Lords Sitting of 19 May 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Hyde Corporation; Nelson Corporation; Cork Harbour.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Coventry Electric Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by Frederick Ellsworth Kip ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
Read and agreed to.
Coventry Electric Tramways Bill. Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [H L.] Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Scunthorpe Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Maidstone Gas Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Somerset and District Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. The consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales signified; Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dudley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, sent to the Commons.
East Ardsley Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passes, and returned to the Commons.
Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Midland Railway Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
St. Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra Edinburgh Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to St. Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra, Edinburgh—was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee. (No. 79.)
Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a—(The Lord Balfour), and reported from the Committee. (No. 80.)

PETITIONS.
  MARRIAGE LAWS.
  Petition for appointment of Royal Commission on; of the Diocesan Conference of Rochester; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the Ruridecanal Conference of North Meols; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
  Report on Admiralty Surveys, for the year 1902, by the Hydrographer.
  AUSTRALIA.
  Correspondence respecting the Constitutional Relations of the Australian Commonwealth and States in regard to external affairs.
  COLONIAL CONFERENCE, 1902.
  Memorandum on sea power, and the principles involved in it.

  AFRICA, No. 4 (1903).
  Report from His Majesty's Commissioner for British Central Africa respecting the Anglo-Congolese Frontier in the neighbourhood of Lake M weru, and the circumstances attending the arrest of the late M. Rabinek.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the arrangement of polling districts in Parliamentary boroughs. Was presented by the Lord Ribblesdale; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. (No 78.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 26th of March last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment.
  1048
  Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day read for the House going into Committee.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: Before your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill, I desire to say that my attention has been called to the fact that even in the reduced form in which the Bill comes before your Lordships from the Select Committee, there are many Amendments of the Act of 1890. I shall, therefore, in deference to the wishes of noble Lords opposite, introduce a Consolidation Bill which will make the two measures read together, and which can be sent down to the other House, and be dealt with at the same time as this Bill.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made and Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the provisions of this Bill are intended to remedy some defects in the Musical Copyright Act of last year, and I do not think I need detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes in explaining its provisions. As your Lordships are probably aware, the practice of printing and selling pirated copies of musical works, has very largely increased of recent years, and at the present moment is carried on to a general and universal extent. I do not propose to enlarge upon the actual extent to which this particular form of property is pirated, but representations have already been made to the Home Office and to the Board of Trade by the large firms of music publishers in which they have set forth in the clearest possible manner, and with the fullest evidence, the way in which their rights have been infringed, their property

  1049
  stolen, and the trade in which they are engaged practically brought to a standstill. In order to remedy that situation Lord Monkswell introduced a Bill last year, and in the form in which that Bill was first introduced I believe it would have gone a very long way to put an end to this particular practice. But, unfortunately, in order to secure its speedy passage into law, the noble Lord had to submit to certain changes in the Bill and to make certain sacrifices of important clauses, with the result that by the time it reached its final stage it became a shadow with very little substance. The law as it now stands only allows a police constable to seize particular copies which he sees being sold in the streets, and those copies, when seized and brought before a magistrate, according to a recent decision of the High Court, cannot be destroyed until a summons has been served on the hawker. The hawkers, as a rule, are a vagrant body, and it has been found impossible to serve summonses upon them. They invariably give false names and addresses, and though a great many summonses have been issued during the last year it has been found practically impossible to serve them. In fact, the time of the owners of musical copyright who have attempted to put the Act in force has been chiefly occupied in serving summonses on empty houses and in looking up and down streets for houses which do not exist. Therefore, the Act of last year, instead of giving a little needed protection to owners of musical copyright, has merely handed them over still more to the mercies of their enemies. The Memorandum attached to the Bill states that there has been an enormous increase in the repertoire and number of pirated copies of music printed and offered for sale, and, incredible as it may seem, this has undoubtedly been the case, because the passing of the Act of last year, and the various futile attempts which have been made to put it in force, have merely acted as an advertisement of the very lucrative nature of the trade; and the utter failure of its administration has given confidence to the classes engaged in it. I think I can best explain the contempt in which the law is held, by reading an extract from a letter of a facetious hawker, whom the Musical
  1050
  Copyright Association were endeavouring to prosecute for having pirated music. He writes—
  "I am of opinion that the ridiculous Act and its comic results would have made a good subject for the forthcoming Drury Lane pantomime."
  In other words, the Act is denounced as a mere sham by the very people against whom it was directed; and not only the hawkers, but the printers and distributors of this pirated music, have equally gained confidence from the failure of the Act. Advertisements have been sent round to houses, and inserted in the newspapers, offering to sell this music, to use their own words, "at ridiculously low prices." I trust that your Lordships will agree that it is time this sort of thing was put a stop to, and that some protection should be given to musical authors and publishers. By Clause 1 of this Bill a penalty is inflicted of 5s. for every copy of this kind of stolen music which is printed, hawked, sold, or imported; every copy is liable to a fine of 5s. up to a total of £50 for one offence. I may mention that some protection is given, under Clause 4, to a bonâ fide purchaser, because, by Clause 4, the name and address of the printer are required to be placed upon every copy of music which is sold. In that way it is possible for an innocent person to have a very ready means of finding out whether the music has been pirated or not. Clause 2 allows a magistrate to issue a search warrant after he has received satisfactory evidence that pirated music is being sold and distributed on a large scale. After issuing a summons he is then able to issue a search warrant in order that these copies may be seized. The Act of last year, which only authorised the seizure of the copies found upon hawkers in the streets, left the whole root of the evil untouched, and by this clause it will be possible to get at the real offenders—the wholesale distributors and printers of pirated music. Clause 3 really consists of two parts. The first allows the copies of music which have been seized from hawkers to be destroyed without evidence that a warrant has been issued, if the magistrate thinks fit to do so. This is necessary because of the impossibility which has been found under the Act of last year of serving warrants on the people who hawk this

  1051
  music. At the same time it provides the owner of these copies with the power of claiming his property within a fortnight. Clause 5 proposes to include in the definition of "pedlar" anybody offering for sale music in a public place. The definition of a pedlar in the Act of 1871, is a man who goes to other men's houses, or from town to town; and as this has been interpreted by some magistrates to apply to hawkers of music who go from borough to borough, and as it certainly applies to hawkers of music who go from town to town in the country, it has been thought necessary to apply this definition generally, in order to secure that all hawkers of music shall be on an equal footing. This clause will therefore require in future all hawkers of music to have a pedlar's licence. In moving the Second Reading I would venture to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will see their way to accept the Bill and give some facility for its being passed into law, because the evil which it seeks to remedy is really a very serious one. The sufferers under the present state of the law include, not merely musical authors, who are unable to enjoy the rights which they have acquired, but the class of small shopkeepers who have sought to act honestly and to sell the legal copies of music, but who have found it quite impossible to meet the pressure of competition of musical pirates, and who are bound, therefore, to give up selling this music altogether. In the interests and on behalf of those two classes I commend the Bill to your Lordships' consideration.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, I do not think there is any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, though the noble Earl must be prepared for some Amendments, not necessarily of substance, but with respect to drafting, in Committee.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  UNION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1860, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I need not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, first, because it is already familiar to your Lordships, and secondly, because it really deals with a large number of details which, if they are to be considered at all, would have to be considered in Committee, and not, I think, on Second Reading. The point of the Bill is simply this. The Act of 1860 makes provision, under certain stringent conditions, for contiguous benefices in the Metropolis being united, but the provisions of the Act do not extend beyond the Metropolis. The object of this Bill is to extend to other parts of England powers which have been found to work beneficially and happily within the Meropolitan area. The Bill is practically the same as the measure which was introduced into and carried through your Lordships' House by the late Archbishop of Canterbury in 1890, with the exception of one additional provision which deals with the power of selling a consecrated chapel of case which has become useless—and is sometimes an actual encumbrance. The facilities which the Bill enacts are safeguarded at every turn from the possibility of being used to the unfair disadvantage either of an individual or of a parish. Indeed my only fear in the matter is that the safeguards are so numerous and so potent as to hamper the usefulness of the measure; but that is a fault on the right side. The whole matter was fully explained to the House by the late Archbishop of Canterbury and I need not go over the ground again unless any of your Lordships wish me to do so. I believe the Bill will effect a real and salutary reform, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the history of this Bill is as follows. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as your Lordships are aware, are a very large body, but by an Act which was passed in 1850 the practical, active, and important business of the Commission was entrusted to a body of five—four laymen and one Bishop. Two of these, including the Chairman, are appointed by the Crown and two by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bishop is annually elected by the Board. The present Chairman is my noble friend Earl Stanhope. Two of these lay commissioners are paid, of course out of the funds of the Commission itself. Those two commissioners are the chief commissioner, who is appointed by His Majesty's Government, and a lay commissioner, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The formation of this Executive Committee, or Estates Committee was the outcome of a Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in the years 1848 and 1849. The object of this Bill is to empower the Commission, out of its own funds, to pay a salary to an additional lay commissioner, so that there shall be three paid commissioners instead of two. The Select Committee to which I have referred, recommended that there should be three paid lay commissioners, but the Bill of 1850 though introduced to give effect to the Committee's Report, when it emerged from the House of Commons contained the provision that there should be only two paid commissioners. That was fifty-three years ago. In the debate which arose in the House of Commons, an Amendment was moved that the number of paid commissioners should be three; and to that the reply was given that the time might probably come when the business would require the attendance of three paid commissioners, but that it had not come yet. The business of the Commission is gigantic, the funds now administered by it reaching an annual sum of £1,500,000 sterling, as compared with the sum of about £70,000 in 1850. It was prophesied in 1850 that some day
  1054
  the income might reach £300,000. It is now five times as great as that estimate, and quite an undue amount of responsibility is thrown on the shoulders of the unpaid commissioners. It is vital to the due discharge of these great duties that the number should be increased, and that some one with ripe administrative, and perhaps with legal experience, should be added to the number and paid the prescribed salary. This would, of course, impose no charge upon the public. The whole money would be found by the Commissioners out of the funds at their disposal. The Bill is so drawn as to leave the appointment of this third commissioner with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I am anxious to make it clear that, personally, I have no desire whatever to claim that this patronage should be in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury; and, if your Lordships think it better that it should be vested in the Crown, I should raise no objection. But it has been thought desirable that it should rest with the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than that there should be any risk of its becoming a political appointment.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  THE REGULATION OF MOTOR CAR TRAFFIC.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he intends to revise the regulations now in force in Scotland with reference to motor-car traffic, and to bring these more in accord with the policy suggested in the following Resolution submitted to him on the 3rd of November 1899, by the County Council of Haddington, viz.:—
  "That it is inconsistent with sound and enlightened policy in the matter of motor-car traffic, to lay down any hard and fast rule as to speed, it being ordered and understood that when driving through towns, villages, turning corners, or passing branch roads, motor drivers shall not exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horse conveyances, and that they shall further, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, slow down and, if need be, stop, so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing the said conveyance, but that, subject to these conditions, a motor driver shall be left free to exercise his discretion as to speed when the road is clear, on the understanding that the driving be not

  1055
  reckless. For the purpose of identification, a large number shall be attached to the motor before and behind, and illuminated at night. That this Resolution be forwarded to the Secretary for Scotland."
  Perhaps your Lordships will allow me, in putting this question, to say a few words upon the matter at issue. We boast that we are a very practical nation, but I am bound to say we have not shown it in our dealings with motor-car traffic, because in 1896 it was laid down as a hard and fast rule that these cars, which we now learn can go at the rate of sixty, eighty and even ninety miles an hour, were to be confined under all circumstances to twelve miles an hour. That, my Lords, appears to me to be contrary to common sense, and the result of this retrograde legislation has been that the law is constantly broken, and the great lawbreaker is the present Prime Minister. So much so that Mr. Long has given notice in another place that he intends to bring in a Bill to deal with this question. Mr. Long has no jurisdiction over Scotland, and what I want to know is whether my noble friend, the Secretary for Scotland, intends to legislate also for Scotland, remembering that Mr. Balfour lives in Scotland, that he motors a great deal in that country, and that the law at present is the same as regards speed on both sides of the Tweed. If my noble friend, as I hope, intends to bring common sense to bear on the question, I want to know on what line he proposes to go. The Resolution which was passed by my County Council states that it is inconsistent with sound and enlightened policy in the matter of motor car traffic to lay down any hard and fast rule as to speed. That is what you have done, and Mr. Long has declared that the present state of the law is simply absurd. Therefore it would be a fallacy to lay down any special speed in your regulations, but plenty of security should be taken for the safety of the public and those travelling in motor-cars.
  The Resolution goes on to say that it should be ordered and understood that when driving through towns, villages, turning corners, or passing branch roads, motor drivers should not exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horsed conveyances, and that they should, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, slow down, and, if need be, stop, so as not to frighten the horse
  1056
  or horses drawing the said conveyance, but that subject to these conditions a motor driver should be left free to exercise his discretion as to speed when the road is clear. That seems to me the common sense of motor-car traffic up-to-date. It is absurd to say that when the road is clear, and there is no danger, they should not take advantage of the speed that science has given them, and should be tied down to any fixed limit. Take the ordinary road traffic. You may not drive to the injury of human life, but there is nothing to prevent an American trotter going twenty-five miles per hour on your roads. In my own country I have been driving steadily at ten miles an hour, when one of these American trotters, to use an American expression, has passed me like a greased flash of lightning. It did me no harm; the road was clear. Why should not the same rule apply to motor-cars? I think it would be unwise to fix any speed, but there should be a general understanding that when passing through villages motor drivers should not exceed the ordinary speed of horsed conveyances. I think that would be found to work well. My Resolution stopped at the words "when the road is clear," but my County Council added the words "on the understanding that the driving be not reckless." I think it would be difficult to say what was reckless driving; in my opinion, "dangerous" would be a better word. Horses, we know, are getting gradually accustomed to these motors. Some of them do not like the stink any more than we do, and I think that on meeting horses motors should slow down. These seem to me to be the lines on which it would be well to work. A further addition to my Motion was made by my County Council providing that for the purpose of identification a large number should be attached to the motor before and behind. My impression is that it is only behind that the number would be any good. The other day, when leaving this House, I was passed by a motor which was certainly going at thirty miles an hour. It had passed me before I could have detected any number on the side, and I could not possibly have seen a number on the front, but I noticed that it had a low red box behind. If a number had been there I

  1057
  should have been able to see it. I would suggest that the number should be fixed behind and should be below the foot board. The extent to which the law is broken in London is disgraceful and intolerable. Motor cars are driven, regardless of everyone, at twenty-four miles an hour. In my opinion nothing can keep motor-car drivers in order except some means of identifying the car, and I think some of the police should be provided with cycles so that they could watch these drivers and overtake them. The noise of these machines is a public nuisance, for they groan, grunt, shiver, shake, and stink. The wearing of glasses and leather coats is an affectation, and the use of the word chauffeur is intolerable and should be prohibited. The introduction of these needless foreign expressions is odious. Thus we have Hotel Cecil instead of Cecil Hotel, Hotel Albemarle instead of Albemarle Hotel, and even the German word hinterland is in diplomatic use. I am afraid my noble friend can hardly deal with this, but I hope he will legislate in the spirit of the first part of the Resolution. We are in the infancy of motor traffic. It is impossible to say, if it is not interfered with by the State, to what it may lead. One thing is certain, that in time all traction will be by motor. Horses will be kept for Rotten Row and for the parks; for traction horses are doomed, and if it were not for the fact that they are wanted for the infantry and cavalry and other purposes I am afraid they would die out. This constitutes a bad look-out for agriculture. We grow corn, oats, hay, and straw. Motors do not eat oats, they do not eat hay, and they do not lie on straw, and when horses are done away with it will not be worth while our growing these agricultural articles of consumption, having lost our best customer the horse. But be that as it may, motor traffic is a great boon to humanity, and I think it is the duty of the Government not to interfere with it needlessly, but to encourage it, at the same time making ample provision for the safety of the public.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: My Lords, before my noble friend answers the question put to him by the noble Earl, may I, as one who some two years ago took a somewhat prominent part in the discussion with regard to legislation
  1058
  affecting motor-car traffic, say one or two words to your Lordships on the subject. Although the resolution of the County Council of Haddington only affects Scotland, the legislation which must be introduced before long on this subject must affect all classes of the community on both sides of the Tweed. In the main I entirely agree with the terms of the Resolution. Legislation on this subject is much more important in many ways to the general public than many of the measures with larger-sounding titles that have been brought in by the present Government, because motor-car traffic has come to stay, and undoubtedly the roads will day by day become more and more used by motor-cars. I agree that an unlimited speed should be allowed to motor-cars provided proper precautions are taken to ensure the safety of the public in places such as those mentioned in the Resolution. A horse which is well broken to motor-cars in London is frightened to death by them when it goes into the country. The reason is that the traffic with which horses are surrounded in London is absent in the country, and they see and hear these noisy things coming along, with the result, as I have said, that they are greatly frightened. The size of motor cars is now so large, and their speed so rapid, that they are practically small railway trains; and I think it is a moot point whether it will not be necessary a few years hence to extend or double the main roads in places where motor-car traffic is increasing. With regard to the question of identification, which I had the pleasure of taking up some two years ago in the Press, and for which I was very violently abused by the budding motor-car industry, I am happy to find that the more important motor-car clubs are in favour of identification. In addition to numbering for the purposes of identification, motorcars should bear the letters indicating the county to which they belong and they should be registered. Every driver of a motor-car should be licensed. He should always have that licence upon him, and if, after a first offence, he has done serious damage to life or limb, or to property, it should be a question of imprisonment without the option of a fine. I think if those points are carried out in any Bill which the Government may bring forward, you will only be

  1059
  doing justice to the general public. I think it is most important that there should be means of identification, and I cannot see why the owners of motorcars should object, as I understand they do. The Chief Constable of one county, Hampshire, reports that he, during the Easter holidays, received thirty or forty complaints as to motor-cars having done serious damage, but in only three or four cases were the police able to identify the drivers; they drove away. Legislation on this subject is undoubtedly necessary.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Do you mean that every man or woman who drives a motor-car should be licensed?
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: I should like to see them all licensed.
  LORD LAMINGTON: The other day I had the honour of calling attention to this question in your Lordships' House, and I laid special stress on the point mentioned by the noble Marquess, that drivers should be licensed. I may say that the very next day I was run into by a tyro in the art of motor-car driving, and a very serious accident nearly resulted.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, so far as the actual Question is concerned which appears on the Notice Paper the noble Earl who brought this subject forward, I think, supplied the answer. The question he asks is whether the Secretary for Scotland intends to revise the regulations now in force. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that the regulations as to speed are statutory regulations, which it is not in the power of the Secretary for Scotland or any other official to alter or vary without legislation. The noble Earl went on to say that he did not think we had been very practical in dealing with this matter, and he said the law as it now stands is not observed. So far as the latter of those two statements is concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that the law as now laid down is not observed; and I am bound to agree with the noble Earl and the noble Marquess that the present state of matters is extremely unsatisfactory
  1060
  and does very urgently call for a remedy. The noble Earl then asked whether the change in the law, which has been announced in another place by the President of the Local Government Board as likely to be suggested to Parliament, would apply to Scotland. My answer to that is, as a matter of course, in the affirmative. I have been in communication with the President of the Local Government Board as to the details of the Bill which is being prepared, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it would be the height of absurdity not to make the law, as far as we can having regard to the different circumstances as to local Government, uniform. I am asked by the noble Earl what lines the Bill is likely to go upon; but I venture to say that it would be irregular for me to attempt an explanation of the whole policy of the Government in regard to this matter or what the Bill is which will probably be introduced in another place. But speaking quite generally, I cannot see that there is much to object to in the suggestions of the noble Earl or in the resolution of the Haddington County Council. I do not bind myself to the absolute terms either of that Resolution or of the suggestions made by the noble Earl and the noble Marquess; but I entirely agree that, while I think there should be some limit to speed in populous places, narrow parts of the road, and under other special circumstances, that if you have distinguishing marks upon motor-cars, so that those who do wrong may be easily identified, a very much more liberal allowance may be made in the matter of speed than exists at present.
  I attach the greatest possible importance to having distinctive marks on the motors, so that those who misuse their privileges may be identified, and, if necessary, punished, and that the whole fraternity should not be prejudiced by the action of what I believe to be, comparatively speaking, a small minority. I think there has been unnecessary prejudice created against motor-cars by this evil conduct on the part of some of the drivers. I have had a great many complaints from different counties in Scotland of the action of persons who hire cars for a

  1061
  limited time and visit districts where they are not known and cannot be identified, with the result that a very bitter feeling has been created in many parts of Scotland on account of this conduct. I think it perfectly reasonable that if there is a liberal limit allowed in the matter of speed there should be a distinguishing mark affixed to the cars in some way that will not be objectionable to the owners. I further say that the obligation to have due regard to the safety of others must be distinctly laid upon those who use and drive motorcars, and they must be made distinctly responsible for their own acts as far as it is possible to make them. With these conditions, I do not see any reason why there should not be a liberal alteration in the question of the limit of speed. I can hold out no hope that the Bill will deal with the question of the King's English, as suggested by the noble Earl. Nor can I hold out any hope of double roads, at least at the expense of the ratepayers. I would venture to put in a word on that matter for the unfortunate ratepayer, and say that if special tracks are to be made for motor-cars the money must be provided out of some other fund than the rates. It is the desire of the President of the Local Government Board to introduce the Bill at as early a time as possible, and I sincerely hope it will be passed. I have no objection to coming under the obligation of telling my colleague what has passed here to-day, and I have no doubt he will be encouraged in the line which I know he proposes to take in regard to this matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I gather from what the noble Lord has said that a Bill is in course of preparation by the President of the Local Government Board, and that it is not far from being ready. At all events, he holds out some hope that it may be introduced during the present session of Parliament. I should like to ask the Government whether it would not be possible to introduce that Bill, when it is ready, in this House, where there is no pressure of business such as exists in the other House. It would be just as well that a matter of this kind, which, after all, is of
  1062
  great public importance, should receive a considerable amount of public consideration before it becomes law, and with that object I would ask the Government whether they could see their way to introduce the Bill in this House. Enough has been already said to show that it would be amply considered, and from every point of view in this House, and I think it would be to the public advantage if your Lordships had the Bill placed under your consideration. With regard to the question of speed, I quite agree with noble Lords who have spoken, that it is undesirable to limit speed in any unnecessary manner, and that much more considerable latitude should be given than is given by the present law, which makes no distinction between open country and a crowded town. The noble Earl stated that a motor-car passed him outside this House the other day at a speed of nearly thirty miles an hour. Of course, no motor-car ought to be allowed to go at that speed in a crowded place like London, nor is there any reason why it should. There is another matter which has to be considered. It is utterly impossible to train horses to face in the open country a motor-car travelling at thirty or forty miles an hour. That is a point which will have to be considered. In order to enforce any regulation with regard to speed you will have to impose very heavy penalties on drivers who place the public in danger. I believe it is in that way, and in that way only, that you will be able to enforce any provision you may make with regard to speed. I should like an answer with regard to my suggestion that the Bill should be introduced in your Lordships' House.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As to the introduction of the Bill in this House, I can, of course, give no pledge, but I think the suggestion is one well worthy of consideration. The Bill is not, strictly speaking, under my control, and I have not exactly in my mind the terms of the pledge which was given by my right hon. friend to the other House with regard to the introduction of the Bill. If the question is deferred till later in this week, or till next week, I will undertake to confer with Mr. Long and see whether the suggestion can be given effect to.

  FOREIGN WARSHIPS IN BRITISH HARBOURS.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government under what regulations and restrictions the ships-of-war of Foreign Powers are admitted to British and colonial harbours and coaling stations; whether any change has recently been made in respect to such regulations and restrictions; under what conditions British ships-of-war are admitted to the harbours and coaling stations of Foreign Powers; and to move for Papers. This subject is one which involves various points of considerable difficulty and great delicacy in relation to international politics, but it is one which is altogether removed from the domain of party controversy; and I hope to be able to show your Lordships that it is one which merits the attention of His Majesty's Government. The question has this peculiarity, that it concerns a number of public Departments. It concerns, of course, both the Admiralty and the War Office—the two Departments responsible for the defence of our harbours and coaling stations. It concerns the Foreign Office, because it deals, as I said, with delicate points of international policy. It concerns the Colonial Office, because many of these places are under the jurisdiction of that Department, and last, but not least, it concerns the Committee of Imperial Defence, over which the noble Duke the Leader of the House presides, and from the re-organised labours of which we all hope so much. I think that if any excuse were required for bringing forward the question, the facts I have mentioned would be sufficient excuse, because questions which concern more Departments than one are just those most likely to escape due attention.
  With regard to the first two Questions I have placed on the Paper, I cannot do better than instance a case which came recently under my own observation. The other day, in our harbour of Colombo, there was present for nine days a squadron belonging to a friendly Power, consisting of eleven ships of war. The sight of so many foreign flags in the harbour, and so many foreign faces in the streets, might make one doubt whether one were in a British possession at all. But, that, of course, is merely a matter of sentiment. What is important is the
  1064
  fact that, if that friendly Power had been transformed into a hostile Power, there could not be, I think, the slightest question that the port of Colombo would have been absolutely at the mercy of that squadron. The squadron consisted of one battleship of nearly 13,000 tons, three cruisers ranging from 6,700 to 7,200 tons, and seven destroyers — all ships very powerfully armed and of the latest pattern. Their complement of crews could not, I imagine, have been less than 2,500 men, and among their armaments were four 12-inch guns, and upwards of thirty 6-inch guns. The available force, so far as I know, for the whole of the Island of Ceylon consists of two battalions of British infantry and one battalion of native infantry, and, so far as the defences of Colombo are concerned, of a battery and a half of artillery. Therefore, this foreign force, in the event of its developing hostile intentions, must have become the master of this supremely important place. It should further be mentioned that a squadron lying in the harbour does not come under the guns of the batteries of Colombo at all. I am not acquainted with the details of the defences of Colombo, and if I were I imagine it would not be proper to describe them in this House. But to anybody who has seen the place, it is evident that if such a squadron came under fire of any of the guns of the batteries it would only be at the risk, in firing on this fleet, of destroying the principal buildings in the town.
  I need not dilate, I think, on what the fall of Colombo at the beginning of a war would mean to the Empire. The moral effect of such a loss would be enormous. The relations between Ceylon and India, especially Southern India, are exceedingly close, owing to the fact that hundreds of thousands of coolies pass backwards and forwards from India to Ceylon for the purposes of the tea plantations in the island; and I think it is not overstating the case to say that the fall of Colombo would be regarded in India as as great a misfortune as the capture of one of the Indian seaport towns. Again you must remember that Colombo is a very important link in the chain of our fortified possessions between this country and the East. From Aden to Colombo is a distance of 2,093 miles;

  1065
  from Colombo to Singapore, the next important port on the way to the far East, is 1,673 miles, making a total of 3,766 miles; and I do not know if my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will contradict me when I say that I imagine there are very few ships in His Majesty's Fleet, except one or two cruisers, which are capable of making a journey of 3,766 miles without a stop for coaling. It is, of course, true that Colombo is not the naval station for that part of the world. The naval station there is Trincomalee, but it is a question, I think, how far, under the possible circumstances that I have indicated, Trincomalee would be available for the purposes of the Fleet. For one thing, Trincomalee is nearly 100 miles from the railway. A hostile squadron in the harbour of Colombo would be on the flank of our reinforcements sent out to the East, and it must further be remembered that if some of the heavy guns which I have mentioned were landed from a hostile fleet, Colombo would be made almost impregnable from the sea. I mention Colombo as a single instance, but I am not sure that the observations I have made do not apply with varying degrees of force to other places, particularly to Hong-Kong, and possibly to some extent to Singapore, Mauritius, and the Cape of Good Hope.
  I ask your Lordships to consider a hypothetical case, which can be put, I think, by a private Member of your Lordships' House, without involving an offence to any foreign Power. Suppose it to be the case, as it is now, I am given to understand, that these powerful foreign squadrons have unrestricted access to the inner harbours of our important coaling stations; suppose that negotiations of an anxious and critical character were taking place between ourselves and some foreign Power on a question which might conceivably lead to war; and suppose by a singular coincidence that at the moment of those negotiations a powerful foreign squadron appeared off one of those harbours. If it is the invariable habit to admit them in times of peace, would it be possible to exclude them when negotiations of that kind were going on? If it became known
  1066
  that a foreign fleet had been excluded from a British port, the fact would be telegraphed all over the world; the effect would be felt in every Bourse in Europe, and it is possible that a war which might otherwise have been avoided would be precipitated. It may be said that wars are not declared offhand, and that it would be possible, and, indeed, easy, when war was pending, to refuse these facilities to a foreign fleet; but, after all, there have been in history such things as coups de main of a successful kind before wars have been declared. I would mention the action of this country in 1807 against the Danish fleet, and the action of France against China in 1884, while conflicting negotiations were pending and war had not been declared. What has happened once or twice might conceivably happen again, and it cannot be disputed that in some of our colonial ports considerable local uneasiness exists as to possible danger. I would, therefore, add to my Questions one of which I have given the noble Lord opposite private notice—whether any representations have been received from responsible authorities at any of these ports expressing a sense of danger such as I have indicated, and if so, what has been the nature of those representations? So far as I know at present no leave is asked before a foreign squadron of any strength enters one of these colonial harbours, all that is necessary being to ask formal leave of the harbour master, who, of course, is merely guided by the amount of shipping in the harbour at the time, and the possibility of berthing the ships in a convenient way.
  Such being the position, the question arises, how do you propose to meet it? I should like to guard myself against being supposed to favour the principle which I know is advocated by some persons interested in the defence of the Empire, that every possible place that might be attacked in time of war should be fortified. There is a school—I think it is chiefly a military school — who would like to see Brighton bristling with big guns, and would urge the noble Duke, in his double capacity of ground landlord of Eastbourne and Chairman of the Committee on Imperial Defence, to turn that watering place

  1067
  into a sort of Cherbourg. I have no sympathy with those views. But there are two main sea roads, so to speak, with the defence of which we are absolutely concerned; the one, of course, being the route through the Suez Canal, on which our points are Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Colombo, Singapore, and Hong-Kong; the other the route round the Cape, in which the Southern Seas are reached by way of Cape Town and Mauritius. I therefore leave out of consideration altogether any desire to fortify strongly Australasian and West Indian ports, because I believe, from an Imperial point of view, those places are not likely to be seriously involved in any naval war in which we might unhappily be engaged. That being so, there are, it seems to me, three courses open to us—namely, to make the Fleet everywhere so strong that foreign fleets will have no chance of undertaking such operations as I have suggested, to make each place absolutely impregnable in spite of the admission of foreign men-of-war, or to exclude foreign men-of-war altogether from our harbours. As to strengthening the Fleet, it is very doubtful, in the first place, whether any strengthening of the Fleet would succeed in preventing such a coup de main as I have indicated; in the second place I believe it is a maxim of naval strategy that a fleet ought not to be tethered to a port; in the third place it seems to me that it would be more annoying to foreign Powers even than to be excluded from our harbours to have their movements perpetually dogged by a superior fleet in time of peace; and, lastly, in the case of the East India station, the unhealthiness of the station and the impossibility of escaping from extreme hot weather would make it very undesirable to strengthen the Fleet there to any great extent. The second alternative, to make the ports absolutely impregnable, would involve a very large expenditure of money; and consequently I proceed to the third alternative, the exclusion of foreign ships of war from our harbours. This, in my opinion, would be very unwise. In the first place because it would be an act of marked national discourtesy, and in the second place because we should thereby drive
  1068
  foreign Powers to acquire ports of their own in the Far East and other parts of the world.
  The conclusion that I arrive at is that it is necessary in order to secure our safety to combine to some extent the second and third alternatives—that is to say, to increase, probably by degrees, the fortified strength of such important harbours and coaling stations as are at present unsafe under the conditions which I have described, and until that can be done, to place some sort of limitation upon the number of foreign men-of-war to be admitted to any harbour when in the opinion of those qualified to judge there is a risk of its falling into an enemy's hands in the event of war. The fact that foreign Powers do to some extent exclude our ships of war from their harbours has an important bearing on the reciprocal arrangements that may be made. If they exclude us they cannot complain if we place a limit upon them. For instance, I believe that we are excluded altogether from Port Arthur without express permission. I have tried to avoid painting a picture in anything like lurid or sensational colours; but there is a prevalent idea that we are more careless and indifferent in these matters than foreign countries, and are apt to treat these dangers in a more happy-go-lucky manner. The extent of our Empire, and the uncertainty as to the form naval warfare in the future may take, make it imperative, in my opinion, that we should not run any risks. It is just because we are at this moment on good terms with foreign Powers that it seems to me it would be possible to approach the whole question without giving offence in any quarter. In any case I venture to think the question is worthy of the careful consideration of the Committee of Defence, and I hope I may be assured by the noble Earl opposite that such consideration is being fully given to it.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the regulations and restrictions under which the ships of war of Foreign Powers are admitted to British and Colonial harbours and coaling stations; and the conditions under which British ships of war are admitted to the harbours and coaling stations of Foreign Powers."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, my noble friend is quite accurate in charging the Government of this country, using that term as embracing all parties, with a rather haphazard method of dealing with the class of questions which he has brought to your Lordships' notice. But it so happens that this question is one of the exceptions. This is a question that has not been neglected; on the contrary, it has been the subject of frequent and continuous consideration. There have been several changes in the practice of this country in this matter. Up to the year 1887 there were practically no restrictions as to the admission of foreign men-of-war to our ports. In that year, after prolonged consideration between the different Departments concerned, a code of regulations was drawn up restricting the access of foreign men-of-war to our ports, and those regulations were in operation for six years. In 1893, in the light of the experience gained, the subject was again considered with great care and deliberation, and with the concurrence of the colonial authorities, the restrictions were abolished. That was the policy deliberately adopted by the Government of which my noble friend was a member, and adhered to by subsequent Governments. As to the practice of other Powers, so far as I am aware no Power forbids foreign men-of-war to visit their ports. In the case of one or two there are strict regulations in respect of the number of ships that may come at one time without notice, but in most cases I believe there are no regulations or restrictions at all. The noble Earl mentioned Port Arthur as a place to which he understood British ships were not admitted. I am not aware of that restriction; on the contrary, curiously enough, I received a letter only the other day from the British Admiral Commanding-in-Chief on the China station stating where he was going to cruise, and announcing his intention, if possible, of paying a visit to Port Arthur during that cruise. I may say that although it is true that the foreign Powers who mainly use our ports are not those whose ports it is necessary for us freely to use in the ordinary course of the work of the Navy,
  1070
  yet we do benefit very largely indeed from the hospitality of other Powers who give us perfectly free and unrestricted access to their ports; and, therefore, from the general principle of mutual hospitality of Navy to Navy, our share of gain is very large indeed.
  The general view of the Government is that it is to the general interest that friendly Powers should be very accommodating to each other in this matter. Generally, it is certainly to our interest that this interchange of hospitality should exist with as few restrictions as possible. The noble Earl mentioned a rather unusual case of which he had been witness, that of eleven ships of war of a friendly Power lying for some days in the harbour of Colombo. That, I believe, was a completely exceptional case, and one arising altogether from accidental causes. I certainly have never heard of so large a visit of the ships of a friendly Power to one port except as a matter of special invitation, and I do not think it can be taken as any indication of the extent to which these privileges are generally used. The noble Earl has assumed the case of a period of tension between this country and another Power, and has asked what is to hinder that Power, while we were still at peace, from sending a squadron into one of our harbours, and either anticipating by a few hours the outbreak of war by a coup de main, or waiting there inside our defences till war was declared, in order to inflict a great blow to our prestige, and pro tanto to diminish the value of that port as an accessory of our Navy. I admit that the case is conceivable, but there are considerations which make such action very unlikely. I cannot conceive, in a period of tension, any Power being so foolish as to risk sending away an important fraction of its forces and not concentrating them together. Nothing could be more dangerous to any Power at such a time than to separate and scatter its forces. In war the object of Powers will be to concentrate their forces and not to disseminate them. Besides, I cannot conceive any squadron of a potential enemy of any importance being left unwatched by a corresponding British squadron. As to whether we are liable to this kind of

  1071
  action when there is no time of tension and no cause of quarrel, I refuse to contemplate such a contention, and I think that is not the case which the noble Earl meant to surmise.
  Sound as I believe the general principles I have enunciated to be, yet they are only defensible on the ground of real reciprocity. I do not think it would be possible for one to defend the giving of unrestricted hospitality to the ships of a friendly Power in all our ports, if the same welcome were not extended, in a reasonable degree at all events, to our ships when they wished to visit the ports of that Power. And if the time should come when a Power enjoying our hospitality in no mean measure, endeavoured to put obstacles in the way of our ships visiting their ports, beyond what might be called reasonable regulations, then, I quite admit, the whole subject would have to be reconsidered. Before the Committee of Imperial Defence was created there were two other bodies doing most excellent work, the Joint Naval and Military Committee and the Colonial Defence Committee; and I think either of those bodies would be eminently qualified to thresh out this question further, and, if necessary, to review it up to date, and its decision could eventually be reviewed, if necessary, by the Committee of Imperial Defence. I do not promise that that Committee will change its opinion; all I can do is to take care that the arguments the noble Earl has brought forward, and his plea for what I may call a code of regulations, shall be brought under their consideration. I am not aware that we have ever had any representations on this subject from any colonial authority. I am informed that when the change was made in 1893 the colonial authorities concurred in it on the ground, I understand, of their experience of the working of the restrictions.
  The noble Earl touched, in his interesting speech, on some rather large questions on which I cannot now dwell, but which I do not like entirely to pass without notice. He took care to defend himself in advance from the imputation that the natural corollary of his view would be that there should be additional expenditure on fortifications, and he was also careful to make it quite clear that
  1072
  he was untainted with what I may call the heresy, the vicious, abominable heresy, of the localisation of the Fleet. I think the noble Earl went rather far, however, in the matter of coaling stations. Coaling stations are in themselves no source of strength to the Fleet, the Fleet alone is the source of strength; our fortified coaling stations are merely useful accessories; and the amount of money expended on them, and the nature of their fortifications, have all been carefully worked out from the point of view that, if we once lost the command of the sea nothing could save the coaling stations. All that is required of them is that they should be able, in the temporary absence of the Fleet, to resist naval attack, it being understood that such naval attack might vary very greatly according to the different parts of the world in which our stations are. But under no circumstances is the Navy to be considered as a localised Navy. This question has come up in connection with the Australian naval agreement, and I have seen Australian papers that have combated the arguments of the Admiralty by pointing to the fact that in England we have coast-guard and port-guard ships. According to these writers these are vessels which are anchored off Hull, Portsmouth, or wherever it may be, and would remain there in time of war to defend such places; but, as your Lordships know, there is not a word of truth in that. In time of war the only place you may be perfectly certain a coast-guard ship would not be near is the place with which it is connected in time of peace. We have already abolished port-guard ships. I regret that the purely accidental connection should have given rise to such a misunderstanding, because the so-called coast-guard ships in time of war would be just as liable to be sent to China as a China ship would be to be brought home if wanted in the Channel.
  After all, the only thing that matters is general sea power, and in that respect the noble Earl was a little cramped in his perspective of the case. You must consider sea power as one from Suez eastwards; and it is not possible for any foreign Power with which we might be in a state of tension to have a force of the despatch of which to those seas we should not be

  1073
  aware, and foreign ships could no more be in two places at once than could British ships. And if these foreign ships are taken from European waters and sent eastwards, then British ships of corresponding value can be sent after them; and I do not think there is any prospect, or ought to be any prospect, that in time of war, after the period of tension, we should find ourselves in a position of inferiority in the Ear East. And then I would again remind the noble Earl of the extreme unlikelihood of a foreign Power running the risk of scattering and disseminating its forces at the very moment that it was nerving itself for a conflict with us. I hope I have dealt with the points the noble Earl has brought forward, and that he will not press for Papers. I do not think the public interest would be served by the production of those Papers. I certainly would not pledge myself to their production until the matter had been again thoroughly examined by one of the Committees I have mentioned; and I hope that for the present the noble Earl will be satisfied with my assurance that what he has said shall be brought to their notice.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I need hardly say that I shall fall in with the suggestion of the noble Earl and not press for any Papers on this subject. But there are two points in his speech to which I should like to allude. In the first place, I confess I was not entirely convinced that a coup de main was quite such a remote contingency as he seemed to think. With regard to the question of reciprocity, it is not genuine reciprocity unless the risks involved are equal; and I should have thought that from an Imperial point of view we had a great deal more to lose under certain possible contingencies, by admitting foreign ships to our ports than they could conceivably have by admitting our ships to theirs. However, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the exceedingly kind manner in which he has answered my questions, and I have pleasure in withdrawing my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Commons message considered (according to Order).
  Moved, "That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons, viz, 'That it is expedient that the Port of London Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of both Houses.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Motion which the noble Duke has moved, but I think I am justified in commenting upon, and asking for some explanation of the difference of procedure that has been adopted in this case, and which was adopted in regard to the London Water Bill of last session. That Bill, so far as two Bills can be alike, was exactly the same as this Bill. Both deal with great London interests, and deal with them in the same way by municipalising them, and by appointing a great body on which the municipal authorities are largely represented; both compulsorily take over great services which have been carried on by private companies; both involve heavy charges on the rates, and transfer great interests from private bodies to these new bodies; both are partly public and partly private Bills, and it is recognised that they require to be dealt with in a special manner. Last session we were told that it was impossible for your Lordships to join with a Committee of the other House to consider the London Water Bill without that Bill being first introduced in this House and read a second time. Some of us took exception to that course, and said we thought it altogether superfluous and unnecessary. That, apparently, is the view that has been taken by His Majesty's Government and by the authorities of the House on this occasion. Of course, we are very glad to find that our views have been adopted, but, at the same time, I do think some explanation is required as to the reason for this change of front, and also as to whether this procedure will be adopted in similar cases in the future. The only reason I can conceive for this change, is that possibly it may be said that the present Bill is less contentious than the London Water Bill. But I do not think that the question of procedure should be governed by the consideration as to whether a Bill is more or less contentious or not, but should be

  1075
  governed by the character of the Bill itself. Indeed, I think that even on this point the Bills are very much alike. It is possible that the London Water Bill did give rise to a little more opposition than the present Bill, but the opposition to both Bills is of the same character. In the case of both Bills the general principle was accepted, and the real contention was and is on the constitution of the authority to be set up. Last year it was rightly insisted that the Committee to which the Water Bill should be referred should be essentially a judicial Committee that should examine it with perfect freedom from bias. I think I am right in assuming that exactly the same sort of Committee will be appointed for the consideration of this Bill, and that it will be a Committee, not chosen so that all sorts of opinions should be represented upon it, but chosen on account of the judicial qualities of the Members to deal with the Bill in an entirely impartial manner. I should also like to ask what will be the form of procedure in the Committee itself. As I understood in the case of last year's Bill, the House of Lords being joined with the House of Commons involved the appointment of a noble Lord as Chairman of the Committee, and also involved the procedure of the House of Lords being adopted in the Committee. I think that gave rise last year to some little misunderstanding which I hope will be avoided on this occasion. At any rate, I should like to be informed as to what the exact form of procedure will be, and whether in the case of this Committee, when the Bill has not come before your Lordships' House, the Chairman will of necessity be a noble Lord.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the observations of the noble Lord, because it was somewhat on my suggestion that the course taken with regard to the London Water Bill last year was adopted by the House. I would point out that at the present moment there is no Standing Order referring to procedure before Joint Committees. A Joint Committee is not recognised by any of the orders of your Lordships' House. The consequence is that the procedure relating to these
  1076
  Committees is dealt with according to practice, and practice not of a very old date. My noble friend is perfectly right when he says that up to last year, the practice was that when the other House sent up a message to ask your Lordships' House to join in sending to a Joint Committee a Bill that had originated in the other House, that course was adopted without any further step being taken. That was the case in regard to such Bills as the Railway Rates Bill, which was referred to a Joint Committee two or three years running. Latterly the same course was adopted with regard to one or two private Bills, especially the Dublin Bill, and another relating to an amalgamation of railways in Ireland. But none of those Bills contained any definite principle upon which your Lordships' House would desire to express any opinion. The Water Bill of last year was of a totally different character from any Bill, so far as I know, that up to that time had ever been referred to a Joint Committee. It was, as my noble friend said, a Bill of a hybrid character—that is, a public Bill, but involving interference with private property which made it necessary that, in addition to the public stages in the Whole House, it should pass through the stages that are necessary for a private Bill to go through, namely, a Select Committee. I was consulted on the subject, and it seemed to me that there was this difficulty—your Lordships were sending to a Select Committee a Bill the principle of which you had never approved. I still think there was something in that contention, and that your Lordships' House ought to have an opportunity, if it desires to do so, of expressing an opinion on the principle of a Bill before the details of it are sent to a Select Committee. I quite admit that with that view an absolutely unparalleled arrangement was made. Two identical Bills were introduced, one in each House, and when your Lordships had given a Second Reading to the Bill introduced into this House it was assumed that you approved the principle of the Bill, and that when a message came from the Commons begging your Lordships to refer the Commons Bill which was an identical measure, to a Select

  1077
  Committee, you could do so, having already assented to the principle in your Lordships' Bill. I quite admit that that was an absolutely unprecedented procedure, but, as I say, the object of it was to enable the House, if the House thought fit, to express an opinion on the principle of the Bill on the Motion for its Second Reading. I am bound to say the House did not take that view of it. The House preferred not to discuss the Bill on Second Reading before it went to the Joint Committee, but preferred to defer the discussion until the Bill came up in a matured and altered form from the Commons.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: We only accepted the formal Second Reading on the distinct understanding that we would be able to raise the principle on the Second Reading of the Bill when it came up from the other House.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I admit that. But I thought myself that it was right that the House should have an opportunity, before the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, of expressing an opinion upon its principles. As the House did not wish to discuss that Bill on Second Reading before it went to the Joint Committee, it seemed to me, and I think to many of your Lordships, unnecessary to repeat that experiment. Although I quite agree with my noble friend that the question of whether a Bill is contentious or not, should make no difference in the matter of procedure, if the House did not wish to take advantage of a Second Reading debate in the case of so contentious a Bill as the London Water Bill, a fortiori it would not wish to take advantage of a Second Reading debate in regard to this less contentious Bill. It, therefore, seemed to me that it would be better on this occasion to revert to the procedure which was adopted in the case of the Railway Rates Bill. The matter is not regulated by any Standing Order. The procedure by Joint Committee, which I think is a very useful one in many cases, has not been crystallised sufficiently to form any rules upon it. It is usual for a Member of your Lordships' House to preside over a Joint Committee,
  1078
  but there is nothing to prevent the Committee from electing any other Member whom they think fit. As to procedure, the procedure which has been invariably adopted is the procedure which prevails in your Lordships' House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  And a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.