Lords Sitting of 13 August 1904

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND).
  Thirty-sixth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Records for the year 1903. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PATENTS ACT, 1902.
  Order made by the Board of Trade in pursuance of Section 1, Sub-section 2, of the Act, fixing the date for the coming g into operation of the section.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Orders in Council of the 10th August, 1904 (a) revoking Orders in Council of 5th May, 1873, and 29th January, 1904, relating to the re-measurement of French ships in this country; (b) exempting from re-measurement in His Majesty's Dominion French ships whose certificates of registry are dated on or after 1st July, 1904.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Orders in Council of the 10th August 1904, entitled respectively "The Southern Rhodesia Order in Council, 1904." and "The Zanzibar Order in Council, 1904."
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL;
    PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL;
      PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
      Read 2a (according to Order). Committees negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL;
    REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to Order). Committees negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
  SHOP HOURS BILL;
    OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) (No. 2) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bills read 3a, and passed.
  EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order) and passed.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Commons Amendment to Lords Amendments and Commons reason for disagreeing to several of the Lords Amendments considered (according to order). Commons Amendment to Lords Amendments agreed to; and the Lords Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed not insisted on.

  INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, I think it would be in accordance with the practice of this House and with your Lordships wishes if, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I said a few words in explanation of its scope and object. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Ripon), and the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Lansdowne), are well aware that the members of the Viceroy's Council in India are very much overburdened with work. As long ago as Lord Dufferin's Adminstration a Minute was left on record by the Viceroy in which he said most emphatically that he considered it necessary that the Viceroy's Council should consist of six members instead of five. The present Government of India have come to the same conclusion, and they have proposed to the Secretary of State for India that the number of ordinary members of the Viceroy's Council should be increased from five to six.

  499
  I will deal, in the first place, with the present position of the Viceroy's Council as regards the division of the duties which they have to perform. At the present moment there is a Finance and Commerce Department, with a finance member at its head; there is a Home Department and a Revenue and Agricultural Department, and these two Departments are under one ordinary member of Council. There is also the Public Works Department, under another member of Council, and the legal member and the military member make up the five. It is proposed by the Government of India to abolish the Public Works Department. A few years ago Lord George Hamilton appointed a well-known railway expert, Mr. Robertson, to visit India and examine thoroughly the railway system throughout the country and he presented to the Government of India a very exhaustive Report on the subject, containing some very drastic recommendations as regards the future, and that Report has been laid before Parliament. The Government of India and Secretary of State have given very careful consideration to the recommendations therein contained, and, though they have not been able to see their way to adopt as a whole the proposals made by Mr. Robertson, they have decided upon a very large measure of reform of the system of railway administration.
  It is now proposed to create a Railway Board. This Board will have large powers conferred upon it, and will practically be responsible for the railway administration of India, large changes in policy or administration, of course, being submitted to the Viceroy or his Council, and, in some cases, ultimately to the Secretary of State. The Government of India, in view of the large powers which they propose to confer on this Board, have come to the conclusion that the office of the member who at present represents the Public Works Department and the Railway Administration of India on the Viceroy's Council is no longer necessary; that the Public Works Department can conveniently cease to exist, and that the Railway Board, having large powers conferred upon it, need not necessarily be directly represented on the Viceroy's Council. I think your Lordships will easily understand that the
  500
  chairman of the Railway Board, who, of course, could be the only man competent to be the representative of that Board on the Council, will have all his time fully occupied in the duties of railway administration, and that as, in the nature of things, he must be a railway expert, it is hardly desirable that he should be concerned with the general administration of matters which come before the Viceroy's Council. It has, therefore, been decided that the new Railway Board shall be independent of the Council, and that such matters connected with railway administration as have to be brought before the Council shall be brought by a member in charge of another department.
  The Public Works Departments, as I have said, will cease to exist. It is, therefore, proposed to redistribute the work of the members of the Viceroy's Council. It is proposed that the Finance and Commerce Department should in future be known as the Finance Department only, under a finance member. The Home Department and the Revenue and Agricultural Department, which, as I have said, are at present under one member, are to be separated. The Home Department is to be under one member of Council, and, though he will no longer have the work of the Revenue and Agricultural Department, I can assure your Lordships that the Government of India have stated in no unmeasured terms that the work he will have to do as sole representative of the Home Department will be all that one man can adequately carry out. Then the Revenue and Agricultural Department will also be under one member. Of course, the legal member and the military member will remain. That makes the five members as at present allowed by the Act of Parliament.
  Then it is proposed to create a new department altogether—a Department of Commerce and Industry, and to place that under a new member. I do not think I need dwell upon the good that may result from the creation of a department of this kind. It will have very large powers transferred to it, and the work of the new department will be extremely onerous and important. The Bill now before your Lordships

  501
  House is a very short one, and is necessary owing to the wording of the Act of 1874. The Act of 1861, known as the Indian Council's Act, constituted a council of five ordinary members. The Act of 1874 permitted the appointment of a sixth member, but stated that the sixth member was to be "for public works purposes." Having taken the best legal opinion, we were advised that the changes we wished to bring about in the Viceroy's Council could not legally be given effect to unless we had the sixth member as a member for public works purposes only. If your Lordships' will refer to this Bill, you will see that all it does is to provide that the words—
  "Who shall be called a member of council for public works purposes."
  which occur in the Act of 1874, shall be omitted. The Act of 1874 will then read as giving power to the Secretary of State in Council to appoint a sixth member. Of course, the creation of a large department of the kind I have referred to is a far-reaching and important proposal, on which, I am sure, the noble Marquess opposite will admit a great deal more might be said. But I will only say, in conclusion, that we have the most sanguine anticipations as to the benefit that will accrue to India from this appointment, and I hope it will stand out as not the least successful reform that has been instituted during the brilliant administration of Lord Curzon.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I think the Bill, the Second Reading of which the Under-Secretary of State has just moved, is one which your Lordships would do well to accept. It does away with what I think was always an unnecessary and undesirable arrangement, namely, making it necessary by Act of Parliament that the sixth member of the Viceroy's Council should always be attached to the public works department. I think that is a matter which ought to be left to the Viceroy in Council, who ought to be able to distribute among his colleagues the business of the different departments in whatever manner he may think best.
  502
  Therefore, I think the Bill will be an advantage and I give it my support. The noble Earl will hardly expect me to say anything upon the full description he has given of the other proposals which the Government of India intend to introduce. I have only heard them in detail for the first time this afternoon, and I am not in a position to express any opinion upon them. I should always be inclined to pay respect to anything which the Government of India might propose, but I do not wish at this moment to express any opinion of my own upon such a far-reaching proposal. I hope that at the beginning of next session we shall have Papers which will show us what is the nature of these proposals, so that we may be able to form upon them a judgment with full knowledge.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I can give the noble Marquess an undertaking that Papers will be laid on the subject. In the ordinary course despatches will be published.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I think we ought to have more than that.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I will mention the request to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived. Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I can assure the House that this is not in any sense a contentious measure, and I am glad to be able to say that it does not in any way deal with the metric system or any such abstruse subject. The Bill as it was originally introduced by Mr. Bousfield in another place contained clauses which the Board of Trade and the Government were not able to agree to. These clauses have been struck out in the Standing Committee

  503
  on Law to which the Bill was committed, and the Bill as now before your Lordships has been taken up by His Majesty's Government and made a Government measure in this House. There are two clauses to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention. The clause of the utmost importance is Clause 5, which deals with the powers of the Board of Trade as to making general regulations. Up to now the local authorities have been the authorities for weights and measures, but if this Act passes into law those powers will be taken over by the Board of Trade, and by this means uniformity will be created over the whole country. I am led to believe that this will be very welcome to traders generally. Clause 9 is also a very important one. The Board of Trade may, by this clause, vary the fees for verification and stamping. These fees are in some cases too high, more especially in the case of the glass trade; and, if this Bill passes, the Board of Trade propose to reduce fees in certain cases. As I have assured your Lordships that this is not a contentious Bill, I hope you will read it a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time with many observations in regard to this Bill. It is, as your Lordships know, an old friend, and therefore it will be quite unnecessary for me to state at length either the reasons for the introduction of the Bill or the precise character of the provisions which it contains. It is substantially the same Bill as that which passed through your Lordships' House
  504
  last year, though the drafting is somewhat different. It has been a good deal abbreviated, and in some respects it is more elastic. However, there is no intention, in carrying out the provisions of the Bill, which are subject, as your Lordships know, to certain schemes by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and by Order in Council, to produce substantially any different result than would have been produced by the more precise provisions of the Bill of last year. I feel all the more relieved from making any further observations because, as a matter of fact, this is rather the Bill of the most rev. Primate and the Bench of Bishops than of His Majesty's Government, not that His Majesty's Government do not cordially support it, but the Bill emanated from the Episcopal Bench. I would only say, in conclusion, that, connected as I have been for very many years with the diocese of Rochester, it does give me peculiar pleasure to be even to this extent instrumental in carrying out a great reform, a reform long needed, and one which it is a perfect scandal that Parliament has not found it possible to deal with before.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I wish to say a single word on this Bill. The natural expectation might have been, at such a moment as the Second Reading of this Bill, after the long endeavours to which the noble Marquess has alluded which have been made in previous years to bring it into effect, that the Bishop of Rochester would have been here to advocate it. His absence is one of the most eloquent arguments that could be urged in favour of the Bill, for he is absent because he has broken down from overstrain. He would not have been absent from your Lordships' House or from the country on any occasion of such ecclesiastical importance, whether concerning his own diocese or another, had such a Bill as this been law some time ago, for in that case the strain upon his health would have been less. The strain placed upon the holder of either of the two dioceses which are mainly affected by

  505
  this Bill, that of Worcester, containing the great town of Birmingham, and that of Rochester, containing the whole of the South of London, is more than one man can bear; and the object of the Bill is simply to effect, in each case, a subdivision greatly needed in view of the enormous increase of population. It is purely an administrative measure, containing no principle or change whatever beyond that of adapting modern resources to modern needs; it imposes no tax whatever on the public, but merely allows the voluntary contributions of those who care for the matter to be used in the way which the contributors think necessary. The noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal has correctly stated that the Bill of to-day, though worded somewhat differently from the Bill which passed your Lordships' House on more than one previous occasion, is the same in its purport, and I am exceedingly glad to look forward now to effect being speedily given to a hope and an ambition which, as the noble Marquess has said, have been astir for a long time and the fulfilment of which is urgently required.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  Moved, "That Lord Windsor do take the Chair in the Committee of the Whole House this day in the absence of Lord Balfour."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): In the absence of Lord Alverstone I would suggest the postponement of this Bill. I have not had an opportunity of considering the Amendments, and I cannot advise the House whether they should be accepted or not.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Will that mean that the Bill will be lost?
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Oh, no.
  Consideration of Commons Amendments put off to Monday next, and the said Amendments to be printed[No. 206.]

  ANGLO-FRENCH CONVENTION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to signify the approval of Parliament to the Convention, set out in the schedule, which was signed in London on 8th April of this year, and to make it lawful for His Majesty the King to do everything which appears to His Majesty necessary or proper for carrying into effect that Convention. It is necessary that regard should be had to the authority of Parliament in this matter, in the first place because it seems to us that an international transaction of this magnitude ought not to be withdrawn from the cognisance of Parliament and also because it has been for some time past held that whenever any international arrangement involves a cession of British territory, as this does, the matter should come under the consideration of Parliament.
  I do not think it necessary on this occasion to pass in review the many matters that are dealt with in this Convention or in the Agreement of which the Convention forms a part. The question has been before the public for a long time, and your Lordships must be familiar with its details. At any rate, I think I may be permitted to say that I am personally relieved from the necessity of making a Second Reading speech upon the subject because my Second Reading speech was in fact delivered more than four months ago, and is embodied in the long despatch to our Ambassador in Paris, which was published with the Convention and laid before Parliament. There are two points only about which, perhaps, it is necessary that I should say a word.

  507
  The first of those points does nut strictly arise out of the Convention printed with this Bill, but it does arise out of the Agreement of which the Convention forms a part. Your Lordships will recollect that in that part of the Agreement which has reference to Egygt, we laid before you a draft Khedivial Decree embodying a large number of most important measures of reform which it was proposed should be undertaken by the Government of Egypt with the assent of Great Britain and France. It was, however, well understood that that Decree could not be issued unless the assent of the other Powers signatories to the Treaty of London was also obtained. I am able to say that since that time the assent of the remaining Powers has been given, and, I will venture to say, has been ungrudgingly given, to the arrangement. There is now, therefore, no obstacle whatever to the issue of the Decree, which will bring with it what I do not think I am wrong in describing as the emancipation of the Egyptian Administration from a system which is a survival of an order of things which no longer exists and which is full of the greatest inconvenience to those concerned.
  The other observation which I wish to make has reference to the Newfoundland Convention. Your Lordships, I daresay, have noticed that the French Government was not able to obtain for the Convention the ratification of the French Chambers before their separation a short time ago. The question which we had to consider was whether it was well for His Majesty's Government to ratify in the absence of ratification by the French Parliament. We had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was not desirable that our ratification should not be withheld. We have no reason whatever for believing that when the French Chambers meet again early in the month of November their consent will not be given, and we thought it would have had a very unfortunate effect if we had, by our action in postponing legislation, shown that we entertained any suspicion of the attitude which the French Chambers were likely to adopt. We have had no reason to complain of the manner in which the whole of these proposals have been received by this country and by Parliament, and
  508
  we lay this Bill before your Lordships with confidence that it will receive your approval.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, your Lordships will not expect that I am about to offer any opposition to this Bill. On the contrary, I think His Majesty's Government were quite right in bringing in this Bill and passing it through Parliament in the circumstances which my noble friend has described. I am particularly glad to hear that the other Powers have agreed to the Khedivial Decree. This is a most important matter; and, as they have agreed, as my noble friend says, very readily, we may hope that that complicated and mischievous system which has previously existed will be now brought to an end. I think also that His Majesty's Government are right in not withholding their ratification. I have no doubt that the French Chambers, when they meet, will ratify the Convention so far as is necessary, and I think it would have been showing au unnecessary suspicion of what might be done if the British ratification had been withheld. It is quite unnecessary that my noble friend should enter into any further discussion in regard to the French Treaty. I only desire to allude to it for the purpose of associating myself entirely with the remarks which were made by my noble friend Lord Spencer at an early period of the session, when my noble friend went out of his way, and, I think, quite rightly, to express his approval of the general provisions of this scheme. I entirely concur in those observations. I think the scheme is one which will be very advantageous to this country, and which reflects honour on my noble friend the Foreign Secretary.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  [SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, this is a Bill to explain and amend Section 48 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, with respect to the payment and application of the percentage provided by that section. It deals with a matter that has been mentioned very often in the Press and elsewhere in reference to the payment of the bonus, and its object is to clear up some points with reference to which there has been some doubt. It provides, in Clause 1, that any land, wholly or partly untenanted, sold to the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board may be regarded as an estate for the purpose of the payment of any percentage under Section 48 of the Act of last year. It then makes perfectly clear that the percentage mentioned in Section 48, may, subject to the enactments contained in the proviso to Sub-section 1 and in Subsection 4 thereof, be paid to any vendor, other than the Congested Districts Board, whether such vendor is a person entitled to a beneficial interest in the land sold, or is a trustee or other person not so entitled, and save as provided, shall be held by him on the trusts, if any, affecting the purchase money. The third clause provides that where the vendor is a tenant for life or a person having the powers of a tenant for life under the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, the percentage shall, subject to the enactments mentioned, be retained by him as his own proper moneys for his own use and benefit, free and discharged from all claims upon the lands sold, or the purchase money thereof, and from any trust affecting the same. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF WESTMEATH: My Lords, I need hardly say that at this stage of the session I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill. I only rise to make clear the position which I and a great many other Irish landlords hold on this matter, Your Lordships will recollect that when the Land Bill was before the House last year Irish landlords displayed a unanimity and agreement which is not always found in an assemblage of Irishmen. In fact, only on one
  510
  point was it found that there was a general disagreement. That point was the one dealt with in this Bill. Opinion was at that time divided. There were those who held that the bonus ought to be given into the hands of the actual owner because he had incurred so many losses and so much trouble during the struggles of the land war; and there were others, a much smaller body, who considered that this war was not quite an honest proceeding, and that this being part of the purchase money it ought to follow the trust. This Bill makes it clear that the bonus is to go into the hands of the actual owner. I may say that I have not in the least changed the view which I formed last year, that it is not quite honest that this money should be diverted from the trust.
  When the Bill now before your Lordships was first introduced, it was found to contain several provisions which were distinctly objectionable. We brought those provisions to the notice of His Majesty's Government, and I think it only fair to say that they have endeavoured to meet us in every way, and have removed the greatest objections we had to the Bill, for which we are very much obliged to them. Having entered, on my own behalf and on behalf of other noble Lords from Ireland, a protest against this Bill, I wish to say that, as it is to become law, I hope it will help the Act of last year to work more smoothly. We shall certainly give it our assistance.
  I do not like to resume my seat without associating myself with the protest which was made yesterday by the noble Lords the Earl of Wemyss and the Duke of Northumberland against the treatment which we receive in this House. It has been said that there is no way of altering this, except by carrying on Bills from one session to another. It has been said that Bills have been originated in this House, but have got no further. That is due to the loquacity of Members in the other House. I certainly think we should not suffer on that account. I have been wondering what possible objection there can be to more Bills being initiated in this House. Is it to be said that there is not sufficient intelligence on the Front Bench to bring in a Bill without being guided by the discussion in the other House, or that

  511
  the majority of your Lordships have not sufficient intelligence to find out mistakes in a Bill, unless under similar guidance? I am not one of those who think that a Peer need necessarily be more deficient in intelligence than anybody else. I do not see why, for instance, the Licensing Bill could not have been initiated in this House. As long as noble Lords are satisfied to be treated like a flock of sheep nothing can be done. But I would suggest that if we are treated in this way next year, a sufficient number of patriotic Peers should form themselves into a sort of holy alliance and remain here till September, if necessary.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Earl in the very lively description he has given of the manner in which your Lordships' House is treated. I can only say that we shall await with great interest in the coming session the action of those independent Peers, whose numbers always seem to me to be far too small, on this point of the treatment which this House receives at the hands of the other House. Nor do I propose to offer the slightest opposition to the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I think it was perfectly clear that it was the intention of Parliament last session that this bonus should be paid to the life tenant. There were, and are, arguments against taking that course; but there is this consideration, which seems to me to make it evident that the Government, in settling this matter in the way they have done, have pursued a reasonable course. The allocation of this bonus is not really a matter for Irish landlords at all. It is a free gift from the taxpayers of the whole of the country in order to lubricate the working of this particular Act, and consequently, it is at the free disposal of Parliament. Even though some noble Lords may consider, and consider with great plausibility, that this particular money ought to be paid to the estate rather than to the life tenant, I think it is upon the will of the majority of Parliament that the matter must be allowed to rest. Of course, if any landowner in Ireland has any scruple about taking this money; it is perfectly open to
  512
  him, when he receives it, to apply it to the purposes of his estate trust.
  LORD EMLY: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose this Bill, but I think His Majesty's Government might darn not only the small tears but also the large rents in the garment. The Government are very sensitive as regards the landlords' position, but I see no great sensitiveness as regards the tenants' position. I do not object to the landlord's interest being safeguarded, but I think the tenant's interest might be safeguarded also. His Majesty's Government have absolutely and entirely ignored the interests of the evicted tenants and of the labourers. The noble Earl said there was a wonderful unanimity on the subject of the Land Act. Of course there is in your Lordships' House. For instance, when the Land Act was passing through Parliament, the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War was in war paint. He was the foremost fighting champion of the landlord interest. I am glad to see that he has breached over the tremendous differences that existed between himself and His Majesty's Government, and I congratulate His Majesty's Government on having kissed and made friends with the noble Earl.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, if this Bill settled permanently all the great questions raised by the introduction of wireless telegraphy, I think your Lordships would have very strong reasons to complain that it was brought to your attention at this late period of the session; but the Bill has not that character. It is a temporary Bill, and expires in two years. Therefore it does not attempt to settle once for all the great questions which are beginning

  513
  to be raised by the introduction of wireless telegraphy—questions which affect the defence of this country, the trade and internal communications of this country, and the progress of invention. In view of our experience in the matter of electricity, there was a great deal of disinclination to attempt to settle this question in a manner which might have the effect supposed to have been produced by legislation passed twenty years ago, in dwarfing and checking the progress of invention. I think that the plan adopted by the Government has obviated those difficulties and disarmed criticism, and, at the same time, has met what really were two very pressing needs. In the first place, it was a standing danger to the defence of this country by land and by sea, that there was no method of controlling wireless telegraphy at all. It was perfectly possible for anybody who chose to do so to set up a wireless telegraph installation, and to communicate with anybody at sea or across the Channel. There was absolutely no means of knowing what installations were set up, and it was a very real and pressing necessity of national defence that power should be taken to control all installations of this kind. Again, a peculiarity of wireless telegraphy is that, unless it is controlled, its whole utility may be negatived and nothing but chaos supervene. If the coast were studded with wireless telegraph stations under no control and in competition with one another, the only possible result would be that they would be all quite useless, and ships, whether of His Majesty's Navy or of the mercantile marine, would be unable to communicate with the shore or with each other. Therefore, for the proper civilised use of the invention control is essential. The third point is that at this transition period it was very important that vested rights should not be allowed to grow up, which the State hereafter might have to purchase at an immense cost. These three points are dealt with in the Bill, and yet no attempt is made to arrive at a permanent settlement. I ask your Lordships on this basis to accept the Bill and to read it a second time.
  Moved. "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Selborne.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes past One o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.