Lords Sitting of 16 March 1905

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Great Central Railway [H.L.]—(Petition for additional Provision). The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LEVEN'S PATENT.
Petition of Andrew Mount Haes, praying for leave to introduce a Bill "For rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to Adolph Leven in respect of an invention for improvements in appliances for protection against projectiles"; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Great Central Railway Bill [H.L.]—(Petition for additional Provision). Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
Formby Township Bill [H.L.] Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
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 Stanmore be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Lauderdale, and that the Lord Stanmore be Chairman of the said Committee. Read, and agreed to.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered.
That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 27th day of June next.
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Thursday the 11th day of May next.
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 27th day of June next.
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House as substantially the same as the Bill so amended.
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Thursday the 11th day of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Tuesday the 16th day of May next.
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Tuesday the 16th day of May next.
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. [No. 29.]

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Training Return of Imperial Yeomanry, for 1904. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT) (ESTATE DUTY OFFICE).
  Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents in the Department of the Inland Revenue

  159
  (Estate Duty Office), which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 13th March, 1905, granting a retired allowance to Walter James Cox, sorting clerk and telegraphist, Coventry.

  NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
  Account of the gross amount of all sums received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of banks for savings and friendly societies in Great Britain and Ireland, from their commencement at 6th August, 1817, to 20th November, 1904, inclusive.
  Account of the several transactions which have taken place, during the year ended 20th November, 1904, in the investment of all moneys which came into the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt for savings banks and friendly societies.
  Account showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to the trustees of savings banks and friendly societies respectively on 20th November, 1904, etc.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
  Amendment reported (according to order).
  LORD DAVEY LORD DAVEY moved an Amendment in Clause 1, including the sea-beach among the public places in which betting was to be an offence. He said he had received representations from authorities at sea-side places stating that the sea-beach was in many places the recreation ground of the town, and a place to which inhabitants and visitors resorted for their recreation and enjoyment. The sea-beach at places like Bournemouth stood exactly in the same category as a public park or garden. What Hyde Park was to the Londoner the sea-beach was to the inhabitant and visitor at a
  160
  seaside town. He was told that at present when a street bookmaker was convicted of carrying on his business in the streets of a seaside town he resorted to the sea-beach, and that the police had no power to deal with him there. As the Bill stood, without his Amendment, the same thing would happen, and the bookmaker would only have to leave the streets and resort to the beach.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after the word 'garden' to insert the words or the sea-beach.' "—(Lord Davey.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)said he was very sorry his noble and learned friend had thought it right to alter the very useful Bill as it was introduced. On a previous occasion, when it contained other clauses which he did not think desirable, he opposed the Bill, and it was thrown out. The Bill, as brought in this session, was a useful one. Betting in public streets was a nuisance, and one it was desirable should be abated, but by this Amendment the character of the Bill was changed. Instead of putting an end to street betting, it was aiming at putting an end to betting altogether. He would not argue whether betting was or was not an improper thing, but if it was considered improper it would be more reasonable to prohibit it altogether instead of these injurious distinctions being made in the regulation of the amusements of the poor and the rich. There was an Amendment down in the name of Lord James of Hereford of the same character. He thought the line taken in the Amendment was an undesirable one. He would certainly oppose it himself. He thought the Bill as it was originally framed a useful one, and one which might have had some chance of passing the other House. But if the noble Lord insisted on the Amendment he was certain the Bill would not find its way on to the Statute-book.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDwas sorry to hear the views of the Lord Chancellor. This was a Bill for the suppression of betting in streets and "other public places." The Amendment Lord Davey had moved referred to other

  161
  public places only. Surely the sea-beach was a public place.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: No, it is not. There is a strong decision of the Courts that it is not a public place, and the public has no right of access to the beach.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that if the noble and learned Lord were to advise the Government to prevent the public from going to the beach, there would be a great outcry. Practically the beach was a public place. Lord Davey, when he originally introduced the Bill, made it much wider, but the Home Office interfered, and said the Bill must be confined to streets. But such a restriction was useless. Betting men did not carry on their business in crowded thoroughfares. The Bill not only referred to streets, but also to any public park or garden. Betting men frequently assembled on vacant spaces, under railway arches, and on the sea-beach, but the Lord Chancellor now laid it down that these must not be interfered with. The Lord Chancellor said, in fact, to these men, "We permit you to go to the sea-beach, under arches, or on vacant ground if you like." Was this good legislation? Was it calculated to put a stop to the betting nuisance? The object of the Bill was not to interfere with a poor man betting as against the rich man. It was an emdeavour to stop betting that was done in public places, and was thereby an evil. He knew the strength of the Lord Chancellor's battalions. He could not say that he yielded to the weight of the noble and learned Lord's argument, but, if his battalions were brought to bear, he was afraid Lord Davey and himself would be compelled to yield to superior forces, but not to superior arguments.
  LORD DAVEYsaid that in the circumstances he would not persist in his Amendment.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHexpressed a hope that the noble and learned Lord would not drop the Amendment. The Lord Chancellor had said the sea-beach was not a public place. He would be quite willing to meet the Lord Chancellor
  162
  by saying that where the sea-beach was not a public place the Bill should not apply to that particular sea-beach, and that could be easily effected by altering the clause and making it run: "Public park, garden, or sea-beach." The word "public" would then cover both park, garden, and sea-beach, and put them in the same category.
  LORD DAVEYwas prepared to accept his noble friend's suggestion, and moved his Amendment in that form.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, to leave out the word 'or,' and in line 6, after the word 'garden,' to insert the words 'or sea-beach.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYdoubted very much whether the Amendment would effect what the noble Lord suggested. He would, however, put it to the House.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD moved an Amendment making the definition of the word "street" include "any vacant ground open to the public, common ground not used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto, or any space under a railway arch." He was very much encouraged by the decision which had just been given to move his Amendment. Unless they extended the definition of the word "street" in the manner he proposed, the Bill would have little effect. On page 2, line 10, the words occurred—
  "For the purpose of this section the word 'street' shall include any highway, or any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not."
  That, he understood, was not objected to by the Lord Chancellor. He (Lord James) wished to amend the definition by making it apply also to any vacant ground open to the public, common ground not used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto, or any space under a railway arch. He did not wish to argue the case in a spirit of hostility

  163
  with the Lord Chancellor, but he hoped the noble and learned Lord would give way on this point.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 2, line 12, after the word 'not' to insert the words' or any vacant ground open to the public, common ground not used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto, or any space under a railway arch.' "—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYpointed out that the Amendment of Lord Tweed-mouth came within the ordinary limits of the Bill as originally designed. The present Amendment, however, was different. He thought that no better example could be forthcoming of the injurious suggestion that ground used as a racecourse or any space adjacent thereto should be excepted from what he might call the moral and physical aspects of what it was intended to prohibit. It was a bad example of class legislation, and he reserved his opposition until the Third Reading, when he would move the rejection of the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE*THE EARL OF CREWE moved to insert after Clause 1 the following new clause—
  "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any ground used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto on the days on which races take place."
  This Amendment neither added to nor subtracted anything from the Bill. It was merely designed to make its intentions perfectly clear. The Bill as introduced was a Street Betting Bill, but its scope had been somewhat enlarged. He would call their Lordships' attention, in particular, to the phrase "public park." There were several racecourses in England which were in parks, the property of corporations or large bodies of townspeople. Whether these were public parks in the sense intended by this Bill he was not prepared to say, but he thought it possible that some people might be disposed to imagine they were, and bring actions into Court to stop betting there. It would, therefore, in his opinion, be desirable to save their money and the time of the courts. He believed
  164
  they would all agree with what the Lord Chancellor had said, that if there was any question of dealing with betting on racecourses it should be done explicitly by the direct instruction of Parliament, and not by a side road of this kind. He understood that Lord Davey approved of his Amendment, and he hoped the House would accept it unanimously.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 1, to insert the following new-clause, 'Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any ground used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto on the days on which races take place.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD DAVEYsaid it was rather strong to say that he approved of the Amendment. He was of opinion that the Amendment was not necessary at all. The Bill was not framed with the intention of including a racecourse, but was constituted on a rather different footing, and he could not conceive that excluding a racecourse could be said to be legislating for the rich. On the contrary, he thought that by not including racecourses in the Bill he was avoiding that difficulty. He would dislike extremely to legislate differently for one class as against another, but the poor enjoyed betting on racecourses just as much as the rich. If the noble Earl thought it worth while to persist in his Amendment he would not object to it, as it only expressed what was proposed.
  THE EARL or HALSBURYthought that the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord (Lord James of Hereford), which had been accepted, introduced an element of incongruity with this Amendment.
  LORD DAVEYwas afraid the noble and learned Lord was under a misapprehension. Lord James of Hereford's Amendment expressly excluded grounds used for the purpose of a racecourse, and the object of Lord Crewe's new clause was also to exclude grounds used for the purpose of a racecourse.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEexplained that the Amendment of Lord James of Hereford would allow betting to take place on

  165
  all land used as a racecourse all the year round, but by his Amendment it could not take place except on the days set apart for racing.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid he would put the Amendment, but it would be found that the construction would land them in a difficulty.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3aon Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 30.)

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL [H.L.]
  Amendment reported (according to order).
  *THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I wish to make an appeal to the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War with reference to the time at which the notice under this Bill is to be given to the local authorities. I quite understand that your Lordships decided in Committee that the period was to remain three months, but if the noble Earl could see his way to insert a provision in the Bill that the local authorities should receive these notices in each year before the 1st of May it would be a decided concession, as most of the county councils hold their meetings in May.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OP STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I have had an opportunity of discussing this with the noble Earl opposite, and am quite prepared to meet him by inserting at a later stage a provision that the notice must be given not later than May 1st.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  THE CASE OF THE "ANTILLIAN."
  LORD MUSKERRY,who had given notice "Again to call attention to the case of the captain of the British steamer 'Antillian,' who was imprisoned under
  166
  circumstances of a degrading character by the Mexican authorities at Vera Cruz; to ask His Majesty's Government whether they now can give any further information as to their negotiations in this matter with the Mexican Government; and whether, owing to the representations of His Majesty's Government, there is now a probability of the claim for compensation lodged by the captain on behalf of his owners and himself being satisfactorily settled," said: My Lords, I only propose to trespass on your time to a very small extent in again calling your attention to the case of the captain of the British steamer "Antillian," and the claim for compensation lodged by the captain and his owners, in the first place, for personal degradation and injury to health to himself, and, in the second place, for satisfaction to his owners for the serious and unjustifiable detention of the steamer.
  The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be quite aware of the circumstances of the case; in fact, when I brought this matter before your Lordships last year, I was exceedingly gratified and obliged by the sympathetic way in which he had interested himself in the matter. To mention the circumstances briefly, the captain was ordered by his agents at Kingston to carry a number of labourers, with their effects, to Chencan on the Mexican coast. He was told that on arrival at this latter place there would be a Customs official and a doctor awaiting him. On arrival he found that this was not the case, and he therefore landed the labourers, with their effects, and proceeded on to Vera Cruz. He stated quite openly to the authorities what the nature and the circumstances of his passage had been. Great was his surprise four days after, and on the point of sailing, when the port authorities at Vera Cruz arrested him and confined him in the common gaol amongst criminals of the worst kind. Thanks to the splendid way in which the British Consul and the British Vice-Consul at Vera Cruz interested themselves on behalf of this British subject in adversity, and also to the action of Mr. Duff, the British Minister at Mexico, the captain was ultimately released on bail amounting to 3,000

  167
  dollars, and the steamer was permitted to leave under, I am informed, a bond of 20,000 dollars.
  In reply to the representations of the Merchant Service Guild on the case, the Foreign Office stated that they were informed that the captain appeared to be in a state of complete nevous prostration in consequence of his treatment. I might also mention that he lost the command of his steamer for the time being, and undoubtedly suffered greatly in health for some time after. The noble Marquess on the last occasion was good enough to say that prima facie the captain's treatment was of a harsh and unjustifiable character, and that it was the duty of His Majesty's Government to pursue inquiries into the matter. Also that, to say the least of it, he had been subjected to very disagreeable and painful surroundings which occasioned him for a time a loss of health. The Court which tried the case acquitted the captain of criminal responsibility, and the noble Marquess stated that certain papers before him showed that Mr. Grant Duff spared no pains to convince the authorities that the captain had been guilty merely of an error of judgment, and that no crime could be imputed to him. Further, I was informed that the noble Marquess understood that the Board of Trade were of opinion that some claim for compensation existed. Personally, I feel that there is little probability of compensation being granted in such cases as these unless the claims are advanced in a very firm way.
  The captain of the "Antillian" has undoubtedly had a lot of sympathy from our authorities, for which I judge he is duly thankful. At the same time both his owners and himself are, I feel perfectly sure, justified in considering that more than this is due to them. I should be greatly obliged to the noble Marquess for any further information on this case, and if he could give some definite assurarnce that compensation will be granted, it would be appreciated not only by those particularly concerned, but by our merchant captains generally, who often require to carry on the business of British ships in foreign ports under circumstances of the greatest difficulty, and who, I am sorry to say, in many
  168
  cases receive no assistance or sympathy from those to whom they rightly look for it—that is, our British representatives abroad.
  *THE SECRETARY on STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I am afraid I have not much to add to the statement I made on this subject last year. I will not to-night again recite the facts. They have been, I believe, correctly given to the House by the noble Lord behind me. The captain of the "Antillian" committed an irregularity in landing at a port which was not a port of entry and where there was no Customs House. He was tried and treated, I believe, with some harshness in a Mexican prison. I imagine Mexican prisons are not very agreeable places in which to pass even the three days which the captain of the "Antillian" had the misfortune to spend in this particular prison. The captain then and there wrote a letter to the Mexican authorities, intimating that he intended to claim £1,000 as compensation for himself and £3,000 in respect of the ship. After the question had been debated here we communicated with our Chargé D'Affaires in Mexico, and we learned from him that the owners of the "Antillian" intended to consider what action they should take after the verdict of the Court had been given. The verdict of the Court was given, and a fine of £100 imposed on the captain, but since that time we have heard nothing of any action on the part of the owners or of any intention of theirs to lodge a formal claim for compensation. In a case of this kind the usual course would be that the owners should formulate their claim and bring it before His Majesty's Government, whereupon His Majesty's Government would consider the particulars of the claim and whether it was of such a character as they could support. Those preliminaries have not taken place, and we have, therefore, not had in our possession any particulars of the claim sufficient to enable us to take it up diplomatically.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.