Lords Sitting of 12 August 1904

The Lord Braybrooke sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Ayr Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow Corporation (Sewage) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Carlisle Corporation Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill. Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House, communicated to them on Tuesday last, on the subject of the Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRANSVAAL.
  Further correspondence relating to labour in the Transvaal mines (in continuation of [Cd. 2015], [Cd. 2026], and [Cd. 2104]).
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOSS OF LIFE).
  Return showing the lives lost by wreck, drowning, or other accident in British seagoing merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom, during the years 1891 to 1903, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1690]).

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report on the manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue, Esq., preserved at Dropmore. Vol. IV.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FORESHORES.
  Treasury Minute, dated 12th August, 1904, directing the application of moneys received by the Board of Trade, in the year ended 31st March, 1904, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the foreshores of the United Kingdom. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to one other agreed to, with an Amendment; and several others disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement. The said Amendment and reason to be considered To-morrow.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Marquess of Lansdowne). (No. 195.)
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; I to he printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Lord Kintore (E. Kintore)). (No. 196.)
  INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to he printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Earl of Hardwicke). (No. 197.)
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Lord Wolverton). (No. 198.)

  LOCAL RECORDS BILL [H.L.]
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, even at this late period of the session I beg to present a Bill and to ask your Lordships to read it a first time, though it is, of course, only for the purpose of having it printed and circulated. This is a Bill for the better custody of local records, and it is one in which a good many gentlemen of great influence and

  347
  importance are interested. The Bill is the outcome of the Report of a Departmental Committee appointed mainly at the instance of the late Dr. Creighton, Bishop of London. This Committee inquired into the subject and found. that there was no system at all for the safe custody of local records, and that there was danger of their being lost or damaged by fire. They therefore urged that some steps ought to be taken to enable local's authorities to take proper care of them. This Bill is the outcome of that Report, and it would be well if it were printed and circulated so that it might be considered by those interested in the subject. I therefore trust your Lordships will give it a First Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 13."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 194.)

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE ACTING-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, I am obliged to detain the House for a moment to say a few words upon this Bill, because it comes up in rather peculiar circumstances. The Bill is one of that class of measure which is called a Hybrid Bill. In other words, it has to go through the procedure necessary for public Bills, but, as it affects privat3 interests, it has also to go through some of the procedure of a private Bill, so that in this House and in the other House a certain number of days have to elapse between the First Reading and before the time for petitioning expires. This Bill gives power to take property compulsorily in several large communities for the service of the Post Office. The notices were served last year at the proper time. The procedure in the other House, so far as petitioning, was gone
  348
  through, but, owing to the public Bill part of the procedure, the Bill was subject to discussion in the other House, and several blocking notices were put down at various times in its career. The fact, therefore, is this, that unless Standing-Order No. 93 is suspended this Bill cannot become law.
  The compulsory provisions of the Bill apply to eight sites, four in the County of London and four in the country, and in some cases it is absolutely impossible to acquire these sites without compulsory power. I have gone into it very carefully with the Postmaster-General and the officers of the Post Office; and I am satisfied that in regard to this Bill there is no chance of injustice being done. Ample notice has been given to the persons concerned, and none of them have shown any indication to oppose. The time would not naturally expire in this House till next week, but they have had eight or nine months, and no appearance of opposition has been given to the Post Office, nor was there any appearance in the other House. But I am bound to tell your Lordships that if Standing Order No. 93 is suspended it will he the first time, so far as I know, that this particular Standing Order has ever been suspended. Its suspension has been objected to by successive Chairmen of Committees. The present Chairman of Committees, Lord Morley, objected in two cases quite recently, and all compulsory powers in those Bills were struck out. One was in regard to the purchase of lands adjacent to the National Gallery, but there is this peculiarity in this case, that although we believe, and are assured, there is no opposition, some of the properties are held under trusts and under conditions which prevent the owners giving consent without the compulsory powers to take and expropriate.
  The choice we have is this, we can either stop this Bill and prevent the Post Office getting these eight sites, which I am told are urgently required in the public interest, or we can suspend the Standing Order. I have come to the conclusion, so far as I am concerned, that the latter serious step may be taken. I think it right in the very special circumstances to take it. I am the last to wish to interpose the observances of a merely technical rule if thereby the public.

  349
  interest suffers, and I think that in this case undoubtedly the public interest would suffer; but I feel that in the temporary position which I hold I am in curring a certain amount of responsibility, and I could not agree to this without telling the House fully the state of matters. I sincerely hope that this will not be regarded as a precedent. I have even hesitation in having gone as far as I have in recommending your Lordships to suspend this Standing Order; but upon the whole I think it would be a right and proper thing to do in the special and very exceptional circumstances. Therefore, I recommend your Lordships to agree to the suspension of the Standing Order.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess Of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I fully recognise the cogent reasons which have been put forward by the noble Lord the Acting Chairman of Committees why this should not be considered a precedent. If a Bill of this kind is delayed in passing it may be the means, not only of causing very great inconvenience to the general public in those towns and districts affected, but of preventing the Post Office obtaining at the moment buildings which are absolutely necessary in the interests of the public service. I am convinced that in this case there is no injustice to any section of the community. I endorse all that has fallen from the noble Lord the Acting Chairman of Committees. I trust your Lordships will read the Bill a second time, and that the suspension of the Standing Order in this case may not be handed down as a precedent.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Acting Chairman of Committees had taken objection to the suspension of the Standing Order in this case, I should undoubtedly have supported him; but I have that confidence in my noble friend to believe that he sees distinctly that consistently with the general principles which guide us in these matters, and in the very peculiar circumstances of this case, no mischief will be done to the parties interested or to others by the suspension of this Standing Order. My noble friend said he hoped this would not be made a precedent. I
  350
  have heard that statement made very often, and I am afraid it is of very little use; but, so far as it may be of any use, I join in saving that I trust this will not be made a precedent.
  On Question, Bill read 2a. Then Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to order) and dispensed with. Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report of the Select Committee considered (according to order).
Moved to agree to the following paragraph, "The Committee, having had under consideration the relations of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to the House of Lords, have adjourned the further consideration thereof to the first meeting of the Committee in the next session of Parliament."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The second paragraph was the subject of some difference of opinion in the Committee, and I would appeal to the noble Duke behind me not to press it.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, the second paragraph to whch the noble Lord the Acting Chairman of Committees has referred is as follows—
"The Committee recommend, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty begging respectfully to inform His Majesty in connection with the vacancy in the Office of Black Rod, that the relations of Black Rod to this House are under the consideration of the House."
I am afraid I cannot accede to the request of the noble Lord the Acting Chairman of Committees not to move this, although I confess I feel very strongly that some explanation is due from me in the matter The fact is, when I went into the Committee-room yesterday knew very little about the subject-matter under discussion, but it seemed to be the wish of the majority of the Committee to adopt the paragraph which your Lordships have just agreed to. During the discussion I ventured to suggest that if that were done it would be

351
desirable that His Majesty should be informed that the House had deferred the consideration of certain topics in connection with the Office of Black Rod until next session. It seemed to me that that was but respectful to His Majesty. I acted, I confess, somewhat on the principle of doing as one would be done by. Had I been in His Majesty's place I should have wished to be informed of what was being done by this House in such a Matter. Many noble Lords appeared to agree with me, and when the preceding paragraph was adopted by the Committee they assisted me in drawing up the second paragraph, which was put from the Chair and carried. I certainly thought this recommendation would be moved with he rest of the Report by the Chairman of the Committee, but the noble Lord has felt himself unable to adopt that course. As I cannot run away from the Motion moved in Committee, I now move it in the House, and I hope your Lordships will take into consideration the circumstances in which I move it. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. I do not wish to press the Resolution, but I think His Majesty should be informed that the House has deferred the consideration of the matter till next session.
Moved, to agree to the following paragraph: "The Committee recommend, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty begging respectfully to inform His Majesty in connection with the vacancy in the Office of Black Rod, that the relations of Black Rod to this House are under the consideration of the House."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I think there may be some slight misunderstanding in this matter. The whole relation of Black Rod to the House has been under discussion at various times, and it is not so much as to the contents of the Motion that I venture to say anything, and most certainly not as to His Majesty being informed of any opinion which this House holds in regard to a matter which is entirely His Majesty's prerogative. But this particular form of Motion would, as I understand it, require a special and formal presentation by the Lords with White Staves, and a formal answer. There was this precedent set when
352
another matter was under discussion entirely in the King's prerogative—namely, on that occasion when the noble Earl the present Leader of the Opposition undertook to ask for an audience to explain to His Majesty, in a less formal way than the way indicated in the Motion now before your Lordships, the feeling which existed in the House on the matter. It seems to me that the wiser course in this case would be that some noble Lord, either the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the Lord Chamberlain, or myself, should undertake to seek an audience of His Majesty and explain in that way what the feeling of your Lordships on the matter is. I again ask the noble Duke, in the circumstances, to withdraw the particular paragraph under discussion, so that the communication may be made in the way I have suggested.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I venture to think, after the statement which has been made by the noble Lord the Acting Chairman of Committees, that the object of the noble Duke has already been attained. His object is that His Majesty should be informed of what occurred yesterday, and the reason for the decision which was come to. Speaking as a member of that Committee, I can say that there was no idea whatever of interfering in the slightest degree with the prerogative of the Crown; but it was felt that if there were any matters to be considered with regard to the relations of this Office to the House, they should be considered after deliberation, and in order that there might be sufficient time for that, and for other reasons, it was thought desirable that the consideration of the subject should be postponed till the early part of the next session of Parliament.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am entirely in the hands of the House. If the House considers that the course suggested would be the best one, I should be quite willing to agree to it, but I should like to have the matter more definitely stated than it has been by Lord Balfour. I think the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chamberlain, or the Acting Chairman of Committees should personally undertake that such a communication will be made to His Majesty. I would suggest that one of them should undertake to

353
ask leave to approach His Majesty to make the communication.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I have no objection to giving such an undertaking.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I think the suggestion of the noble Lord the Acting Chairman of Committees would be the best in the circumstances. I would therefore suggest that the Lord Chancellor should undertake to communicate the decision personally to His Majesty.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I will do that.
On Question, resolved in the negative, and the said paragraph disagreed to.

SHOP HOURS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading, I do not think it will be necessary for me to go at any length into the arguments in favour of the Bill, or the provisions contained in it; for this reason, that your Lordships' House has a very intimate acquaintance with the questions raised by this Bill. Last year a measure was passed through all its stages in this House containing practically the same features as this Bill. The House may remember that four years ago my noble friend Lord Avebury, who has taken a very keen interest in this subject, and may be said to be the father of this Bill, introduced the question to your Lordships House. His proposals were not then accepted, and a Committee of the House of Lords was appointed and sat in 1901 to consider the whole matter. That Committee made a strong Report urging the necessity of dealing with this question, but recommending a change in the mode of procedure under the Bill. Last session two Bills were introduced, one by my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale and the other by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Avebury; and on that occasion Lord Avebury's Bill, which contained
354
the same provisions, was accepted and. read a second time.
I would remind your Lordships what those provisions are. Power is given to the local authorities to make closing orders, which have to be confirmed by the central authority. The closing order may fix the hours on the various days of the week throughout their area at which shops must be closed, but not earlier than 7 o'clock on ordinary days, and on one day in the week not earlier than 1 o'clock. Whenever the local authority are satisfied that a case has been made out for such an order, they have to take the opinion of the district, and if there is a majority of at least two-thirds of the shopkeepers affected in favour of the order, they may make it. The order has to be confirmed by the central authority, who in this case is a Secretary of State, and it is also laid down in the Bill that the closing order shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as it has been confirmed, and that if an Address is presented to His Majesty asking that the order may be cancelled, His Majesty in Council may annul the order, and the order so annulled becomes void. These are practically the provisions of the Bill which your Lordships passed last year.
With regard to the local authority, there is a small alteration. The local authority in that case was the county council in all counties and the county council in London. Under the present Bill the local authority includes urban councils where the population is over 20,000. The authority in London is also altered from the county council to the borough councils, who, it is thought, from their local knowledge, may be able to carry out the Act in a more satisfactory manner than the county council, which has a much larger area to deal with. The other alterations are not material. There are exceptions made to the operation of the Bill in the case of certain trades, which will be found in the schedule. They are practically the same as before. The Bill is, however, in a somewhat different form from what it was originally. It is differently drafted, but the main features of the Bill are the same as those which your Lordships have previously agreed to.
That would be all that it would be necessary for me to state were it not for

355
the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, has a notice on the Paper that he intends to move an Amendment to the Second Reading, declaring that, in the opinion of this House, it is inconsistent with its dignity and character as a deliberative and legislative Assembly, that a Bill should be submitted to it in the last days of the session that interferes with trade, and, for the first time in modern legislation, limits the working hours of full-grown men. Let me say at once that no one regrets more than I do that this Bill has to be considered at such a late period of the session. Personally, I should have been very glad if it could have been introduced into your Lordships' House at an early period and then sent down to the House of Commons; but, at all events, I may say this, that if there is any measure the introduction of which at a late period of the session does not make much difference, it is this Bill, which your Lordships have fully considered on previous occasions, and to which both sides of the House have given their assent.
With regard to the objection to the Bill that it interferes with trade, I would; only say that the interference will be safeguarded by being in the hands of the councils representing the ratepayers and the traders themselves. I agree with the noble Earl that the Bill is a serious interference with the working hours of full-grown men. The Bill is necessary, because it is proved by the statistics which my noble friend Lord Avebury has laid before the House that shopkeepers have done all they can to arrange the earlier closing of shops by voluntary means, and have failed for the simple reason that two or three shopkeepers in a locality can defeat the whole object. An overwhelming majority of the shopkeepers interested have declared that it is necessary in order that they may have shorter hours that some legislation should be passed dealing with the subject. There is a rather curious incident with regard to the contention that this Bill limits the working hours of full-grown men. I understand that in the other House a very well-known Baronet, who is a great authority on labour questions, actually voted against the Second Reading on the ground that the Bill did not interfere with the hours of adult labour. He was strongly of opinion that the Bill
356
ought to have gone further than it did, and he refused to give his sanction to the measure on the ground, openly stated, that it did not interfere with the hours of adult labour.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Who was that?
LORD BELPER: Sir Charles Dilke. I leave my noble friend to settle with the right hon. Baronet whether this Bill does or does not limit the working hours of full-grown men; but I think it is a curious coincidence that in one House the Bill should be opposed on exactly the opposite grounds to those on which it was opposed in the other House. I hope your Lordships will recognise the necessity, which has been stated over and over again, for passing some measure of this sort. This Bill fully guards the interests of all concerned, and there are such reasonable provisions that they prevent any injustice being done or any order being made unless it is clearly the wish of the great majority of the shopkeepers themselves and also of the council of the particular district that it should be made. I hope your Lordship will excuse the fact that the Bill has come forward at such a late period of the session when it cannot be given the same consideration that it would have received if introduced earlier; but, at all events, we can say that this is a Bill about which your Lordships know everything, and therefore I hope the House will be inclined, not only to give it a Second Reading, but to allow it to pass through all its stages to-day.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Belper.)
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, those of your Lordships who happened to be in the House yesterday will recall the fact that when the noble Marquess the Leader of the House proposed the suspension of the Standing Order to enable the Government to pass any Bill they chose through all its stages at one sitting, I entered a protest against legislation being passed in that way at the fag end of the session. I anticipated that we might have measures containing serious principles, such as this one does. There is another one to come on later, upon

357
which I shall also have something to say, namely, the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) (No. 2) Bill, which is a very important measure affecting the administration of outdoor relief. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with a speech on this occasion. I have often spoken upon this subject, and I am perfectly content to rest my case on the fact that the Bill has been brought forward at this late period of the session and can only become law by the suspension of the Standing Order. It cannot by any possibility be discussed, and by bringing forward a Bill which cannot possibly be discussed you are lowering this House in the estimation of the public. I may say that I have amended the Motion which stands in my name. It will now read in this form—
"To move to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House it is inconsistent with its dignity and position as a deliberative and legislative Assembly, that a Bill should be submitted to it, in the last days of the session, that interferes with trade in streets as well as shops, and for the first time in modern legislation limits the working hours of full-grown men."
My noble friend stated that Sir Charles Billie holds the view that the Bill does not interfere with the working hours of full-grown men. If full-grown men, instead of being able to work till eight or nine o'clock if they choose, are turned out of the shops at seven o'clock that is an interference with their power of working and of earning wages. I say deliberately, that this is the first time in modern legislation that Parliament has been asked, manifestly and clearly, to interfere with the working hours of full-grown men.
I hold that in a land of liberty, though this is not the view, I know, of the trade unions, a man should be able to work as long as he likes, for whom he likes, and for what wages he likes, and if he cannot do that, our boasted liberty is gone. We know what the small end of the wedge is in legislation. There is not one of your Lordships who is not suffering at the present moment from the land legislation which was passed originally for Ireland under so-called exceptional circumstances, but which soon spread to Scotland and England. Instead of taking as a warning what goes on in our Colonies, you are taking it as an example. Do your Lordships know the extent to which
358
State interference with labour has gone in New Zealand? I should like to know how my noble friend Lord Avebury would like to have the hours of labour in his household laid down as they are in New Zealand. I am inclined to think that in your Lordships' households seven o'clock, the hour fixed in this Bill, is not the hour at which business is stopped. I am told that in New Zealand cooking is forbidden on Sundays, and that the only place in New Zealand where you can get a hot dinner on a Sunday is Government House. I point to these things to show how this legislation grows.
This Bill interferes with trade and will add to the difficulties of trade. It shuts up all shops at seven o'clock. It shuts up the great establishments like Harrods' Stores and Marshall & Snelgrove's. They, I believe, are in favour of this Bill. But the Bill also shuts up the small shop of the widow, and of a man and his wife, who employ nobody; and I say, my Lords, in a free country that that is monstrous. It does more than that. Indirectly it sweeps the streets of all trading barrows. I am sure it is unnecessary for me to state what a convenience the barrow trade is to working men and others who have to buy their provisions late in the evening. Well, all that is done away with by this Bill. I venture to think it is unjust that through the coercion of the great stores and the large tradesmen the small trading community should suffer, and the public should be put to this great inconvenience. I enter my protest against this special legislation and the want of principle that pervades it. At the bottom of it all is fishing for votes. Humanity is all very well, but votes are much more important than humanity. I regret that His Majesty's Government should have considered it necessary to suspend the Standing Order, thereby making this House ridiculous as a deliberative and legislative Assembly, and to force this Bill through all its stages in one sitting. I have entered my protest, and I now beg to submit my Amendment to the favourable consideration of your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' for the purpose of inserting the following words, viz.: 'in the opinion of this House it is

359
inconsistent with its dignity and position as a deliberative and legislative assembly, that a Bill should be submitted to it, in the last days of the session, that interferes with trade in streets as well as shops, and for the first time in modern legislation limits the working hours of full-grown men.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I hope the House will not agree to the Amendment moved by my noble friend. My noble friend's description is really a travesty of the Bill. I deny that the Bill interferes with trade or with adult labour. All who are really interested in this Bill desire that it should become law.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: What! All the little widows who keep shops?
LORD AVEBURY: Under the Bill the small shops will determine the hours of closing; it is not so much the large shopkeepers as the small shopkeepers who need this Bill, for the large shopkeepers can leave the late work to their assistants. But the shopkeepers all over the country are in favour of this Bill. The only objection some of them have to the measure is that it does not go far enough. Some of the provisions intended as safeguards I should have been glad to see omitted. They are cumbersome and unnecessary and may introduce difficulties. I regret also that as regards London the borough councils have been substituted for the county council, not that I have not every confidence in the borough councils, but their intersecting boundaries will create a difficulty where one side of a street is in one borough and the other in an adjoining borough. At this period of the session I feel that it is impossible to propose Amendments, and I have confidence that if in this case difficulties arise, if some of the so-called safeguards prove to create unnecessary delay, friction and expense, His Majesty's Government will introduce an amending Bill in another session.
But though not altogether in the form that had been wished, and though encumbered with some unnecessary provisions, this is a most excellent measure, and will do great good. It may seem a paradox, but I believe the measure will do good even where it is not actually put into force. At present it happens over and over again that while the great
360
majority of shopkeepers agree and are anxious to close at a reasonable hour, two or three obstinate men resist the wishes of all their neighbours. At present no pressure can be put upon them, but henceforth they can be told, "Well, if you will not agree we shall appeal to the local authority," and this in many cases will be effective. The measure will confer an immense boon on our towns and cities, and bring much happiness into the lives of the shopkeeping community, in whose name I thank the Government, and especially my noble friend Lord Belper in this House, and the Home Secretary and Mr. Cochrane who had charge of the Bill in the other House. The noble Earl said the Bill ought to receive more consideration at your Lordships' hands. I cannot help reminding him that it has been before the House of Commons twenty-five years, that it has several times passed its Second Reading, that it has been before three Select Committees, that it has twice passed through Grand Committee, and that during all this time there has been no opposition to it from the classes in whose name my noble friend claims to speak. I therefore trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords. I am in favour of the Bill, and will not, therefore, vote for the Amendment of my noble friend, but I do feel considerable sympathy with the protest against the passing of so many measures by the suspension of the Standing Orders. I think this has happened to a greater extent this session than at any period I can recollect. I do not wish to bring any particular accusation against those who now sit on the Government Bench. It is a long time since I sat there, but I can recollect the Conservative Party's eloquent denunciation of Liberal Governments, whose peculiar wickedness it was supposed to be to do these things. I am not sorry that the Conservative Party should have an opportunity of realising the pressure which is put on members of a Government in this House to take such steps. Another reason for not speaking too strongly on this matter is one of prudence—the prudence probably of an old man. The Party opposite has been in office now for a great

361
many years. There naturally might occur a change, and when I look at the symptoms of the present day and recall some recent by-elections, I am bound to say that I think the country is evidently a little tired of the present Government, and that it is not altogether impossible that the Liberal Party may ere long find themselves on the opposite side of the House, and in that event I do not wish to create an inconvenient precedent. I wish to be quite frank about the matter.
I have two suggestions to make, one of which no doubt could be carried out by any Government, the other could only be carried out by a Conservative Government. My first suggestion is this. Government Bills are kept on the Order Paper of the House of Commons long after it is quite clear that they have no chance of passing. I venture to suggest that if the Order Paper were cleared earlier of such Bills, and what is called the "massacre of the innocents" took place in the month of June, by which time the Government must know the Bills which they cannot pass, I think there would be a chance of surviving Bills coming up to your Lordships' House earlier. This suggestion, as I have said, could be carried out by any Government. My second suggestion is one which a Liberal Government could not carry out, but one which might be carried out by a Conservative Government, and I have wondered why it has never been done of late years. It is that more Bills should be originated in this House. A Liberal Government could not do that, because their Bills, if introduced in this House, would be cut into ribbons by the vast Conservative majority here, and would be passed on to the House of Commons in a condition in which their authors would not know them. Obviously, no Liberal Minister could take such a foolish step as to introduce an important Bill in this House; but the Party opposite, whose majority seem to be very obedient and easily managed, might frequently initiate Bills in this House, which procedure would give us useful occupation at that time of the session when we might just as well go into the country and have no sittings at all for any good we do. It would also afford to this House an opportunity for fully considering a
362
number of Bills which at the present moment come up to us at the end of the session in these unsatisfactory circumstances. I do not blame noble Lords opposite for the state of things complained of. I attribute it to bad management in the House of Commons. The management in the House of Commons has not been successful, and it is the result of that bad management that these Bills come up at this time.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, this discussion, which I suppose is intended to be on the Amendment of the noble Earl, has been of a rather wide character; not, perhaps, unusually wide for the lax rules under which we do our business here; but some of the observations which have been made tempt me to say a few words on this subject. The noble Marquess made two suggestions. I am not sure that either of the suggestions he threw out will meet the difficulty. At any rate, one of them has been frequently tried. If more Bills were originated in this House, I am afraid there is no security they would receive great attention in the other House. It has been often tried. I tried it myself during my tenure of office, and the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack has also tried it. The noble and learned Earl would be able to tell your Lordships that year after year Bills which he thought necessary in the legal interests of the country have been passed through the House, but have not met with any favour in another place. Then, with regard to the proposal to have what is called the "massacre of the innocents" at an earlier period, I am afraid that that might make the difficulty even greater than it is at the present time, because those whose measures had been massacred might join in bringing pressure on the Government not to pass those which had temporarily survived, and enmity might be created instead of diminished.
The noble Marquess, it seemed to me, spoke of this matter rather too much as one of controversy or at least of comparison between one Government and another. I think it is quite possible that both sides are in fault and have succumbed to temptation. I remember being partly responsible with

363
the Government of which I was then a member in passing a Factory Bill through this House with great rapidity at the end of the session, and that was by no means an uncontroversial measure. I think it is not the interest of this or any Government, but the interest of the House itself that is at stake. I know there are great difficulties in managing the business in another place. There are a large number of Members there who desire to speak, and they have a great, deal of business to get through. Indeed, no one deny that the other House is overweighted with work, and the difficulty, I am afraid, is not a temporary one. Our grievance here is that we have nothing to do for many of the early months of the session, and that we have so much to do in the last few weeks that we cannot really do it.
In my humble opinion the remedy is to be found in the introduction of the system which is sometimes applied to private Bills, namely, to carry over Bills which have passed the stage of Second Reading from one session to another. I am aware that there are objections to that, but it is a matter which in the interests of this House we ought to insist on being done. For instance, what harm would accrue to any public interest if the particular Bill which is the subject of discussion at this moment were carried over till the beginning of next session. The suggestion I make is not applicable to all Bills. It is not applicable to money Bills or Bills required for the public service. There are some Bills on the Paper which will be passed through all their stages at one sitting and to which I offer no objection; but just look at some of the others. There is the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill, which is not uncontroversial. The Shop Hours Bill is certainly not wholly uncontroversial. The noble Lord who represents the Government in this matter may minimise the controversy upon it, and the noble Lord who is its godfather may say it is universally accepted. I believe there is a misapprehension about that. It was introduced first of all in the interests of shop assistants, and next in the interests of shopkeepers.
LORD AVEBURY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I have always been
364
supported by the shopkeepers, and I have said so from the beginning.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The argument as to assistants has certainly been used by some. As to the principle of this Bill, I think it will inflict a great injustice on small shopkepers if it is passed. No one is injured by permitting these peope to sit in their back parlours reading the newspapers whilst waiting for a customer after the large shops in the districts have closed. The insistence of the larger shopkeepers in shutting up all shops is to my mind a cruel injustice, and I have no hesitation in saying so. The Shop Hours Bill has not even been circulated to your Lordships and we are told that it is very differently drafted from the Bill which has already been before the House. Copies of the Bill were not accessible until your Lordships came down to the House this afternoon.
Then take the other Bills. They include the Weights and Measures Bill, the Reformatory Schools in Scotland Bill, and a number of others. I ask your Lordships what public interest would be damnified if these Bills were carried over from one session to another and discussed fairly and properly at the beginning of another session? No interest whatever would suffer. There are, I know, some objections to it, but the fact of the matter is this. If this House desires to preserve its character as a legislative Assembly, more of its Members must remain during August or enough must stay to say they will not stand the treatment. In other words, until the House goes on strike no attention will be paid to its complaints. I should be sorry to threaten reprisals in the event of such a change happenng as the noble Marquess opposite seemed to contemplate, but I say this is a matter largely for the House itself. If it had not been for the notice standing in the name of the noble Earl I had intended putting on the Paper a notice to move that further proceedings on this Bill be suspended in order that the Bill may be proceeded with in the next session of Parliament. I know perfectly well that it is no use moving that now, because I should, judging by the sparse attendance of noble Lords to-day, run the risk, by

365
taking a division, of adjourning the proceedings on the Bill till another day. I do not want to carry measures to that length, but I say seriously that, if the House means to preserve its character as a deliberative and legislative Assembly, it will have to take some step of this kind. I think that the practice has gone further this session than I ever remember in previous years.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): The Factory Bill year was worse.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Well, the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty and I were jointly responsible for that at that time, and, therefore, as the noble Marquess opposite said, we must not say too much about it; but I think there are relatively more Bills coming up at the end of the session this year than in that year. I know perfectly well that verbal protests of the kind I am making are not much use. My real object is to urge the consideration of the point which I have suggested, and to show that there is a means, which I believe not to be unconstitutional, because each House is master of its proceedings, which would be effective, which would not destroy the labour of the other House of Parliament, and which would restore freedom and efficiency to this House. I think this is a subject which has not received the attention it deserves.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have so often during the last few days expressed my regret that your Lordships should be called upon to transact the remaining business of the session under such pressure that I will not take up your Lordships' time by repeating those professions, which I assure your Lordships are sincere. We must remember that what we have to deplore is not merely the suspension of the Standing Orders, because that is merely the symptom of the disease. The disease itself is the congestion of business at the end of the session. Whether we in point of form maintain the Standing Orders and pass each Bill through its stages one at a time, or whether we suspend the Standing Orders and pass two or
366
three stages in one evening, does not seem to me to matter very much. I was relieved when I heard my noble friend Lord Ripon admit frankly that we on this side are not the only offenders in this respect, and when, as I thought, he was about to propose that both Front Benches, confessing that they were habitual criminals, should, so to speak, wear the white sheet and promise repentance, I was quite inclined to take part in a movement of that kind in company with him, but I observed that he immediately went on to divest himself of the white sheet and to promise that, on an occasion which he evidently did not regard as very remote, he would reappear in his old and unregenerate character.
I think it is our duty to seek for some remedy for this state of things. Whether it is to be found in any of the three proposals which have been made this evening—an earlier "massacre of the innocents," the introduction of more Bills in your Lordships' House, or the carryover of Bills from one session to another—I will not now attempt to decide; but I can assure your Lordships that we do feel that this is not a question between the two Front Benches, but a question concerning, in the first place, the interests of the public in seeing that legislation is properly conducted, and in the next place those of this House whose dignity and reputation are involved.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, it is interesting to hear the Government declare that they are in this matter criminals. Perhaps the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench will forgive me if I say that they are now on ticket-of-leave, and think it possible that they may ere long find themselves locked up again, and therefore, they will not be hard on the criminals who now sit on the Government Bench. I venture to think that this discussion is rather an academic one. We have heard this sort of thing year after year. The Leader of the Opposition got up the other night and made a most earnest protest against the Standing Orders being suspended, and then he refused to divide the House against their suspension. The noble Marquess on the Front Opposition Bench has to-night protested most strongly against the course pursued,

367
but has said he is going to vote for the Bill, and so it goes on year after year. The business of this House continues to be crowded into the last two or three weeks. We are told by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that to introduce a Bill into this House is a futile thing. He mentioned the fact that the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had introduced Bills which had never become law. But whose fault is that? It is entirely the fault of the Government in the House of Commons. If they gave that precedence to the Government Bills introduced in this House which they are able to give, those Bills would have the same chance of passing into law as Government Bills introduced in the House of Commons. It is a mere matter of arrangement. There is no earthly reason, that I see, why this Bill, and, still less, why the Bill next on the Paper, the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill, should not have come up to this House months ago. They were not, as I understand, Government Bills.
LORD BELPER: This is a Government Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: But the next Bill on the Paper, the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill, is not a Government Bill, though it is supported by the Government in this House. Both Bills touch important questions of principle. The Outdoor
Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and com-
Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill is so. short and simple that it surely would have been possible to have got it up to this House in proper time. We shall never get over this difficulty until the independent Members of this House set their faces against passing Bills at this time of the session and refuse to be parties to it. It is a very serious step to take, but it is the only step that will have any effect. We very nearly defeated the Factories Bill a year or so ago. We might have done it, for there were not thirty Members in the House at the time; but we abstained from doing it because of the tremendous importance of the Bill. In the same way I agree that it would be inadvisable to defeat the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill because of the importance of the principle involved; but unless noble Lords, independent of the two Front Benches, determine to resist the passage. at this late period of the session of measures of small importance as to the exigency of the moment, but of great importance as regards principle, then I say we shall never get over this difficulty. Holding that opinion, I intend to vote with my noble friend Lord Wemyss if he takes his Amendment to a division.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided. Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Hardwicke, E.

Avebury, L.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Belper, L.

Vane,E.(M.Lond'nd'y)(L.Pres.)

Selborne, E.

Braybrooke, L.

Salisbury,M.(L. Privy Seal.)

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Emly, L.

Westmeath, E.

Kenyon, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock,L. (E. Erroll.)

Ripon, M.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Hutchinson,V.(E. Donoughmore

Lawrence, L.

Clarendon, E. (L.Chamberlain.)

Suffield, L.

Crewe, E.

Addington, L.

Windsor, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Wolverton, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Hood, V.

Iveagh, L.

Sherborne, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch

Armstrong, L.

Stalbridge, L. [Teller.]

and Queensberry.)

Balfour, L.

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

Grey, E.

Glenesk, L.

mitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) (NO. 2) BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD KENYON: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble the House at any length on this Bill, as your Lordships have already had it before you this session in a slightly different form. You also had it before you last year, and it was debated in 1901. The principles of the Bill are to encourage thrift by allowing boards of guardians in giving relief to omit from consideration sick pay to the amount of 5s. per week afforded by friendly societies; and, secondly, to secure uniformity of treatment throughout the country. At the present moment boards of guardians an empowered to omit sick pay from consideration if they choose, but it is discretionary. Therefore, it is possible in one union for a man to have his sick pay taken into consideration when the grant of out-relief is made, and in a neighbouring union for a man to have the out-relief granted without his sick pay being considered.
This Bill was a private Bill in the House of Commons, but it has now been adopted by the Government, and the President of the Local Government Board has spoken in its support. A measure of this nature was moved by Lord Monks-well this session, and it passed through all its stages up to the Third Reading. It was then considered that it was a breach of privilege of the House of Commons, inasmuch as it affected the rates, and therefore the Bill was dropped. The principle has also been debated on a Motion by the Earl of Northbrook, who urged that an inquiry should be held on the question before this Bill passed into law, but the friendly societies refused to give evidence before such an inquiry, and there does not therefore seem to be much hope of getting any information by that means. The noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, urged the Government to accept responsibility for this Bill. They have now done so, and I hope that that will dispose of one of his contentions in the matter. It has been urged that the friendly societies should not receive
370
special treatment in this matter. I would suggest that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent other forms of thrift being considered if your Lordships think it advisable at any future time to treat those forms of thrift in a similar way. I would urge this fact, that a man who invests his savings in a friendly society gets no benefit while he is in health, whereas in any other form of investment he probably would. This Bill has passed the House of Commons three times without a division, and I do not think it is consistent with the usual manner in which your Lordships treat measures that come up from the other House that you should refuse to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Kenyon.)
THE EARL OF WEMYSS, who had given notice to move, "That this House is of opinion that no alteration should be made in the principles of Poor Law relief as now administered, save on the direct responsibility of the Government, and after a full independent public inquiry into the working of the present law; and this House meantime thinks it undesirable to proceed further with this Bill," said: My Lords, I am satisfied with the expression of opinion contained in my Resolution, and I shall not, therefore, detain you with many remarks. Poor Law questions are vital to the nation, and, I venture to submit, ought not to be dealt with without full inquiry. I do not know whether many of your Lordships have read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law of 1838, but I would remind you that at that time the labouring classes were entirely demoralised owing to the action of the Poor Law. Labourers used to say then, "Damn work, blast work; why should I work when I can get 12s. off the rates?" Stringency is necessary in regard to questions of outdoor relief, and such a measure as this should not be forced through Parliament when your Lordships' House has been put in duress by the suspension of the Standing Orders.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook has given a great deal of attention to this subject, and he recently presented a mass

371
of petitions from Poor Law guardians who are objecting to being compelled to do that which they think in the long run will be demoralising to the people. I asked to-day to see these petitions, and I took up the top one, which happened to be the humble petition of Sir Wyndham Portal, ex-president of the Hampshire Friendly Society; Sir John Hibbert, president of the North Western Poor Law Conference and one of the highest authorities in this country on matters affecting Poor Law; Captain B. T. Griffith-Boscawen, chairman of the Central Committee of Poor Law Conferences—a body recognised by the Local Government Board as representing Poor Law guardians all over the country; Mr. Joseph Brown, president of the Poor Law Unions Association; Sir William Chance, Bart., hon. secretary of the Central Committee of Poor Law Conferences; Sir Thomas Dyke Arland, and others.
Now, what do they say? They state that no evidence has been produced and no sufficient reasons furnished for interfering, as this Bill proposes, with the discretionary power of boards of guardians in dealing with applications from members of friendly societies under existing statutes and the Order of the Local Government Board; that the Act of 1894 was in principle discretionary, and was passed in order to legalise a practice, already adopted by many boards of guardians, of giving special assistance to members of friendly societies, and not as a permissive measure, accepted with a view to further legislation, limiting or withdrawing in these cases the discretionary power of boards of guardians. I desire particularly to read to your Lordships this statement in their petition—
"The proposed Bill is a serious infringement of the Poor Law, inasmuch as Poor Law relief is legally available for the destitute only and for the provision of the necessaries of life, and not as a reward for thrift and saving. if the principle is adopted of granting additional poor relief to members of friendly societies as a statutory right, the claims of other persons who have been thrifty besides those who belong to a friendly society can hardly be resisted, and such a far-reaching principle should not be accepted in regard to only one body of men, such as members of friendly societies, without a full investigation of the whole subject, and without regard to the extension of the principle in the future."
In the circumstances I hope your Lord ships will decline to allow a measure Of
372
this importance to be forced through Parliament by means of the suspension of the Standing Orders and without proper inquiry. Seventy years have elapsed since the last inquiry was held into the subject of the Poor Law, and surely it is now time that another was held. At any rate, there should be full inquiry before a measure of this great importance is passed into law.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' for the purpose of inserting the following words, viz., 'this House is of opinion that no alteration should be made in the principles of Poor Law relief as now administered, save on the direct responsibility of the Government and after a full independent public inquiry into the working of the present law; and this House meantime thinks it undesirable to proceed further with this Bill.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, when this subject was discussed in your Lordships' House a year ago I ventured to express my entire agreement with the noble Earl Lord Northbrook, who then brought the matter forward, in thinking that we were asked to act in a totally inexplicable way in granting preferential treatment to friendly societies over all other forms of thrift. I was told then that it was a pity to show an unkindly spirit towards friendly societies. Nothing could be further from my wish than to do so. I believe in friendly societies with all my heart. I have supported them from the first time that I was able to take part in considering public questions at all, and I believe them to be one of the best means of promoting thrift that the country knows. But I maintain that no explanation has been forthcoming, either by the original promoters of the Bill or by His Majesty's Government, who have now taken it up, for singling out the friendly societies as the one form of thrift to which the Legislature is to grant special benefits and special rewards in the administration of Poor Law relief.
We were told by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill that the difference between thrift shown by means of investment in friendly societies and thrift shown in other ways was this, that a man who was thrifty in

373
other ways would get the immediate benefit of his thrift, but that from a friendly society the investor would get no benefit until he fell ill, and that it was therefore a more deliberate and thoughtful course of action, deserving a peculiar encouragement, My Lords, I entirely dispute that proposition—I hold in my hand the Official Post Office Guide issued by the Government. If your Lordships will refer to a copy of it you will find page after page describing how His Majesty's Government allows people to invest in what are called deferred annuities, to take effect when the purchaser is, say, sixty years of age? That is a mode of thrift which, though specially promoted and encouraged by themselves, His Majesty's Government in this Bill totally disregards. A man who buys a Post Office deferred annuity gets no benefit under this Bill, but his brother who has used a friendly society as the medium of his thrift will get the special benefit which this Bill will confer upon him whenever he comes to appeal for Poor Law relief. It is unfair that those who ask for that further information which the Earl of Northbrook has demanded on more than one occasion should be taunted with being unkindly towards friendly societies, because we are simply waiting for an explanation of the differential treatment we are asked to give. I wait still in the expectation that we shall somehow and somewhen be furnished with some explanation why this differential treatment should be asked for by the friendly societies, and why, if it is asked for, it should be granted at the public expense when it is not granted to other forms of thrift quite as praiseworthy and quite as likely, with a fair chance, to be largely and, in the public interest, advantageously adopted.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I think, after the two speeches to which we have listened, independent Members of your Lordships' House cannot fail to arrive at the conclusion that the Government are making a strong demand in asking us to pass a Bill of this kind at this period of the session. I think the House is under a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl. Lord Wemyss, for his public spirit in staying here as he has done, to my personal knowledge at great inconveni-
374
ence to himself, in order to defend principles which are dear to his heart and in order to defend, as he thinks, the dignity of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill contended that inasmuch as the other House had passed this Bill three times without a division, we should not be acting quite in a spirit, of respect towards that House in refusing to consider the Bill on the present occasion. Well, my Lords, I think we have our dignity to consider also. I can recollect a Bill introduced by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack last year which was passed unanimously by this House. It was introduced again this year, and again passed unanimously by your Lordships. The object of that measure was to make an illicit commission a criminal offence. But what has the other House done in regard to that Bill? It has not even had the civility to consider it at all. I do think that if the other House treats with such scant respect Bills which have been introduced into your Lordships' House by the Lord Chancellor, and which your Lordships have passed unanimously on two occasions, they cannot expect us to be very friendly towards Bills which they could have sent up much earlier if they had liked. The statement of Lord Kenyon that this Bill has passed the House of Commons three times without a division shows that they could have sent it up at a very much earlier period. That being so, I wish to associate myself with the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, in his protest against the treatment which has been meted out to this House, and I shall certainly give my vote with the noble Earl if, as I hope he will, he presses his Amendment to a division.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, whatever may be said about the management of business in the other or in this House, I would remind your Lordships that at an earlier period of the session the Bill which is now before us passed through all its stages up to the Third Reading, and that it would have been passed but for the question raised by the noble and learned Earl on the Wool-sack, that inasmuch as it was concerned.

375
with the rates it was a matter coming within the privilege of the other House. There is, therefore, absolutely no case of indecent haste in regard to this particular Bill. But the Government do not propose to ask your Lordships to carry the Bill further to-day than the Second Reading. My noble friend who spoke last urged that because the House of Commons had failed to find time year after year for very important Bills passed by your Lordships' House, your Lordships might reasonably refuse to pass this measure at this stage of the session. My answer is that two wrongs do not make a right, and because the House of Commons acts in a manner that he deplores, that is no reason why your Lordships' House should act in a manner which you would have good reason afterwards to regret.
The reason for this change of opinion in your Lordships' House is that your Lordships have become more convinced of the intrinsic merits of the Bill and more impressed with the importance of the opinion of the friendly societies. No one would accuse the most rev. Prelate or Earl Grey of indifference to, or want of interest in, the friendly societies. There is no body of men in this country who more deservedly enjoy your Lordships' esteem than the great friendly societies. They are pillars of the Constitution. There is no body of men in this country who make more for thrift and national independence of character and for law and order. My answer to the most rev. Primate is that the Poor Law as administered at present is distinctly hostile to the spread of thrifty ideas in certain respects. Here is one case in which the hostility between the interests of the Poor Law and the interests of thrift can be abrogated.
It is no argument against taking this step to say that there are other steps which might possibly be taken, but are not taken in this Bill. Speaking for myself, I should be glad to join with the most rev. Primate in giving an advantage to other classes of the community who use means of thrift other than that dealt with in this Bill. I knew a ease of a man who had been in my father's employment, and who had for years contributed to one of these friendly societies. He came
376
upon hard times, and he never could understand why he who had been thrifty, and therefore received a small weekly allowance in respect of that thrift. should not be able to get Poor Law relief while his neighbour in the next cottage. who had never put a single halfpenny of his wages into a friendly society, received parish relief without any difficulty. Do your Lordships think that that state of things is calculated to assist thrift? Therefore, my answer to the most rev. Primate is that because more in this direction may possibly have to be done, there is no reason why we should not now do what we can.
I ask your Lordships to pass this Bill, more especially as the principle involved in it has already been admitted. The most rev. Primate's speech would have been greatly to the point ten years ago. Ten years ago your Lordships' House, in conjunction with the other House of Parliament, passed a measure giving discretionary power to boards of guardians to give a man who had contributed to a friendly society the very benefits which are referred to in this Bill. The object of this Bill is to remove the invidious distinction that whereas in one union a member of a friendly society is given the benefit of his thrift, in an adjoining union he is refused that benefit. I would ask your Lordships, Is it an inducement to thrift that such an arbitrary condition of affairs should exist? By this Bill the unequal treatment of two men who are equally deserving will cease, and boards of guardians will be required to administer the law in a fashion that will bear equally on all members of friendly societies who come under the Poor Law. I would say, in reply to the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, that there is really no question of an inquiry in this matter. It is not a question of digging up the roots of the settlement of the Poor Law which was arrived at after the inquiry of 1838.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: It is the small end of the wedge.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would remind the noble Earl—the metaphor is somewhat mixed—that you cannot dig up the roots of a system with a small end of the wedge. This Bill is not a

377
commencement of the reversal of that great reform, and your Lordships are as well able to form an opinion on this special point as the members of any Committee would be. The noble Earl is in error in supposing that the Government have not made themselves responsible for this Bill. This is a Government

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Hardwicke, E.

Balfour, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Onslow, E.

Belper, L.

(L. President.)

Selborne, E.

Braybrooke, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Ernly, L.

Kenyon, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Ripon, M.

Hood, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Hutchinson,V.(E.Donoughmore

Lawrence, L.

Clarendon, E. (L.Chamberlain.)

St. Oswald, L.

Denbigh, E.

Addington, L.

Suffield, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch

Armstrong, L.

Windsor, L.

and Queensberry.)

Ashbouner, L.

Wolverton, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Glenesk, L

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Iveagh, L.

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

Grey, E.

Sherborne, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Stalbridge, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.

EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DE FAULT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order).
Clause 1:—
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved to insert words providing that the powers given by the clause to the Board of Education on default of the local education authority should only be exercised "after forwarding a statement in writing of the alleged default to the local authority, and considering any statement the local authority may submit in their defence, and hearing any evidence the local authority may desire to submit relevant to the charge." If the local authority were to be placed in a criminal and penal position there should be securities for justice. Even in the infernal regions they were told Castigatque, auditque reos,
Bill; we have take it up; and I ask your Lordships to real the Bill a second time on the grounds I have stated.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided. Contents, 30; Non-Contents, 9.
the judge chastised, but he heard. By this Bill they were taken to a lower depth than the realms of Pluto, and the judges castigated where they did not hear.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'after forwarding a statement in writing of the alleged default to the local authority and considering any statement the local authority may submit in their defence, and hearing any evidence the local authority may desire to submit relevant to the charge.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THF BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess Of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I dealt yesterday at considerable length with the question raised in the noble Lord's Amendment. I do not know why the noble Lord likened the local authorities to criminals. I can assure him we have never regarded them in that light at all. We contemplate the local authority as declining on the ground of conscientious scruples to put into force an Act, the administration of which is imposed upon them, and the Board of Education will not put its powers under this Bill into

379
force unless it is absolutely necessary. But if the Board of Education is to wait until it has been able to communicate and take counsel with the local authority, I think the time at which the Board of Education could act would be very distant indeed. The object of this Bill is to enable the Board to act decisively and quickly where necessary. If this Amendment were passed it would be impossible for us to act decisively. As I stated yesterday, Mr. Lloyd-George has pointed out that it will be quite possible for the local authority to postpone answering correspondence for three months. We cannot accept an Amendment which exposes us to such risks. The noble Lord said yesterday that the Act of 1870 provided that before declaring a board school in default the Board of Education should hold a public inquiry. I have looked up that Act, and I find that in Clause 63 the words are—
"The education authority, after such inquiry as they think necessary. …"
so that we are not in this Bill going contrary to the provision of the Act of 1870. I repeat that our great object is to deal with these matters quickly and to avoid correspondence with authorities who on more than one occasion have declined to answer our communications.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONdesired, as one of the authors of the Act of 1870, to say a few words on the point raised. The Act of 1870 gave very large powers for dealing with school boards in default, but it especially directed that there should be in each case an inquiry. He could not understand why the noble Marquess now refused an inquiry. He thought that in all such cases an inquiry ought to be held. By the Act of 1870 the extent of the inquiry was left very much to the Education Department. As a general principle he did not think it desirable to entrust unlimited powers of any kind to a public Department. He thought all Departments ought to act, and especially in a case of this sort, where they were going to take a strong step in regard to public bodies, on broad judicial principles. One of the first of those principles appeared to him to be that they ought to inquire into the facts. No doubt the noble Marquess and the officers of the Board of Education had made up their
380
minds that in the case of a number of county councils in Wales the Act had not been properly carried out, but that opinion rested, of course, upon general statements, and had not been the result of careful inquiry in each particular case by the Board. He thought such an inquiry necessary, and he would be very sorry if the Amendment were negatived.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that, though the noble Marquess objected to the use of the word "criminal," he certainly in his speech treated the local authorities as criminals or as defendants against whom a judgment for money was asked, and civil defendants were entitled to be heard. before judgment was given against them. It was useless to divide, and the Amendment would have to be negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthen moved to leave out the words in Sub-section 2 providing that the sums paid by the Board of Education under the Act should be a debt due to the Crown from the local education authority, leaving only the words standing that these sums might be deducted from sums payable to the authority on account of Parliamentary grants. The clause as it stood apparently put the Crown in the position of a judgment creditor, and he desisted to know what the powers of the Crown in such a position were. He thought it would be sufficient if the powers of the Crown were limited to dealing with the Treasury money. What was covered by the reference to Parliamentary grants in the Bill was a more difficult question than it seemed. He did not believe it would cover the special aid grants.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 23, to leave out from the word 'Act,' to the word 'may' in line 25.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the words proposed to be omitted are essential to the working of the Bill. The Board must not be confined to using one method only in cases of default. Holding back some of the grants may or may not be the most convenient way in which the Board

381
should deal with the situation. The duty which they will be performing under this Bill in any given place will be the duty which should have been performed by the local authority. The Board will, ex hypothesi, merely be paying expenses which the authority should have paid. The money is, therefore, essentially owing to the Crown from the local education authority; it is important that this should be properly recognised and the words "debts due to the Crown" represent this fact. It is the fashion to call this Bill a "coercion Bill," and to say that it is coercing the authorities into doing their duty. It is not so. The Board are going to carry out a duty which the authority declines to carry out. But the Board must obviously have for this purpose the moneys which the authority has received from public funds as a trustee for doing those duties, but which the authority stubbornly refuses to put to the uses for which the public provided them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthen moved to amend the clause so that it should not be retrospective. He thought people had a right to be judged by the law as it existed at the time of their alleged offence.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words whether before or.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid it is impossible to accept the Amendment. I dwelt at considerable length yesterday on the fact that the efficiency of a certain number of non-provided schools in Wales had been maintained owing to the generosity and patriotism of the managers. In the case of many of these schools the managers have paid out of their own pockets the money for the maintenance of the schools and this should be repaid by the local authorities. In other cases, teachers are unable to obtain their salaries, and my hon. friend Sir William Anson quoted a case in the House of Commons in which it was impossible for a teacher to go away for her annual holiday because her salary had not been paid.
382
It is therefore necessary to make the Bill retrospective, for otherwise these people would be defrauded of what belongs to them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved a new clause which he said was copied from the Education Act of 1870. providing that the Board of Education should cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament in every year a special report, stating the cases in which they had made any order under this Bill during the preceding year and their reasons for making such order. The object of the Amendment was to secure that in all these cases where authorities in default had been dealt with by the Board of Education the Board should report fully to Parliament.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 1, to insert as a new clause, 'The Board of Education shall cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament in every year a special report stating the cases in which they have made any order under this Act during the preceding year, and their reasons for making such order.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the Board will publish reports from time to time as they invariably do with regard to important matters affecting education, but it would be impossible for them to report—as they are asked by this new clause to do—on every action of theirs affecting such small matters as salaries, coals, and the hundred and one other subjects dealt with in the administration of the Act. I am not in the least desirous of concealing or keeping anything back, and I am sure that if what appears to be the slightest act of injustice is done by the Board of Education to any of the local authorities of Wales it will be brought under the notice of Parliament by some of the ardent and active representatives of Wales.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONexpressed surprise that the noble Marquess had rejected what he could not help feeling was a very reasonable proposal. As the Act gave special and peculiar powers

383
to the Board of Education, surely it was not unreasonable to ask that the Board should let the public know from time to time how it had used those powers. This would not interfere in the slightest degree with the powers which the noble Marquess desired to have, and he could not think that the staff of the Board was not sufficient to enable these reports to be drawn up.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Board are prepared to issue reports from time to time, but in view of the enormous amount of extra work which the Act of 1902 has entailed, it is desirable that the demands should not unnecessarily be increased by compelling the frequent presentation of returns on most trifling details. I repeat that the whole of the local education authorities are in touch with their representatives in Parliament, and if there is any grievance, no matter how small or trivial, that grievance will certainly be brought up in Parliament.
THE EARL OF CREWEexpressed surprise that the noble Marquess should be unwilling to make this very small concession. These powers were of an exceptional character, and in accordance with precedent a Return should be made. The noble Marquess had stated that it was hardly fair to expect the Board of Education to go in its reports into every kind of detail, such as teachers' salaries, coal, and so on. The noble Lord who had moved the Amendment had not asked that these particular details should be mentioned. What he wanted was a formal report of the kind which the noble Marquess indefinitely said would be delivered from time to time. The difference, therefore, between his noble friend and the noble Marquess seemed to be so slight that he thought it would be worth while for the Government to make this concession. He had no doubt that if the noble Marquess persisted in his refusal a Motion would be made at an early date next session asking for a report of this kind.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked whether the noble Marquess would undertake that in every case where action was taken by the Board of Education
384
under this Bill an official letter should go to the local authority informing them of the action of the Board and its cause.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have no objection whatever to that. The difficulty is not in regard to the Board writing to the local authority, but in regard to their getting a reply from the local authority.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

ARMENIA.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if further information can now be given regarding recent disturbances in certain districts of the Armenian provinces; also if His Majesty's Government contemplate the appointment of additional Consuls in those regions; and to move for Papers. In the notice which I sent to the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary of my intention to ask this Question I mentioned some of the localities in which disturbances had occurred, but quite recently other events of the same sort have been reported in the newspapers. It is stated in the newspapers that within the last few days Armenian revolutionaries have appeared near the village of Outchkilissa, and that Turkish soldiers have made that the excuse for destroying that village and, among other villages, Karabazar and Sayto. They butchered men and outraged women. There was a repetition o what is too common a story. Some Armenian bands endeavoured to retaliate, and did retaliate, by killing a number of Turkish soldiers. I am aware that it is frequently stated, on behalf of the Turkish Government, that these troubles, and the terrible events which ac-company them, are largely due to the fact that evil-minded people have instigated insurrection. But if half or a quarter of the outrages upon women reported to have taken place are true, there is very little need for instigation. It is a matter

385
of history and general experience, of course, that this particular crime is more apt than any other to arouse great excitement and violence, and unless more effective measures are taken to repress these excessive outrages insurrections must occur. As to the second part of my Question, it was stated some time ago in the other House by the Under-Secretary of State that His Majesty's Government considered that there was a sufficient number of Consuls in these regions at present to look after British interests. But besides trade and individual interests this country has a responsibility, as one of the signatories to the Treaty of Berlin, in regard to the protection of the Christian population. I do not suggest that our Consuls should act as diplomatic agents, but that they should be agents for collecting and transmitting information, which would have a preventive influence in regard to such disturbances. We are aware that urgent representations have been made in the noble Marquess's despatch, but it seems desirable that further steps should be taken. I beg to move for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there has been, during the present year, as the noble Earl is aware, a state of continuous unrest in these Armenian districts. It is not easy, in such cases, to trace the causes of that unrest to their sources. You may say that the attitude of the revolutionary party has been in some measure due to the fact that a large concentration of badly-disciplined Turkish troops has taken place in their neighbourhood; on the other hand, it will probably be said that the presence of these troops was regarded as indispensable by the Turkish Government on account of the activity of the revolutionary party. We have, in the circumstances, endeavoured to do all that was in our power to allay the excitement which prevails, and our Ambassador at Constantinople has been unremitting in his efforts to persuade the Turkish Government to take such steps as seemed to him best calculated to have that result. He has continually urged the necessity of disbanding as many as possible of these Turkish troops, the desirability of amicable negotiation with the discontented inhabitants,
386
and, above all things, he has pressed upon the Porte its responsibility for the lawless proceedings of the Kurds, and the duty of keeping them in proper order.
I am bound to say that Sir Nicholas O'Conor's representations have been well received by the Turkish Government, and that they have given a considerable amount of encouragement to the steps which have been taken. The Sultan received the Armenian Patriarch, and, as a result of the interviews which took place, there was an attempt at mediation on the part of the Armenian Bishops—an attempt of which a great deal was expected, but of which, I am afraid, very little came. Then, at our initiative, the Consuls representing the French, Russian, and British services met in the month of June at Moush and put pressure upon the local authorities, and besides that we were able to arrange that a British officer, Captain Tyrrell, our Consul at Van, should accompany the Turkish troops. I mention this because the noble Earl dwelt upon the value of the presence of British officials in such conditions as those with which we are unfortunately familiar in Armenia. In spite of these precautions there have been several regrettable outbreaks, one in particular in May, when the insurgents attacked the Turkish troops, and when, as might have been expected, reprisals took place. There was considerable loss of life and destruction of property, though we are given to understand that those were not as great as was represented in some of the published reports.
I may mention that on 21st June the Grand Vizier informed Sir Nicholas O'Conor that certain decisions had been arrived at by the Council of Ministers. These, I am bound to say, seem to be of a satisfactory nature. Those decisions were to the effect that permission should be granted to the refugees at Moush and other places to return to their homes; that a sum of money should be appropriated and sent to the Vali of Bitlis to assist the refugees in rebuilding their houses; that barracks should be built in order to protect the Armenians against the predatory raids of the Kurds; that a general amnesty should be granted to all those who surrendered, and who were not caught in the actual commission of crime; that

387
an efficient gendarmerie should be reorganised in Bitlis and the neighbouring vilayets; and that an inquiry should be held into the mode and system of administration in order to check existing abuses. These promised reforms seem to have been, to some extent, at all events, carried out, because the reports which we have since received, both from our Consul, Mr. Heathcote, and from Captain Tyrrell, were certainly of a more satisfactory character during the summer months.
Mr. Heathcote telegraphed on 28th June that the settlement of the refugees in the mountains was proceeding satisfactorily, and that the vilayet was undisturbed; and in July he was able to say that the condition of affairs had materially improved; that the Turkish authorities were genuinely endeavouring to relieve the immediate wants of the refugees who returned to their homes; that a suitable official had been appointed to supervise the work of reinstating them in their villages, and that the Vali had promised that the arrest of a notorious Kurd and certain other malefactors should be effected. Captain Tyrrell's reports were also of an encouraging description. He reported in June that he had himself visited the disturbed districts, and that the authorities had placed no difficulties in the way of his doing so. He said that there had been considerable loss of life, but he reported that it would be difficult to sustain the charge of massacres and atrocities. The participation of the Kurds was, moreover, not proved, and the orders issued by the authorities were undoubtedly intended to prevent it.
In July, again, he reported that he had collected at Sassun 300 refugees from Taloriy and had handed them over to the settlement officer; that some hundred more refugees had returned from Taloriy, and that there had been great exaggeration as to the numbers reported killed. He added that the progress of reinstatement was satisfactory, that cattle were being restored, houses rebuilt, and that the Mutessarif of Moush and his subordinates were working energetically and well. This indicated upon the whole a distinct improvement in the condition of these disturbed districts, and I should have been inclined to take a
388
hopeful view of the situation had it not been for the fact that at the end of July there was, unfortunately, another serious conflict at a place called Gravi, near Moush, when several soldiers were killed and several of the inhabitants were killed by the soldiers. With regard to the noble Earl's suggestion that an addition might be made to the Consular officers employed in those regions, we have come to the conclusion that the staff already available is sufficient for the purpose. The only other fact I have to add is that we propose at an early date to lay Papers in which the noble Earl will find a good deal of information bearing on the subject which he has brought before the House.
House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the Earl of Waldegrave.
ANGLO-FRENCH CONVENTION BILL (No. 199),
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS (BILL. (No. 200),
IRISH LAND BILL (No. 201),
BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIR MINCHAM BILL (No. 202),
PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 203),
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL (No. 204),
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL (No. 205).
Brought from the Commons; read; 1ato be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, Twelve o'clock.