Lords Sitting of 28 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 leave been complied with:—Hamilton Gas Order Confirmation [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
De Trafford Estate Bill [H.L.]; London e County Council (Money) Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Thurles Urban District Council Water Bill. Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
Swindon Corporation Bill; Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 16th. day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to. Bills read 2a accordingly and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [H.L.]; Scarisbrick Estate (Amendment Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Tramways (Ex-g tensions) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill; Brymbo Water Bill; Great Central and Midland Joint Railways Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Birkdale Improvement Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway(Extension of Time) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
Bexhill Water and Gas Bill; Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (NO 124). A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.). And
Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (NO. 125). A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Greenock Corporation. 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.
Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Commons Regulation (Merrow) Provisional Order Bill; Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

PETITION.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 418. Bermuda (Report for 1903).
  TRADE REPORTS: I. ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3198. Germany (Prussian Estimates).

  II. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No.614. Live stock in Mexico.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Return of all loans raised in India chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended the 31st March, 1904, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  OPEN SPACES BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with a further Amendment. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 126.)
  RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 127).

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not know that it is necessary for me
  1368
  to detain your Lordships at any great length. It is quite obvious that it would be too much to expect that the Bill should become law during the present session and, therefore, I shall content myself with ascertaining the feeling of the House this afternoon, and shall probably not proceed further with it if your Lordships allow it to go to a Second Reading on this occasion. It has already received approval in another place, where it was carried by a majority of something like 130 or 140. I may say, in order to commend the Bill to noble Lords on the other side of the House, that it is in some respects a reactionary Bill. In days gone by women were able to sit on the vestries and were allowed to be elected members of the school boards, but it is, now impossible for women to be members of the Metropolitan borough councils which succeeded the vestries, or to be members of county councils which have practically taken the place of the old school boards. I am anxious that women should be allowed to resume on the Metropolitan local authorities and on the county councils which have taken over the duties of the school boards the work which they previously performed.
  The past few years have seen considerable changes in regard to the general idea of the position of women. I believe public opinion is willing to put a higher value upon the work of women than ten or twenty years ago. That is due to the classic example of Her late Majesty, Queen Victoria, who showed that it was possible to combine the qualities required even for the highest statesmanship with true womanliness. There are countless examples of women who have served the State well in various positions of trust and dignity in different parts of the country. There is still another direction in which I think we may conclude that public opinion is now willing and ready to give more authority to women than they have had in the past. I refer to the movement, which has considerable support, to give women votes in the Church councils when the time comes for the Church to resume her powers of self-government.
  With regard to the position of women, I think I may fairly refer to the fact that over 1,000 women occupy the position of

  1369
  guardians of the poor, in which capacity they have without doubt rendered very valuable service to the community, and not only have they filled official positions such as guardians of the poor, but they have also performed useful work in connection with such bodies as the Charity Organisation Society, and in many other directions. I would refer noble Lords to the opinion of the late Lord Salisbury, who was, I think, strongly in favour of women being allowed to occupy the position to which this Bill would enable them to be elected. But there is one other argument which I think should appeal to all noble Lords who are interested in local government throughout this country. As time goes on the Legislature is putting more and more work upon county councils, and these councils find it increasingly difficult to perform those duties. In many parts of the country county councils are composed of squires and men of business who can only spare for the work of the county one day in the week. They try, therefore, to combine with their private business the affairs of the county, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do it, and I think before very long we shall find that the county councils have practically fallen into the habit of allowing their permanent officials to rule the county because the members are unable themselves to give that time to the administration of affairs which ought properly to be given. The time, I think, has come when we shall have to tap a new class in order to perform this service.
  I may perhaps refer to a case which recently attracted a great deal of attention in this country—that of Colney Hatch Asylum. I would remind your Lordships of the fire which broke out in the women's wing there, and also of the scandals which took place with reference to the stores. It was proved that tons of sugar had been poured down the drains. The proper quantity of sugar to be consumed in a large establishment like that of Colney Hatch is a matter on which women are surely able to advise, and their advice is also valuable in regard to the security of women inmates in asylums. There are two special directions in which I venture to think women should be given positions of trust. The first one is in the matter of education. It is obvious to your Lordships that, even supposing
  1370
  there were an equal number of boys and girls in the elementary schools in this country, the number of women teachers is very much in excess of the number of male teachers. Surely, therefore, we ought to put women at any rate in an equal position of authority with regard to women teachers. Those who are acquainted with the way the Education Act is being worked in the country know that county councils are not able always to resist the temptation to overthrow the advice of the Education Committees, and as there are no women on the county councils the advice of women is sometimes ignored by those councils. I venture to think that the one or two women who are occasionally put on by some county councils are not enough by themselves to affect the administration of the Act. I think that women ought to be given a much larger share of representation than they now enjoy, or that it is possible to give them at the present moment on the Education Committees.
  I will venture to state to your Lordships a few of the functions of county councils which women are especially qualified to attend to. There is the supervision of lunatic asylums. In the asylums of this country there are something like 8,000 women, yet there is not one single woman in any position of authority over the management of those asylums. That seems to me to be a position in which women would be well qualified to advise the county councils, and to assume an equal amount of responsibility. Then there are the industrial schools, in which there are a large number of girls. At the present moment, too, the Inebriate Homes for Women are entirely managed by county councils, which consist solely of men. That, surely, is another direction in which women would be well qualified to undertake responsibility. The supervision of midwives is another function which has been put on county councils without any assistance from the women of the county, while county councils have also to pass by-laws regulating street trading and the hours of work affecting a large number of girls.
  Turning to the work of the Metropolitan borough councils, those bodies have to administrate the Public Health Act, the Factory Act, and the Workshops Act, which includes the inspection of

  1371
  rooms in factories and laundries, and the supervision of sleeping accommodation in business houses, in connection with which women might perhaps be able to alleviate the lot of many of the unhappy I girls in the business establishments of I this city. Again, if the Metropolitan borough councils had women serving upon them, the number of deaths in the I baby farms in the Metropolis would, I believe, be considerably diminished. I believe this is an instance of the way in which the Legislature has committed women's work to men to undertake. Parliament has from time to time passed laws giving the Metropolitan borough councils and the county councils, composed only of men, work which women would be much better able to do, and I venture, in conclusion, to say that those who, like myself, have had an opportunity of seeing how well women can perform work which is entrusted to them, would be very glad indeed to welcome the co-operation of women in the other directions which would be possible under this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be" now read 2a"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, before I say -anything on the subject of the Bill, I should like to call the noble Lord's attention to the Memorandum which accompanies it, and which seems to show a total misapprehension of the object of a Memorandum. There is a Standing Order in the other House which, I think, might very appropriately be adopted by your Lordships, under which an instruction is given to the clerks at the Table to strike out any passages of a controversial nature. The object of a Memorandum to a Bill is for the purpose of explaining what the Bill is, and it is sometimes convenient that its object should be so explained. But this Memorandum, although in shorter form, and, therefore, not open to the observation I had to make the other day with regard to another Memorandum attached to a Bill, is really a Second Reading speech.
  With regard to the Bill itself, I confess I am very familiar with the observations the noble Lord has made. We had them put before us at considerable length five
  1372
  years ago, and not a single new observation has been made. I confess I think it would have been more appropriate when you were forming these new municipal councils, that the matter should have been brought forward, and I think it is rather strong, after the decision of your Lordships to which I have referred, that this one single alteration of a very important Bill, agreed to by a large majority, should be raised again. Nothing has occurred during those five years that I am aware of to justify raising the question again. This is an appeal against a five years old decision on no new facts. I think the noble Earl has rather confused the administrative work of women in various capacities in life with placing them in positions of authority as county councillors and borough councillors. This is only one part of that agitation which has been going on for some time to place women in exactly the same position as men. In saying what I have said in opposition to the Bill, I may inform your Lordships that I am not speaking on the authority of His Majesty's Government. I am simply stating my own view. On the occasion I refer to the late Marquess of Salisbury moved the adoption of a course of this sort, and it was my painful duty, for, as I then explained, the first time in my life, to vote against him. On that occasion your Lordships rejected the proposals contained in this Bill by a majority of 114, and, as no new facts have been put forward by the noble Earl, I do not propose to argue the question again. I hope your Lordships will reject the Bill.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack has somewhat misrepresented the intention of the Memorandum. As far as I am able to read the Memorandum and to understand it, it is a simple statement of the object of the Bill. It does not enter into any controversy whatever. It states the object of the Bill and the particular subjects to which women, if elected, may be able to turn their attention; and in my view you can hardly state a controverted subject with less controversy than it is stated in this particular Memorandum, Therefore, whilst I heartily concur with what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack said about another Memorandum which is

  1373
  still fresh in our minds, I do not think this Memorandum at all comes in the same category; and I regret that the noble and learned Earl thought it necessary to stigmatise it in the way he did. The noble Earl also said that he did not see why this question was not raised when the new borough councils were constituted. My Lords, it was raised in both Houses of Parliament at the time. Another point I think worth considering, and a reason also for raising the question again, is that recently you have given to these various local bodies new powers and new duties, and, in many cases, the particular work is exactly the sort of work which women may very rightly, properly, and usefully turn their attention to.
  I think it is agreed by those who object to women's suffrage that the work which has been done by women in recent years on all sorts of local representative bodies has been extremely useful, and has tended to the advantage of the locality and the country. I can speak on this Bill without my withers being wrung at all, because I frankly confess that I am against women's suffrage for Parliamentary purposes, but my Lords, this is an entirely different matter. The question of suffrage is raised in a totally different manner by this Bill. How does the case stand? For these very bodies on which it is proposed to give women seats by this Bill women already have a vote. I do take up this position very strongly, that when you give to certain people, whatever their sex may be, the right, the duty, and the power to vote for representatives on a public body, I hold that those persons should also be given the right to sit upon those authorities; and it is on the very grounds of past legislation that I urge the necessity and the desirability of your Lordships giving assent to this Bill. I do not think I need elaborate any arguments on the subject. It has been argued again and again, and I thoroughly believe that in the minds of nine-tenths of the people of this country, without respect to Party, it is the firm conviction that on these local bodies women can do very useful work and they ought to be given the power to sit upon them.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has
  1374
  expressed a very strong opinion that whenever a person has a right to vote he should also have a right to sit upon the body for which a vote is given. But let me ask the noble Lord how he reconciles that statement with the state of the law with respect to the clergy of the Established Church? They all have the right to vote in Parliamentary elections, but Parliament has constantly refused permission to them to sit in the House of Commons, for which they exercise the franchise. Again I differ from the noble Lord. He supported the Bill, and yet expressed himself as opposed to granting female suffrage. I take the opposite view. Ever since Mr. John Stuart Mill introduced the first Female Suffrage Bill in the House of Commons I have supported that movement. I shall continue to support it, and I look upon this Bill merely as a comparatively small but useful measure in that direction, and I shall, therefore, give it my support.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I am sure every one of your Lordships will have heard with great pleasure my noble friend the Duke of Rutland express his opinion upon the principle involved in this Bill. To me that pleasure is very great, for I recall to my recollection that it is now more than thirty years ago that the noble Duke and I were in another place ranged on different sides in relation to this great question of female suffrage. My opposition to this Bill is to a great extent founded upon the statement that my noble friend the Duke of Rutland has just made. He admits that he supports the Bill because it is a step in the direction of female suffrage. We do not object to women dealing with subjects with which they are familiar, and in which they can be usefully engaged. The opposition proceeds from the fear that this tendency to bring them into Party political life, inter the struggles of political life, will be most injurious, not only to the State as a whole, but to domestic life generally. The noble Duke has said that he supports this Bill, not so much because it is a meritorious Bill in itself, but because it will eventually lead to equality of women in Party political life with men. It is on that ground that I oppose

  1375
  it, and I appeal to your Lordships to reject it.
  This is a question of progress. Step by step those who support female suffrage gain their object, not by one action alone, but by several. I well recollect when women were given votes for municipal bodies. Some of us said at the time that if they were granted a vote for municipalities they would then ask for the Parliamentary franchise, but that was denied. The moment, however that a vote for municipal elections was given to women, it was used as a basis for argument in favour of its extension. It was argued, "How can you, logically, having given women a vote for municipal elections, refuse to give them a vote for Parliamentary elections?—and if now we grant this measure two steps will have been taken. It will be said at once, "If you allow women to sit upon county councils, how can you refuse them the Parliamentary vote? "And if they get the Parliamentary vote we shall have the demand that women shall be allowed to sit in the House of Commons. The difference between my noble friend opposite and myself is clear. He wishes to see women sitting in the House of Commons—
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No, I do not.
  "LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I beg my noble friend's pardon; I misunderstood him. But my noble friend must admit that the precedent of allowing women to be elected to the county councils and the borough councils will be strong argument in favour of allowing them to be elected to Parliament. May I remind your Lordships that when the application of the principle contained in this Bill to the borough councils of London was before the House in 1899, it had the value of the support of the late Prime Minister, who placed the argument in favour of the Bill in the strongest possible way, and gave to it the full weight of his great authority. There was one argument in favour of the application of this principle to the London borough councils which does not exist in relation to the other bodies in the Bill. The borough councils were in one sense the successors of the Metropolitan vestries on which women could sit and Lord
  1376
  Salisbury urged that as Parliament had virtually changed the vestries into borough councils, women should not be deprived of their right to sit upon them. It was pointed out, however, that there were other duties given to the borough I councils besides those which the vestries had fulfilled, and that we could not, there-I fore, allow women to sit on the new I bodies. The result of the debate was that by a large majority—186 voted for and sixty-eight against—your Lordships threw out the clause.
  What has happened since then to justify the noble Earl in asking us to reverse that decision? The only important new duty that has been thrown upon these councils is the administration of education, and that has been met by Mr. Balfour giving, by virtue of the words "of either sex, "power to elect women on the Education Committees. I believe more women will be elected by co-option on the part of the county councils than have ever been elected to the school boards. There are duties which county councils have to perform which women are eminently disqualified for. County councils have to deal with such matters as roads and bridges, and work of which women have had no experience whatever. It may be said that some of the male members have had but little experience of this work, but women as a class have had absolutely no experience of it at all. We heard from the Bishop of Rochester on a previous occasion of the great work that women can do. I admit that, but they must perform those duties in their proper sphere.
  The first duty of every woman is in her home, and it is much better that she should be performing her duty there than sitting on a county council, and eventually becoming a Parliamentary elector. If this Bill were to pass we should throw a very onerous task upon our fellow-men. For the first time, I think, we should be asking women to enter into contests of a directly Party kind. In municipal boroughs these elections are fought on Party tickets and by Party organisations, and the same thing applies in many cases to the county councils. The elections are of a purely political character and you propose to invite women to become candidates, selected by Party cause enter these contests. I

  1377
  have heard it argued that men are inferior animals for political purposes to women. What will be the position of an unfortunate citizen who, anxious to do his duty, becomes a candidate for a seat on one of these bodies and is told that there is an attractive young lady, who takes great care of her toilet and being a good speaker, who has signified her intention of addressing meetings in opposition to his candidature? I am afraid there will be many men who will refuse to enter a contest in those circumstances. This is a proposal to introduce a new system into our political warfare, and a system from which no good can result. Whilst I fully admit that in the direction of education and of promoting the interests of women and children there can be no more beneficent action than that of women yet I contend that women ought to be prevented from entering into Party struggles connected with the election of public bodies.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, it had not been my intention to take part in this discussion, but I feel it due to the noble Earl on the Woolsack to explain why it is that I find myself in opposition to him and in agreement with the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. Allusion has been made to "the division which took place in your Lordships' House some five years ago, when the late Prime Minister voted with the minority. As I was one of those who voted and spoke in support of the proposal, I think it perhaps not altogether? out of place if I remind your Lordships why I took that line then and why I shall vote for the Bill now before the House. I had been Chairman of the London School Board for two years, and had realised the great and important work which women could do on behalf of education. There are many functions which can be discharged better by women than by men, and my experience at the Board of Education, now for two years, has convinced me more strongly if possible that that is the case. Whenever opportunity has occurred we have at the Board of Education encouraged the appointment of women on the Education Committees,
  1378
  and so far as I can gather their experience has been of inestimable value to those committees, in exactly the same way as it was to the school boards.
  The noble and learned Lord behind me (Lord James) said he did not see why women should be concerned with matters of local government. I quite agree that the opinions of women on many questions such as roads and other matters referred to are not of any great value; but, on the other hand, their opinion on many questions is better than that of men. While I am perfectly willing and anxious to see positions of trust given to women, I am entirely opposed to the Parliamentary franchise being extended to them. If the Parliamentary franchise were extended to women, I do not see why they should not eventually become Members of Parliament; and if they enter the House of Commons, there is no reason why a lady should not work her way up to the position occupied by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. I see a considerable difference between the proposal contained in this Bill and the giving to women of the Parliamentary franchise, and after my experience of the important part women can play in administrative work of the kind in question, I shall certainly record my vote in favour of the Bill.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess who has just spoken, that the argument in favour of this Bill is a practical argument. With regard to the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord James, I may observe at the outset that I am not at all a supporter of women's suffrage, and I do not agree in thinking either with the noble Duke or with the noble and learned Lord that this Bill ought to be treated as a step or a move in that campaign. I am quite aware how great is the force of the argument of the thin end of the wedge or of the slippery slope; but that is an argument which, like most arguments, requires criticism and control. It must at least be checked against other considerations. What are those other considerations in a case like this? I venture to think that the real dividing line of principles between the cases is this. Women, so far as my experience of them goes, are not good hands at the business of legislation; they are not good hands at treating

  1379
  things in the general, but they are particularly good hands at dealing with things in detail, what we ordinarily call administration; and the Memorandum does very effectively draw the attention of the House to the kind of matters in connection with which the work of women is of great value.
  The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack asks why this matter is brought up again so soon. He said it was discussed five years ago. The noble and learned Earl might have strengthened his argument, for there was a Bill similar to the present one only three years ago, when we had before us a measure affecting the borough councils of London. In the division in 1901, the majority referred to by Lord James had fallen considerably, there voting with the majority 88 and with the minority 46. I refer to the Bill introduced by Lord Aberdeen for enabling women to sit on the London borough councils. The noble and learned Earl asks, Why is the House troubled with this subject again after such a short interval? I think the reason is clear. It is the pressure of real and felt practical necessity. We know the loss on administrative bodies of the services of women, and we desire to put an end to that loss. We have every year confirmatory evidence of the loss which has been incurred through women not being allowed to sit on these bodies.
  I do think, therefore, that we might, without the great danger of leading on to worse results in the future, allow the provisions of this Bill to become law. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to refer to a speech I made on this matter three years ago. Speaking from an experience gained in my own diocese in South London. I did venture to point out that it is not at all easy, in many of the boroughs where they are most needed, to get workers, educated, public-spirited, and sufficiently leisured, to undertake public duties of this kind, and, therefore, when you find that there are a large number of women who can be spared from their homes for this purpose—they may be women who are not themselves mistresses or heads of homes—and who have rendered invaluable assistance on boards of guardians, to which they have been returned at contested elections, I hold
  1380
  that there is a very strong practical case for using that service on the new borough councils.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I rise only to explain the reason why I cannot vote with the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I must say at the outset, to be quite frank, that I shall vote against it first and foremost because I am a thorough Philistine, in the sense that I have no sympathy with political women. A woman's politics should be the politico of her husband. I cannot help feeling; that, whatever may be said by noble Lords in respect of this Bill, those who are going to vote for it are supporting; it really with the view of promoting the-cause of women's suffrage. I was very much impressed by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord James said. These authorities have already become largely influenced by political considerations. County councils and borough councils are, many of them, worked entirely on political lines, and I cannot see myself how, if you allow women to act on councils of this kind, you can keep them apart from the strife and complications of Party politics. That in itself is to my mind very objectionable. I do think that to an uninstructed person the Memorandum attached to the Bill is somewhat misleading as regards its object, and I rather think the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, gave colour to that when he spoke as if the Bill applied only to London.
  The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY: I was speaking generally.
  The EARL of PORTSMOUTH: The noble Marquess said that, speaking from his great experience on the London School Board, and also as Minister for Education, he knew the value of women in regard to work of this kind. I entirely endorse-that view; but if you put women on county councils, particularly in the country, the duties they would have to perform are not the duties stated by the noble Lord. My point is that this Memorandum is most ingeniously drafted, because it seems to imply that these social questions are the only questions which would be dealt with by the councils upon which it is proposed to place women. I differ

  1381
  from the noble Marquess. I think women, as regards business, may be quite as capable as men. I do not think it is a question of capacity; it is a question of sex. The right rev. Prelate argued as if women, in existing circumstances, could not take any part in public administration; and the noble Earl who has charge of this Bill said, speaking on the question of female lunatics, that women were not able to take any part in advising in that matter. I happen to know that the Duchess of Bedford, Lady Battersea, and others, are visitors of Aylesbury Asylum and do very good work there. I do not wish to reiterate the arguments which have been already expressed, but I would urge this, that Parliament could not stop short at this stage, and that those who support this Bill I advocate a great alteration in social life, to which I am strongly opposed.
  The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to associate myself with at least one observation which fell from the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord James—I refer to his statement that a woman's first place and first duty is at home. But I do not think it follows that a woman's last duty is also at home. We are often told that charity begins at home. It does not with some people: it ends there. The fact of a woman being a good wife and mother qualifies her to use the spare time that a clever woman sometimes finds, in trying to spread those benefits which she enjoys to others less fortunately situated. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack remarked that he thought nothing had occurred since this matter was last discussed to justify its being brought forward again. I venture to submit that something has occurred which has an important bearing on the subject, namely, the Education Act. Formerly women were eligible to sit on the school boards. They are not now eligible for the county councils which have succeeded the school boards. They may be co-opted on to the Education Committee, but that is not the direct system of election rightly aimed at in this Bill. I venture to think that, if occurrences have not taken place, fresh information has certainly been adduced showing the importance of making greater use of women's services.
  1382
  Every day we are getting fresh evidence of the need and value of women's work in various directions. In certain specific matters women have not at present an opening to work officially. The Inebriate Homes for Women, I understand, are now so arranged that women have no right to be elected upon the authorities which manage them. The same thing applies as to the regulations of midwives and baby-farms; but it must be admitted that women understand these matters much better than men. Then there is the question of sympathy and accessibility. If a woman is asking advice of a member of one of these constituted authorities, it cannot be expected that in many delicate matters she will go to-a male member. Women members are exceedingly useful in cases of this kind. There is increasing testimony as to the many departments of administration in which the work of women is of incalculable benefit, and I do not think we-should be influenced to reject this Bill by the bogey of women's suffrage. I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I have no intention, on behalf of the Local Government Board, of making any remarks on this Bill, but I should like to enter my humble protest with regard to one argument used by the noble Earl in introducing the Bill. As I understood him, he said that circumstances had considerably changed in the last few years in consequence of the enormous increase of the work thrown on county councils, and that practically they found it impossible to do that work properly, with the result that a large amount of the work was undertaken by the permanent officials. I really do not think that any gentleman with large experience of county councils will confirm the noble Earl in that statement. Personally, I have experience, not only of county council work in my own county, but in neighbouring counties, and as chairman of the County Councils Association; and I must say that the work is perfectly within the grasp of the members of the county councils, and that no work is given to the officials which ought to be done by the members. It is perfectly true that the officials give great assistance to the

  1383
  councils, but I have never known an official undertake work which ought to be done by an elected member of the council.
  Even if that were the case, what is the I argument? It is that because county I councils are overworked, therefore you are to put a certain number of women on; them to relieve them of that work. I do not find in this Bill that it is suggested that the number of the members is to be increased to enable women to be elected, and therefore the whole argument must be that a woman is able to do a great deal more work than a man, and that if I a certain number of women find seats on the county councils, in the place of the men who at present sit upon them, the work will be more efficiently done. I fully concur in the remarks which have been made as to the excellent work done by women in some of the branches re-
  ferred to. We have the advantage of women sitting on almost all the Education Committees of the county councils. In addition, in my own council, we have put women on a consultative committee to deal with those very matters of; detail which the right rev. Prelate says lie so fully within the scope of women's work. I cannot see myself that, at present, a sufficient argument has been made out for changing the whole constitution of county councils in the manner proposed. I think the arguments used by Lord James are certainly conclusive up to a certain point; and the fact of; extra work having been thrown on the county councils during the last few years is no argument in favour of coming to a different decision from that at which we arrived some few years ago.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 38; Not-contents, 57.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Lytton, E.

  Davey, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.)

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Ellenborough, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Hardinge, V. [Teller.]

  Farrer, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.

  Glenesk, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Peel, V.

  Monkswell, L.

  Ripon, M.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Carrington, E. Chesterfield, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Thring, L.

  Craven,E.

  Colchester, L.

  Tweed mouth, L.

  Grey, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  NON-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Manvers, E.

  Glanusk, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Waldegrave, E.

  James, L. [Teller.]

  Marlborough, D.

  Westmeath, E. [Teller.]

  Killanin, L.

  Portland, D,

  Yarborough, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.

  Wellington, D.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cross, V.

  Lindley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Portman, V.

  Ludlow, L,

  Winchester, M.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Addington, L.

  Napier, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Aldenham, L.

  Newton, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Norton, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Robertson, I

  Egerton, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Baddington, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Belper, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Calthorpe, I.

  Suffield, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth. L.

  CHINESE LABOUR.
  LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Chinese labourer hitherto imported into South Africa has been imported under conditions which entitle such labourer to demand, under Regulation 33 of the Ordinance, or otherwise, that either his wife or his child, or children, shall at any time be imported at the expense of the importer, or at all. This question has to do with a pledge given by Mr. Lyttelton in another place that the labourers should be entitled to have their wives and children imported to South Africa at the importer's expense. In the telegram of 24th February which was received by the Colonial Secretary from Lord Milner it was stated that the regulations would provide that any coolie wishing to bring his wife and family could so, or if, on arrival in South Africa, he wished them brought over every facility would be given for their conveyance from China at the importer's expense. After that telegram had been received, and after Mr. Lyttelton had stated on 9th March that he was prepared to sanction the Ordinance on the assurance that Regulation 33 had been so altered as to impose the cost of introducing the wives and families following labourers upon the employer, Lord Milner appears to have interviewed the mine-owners, with the result that on 10th March he telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary to say that he had seen the mining people and that they were ready to bear the expense of transporting the wives and families following the labourers, provided that married labourers registered the names and addresses before leaving China. "Regulation No. 33 will, "said Lord Milner, "accordingly be altered in this way if you concur. "The Colonial Secretary did concur. The regulation was thereupon altered, and in the 33rd clause of the regulations the noble Duke will see that that proviso is inserted. We have been told by the noble Duke that the first instalment of Chinese labourers have arrived in the Transvaal without their wives or families. What I desire to ask the noble Duke is this, whether or not any of these labourers, and, if so, how slimy, have registered the names of Aires or children before signing the
  1386
  contract, because the noble Duke will thoroughly understand that, if they have not done so, they cannot in future import their wives and families. If none of them have registered, it would seem as though instructions had been given to the recruiters not to engage any man who did attempt to so register. By that simple process a very easy means might occur of evading very beneficent provisions in the regulations which were demanded by public opinion.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord need have any fear that such a course of action as he has suggested has been carried out by the recruiters in China. I see not the slightest evidence in support of his view, which was that the recruiters in China had been instructed to recruit those men only who were unmarried.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I beg the noble Duke's pardon. I did not state that. I said that if the fact was that no registration had taken place it would lend colour to that view. I have not suggested that until I know the facts.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I do not think the noble and learned Lord has any reason to suppose that registration has not taken place.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I want to know.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble and learned Lord is perfectly aware that, according to the terms of the contract, those men who are anxious to take their wives with them to South Africa have to register the names of their wives. That is stated definitely in the terms of the contract and in the regulations, as I reminded the noble and learned Lord the other day. We have received a telegram from the Governor of Hong-Kong which runs as follows—
  "The emigrants were made thoroughly aware of the provisions for taking out families and special accommodation on board was ready; but none took advantage of the privilege. It is impossible to say how many may send for their families later on, which they are encouraged to do."

  1387
  It seems to me incredible that the Governor of Hong-Kong would send such a telegram as that unless he had assured himself that all the provisions contained in this Ordinance had been thoroughly explained to the emigrants, and he particularly says that none of them took a vantage of the privilege, by which I presume he means the privilege of taking their wives with them to South Africa. There is no suggestion in that telegram that they have not registered the names of their wives, and that if they send for them at some future date they are not entitled to have them sent over. The noble and learned Lord appears to be under some misapprehension. He is under the impression that some subtle influence is at work to prevent the Chinamen from taking their wives' to South Africa. Nothing is really further from the thoughts either of the Transvaal authorities or of the authorities at Hong-Kong. There are laid down definitely in the Blue-book the terms of the Ordinance on which the Chinamen go to South Africa, and we have no reason to suppose that they have not registered the names of their wives in the event of their wishing to send for them at some subsequent date. Because the Chinamen have not taken their wives with them it is not fair to assume that no form of registration has taken place. If the noble and learned Lord is really seriously concerned upon this point, I will see that a telegram is sent to the Governor of Hong-Kong to ascertain whether any Chinamen did register the names of their wives. If I fulfil that pledge I trust we shall be able to remove those feelings of doubt which I fear at the present time fill the noble and learned Lord's mind.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Duke has stated that he hardly considered the Question put to him by my noble and learned friend quite fair. Honestly speaking, our opinion is—and I am sure the noble Duke will forgive me for stating it,—that this side of the House has hardly been fairly treated in this matter. The subject is tabooed in the other House of Parliament. No mention can be made of it there, and when the subject is raised in your Lordships' House we are met either with a plea that the thing s done and is over, or it is treated as a
  1388
  matter of indifference, or else there is a plea of ignorance. Last week it was officially stated that the death rate in the mines was seventy-one per thousand, and it was also officially stated that flogging was universal there at the present moment.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Who by?
  EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Duke-told us himself that when he was out there he invariably carried a sjambok himself.
  THE DUKE OP MARLBOROUGH: I said that when I was out in South Africa three or four years ago, during the war and just after the Boer Government had ceased to exist, most people carried a sjambok. It was the custom to do so, but I did not include myself in the number.
  EARL CARRINGTON: It has also, been officially stated in the Blue-book that the overseers and native police in the mines all carry this weapon, and that whips were applied to the backs of the natives in the mines in the presence of the members of Mr. Brownlee's Commission which was sent out to examine into the treatment of the natives. The native headmen stated that the treatment of the natives in the mines was worse than in the days of the Boers. That appears in the Blue-book. And when this horrible disease, beri-beri, broke out, what did the Government say? They said they knew nothing-about it, but would telegraph out, and then I see it stated that the Colonial Secretary did telegraph. But the telegram was not sent for twenty-four hours, and up to the present time there is no-information presented on the subject to Parliament. To-day my noble and learned friend has shown conclusively the change there has been in the policy of His Majesty's Government on the subject of the wives and families accompanying the Asiatics. On 21st March the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking in your Lordships' House, said—
  "Has the House of Lords noticed how these pledges given by the Government have been fulfilled? Regulation No. 33 of the Ordinance

  1389
  says that every labourer shall be entitled to be accompanied by his wife and children, and if the labourer chooses to leave them behind until be sees the conditions under which he has to work in South Africa, he then is entitled to require his employer to introduce them at his the employer's) expense; and, if the employer Refuses, the labourer can cancel his contract and return to China at the expense of the employer; provision is made to this effect in the contract."
  That seems to have satisfied the most rev. Primate. Now, the whole thing is changed. On 9th March, as my noble friend has told the House, the Colonial Secretary was prepared to sanction the Ordinance, and on 10th March—a fortnight before this statement was made in your Lordships' House by the First Lord of the Admiralty—Lord Milner sees the mining people, and they demand the insertion of a clause that such wives only shall be imported as are registered before the labourers leave China. On that my noble and learned friend asks this pertinent question: Have any of these men registered their wives? The noble Duke replied that he did not know, but that he would telegraph to Hong-Kong and find out. I honestly think that this is hardly the way in which to treat a question of this importance. The noble Duke may smile, but this is really a question of the greatest possible importance. If Ministers of the Crown treat public opinion on Colonial and Imperial questions in this manner, is it to be wondered at that the electors, whenever they get a chance, show a marked disinclination to support Ministerial candidates?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I really think that in this matter His Majesty's Government deserve some sympathy. We are aware that Lord Milner, with his usual felicity of language, took occasion to say that he did not care two pence about public opinion in this country, and, as we know from what recently took place in the House of Commons, he does not even deign to answer the telegrams of the Colonial Secretary. Therefore I do feel that His Majesty's Government are placed in a difficult position, because, unless Questions are constantly put to them from these Benches, they are not in a position—whether assumed or not, I cannot say—of knowing anything about
  1390
  these matters. There is no doubt that the complexion of matters has been very much changed. We were told that every facility would be afforded to these Chinamen to take their wives and families to South Africa, or to send for them after they had reached the Transvaal. Since then Lord Milner, acting under influences unknown to me, has, I must confess, considerably diminished the value of that provision. I am bound to say that I feel very much as I felt when listening to the speech of the most rev. Primate, that we are dealing with the matter in a very insincere manner and with very insincere language. After all is said and done, these men are to be employed in order to obtain cheap labour, and therefore it; is not very difficult to suppose that the gentlemen who are to hire the Chinese labourers would say that they would only engage those men who were single, because otherwise they would be put to very considerable expense. Unless it is a question of expense it would be very difficult to make any sort of justification for the introduction of Chinamen at all. I hope we shall hear some expression of opinion from the most rev. Primate to-night. To do him justice the most rev. Primate did appreciate the very serious and grave moral evil which must result from herding these people together in compounds. He spoke with considerable force. His language was forcible; I wish his conduct had been forcible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but we are now getting into the former debate, which is absolutely irregular.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I do not know how far it is in order for any noble Lord to speak after the noble and learned Lord who asked the Question; it is difficult to know what are the Rules of Order in your Lordships' house. I was endeavouring to put what seemed to me to be the material points, and before sitting down I would renew my appeal to the most rev. Primate to urge upon the Government the importance of this matter. I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend beside me has not exaggerated the depth of feeling which exists on this subject in the country.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I hope I may venture, by way of supplement to the Question which has been put by the noble and learned Lord opposite, to ask whether the attention of the noble Duke has been drawn to the form of contract which, I understand, has been signed by the labourers recruited in Shan-tung and elsewhere. I hold in my hand an English translation of the contract, or advertisements, as it appeared in the North China Daily News. It has been sent to me by a gentleman of repute, who says he has himself compared it with the original Chinese document, and that, if anything, the Chinese is against the interests of the labourer more than the English translation. This contract enumerates many things. It states that the labourer agrees to proceed to the Transvaal; that his engagement is for three years; that the journey takes so long; that the employer will transport the labourer free of cost, according to all the requirements of the British laws dealing with the matter; that the employer will also transport, free of charge, a reasonable quantity of clothes and such other private effects as may be necessary; that on arrival in the Transvaal the labourer will be provided with housing, food, and medical attendance, and so on; that the food will be of such a kind, and that at the expiration of the engagement the employer will transport the labourer, free of charge by land and sea, to the place where the contract was made. But there is no word in the form of contract with reference to the wives and children of the indentured labourers. Moreover, the reference to the conditions of labour is very superficial. The labourer is told that he will be engaged for three years to work on the gold mines, but there is nothing to draw his attention to the fact that he will have to work ten hours a day in the deep-level mines, that he will be kept in a compound from which he will not be allowed to stray, even on his holidays, and that he will have no opportunities of bettering his position. I feel that it is reasonable to ask the noble Duke if his attention has been drawn to this form of contract, and whether he thinks it is in accordance with what we had understood was to be the spirit of the Ordinance.
  THE DUKE OP MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, if the right rev. Prelate will put down a Question upon the point he has raised and upon which he wishes to elicit information from His Majesty's Government, I shall, of course, feel it my duty to reply to it.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I had no intention of bringing the matter up this afternoon. I did so as the question had been so prominently brought forward. I will, if the noble Duke wishes, bring the matter forward on a future occasion.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I think the right rev. Prelate will find an answer to a great many of the points he has raised in the Transvaal Labour Importation Ordinance. The terms of the contract are fully explained there, and if the right rev. Prelate will study it for a few moments a great many of the points he is not quite certain about will be cleared up. I should like to say one or two words in reply to the noble Earl opposite. I will not enter into his explanation of my speech the other night and his interpretation of my view, but I must confess that they were not altogether accurate. His view as to Mr. Brownlee's Commission is not altogether according to facts, and if the noble Earl will carefully read through the Report of that Commission he will see that the headmen under Mr. Brownlee were not unanimous in the opinion they gave. The noble Earl seemed to think that His Majesty's Government had treated lightly the views expressed by him and by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I can assure him that he is wrong in that supposition. I have always, to the best of my ability, paid great attention to the views of noble Lords opposite, and we fully recognise that it is the full right of every noble Lord in this House to offer criticisms on the action taken in this matter. But, after all, these coolies only started from China a fortnight or three weeks ago; and is it reasonable to expect His Majesty's Government, at a moment's notice, to say how many wives have been registered at the port of embarkation? As I have told the noble Earl, we are prepared to telegraph at once to ascertain the information he requires, and, in view of the position, I

  1393
  think the noble Earl's remarks on the attitude, both of myself and of the colleagues with whom I have the honour to serve, has been rather unfair and too severe.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OP CANTERBURY: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House I should like to reply to the noble Earl opposite, Lord Portsmouth. I should not have intervened to-night if he had not put a Question to me, but what the Question exactly was I did not fully grasp.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I asked this—Is the most rev. Primate satisfied with the condition of things now?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I raise a point of order? Lord Coleridge put down a notice to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies a Question in regard to Chinese labour. The most rev. Primate is not the Under-Secretary for the Colonies or a member of the Government, and I put it to your Lordships whether it is in order for any individual Peer in this House to ask another Peer for his opinion in reward to a Question put to His Majesty's Government, and to refer back to speeches made in a previous debate. Nothing can be more disorderly, and I do appeal to your Lord ships to consider whether this kind of thing will conduce to the dignity of our debates.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My only anxiety is lest it should be supposed that I have the slightest objection to answer any Question put before me in a form in which I can understand it. But a general Question as to whether the position of affairs strikes me as satisfactory seems to me to be one which I ought not to be thus suddenly and peremptorily called upon to answer. I said before, and I say again, that I personally disliked from the first the conditions which were laid down in this matter, and had I been in the Transvaal I should, in all probability, have voted against them; but I did not believe that people generally in this country, or even in this House, had sufficient information to justify us in upsetting what I believed to be the deliberate opinion of the best and wisest local authorities on the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must say that I should have interfered several times when some observations were made which appeared to me to have reference to a personal question, but, of course, I have no greater, though I have no less, a right than any Member of your Lordships House to call attention to a breach of order, and your Lordships are very indulgent in these matters. But at last I did interfere, to point out that nothing could be more irregular than to re-discuss a debate which had taken place on a previous occasion.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Of course, the authority of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack is great, but I wish to point out that, as a matter of order, he has no more right to call anybody to order than any other, even the youngest, Peer in the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; but I have the right to protest.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack has no right to call a Peer to order, he has exactly the same right as any other Peer to call attention to the Orders of the House, and that was what I understood him to do.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is all that I suggested, and I do not think that the noble Marquess can have heard what I said. I said I had no greater, but no less, a right than any other member of your Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I did not deny that the noble and learned Earl had the same right.
  The subject then dropped.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, to Thursday next half-past Ten o'clock.