Lords Sitting of 9 March 1905

The Earl of Northbrook sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Blackpool, St. Anne's, and Lytham Tramways Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. The order of Friday last referring the Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee, discharged. Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that all reference to the payment of the costs of the Bill for 1903 be omitted from
The Bill
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill ought to be dispensed with.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Heckmondwike Improvement Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that Clauses 10 and 11, and so much of the preamble as related thereto, be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of Wigan Corporation Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramway No. 2 be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Aspull Urban District Council be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the
858
Darien Gold Mining Company Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Hastings Tramways Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Clause 7 be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Corporation of Bexhill is proved before the Committee on the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramways Nos. 1 and 2 are struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Northamptonshire County Council and that of the Wellingborough Rural District Council are proved before the Committee.
Read, and agreed to.
Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield University Bill (H.L.]; London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]. Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Metropolitan Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on Friday and Tuesday last, discharged, and Bill committed.
Municipal Corporations (Merthyr Tydfil Scheme Confirmation) Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Nine Mile Point Railway Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff. Railway

859
Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]; Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [H.L.]. The meeting of the Select Committee (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Tuesday the 21st instant.
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H.L.]; Dearne Valley Railway Bill [H.L.]; Truro Water Bill [H.L,]; Torpoint Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Romilly be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth; read, and agreed to.
Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [H.L.]; East London and Lower Thames Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.]; City of London Electric Lighting Company Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [H.L.]; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]; Central Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]; County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.):—

E. Camperdown (chairman).

E. Lytton.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

L. Aberdare.

L. Estcourt.

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at Two o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

GAMBLE'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Charles George Gamble (formerly of No.
860
14, Rostrevor Terrace, Orwell Road, Rathgar, but now of Mount Jerome House, both in the county of Dublin, and of 39, Fleet Street, in the city of Dublin), solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland, with Ida Gertrude Gamble, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes. Presented (on petition), and a copy of the proceedings in, and of the decree of divorce of the King's Bench, Matrimonial Division, of the High Court of Justice in Ireland delivered (on oath). Bill read 1a.

GAMBLE'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Petition of Charles George Gamble, of Mount Jerome House, in the county of Dublin, solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland, that substituted service of a copy of the Bill and of the Order for the Second Reading thereof, and of all other Orders connected therewith be made upon John Haynes, of 11, Vernon Street, Hammersmith, solicitor, and that in the event of the said Bill not being opposed he may be permitted to read, as he may be advised, the evidence given on the hearing of this petition, and as evidence on the Second Reading of the said Bill; read. Ordered, That the said petition be considered on Monday next.
MALONE'S DIVORCE.
Petition of John Richard Malone, of Baronston, in the county of Westmeath, Deputy-Lieutenant, late colonel in the Westmeath Militia, for leave to present a Bill to dissolve his marriage with the Honourable Charlotte Mildred Malone, otherwise D'Autichan, as from the 22nd November, 1892, and to confirm his marriage with Catherine Cecil Percy, his present wife, and for other purposes; was presented, and read. Ordered, That the said petition be taken into consideration on Tuesday the 28th instant, and that notice thereof be given to the said Charlotte Mildred Malone. Leave given to the Petitioner and to the said Charlotte Mildred Malone to be heard by Counsel at the Bar upon the said Petition. Copies of the proceedings in the High Court of Justice (Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division) in England delivered (on oath).
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 629. Cotton Mills of China.
  No. 630. Technical Instruction in Germany (Supplementary and Miscellaneous).

  GERMANY (NEW GERMAN TARIFF AS MODIFIED BY TREATIES).
  Statement showing (1) the new German "General" Customs Tariff; (2) the modifications made in that Tariff by each of the new German Treaties with Russia. Switzerland, Italy, Roumania, Belgium, Austria-Hungary, and Servia; (3) the new German "Conventional" Tariff resulting from all these modifications; with comparison with the existing German rates of duty on imports from the United Kingdom.

  UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (GREAT BRITAIN) (GRANT IN AID).
  Treasury Minute of March 30th, 1904.
  First Report of the University Colleges Committee, dated December 19th, 1904.
  Treasury Minute of December 28th, 1904.
  Second and Third Reports of the Committee, dated February 23rd, 1905.
  Treasury Minute of March 8th, 1905, relating to the grant in aid of University Colleges, Great Britain.

  VACCINATION (EXPENSES).
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to inquire into the subject of vaccination expenses. Part I. Report.
  Minutes of evidence, with appendix and index to evidence. Part II.

  LOAN FUNDBOARD OF IRELAND.
  Sixty-seventh Annual Report, 1904.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade.—
  Amending the Blackpool and Garstang Light Railway Order. 1901.
  Amending the Mid-Suffolk Light Railway Order, 1900.
  Amending the North Lindsay Light Railways Order, 1900.
  Authorising the construction of a light railway in the county of Derby, from the Midland Railway Company's (Dore and Chinley) Railway at or near Hope Station to Bradwell and Castleton.
  Authorising the construction of light railways in the county of Middlesex between Hounslow and Cranford, and between Heston, Hounslow, Hanworth, Twickenham, and Sunbury Cross, being extensions of the existing and authorised undertaking of the London United Tramways (1901), Limited.

  EMIGRATION.
  Report on the Emigrants' Information Office, for the year ended December 31st, 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS ACT. 1888.
  Order of the Lord Chancellor, dated February 23rd, 1905, under Section 45 of the Act, ordering that Arthur Labron Lowe, Registrar of the county court of Warwickshire, held at Birmingham, shall not practice as a solicitor, and that Section 20 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879, shall not apply to the office of the said Arthur Labron Lowe.

  BARBADOS.
  Special Prison Rules for "Juvenile Adult" Prisoners.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM.
  Statement of the Funds, January 5th, 1905. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to regulate whale fisheries in Scotland. Was presented by the Marquess of Linlithgow; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No 21.)
  CONVOCATIONS OF THE CLERGY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to declare the law in regard to the reform of the convocations of Canterbury and York, and to make provision for joint sittings of the said convocations. Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No 22.)
  PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for granting the use of schoolrooms for public meetings. Was prosented by the Lord Burghclere; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 23.)

  A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice. Two days ago your Lordships may have noticed an announcement in the public Press with regard to a meeting of the Cabinet. Now the Question I wish to ask is one of considerable historical interest, and also, I should say, of considerable constitutional importance. In the list of those who attended the Cabinet I noticed the name of Lord Cawdor, who has lately been nominated to succeed the noble Earl Lord Selborne as First Lord of the Admiralty, though I believe the warrant has not yet been issued. I believe also that the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, is not yet a member of His Majesty's Privy Council, and there can be no question that the Cabinet must consist entirely of members of the Privy Council. It is only on special occasions when non-members are present, as, for instance, when the Commander-in-Chief, or a general, or the Attorney-General is brought in to advise the Cabinet. Without saying anything more, and without pointing out what the consequences may be if I am correct, I would ask the noble Marquess the Question of which I have given him notice, namely, whether the statement in the Press that Lord Cawdor attended a Cabinet Council on March 7th is correct, and, if so, whether before his attendance he had been sworn of the Privy Council.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, it is the case that my noble friend Lord Cawdor, although he has not yet assumed the high office for which he has been designated, and although he has not yet been sworn of the Privy Council, was present at a Cabinet meeting held on Tuesday last. The noble Earl regards this occurrence as one creating an historical incident of great importance, and as involving constitutional issues of a first-rate character. Surely, the noble Earl's experience as a Cabinet Minister must have made him aware that it is far from unusual for gentlemen, not members of the Privy Council, to be present at Cabinet meetings when their presence is desired for any particular reason. The noble Earl seemed to think that these occasional visits only took place in the case of generals, and, I think, he added Attorney-Generals.
  EARL SPENCER: And some others.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But I can assure the noble Earl that, within my own comparatively short experience as a Cabinet Minister, that category has been very considerably enlarged. Even if it be assumed, as the noble Earl is, no doubt, correct in assuming, that the Cabinet is a committee of members of the Privy Council, I cannot bring myself to believe that the presence of the noble Lord to whom this Question has reference, even if it be an irregularity, is an irregularity which deserves the importance which the noble Earl opposite attaches to it. It seems to me obvious that there were reasons of convenience for which it was very desirable that my noble friend Lord Cawdor should have an opportunity of being present during the discussion of subjects with which he is likely to have many opportunities of dealing when he has become formally installed in his position as a Cabinet Minister.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this conversation, but I beg to point out that the statement that Lord Cawdor attended the Cabinet is not a mere statement in the newspapers, which might have been an error. His name was included in the official list of members of the Cabinet

  865
  who attended on that occasion, which was issued to the Press. That, I think makes a very considerable difference. The names of those who attend the Cabinet not being members of the Cabinet are not sent to the newspapers by His Majesty's Government. The name of Lord Cawdor did appear in the official list, and my noble friend is quite right in drawing attention to what is an irregularity and inconsistent with the fundamental constitution of the Cabinet.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): The noble Marquess refers to what he calls an official list of members who attend Cabinet Councils. I am not aware that it is official. I can only say that if it is it is very often most, inaccurate. I have repeatedly observed that people's names are inserted in it who were not at the Cabinet meeting at all, and that sometimes the names of people who were there are not mentioned. With regard to the practice, I may say that I attended a good many years ago the Cabinet Councils of Lord Beaconsfield when I was Solicitor-General.

  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the Bill which I shall ask your Lordships to read a second time to-day is not one of great complexity, nor is it very long or very difficult to understand, and, I think, I can promise your Lordships that I will put the main considerations which have induced me to move in the matter within such a compass as will not unduly trespass upon your Lordships' time and attention. But if I make that preface, I should not like to minimise the importance of the subject with which this Bill deals, because, in my humble opinion, it is a matter of very considerable and growing importance, and one which, if it is to be dealt with at all, had better be dealt with before it can be alleged that large vested interests have been created.
  I start from the proposition that it is not only important, but of great public
  866
  interest, to maintain both for the country and for the town the beauty and the symmetry of our outdoor life. I think it is not less true of the town than of the country, but country communities are not so easily organised. They are not so alive to their corporate interests, and I think that some of the erections which we see throughout the country would not have been so long endured if there had been an effective means of checking them. I aim in this Bill not only at the abatement of what I suggest is in some parts of the country a serious nuisance, but at preserving both the grace and the dignity of many of the most beautiful parts of our scenery both in town and country. I suggest that the time has come when there ought to be some control of the method of advertising even as it now exists. I think it ought to be undertaken both for town and country. Many urban communities have started upon this enterprise themselves for the preservation of the amenity of their area; many more have tried to do it. As I know from my experience last year in undertaking the private Bill work of your Lordships' House, it is one of the most common features of Bills promoted by municipal corporations to endeavour to get some control over the vagaries of advertisers, both in the matter of large and unsightly hoardings and in the matter of skysigns and flashing signals at night. I venture to suggest that this is rather too important a matter to be left to the separate initiative of the many hundreds of local authorities.
  My suggestion is, and I believe that to this extent, at any rate, I shall have behind me not only the Home Office and the Local Government Board, but also the Irish Office and the Scottish Office, that if this thing is to be done at all the right way to proceed is to lay down a general law, and to give the local authorities power to administer that law within their area, always subject to the control of the various Government Departments which have to sanction the by-laws, so that while there may be a sufficient play for local feeling and local desires there shall be general control exercised by an authority which is amenable to Parliament itself. I disclaim at once any idea of harassing interference with a legitimate business.

  867
  I recognise that advertising within limits is a necessity of the circumstances in which we live. I do not think it would be possible, even if I or those for whom I am acting were enthusiastic enough to desire it, to altogether put down that which, in my opinion, is very much overdone, and which does not produce such great advantages as many people seem to suppose.
  I frankly admit that all advertisements are not bad, and that some are necessary; but what I do submit to your Lordships is that those which are objectionable, should be controlled even in the interests of the other class that are not themselves objectionable. I think there is a widespread desire for some power of control over these advertisements. I do not think any of your Lordships can have been up the river Thames in the summer or along many of our great railways, or, indeed, have walked about almost any large city or have gone to some of the most important health resorts, without seeing large placards which are in themselves extremely unsightly, and which deprive many people of a great deal of the pleasure they would otherwise obtain by looking at the scenery round them. There was the case of the cliffs at Dover, which were extensively used for advertising some preparation more or less useless. Dover has been successful in obtaining a power of control and there the nuisance has been abated. I understand that in the neighbouring town of Folkestone, though in this matter I do not speak from actual personal knowledge, they have not been so successful in abating what is felt there to be a very serious disfigurement of the cliffs around the town. I note also that the City of Edinburgh has been successful in its efforts to preserve the amenity of the city, and I believe there is also a clause which gives the neighbouring city of Glasgow control over advertisers. But what I want to suggest to your Lordships is that the right way of effecting the object which, I believe, very many persons have in view, is for Parliament to lay down once for all general principles and to allow the localities to administer them.
  Perhaps it would not be unduly wearying your Lordships if I tate the exact
  868
  circumstances of what occurred in the City of Edinburgh. It is no doubt in some respects a special case, but it is only typical of many others. I venture to think there is no city in the country which is more vulnerable to attacks of this kind than the city of Edinburgh. The Corporation have obtained complete control over the sites where any advertisements may be put. They have had it for five years, and I have not heard that any real injury has been done to the business of the city in consequence. But let me tell your Lordships of the circumstances as they occurred. About six or seven years ago, possibly eight years ago, there was beyond all question a systematicand deliberate attempt to exploit the City of Edinburgh for advertising purposes. It was attempted to be done upon a large scale. It was chiefly to be done for the benefit, of parties outside the city, and, therefore, on the part of people who had no interest whatever in the preservation of the amenity of Edinburgh, but interested only in turning it to account in so far as they could get a good advertisement for the wares which they wanted to dispose of. And apart from the fact that Edinburgh, having a large number of inhabitants, is therefore a useful place for advertising, it is a place visited by an immense number of travellers throughout great parts of the year, and it was, therefore, thought to be a particularly attractive place for this form of advertising.
  The first attempt to get protection in Edinburgh was in 1896, just after the first attack which I have mentioned began to be developed, and a Bill was promoted in that year by the Corporation of Edinburgh. This proposed restriction was struck out by the Committee of the other House of Parliament, and one of the members of the Committee—he represented an English constituency, by the way—publicly gave the reason. He said he objected to any such restrictions on the general ground that in his district these advertisements were looked upon as an ornament and were the art galleries of his constituents, besides promoting business. Of course, there are towns and towns, but it was almost the unanimous opinion of the people of Edinburgh that this was a form of art gallery which they did not desire to have imposed upon

  869
  them; nor did they think that the promotion of the business of outside persons was of sufficient importance that their city should be disfigured in its interests. The case for restriction was made even stronger by what happened in 1897, and I would venture to quote, in the words of the report of the town clerk of the City of Edinburgh to the town council, exactly what happened. In November, 1897, a company that deals in an article called Bovril acquired the option of a lease for some property which overlooked Princes Street, and the Mound, and they proposed, having acquired that property, to place upon it a number of illuminated signs. A public outcry was not unnaturally raised, and remonstrances were addressed to the company by the Lord Provost and others. The company, I am bound to say, with a courtesy which deserves the thanks of the community, delayed the operations until they ascertained the feelings of the citizens in the matter. Within a day or two they acknowledged that they had received so many protests that they abandoned their proposal. In intimating their decision they said—
  "We are without any doubt convinced that the views of the people of Edinburgh are distinctly against the erection of illuminated signs as contemplated, and we accordingly, give way before the evidence yon put before us."
  But they went on to say that they would be sorry if their sacrifice on this point led to their missing a chance which might be utilised by their competitors. They pointed out that two years previously they refrained from erecting a sign at the back of the High Street, but that some less scrupulous person had subsequently erected a sign in that locality. As I have said, since that time a power of control has been obtained over the sites where advertisements may be put, the amenity of Edinburgh has been saved, and I have not heard that any injustice or hardship has been inflicted upon any of those concerned.
  My suggestion, therefore, is this, that there is a case for control on the general principle that the amenity of a district is the property of its inhabitants as a whole, and that it is not fair, certainly very much less than fair, that those who have no interest in a locality should have an unrestrained power to put up anything
  870
  they like there, however offensive it may be. I am aware that some objection may be raised that these advertisements are paid for, and may be a valuable interest to the owner or occupier of the property. I suggest that that is only one side of the question. They may also be a great detriment to the owner of adjoining property. At any rate, it is a fair question of discussion upon which side the balance of advantage or disadvantage lies, and I suggest that the proper persons to decide that question, subject to general law and general conditions, are the local authority of the district concerned. A friend of mine suggested that if these advertisements along railways are to be removed there might be a use found for them. I commend the suggestion to the noble Earl who leads the Opposition in this House, because I am sure he would be interested in it. They are not very sightly where they are. I do not know that they would be sightly anywhere; but if they were moved and made signs upon those fences on which there is barbed wire, during the winter they might give a valuable warning to that large class of persons interested in foxhunting who I understand suffer in certain districts from the infliction of barbed wire. I throw that out as a suggestion, and perhaps it may get for me a certain amount of support for this Bill.
  As I have said, the object in view is to give a power to the local authority to regulate these advertisements and to control them. I do not refer to the contents of the advertisements. The contents of advertisements in so far as they are indecent or otherwise objectionable are already controlled under the general law. I do not propose to give the local authority any additional power in those matters. In the second clause of the Bill you will see that there are five subsections. The first of those sub-sections gives power of control in cases of dazzling light and the use of pavements for pictorial advertisements, and the scattering of advertisement papers about the town or country; the second sub-section gives power to regulate the height of the hoarding; and the third deals more particularly with the places where advertisements may be placed. The fourth and fifth sub-sections give power to draw up

  871
  by-laws for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill and the removal of those advertisements which may be now existing after a certain period of grace has been given. The third clause of the Bill deals with the sanctioning authority, and the fourth and fifth clauses define what local authorities are meant in the different parts of the United Kingdom.
  Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that since I introduced this Bill I have been the recipient of a certain number of communications from those who are interested in maintaining the existing state of matters. Some of those communications are not particularly worthy of notice, but others of them undoubtedly proceed from substantial corporations who have a real interest in maintaining the right of advertising, and who, I am prepared to believe, in the main exercise their functions in a reasonable and proper spirit. I have been asked to meet them and to discuss the terms of the Bill with those who are interested in the matter. That, as a matter of course, I shall be glad to do, and have said so to them; but I venture to suggest that objections in regard to detail ought not at this moment to prevail against, the Second Reading, because, as I suggest to your Lordships, this is a great and important public reform which has been already too long delayed. Although it may be a sanguine hope, I hope that those who do not want to abuse the right of advertising, but only to use it properly, will join in passing a reasonable Bill which, while strengthening their position, will help us to abate what is a very serious and growing evil. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL' OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is desirable to give local authorities power to make by-laws respecting the exhibition of advertisements. I think everyone will be of opinion that it is undesirable that private individuals should exercise the power they at present do of going about the country sticking up advertisements wherever they choose without the consent of the owner or occupier; and simply for their own private
  872
  purposes. To that, extent, at all events, I imagine the noble Lord will receive unanimous support. But is he quite certain that the term advertisement, of which there is no definition in the Bill, covers all that he means to include? For instance, is he quite certain that it includes all kinds of hand-bills? I merely throw that out as a matter for the noble Lord to consider. I may say that in the Local Government Acts power was given to county councils to make by-laws with regard to nuisances. There then came the question, what was a nuisance? Several county councils, notably some in Scotland, did make by-laws for this purpose, and I understand that by a decision of the Court of Session it was held that the county councils had acted ultra vires, presumably, I imagine, because such advertisements were not held to fall within the term nuisance. At all events, I think some extension in the direction which the noble Lord has proposed is a matter very much to be desired
  I quite agree that county councils and local authorities ought to have power with regard to the area within their own jurisdiction. The noble Lord, in the instances he gave, dealt chiefly with the city of Edinburgh. In this matter large towns differ very considerably from country districts, and it may be expedient to give to corporations of towns powers of dealing with such a nuisance, for instance, as that which he referred to—the proposed advertisement facing Princes Street and the Mound in Edinburgh. It was right and proper that such a proceeding as that should be made impossible, but when you come to the country other considerations come into force. I quite agree that in the country, too, no one ought to have a right to put up advertisements without the consent, at all events, of the occupier, and possibly of the owner. But when you go further and say that the local authority may pass a by-law making it impossible to put up an advertisement in a place which is not in any way a public place or near a public place, as, for instance, in the case which was given of the London and North Western Railway, I think the matter deserves serious consideration.
  It is not very interesting, when travelling on a railway, to pass a series of

  873
  "Carter's Little Liver Pills" and "Beecham's Pills," and other advertisements of that sort, which suggest in different degrees various imperfections of human nature; but at the same time there is another side to it. The persons who own these fields get a certain amount of money for these advertisements, and it is a matter for consideration how far it is just to say that a public authority may pass a by-law declaring that a private individual is not at liberty to set up in his field an advertisement which is not near a public place and which is presumably of value to him. Those are the only remarks I have to make with regard to the Bill. I have no desire at all to offer any opposition to the Second Reading, but I think these matters will have to be considered in Committee. I would once again repeat that I think there is a distinction to be drawn between corporations of towns and local authorities in the country, where the nuisance of advertisements is not, of course, so great.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, as representing the Home Office, the House will expect mo to say a few words with regard to this Bill, because in England, at any rate, the Home Secretary has the power of assenting to these by-laws. I think the House will have listened with great interest and considerable sympathy to the case which my noble friend made out for the introduction of the Bill. Every one of us must have been struck by the hideous erections which are put up in town and country for the purpose of advertising goods, and I think there is a very general feeling that it is desirable that there should be some regulation and control over the constantly increasing advertisements of this kind. The noble Lord, undoubtedly, made out a strong case for the large boroughs, which have in many cases themselves taken powers to control the increase of advertising mediums within their areas. But I think if this Bill is to contain, as it does at present, powers to prevent the disfigurement of the natural beauty of a landscape, it is equally necessary that other local authorities besides the authorities over large boroughs should have this power. It is obvious that county
  874
  councils would not be inclined to go to Parliament for the purpose of securing power to put a stop to advertisements disfiguring the natural beauty of the landscape at different places within their area unless it came to be a very grave scandal indeed.
  The question to which the noble Earl has just referred, as to how far powers should be given under this Act with regard to districts where there is no population and no particular natural beauty which might be disfigured, is one for Committee; but I think it is obvious that a general Act is desirable, and I have to say on behalf of the Home Office that His Majesty's Government have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. But I must guard myself by saying that there are many matters, such, for instance, as those which were touched upon by the noble Earl who spoke last, which will require very careful consideration at the hands of the Government before the Bill is dealt with in Committee. With regard to the question raised by the noble Earl opposite as to what constitutes a nuisance, county councils have power already in the matter of certain nuisances which are specified, and many county councils have made by-laws which have been approved by the Home Secretary; but I doubt very much whether these advertisements would come under any by-laws which it would be possible to make without further legislation. If the Bill is read a second time to-night, I hope the noble Lord will allow a sufficient interval for the consideration of these various points before putting it down for the Committee stage.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I need hardly say that if the House is good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading I will allow full time for negotiations with those who think their interests are affected, and will not put down the Committee stage without communicating with the noble Lord who represents the Home Office and making sure that the date is convenient to him.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MILITARY MANœUVRES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee, according to order
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY*THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY moved to omit the sub-section which proposed to reduce from six months to three months the notice required by the Act of 1897 to be given to the local authorities of the district in which the manœuvres were to take place. He said this was a somewhat innocent-looking Bill, but it contained several provisions which, if the were passed in their present form, would, in his opinion, act harshly. Among those provisions was the sub-section he now proposed to omit. The proposed reduction of the period of notice would prejudicially affect the interests of those situated within the areas scheduled for the manœuvres, and he believed the reduction to be absolutely unnecessary. He did not think any person who had any knowledge of the necessities of troops during the period of manœuvres would object in the main to the proposal in the Bill including woodlands and plantations for the purposes of manœuvres, but he thought that fair notice should be given. It might save owners and occupiers who wished to rear game on their land a great deal of money if the Act of 1897 was not amended in this respect, and they received the full six months notice. The manœuvres usually took place during September; many county councils, like the one of which he had the honour to be a member, met in May. If the period of notice was altered to three months they would not get the notice until after the May meeting, and it would be far too late in August when they met again for them to take the necessary steps for the general arrangements in connection with the manœuvres and to give full notice to the other authorities with whom they might have to communicate. He could not help thinking that it was very unwise on the part of the War Office at this juncture, when it could not by any stretch of imagination be said that that Department was a very popular one,
  876
  to attempt in any way to unduly, and, as he believed, unnecessarily, hustle public bodies and private individuals, especially as the six-months notice had worked well.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): It has not.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid he had not heard any instance given in which the notice had not worked well. The present proposal would not tend to promote that good feeling between the civilian population and the War Office which was so desirable. The War Office in this Bill was expecting a certain amount of compulsory service from the civilian population. He hoped that that might be the thin end of the wedge to a further advance in this direction, but he was afraid that that was not likely to be the case. He did not see any real necessity for the proposed change with regard to the term of notice. The only reason for it that he could make out from the speech of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary was that six months beforehand was rather too long for the War Office to make up its mind.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid he did not think that any other reason had been given for altering the existing period than that six months was rather too long for the War Office.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1. page 1, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(The Marquess of Granby.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTERassociated himself with the remarks which had fallen from the noble Marquess the mover of the Amendment. Whilst thoroughly inspired with the necessity of giving the War Office every facility for holding manœuvres, he was altogether opposed to the alteration of the period of notice to three months. The county councils were the authorities approached under this Bill, and they might find themselves unable to make the necessary arrangements owing to shortness of notice if the period of notice was reduced to

  877
  three months. He appealed to the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, in the event of his being unable to accept the Amendment, to at least insert four months instead of three, as that period would sufficiently expedite the notice as to enable the county councils to receive it at their May meetings. He was, of course, presuming that the manœuvres would be held in the month of September. He did not know whether or not it was the intention of the War Office to propose that they should be held at any other period of the year, but he did wish to impress upon those who were promoting this change that any other period of the year than that when the hay harvest and the corn harvest had been successfully secured was an impossible time for the manœvres to take place. The holding of manœvres at any other period than September was, in his humble opinion, impossible owing to the large amount of compensation which would have to be paid to agricultural tenants.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I would only say, with regard to the statement of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment that its adoption would save landowners money who were concerned in raising game, that the noble Marquess has perhaps forgotten that whatever damage we do we have to pay for, and we pay very liberally for it, as the damage is assessed by the Military Manœuvres Commission, which consists almost entirely of local landowners. I do not at all object to our paying full compensation. I think it right that we should do so; but as we have to pay full compensation it is quite impossible for any landowners to lose money through three months notice only being given.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid he was anxious that the taxpayers should not be called upon to pay unnecessary sums in compensation.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: That was hardly the ground on which the noble Marquess based his Amendment. The gravamen of the noble Marquess's attack on this sub-section lies in the fact that bad relations may be set up under it with the local authorities. He
  878
  went so far as to say that we were hustling those authorities. My Lords, we are doing nothing of the kind. We are carrying out the recommendations of the representatives of the local authorities. This clause was based originally on a recommendation of the Military Manœuvres Commission of 1898. That Commission consisted of seven members, four of whom were directly appointed by the local authorities and the other three by the War Office. The three members appointed by the War Office included Lord Portman and Lord Pembroke, who were at the time members of the local county councils, so that the county councils had a total of six out of the seven representatives on the Commission which made this recommendation. Their recommendation was supported by the Commission of 1903, which also, of course, contained a majority representing the local authorities, and these local authorities, having experience in this matter, are not animated by the fears which the noble Lord himself has given expression to. The reason for the alteration is not a War Office reason, but practically a constitutional reason. The Army Estimates are very seldom finally framed till the end of February. They are not approved by Parliament until March, and constitutionally we are not permitted to say we will have manœuvres until, at any rate, one Vote has been approved in another place, and that never takes place until March. It may be said, "Oh, but you need not wait for that. You can send notice to the local authorities that you are going to hold manœuvres in their localities long before Parliament passes the Army Estimates." If that were done, I imagine Parliament would at once say that we had not got their permission to carry out the manœuvres. Therefore, we have to wait until the month of March, and are not able to carry out the manœuvres till six months after. We think six months unwarrantably long. You cannot give notice of your intention to put the Manœuvres Act into force until the middle of March, and the manœuvres, therefore, cannot be held until about the end of September, which is very often getting near the beginning of winter. It would be a great convenience to us and much better for the troops if we could always

  879
  begin the manœuvres immediately after the harvest is over. I think that in asking your Lordships to give legislative authority to this recommendation, which has been made by representatives of county councils having experience in this matter, we are not asking too much. I therefore hope your Lordships will agree to leave this sub-section in the Bill.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, had given the House another proof of the way in which the War Office looked upon the question of expense. The War Office preferred to pay large compensation for damage which need never take place rather than save the expense in the first instance. Listening to the noble Earl's speech, one would imagine that in the past, under a six months notice, it had been impossible to hold manœuvres. The noble Earl had raised all sorts of constitutional questions with regard to the notice. It would be perfectly open to the War Office, to give this notice for manœuvres in the month of January, in spite of all that had been said in regard to the question of the Estimates, with a proviso that the manœuvres would only take place subject to the sanction of Parliament. Then the people in the county proclaimed would have timely notice that it was probable that manœuvres would take place over their land, and would be able in good time to make preparations. He would not go into the question of game at all. He put that entirely on one side. But their Lordships would agree with him that any owner of property, knowing that manœuvres were likely to take place over his land in August and September, would carry on his estate management in a different way during that year. He would not, for instance, set to work to do any spring planting that year, and if there was any great question of fence repairing he would leave it over until another year. Again, surely it was convenient for tenant farmers to know early in the year that manœuvres were going to take place, for it would, of course, govern such questions as cropping. The great reason put forward originally for reducing the notice from six to three months was that it
  880
  was impossible to carry out manœuvres on land which had once been scheduled, even though the land had not been used, for another five years; but, under this Bill, if notice was given of manœuvres one year, and the manœuvres did not take place, the Government could proclaim the same land for the manœuvres the following year. This did away with one of the main reasons for shortening the period of notice from six to three months. He was sure that no noble Lord had any desire to place undue hindrance in the way of carrying out manœuvres in the fullest possible manner, but they must risk a certain amount of damage to land and inconvenience to owners and occupiers. It was, therefore, only fair that owners and occupiers should receive sufficient notice, and he contended that three months was not sufficient notice. All operations connected with land had to take place in the spring, and the persons concerned ought to be able to modify those operations by the knowledge of what was going to take place in the autumn. He would certainly vote with the noble Marquess in favour of the Amendment.
  *LORD MONKSWELL: pointed out that the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, had not taken any notice of the suggestion he made on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill to the effect that the period of six months was inserted in the principal Act to secure that before the draft Order was advertised in the local Press, which had to be done three months before the manœuvres were to take place, it should be considered by the county council. He did not think it was respectful to the county council to put before it a draft Order already advertised in the local Press.
  LORD STANMOREasked the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, whether the constitutional objections to which he referred had in the past had this operation, that six months had always elapsed between the passing of the Estimates and the holding of the manœuvres.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I understand from my noble friend the Under-Secretary

  881
  that the answer to that question is in the affirmative, and that six months has been allowed to elapse. What I cannot help thinking has been somewhat lost sight of by the last two speakers is the fact that this proposal for a change in the period of notice is founded upon the recommendation of a Commission, six out of the seven members of which were appointed on account of their position as large landowners, or on account of their connection with the local county councils, and that it was the experience of these six Commissioners that led them to the conclusion that the period of six months was unduly long. I confess that I listened with some surprise to the suggestion that in these matters there was any desire on the part of the War office to hustle either the local authorities or the landowners. I believe, on the contrary, that the whole history of these Bills is one long history of earnest attempts to carry out manœuvres without giving either the local authorities or the owners or occupiers of land any just or reasonable cause to complain. I believe you may search in vain the practice of other countries in which an army is maintained, and in which that army undergoes training by means of military manœuvres for provisions so full of thought and consideration for the convenience of those concerned as the provisions upon which we have acted and now desire to act. We have been told that the proposal to shorten the period of notice is due to irresolution on the part of the War Office. It is nothing of the kind. The change is asked for because, as we all know, it is not possible to get the military Votes until well on in the spring. A period of six months brings you right into the middle of the manœuvring period, It surprises me to hear the noble Lord opposite tell the House that any Government could issue the necessary notices and set in motion all the complicated, machinery which is necessary for this purpose in anticipation of a Vote of the House of Commons. It is contrary to all my own impressions. There is another reason which has not been mentioned. I believe it is the desire of the War Office not only that there should be these manœuvres on a large scale, but that opportunity should be taken for much smaller local manœuvres, and if in the case of each
  882
  manœuvres, however modest in their dimensions, it was necessary to give six months notice, it is obvious that very great impediment would be placed in the way of the military authorities. This proposal has been made, not on account of any desire on the part of the War Office to spare itself trouble, but because those who have had practical experience of these manœuvres, those who have had to organise them in the War Office and those who have had experience locally of the manner in which they have been carried out, have come to the conclusion that unless the period of notice is materially shortened very great inconvenience and obstruction will be placed in the way of the military authorities.
  EARL SPENCER: said that whilst strongly in favour of facilities being given for manœuvres to take place in the best and most convenient manner, they ought also to consider the convenience of local authorities. He could not for a moment see why the noble Marquess should object to giving the longer notice. Surely a notice that the Government intended to hold manœuvres could be given at an early date, with the proviso that if Parliament did not agree to the manœuvres they would not, of course, take place. That seemed to him a perfectly fair and reasonable proposal. There was no need for elaborate preparations to be made until after the Vote had been passed by the House of Commons. He pleaded, on behalf of all connected with county councils, for the longer notice. There were many county councils whose meetings were held in May, who would therefore have hardly any time to make the necessary preparations and give the requisite notices for carrying out the manœuvres.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I would point out, in reply to the noble Earl who has just sat down, that we are giving the local authorities exactly the notice that the representatives of the local authorities who have had experience in these matters ask for.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid the statement which had been made by the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister,

  883
  that there were to be more smaller manœuvres held, rendered the proposed alteration in the notice to be given to
  the local authorities more objectionable.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved an Amendment to the effect that the owners of enclosed woods and plantations—"on showing sufficient cause to the local Military Manœuvres Commission, may prohibit entry into any specific wood or plantation being their property." He said he was not in love with the absolute wording of his Amendment, but he thought that it clearly showed what his intention was. If the Bill was passed in its present form, woods and plantations would fall in the same category as land
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:— Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 37.

  CONTENTS,

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lytton, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Mansfield, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  (L. President.)

  Onslow, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Stamford, E.

  Farquhar, L.

  Stanhope, E

  Forester, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Verulam, E.

  Harris, L.

  Brandon, D. (D. Hamilton.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.)

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Kenyon, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kilmaine, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Cross, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Bath, M.

  Esher, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore)

  Lindley, L.

  Linlithgow, M.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Rathmore, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  (L. Steward.)

  Abinger, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Alington, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Stuart of Castle Stuart, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  (E. Moray.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Windsor. L.

  Feversham, E.

  Belper, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Muncaster, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Northbourne, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Hill, V.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Reay, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Denman, L

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  James, L.

  Thring, L

  Lichfield, E.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)[Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]

  Northbrook, E.

  Wandsworth, L.

  which was not woods and plantations. All that he was contending for in this Amendment was that woods and plantations should be put in a category by themselves. They should not be considered simply as part of the general ground over which manœuvres were to be held. The owners of woods and plantations should be put on rather a different footing, and there should be the assumption that any objection to entry upon woods and plantations should be specially given attention to by the Military Manœuvres Commission. He did not know that his words were the best possible words that could be selected, and he would be quite satisfied if the

  885
  noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, would, on behalf of the Government, introduce other words with a similar object either at the next stage or on Report.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line 21, after the word repealed' to insert the words 'provided always that the owners of such enclosed woods and plantations, on showing sufficient cause to the local Military Manœuvres Commission, may prohibit entry into any specific wood or plantation being their property.' "—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I quite understand that the noble Lord desires to place woods and plantations in a special category, but I am afraid from his wording that this special category would be one which would be very bad in working. The whole of the manœuvring ground is marked out with flags and so on by the Military Manœuvres Commission, and I think the Amendment, as drafted, would enable the owner to put up the prohibitory notices. This would obviously lead to confusion.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that was not his intention. He should only be able to put up the notices on cause shown before the Military Manœuvres Commission, and with their sanction.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I quite accept that correction, but I do not think it is necessary to put woods and plantations in a special category. The powers given to the Military Manœuvres Commission are very sweeping. I am advised that all woods and plantations would be covered by the word "lands," and it naturally follows, I think, that the Military Manœuvres Commission, the members of which are local people, will give special attention to woods and plantations. To put them in a different category would lead to inconvenience in working.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHexplained that he did not wish to put them in a separate category from the point of view of the power of the Commission. All he wanted was to put in a proviso which should direct the Commission to give special consideration to them.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think we understand the point of
  886
  my noble friend's suggestion, and my noble friend the Under-Secretary will consider whether we can adopt his proposal that woods and plantations should be treated in a category by themselves. But what we are anxious to make clear is, that the last word shall be said, not by the owners of the woods and plantations, but by the Manœuvres Commission. If that is understood, we do not differ from the object aimed at by the Amendment.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he quite agreed with the noble Marquess. All he wished was a special direction with regard to woods and plantations.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved an Amendment to this clause—which deals with the power of an officer to control the public use of a road or footpath—providing that the commissioned officer in command, upon whom this administrative power devolved, should not be the officer in command of any "part" of the authorised forces, but an officer of status high enough to command a "company or squadron." This was, he said, only a small Amendment to secure that the officer who was to have the power of stopping footpaths or rights of way should be an officer of some status, and not merely a subaltern. He thought the Amendment would commend itself to the Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, line 25, to leave out the word 'part' and to insert the words 'company or squadron.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The Amendment does not commend itself to me, because it goes too far. We are not intending that even a captain of a company should have this power. What we had in our minds in putting in the words "or any part thereof" was the commander of a

  887
  considerable unit—a division or a brigade. It really depends on the size of the manœuvres. If there are a number of divisions engaged, the commander of a division would be sufficient; if it is smaller, then the commander of a brigade. We have had considerable difficulty in drafting the clause. It is certainly not our intention that even a captain, except in very exceptional circumstances, should have this power, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsuggested the insertion of words securing that the power should not be exercised by any officer in command of any force less than a regiment. He certainly thought the term "or any part thereof" should be defined. Some minimum should be inserted, and the minimum should be not less than a regiment.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Will not the noble Lord trust petty sessions?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No, I do not think the power should be so wide as that in the clause.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: There has always been, as I have said, considerable difficulty in drafting words which will meet the case, and I am assured by our legal advisers that "or any part thereof" is the most satisfactory phrase to use because it covers all cases. I do not think there will be any difficulty.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Why not say field officer?
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: There may not always be a field officer present.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Then it is clear that the intention is that any officer shall be able to exercise this power.
  On Question, whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 15.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lichfield. E.

  Dunboyne, L.

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

  Mansfield. E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Farquhar, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Onslow, E,

  Forester, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Harris, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Hay, L. (K. Kinnoul.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Verulam, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  James, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Killanin, L.

  Bath, M.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Cross, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Linlithgow, M.

  Hill, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Muncaster, L.

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

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Rathmore, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Ravensworth, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Abinger. L.

  Robertson, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Alington, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Stuart of Castle Stewart, L. (E. Moray.)

  Dartrey, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Belper, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Burghclere, L.

  Reay, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Denman. L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Manners of Haddon. L. (M. Granby.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]

  Monkswell, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, this Bill has passed through its various stages in your Lordships' House without a word of question, and I now ask your Lordships to give it a Third Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  THE SUPPLY OF TEACHERS.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council if he will consider the advisability of revising the regulations as to candidates for pupil-teachers, and the employment of probationers in schools, so as to secure a sufficient supply of teachers on a principle fairer to the rural district, and less costly to the ratepayers. This is a matter that presses very hardly indeed on rural districts, and I hope my request may meet with some sympathy from the noble Marquess the Lord President of the Council, especially as in this case I am not demanding additional money from the Treasury. Before the present Education Act came into force it was the custom in rural districts when a child reached the age of thirteen to put him to teach the younger children, and
  890
  thereby an opportunity was afforded of seeing whether he had any natural talents for teaching, and, if he had, he in due time became a pupil-teacher and was recognised as a member of the teaching staff and paid. At one fell swoop, under the Act of 1902, the whole of this was put an end to, probationers being no longer allowed. In that way a very large source of supply for teachers was cut off, and I think this will be very seriously felt in a few years.
  I also ask the noble Marquess to consider the advisability of revising the regulations on the ground of the hardship inflicted on the ratepayer. Now these probationers are cut off the position is this, that local authorities are obliged, out of the present limited supply, to secure teachers at a much higher cost. Under the old system a pupil-teacher would work, up to the age of nineteen, for about £52 a year, whereas under the present system he costs nearly £80, and the large sum which will have to be paid during the five or six years by the local authority for the more expensive teacher falls on the ratepayer. If this principle is persisted in it will make it impossible almost for the children of parents residing in rural districts to become teachers. In the towns it is quite easy for children to attend half-time and continuation classes from thirteen to sixteen, and in that way qualify for pupil-teachers; but it is impossible to expect that parents in rural districts can send their children to pupil-teacher centres away from home. I may be told that the travelling expenses will be paid, but they will be paid by the ratepayers.
  We are told that it is very desirable that the population should not be induced to leave the country districts and concentrate in the towns, but what will be the effect if in a few years your teachers are all pe sons who have been recruited from the towns? How is it possible that children can be taught to take an interest in the country if you utterly close the teaching profession to people, born and bred in the country? If you allow the employment of probationers in schools you will have teachers who will be able to instruct young children much more in the pleasures of country life than if they were all brought from

  891
  the towns. It is in the interests of rural districts that some concession should be made in this matter. The present arrangement presses very hardly on the ratepayer and will press still harder in the future. On these grounds I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to allow the present rules to be revised.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of your Lordships that we had a discussion last year upon this question, raised by the noble Lord the Chairman of the education committee of the East Riding, Lord Herries. While I cannot quite agree with the drift of the speech of the noble Lord who has brought the question before your Lordships to night, I feel that there is a great deal of substance in the complaint that it is most difficult at the present moment to adjust the new regulations of the Education Board with regard to pupil-teachers to the conditions of rural life, and I cannot say that I think the way the Board of Education are working these regulations tends to facilitate the transition. But I do not think that any remedy is to be found by falling back upon children of thirteen as part of the staff of a school, to be counted on that staff for the purpose of teaching other children.
  I agree with the noble Lord that it is extremely important, if possible, that we should recruit the teachers who are to take charge of rural schools from the rural population. The conditions of service of teachers are likely to be more attractive in towns than in the country. The schools are larger, there are greater opportunities of promotion, there are higher ultimate salaries to be won, and therefore the most ambitious of the young people who enter the teaching profession have a tendency to gravitate to the towns. At the same time, we cannot too much insist that the most valuable qualities in a teacher are more needed in rural schools than in town schools. A rural school is about the most difficult school you can have to teach. It has a very small staff, and probably in the smaller schools they are lucky if they have one fully qualified teacher and one assistant teacher. The difficulties in such cases can be surmounted if you get
  892
  exceptionally good teachers. I remember the evidence of Mr. Matthew Arnold, when he was sent to examine the state of schools on the Continent. Describing a school—a small school—near Zurich, he said he found one master in charge of the whole school, but the great skill of that master enabled him to conduct the school in a brilliant manner. I am not going to say that if you can get good people you cannot grapple with the difficulties, but the difficulties are great, and you cannot expect the county councils to fix a scale of salaries for rural schools with an average attendance of sixty, seventy, and eighty which will compete with the salaries offered in town schools attended by 300 children. Therefore it is most important that you should try to recruit those who, having been brought up in the country, and having friends in the country, would be naturally wishful to go back to their homes.
  I also agree that the difficulties of preparing pupil-teachers in the country are immense. You cannot work a centre there. Take the poor county of Anglesey, with which I am connected, which has a large number of rural schools. A young person from sixteen to eighteen cannot be going half a day to his school and half a day to a centre; he cannot even be going alternate weeks. I defy any person in charge of a school to make any one of these young persons count effectively on the staff when they cannot be trusted continuously with the charge of a class. In the old days they worried through into class management because they were given a class all the week, but to give a young person twenty-five children every morning or every afternoon, or every alternate week, would be disastrous to the class, and the pupil-teacher would not get a sense of responsibility.
  The Board of Education have suggested that in the two years of pupil-teachership you may evade the obligations of their Minute by making the pupil-teacher a half-timer every alternate six months. That would be very inconvenient, but it would practically be making him a full - timer in the school for a year. I agree with the noble Lord, that the system which has been

  893
  introduced is extremely expensive. It is quite true that the Government have slightly increased the grants, but they have not increased them anything like so much as is set forth. They will now give in respect of a young person up to the age of sixteen, if he or she goes to a properly recognised secondary school, £4 a year for two years, and then for the two years from sixteen to eighteen they will give £7 a year, making a total of £22; but if the young person is sent to the secondary school earlier they will not give you anything except for the two years. The whole tendency of the pressure which has been brought to transfer pupils by scholarships from elementary to secondary schools is that the time for leaving the elementary and going to the secondary school should be between the ages of eleven and twelve—put it at twelve. The rules of the Board of Education for secondary schools make twelve the minimum age at which they begin to pay, and I quite agree that in the case of rural schools it is better that the child should move at the age of twelve. But you are demanding that the local authority shall take these children from the elementary schools and pass them on for four years to the secondary school. A child in a secondary school costs quite £12 a year to instruct, and you are going to give the local authorities, as an encouragement, £4 a year for two years. Not only that, but if the child lives at any distance the travelling expenses have to be paid besides, and some small bursary allowed. Therefore the whole of this is inordinately expensive.
  I have a little grievance of my own to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education. The education committee of my own county prepared a scheme by which we were to have these scholarships and send our children to become pupil teachers, but when we proposed to utilise the intermediate schools of the county, which the House will recollect are schools under Government patronage and support, and supposed to be quite efficient, we received a letter from the Board of Education, stating that before they accepted our proposals as to scholarships they must know how far we were willing to subsidise
  894
  the secondary schools so as to make them as fully efficient as the Board of Education might require. The Board of Education are heaping up weights upon us which are becoming too heavy to be borne.
  Throughout England the county councils, as a rule, have thrown themselves into the administration of the Education Act with great earnestness and self-sacrifice. So far the ratepayers have not rebelled, although the education rate has gone up immensely. But if the Board of Education continue to increase the difficulties of the county councils, instead of trying to make things easy for them, there will be a mutiny of county councils. I am not referring to Welsh county councils, who have to be coerced by a special Act of Parliament, but to good Conservative county councils, and a mutiny or these authorities would be difficult, indeed, to suppress. The Board of Education have shown a tendency, ever since the Education Act of 1902 came into force, to pile up quite recklessly all kinds of demands in regard to those things, the cost of which falls on the ratepayers. I very much doubt whether Eton, Harrow, or any of our great public schools come up to the recent requirements of school planning of the Board of Education in regard to secondary schools. I do not wish to check the zeal of the noble Marquess for educational efficiency, but I would like him to go one step at a time. The method by which the grants are given, and many other matters which I will not refer to to-day, require serious consideration, and I hope shortly to have the opportunity of placing them more informally before the noble Marquess.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, I regret that no one is present on this bench who has at least some I slight influence with the House. I represent portions of two agricultural counties, and this question looms very large in our mind. Yesterday I was discussing it with the chairman of the county council of one of those counties, and he told me that in his judgment the rate was rising to an absolutely impossible point. I asked him if he could put his finger on one particular item and he put his finger on this question of pupil-teachers. This question is a most important one, and I

  895
  find myself entirely in accord with the noble Lord who introduced it.
  *LORD HARRIS: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has put the case so clearly that it seems almost superfluous to add anything to what he has said. But, just as he had a private grievance, so have I, and I propose to ventilate it. The noble Marquess will remember that when the Education Act was going through the House in 1902 I took the opportunity of cross-questioning him, and the noble Duke, who was then Lord President of the Council (the Duke of Devonshire), stated what the intentions of the Government were with regard to compelling county councils to put on a rate for secondary education. Both the noble Duke and the noble Marquess gave me most positive assurance that that certainly was not their intention. I must admit that so far they have held true to their word; but in another way the Board of Education are doing everything they can to tempt county councils to put on a rate for higher education. They are doing so in this way. There are certain grants for scholarships given by the Board of Education, and the liberality of this grant is limited by the stipulation that it shall only be given where a rate is imposed. In my county we were careful in the use of the whiskey money and laid by a nest egg. We have got that nest egg now for use for its original purpose—the relief of the rates; but unless we impose a rate now, although we do not want to, we lose the Government grant for the sescholarships; and at a meeting the other day we decided that on the whole it was more politic to secure the grant than avoid putting on the rate. I admit that the Board of Education cannot be said to be compelling us to put on a rate, but the difference between that temptation and compulsion is a little difficult to draw.
  I endorse what has been said by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord opposite, and would appeal to the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education to impress upon the Treasury that this matter of the education of pupil-teachers is becoming a real and very serious grievance in the counties. I did not realise when this Act was passed the
  896
  immense burden that was going to be laid upon the ratepayers for the purpose of training schoolmasters. That is what it has come to. The burdens are of all kinds. My noble friend the noble Viscount referred to the difficulties of rural districts in sending children to centres in the populous areas. We have had experience of that, and we have had to make arrangements, not merely for travelling expenses, but for boarding expenses as well, in order that these children may be kept in fairly good health while they are under tuition. All that expense has been thrown on the ratepayers for what, as I submitted in 1902, and submit again, is a national object. The most important duty that can be conceived is the training of the masters and mistresses who are to have the education of the children of this country under their charge, and surely it is not just that the great part of the cost should be laid upon a class of property which the Commission appointed by the present Government has declared to be already overburdened. I appeal to my noble friend to endeavour to induce the Cabinet to look into this question very carefully, for I honestly believe with the noble Lord opposite that unless some far greater assistance is given to the county councils than is given now a very justifiable grievance will exist and a very serious manifestation of the feeling that will be roused by that grievance may become evident.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I do not for one moment complain of the tone of the speeches which we have heard from noble Lords on this question, nor do I in the least object to its being raised. On the contrary, I approach the question sympathetically, because undoubtedly there is a feeling in the country, and especially in rural districts, that the rates at present are advancing by leaps and bounds on account of education, and this must necessarily bear very heavily on the land, which, as the noble Lord has said, is already very heavily burdened. How far the rates should be allowed to rise depends a great deal on the local authority. Undoubtedly, when powers were given by

  897
  the Act of 1902 to the local authorities it was in the firm belief that they would watch over the interests of the ratepayers, and not add to their burdens. Undoubtedly the Duke of Devonshire and myself did say that the Bill of 1902 would not cause the rate to be raised; the only rate we caused to be raised was for elementary education, and the question of raising the rate for secondary education rests with the local education authorities. But my noble friend went further, and imagined that because we offered scholarships it would be necessary to raise the rate. It is impossible to please all parties, but I have no hesitation in saying that we are going to drop the system of scholarships in future.
  *LORD HARRIS: Are there to be no grants at all for scholarships?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The scholarships are going to be dropped. Those who uphold the system of probationers have the right to a certain amount of our sympathy. Undoubtedly probationers in the past were an extremely useful class, and I agree that when that system was done away with to a certain extent there must be a grievance. But let us look at the other side of the question. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley agrees that at the present day, when education has taken such a prominent place, we cannot go back to a system which existed many years ago and worked admirably.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I said you could not go back, but I never said the system worked admirably.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It has been considered absolutely necessary to raise a higher class of pupil-teachers. The old practice of having the pupil-teachers taught in the school is not suitable to the present system, and the object of the Department has been to give a higher grant to pupil-teacher centres; and in Section 28 of the last Regulations for pupil-teachers an effort has been made to give advantages to the rural teachers, whose case is more difficult than that of the town teachers. The Department fully realises the difference between the two, and the
  898
  undesirability of drawing the country children to the towns. As reading and education increases the attraction of the towns increases, but everything is being done to cope with the difficulty. Last year I was asked to give some grant for facilitating the transport of pupil-teachers to the centres. At the time I could give no definite assurance either that further aid would be available, or that if it were it would be applied in any particular way; but I have since inquired into the circumstances, and I found that they warranted me in approaching the Treasury.
  To explain the further assistance that I am now in a position to announce I must go back to the first set of new regulations, which applied to the year 1903–4. We there provided that the grant for a pupil-teacher taught in a centre should be £3, that the grant for a pupil-teacher not taught in a centre should be £2, and that the grant for children who were preparing to become pupil-teachers and taught in proper preparatory classes should be also £2. These, as I say, were the grants for the year 1903–4. Now I come to the grants for the year 1904–5. Those grants were as follows:—£7 for a pupil-teacher taught in a centre, £4 for a child preparing to become a pupil-teacher and taught in a preparatory class, and £2 10s. for the pupil-teacher who is not taught in a centre. It was with reference to these grants and the question of providing more aid for the case of pupil-teachers not taught in a centre, that is to say, roughly, for country pupil-teachers, that my statement was made last July in reply to a Question by Lord Herries.
  The result of the further information that we have been able to obtain, and of the representations that have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that I am able to announce a considerable increase in the grants, which will be especially beneficial in the case of pupil-teachers who are not taught in the centres. The augmentations of grant that I have to announce relate to the current year for pupil-teacher instruction which ends on July 31st next, and also to part of the last year of pupil-teacher instruction which ended on July 31st last. For the seven months, January

  899
  1st to July 31st, 1904, we shall pay a further grant at the rate of £3 a year for a pupil-teacher taught in a centre, in addition to the grant of £3 already paid, and a further grant at the rate of £2 a year for the pupil-teacher not taught in a centre, in addition to the grant of '2 already paid. These additions, your Lordships will understand, benefit both urban and rural authorities, and with the further change I have still to announce, they will bring the grants for those months up to the level of the grants for the current year, with a small exception in the case of centres.
  Now I come to the additional grants for the current year. There is no additional grant either for the child taught in a preparatory class or for the child taught in the pupil-teacher centre, but there is an additional grant for the pupil-teacher who is not taught in the centre, that is to say, generally, for the rural pupil teacher. The increase I am able to announce in this case brings up the grant for this year to the sum of £4 per head as compared with £2 10s. in the regulations, and will specially benefit the rural areas. The change in the grant which I have just announced is for the present provisional only and will apply to the current year ending July 31st, 1904, and possibly for another year. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that in any permanent scheme which may be framed for pupil-teachers special consideration will be given to the difficulties to be expected in rural areas, and though I cannot pledge myself at the present moment to any details, the assistance given towards the education of pupil-teachers in rural districts will not be less on the average than the amount which is available under the provisional arrangements I have just described.
  It is most important that those who teach in our schools should know how to teach, and I have given special consideration to this question of the instruction of pupil-teachers. In view of the large sums which public education costs the country, it is most desirable that the instruction given at such great expense should be sound. I realise that there is a great deal more to be done, but the Department
  900
  over which I have the honour to preside has at any rate done something to meet the necessities of the case.
  *LOKD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Will the Minute which the noble Marquess has just announced be included in the Code and laid on the Table?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: A Minute will be presented.

NEW BILLS.
  PRIZE COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the law relating to the administration of oaths for the purpose of proceedings in prize courts; and

  NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate with Amendments the enactments relating to naval prize of war. Were presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.