Lords Sitting of 23 June 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4). The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Tynemouth Gas Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Birkdale Improvement Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
South Shields Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Scarisbrick Estate (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with an Amendment.
City of London (Central Criminal Court House) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Lancashire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Barnard Castle Gas Bill [H.L.]; St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [H.L.]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Midland Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Govan Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (No. 110). A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the burgh of Govan.
Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (No. 111). A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Caledonian Railway; And
Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (No. 112). A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Glasgow and South-Western
942
Railway.—Were presented by the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore)(pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed.
Wishaw Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (No. 113). A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Wishaw Corporation; And
Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Bill [H.L.] (No. 114). A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Airdrie Corporation Gas.—Were presented by the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore); read la; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 (Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
Hamilton Gas Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order by the Secretary for Scotland under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to the Hamilton Gas, was presented by the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore). Then it was moved, that the Order of the 14th of March last, "That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 3rd of May next," be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read la; agreed to; Bill read 1a; accordingly; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 115.)
Education Board Provisional Order (Swansea) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to Order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to Order). Amendments made.

943
Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETITIONS.
  DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN AGAINST TKANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petition against alteration of; of Dunfermline Protestant Defence Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions against; of the South Metropolitan Gas Company; The Gas Light and Coke Company; The Commercial Gas Company. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3188. Spain (Malaga);
  No. 3189. Persia (Kermanshah);
  No. 3190. China (Ningpo);
  No. 3191. Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul);
  No. 3192. Turkey (Beirut and the Coast of Syria);
  No. 3193. Sweden (Stockholm and the Eastern Coast of Sweden).

  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 417. British Honduras (eport for 1903).

  RATES OF DRAWBACK ON TOBACCO.
  Reports, with minutes of evidence, of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the rates of drawback on tobacco.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minute, dated 20th June, 1904, declaring that William Donelly, leading hand, Royal Laboratory, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.
  FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
  Finance accounts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for the financial year 1903–1904, ended 31st March, 1904.

  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Return of all pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1904, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1901.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I need not trouble your Lordships at any length in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is the same measure which was read a second time and which passed through the Committee stage in your Lordships' House last session. Its object is to continue and amend the Light Railways Act, 1896, and to give the Board of Trade power to submit Orders to Parliament.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, before the Second Reading of this Bill is agreed to I should like, as I shall have no chance in all probability of doing it in Committee, to suggest to the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade that he should look carefully at the phraseology of Clause 2, which deals with the question of remitting an Order, if appealed against, to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am not quite sure that that is the usual form. I believe each House claims to be complete master of its own procedure, and the practice is to provide that if any Member of either House chooses to move, it may be referred to a Joint Committee, or something to that effect. I only desire now to call attention to the matter, in order that the Board o Trade may carefully consider it befor they take the Committee stage of the Bil.
  LORD WOLVEETON: I may say, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that we shall be most happy to fall in with any suggestion that may be made by the Lord Chairman and we hope our draftsman will be able to produce a clause which will meet his views.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
  Moved, "That the House do go into Committee on the Bill."—(Lord Wolver-ton.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill, I ask permission to say a few words as I have several Amendments standing in my name on the Paper. When my attention was first called to this Bill, the object of which is to prescribe for certain classes of vessels certificated cooks, it appeared to me in the light of grandmotherly legislation, and my intention was to oppose the Bill rather than to attempt to amend it, because we may be certain that in due course we shall have the Government legislating to provide certificated cooks for hotels on land. But, be that as it may, my attention was called to the matter by the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee. They told me there would be no difficuly whatever in testing the qualifications of cooks, and that there were some means already of doing so. I at first thought that dinners at my noble friend's hospitable house in St. James' Place at the ratepayers' or public expense would have to be arranged in order to test their skill, but that seems to be unnecessary. Sailors, like landsmen, are fond of a good dinner, and do not care to go on vessels where there is not an efficientc cook. I have placed several Amendments—they are the Amendments of the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, not my own—on the Paper; but there were, besides these, three Amendments handed to me which I did not put down, because I knew the Board of Trade would be certain to oppose them. One of the three Amendments required inspection of the food within twenty-four hours, and that if the food was not inspected within
  946
  that time the ship should not be detained; the second was that if the decision of the; inspector should be thought doubtful, there should be an appeal to the public medical officer; and the third was that if the inspection went against the Board of Trade, the medical officer deciding that the food was good, then the Board of Trade were to pay the expenses of the appeal. Knowing that the Board of Trade would be certain to oppose these Amendments I did not put them down, but it will, of course, be open to any other noble Lord to move them at a later stage. I hope, however, that the Amendments which are on the Paper standing in my name will meet with favour from my noble friend Lord Wolverton and the Board of Trade, for they are by no means hostile to the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid the effect of the Amendment standing in his name to this clause was to bring the Act into operation a year sooner, so far as cooks were concerned. The Committee on whose Report the Bill was based was called into existence in 1902. Yet it was not until 1908 that anything was to happen which would affect the comfort of the merchant seaman. Six years was a large proportion of the seagoing life of a man before the mast. He looked upon this delay as unnecessary, as existing cooks would, he thought, be sufficiently taken care of if, in addition to the time they had already served, they were given two years and a half in which to complete their two years qualifying service. Besides this, they could always protect themselves by passing the Board of Trade examination if they were competent to do so. He did not suppose that the necessary course of tuition would take more than three months. In an existing class for nautical cookery, twenty-four lessons had hitherto been considered sufficient. There ought to be no unnecessary delay in establishing the schools and in drawing up a curriculum. If, at the end of 1906, there were not a sufficient number of

  947
  certificated cooks, paragraph 5 of Clause 1 of this Bill enabled the Board of Trade to dispense with the requirements of this section whenever they might think it desirable, so that the Board would have power to deal with any cases of hardship that might arise. He begged to move the Amendment to Clause 1 that stood in his name.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'nineteen hundred and seven,' and to insert the words 'nineteen hundred and six.'"—(Lord Ellenborough.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: His Majesty's Government is unable to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I am assured by the Board of Trade that there will be a great many details to be settled, and that they will be unable to prepare and arrange matters before the date mentioned. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid that the noble Lord had not by any means convinced him. He thought two and a half years would be ample time in which to make these arrangements. However after the wish which the noble Lord had expressed he withdrew the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that the first sub-section of Clause 1 provided that—
  "After the 31st day of December, 1907, every British foreign-going ship of 1,000 tons and upwards gross registered tonnage, when going to sea from any place in the United Kingdom, shall be provided with a duly certificated cook."
  He moved to leave out from this subsection all words from "1907" and to insert the words in his Amendment. He had reason to believe that the Government would oppose this Amendment, but if they did he hoped they would accept the next one which substituted the word "net" for the word "gross."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word 'seven,' to the end of the sub-section, and to insert the words 'the Board of Trade
  948
  may, by regulations made under this Act, prescribe that a duly certificated cook shall be provided to such British foreign-going ships of 1,000 tons and upwards net registered tonnage, and upon such voyages from any place in the United Kingdom, as the Board of Trade may determine, and after 31st day of December, one thousand nine hundred and seven, a duly certificated cook shall be provided accordingly.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: I do not think the noble Earl can attach very much importance to this Amendment and I am afraid I cannot accept it. We think it best to adhere to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee with regard to ships of 1,000 tons gross. I may tell the noble Earl that with regard to the other Amendments standing in his name he will find me in a more favourable frame of mind.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that having withdrawn the last Amendment he hoped his noble friend as a happy exchange, would assent to the next one, to substitute the word "net" for the word "gross" in the first sub-section of Clause 1, which he had already read to the House. In many vessels sailors provided their own food and cooked it. If the Amendment was adopted, there would be less Government interference, and it would be much better.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the word 'gross' and to insert the word 'net.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. It would make it apply to very much larger ships, which is not quite the view of the Board of Trade.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSexplained that Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 provided that—
  "The cook shall be a seafaring man and shall be rated in the ship's articles as ship's cook."
  He moved to delete the words "shall be a seafaring man, and."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'shall be a seafaring man and.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD MUSKERRYcalled attention to the fact that if the words "shall be a seafaring man" were left in the Bill, they would have the very extraordinary position of the cook being the only one on board ship who was required to be a seafaring man. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, persons who signed articles on board a ship—the stewardess, the assistant stewardess, the cook's boy, in fact everybody—were all sailors in the eyes of the law save and except the captain and any apprentices who might be on board. It would be very hard to define exactly what a seafaring man was, and it might hereafter be made a weapon by agitators.
  LORD WOLVERTON: I think it is most reasonable that this question should be raised, and if pressed in any way I shall be prepared to accept the Amendment, in which case perhaps I might get the consent of my two noble friends to a clause in these terms, that, instead of the words "seafaring man," these words should be inserted, "shall be able to prove six months service at sea in any capacity." If that will meet the views of my noble friends, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
  LORD MUSKERRYfeared that would not meet the case. There were only a limited number of cooks, and cooks' duties were not concerned with any part of the vessel. It was his culinary skill which the cook was required to prove, and if the words which the noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade had read out were inserted they would prevent shipowners in any emergency shipping qualified cooks on shore who had not been six months at sea. He reminded their Lordships that there were a good many men, sailors, who on joining their ships after some time ashore got sick on going to sea, and that there were a large number of people who did not know one end of the vessel from the other, who never got seasick.
  LORD AVEBURYhoped his noble friend who represented the Board of
  950
  Trade would accept the Amendment. In the first place, he had not stated what constituted a seafaring man. These words might give rise to very awkward questions. The alternative which the noble Lord had suggested was also open to serious objection, because such a provision would prevent anyone from being employed as a cook who had not been six months at sea.
  LORD HENEAGEinquired if the words "seafaring man" appeared in any Act of Parliament. He thought it was an entirely new phrase, and, therefore, he objected to it altogether. The suggested alternative could be discussed on its own merits.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My noble friend beside me (Lord Wolverton) has, as I understand, given up the words "seafaring man," and has proposed an alternative formula which would prevent this extremely important office on board ship from being handed to a person who was so unfamiliar with the sea that during the earlier period of the cruise he probably would not be able to administer much to the comfort of the people on board.
  LORD HENEAGEsaid he understood that the noble Lord had consented to leave out the words "seafaring man" if his alternative suggestion was accepted. He thought that was part of the bargain.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WOLVERTON: I beg to give notice that I shall move to include, at a subsequent stage, the words that I read to the House, viz., "shall be able to prove six months service at sea in any capacity."
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid his next Amendment was to the same sub-section, and was to add after the word "cook" the words "or cook and steward."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 18, after the word 'cook,' to insert the words 'or cook and steward.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: This is a very useful suggestion, and I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MUSKERRYsaid that, as the Bill stood at present, though a certificate was granted to the cook the Board of Trade possessed no power of taking that certificate away if the cook proved incompetent or misbehaved himself. He thought it was desirable, if the Bill was to work successfully, that this provision should be inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 21, after '1894,' to insert as new sub-sections:
  '(4) Should a charge of negligence, misconduct, or incompetency against a ship's cook be made in writing by the master of the ship to a superintendent of a mercantile marine office, this charge shall forthwith be inquired into by the superintendent.
  '(5) Should the superintendent, after referring to the official log of the ship and hearing the evidence of competent witnesses from amongst the ship's crew, consider the charge substantiated, he shall submit the matter to the Board of Trade, who are thereupon empowered to cancel or suspend the certificate of the said cook for so long a period as may be deemed requisite.'"—(Lord Musketry.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: I have failed to persuade the Board of Trade that there is any necessity for the two sub-sections which my noble friend has moved. There is no difficulty whatever, because at the present moment the master of a ship has complete power over the crew, and would, I presume, have equal power over the cook. Again, there is no necessity for revising the existing law, which the Board of Trade maintain is sufficient. The master at the present moment has very large powers.
  LORD MUSKERRYsaid the shipmaster ought to have very large powers, and if he was properly supported by the Board of Trade he would have them, but, as a matter of fact, he was not supported and was consequently not able to exercise them.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved, in the sub-section providing a fine for offenders, that after the words "if the requirements of this section are not complied with in the case of any ship, the master or owner of the ship shall, if those requirements have not been dispensed with under this section," there should be inserted the words, "and there is no sufficient reason for the failure to comply with the requirements." The Amendment was so reasonable that he had no doubt it would be agreed to. It was a security to the shipowner.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 28, after the word 'section,' to insert the words 'and there is no sufficient reason for the failure to comply with the requirements.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: I am happy to be able, on behalf of the Board of Trade, to accept that Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSexplained that this clause provided that rules made by the Board of Trade under Section 206 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which related to the inspection of provisions and water, in the case of certain ships might extend the application of all or any of the provisions of that section to any foreign-going British ships the duration of whose voyage, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, was likely to exceed twenty-one days. He begged to move the substitution of "thirty days" for "twenty-one days." The shipping interest would greatly prefer that, and it would take in a great many more men who found their own food and cooked it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 7, to leave out the word 'twenty-one,' and to insert the word 'thirty.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: I am prepared to accept this Amendment and also the Amendment to Clause 4 standing in the name of the noble Earl.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid the wording of his next Amendment was chiefly based on that of Clauses 298 and 299 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, which referred to the provisioning of emigrants. Hitherto a scale of provisions, wrongly called the Board of Trade scale, had generally been inserted in the articles signed by the seamen. This scale was sometimes called the "pound and pint" scale. He looked upon it as a barbarous and mediaeval scale, more suited to the 16th than to the 20th century. He called it barbarous because he thought that a ration which contained no substitutes for vegetables deserved that name, and was quite out of date. The scale was also deficient in water. He had himself often been on a gallon a day, and had found it too little when in the tropics. Much of it was deducted for cooking and did not directly reach the seaman. Under the so-called, or false, Board of Trade scale the seaman only received three-quarters of a gallon. With the exception of tea, coffee, and half a pound of rice, which was issued once a week, this old scale looked as if it might have been drawn up in the time of Henry VIII. It appeared, however, to have reached its present form in 1844. Their Lordships were well aware of the improvements that had been made in packing and preserving provisions during the last sixty years, yet the merchant seaman, who wanted them most, derived no benefit from them when on this scale. In most vessels, however, he was glad to say that a much better ration was actually issued. The scale he referred to was chiefly used as a punishment, and was seldom given except when men complained of the provisions they received. Now it was not a crime for a seaman to complain of the food that was served out to him. In the Royal Navy there were regulations as to the proper manner of making such complaints. When substantiated they were, as far as possible, remedied. He did not think that a captain should have the power of reducing a man to three-quarters of a gallon of water and of issuing a ration unsuited to health as a punishment. He wished to prevent a captain or an owner from issuing anything worse than the real Board of Trade scale to a crew on a long voyage. There was also a third scale called the "Shipping
  954
  Federation" scale, which was meeting with some support from shipowners. One of his reasons for recommending the Board of Trade scale in preference to the Shipping Federation scale was that the strong Committee, on whose Report this Bill was based, had the Shipping Federation scale and several other scales before them when they decided on the Board of Trade scale. There was more variety in it, which was an advantage on a long voyage, when the feeding became very monotonous. He was aware that the Board of Trade had a very difficult part to play. A perpetual triangular duel was always going on between the shipowners, as represented by the Shipping Federation, the officers as represented by the Merchant Service Guild, and the seamen who were in a great measure represented by the Seamen's and Firemen's Union. These three bodies were in agreement on one point. They all attacked the Board of Trade for not taking their side. He had drawn up these Amendments without consulting any of the rival associations referred to. Since doing so, however, he had received letters from the Seamen's and Firemen's Unions of London and Cardiff supporting this Amendment. As the Cardiff letter was a short one, he would read it to their Lordships—
  "I am instructed by the committee to forward the following resolution, unanimously adopted at a mass meeting last night:—'That this meeting of seafaring men of the port of Cardiff tender to Lord Ellenborough their thanks for his kind interest and influence on behalf of seafarers, and trust that he will press his Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Bill to make the food scale compulsory.' We believe the shipowners generally will not adopt the recommendations of the Committee who inquired into the matter, voluntarily
  He hoped that the support this union was giving to his Amendment would not lead to a corresponding display of hostility from the two other bodies he had mentioned. He had purposely made the exemption clauses as wide as possible, so as not to collide with the real interests of shipowners. In many eases the interests of the captains differed from those of the men, because the owners, in order to save themselves trouble, frequently made arrangements for the captain to supply the men with provisions at so much a head. This in many cases led to the men getting just about enougn to

  955
  keep themselves alive. The difference in cost between a good ration and a bad ration was infinitesimal in comparison with the difference in wages given to seamen at various times and in different ports. He thought the Board of Trade were too timid. One of the most useful and popular things ever done was to make a ration of lime juice and sugar compulsory when on long voyages. There was certainly no demand for a repeal of the Lime Juice Act. Let the Board of Trade take courage and insist on the sham Board of Trade scale being abolished and the real scale substituted for it. No one would ever wish to go back to the "pound and pint" scale.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 8, to insert the following subsections:—

  '(1.) After the 31st of December, 1906, the master of every ship that comes under the previous clauses of this Act, shall, during the voyage, including the time of detention at any place before the termination thereof, issue to each seaman an allowance of four quarts of pure water, and sweet and wholesome provisions of good quality in accordance with the dietary scale contained in the appendix to the Report of the Mercantile Marine Committee made on the 7th of May, 1903, which shall have effect as if they were contained in this section.

  '(2.) The Board of Trade may, by notice published in the London Gazette, add to the dietary scale in the said appendix, any dietary scale which in their opinion contains in the whole the same amount of wholesome nutriment as the scale in that appendix, and any dietary scale so added, inclusive of any regulations relating thereto, shall have effect as if they were contained in the said appendix, as an alternative of the dietary scale therein contained.

  '(3.) If any requirement of this section is not complied with in the case of any ship coming under the operation of this Act, the master or owner of the ship shall, for each offence, be liable to a fine not exceeding £50.

  '(4.) The Board of Trade, if satisfied that the food provided on board the ships belonging to certain companies or owners, or on board single ships, is superior to the food required by this part of this Act, may, at anytime, exempt for twelve months, or for a less period, all ships belonging to such companies or owners, and single ships also, from any requirement of this part of this Act with respect to food in such manner and upon such conditions as the Board think fit.'"—(Lord Ellenborough.)

  LORD WOLVERTON: The noble Lord has raised a very important question and one which has the serious attention of the Board of Trade. I would point
  956
  out that shipowners already complain of the way they are handicapped by having to comply with many regulations which are not imposed on their foreign competitors. The attitude of the Board of Trade is at present towards persuasion rather than compulsion. The question is obviously of such great importance that it will be most carefully watched by the Board of Trade, and if future experience shows that any considerable proportion of shipowners persist in adhering to the old scale the matter must be reconsidered by the Board of Trade. I hope my noble friend will be satisfied with that assurance and not insist on his Amendment.
  LORD MUSKERRYsaid the Shipping Federation scale was a most excellent scale and better than the Board of Trade scale.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid he would much rather have the Shipping Federation scale made compulsory than that the "pound and pint" scale should be made compulsory. In many cases shipowners, to save trouble, contracted with the captains of vessels to supply the men at so much a head, and, therefore, for that reason, the interests of the captains were very often different from those of the seamen. As, however, there was no chance of his securing a majority in favour of his Amendment, he would withdraw it, but he hoped to see it made law in some form or other before many years had passed.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHexplained that the next Amendment standing in his name, if agreed to, would have the effect of bringing into play that part of the Bill which dealt with foreigners unable to understand English, two years sooner than was contemplated by the Bill. Foreigners who did not understand enough English to be able to go to sea without endangering their shipmates, had no

  957
  vested rights on board our merchant vessels, no established interests that need be taken into consideration. They should be eliminated as soon as possible. Surely eighteen months notice of this alteration in the law was sufficient for British shipowners and ship agents. He could see no reason why the whole of this Bill should come into operation on the same day. Its clauses were quite independent of one another. Unnecessary delay meant sacrificing the interests of seamen to an unnecessary symmetry.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 9, to leave out the words 'nineteen hundred and seven,' and to insert the words 'nineteen hundred and five.'"—(Lord Ellenborouyh.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: I am afraid I am unable to accept this Amendment. In the opinion of the Board of Trade, the period is not long enough, and the Amendment is on all fours with one which has already been before the House.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHcould not follow the reason given by the noble Lord for declining to accept the Amendment. He thought eighteen months ample notice to give that foreigners who could not understand English should not be shipped. At the same time he did not think it was any use pressing the Amendment, and he withdrew it.
  LORD MUSKERRYpointed out that the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, in their report on this Bill, had stated that it would be useful to have foreign-speaking seamen. For instance, a Russian-speaking seaman could, they said, communicate with a Russian dockmaster and a Russian pilot. Then they asked why should he also know English? But how was a foreigner to communicate with the officers of the ship if he did not know English? He (Lord Muskerry) contended that it was absolutely necessary for the proper protection of life at sea that every man on board an English vessel should speak the English language. He was very sorry the noble Lord did not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  The EARL OF WEMYSSmoved, in the section providing for the suspension of discharge in case of the seamen wilfully refusing to join, that the words "or through misconduct" should be inserted after the word "wilfully."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 19, after the word 'wilfully' to insert the words 'or through misconduct.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: I accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to, and Bill reported with Amendments to the House.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 116.)

  RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD MONKSWELLin moving the first of his Amendments to Clause 2, said he wished to point out the very serious change that the clause introduced into the conditions of service in the Army. What Clause 2 did was to take away absolutely the power that the Reservist now possessed of saying whether he would or would not consent to serve in any other arm or branch of the service than that in which he had enlisted and served with the colours. It was a very serious thing to deprive Reservists of that right, and in the present condition of recruiting it was a very unwise measure, unless it was absolutely necessary for military efficiency. Service in the various branches of the Army differed very greatly in its conditions. It differed also in pay. He did not doubt for a moment that it would be convenient to the War Office to deprive the Reservist of any voice as to what branch of the Army he was to serve in, but a good many things might be convenient for

  959
  the War Office which, under a voluntary system of enlistment, could not possibly be allowed. No doubt conscription itself would be very convenient for the War Office.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): Oh, no!
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid he was glad to hear the noble Earl deny that. He knew there were a good many people who contended that it would be convenient, and he was delighted to have got that answer from the noble Earl. If the noble Earl told him that it was absolutely necessary, in the interests of the service, that the War Office should have the power of deciding for themselves, without reference to the wishes of the Reservist, in what branch of the Army he should be placed, he would suggest that the War Office should seriously consider what was the least amount of interference with the liberty of the Reservist that they could possibly do with. Under the proposal in the Bill the War Office could do anything. They could make a Reservist in the cavalry serve in the infantry, and an infantry Reservist serve in the cavalry. The noble Earl had, on behalf of the War Office, disclaimed any such intention. If that was so, why did they take powers greater than those they intended to exercise—powers that were almost certain to be very injurious to recruiting? There were an enormous number of men who enlisted in the cavalry because they were fond of horses, and there was very little difficulty generally in getting cavalry recruits; but if cavalry recruits knew that under this new system they might be compelled, if called out as Reservists, to serve in any branch that the War Office might think proper, they would think twice before, enlisting. There were, on the other hand, many who enlisted as foot soldiers who would not enlist in a mounted branch. The noble Earl had said that the great object of the War Office was to prevent delay. If that was their object, it appeared to him, having regard to Clause 1, that they were straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, because in Clause 1
  960
  it was suggested that Reservists might be entitled to reside in Australia.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Australia is especially exempted. The self-governing Colonies mentioned in the Bill are exempted from the operation of Clause 1.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid that was so as regarded direct enlistment into the Reserve. But under Clause 1 regulations might be made which permitted a Reservist to live in Australia.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I mistook the noble Lord's point. I beg his pardon.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid that obviously it took much less time to get a man's consent in England than to bring him back from Australia. What he asked was that the War Office should not put any conditions that were not absolutely necessary in the way of recruiting, and that they should only ask for the powers they intended to exercise.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 8, after the word 'repealed' to insert the words 'provided that no cavalry Reservist shall, without his consent, be appointed or transferred to any unmounted branch of the service except the Remount Department, and that no Reservist in any unmounted branch of the service shall, without his consent, be appointed or transferred to any mounted branch of the service.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that as the law at present stood the War Office could, if they liked, "attach" a cavalry Reservist to an infantry battation. They did not do it more than they could help, and it was obvious that it was a very objectionable thing to have to do, though it was done on several occasions during the late war. As regarded the Amendment, he could assure the noble Lord that it was not a new proposal. Indeed, the Amendment the noble Lord had put down was drafted in the War Office and proposed to be inserted in the Bill some six or eight months ago, and was only cut out because they found it would be absolutely unworkable in practice. In theory he confessed he thought it excellent, but in

  961
  practice it would be unworkable for this reason, that they could not define what was a mounted and what was an unmounted branch. The difficulty occurred, for instance, in the Royal Field Artillery, the Army Service Corps, the Army Veterinary Department, and in other branches where some of the men were mounted and some unmounted; and if the Amendment were adopted it would lead to endless confusion. Again, it might even be held, if the Amendment was incorporated in the Bill, that it would be illegal to use an infantry Reservist in a mounted infantry unit, which, of course, was very far from the object his noble friend had in view. He had a number of other examples, all of which went to show that, excellent as was the intention of the noble Lord, the Amendment would be unworkable. The prime object in re-employment of a cavalry Reservist was to use him as a cavalryman, but cavalry Reservists were only human. On joining the Reserve they very often put on flesh, and when they came back on mobilisation were too fat to ride, and it was necessary to use them for some unmounted work. The military authorities could, of course, primarily use them in the Remount Department, but there were other departments, such as the Veterinary Department, in which they would be very useful; but he was afraid that if the Amendment was accepted the services of the fat cavalry Reservist would be lost to the nation. What was aimed at in this Bill was to give more elasticity. If a man was fitted to serve in any particular branch he did not think any harm would be done by asking him to serve in that branch. As regarded the point referred to of different branches getting different pay, he was informed that provision could be made in the pay warrant that no man should suffer pecuniarily, if, for national interests, he should be used in a different regiment. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid he would not press the Amendment after what the noble Earl had said. He thought, however, that Clause 2 would have such a disastrous effect on recruiting that if he
  962
  could get any support he would divide the House against it.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD MONKSWELLmoved to omit the words "without his consent." He contended that a man who was now enlisted should not have his status in any way interfered with. He had enlisted under certain terms, and it was clearly unjust that those terms should be altered. The effect of retaining these words would be that while a man was serving with the colours pressure would be brought to get him to consent to be transferred.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 9, to leave out the words 'without his consent.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdid not quite see the practical use of the Amendment. If they deleted the words "without his consent," it was still open to him to give his consent, and he would be no better off in the event of pressure being brought upon him. He did not think it was necessary to assume that pressure would be brought. After all, they were not legislating for the present but for the future, and he did not think that commanding officers, with a view to some future eventuality, were going to join in a great plot to try and obtain this consent from men when they were joining the Reserve.
  LORD HENEAGEthought the discussion had taken place on a wrong issue. The real question was not whether an infantryman should be compelled to serve in a cavalry regiment, or vice versa, but whether any man who had enlisted in the Army and afterwards gone into the Reserve should be compelled to serve in any other arm or branch of the service than that in which he originally enlisted. As the law now stood, no man without his consent could be compelled, on rejoining the standard, to serve in any other branch than that in which he served originally. The Amendment which had just been withdrawn would not have met the case, because even if it had been inserted in the Bill, an artilleryman might still be called upon to serve as a cavalryman or infantryman, and an engineer might be called upon to serve in any other

  963
  branch of the service. He thought it was distinctly unfair that men who had joined a scientific corps should be transferred to any other branch, the pay of which was less and the drill of which they probably did not know. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary had said, fairly enough, that nobody would wish to put a man into a regiment in which he did not wish to serve. But let them remember what took place only three or four years ago in the excitement of mobilisation. Chief officers of districts did not know who the men were, and in the hurry men might be put into branches of the service which it would be extremely unfair to place them in. He objected to the clause altogether. He believed it was an unfair and mischievous alteration of the law, and one which would do a great deal to injure recruiting and to render the service extremely unpopular. At the present moment there was difficulty in getting recruits, and he did not want to see a clause pass which would make recruiting worse and which was unfair to the old soldier.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord's observations were, I understand, directed to showing that the whole clause was bad, and he would like it expunged from the Bill. But I thought the point we were discussing was the particular Amendment moved by Lord Monkswell, to strike out the words "without his consent" from the penultimate line of the clause. The presence of the words in that part of the clause seems to me to be harmless and easily accounted for. We are making a change in the law, a change which is desirable in order to give the War Office an amount of freedom in posting these Reservists which they do not at present possess, and it is very properly provided that this change shall not apply to men who are how serving. That seems to me to be a necessary exception, and the exception to that again is that in cases where men now serving give their consent to transfer of the sort contemplated by the clause, the transfer may take place. That seems to be a common-sense and business-like arrangement.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid his point was that if the words "without his consent" were left in, the military authori-
  964
  ties would be able to ask a soldier whether he would or would not contract himself out of the power he possessed. He wanted to prevent that.
  THF MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Where does the noble Lord find words suggestive of the idea that while a man is serving, and before the time comes for him to go to the Reserve, the military authorities are to be in a position to coerce him into contracting himself out of his right? That seems to me to be a far-fetched interpretation.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that the time at which men would be asked for their consent would be when they were called up for mobilisation.
  LORD MONKSWELLthought it would be better to leave the law exactly as it was rather than introduce words which might be a source of difficulty.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONagreed with his noble friend Lord Monkswell on this point. It seemed to him very important not to make any change in regard to the term of service of men who had actually entered the Army. Even the insertion of the words "without his consent" did make a change in the terms under which the men were at present serving, and he suggested to the Government that it would be safer not to change the existing law.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Perhaps noble Lords opposite will allow us to consider the matter between now and the time when the Bill comes up again. There may be an inwardness about the words which we do not quite understand.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD MONKSWELLthen moved to leave out the words "belonging to the Army Reserve" and to insert "enlisted." He believed the noble Earl the Under-Secretary was prepared to accept that Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words 'belonging to the Army Reserve' and to insert the word 'enlisted.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwas mot prepared to accept the Amendment. He said it was the old, old story that the War Office were not to be allowed to do anything for a number of years. It was simply putting off the time. He would much prefer that the clause should remain as it was.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid it appeared to him to be a gross breach of faith to tell a man who had served a few years with the colours that he would be transferred to the Reserve under totally different conditions from those which he understood when he enlisted. He would certainly divide the House if the noble Earl did not accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would consider the point if the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD MONKSWELLwithdrew the Amendment, on the understanding that the matter would be considered.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD HENEAGEmoved to delete Clause 2. He did so for the reasons he had already given.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to leave out Clause 2."—(Lord Heneage.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the War Office could already do everything that they were now asking power to do. They could do it by "attaching" men, and they did it repeatedly during the war. He thought it better, however, that a thing of this sort, which was obviously in the interests of the public, should be allowed to be done legally rather than by a legal fiction.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Bill reported, without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  RE-VACCINATION BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to leave out the Preamble of the Bill, which he explained had got in by mistake.
  Moved, "To leave out the Preamble."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  On Question, Preamble omitted.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 117.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I should like to ask the noble Marquess what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill. I am not opposed to the Bill personally. We understood that it was to be allowed to be read a second time, but was to go no further. It has now passed through Committee. I do not object, but it seems to me to be inconsistent with the statement made by the Foreign Secretary when the Bill was read a second time, and I should like, therefore, to have some information as to what is the intention of the Government with regard to the future course of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My statement the other evening had no reference to the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I expressed the opinion, to which I adhere, that the Bill stands no chance whatever of becoming law during the present session of Parliament. That was what I ventured to indicate.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I certainly understood what has just been stated by the noble Marquess, that this Bill could not become law this session; but I did not understand that I was not to proceed with any further stage in this House.

  THE MILITIA AND VOLUNTEERS.
  LORD NEWTON, who had given notice "To call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Militia and

  967
  Volunteers," said: Since arriving in the House I have received an intimation from the Duke of Norfolk that he is unable to be present. As it seems to me most desirable that the noble Duke should be present to defend his Report in person, I have put down my Motion for Monday, as I understand that will better suit the convenience of the House. There are a number of noble Lords who desire to speak on it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not know that we can accept the doctrine that attention is never to be drawn to a Report of a Committee or Commission unless the Chairman of that Committee or Commission is present to defend it. That strikes me as rather an unusual view. But, of course, if the noble Lord desires to put off his Motion, that is another thing.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] NAVAL AND MILITARY MEDALS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.