussion at all.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should like to support the argument of my noble friend Lord Spencer, and I—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would point out to noble Lords that there is no Motion before the House.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Then I move the adjournment of the House, and I do so in order to obtain a decision on the Question whether it is in order, one Bill on a particular subject being on the Paper, to pass from that Bill and take up another Bill not differing at all from it in character, and only differing to some small extent in its provisions. What was the reason given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for moving the adjournment of the debate on my noble friend's Bill? It was that if your Lordships gave a Second Reading to Lord Ribblesdale's Bill you would be placed in
  536
  a very awkward position in not being able to proceed to debate Lord Avebury's Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said if the Bill was rejected.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I maintain that the question whether the Bill was rejected or not, makes no difference.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would make all the difference. In the event of it being rejected, you would be precluded from discussing the Bill, on the same subject standing in the name of Lord Avebury.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: These Bills are so very much alike that in Committee the terms of one could be substituted for the other. If a second reading had been given to Lord Ribblesdale's Bill, the whole of the provisions of Lord Avebury's measure might have been inserted in Committee. In these circumstances, in order to protect the dignity of the House, I move the adjournment.
  Moved, "That the House do now adjourn."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I submit that neither of the noble Lords opposite who have spoken, has brought forward any point of order whatever; certainly they have not supported it by any precedent. The adjournment of the debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill was moved by my noble and learned friend on the ground that of the two Bills before

  537
  the House, it was desirable that a discussion should be taken on that which stood second. I deny altogether that there was anything either irregular or discourteous in that. What the point of order is that has been raised by noble Lords opposite I am at a loss to discover. The course which has been taken appears to me not, only to be a convenient one, but almost an absolutely necessary one. I am informed that if the Bill which was moved just now had been debated, and rejected after discussion by the House, it would have been impossible for Lord Avebury to have moved his Bill. Therefore, by taking the discussion on that Bill we should have placed ourselves in the position of being unable to discuss the Bill which, in its form and general character, we think the most preferable one of the two.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: If my noble friends are liable to the charge which has been brought against them by the noble Duke of proceeding in this matter without precedent, the have before them, at any rate, the example of the Lord Chancellor, who has proceeded in this matter entirely without precedent. I have had no time, as the noble Duke has apparently had, to ransack the journals of the House for precedents on this matter, since the last division—
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: What I said was, that the noble Lords had risen to a point of order, and they did not explain what the point of order was. I said they ought to have brought forward some precedent to show that the course taken by my noble and learned friend was a breach of order.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Under what Standing Order has the Lord Chancellor proceeded?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Under the Standing Orders relating to the Speaker of the House.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The adjournment of the House has been moved as a protest against the unprecedented action of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. To wha date is the Bill adjourned?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Till the next meeting of the House.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then we shall have the advantage to-morrow of a second debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill. Is that the intention of the Motion?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If the noble Earl wishes to have the debate to-morrow, I suppose he can have it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I have nothing to do with it. I am neither the Leader of the House nor the promoter of either of the Bills; but what we on this side of the House, and some of the supporters of the noble Duke, would like to know is, why has this extraordinary course been taken? I would undertake to find, if leisure were given me, a dozen precedents on which two Bills on the same subject have been read a second time on the same day and referred to a Select Committee. Is it supposed that the Debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill would have taken so long that it would have interrupted the sacred hour of dinner, and so prevented any discussion being taken on Lord Avebury's Bill? I do not understand that there is any pretext of the kind, and really the object of those who voted against the Lord Chancellor's Motion for Adjournment, and who have brought forward the new Motion for Adjournment, is to discover what underlies this strange proceeding on the part of the Government.
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): I would venture to remind the House of the particular point which the noble Duke the Leader of the House made, and the reason he gave for the course which has been taken. The point which the noble Duke put was this, that supposing the debate on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill had gone on, and supposing that Bill had been rejected, it would have been impossible, by the custom, and, I think, the Orders of this House, for the noble Lord Avebury to have moved his Bill. The object which I had thought had been attained by the Motion of the noble and learnedLord on theWoolsack was this,

  539
  that Lord Ribblesdale's Bill had not been rejected, but thediscussion on it postponed until we saw whether the House would accept Lord Avebury's Bill or not. Lord Ribblesdale's Bill has not been killed, but is kept alive by only being postponed. I think that was a reasonable and rational course under all the circumstances. Having regard to the history of this question, it was only fair that the main discussion should be taken on the Bill introduced by Lord Avebury; and I think it was for the convenience of the House that the main discussion should be taken on the Bill, which, I believe, will be found to be the one most in accord with the wishes of the majority of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON. If the Bill to be moved by Lord Avebury is rejected, then, under the rule which has just been laid down by the noble Duke and by the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, Lord Ribblesdale's Bill cannot be discussed at all. That will land the House in a very remarkable position. I have been in this House now for a longer time than I care to recollect, but I have never known such a proceeding as this. I confess it seems to me to be a wholly irregular procedure. This is an attempt to alter the order in which the Bills stand on the Order Paper. It is possible, I suppose, to do it in this way without committing an actual breach of order, but it is entirely contrary, as it seems to me, to the spirit of the Orders of this House; and if Lord Avebury's Bill should not pass, then you will have successfully secured that no consideration whatever shall be given to the other Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I, too, have been in this House for a good many years, and can corroborate every word that has fallen from the noble Marquess. I should like to know why the House is unable to discuss two Bills which deal with the same subject in a different way. I have no recollection of this ever occurring before.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can off-hand give the noble Earl a precedent. Lord Avebury's Bill was rejected last year, and it was re-introduced
  540
  without the Clause to which exception was taken, and the previous question was moved and carried on the very ground, that it was out of order to discuss a Bill when one on the same subject had just been rejected.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If that is all the precedent that the noble Lord can produce, it is no precedent at all. The case which is now before the House is this: Lord Ribblesdale puts down a Bill which he proposes to bring before the House, and Lord Avebury also puts down a Bill which he desires to introduce. The House comes to Lord Ribblesdale's Bill first, and has no reason to know, further than seeing the notice on the Paper, what is in Lord Avebury's Bill. Lord Ribblesdale's Bill comes up for discussion, upon which a Motion is made that it be not discussed. Well, my Lords, I do not see how that can be said to have any reference to what happened with regard to Lord Avebury's Bill last year. Lord Avebury's Bill was introduced in one form on one day and in another form on another day, but I do not see how that has any reference at all to the position now before the House. What is there, or what would there have been, to prevent the House reading Lord Ribblesdale's Bill a second time, as well as Lord Avebury's, if it saw fit? I believe Lord Ribblesdale's Bill is rather more peremptory than Lord Avebury's, but is that any reason why the Bills should not have been discussed in their proper turn; or would it be contrary to practice to refer the two Bills to a Select Committee? I have known the same thing to be done many times since I have had a seat in this House, and it was for that reason that I voted against the Motion moved by the noble and learn ed Lord on the Woolsack.
  LORD TWEED MOUTH: I only moved the adjournment of the House to put myself in order. I do not propose, therefore, to press my Motion to a division, but I think I can say, on behalf of my noble friend beside me, that we shall certainly divide on the question of the adjournment of the debate on Lord Avebury's Bill, on the principle that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  *LORD BARNARD: In view of what has been said, I should like to ask whether, assuming Lord Avebury's Bill is read a second time, Lord Ribblesdale's Bill will in that case come on?
  Motion for the adjournment of the House (by leave) withdrawn.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I rise to address you this evening with a deep sense of responsibility, because I know the intense anxiety with which your decision is awaited by thousands and thousands of our countrymen and countrywomen, who feel that on your verdict rests the health and happiness of their lives. This is no new Question. It has been for more than thirty years before the House of Commons. We have been supported by two unanimous resolutions of the House of Commons; our Bill has passed twice through Second Reading in that House, and it has passed through two Committees, but we were never able to get it through all its stages in one session. The House always supported us, but obstruction has hitherto been victorious. Two years ago your Lordships appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. The noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) was good enough to serve on it, and I am sure that I express the general feeling of the shop keeping community in expressing to him their thanks for having devoted to the inquiry so much of his valuable time. We held many sittings, heard a great deal of evidence, and came to a unanimous Report. Your Committee, in their Report, state as the result of their inquiries that in many places the hours of labour in shops range as high as eighty to ninety a week, making fourteen hours a day. In factories the hours are now fifty-six and a half, so that those shops are now actually working thirty hours a week longer than factories.
  We have had Bill after Bill, and Act after Act dealing with factories. Why should nothing be done for the shopkeeping community? I would ask your Lordships to consider what fourteen hours a day mean. Allow eight hours for
  542
  sleep, and two for getting to and from the shop, for dressing and undressing, for breakfast and supper, and the twenty-four are gone. There is not a moment for relaxation or fresh air, for self-improvement or family life. They have the Sunday, a blessed day of rest, but, under such circumstances, of rest and nothing more. Men so over-worked cannot be useful citizens; women, as the medical authorities pressed on us, gradually fade away, and they can never become the mothers of strong and healthy children. This is a most serious consideration, and imposes on us a great responsibility. It would be vain to enlarge on the terribly long hours and the evil they entail. Let me just give you one case. Mr. Wallauer, who represented the London Master Bakers' Society, some 6,000 to 7,000 employers, told us that he and his colleagues employ between them from 18,000 to 20,000 women, of whom nine-tenths a re now working ninety hours a week. His society supports the Bill, because, as he said, these hours—
  "Are unnecessarily long and exceedingly cruel, and it is white slavery for the 18,000 to 20,000 females whom I refer to in our own one trade."
  I speak, indeed, for over 300 shopkeepers' associations, representing all trades and in all parts of the country, all of whom support our Bill, while, as far as we know, only two oppose it. Your Committee also point out that in such a matter the trade unions may fairly be considered to represent the working classes, and the Trade Councils of England, Scotland and Ireland all support legislation, while indeed some of them wish to see the Bill made more stringent. There are two Bills before your Lordships this afternoon dealing with the same subject. As your Lordships will see by the Paper which has been circulated this morning, the Bill which I am now moving is supported certainly by seven out of the nine members of the Committee appointed by your Lordships to inquire into the subject, and I have every reason to hope by the other two also. Our Bill, in fact, is the Bill of the shop keepers, and it is the Bill of your Lordships Committee. Lord Ribblesdale's Bill is his own. Our objects are the same, and I have to thank him for his support on previous occasions. His

  543
  Bill differs from ours in some important respects, and I confess that the provisions do not seem to me to be improvements. He proposes that it should be administered not by the Home Office but by the Local Government Board. I have always understood that the Home Office is the proper Department to deal with the subject. They have the information and the experienced staff. That, however, is a matter for the Government.
  My noble friend, Lord Ribblesdale, in the Memorandum prefixed to his Bill, says that it is introduced for the purpose of carrying out the recommendation of the Committee. But I submit that he does not do so. The Committee recommended that any order made by the Home Office should be submitted to Parliament, but my noble friend goes further and proposes that it should not come into effect until embodied in an Act of Parliament. If Parliament agrees, as I hope it will, to the general principle, the exact hours in each case might well be left to the shopkeepers, the local authority, and the Home Office. It may, and no doubt often will, happen that some small or temporary change may be desirable, for the week, let us say, before Christmas, in holiday resorts at the height of the season, or on the occasion of some great function. But under the noble Lord's Bill every change, however small, however temporary, would require an Act of Parliament. and would therefore practically be impossible. This proposal would, I fear, involve considerable delay, unnecessary expense, and render the Act more difficult to work.
  Lord Ribblesdale's Bill is no doubt shorter than ours, but that is because he omits many things which are of great importance. Under his Bill the whole area under one Local Authority must be treated alike. But this is not always desirable, or even possible. Take London. Saturday is generally recognised as a holiday in some parts of the Metropolis: it is the longest day in others. You could not make Saturday a half-holiday, or even an early day, in the poorer parts of London. In the counties, again, different towns have different habits and different requirements. So, again, in many cases
  544
  trades may require special treatment. Let us take one case—the chemists. Under my noble friend's Bill a chemist would be fined for selling medicine after the shop closed. We have a special clause, approved by the chemists thmselves, to meet this point. The last difference to which I will refer is that we leave the initiative to the shopkeepers themselves. The principal objection we have hitherto had to meet is the fear that our Bill might ruin the small shopkeepers. To this we have always replied that the Act could not be put into operation against their wishes. With this provision I believe the small shopkeepers are quite safe, and quite satisfied, but to some such provision they do attach importance; and though two-thirds is perhaps too large a proportion—and personally I should be glad to say instead a majority—still it seems very important in such a matter to carry the shopkeeping community with us. I am not afraid that local authorities would do anything unreasonable, but they might, whereas under our Bill shopkeepers know they are, and would be, safe.
  Our Bill has been considered clause by clause, and I might say line by line, by two representative congresses of shopkeepers—always, of course, excepting the additional safeguard, which, somewhat reluctantly, we have accepted in deference to the great authority of Lord Salisbury—and it is supported by over 300 associations of shopkeepers representing all our great trades and all our great cities. Lord Ribblesdale's Bill, on the other hand, so far as it differs from theirs, the shopkeepers have had no opportunity of examining. The noble Lord below me (Lord Wemyss) has on former occasions denounced the Bill in his usual picturesque and vigorous language. He professes to speak in the interests of the small shopkeepers. But they have always been the backbone of our movement. And why? They believe that they will get more rest and leisure, that their health will be better, that they will save in gas and other expenses, and last, but not least, that they will do more business. I have always maintained that they would do as much, but there is among them a general belief, for which several of their

  545
  witnesses gave good reasons, that they will do more. They allege firstly that if shops shut earlier people will buy what they want nearer home; and, secondly, that more will be, spent in the shop and less in the public-house.
  Happily, my Lords, this is no question of employers against employed, or class against class. This is the shopkeepers' own Bill. They deplore the evil, and implore you to enable them to apply a remedy. Your Committee heard every Association which desired to give evidence. Over 300 support the Bill, and only two oppose it. My Lords, I cannot sum up the question better than in the words of the unanimous Report of your Lordships' Committee. They have told you that "the subject is one of urgent importance," that "in many places the hours of labour in shops range as high as eighty to ninety per week," that the heads of the two great medical colleges '" have come before us and spoken strongly on the great and increasing evils of the present long hours; "that "such serious warnings from the heads of the medical profession cannot in our judgment safely be disregarded; "that "the evidence has convinced us that earlier closing would be an immense boon to the shop keeping community, to shopkeepers and shop assistants alike," that "the present hours are grievously injurious to health, especially in the case of women." The subject is then, I submit, ripe for legislation. Your Lordships have before you two unanimous Resolutions of the House of Commons, one passed only last week, the results of the unanimous Report of your Lordships Committee, Resolutions passed by the Trade Councils of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the support of over 300 tradesmen's associations; and I am satisfied that in passing the Early Closing Hill your Lordships would confer an inestimable boon on the shop keeping community, would do much to improve the health of our great cities, and to prolong, strengthen, and brighten the lives of many thousands of our countrymen and countrywomen.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Avebury.)
  EARL SPENCER: In the interests of equal treatment I beg to move, without further words, the adjournment of the debate.
  Moved," That the debate on the Bill be now adjourned."—(Earl Spencer)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not think the House quite understands the Motion of the noble Earl. I understand that because the House, for certain reasons which were given by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, decided to adjourn the discussion of the Bill moved by Lord Ribblesdale, the noble Earl opposite thinks it reasonable to ask the House to adjourn the debate on this Bill without giving any reason whatever. It seems to me that if the noble Earl succeeds in the course he has suggested we shall be placed in a somewhat inconvenient, not to say absurd, position. If the House decides not to proceed with the discussion of Lord Avebury's Bill to-night, I imagine that both Bills will stand in the same position to-morrow, or on whatever day they may be put down for. If this operation was repeated indefinitely, we should thereby be in the position of declining to discuss the subject at all, which I do not suppose is the object of the noble Earl. It seems to me a very extraordinary thing that so much exception should be taken to the House being permitted to express its opinion which of two Bills, on the same subject and of very much the same character, it proposes to take as the subject matter for discussion. Noble Lords opposite, seem to think that that is a point which ought to be fairly decided by the position which Bills occupy on the Notice Paper. On the contrary it seems to me a more reasonable proceeding that the House should decide for itself, which of the two Bills should form the basis for discussion. The House has taken one step in the direction of that position by assenting to the adjournment of the discussion on Lord Ribblesdale's Bill, and I hope it will complete the process by refusing to adjourn the discussion on the Bill now before the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think some of the noble Lords present have

  547
  not taken into their minds the difference between reading two Bills on the 3ame subject and rejecting one of two Bills. What I wished to point out was that Lord Ribblesdale's Bill, as I happened to know, was by many of my friends regarded less favourably than was Lord Avebury's, and would undoubtedly be rejected. Therefore, I desired that Lord Avebury's should be first considered, because, had Lord Ribblesdale's been so rejected, it would have been contrary to order to enter into a discussion of the second Bill at all. I am amazed at the view which has been taken of my action, and that it should be supposed there was any affront intended in the course I took. I could have moved the reference of both Bills to a Committee, but I understood that the noble Lords would have objected to this course. I and a number of my friends would certainly have voted against Lord Ribblesdale's Bill, and under these circumstances I did that which I conceived to be most convenient to the House.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The speech the Lord Chancellor made in moving the adjournment, which was most unexpected, was to the effect that the past merits of Lord Avebury entitled his Bill to prior consideration. Let me say I can quite understand that point being taken, but I do not think that the method adopted to give effect to the opinion was quite respectful or seemly to the House. I think if the noble and learned Lord had put on the Paper an intimation to the effect that on the Motion for the Second Reading of Lord Ribblesdale's Bill he would move that the House should adjourn the discussion with a view to giving priority to Lord Avebury's Bill, no one would have had any reasonable cause to complain. But what happened? Lord Ribblesdale, in a fluent and picturesque speech, proposed his Bill, and we were prepared to listen with our accustomed eagerness to my noble friend on the Cross Benches, the Earl of Wemyss, who is equally prepared annually to move the rejection of the Bill. In the middle of this, however, the leading authority on order in this House, the Lord Chancellor himself, gets up and moves the adjournment of the debate on the somewhat personal
  548
  grounds I have stated I think that Prima facie it would have been more convenient, and possibly more decent. if fair notice had been given that this course was to be taken. The noble Duke takes another line and says—
  "Surely there is nothing; more reasonable than that the House should have an opportunity of declaring at once which Bill it prefers."
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Which Bill it prefers to discuss.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Since the Motion I notice that there have been reinforcements on the Government side, but the House on a division has only been able to express its passionate wish for the discussion of the second Bill by a majority of two.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I said nothing about "passion."
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No, there is no passion in the noble Duke's composition, but I think I have a right to add an epithet to give force to the argument he advanced. I venture to think that the Motion for the adjournment had better not be pressed. Although in my opinion there is no foundation for the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord that the rejection of Lord Ribblesdale's Bill would have prevented our discussing another Bill on the same subject this afternoon, I trust, even if we should be so fortunate as to pass Lord Avebury's Bill, it will not preclude a fair discussion of Lord Ribblesdale's Bill to-morrow.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said he would have voted against the Bill of my noble friend, Lord Ribblesdale, while he would have voted for Lord Avebury's Bill. Well, my Lords, if the difference between those two Bills is so great, though dealing with the same subject, that the noble and learned Lord is totally unable to support the one while he can give his hearty support to the other, I would submit that the difference is sufficient, even though the first Bill might have been rejected, to allow of a discussion being taken on the second one. I think the noble and learned Lord has proved

  549
  rather too much in that case. Our only object is to meet the tactics from the Woolsack, with the same tactics in regard to the Bill which is supported by the noble Earl.
  EARL SPENCER: I hardly like, after the appeal which has been made to me, to press the Motion which I moved with the object of giving Lord Ribblesdale equal treatment with Lord Avebury. At the same time I strongly desire to protest against the course, which was taken by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I believe it was perfectly unnecessary, and for this reason—that if Lord Avebury, or any other noble Lord, or the Government, disliked the chaises in the Bill of my noble friend, Lord Ribblesdale, they could very properly have amended that Bill, and could have practically transformed it into the second Bill. If tire feeling of your Lordships is against my Motion I will not put the House to the trouble of a division.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I paused before rising to say a few words on this matter under the impression that the noble Earl who had given notice to move the rejection of Lord Ribblesdale's Bill would have taken a similar course with regard to the present Bill, but I am delighted to see that he takes no step to that effect. I do not know in those circumstances that very much need be added to the weighty words which have fallen from the noble Lord, who has for more than a quarter of a century given such close attention and care to this very important subject. As one who sat with him on the Select Committee which considered this question I should like to say one or two words as to the main line of objection which has ordinarily been taken to the measure, and which I understood would have been taken by the noble Earl to-night. We are usually told that this is a Bill which sacrifices the interests of the small shop keepers to the interests of the great shopkeepers, but I contend that the evidence which has been adduced shows that the opposite is the case. There are no more enthusiastic supporters of this Bill
  550
  than the mass of small shopkeepers in our great towns. The second class we had to consider were the assistants, on whom, above all others, the benefit will be conferred by the passing of this Bill.
  Apart from the paramount question of health, upon which my noble friend dwelt so forcibly, we have the question of the dullness and enforced intellectual poverty of the life to which they are condemned. It is a melancholy fact that the very men and women whom we might expect to find taking advantage of the opportunities for higher education and self-improvement which are now provided in nearly all our great towns are practically precluded by their long hours from doing so. I quite admit that neither the interests of the shopkeepers, large or small, nor the interests of the shop assistants, ought to be allowed to stand in the way if the interests of the public at large are to sutler. We tried in the Select Committee to test, as far as possible, the real opinion of those who would be likely to be most prejudicially affected were such a Bill as this to become law—the general body of purchasers of the poorer classes. Difficult as it is to obtain from this necessarily wholly undefined, unorganised body, any definite expression of. opinion, all the steps we took towards obtaining that expression of opinion seemed to show that the grievance, when the Bill is safeguarded in the manner my noble friend proposes, would be reduced to an absolute minimum, and would be insignificant in extent. There would undoubtedly be here and there cases of difficulty and of hardship, hut they would be so few and far between that they could not legitimately be allowed to stand in the way of a measure which would, in its general effect, be so beneficial. I most earnestly hope that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which has been so long and carefully considered, and that we may feel that we are taking a step which may lead to its finding a place on the Statute-book before the close of the present Session.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, having been a Member of the Select Committee over which the noble Lord presided, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. On former occasions, when the Bill has been introduced in your Lordships' House, it has

  551
  met with some opposition, but on this occasion there has been no word of opposition uttered. We are, therefore, in some difficulty in bringing forward the arguments in favour of it. As a rule, noble Lords in this House have opposed the measure because there is generally a prejudice against compulsory legislation of this character, but, surely, if the Bill is to be a real Bill and to achieve anything at all, it must contain an element of compulsion. I do not think it would be of very great value if it were simply the pious expression of an empty hope. I confess I am in favour of voluntary effort, if you could achieve by voluntary effort the same results as those you seek to achieve by legislation, but this Bill owes its very existence to the fact that the voluntary effort among the shopkeeping community, in the direction of the earlier closing of shops, has completely and hopelessly broken down. The history of the movement, and of its failure, is a long and almost pathetic one. There is a mass of evidence from all parts of the country showing the failure of the voluntary effort, which has not broken down because shop keepers themselves are opposed to it, not because there is any reasonable minority of shopkeepers who decline to allow the majority to impose their wishes upon them, but it has broken down simply and solely because an insignificant number of shopkeepers have been able to render the voluntary effort of the majority of no avail.
  It is true that in this Bill there is a certain element of compulsion, but I trust your Lordships will recognise how limited that compulsion is. It] is proposed that a two-thirds majority of the shopkeepers in a locality can approach the local authority for power to close their shops at a certain hour. The draft order of the local authority requires the sanction of the central authority, and that, in its turn, requires the approval of Parliament. Your Lordships will therefore see that we do not aim at imposing a check on the freedom of individuals. We do not desire to enforce a series of restrictions on shopkeepers, nor to interfere with their private enterprise. The principle of this Bill is based less upon a system of compulsion than of making the existing
  552
  voluntary effort effective. It has been urged on former occasions in this House that the labouring classes are opposed to this measure, and that, if it became law, great injury would be inflicted on the working classes who desired to shop late at night, between, say, the hours of nine and eleven. If that were so. I admit it would be a weighty consideration, and it is possible to get evidence in support of either side. I suppose there never was a Committee, either of this House or the House of Commons, who did not have to take conflicting evidence into consideration. What I do ask your Lordships to do on the present occasion is to look at this matter in its broad and general outline. If the working classes were opposed to this measure, surely their protests would have been heard before now from the labour Members in the House of Commons. But I think I am right in saying that the labour Members have spoken in favour of the general principle of the Bill, and have given their support to it. Again, if this Bill was at all injurious to the working classes, we should have had a strong protest before now from the Trade Unionists, who are giving the measure their support. Finally, if the artizan class were opposed to the measure, and thought that any injury was likely to be inflicted on them by it, we should have had meetings of protest in all the large towns. On the other hand, meetings have been held in Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, and other centres, not against this measure, but in favour of it. I do not share the apprehensions that I have heard expressed, not in this House, but outside, that a measure of this kind would be difficult to enforce. Your Lordships will remember the Act regulating the hours of labour of children in shops. I believe I am right in saying that, two years after the passing of that Act, there were hardly any people who had to be prosecuted for violating it.
  I should like for a moment to deal with some of the principles which underlie this Bill. We have generally been told that this is grandmotherly legislation, and I daresay there are some noble Lords who think that the freedom of the individual is being interfered with. I hope your Lordships will notice how carefully that interference is restricted and limited, and, I may say.

  553
  that we justify that experience on the one ground of health. Lord Beacons field laid it down that it was the duty of the Government to safeguard the health of the nation, and I contend that we are entitled to interfere with the liberty of the subject to the small extent proposed, in order to safeguard the health of the shopkeeping community, who are seriously affected by the present state of things. The Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1888 on the subject of the regulation of shop hours, received med cal testimony that the effect of long hours on health was most deplorable. It is a long story of suffering and misery. The medical witnesses stated that the health of females deteriorated to a degree lamentable to themselves and disastrous to their offspring. In the case of men, consumption and other diseases are produced, and the late Sir William M'Cormack stated before our Committee that the long hours in shops promoted disease in an accumulative degree. I do not believe there are any noble Lords who would urge that the effects and the strain of excessive toil are insignificant compared with the slight interference that would result from the passing of this Bill.
  I think there is a greater consideration. Can the State afford to become wealthy if, by so doing, it diminishes the vigour and stamina of its citizens? I can well understand noble Lords who say that it is a cruel thing to limit the right of an individual to work to his utmost capacity for his own support, and forthesupportofthosedependent upon him. When that toil is healthy, when it is in the open air, when the resulting strain is distributed throughout the body, I should not advocate interference. But in the case of those industries with which this measure proposes to deal, where the work is often performed under unhealthy circumstances, and in unwholesome surroundings, the case is very different. I claim that there is here a legitimate field for your Lordships' intervention. Those of us who are deeply interested in this measure, and believe in its beneficial effect, claim on its behalf that it will ultimately remove a great evil which now exists among the shopkeeping community; that shop-
  554
  people themselves will welcome it; that it will not be difficult to enforce, and that only a small pinch of compulsion is required to render effective the vast volume of voluntary effort. It is not within the power of Parliament directly to grant the people of this country either health, wisdom, or strength, but it is within our power, and I think I may say within our duty, to encourage and foster those tendencies which make for a better state of things, and to retard those influences which are most harmful and wasteful: it is in the belief that the Bill of my noble friend will in no small degree promote the health of the shopkeeping community, that I for one desire to give it my wholehearted and unstinted support.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I think before the debate closes I ought to say a few words on behalf of the Government. After the very general assent which has been given to the principle of this Bill to-night, I do not think I need go into any of its details. The House will remember that on the last occasion when my noble friend Lord Avebury brought forward a Bill on this subject, it was my duty to say, on behalf of the Government, that they could not accept it because it did not contain provisions carrying out the recommendation of the Committee for the control of Parliament. That is not the case in the present Bill. The noble Lord has, I think, done his best to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, and it would have been a great misfortune if by any procedure to-night we had been deprived of having the Bill explained to us by Lord Avebury. He has taken such an active part in this matter in the past, that really the position the Bill now holds in Parliament is due in a great measure to his energy; and he has this advantage, that he represents the feelings, the views, and the wishes of the shop keeping class themselves. In addition, he has given attention to the objections that have been raised in some quarters, and in the Bill now presented has. done everything possible to prevent any inconvenience or difficulty arising.
  With regard to the Bill itself, the Home Office certainly like the provisions in this Bill better than those in Lord

  555
  Ribblesdale's—and for this reason, that Lord Avebury's Bill goes more fully into detail with regard to the regulations that the local authority have to make. I have not the least intention of trespassing upon the time of the House by alluding to a Bill which is not before us, but I must emphasise the fact that the regulations contained in Lord Avebury's Bill are of Very great value. The local authority cannot act at all unless, in the first place, the initiative is taken by some of those who are interested, and they cannot act unless an application is made to the Council. Then, again, they can take no action unless at least two-thirds of the shopkeepers affected approve of the application, and, after holding an enquiry and satisfying themselves that it is desirable to make an Order, there is a further safeguard, because after they have made a Draft Order, that Order goes to the central authority for consideration. The central authority is not allowed to take any action on the Draft Order unless it has been published for a certain time, and they are bound to consider any objections to it. I know that in some quarters exception has been taken to this procedure, whereby the central authority does not actually make the Provisional Order, as suggested by the Committee. But I think your Lordships will see that the action that has to be taken by the Home Office—and it is the central authority, very properly, under this Bill—is of such a character as practically to carry out the spirit, and I believe even the letter, of the Committee's proposal. The procedure is that the Home Office shall, if they approve of the Draft Order, lay it on the Table of Parliament, and after lying on the Table for forty days, it shall take effect unless any objection is raised to it. I think that practically carries out the proposal of the Committee that the Order should be submitted to Parliament, and should not be operative unless it had the approval of Parliament. I will not detain your Lordships by saying anything with regard to the other provisions of the Bill. I would only add that if the Bill goes forward, as I hope it will, to Committee, there may be Amendments which it may be necessary for the Home Office to introduce. On behalf of the Government, I have to say
  556
  that they give their approval to the Bill, and believe it will form a reasonable basis for the settlement of this question.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships at any length, especially as the fate of this Bill has now been decided by the speech of my noble friend Lord Belper. Without the assistance of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, the Government have now got rid of the first Bill on the Order Paper and have declared themselves in favour of the second Bill. Although I have a great deal to say upon the merits and the details of Lord Avebury's Bill, I shall reserve that for a future occasion; but I would just like to state that I regard the Bill at the present moment as entirely unsatisfactory in its scope, and as going not nearly far enough to satisfy the demands of the country. The noble Duke who spoke just now declared that the Bill had the support of the Trades Unions and of the representatives of the working classes in the House of Commons, but T would point out that the Bill which has that support, and has it in a larger extent, is a very much stronger Bill than either of the two produced to-day. I hope the Bill will be very considerably strengthened in Committee, and I trust that the Amendments which the noble Lord referred to just now on the part of the Home Office will take that form. Otherwise I do not believe it will have the slightest chance of passing the House of Commons.
  I would remind your Lordships of the fact that we have just had another by election. I saw the result of that by election hawked about the streets this morning as the knell of the Government. What is the meaning of that election? Do your Lordships suppose that the working men of Woolwich returned Mr. Crooks to Parliament in order to tell His Majesty's Ministers that they are over-legislated for, that they are over governed? I do not believe it for a moment. They sent Mr. Crooks to Parliament in order to tell His Majesty's Ministers that they want a more active interest taken in their affairs. They do not want to be left alone, but want the Government to take effective steps in order to improve their condition: and I think that if the policy of mere "let alone,"

  557
  the policy of administrative Nihilism, is continued by every Department of the Government, it will be impossible for us to remain for long in that position of commercial supremacy of which we are so proud, for the industrial strength of this country never can rest upon the weakness and the degradation of the working classes. I will postpone what I have to say on the merits of the Bill, but I trust when we come to discuss the Bill in Committee, the Amendments will take the form of putting some strength into it.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2aaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.