Lords Sitting of 9 May 1905

Francis, Lord Bishop of Oxford, was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Kenmare (E. Kenmare) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Gamble's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. Counsel called in. Witnesses examined. Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. The same was agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [H.L.]. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. Counsel called in. Moved, that the Bill be now read 2.a The same was agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Lautour's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. Counsel called in. Witnesses examined. Moved, that the Bill be now read2a. The same was agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—North Sussex Gas; Woolwich Borough Council.
And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 1) [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional
1266
Order Confirmation (London No. 2) [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Hythe Corporation Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 21st of February and the 31st of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
Accrington Corporation Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Donovan's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend on the Second Reading of the Bill.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 27th of February and 9th of March last, discharged, and Bill committed.
Grangemouth Waterworks and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Heckmondwike Improvement Bill; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Marylebone Chapels Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Formby Township Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord O'Hagan be proposed to the
House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Chelmsford; read, and agreed to.
Grangemouth Waterworks and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Kintore (E. Kintore)), and reported from the Committee. (No. 63.)
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill [H.L.] (No. 64). A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, the Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1890, and the Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1902, relating to Airdrie, Coatbridge, and Cults and District.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [H.L.] (No. 65). A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Brentford, Croydon (Rural), Durham (Districts), Eastbourne (Willingdon Ex tension), Gravesend (Extension to North-fleet), Kingsbury, Old Windsor, and Wimborne and District.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.] (No. 66). A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Bradford Corporation Tramways, Gorton Urban District Council Tramways, Keighley Corporation Tramways, Leeds Corporation Tramways, Liverpool Corporation Tramways Extensions, and Pudsey Corporation Tramways.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] (NO. 67). A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Aberavon Tramways, Colchester Corporation Tramways, King's Norton and Northfield Urban District Council Tramway, Luton Corporation Tramways, Portobello and Musselburgh Tramways (Amendment), and Southampton Corporation Tramways.
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (No. 68). A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Aberystwyth Gas, Haslemere Gas, Hayling Island Gas, Sandiacre Gas, and Stanford-le-Hope Gas, and
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] (No. 69). A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Dorking Water, Maidenhead Water, Tavistock Gas, Wey Valley Water, and Ystalyfera Gas.
Were presented by the Lord Privy Seal (M. Salisbury); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3365. United States (Hawaii);
  No. 3366. Russia (Batoum).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FRENCH NEUTRALITY IN THE FAR EAST.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question on a matter of considerable interest and importance—namely, whether he can give the House any information as to the alleged irregularities in regard to the coaling and provisioning of the Russian fleet in territorial waters of the French Far Eastern colonies.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I am indebted to the French Embassy for the

  1269
  information which enables me to reply to the Question of the noble Earl. The facts as described to me are as follows: When the French Government became aware that the Russian squadron was within Kamranh Bay a representation was at once made at St. Petersburg, with the result that instructions were sent from St. Petersburg by telegram to Admiral Rozhdestvensky desiring him to leave that harbour, and he did so at once. Subsequently the Russian squadron was reported to have arrived at another harbour upon the French coast of Indo-China, a place known, I believe, as Hon-kohe Bay. Admiral de Jonquières, the admiral in command of the French squadron, was sent to this place to report, and reported that the Russian squadron was, in effect, off Hon-kohe Bay, but not within territorial waters. It appears, however, that the Governor of French Indo-China, who had received special instructions from his Government that he was to take all possible steps to secure respect for the neutrality of French waters, thereupon sent the French Resident at the town nearest Hon-kohe with directions to invite the Russian squadron to proceed on its journey. This official received from the Russian admiral an assurance that the squadron would sail from Hon-kohe on May 3rd. I am not able to say whether its departure actually took place on that date. The only other point which I may perhaps mention is this. It has been stated that while the Russian squadron was within the waters of Kamranh Bay it received assistance from various French officials on the spot. I understand that Kamranh Bay is an extremely remote and out - of - the - way place, and that there are no French officials there; there are, I believe, two French residents altogether on the shores of the bay, and they are civilians holding concessions from the French Government, and not officials at all.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3—
  LORD NEWTONmoved an Amendment providing that proceedings for the recovery of compensation should not, without the leave of a County Court Judge, be commenced until after the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date when the notice of accident had been given. The object of his Amendment was to give the employer time to consider the claim before proceedings were commenced against him. It was plain that no injustice could happen to the workman, because, in a case where there were special reasons for proceedings being commenced earlier, the County Court Judge was enabled to authorise them. The sub-section would, if his Amendment was adopted, read as follows—
  "Proceedings for the recovery of compensation under this Act shall not, without the leave of a County Court, be commenced until after the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date when the notice of accident has been given, and shall not be maintainable unless—"
  and so on.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 2, line 35, after the word 'be' to insert the words "commenced until after the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date when the notice of accident has been given and shall not be.'"—(Lord Newton.)
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, His Majesty's Government are entirely in sympathy with the view that proceedings should not be taken within less than a: reasonable time, in order to give the employer an opportunity, if possible, of coming to an arrangement; but the Amendment is not in the proper place. If it is inserted here, as proposed by the noble Lord, it would have this effect. The claim is part of the proceedings, and therefore it would prevent the claim for compensation being made for twenty-eight days after the accident. That, I know, is not the intention of my noble friend. I would suggest to him that he should move to amend Subsection (c) by inserting, after the word "commenced," the words "not less than twenty-eight days or more than" and leaving out the word "within." That would have the effect which the noble Lord desires without being open to the objection I have stated, namely, that of preventing a claim being made for

  1271
  twenty-eight days. If the noble Lord adopted my suggestion, sub-section (c) would then read—
  "(c) Proceedings to enforce the claim have been commenced not less than twenty-eight days or more than three months after the claim for compensation has been made."
  LORD DAVEYsaid he had no opinion to offer with regard to the Amendment. He rose merely to express his surprise at one sentence which had fallen from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He referred to the sentence in which the noble Lord stated that the claim was part of the proceedings. In the old Act there was great confusion between the claim and the proceedings, and a good deal of litigation had taken place upon it. He had thought it was one of the merits of this Bill that it separated the claim from the proceedings, and settled that question upon which so much litigation had taken place. If the noble Lord would look at the Bill he would see that that was so, because proceedings were not to be taken unless a claim was first made. The claim preceded the proceedings, and was not part of the proceedings.
  LORD BELPER: It has been held that the claim is part of the proceedings. At all events, the object of the noble Lord is quite as well effected by inserting the words in sub-section (c), and they come in more properly there.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I understand that Lord Newton does not persist in his Amendment on this sub-section, and I think it had better be discussed on its merits when it is moved to sub-section (c).
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON, who had an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 3, said the Amendment standing in the name of his noble and learned friend behind him, Lord Davey, had the same object in view, and, as he preferred the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord to that standing in his own name, lie would not proceed with his Amendment
  1272
  but would support that moved by Lord Davey.
  LORD DAVEYmoved an Amendment with the object of extending the time during which notice of an accident must be given from six to fourteen days. He thought that, considering a notice in writing was a condition precedent to the right of commencing proceedings, six days was too short a period. In the first place, the serious nature of many accidents was not found out until after six days had elapsed. In the matter of internal injuries that was especially the case. He knew of a recent case in which the person injured went about his work in the usual way, but found out a week afterwards that he had suffered more injury than he had anticipated; he was, indeed, incapacitated. The injured man might be in an unconscious state for a long time, or it might happen that he was unmarried and lived in lodgings, and he might not in that case be in a position to get the notice given within the time. It was quite true that a County Court Judge had power to enlarge this time, but he did not think that was quite a sufficient answer. It really did not matter very much, so far as the employer was concerned, whether the period was six or ten days because the claim for compensation was made afterwards, but he thought it would be better to put fourteen days in the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 2, line 38, to leave out the word 'six' and insert the word 'fourteen.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  LORD BELPER: The proposed limit of six days, with which this Amendment deals, was made in consequence of very grave complaints by employers of the law as it stood. The Act provides that notice of the accident must be lodged "as soon as practicable," but the decisions given with regard to that have led to great confusion, and complaints were made before the Committee by employers as to the operation of those words. After full consideration the Committee decided that it would be better to substitute some definite period, and the

  1273
  point, of course, which has to be considered is what that period should be. The statement made in evidence by the employers was that in a great many cases, owing to the delay in giving notice, they had been put in a false position. In mines underground the conditions in which the work is carried on vary so very much from day to day that it is most important, in order to afford employers an opportunity of inquiring into an accident, that the notice should be given at the earliest possible date. There is another strong reason. It was shown that in a great many trivial accidents, such as wounds and cuts, if proper precautions had been taken immediately, such as an employer would insist on if notice of the accident was given, the injury would very quickly heal, while if any length of time elapsed before notice was given the accident might, through neglect, become more serious. On that ground also it was thought extremely desirable that the employer should have notice of trivial accidents as soon as possible after they take place. The Committee and the Government have been pressed very much to make the period a shorter one even than six days. The majority of the evidence given before the Committee was in favour of limiting the time to three days; and six days was finally decided upon by the Committee as a reasonable time and somewhat as a compromise between two contending views. Under those circum stances the Government feel that it would be safer to adhere to the six days, it being quite clear that application can be made to the Court, in any case where the injured person has failed to give the notice owing to any particular circumstance, to allow the claim to proceed. I regret I cannot accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONcould not agree with the views expressed by Lord Belper. It seemed to him that six days was far too short a period. His noble and learned friend Lord Davey had given numerous instances in which such a notice would be too short. It was easy to find others. Take, for instance, a case of death. The death of the head of a family entirely disorganised the family, and it was quite possible that the widow, being utterly ignorant of the
  1274
  law, might not realise the situation and fail to give the notice within the required period. Personally, he thought the phrase in the original Act better in this respect than the Amendment proposed in this Bill; but, accepting the idea that there should be a time limit, he could not but think that the time proposed in the Bill was unnecessarily short. In London there were no postal facilities on Sunday, and that might in itself limit the opportunity of giving notice in the Metropolis to five days. The noble Lord had quoted the desire of the employers, but the Government ought also to consider the desire and the opinion of those who were employed.
  LORD BELPER: I quoted the employers as wishing to have the period much shorter than six days.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid that such a proposal as that would make the Bill ridiculous. If his noble and learned friend decided to divide the House he would support him.
  EARL SPENCER: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that when an accident took place it was important that the employer should know of it as soon as possible. We all agree as to that; but I think the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend behind me and by the noble Marquess who has just sat down are overwhelming as to the necessity of greater time being allowed than that provided in the clause. If it is so necessary for the employer to have the notice speedily, surely that ought to be met by some other means. We are dealing now with what is just and right for the men who seek compensation, and I do not think the argument of the noble Lord meets that in any way.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDtrusted His Majesty's Government would reconsider this matter. It was the wish of all that justice should be meted out under this Bill to both employers and employed. They were dealing with a sick, and probably an ignorant man, and if the notice which he sent in was wrongly framed, he would not have time under the proposed limit to send in an amended

  1275
  notice, and his claim could not be supported thereafter in Court. Fourteen days was surely reasonable, and it would be much more satisfactory to the work man that he should have full time in which to frame his notice.
  LORD BELPER: My noble and learned friend Lord James seems to be under a misapprehension as to what the Amendment deals with. It does not deal with the claim at all. A very much longer period is given in which to make the claim. This is merely the notice of the accident. In the great majority of cases notice of the accident will be given immediately after the accident. I must point out that although the workman ha s to be considered, it is of the utmost importance to the employer that he should have notice in such time as will enable him to make inquiries and be satisfied that the accident has occurred and learn the circumstances of it. The noble Marquess opposite thinks it ridiculous to limit the notice to six days.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: What I said was that it would be very ridiculous to limit it to less than six days.
  LORD BELPER: The Committee were strongly impressed with the view that the notice should be given as soon after the accident as possible, and the fixing of six days was a concession to the members on the Committee who objected to a shorter limit. I am not authorised to accept the Amendment as proposed.
  LORD HENEAGEheld that it was in the case of small accidents that time was more wanted. A workman who was slightly injured knew he could get no compensation for the first fourteen days after the accident, and therefore took no notice of it; but he might subsequently find that the accident was much more serious than he at first supposed, but the time would have expired in which to give notice. He thought an extension of the period to ten days would be a fair compromise.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has not appreciated what has been pointed out by my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill. The noble
  1276
  Lord is dealing with the claim for compensation. This is the notice of the accident, and has nothing whatever to do with the claim for compensation.
  LORD HENEAGE: But you cannot make a claim for compensation unless notice has been given.
  LORD BELPER: I assure the noble Lord that is not the case. Notice must be given in all cases where there is an accident. There may be a great many accidents in which there will be no claim for compensation at all. The period for making the claim is a long one, but this requirement with regard to notice is to enable the employer to know of the accident as soon after it has occurred as possible.
  LORD DAVEYsaid the noble Lord was quite correct in stating that this was not the claim for compensation, but it was a condition precedent to the claim, and he could not help thinking, having regard to the ignorance of the rather complicated procedure created by these Acts which existed among the working classes, that some longer time than six days was required. He was afraid, if the noble Lord did not see his way to make any concession, he would have to trouble the House to divide on the Amendment
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid the words in the sub-section were entirely governed by the words in the earlier part of the clause, viz.—
  "Shall not, without the leave of a County Court, be maintainable unless," etc.
  If any circumstance arose which would justify a case being taken, although notice had not been given within six days, the person who suffered could apply to the County Court Judge and get permission. He thought that in those circumstances the provision with regard to the period in which notice should be given was a reasonable one.
  LORD ALVERSTONEsaid the words in the Act, "as soon as practicable after the happening thereof," had been found to work badly. It had been found to be important in the interests of justice that

  1277
  the employer should have early notice of an accident. He thought that what his noble friend Lord Jersey had pointed out really met the difficulty. His experience convinced him that the period for notice of the accident ought to be a short one. It did not in any way limit the right of a man to bring a claim for compensation, but it was of vital importance that employers should not have a suggestion of an accident put upon them without an opportunity of inquiring into it.
  LORD NEWTONmoved to leave out "three months," and to substitute "six weeks" in sub-section (b), which ran as follows—
  (b) a claim for compensation with respect to the accident has been made in writing within three months after the happening thereof, or in case of death within six months from the time of death; and
  The object of this Amendment was to reduce the period during which a claim for compensation was to be made. In short, it was to do away, if possible, with the uncertainty attached to these proceedings. This, of course, did not
  LORD JAMES OF HEERFORD: May I ask the Lord Chief Justice what he means by saying that the absence of notice does not limit the right of a man to bring his claim? If he does not give notice he cannot bring his claim.
  On Question, "That the word 'six' stand part of the clause," their Lord ships divided:—Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 18.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Glanusk, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Cross, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Goschen, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (Lord Steward.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donouqhmore.)

  Ludlow, L.

  Moncrieff, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Knutsford, V.

  Mostyn, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Napier, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Newton, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Poltimore, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Ducie, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Robertson, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway).

  Lauderdale, E.

  Belper, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Tennyson, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Digby, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Dunboyne, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Monkswell, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Davey, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Stanmore, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Heneage, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  James, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  refer to the County Court proceedings, but to the intimation to the employer that the workman proposed to claim compensation. He thought the arguments brought forward by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in support of the retention of the period of six days applied in this case. It was clear, in the case of coal mines, etc., that, for purposes of evidence and for other reasons there should not be any unnecessary delay, and it seemed only fair that the employer should know as soon as possible whether he would have to meet a claim for compensation or not.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 2, line 40, to leave out the words 'three months' and insert the words 'six weeks'"—(Lord Newton.)
  LORD BELPER: I am not able to admit that the arguments which I made use of in support of the six days notice apply also with regard to the time for the claim. The Committee con sidered what would be the most reasonable time to allow for claims, and they decided on three months, and six months in the case of death. I do not think this provision is unreasonable. It stand in a totally different position from that of notice of accident. The employer would have full notice of the accident beforehand, and ample time for inquiry. There are obvious reasons why the time for the claim should not be fixed at too early a period, and I am not prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4
  LORD DAVEYmoved to omit from Clause 4 (sub-contracting), Sub-section 3, excepting from the operation of the clause cases where the accident occurred elsewhere than on the premises. The principal object he had in view was to elicit some explanation from the Government as to the meaning of the clause. Giving the best attention to it he could, he had not been able to grasp the meaning or effect of it. This was a good illustration of the inconvenience of discussing a question of this kind piecemeal. Section 4 of the principal Act, of which Clause 4 of this Bill was an Amendment, dealt with the question of the liability of undertakers to workmen employed by sub-contractors. It was a very confused and badly-framed clause, and a new clause to the same effect had been substituted for it. The provision in the principal Act was this—
  "This Act shall not apply to any contract with any person for the execution by or under such contractor of any work which is merely ancillary or incidental to and is no part or process in the trade or business carried on by such undertakers respectively."
  1280
  The meaning of this provision was that if a person employed a sub-contractor to build a warehouse for instance, or to do some work which was not his own work but was required for the purpose of his business, in that case these liabilities should not apply. The Government now proposed to add these words to the sub-section he had read—
  "Nor in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on or in or about such premises, work, or building as are mentioned in Section 7 of this Act."
  In other words, he supposed it was only to apply where the accident happened on the premises where the work was done. But if they looked at Section 7 they would find that it consisted of two sub-sections. He wanted to know whether the sub-section which he proposed to strike out comprised both of those sub-sections; that was to say, whether it meant about any premises, work, or building unless the nature of the employment required that the workman should be engaged elsewhere, or did it confine the operation of Clause 4 entirely to the actual premises, work, or building where the trade was carried on. He was unable to express an opinion upon it. If it meant to refer to both sub-sections of Section 7, then it was unnecessary; and if it did not, he would be glad if the Government would kindly tell him what their reason was for confining the workmen to the premises on which the business was carried on for the purposes of this section, and this section only. Why was, say, an engineer sent to repair an engine at some railway-station or elsewhere, where it might happen to be, deprived of the benefit of Section 4? He could not see how it affected the question; and if it was intended to confine the operation of Section 4 to the particular premises where the trade was carried on, he would be glad to know the reason for it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 3, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Lord Davey.)
  LORD BELPER: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I feel much more than he does the difficulty of some of the points with which we have to deal

  1281
  in a complicated Bill of this kind. The sub-section which the noble and learned Lord proposes to leave out expressly protects the undertaker from liability in the case where the sub-contractor's workmen are employed away from the premises. The object of that is that in large works, where a number of sub contractors necessarily have to be employed, and where a great quantity of the work has to be prepared in the work shops of the sub-contractors, the under taker shall not be held responsible for any accident arising in those shops, over which he cannot possibly have control. As far as I understand, the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord would cut out that part of the clause, and would, therefore, make the under taker responsible for work over which he could not have any control. The Committee thought it would not be fair, if the Act should be extended to works away from the premises, that the under taker should be made liable for compensation to the sub-contractor's work men.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us who will be liable for compensation in such a case?
  LORD BELPER: The sub-contractor.
  LORD DAVEYsaid he now under stood the view of the Government. He wished to say one word as to the policy of the clause as explained by the noble Lord. He was at present unable to see why his not being on the premises should make any difference to the right of the workman employed by the sub contractor who had contracted to do part of the work undertaken by the principal contractor. He was employed at the place where he was told to do the work. Take, for instance, the case of the sub-contractor to a builder. The builder had undertaken to erect a warehouse, and he let out the painting of it. The sub-contractor who did that work did it on the premises, and if the workman met with an accident during his employment he had a remedy both against the principal contractor and the sub-conductor; but in the case of the plumbing work, which the builder might
  1282
  also have given out to a sub-contractor, part of that work would be done on, and part off, the premises. The pipes would be made off the premises, and the fixing of them, of course, would be done on the premises, but the workman of the plumber—the sub-contractor—if he was employed off the premises in making the pipes, would not have the benefit of this clause, but his fellow-workman who was employed for the time being in fixing the pipes at the premises would have that benefit. What relation did it bear to the workman whether he was employed on one sort of work or another? Yet it made all the difference to him whether he had the liability of the principal contractor to rely upon, as well as that of the sub-contractor by whom he was immediately employed. It seemed to him that in this clause they were placing two workmen who were in precisely the same condition relative to their work, in a very different position as regards their right to compensation. He could not help thinking that the distinction made by this clause was not a sound one. The noble Lord said that the undertaker, if the work was done on the premises, could superintend it, but when an under taker gave work out to a sub-contractor he did not superintend it. That duty was done by the sub-contractor. If the sub-section in question remained in the Bill it would create an inequality between workmen of the same class, and would apply the clause in a way in which the other clauses were not made to apply. He would like the noble Lord to consider whether the clause did not require redrafting.
  LORD BELPER: If the noble and learned Lord will put the point before me, the question shall be considered in the Standing Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question of form only?
  The LORD BELPER: Certainly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question of form can be considered in the Standing Committee, but the question of substance your Lordships will, of course decide; and the question of

  1283
  substance is a simple one. The person who employs the workman is the person who ought to compensate him if he is injured in that employment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD DAVEYmoved an Amendment to repeal the words "is merely ancillary or incidental to and" in Section 4 of the principal Act. It was, he said, provided in Section 4 that the Act should not apply to any contract with any person for the execution by or under such contract of any work which was merely ancillary or incidental to and was no part or process in the trade or business carried on by the undertaker. Their Lordships would observe the very vague character of the words "merely ancillary or incidental to," and they had given rise already to some litigation. They appeared to him, looking at the clause in the original Act, to be absolutely unnecessary. The best explanation of them was in the subsequent words, which were tolerably clear, "and is no part or process in the trade or business carried on." The words he proposed to delete added nothing to the sense of the section, but by their vagueness invited litigation. It was really a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new sub-section: 'In the principal Act, Section 4, the words "is merely ancillary or incidental to and" are hereby repealed.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not at all certain that if we were making this law anew I should not agree with the noble and learned Lord, but if his Amendment is adopted all the cost and expense incurred and learned arguments used on these words will be thrown away. Inasmuch as we have arrived at a judicial determination of what the words mean I should be sorry to see them dropped now. We should have a new line of interpretation if they were struck out.
  LORD DAVEYwas afraid they could not;; take much comfort to themselves from the decisions that had been given, which were to the effect that the words
  1284
  must be construed according to the circumstances of each case.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clauses 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
  LORD NEWTONmoved to amend the new section dealing with the detention of ships, which it was proposed in the Bill to add to the principal Act, by inserting the word "foreign" before "ship." To reassure the Committee he might explain that this was not a tariff reform Amendment. It might be assumed that the intention of the Bill was that the power to detain a ship should be confined to foreign ships only. This view appeared to be borne out by paragraph 268 in the Report of the Departmental Committee, and the various references to the Merchant Shipping Act only dealt with the case of foreign ships; but under the clause it appeared to him that the provision might apply to British ships as well as foreign, and in order to make it clear he suggested the insertion of the word "foreign."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 6A, page 4, line 23, after the word 'any' to insert the word 'foreign.'"—(Lord Newton.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I would point out that Clause 6A, which the noble Lord now proposes to amend, is not a separate clause, but is part of Clause 6, which has already been passed.
  THE CHAIRMAN OP COMMITTEES: That is so. Perhaps the noble Lord will bring his Amendment up in Standing Committee.
  LORD NEWTON: Why cannot it be taken now?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Because the noble Lord proposes to amend a portion of Clause 6, which has already been passed.
  Clause 7.
  LORD DAVEYmoved to omit the words "by the undertakers" from the

  1285
  second line of the new section which it was proposed to substitute for Section 7 of the principal Act. He said the object of this sub-section was to define the employments to which the Act was to apply, and not in any way to define the persons by whom the compensation was to be paid. The words "by the undertakers" were absolutely unnecessary for that purpose, and, more than that, were misleading, and, therefore, mischievous. He thought they must have got in by mistake. The words were misleading because "undertaker" had a special meaning. The term did not mean every employer. A person might be an undertaker as regards work who did not employ a workman at all. Therefore, if the limitation was retained, they would strike out every case in which the workman was employed not by the undertaker but by a sub-contractor. The definition clause seemed to him to have every fault which it was possible for a definition clause to have. The definitions overlapped each other, and were framed on a perfectly different system in each case. Take the case of a railway. In the case of a railway, the owner or lessee of, or person working the railway was the undertaker. Therefore, if a new siding was being made or a new station being built, the railway company would, he presumed, be the undertakers. But, in the case of engineering work, "undertaker" meant the person undertaking the making, laying, altering, repairing, demolishing, or removing. Therefore, in the case of a railway which was being made there were, as it appeared to him, two undertakers under this clause—the railway company and the contractor who was making the railway; and in that case the railway company would be liable to any extent for injury to the navvies or the contractor's workmen. On the other hand, if a canal company were constructing a tow-house or doing any work in connection with the canal, that company was not made the undertaker and would not be liable. What possible reason was there for distinguishing between a railway company and a canal company? Again, in the case of a building, the person undertaking the construction was the undertaker and the person for whom the house was being built was not the undertaker. Why should the person for whom the house
  1286
  was being built be less an undertaker than a railway company for whom a railway or station was being made? It was very difficult to see the principle on which this clause was framed. He did not say it was not an improvement on the old Act; he thought it was, but the clause was very far from perfection. He was not making these suggestions in any captious or carping spirit, but with a sincere desire to make the Bill a really good and workable measure. He hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 7, page 4, line 40, to leave out the words 'by the undertakers.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  LORD BELPER: I fully recognise that the noble and learned Lord's object is to assist in making this a workable and satisfactory Bill, but if we omitted the words "by the undertakers," we should make employment by anybody else employment under the Act, for which the servant would get compensation if injured. It is necessary to provide that the employment in respect of which the compensation is paid should be employment by the undertaker. If the words "by the undertakers" were omitted, as proposed by the noble and learned Lord, the effect would be enormously to enlarge the extent of the Bill, and to enlarge it far beyond what was intended.
  LORD DAVEYhoped the Government would consider this point and if they thought it necessary to say employment by someone, he hoped they would not retain the word "undertakers." The undertaker might not be the employer at all. Therefore, if they confined it to employment by the undertaker, they would exclude a large class of workmen.
  LORD ALVERSTONEthought Lord Davey had for once overlooked the drift of his own observations. The words "employment by the undertakers" were in the existing Act and were absolutely necessary. There must be some limit; otherwise, anyone who happened to be the mere master of the servant might be liable under the Bill. The only effect of the Amendment in the Bill was to alter the class of works as to which the undertakers should be liable.
  LORD DAVEYrepeated that it was desirable to substitute another word. He regretted very much that the word "undertakers" had ever been introduced, and he hoped the Government would consider the substitution of some such term as "principal contractor."
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHmoved an Amendment to include shoeing forges in the enumeration of employments to which the Act applies. This Amendment, he said, did not add anything to the Bill or bring in any new principle. It merely defined and made clear what he believed to be the intention of the Bill itself. If he was wrong in that opinion, then his Amendment became doubly necessary because of the risk that farriers might be cut out altogether from the benefits of this Bill. That certainly was not the intention of the Departmental Committee, because on page 120, Sub-section 312, they most clearly recommended that farriers should be included within the benefits of the Bill. There, smithys had been included amongst the places to which the Bill referred, which no doubt was meant to cover farriers. So far as country districts were concerned, the word "smithy" would cover farriers, because in country villages the blacksmith did general iron-forging work and repairing work, and made shoes and shod horses; but that was not the case in London and in the great cities. They had come to be completely separate trades. There was, on the one hand, the blacksmith who worked in the smithy, who was a forger of iron, and there was, on the other, the farrier who worked in the shoeing forge or the farrier's shop, who was not a blacksmith in the sense of iron-forging, but a maker of horse-shoes, and an expert in fastening them on. There were in London something like 3,000 farriers who were not blacksmiths at all. It seemed to him that these men should be most carefully included in the Act. If it was intended that the word "smithy" should cover them, there would be no objection to making that clear by adding the words "shoeing
  1288
  forge," which distinctly covered the sort of case he was speaking of. This was a matter felt very keenly by the particular trade on whose behalf he was speaking, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 7, page 4, line 43, after the words 'engineering work' to insert the words 'shoeing forge.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  LORD BELPER: I can assure my noble friend that it is the intention of the Government to include shoeing forges-in this clause. I should have thought that "smithy" would include "shoeing forge," but if the noble Lord is satisfied that that is not the case, probably it would be better to make it perfectly clear by leaving in "smithy" and inserting after it, in parentheses, the words "including shoeing forge."
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I will move my Amendment in that form.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSShad given notice to move to amend Sub-section (b) (i) by inserting, after the word "canal" the words "in the United Kingdom." He said that the sub-section to which his Amendment referred provided that anybody in the employment of the undertaker should be entitled to compensation if injured in the process of loading, unloading, or coaling, or in painting or repairing any ship in any harbour or canal. There wa3 a strong feeling on the part of shipowners that it ought to be clearly understood that these words did not apply to harbours or canals outside the United Kingdom. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had told him, in course of conversation, that the words-in his Amendment were unnecessary, as no part of the Bill applied outside the United Kingdom, and that any words such as he proposed to insert would be not only superfluous in themselves, but might create doubt as to whether other parts of the Bill applied outside the United Kingdom or not. In those circumstances he would not move his Amendment.
  LORD BELPER: The facts are as stated by the noble Earl. The Bill refers entirely to the United Kingdom. The insertion of the words in the Amendment would not only be superfluous, but might lead to the idea that other parts of the Bill, in which the words were not inserted, were intended to apply outside the United Kingdom.
  LORD DAVEYmoved to amend Subsection (b) (iii.), which made the Act apply to employment by the undertaker in the care or management of horses or locomotives. This was, he said, an entirely new departure, because it would Tender any gentleman who employed a coachman or groom liable for any accident that might happen to them. If that was what the Government intended he had no objection to it, but he wished to point out that it was an entirely new departure. Hitherto this compensation had not been applied to domestic servants at all, with the doubtful exception of gardeners, but if it was to apply to coachmen and grooms he did not see why it should not apply to other domestic employment as well. If the noble Lord stated that it was intended to apply to private coachmen or grooms he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 7, page 5, line 18, after the word 'locomotives' to insert the words 'for the purpose of any trade or business, or in agriculture.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  LORD BELPER: The idea is that it should apply to coachmen, grooms, and those in charge of horses, and also to chauffeurs of motor-cars. With regard to what the noble and learned Lord said as to this being a new departure, I am informed that gardeners do come under the operation of the Act of 1900, and, there fore, the departure was made in that year. There seems to me no reason why, if gardeners are to get compensation, persons employed in much more dangerous occupations, such as chauffeurs and those having to do with horses, should not be included.
  LORD DAVEYsaid his desire had been achieved. He wanted to know what was the meaning of the clause. He still thought it was introducing a new and wide principle by a side wind, and he
  1290
  doubted very much whether gardeners were included in the Act of 1900. He would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD DAVEYmoved to amend Section (2), which provides that "In this Act 'railway' and 'tramway' include every station, and siding of or belonging to the railway or tramway." He moved to leave out the second "and," and to insert, after "siding," the words "or other building or work." The Amendment was merely a drafting one.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 7, page 5, line 22, to leave out the second word 'and'; and in line 23, after the word 'siding' to insert the words 'or other building or work.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  LORD BELPER: I do not think this is merely a drafting Amendment. The definition of "railway" is that it includes every station, siding, wharf, and dock, and, therefore, it is not thought necessary to put them in the definition of "railway" in this Bill. If Lord Davey's words were adopted, it would bring every railway hotel, for instance, under the operation of the Act, and sometimes railway hotels are not even in direct connection with the railway. More than that, it would bring the clerks in an office belonging to a railway in the middle of a town under the Act. The Government do not think it necessary to extend it in this way. I think the noble and learned Lord will find that the definition of "railway' really covers all that it is necessary to cover, and that every part of a railway, including offices, stations, goods warehouses, and goods sheds, will be included in the Bill as it stands at present.
  LORD DAVEYsaid he doubted whether workshops or engine sheds were included, but if the noble Lord was satisfied that they were he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD NEWTONmoved to amend the definition of "undertakers" in the case

  1291
  of a railway by leaving out the words "owner or lessee" and inserting the words "having the actual use or occupation" of the railway. As he read the Bill, if he were the owner of a railway, and the lessee should prove to be an impecunious person, he could be sued for compensation in the case of an accident, although he had no control over the railway.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 7, page 6, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words 'owner or lessee of or,' and after the word 'person' in line 19 to insert the words 'having the actual use or occupation or.'"—(Lord Newton.)
  LORD BELPER: I am informed that the words in the Bill cover every possible person who ought to be liable to pay compensation. Under the Bill the employees of a railway company who are employed outside would get compensation. The Bill is not confined to the line itself as before, and we believe that with that alteration everybody will be covered, and that it is not necessary to make any alteration.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDasked whether, if the owner of a railway leased it, he would be liable as well as the lessee.
  LORD BELPER: I understand that no difficulty has arisen on this point, but I will undertake that it shall be considered.
  LORD NEWTON: On the understanding that it is considered in Standing Committee I withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD NEWTONmoved to insert the following new clause: "In Paragraph (1) (a) (i) of the First Schedule after the words 'equal to his' insert 'net,' after the words 'amount of his' insert 'net,' and after the words 'average weekly' insert 'net' and in Paragraph (1) (b) of the First Schedule after the words 'average weekly' insert' net.'"
  1292
  This Amendment dealt with the question, of net and gross earnings of men in regard to the question of compensation. It would appear that the intention of the Bill was that only the net earnings would be considered, but he understood that considerable difficulty had arisen over this point in cases that had been tried, and it seemed to him desirable that it should be cleared up. In Paragraph 216 of the Report of the Departmental Committee it was pointed out that some such Amendment as this was necessary. It was there stated that the practice in many industries was to make deductions from gross earnings for certain purposes, and that in coal mines it was the practice for colliers to pay those working under them out of their earnings. The Committee mentioned that Mr. Ratcliffe Ellis contended that "earnings" ought to mean "net earnings," the actual reward or recompense for labour, and with this contention they agreed. It was on that finding that he based his Amendment. He was aware that this question had been met to a certain extent by one of the sub-sections in this clause, but he ventured to think that the introduction of the word "net" would simplify matters.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 7 to insert the following new clause: 'In Paragraph (1) (a) (i) of the First Schedule after the words 'equal to his' to-insert the word 'net,' after the words 'amount of his' to insert the word 'net,' and after the words 'average weekly' to insert the word 'net,' and in Paragraph (1) (b) of the First Schedule after the words 'average weekly' to insert the word 'net.'"—(Lord Newton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very much afraid this is one of the instances in which an attempt to make a thing clearer than it is already would make it the reverse. If the word "earnings" is used, then it is simply a question of fact for the tribunal to ascertain what the earnings are—not necessarily the amount of money actually paid, but the sum actually-received by the workman after all deductions or allowances had been taken into account. If you introduce the word "net" you do not get any further definition because the same question, What are the earnings? will still arise, but I

  1293
  think an additional source of confusion may be imported into the consideration of the question. I therefore hope my noble friend will not insist on his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  LORD DAVEYmoved to amend the provision that "in the case of partial incapacity the weekly payment shall in no case exceed one-half of the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average weekly amount which he is earning or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident," by the deletion of the word "suitable," and the substitution of the word "other." The word "suitable" seemed to invite litigation, and he thought the words "in some other employment" would answer every purpose.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 10, page 9, line 21, to leave out the word 'suitable' and to insert the word 'other.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  LORD BELPER: The word "suitable" was put in for the benefit of the workman to meet a case where a skilled man was offered some totally unsuitable employment. It really is to the benefit of the workman, because if he was not offered suitable employment he would get full compensation. I think the word "suitable," which can always be interpreted in a reasonable way, does guard the workman, and that was the object of inserting it in the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 16 agreed to.
  LORD DAVEYmoved to amend the Second Schedule to the principal Act, Sub-section (2), by inserting, after the first word "judge," the words "or by a
  1294
  single arbitrator appointed by him," and repealing the words from "rules of Court" to the end of the sub-section. The sub-section in question enabled a County Court Judge, according to procedure prescribed by rules of Court, or if in England by permission of the Lord Chancellor, to appoint a single arbitrator. The Lord Chancellor would be able to tell the House whether he had ever been called upon in this connection. He failed to see the necessity of making an additional reference in England only to the Lord Chancellor before a County Court Judge could appoint an arbitrator. He did not think the Lord Chancellor should be brought in for suck a small purpose.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the Second Schedule to the principal Act, Sub-section (2), after the first word 'Judge' to insert the words 'or by a single arbitrator appointed by him,' and to repeal the words from 'rules of Court' to the end of the-subsection."—(Lord Davey.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is one of the sections of the Act that have operated without the least friction or difficulty. I may tell my noble and learned friend that I am continually applied to, and that the provision is a very wholesome and proper one. If the County Court Judge has a sufficient amount of work to do, it is proper that he should transfer the duties of arbitration to somebody else, but it is quite necessary that there should be some check upon that power, and therefore it is only on application to the Lord Chancellor that he gets the power to do that, and I have never had any difficulty at all with County Court Judges on the matter. Applications are constantly made to me, and I accede to them where the circumstances justify it.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD DAVEYmoved, on Paragraph (7) of the Second Schedule of the Act—
  "In case of the death or refusal or inability to act of an arbitrator, a Judge of the High Court at Chambers may, on the application of any party, appoint a new arbitrator, to substitute 'the County Court Judge' for 'a Judge of the High court at chambers.'"

  1295
  Their Lordships would observe that it was the County Court Judge who appointed the arbitrator in the first instance, but in the case of the death of the arbitrator or his inability to.act a Judge of the High Court was called upon to appoint a new arbitrator. This introduced fresh expense, as the application had to be made in London. If the County Court Judge could appoint the arbitrator in the first instance he failed to see why on the death of that arbitrator, or his inability to act, the County Court Judge should not be empowered to appoint a successor.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Sub-section (7) to leave out the words 'a Judge of the High Court at Chambers' and insert the words 'the County Court Judge.'"—(Lord Davey.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no objection to this Amendment, and we accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDcalled attention to Sub-section 4 of this clause, which provides that;—
  "The principal Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, shall as from the commencement of this Act take effect subject to the additions, omissions, and substitutions required by this Act, and any copy of the principal Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, printed after the passing of this Act by authority of His Majesty may be printed with the additions, omissions, and substitutions required by this Act."
  This would, he said, give the King's printer the right to take the Bill when it became an Act, and himself ingraft it into the old Act. It was a very serious matter to give the power to any unknown individual to substitute one set of words in an Act of Parliament for another. The burden of doing that ought to be cast upon the Clerk of the Parliaments or some other authorised person. He hoped that at a subsequent stage a solution of this serious difficulty would be found.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned friend has made this objection on a former occasion with regard to another Bill, but I take a totally different view of the meaning of the clause. In my view it simply authorises the printer to print the amended Act in the same way as he was originally authorised to print the Act of which this is an Amendment. I take it that the word which has misled my noble and learned friend is the word "required." If by the word required was meant that the printer had any jurisdiction to determine what alteration of language would be appropriate to the amended Act, I should agree with every word of my noble and learned friend's objection, but I do not take that view. "Required" means required by the enactment of the statute, and therefore this simply authorises the King's printer to print the Bill as your Lordships' House and the other House have agreed to it and does not permit him to alter or to omit a single word. The idea is that the printer requires some authorisation to reprint the amended Act. My own view is that the section is not required at all. I do not believe it adds anything. The printer is entitled to print the amended Act; that would be involved in the general authority that he has to print what the Legislature has enacted; and if there is the slightest idea that the printer can exercise any discretion, or that he has any right to print anything but what he gets from the Clerk of the Parliaments as having been enacted, I should agree with every word my noble and learned friend has said. But, as I have said, I do not take that view. I think the language used is a little imprudent, and that the word "enacted" might be substituted for the word "required," which would, I think, get over the difficulty.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid it was not merely a question of the word "required." The point was that by this section the printer would be authorised to take this Bill when it became an Act and incorporate it with the principal Act. Parliament should not delegate that duty to the King's printer.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To my mind it does not in the least degree matter if the printer had printed improperly some word in the print, because the moment it was ascertained that he had done that it would be something outside his duties. I do not, however, think it is at all likely to take place. I think my noble and learned friend is confusing two things. When the Act is issued from the Clerk of the Parliaments as having been enacted by Parliament, all that the printer has to do is to print it; and it seems to me that my noble and learned friend is under an entire misapprehension as to what could happen in the circumstances he has suggested.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 70.)

CRIMINAL CASES (RESERVATION OF POINTS OF LAW, BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not think it will be necessary to detain your Lordships at any length. Your Lordships are aware that there is no Court of Appeal in criminal cases, strictly so-called, in this country. But an Act of Parliament which is not very old provided that if a learned Judge felt that there was some question of law, as distinguished from a question of fact, that required deliberate discussion in a Court appropriate to the purpose, he should have power to reserve such a question, that a new Court should be constituted for Crown Cases Reserved, and that this Court should have certain powers given to it—power to set aside the conviction, and power, I think, to order a new trial. But a question has arisen. It is very unusual, I believe I may say almost unexampled, for any one of His Majesty's Judges to refuse to reserve a question which is really a question that could properly be argued.
  1298
  Yet sometimes Judges who are not of the status of His Majesty's Judges are a little jealous of their decisions being made the subject of inquiry, and it has sometimes happened that a Judge has refused to reserve a point. Your Lordships are aware that a great number of persons, chairmen of quarter sessions, Recorders, and others, are included in the description of Judges who have power to reserve these points. A remarkable case has occurred and has given rise to much discussion. I have no desire to express an opinion on that particular case, whether the learned Judge was right or wrong in the matter. But it is thought that it is very undesirable to leave it to the discretion of a learned Judge uncontrolled, even including His Majesty's Judges; that it is desirable to make it compulsory, upon the order of the Court, that they shall reserve a question of law. Accordingly, the view has been entertained that, instead of this power being permissive, if an application is made to the Court of King's Bench upon material sufficient in their view they shall order the learned Judge to reserve the point of law. That is, in effect, the whole of the amendment to the Act of Parliament which is suggested in this Bill. I think that the general object of the Bill is one to which your Lordships will give your consent. There may be some discussion in Committee, when we come to the questions of under what circumstances and under what regulations and restrictions this power should be exerised by the Court of King's Bench. But I think your Lordships will agree that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE NATIVES OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYrose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Condition of the Natives of Western Australia; and to ask for information.

1299
He said: My Lords, in rising to call attention to the subject of which I have given notice, I desire to make a single preliminary observation. The task which I have undertaken is not a pleasant one, and I do not think the subject to those of your Lordships who give attention to it will be found agreeable or satisfactory. I hold in my hand the Report of the Royal Commission on the Condition of Natives in Western Australia, and I am happy to say that the Report is not widely current in England. It is probably well that that should be the case, because its general currency would be apt to do more harm than good because it would lead to the rash generalisation that the description contained in it is typical of the condition of things in other portions of His Majesty's dominions, which certainly is not the case. I venture to think that the statements which this Report contains are unique among modern records of administrative work in any portion of the British Empire.
The Report deals, as those of your Lordships who have read it will know, with the condition of, roughly speaking, 40,000 aboriginal inhabitants in a region extending over about 1,000 miles in one direction and 500 miles in another in the northern portion of Western Australia. For some time allegations have been made that the treatment of the aboriginal tribes in the northern portion of Western Australia was, to say the least, very unsatisfactory. Some eight or nine years have elapsed since attention was called to the subject by the Anglican Bishop in Western Australia, the Bishop of Perth, who lives some fifteen to sixteen hundred miles away; and the allegations which he made were, I believe, laid before the Legislature of the Colony. They were, however, considered to have been exaggerated and no practical action was taken on the subject. There has been there, as elsewhere, an officer known as the Protector of Aborigines, but that officer lives at Perth, which is many hundreds of miles away from the scene to which this Report refers, and it is naturally impossible for him, as matters now stand, to exercise a personal supervision unless he were more largely supplied with officers under him than is the case at present.
1300
Last year the Governor of Western Australia, Admiral Sir F. Bedford, felt the matter to be so important that he borrowed for the purpose of inquiry the Chief Protector of Aborigines in Queensland, on the other side of the Continent, and that gentleman, Dr. Roth, a man of singular capacity for the work, was appointed a Royal Commissioner to investigate the allegations made and to ascertain the actual facts respecting the treatment of the aborigines. The document I hold in my hand is the Report which he produced, and one satisfactory element in the whole consideration of this subject is that the Report emanates from ourselves so to speak; that it is not from an outside critic, still less someone hostile to our administration, that the information has been obtained; but that the British authorities in the colony themselves have brought the matter to light. The difficulty of making the inquiry becomes apparent the moment the facts are looked at—the largeness of the area, the sparseness of the population, and the fact that the only witnesses available are people who are themselves more or less identified with the very acts in question. That is not quite true of them all, because there are those engaged on the mission stations, and the information which comes from them is, of course, of the highest importance. His accuracy can always be checked by such statements as would be made in cross-examination.
The conditions that are prevalent in that region are certainly conditions with which it is excessively difficult for anybody to deal. This great native population is divided into a large number of small tribes, most of whom are hostile to each other; so much so, that it is rendered impossible for a member of one tribe to pass in safety through the region roamed over by another. Hitherto they have subsisted mainly on kangaroos and other wild animals. The difference that has come into their lives has been this—that into this region have come a large number of white squatters or settlers, who have been granted large tracts of country, and whose interest is to eliminate the kangaroo and to rear cattle and sheep. In the result the natives are

1301
driven to great straits, and not unnaturally resort to the killing of cattle and sheep for subsistence. Possibly they are unable in such a region as that to distinguish between the ownership of cattle and the wild kangaroo on which they have been accustomed largely to subsist. The ignorance and degradation of the race is, of course, immense, and the internecine warfare makes the matter all the more difficult if we try to devise remedies. The Report then states the facts that have come to light after careful inquiry and examination of witnesses by this exceedingly competent Royal Commissioner. I am going to quote some sentences from the Report, but I have compared it most carefully with the evidence which follows, and I am not able to find anything which is inconsistent in the evidence as compared with the Report which summarises it.
The first point raised is that of the conditions under which employment is given by white people to the members of the aboriginal tribes. It is usually given to the natives on the runs, far less because of the advantage that comes from their labour than because it is only possible to get the natives under the control of the squatter or settler by making them in some sense his employees. For such employment as the white settler gives the natives, the sole return is food and clothing. No wages whatever are paid. It is said that this is practically the only course to be adopted, because natives have no use for money except to spend it on drink. Further—and this is noteworthy—there is usually no indenture of any kind with regard to the employment of natives by white people. Indentured labour, where we are dealing with native races or savage people employed by another race, could hardly, I think, find a better argument in its support than the details of what may happen where there is no indenture, and where the natives are employed at the will of those who hire them and with practically no control exercised or no responsibility undertaken by any outside authority, at any rate in regard to the person who gives them employment. Employment is given both outdoor and indoor, and it is thus described by Dr. Roth—
"Even without contracts the blacks are not nee to come and go as they please. The assist-
1302
ance of the police is also invoked to bring such runaways back, an official acquiescence which is, of course, quite illegal: the native is practically forced to work for his so-called master. While under such circumstances the absence of a contract does not prevent the employer securing and enforcing the services of the aboriginal, it relieves him of all responsibilities in the way of rations, clothing, and maintenance during sickness."
That is the condition prevalent; and the Report goes on to say—
"The Chief Protector is obliged to admit the injustice of a system where, taking a concrete case, a child of tender years may be indentured to a mistress as domestic up to twenty-one years of age, and receives neither education nor payment in return for the services rendered."
The total absence of an endeavour to educate these people is certainly one of the most marked features in the accounts given of their employment and conditions. It is not very easy to distinguish between enforced labour without wages [the police being employed to bring back a runaway, and the conditions being those that I have described] and that which every subject of the British Crown desires to repudiate—a system of slavery.
Far more serious than the account of the way in which labour is obtained is the procedure for the investigation and punishment of crime and wrong-doing, the only crime prevalent being that of killing cattle. That is the common offence, and the story of what takes place when that occurs is certainly an unpleasant one to read. Information comes to the police that such instances are occurring in a particular district. A police expedition starts to that region, and I will read from the Report an account of what takes place—
"When starting out on such an expedition the constable takes a variable amount of provisions, private and Government horses, and a certain number of chains. Both he and his black trackers, as many as five of them, are armed with Winchester rifles. A warrant is taken out, in the first place, if information is laid against certain aborigines, but when the police go out on patrol, and the offence is reported, the offenders are tracked and arrested without warrant. Very often there is no proper information laid, in that it is verbal; when already out on patrol, there may be no information at all. Blacks may be arrested without instructions, authority, or information received from the pastoralist whose cattle are alleged to have been killed; the pastoralist may even object to such measures having been taken. Not knowing beforehand how many blacks he is going to

1303
arrest, the policeman only takes chains sufficient for about fifteen natives; if a large number are reported guilty, he will take chains to hold from about twenty-five to thirty. Chains in the northern, not in the southern, portion of this State are fixed to the necks instead of to the wrists of native prisoners.…Children of from fourteen to sixteen years of age are neck-chained. There are no regulations as to the size, weight, mo le of attachment, or length of chain connecting the necks of any two prisoners. When the prisoner is alone, the chain is attached to his neck and hands, and wound round his body; the weight prevents him running away so easily.…Apparently, unknown to the Commissioner of Police, chains are used for female natives, not only at night, but sometimes during the day; these women are the unwilling witnesses arrested illegally for the Crown."
That is amplified in detail. I have given your Lordships a single quotation only. At once the question arises, why is it necessary, in an investigation of that kind, to bring to the scene of inquiry or trial so large a number of witnesses? The answer is not far to seek in the Report—
"The larger the number of prisoners and witnesses, the better, pecuniarily, for the police, who receive from 1s. 6½d. to 2s. 5d. daily per head, or as it is called in the North-Western vernacular 'per knob.' One constable admits making a profit; a corporal considers that this allowance acts as a temptation to bring in a larger number of prisoners and witnesses than otherwise; a civilian does not think so many cases would be brought before the Courts if these allowances were not sanctioned; a resident magistrate has always been struck with the idea that this was the reason for so many natives being brought in at a time.'"
There is still another reason, upon which I do not desire to dwell. It relates, I need hardly say, to what happens with regard to the women and girls who are caught as witnesses. The culprit and witnesses once secured, the trial follows.
The conditions of the trial are these. The only interpreter available is one of the trackers—one of those who have brought the culprits down—and a conviction is always obtained. The native prisoners often plead guilty, in ignorance of the meaning of the questions asked. If a man were asked whether he had not killed an ox, he would say "Yes" if he happened to have killed an ox at any time. I quote the following from the Report—
"The resident magistrate, Wyndham, states, 'I think, and have seen it, that a man will
1304
plead guilty now for killing a beast some time ago. The native cannot separate two charges on two beasts, and will still have the same offence in his mind; if he kills a bullock once he will plead guilty to every subsequent charge of killing a bullock, no matter how often he will be charged with it.' Thus, all to the advantage of the prosecution, when once the native has been induced to plead guilty, there is no necessity, under this Criminal Code Amendment Act of 1902, for any awkward questions being asked concerning proof of identity or ownership of the beast, the actual killing, eating, or alleged removal of the carcase. One witness, who has brought about or perhaps over, 100 natives into Court, does not remember any who have been found 'not guilty '; under the circumstances already detailed this is no matter for surprise.'"
Again, this question was asked of one of the gaolers in one of the most extensive prisons—
"Amongst the aborigines sentenced for cattle-killing whom you have shown me and to whom you have spoken in my presence, how many do you think really understand what they are here for?"
His answer was—
"Not one of them, in my opinion."
Part of their employment as prisoners being the mending of roads, they believe they have come down for that purpose, and are totally unaware what the circumstances are under which they have been brought there. There is much difficulty in getting the witnesses home again because of the hostility of the different tribes, which prevents the natives of one tribe passing through the region occupied by another. The peril of going is great; the peril of staying, especially for the women, though of a different character, is greater still. Rations and allowances are given to the police for escorting them back, but it does not follow that they are so escorted. I quote again from the Report—
"Because rations are charged for to take the witnesses home again, it does not follow that they are escorted back; in some cases they are certainly not; in others they may hardly have time to get to their destination before they are 'rushed in' again by the police with another mob. It is no secret that the police say if the ration allowance was cut down or taken away they would not arrest so many natives. By their own assertions, every native caught means more money in their pocket; reliable witnesses have heard such assertions made. At present there is nothing to prevent the constable arresting as many blacks as he chooses, while there is no limit to the number of witnesses he is allowed to bring in with him."

1305
As to the treatment of the prisoners in goal it seems almost incredible that under the British flag such conditions as are described in the Report can exist—
"Except in times of sickness, etc., the prisoner is neck-chained from the day he comes into gaol until the day he leaves it, sometimes from two to three years and upwards, according to sentence."
It is further stated that—
"All the gaolers in the North-West are in agreement that the present system of neck-chains could be abolished, and suitably replaced by wrist-cuffs, one prisoner's right hand being connected by chains to his neighbour's left; that a shorter connecting chain could be used; that more freedom of movement would be allowed; that the present employment outside the prison walls would not be interfered with; and that, when necessary, the transport of prisoners, thus chained, could be effected in safety.…Chains could be abolished in the case of aboriginals working inside the prison, and at night, if the gaols were properly built."
From the accounts we gather that there are practically no walls round the gaols, and the only mode of keeping the prisoners within them is by the process that this Report indicates. The following question was asked—
"If you had a gaol built sufficiently strong, would it be necessary to so chain aboriginals?
to which the reply was—
"No. The chains would only be necessary when they were out working."
The witness was next asked—
"Give me your personal opinion about those chains being used at all?"
and he replied—
"I do not see that we can do without them. The chains could be abolished in the case of aborigines working inside the prison, and at night, if we had properly built gaols."
I think I have said enough—though I have given you the merest outline—to show that there was at least ample justification for the inquiry that has taken place. There are many other points of great importance upon which it would be possible to deal in connection with this matter. Along a great portion of the coast, if not the whole of it, are pearl fisheries in which a large number of Malays are engaged. What has happened when these pearl fishers land and supply drinks to the natives, what the drink is exchanged for, and the scenes that follow, I would again prefer not to quote. The whole of the conditions of the pearl
1306
fisheries require most careful examination. The Protector states that he has money at his disposal for relieving natives, but has no means of securing that the money or the rations he gives for the relief of the indigent or starving natives reach them. All this, however, raises a question of inefficient administration rather than of principles. I distinguish between questions of that kind, and the question of the existence of a general system of treatment of natives which seems to belong to an age utterly different from that in which we live. I am far from wishing to ignore the extraordinary difficulties of the administrative problem, but I have said enough to show justification for the protest first made, I am glad to say, by some of the Church authorities a good many years ago, and renewed from time to time, and to prove the need for protective legislation.
Two points seem to me satisfactory in the matter. In the first place, I cannot find anything in the Report to show that the settlers in their ordinary behaviour to the natives are systematically cruel. The other point is that the information comes from the authorities themselves. It is eminently satisfactory that it should be so, and that the information is not the outcome of hostile or outside criticism.
Of course, I am well aware that the matter concerns a self-governing colony, and that it is not for His Majesty's Government at home to say what can most effectively be done at this moment; but I cannot but believe that the fact that the matter has been ventilated in England will assist the colonial authorities in dealing vigorously with it. This matter was brought before the House of Commons some six weeks ago, but, strangely enough, it did not receive any great notice in the Press, although the speeches, of course, have appeared in Hansard. The Colonial Secretary then stated that he was in communication with the authorities in Western Australia and hoped to be able to ascertain quite speedily what was taking place. I shall be very anxious to learn to-night what has been the result of those communications and what is being done in Western Australia itself.

1307
Though the matter is one which immediately concerns Western Australia, it does concern the whole of the British Empire. We have always believed, and prided ourselves in the belief, that we of the British race have some peculiar gift—it has been proved a thousand times in India and elsewhere—for dealing with the extraordinarily difficult problem of government of races other than our own; and I venture to think that a Report of this kind, while it comes to us as a rude shock, is satisfactory in this, that it is unique in its character. It may be asked: what has been the action during this time of those who represent religious organisations? I am not in the least prepared to deny that if funds had been placed at our disposal, more might have been done than has been done, but it is satisfactory to note that a great deal has been done. A certain Father Nicholas, of the Roman Catholic Mission in that region, has been doing extraordinarily self-sacrificing work among the people, and the account of his work is the one piece of bright reading in the Report. As far as the Church of England is concerned, we are determined to make a large and more systematic attempt to deal with the problem; and steps will be taken to send out men really competent to investigate these matters for themselves, to try to bring some elements of civilisation into the condition of the aboriginal tribes, and, what is still more important, to raise the standard of the sense of responsibility among the white people.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, as I had a great deal to do with this question of the treatment of natives in Western Australia during the time I had the honour to be Secretary of State for the Colonies, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words before the noble Duke the Under-Secretary replies. Almost the first question that came before me when I took office in 1887 was the question of granting responsible government to Western Australia. Personally, I was strongly in favour of that step being taken, mainly because I advocated the federation of the great Australian Colonies, and that federation would not have been complete had not
1308
Western Australia been included, and yet that colony could not have been included so long as it had a different form of Government to that prevailing in all the other Australian Colonies.
At that very time I had my attention called to the statements that had been made in 1886 as to the cruel and illegal treatment of the natives in the North and North-West districts of West Australia, both by squatters and the police- These statements had been brought under the notice of my predecessors, Lord Granville and Mr. Stanhope, and had, under their orders, been inquired into by the Governor. There could be no doubt that a very serious state of things existed which required immediate and careful protection and supervision, and, in these circumstances, I thought it only just and necessary for the protection of the natives to insist as a condition of granting responsible government to Western Australia that an Aborigines Protection Board should be maintained, and that certain funds should be provided each year for the use of the Board to be spent in relieving the natives and promoting their welfare generally. An Aborigines Protection Board had been created by a local Act in 1886, no doubt owing to the complaints that had then been made of the treatment of natives, and that Board had among its duties—
"To exercise a general supervision and care over all matters affecting the interests and welfare of the aborigines, and to protect them against ill-treatment, imposition, and fraud."
The maintenance of that Board seemed to me a necessary condition to make when granting responsible government. This condition was strongly objected to in Western Australia, but I persisted, as I considered that in view of the difficulties and questions, financial or otherwise, that arise upon the creation of a new form of Government, it was very likely, unless some clause of this kind was inserted, that the interests of the natives would be overlooked, at all events, for some time. At last the Legislative Council yielded, and a section (Sect. 70) giving effect to the conditions, was inserted in the Local Constitution Act. The Imperial Act sanctioning the Local Constitution Act was passed in 1890.

1309
At the time that I insisted on this condition I was aware that it was not quite consistent with the principles of responsible government, but the circumstances were very peculiar, and, moreover, I was satisfied, and my successor, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Ripon) and Mr. Chamberlain have since practically confirmed that view, that, but for the insertion of that clause, the Bill would not have passed the Imperial Parliament. In a despatch to the Governor of February 3rd, 1893, Lord Ripon writes—
"Section 70 appeared in the Constitution Bill as passed by the Colonial Legislature, and undoubtedly largely contributed to its acceptance by the Imperial Parliament."
And Mr. Chamberlain in a dispatch of December 27th, 1895, says if these conditions, i.e., maintenance of the Aborigines Protection Board, and fixed appropriation for its service, had been omitted—
"There can be no doubt that the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons might have been rendered difficult, if not impracticable."
As I fully expected, applications were made, very soon after the establishment of responsible government, to the noble Marquess opposite in 1893 to allow the repeal of the clause, and to hand over the treatment of the natives altogether to the responsible Government, but the noble Marquess said that, though he regarded the provisions of the clause as of a temporary character, the time had not yet arrived 'for its repeal, and in that view Mr. Chamberlain in 1895 strongly concurred. In 1898, however, Mr. Chamberlain thought the time had arrived when the responsible Government should have the full care of the natives, and the Aborigines Protection Board was abolished. It appears now that there has been a recrudescence of the unfortunate state of things that previously obtained, and a full inquiry has been made by a most competent and experienced officer, Dr. Roth. The most rev. Primate has dealt with that Report, and I will only call your Lord ships' attention to the concluding words of it. It says—
"In the settled areas of those portions of the State along which his investigations have led him, your Commissioner is satisfied that the natives; generally speaking, are not subject to
1310
any actual physical cruelty. On the other hand, the wrongs and injustices taking place in these areas, and the cruelties and abuses met with in the unsettled districts, cannot be longer hidden or tolerated. Fortunately they can be largely remedied by proper legislation combined with firm Departmental supervision."
Dr. Roth made a number of recommendations, and I would like to ask the noble Duke the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether any steps have been taken to legislate on the lines of those recommendations.
LORD TENNYSON: My Lords, I have received a communication from Australia which will partly answer the question before the House. A great wave of in dignation has swept over Australia in consequence of the revelations made by Dr. Roth. The acting Prime Minister of Western Australia has, however, assured a deputation which waited on him not long ago that the Government would adopt immediately some, at least, of Dr. Roth's recommendations, The following reforms, according to the communication I have received, are what the Government have pledged themselves to. More stringent measures are to be taken for the prevention of the grave immorality described by the Royal Commissioner. The services of the police are no longer to be available for the purposes of hunting down unindentured natives who have left their employment, as those natives are fully entitled to do. As far as the existing condition of the North-West gaols will permit, Dr. Roth's recommendation as to the chaining of natives is to be carried out. Native prisoners, when working out of doors, are to be chained by the wrist instead of by neck collars. The head-money system of rationing prisoners and witnesses is to be abolished. Amending legislation will be introduced at the commencement of the ensuing session of Parliament. I think the late Prime Minister, Mr. James, and the Government deserve the greatest credit for having sesured the services of Dr. Roth. Dr. Roth is an expert, having studied the natives very carefully, and is well-known to me as a straightforward, fearless man, who does not mince matters for anybody. The shadow of civilisation darkens the path of the 100,000 or more natives who still survive in that great

1311
island continent, but I am sure your Lordships will rejoice with me that the Government and people of Western Australia have decided that they can and will do something effective to alleviate the lot of those natives who live under their immediate jurisdiction.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to be permitted to say one or two words on this subject, I have not read the Report, but I think we are indebted to the most rev. Primate for the way in which he has brought this subject before the House, and for the very states manlike and temperate language which he used. I was very glad to hear from Lord Tennyson of the action taken by the Prime Minister of Western Australia. Indeed, any one who has had experience of Australian statesmen would feel certain that the matter would be dealt with at once. I was also very pleased to hear from the speech of the most rev. Primate that it is stated in the Report that there is nothing to prove intentional cruelty on the part of the squatters.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I did not say that that statement was made in the Report, but that there was no evidence in the Report of any such cruelty.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think that shows what the English character is, for your Lordships must remember that a squatter up country in that region is away from every sort of help and assistance. He is living in the middle of hostile tribes, and it is quite possible that he may return from his run to find his wife and children speared by the blacks. It is almost impossible to describe the dangers and difficulties of bush life up country. My own experience in New South Wales, and, indeed, in every part of Australia that I have visited, has convinced me that the statesmen and people of Australia are most anxious to do all they can to put a stop to any abuses of the kind brought before the House to day by the most rev. Primate.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, the Government cannot but recognise the
1312
justice of the course which has been taken by the most rev. Primate in bringing this matter before the notice of your Lordships' House. The most rev. Primate has given a very accurate account of what is contained in the Report of Dr. Roth, and has pointed out to your Lordships many of those grave irregularities which, we must admit, have been committed in dealing with the native population in the western paint of Australia. I am afraid there can be no doubt that many grave irregularities have occurred, and I can assure your Lordships, if that assurance be necessary, that the Government join with the most rev. Primate in deploring the condition of affairs, which is certainly contrary to our ideas of humanity. I was glad to hear from Lord Tennyson that in this we are at one with the whole of Australia. We desire, as keenly as the most rev. Primate, that steps should be immediately taken to mitigate and, I hope, to remove for all time the gross disabilities under which the in digenous population of Western Australia has suffered for some years past.
The Report of Dr. Roth displays a most deplorable condition of things, and no one, after reading it, would wish to offer any defence for much that that Report contains. It is certainly not the desire of His Majesty's Government, on the present occasion, to offer any defence. I will give your Lordships a short history, antecedent to this Report, and remind you of the steps which have already been taken, and which will be taken, to remove these grievances. In 1890, as the noble Viscount behind me (Viscount Knutsford) reminded your Lordships, responsible government was given to Western Australia, but the protection of the aborigines was not included in the Act, but was continued by the Aborigines Protection Board, an unofficial body, responsible only to the Governor of the Colony.
From 1892 onwards, the responsible Ministry in Western Australia were continually reminding us at home that it was not quite compatible with the principles of self-government to withdraw from them the right of looking after the native population. After considerable hesitation the Secretary of

1313
State of the day granted them their re quest, and in 1897 the Aborigines Act was passed which did away with the old Protection Board and set up in its place an Aborigines Department, presided over by one of the responsible Ministers, and £5,000 was set aside for the proper protection of the aborigines, a sum which was increased last year to £8,000, and I am informed by those who are competent to know that a much higher sum than that has been spent during the last two or three years by the Department. The duties of the Department are, roughly, to apportion, distribute, and apply, as may seem fit, the money placed at their disposal, to distribute blankets, clothing, and other relief to the aborigines, to provide for the custody, maintenance, and education of the children, to provide, as far as practicable, for the supply of medical attendance and medicines, and to exercise a general supervision and care over all matters affecting the interests and welfare of these people.
It was hoped that this machinery which had been set up would adequately protect and safeguard the aborigines who were placed under the care of the responsible Ministry. As the Ministry sought for full responsibility in the matter of the care of the natives, we were entitled to expect that special care would be exercised in the discharge of those duties. It is pretty clear, however, that the Australian Ministry were far from satisfied with the working of the Act, and it was this which led them to send Dr. Roth as their Special Commissioner to report on the condition of affairs. The most rev. Primate has reminded your Lordships of the position occupied by Dr. Roth, and it is unnecessary for me to add anything to what has been said about this distinguished gentleman. Many of the results of Dr. Roth's inquiry have been detailed by the most rev. Primate, and I do not propose to travel over that ground, in the course of my observations beyond saying this, that it is apparent that the Chief Protector of Aborigines has not sufficient power; that the system of contract is in a chaotic state; that the wages are never paid to the natives; and that only clothing and food are sup plied to them, for the reason that if they were given money they would only spend
1314
it on drink or on the purchase of fire arms.
Then there is the question of the pearl fisheries and the incidents connected therewith. I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell upon these incidents this evening, beyond saying that it is clear that sufficient precautions were not taken to prevent undesirable consequences taking place between the visitors to the shores of Western Australia and the aboriginal tribes. The most rev. Primate reminded your Lordships of the conduct of the police. He told the House that the chief crimes committed by the aborigines were sheep-stealing; and it is clear from the Report that natives have been arrested without authority, and that gross irregularities have been committed by the police in many ways. Then there is the question of the prisons, and the system by which the prisoners are chained. The system of giving relief is bad. In some instances kangaroo and lizard are supplied to the natives instead of the food which should be purchased with the money given to those responsible for distributing relief. There is a tendency for the natives to be dispossessed of the hunting rights to which they are entitled, and the kangaroo, lizard, and other animals on which they exist get killed off, and the consequence is that the natives have to commit the very crimes for which they can be severely punished.
The Report concludes by stating that—
"In the settled areas of those portions of the State along which his investigations have led him, your Commissioner is satisfied that the natives, generally speaking, are not subject to any actual physical cruelty. On the other hand, the wrongs and injustices taking place in those areas and the cruelties and abuses met with in the unsettled districts cannot be longer hidden or tolerated."
I am sure no noble Lord will gainsay me when I say that there is no reason to suppose that the authorities in Western Australia were not animated by the most sincere desire to discharge their obligations towards the natives in a right and proper spirit. The intention of the Colonial Government has been perfectly good, but there is very little doubt that the machinery for carrying into effect the wishes and desires of the Government

1315
has entirely broken down. This is clearly seen from the Report. The Chief Protector of Aborigines has no one on whom he can rely; he has no officer under him, and he is obliged to get his information from the local magistrates and other people resident in the country, who may or may not choose to give him the information he requires; and I have no doubt there have been cases in which he has received erroneous information. In other cases the persons from whom he gets information may be people interested in keeping back the true facts.
This fundamental difficulty has been the fruitful parent of all the other irregularities which have been referred to. We deplore the consequences which have resulted from the insufficient control exercised by those who undertook the management of the native races; but inasmuch as self-government, which includes the right to solve this problem of the management of the natives, has been given to Western Australia, it would be unwise for us to suggest that they were incapable of carrying out the task which has been committed to their care. It must be recollected, as the most rev. Primate has observed, that this inquiry has not been forced upon the Government of Western Australia from outside. It is the direct result of their own investigations, and this fact alone is, I think, a sufficient guarantee that they are alive to the gravity of the situation.
The Commissioner not only points out the irregularities that have been committed, but at the same time suggests remedies for them; and at the end of his Report, speaking of the abuses that had been committed, he says—
"Fortunately they are of such a nature that they can be remedied by proper legislation, combined with a firm departmental supervision."
Indeed, he goes even a step further. For each abuse that has been committed he recommends a specific remedy, and I should like most respectfully to ask the most rev. Primate whether he does not think that if all these recommendations are included in the measure now before the Colonial Parliament, and adequate steps are taken to ensure that that measure when passed into law is
1316
properly administered, we have got the best possible reason in the world for assuming that these abuses and irregularities may be entirely removed in future. The Parliament of Western Australia meets in about a week. They have not yet had an opportunity of studying this Report, but we are informed that a Bill will be introduced by the Ministry which will include the recommendations in the Report. In the meantime we are of opinion that all is being done which could possibly be done under the existing regulations to prevent a recurrence of those irregularities.
We are informed that since this Report has been issued the following regulations have been put into force temporarily. Police officers have been directed to use the greatest vigilance in carrying out these regulations. Further regulations have been made prohibiting the use of chains in prisons, without the sanction of the Governor, or of the Colonial Secretary of Western Australia, and outside the prisons as recommended by the Royal Commissioner; enforcing the discontinuance of the use of neck-chains; limiting the number of hours for which prisoners are made to work in the tropical heat; regulating the terms of contract under which natives are employed, and requiring that engagements should be properly attested; prohibiting police officers from returning to stations natives who have been unlawfully engaged; preventing the Asiatic pearlers from landing, except at prescribed places, and prohibiting the natives from frequenting such places; prohibiting the presence of women on board the pearling boats, and exacting the greatest vigilance for the detection of offences against the morality of children; laying down that arrest for cattle-stealing should only be made on direct evidence; that no female witnesses should be taken unless there were no male witnesses available; and that the grant of travelling rations for prisoners and witnesses should be accompanied by vouchers, by which means the police officer is deprived of the chance of making a profit on rations, and so of the inducement to seize as many witnesses and prisoners as possible.
Magistrates have been informed that their reports of convictions must contain

1317
information as to the locality, and must give the ages of the prisoners; and instructions have been given that the recommendations of the Royal, Com missioner are to be carried out generally. I think these regulations, which are to be enforced vigorously and strenuously, clearly show the desire of the colony not to allow for a moment longer the irregularities and abuses which have been brought to light. We deplore the condition of affairs as disclosed in this Report, but we have no reason to believe that the Government of Western Australia are incapable of fulfilling those obligations and responsibilities towards the indigenous population which they voluntarily sought and which the Government of this country, after mature consideration, finally decided to grant to them.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I am sure that every one in this House will agree with me in tendering thanks to the most rev. Primate for having raised this discussion. This is a question upon which it is highly desirable that the opinion of the people in this country should, be made known to our Australian fellow-countrymen. I believe that that opinion will be likely to have greater weight than any other instrument that could be employed upon their legislation and upon the administration of native interests, and therefore I am very glad that the question has been raised. I am also glad that it has been raised in the tone which has distinguished this debate. There has been no attempt to ask the Government to take any steps inconsistent with the conditions under which responsible Government exists in Western Australia and elsewhere. Those conditions, as your Lordships know, leave to the Government at home no power of controlling the administration of a self-governing colony, and I rejoice to think there has been no attempt to-night to say a single word which pointed in the direction that anything could be done in regard to this matter except to express—as I have no doubt the Secretary of State has expressed, and will express—in the strongest manner the feeling which this Report has excited in this country, and to call upon the Government of Western Australia to remedy the great and crying
1318
evils which have been brought to our notice.
The noble Duke the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has shown that the Government of Western Australia are fully alive to their duties. We might have concluded that from the fact that they had themselves appointed this Com missioner and sent him to inquire into the matter. Therefore we cannot doubt—indeed we are sure, after the speech of the noble Duke—that the Government of Western Australia are alive to their duties in this respect, and are going to take effectual measures for carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioner. There is one feature in this case which is very satisfactory, and it is that there is nothing in the Report to show that the natives in Western Australia are cruelly or unjustly used by those who employ them. It appears that it is in connection with the arrest of persons for trial for offences that the principal of these evils has arisen, and it is comparatively easy for the Government to deal with their officers and effectually put a stop to those evils.
We all know that there are no questions of greater difficulty than those which relate to the management of native races, especially of those so backward as the native inhabitants of Western Australia. They are questions full of complication and difficulty. In self-governing colonies they must be left to be dealt with by the responsible Government. The Secretary of State at home cannot fairly be charged with having the same responsibility over these matters in self-governing colonies that he has in other colonies which have nominated Executives. It must always be under stood that if the management of native races is to be left to the self-governing Colonies they must be prepared, if they mismanage those natives—if they pro duce trouble and difficulty and possibly rebellion in the colony - to deal with those questions themselves, and must not expect aid in money or men from the home Government for the purpose of putting down trouble of that description. Happily there is no chance of such difficulties arising in Western Australia, for the natives there have no means of resistance of a serious kind; but the fact

1319
of their helplessness and ignorance makes it more essential that their treatment should be of the best and most satisfactory kind. Therefore I rejoice that an opportunity has been given of making known to the people of Western Australia the sentiments entertained in this country in regard to this matter, and also that the debate has elicited from the noble Duke a satisfactory statement with regard to the intentions of the Government of Western Australia.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I desire to add my thanks to those which the most rev. Primate has received for the manner in which he has treated this subject. I do not think it would have been possible to treat a case, which naturally appeals very strongly to our emotions, with more moderation and self-restraint than the most rev. Primate has shown. I read this Report, as the most rev. Primate did, with feelings of deep indignation, and also with feelings of humiliation, because we have always believed that evils of the kind which we are discussing were of rarer occurrence under British rule than under the rule of any other civilised Power. Holding that belief we have not infrequently taken others to task for breaches of those laws of humanity which we ourselves so sincerely desire to respect.
To my mind, one of the most mortifying features of these incidents is that they will, in the future, deprive our remonstrances of a good deal of the force that they have hitherto commanded. The noble Duke has offered to your Lordships the best defence which could be offered. He has dwelt strongly on the fact that the inquiry was initiated by the colony, and he has shown that the Colonial Government intend at the earliest moment to introduce the legislation which is necessary for the purpose of remedying some of these abuses. He has also shown that where executive action could be taken that action has already been resorted to. But the best defence that
1320
could be made was that which the noble Duke did in fact make—the defence that these things should not be allowed to happen again, and for that we must look to the colony itself. If the privileges of self-government mean anything they mean that these questions must be dealt with by the colonies that enjoy those privileges. I for one am ready to believe that we may look to the enlightened opinion of Western Australia to see that these incidents are not repeated. If we could conceive such an alternative, I think it would be most unfortunate, and the worst kind of education that we could give a young colony to take a question of this kind out of their hands and to place the care of their aborigines under a specially constituted board dissociated from the responsible Ministers of the colony.
I agree with the most rev. Primate as to the great difficulty of dealing with these problems. They are problems which present themselves all over the world, wherever the tide of what we are pleased to call civilisation comes into contact with uncivilised races. The problem generally takes this shape. The advance of the white man means the disappearance of the food supply of the natives. In Canada the buffalo is wiped out of existence; in Australia it is the kangaroo which disappears; in India, as the noble Marquess well remembers, the numerous sources of support which many of these indigenous races used freely to draw from the forests are denied to them because the preservation of the forests has become necessary for public purposes. And so it comes to pass that these poor people, finding themselves deprived of the means of existence, are driven to desperation. As often as not it is sheer hunger that prompts the acts by which they incur the ill-will, and some times bring upon themselves the vengeance, of the white settlers. The problem is a difficult one, and requires handling with the utmost patience and forbearance, and I trust that we may look forward to the realisation of the hopes expressed by the noble Duke that the colony in this case will be equal to

1321
its responsibility. It is impossible to get rid of the hardship altogether, but you can do something to mitigate it.
Two precautions suggest themselves naturally. One is that a sufficient amount of country should be reserved for the aborigines, and the other that the utmost care should be taken in the selection of the persons who are made responsible for the administration of justice. Not only should you have good and just laws, but the people who receive executive power and carry out those laws should be selected with due and sufficient care. I am afraid that some of the passages in the Report that has been quoted show that some of the subordinate officials have in this case a good deal to answer for. I venture to think that nothing but good can come from this discussion. I believe that the most rev. Primate's words will find an echo far beyond the walls of this House, and that the result of the debate can scarcely fail to tend towards the redress of the great evils that have been disclosed.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I have heard with great satisfaction the speech of the noble Marquess, who stands in a peculiarly difficult position in such a matter as the exponent of the views of this country to other nations. What the noble Marquess has said will be echoed all over the country and will emphasise the responsibility of all who are entrusted with the duties of government for carrying on administration in a manner that will not impede the efforts of His Majesty's Government to check cruelty towards native races in other lands. This debate will, I think, show our colonists that their actions are followed here with the greatest possible interest, and in some cases with anxiety; and I trust that the instances of grievous wrong-doing to the natives of Western Australia will now cease, and that the aborigines in that region will be governed in a humane, just, and generous way.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.