Lords Sitting of 23 May 1905

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision.
Read, and agreed to.
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company Bill [H.L.]. Presented (pursuant to leave given on Tuesday (last); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Stockport Corporation Bill. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on Thursday and Friday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Great Berkhampstead Gas Bill; Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment) Bill; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill; Croydon Gas Bill; Hastings Tramways Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill; Otley Improvement Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
South Suburban Gas Bill; Nottingham and Retford Railway Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; Tees Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [H.L.]; Hythe Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (No. 86); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill (No. 87). Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No 2) Bill [H.L.]; Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Liverpool, etc.) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order) An Amendment made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday next.
East Cowes Gas Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.]; McConnell's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [H.L.]; Lautour's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House; together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the cases. Ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.

WOOLWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
*LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name, viz, "That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they shall strike out Clause 20." The Bill which has just been read a second time contains a number of provisions which, no doubt, may very properly be considered hereafter in the usual manner by a Committee of the House. There is, however, one clause which, if allowed to pass into law, would, as it seems to us, work grave injustice and form a dangerous precedent. Clause 20 proposes to abolish certain rights at present possessed by docks and railway companies in the Borough of Woolwich and almost everywhere in the Kingdom. The general district rate is one imposed by local authorities for services rendered in respect of lighting, sewers, streets, recreation grounds, etc., and in virtue of a series of Public Health Acts beginning in 1848 and culminating in the Public Health Act, 1875. In these Acts a special allowance of 75 per cent, has always bean allocated to railway companies and owners of land covered by water outside the Metropolitan area. No doubt the reason for this special allowance was to alleviate in some degree the hardship to railway and dock companies of the established system of the rating of
1076
their property. These companies contribute on a very onerous basis towards local expenditure, receiving in return but little benefit. As an instance I may mention the fact that they provide their own police, repair their own roads, maintain their own system of sewage, light their own property, require no baths or free libraries, and last, but not least, they have no votes. That the exemption or allowance is justified therefore in theory, no one will, I think, be bold enough to dispute.
I do not, however, base my objection to the clause on this ground—strong as it is—but because the provisions of a Public Act ought not to be nullified by a Private Bill. For some reason, into which I need not now enter, this provision, though extending to all the rest of the country, was not applied to the Metropolis. Until 1899 Woolwich did not form part of the Metropolis. In 1899, however, His Majesty's Government introduced a Bill which brought Woolwich and some other districts within the Metropolitan area. In doing so, however, the Prime Minister pledged himself that all the then existing rights would be upheld. This promise, I need not say, he scrupulously fulfilled. The exemptions were carefully considered by the House of Commons in Committee of the Whole House on the 15th of May, 1899. There was a lengthy debate on an Amendment which had for its object the abolition of these very exemptions. The Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General both strongly resisted the Amendment, and the Prime Minister said that he could not imagine that privileges conferred by Act of Parliament should be taken away by a stroke of the pen and without compensation. The House of Commons, by 207 to 114, adopted the Prime Minister's view and agreed to Section 10, by which it is expressly provided that—
"Any scheme under this Act … shall make provision for protecting the interests of owners and occupiers of any hereditament which is exempt from any rate or liable to be assessed thereto at a less amount than other hereditaments."
Scarcely, however, had the Act become law when the Borough of Woolwich endeavoured to evade the law and defeat the express undertaking of the Prime Minister. The question was fought out in the

1077
Law Courts, and the Lord Chief Justice decided against the local authorities. He said—
"We are all clearly of opinion that this contention cannot be maintained. … We think that it was clearly intended that though Woolwich and other outlying places were to come within the Metropolis generally, yet that exemption should continue."
That the Bill does propose to repeal provisions contained in a Public Act indeed is very fairly admitted by the promoters of the Bill. Clause 20 proposes to change the incidence of the rate—
"Notwithstanding the regulations and conditions contained in the London Government Act."
Avowedly, therefore, the local authorities come before us and ask that the rights given by the Public Health Acts, which the Prime Minister promised should be maintained by the London Government Act of 1899, which were maintained by that Act, and which the Lord Chief Justice says were clearly intended to be, and as a matter of fact were, protected by that Act, should be swept away by a Private Bill.
My Lords, I think it would be easy to show that there were good grounds for the rights conferred on the companies. Moreover, large sums have been invested on the faith of these rights, and surely the shareholders are entitled to claim the support of His Majesty's Government and to call on them to carry out the pledge given by the Prime Minister. It cannot reasonably be contended that the railway or dock companies have gained any benefit whatever by their property in the Borough of Woolwich being included in the Metropolis, or that the borough have been saddled with any extra expense by the change. I believe I am right in saying that the general district rate at its present figure would bring in something like an additional £1,750 per annum if levied, in full on the properties which at present enjoy the three-fourths exemption. Now, as your Lordships are all, no doubt, aware, there have been proposals for some time past to expropriate all the London dock undertakings for the purpose of forming a public trust, and only this year the London County
1078
Council promoted a Bill with that object. The effects of Clause 20 of this Bill would, I am told, be a clear loss of over £1,000 a year to the London and India Docks Company alone, and if the purchase of their undertakings is carried out while the Woolwich rates are at anything like their present figure, the purchasing body would be in a position to claim that their undertaking is worth £30,000 less than it is to-day. This would manifestly be most unjust.
The present system, which rests on a series of Public Acts and the pledge of the Prime Minister, is just and right in itself. But even if Parliament considered that there were sufficient grounds for depriving the companies of their rights, I submit to your Lordships that this should be done openly and by a Public Act. On these grounds it has seemed to those whom I have consulted that we are justified in asking your Lordships to withdraw the clause from the cognisance of the Committee. Rights, given by a Public Act and confirmed by Parliament over and over again, ought not to be over-ridden by a Private Bill. I submit to your Lordships that if we pass the Second Reading of this clause we shall be establishing a mischievous precedent, that we shall strike a blow at public confidence, and I confidently ask His Majesty's Government to support the instruction and thus give effect to the pledge of the Prime Minister, on the faith of which the Metropolis Management Act of 1899 was passed by Parliament. Moreover, if this clause is allowed to stand it will infallibly be urged hereafter as a precedent in such an event, for instance, as that of the great districts of East and West Ham being hereafter brought within the Metropolis, a contingency that has already been seriously suggested in Parliament by the Prime Minister. In thos boroughs there are very extensive dock and railway systems, and it would doubtless be attempted to extend the injustice against which we now protest, and to quote this Bill as a direct precedent in favour of doing so. My Lords, I have no direct personal interest in this matter, but it seems in the first place unfair and unjust to interfere with an arrangement deliberately made by Parliament; and,

1079
in the second, most improper that provisions deliberately adopted by a succession of Public Acts, and on the faith of which large sums have been invested, should be upset by a Private Bill.
Moved, "That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they shall strike out Clause 20 of the Bill."—(Lord Avebury.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, perhaps I ought to say a word with regard to this Bill, which has come up from the House of Commons, where the matter has been considered by a Committee of that House. As soon as I saw the notice standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, I asked that I might be supplied with a copy of the evidence which was laid before the Committee of the other House. I only received that evidence on Saturday, and I have, therefore, been unable to express to the noble Lord the views of my Department with regard to the Bill; but after having carefully looked into the matter, I find that, as the noble Lord has informed your Lordships, this particular question has been under the consideration of the High Court, who took the view which the noble Lord has already stated. And perhaps it would be as well if I quote to your Lordships the words of the Lord Chief Justice in delivering judgment. The Lord Chief Justice said—
"Section 10, Sub-section 1, of the Act of 1899 provides expressly that a scheme shall make provision for protecting the interests of owners and occupiers of any hereditament which is exempt from any rate or liable to be assessed thereto at a less amount than other hereditaments. We think that it was clearly intended that though Woolwich and other outlying places were to come within the Metropolis generally, yet that exemption should continue."
The object of the Bill is to over-ride the decision of the High Court, because, of course, nothing short of an Act of Parliament could do so, and it is claimed that the Act as it appears upon the Statute-book does not in truth convey the intention of Parliament. I did not, under those circumstances, feel it my duty to take the usual course of moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and it has been moved by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Carrington). The Act of 1899 is a general Act affecting the whole of the
1080
Metropolis, and I think I am right in saying; that when it was passing through Parliament the intention of the Government was expressed that all existing saving, rights ought to be and should be protected, and I am therefore not able to concur in the view that the intention of Parliament has not been properly expressed in the Act.
It is not in any way desirable that it should become the practice of this House to move instructions to Committees. As a general rule, it is much better that all Private Bills should go to Committees to be thrashed out, but when a Bill is introduced to say, not what is the law, or how the law ought to be altered, but what was the intention of Parliament in making a law, then I venture to think that your Lordships as a body are entitled to express your opinion. I cannot contend that the moving of instructions to Committees is without precedent. There have been two precedents, one a good many years ago and one in the year 1902, which dealt with a Bill promoted by the London County Council to bring tramways over Westminster Bridge. On both of those occasions an instruction was moved in this House, and on the last occasion, although my predecessor in the office which I now occupy held the same view that I do, that it was inexpedient and undesirable that instructions should be moved to Committees, your Lordships decided otherwise, and the instruction was carried. In the circumstances of this case I do not propose to ask your Lordships to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, but I confess I think it would have been much better if, in view of the expression of opinion that has been given to them, the promoters of the Bill had adopted the usual course and withdrawn the clause rather than compel your Lordships to go to a division upon it.
*EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words on this clause as I had the honour of moving the Second Reading of the Bill. The noble Lord who moved the instruction to the Committee went so far as to say that the provisions of Clause 20 of this Bill constituted an unjust and unfair arrangement, I hope it is hardly necessary to say that if we had considered

1081
that there was anything unjust or unfair about the arrangement we should be the last persons in the world to have given any sanction to it; but I think the case is really not a very difficult or complicated one. The borough of Woolwich as it now exists, consists of the parish of Woolwich, the parish of Plumstead, and the parish of Eltham, all welded into one large borough. It is, I believe, the second largest borough in London. The parish of Woolwich was the only parish in the Metropolis which retained its local board till it was dealt with by the London Government Act of 1899, and when the Government passed that Act they intended, I believe, that Woolwich should be placed under the general law applying to Metropolitan boroughs. The Chairman of the Committee, who had paid great attention to the arguments urged by counsel on both sides, said—
"We had to consider what was the probable intention of Parliament in framing these clauses. The intention of the Government was to place Woolwich under the general law applying to metropolitan boroughs."
They never intended that the London and East India Docks Company, the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, and the Great Eastern Railway Company should be exempted from paying three-fourths of the rates of the parish of Woolwich. The intention was that they should pay the whole of the rates payable, as they do in the parishes of Eltham and Plumstead.
I do not think that the promoters of this Bill have any reason to complain at all of the attitude taken by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House. He was quite frank on the subject, and said he would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. It should be remembered that this Bill has been approved by the Police and Sanitary Committee of the House of Commons and by the House of Commons itself, and that the Local Government Board and the Treasury have carefully considered Clause 20, which is as follows—
"From and after the thirtieth day of September next, after the passing of this Act, all kinds of property within the parish of Woolwich, for the time being by law assessable to the general rate to which Sub-section (1) (B) of Section 211 of the Public Health Act, 1875, applies, shall be assessed on the full net annual value of such property not withstanding the exceptions regu-
1082
lations, and conditions contained in that section and the provisions of the London Government Act, 1899, or any scheme or order made there under. Provided always that nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect any exemption from any rate or any right or liability to be assessed to any rate at a less amount than other hereditaments under or by virtue of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, or any other enactment applying to London,"
and are satisfied that the change proposed to be effected is necessary and desirable. In these circumstances I do most respectfully submit that we have a very strong case. We have been told that this is an attempt to alter a Public Act by a Private Bill. No doubt that would be a very improper thing to do, but I submit that this public law, as it is called, never did apply to London at all. Before the passing of the Act of 1899, Woolwich was not a part of London for local government purposes. It became an integral part of the Metropolis when that great Act was passed, and all country Acts relating to Woolwich were supposed to have been repealed and the London Acts applied. The present state of affairs, which Clause 20 proposes to remedy, arose really through a mistake in the drafting, and advantage—I will not say unfair advantage—has been taken of the mistake that was made.
I am empowered to say that the borough of Woolwich does not object in any way to proper opposition to this Bill; they do not object to opposition from any of the companies. They wish for fair play, and are quite ready to accept the result. But they do object to this side wind being brought in to prevent an inquiry which I respectfully submit ought to be made before the proper tribunal, namely, a Committee of your Lordships' House. I have nothing more to say. I leave the case of the borough of Woolwich with the greatest confidence in the hands of your Lordships. I would only repeat, in conclusion, that both the Local Government Board and the Treasury have carefully considered the clause and are satisfied that the change proposed is necessary and desirable. Surely, in those circumstances, it is a little hard that the clause should be disposed of by an instruction to the Committee, thus depriving the Committee of the opportunity of giving the matter the

1083
consideration it deserves. The companies concerned, whose interest Lord Avebury seeks to protect, would still have every opportunity of opposing the Bill before the Committee, who may safely be left to safeguard any rights they may have. I hope your Lordships will not accept the instruction moved by Lord Avebury, but will allow the Bill to go to a Committee and proceed in the ordinary course.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on the second point raised by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I will not touch on the merits of the Bill. What I object to, on principle, is that by the provisions of this Bill—a Private Bill—it is sought to repeal a Public Act. I can assure your Lordships that by Section 10 of the Act of 1899 any scheme under that Act must make provision for protecting the interests of owners and occupiers of any hereditaments exempt from any rate or liable to be assessed thereto at a less amount than other hereditaments. That provision, so far as it affects Woolwich, is sought to be repealed by this Private Bill. I hope this House will not agree to that. Some years ago in the House of Commons a Private Bill sought to repeal a Public Act of Parliament. I ventured then to call the attention of the House of Commons to the matter, and, with the full sanction of the Speaker, the House condemned the principle, and that Bill, so far as it proposed to repeal a Public Act, was not proceeded with.
I would remind your Lordships that the mode of procedure in passing Public and Private Acts is entirely different. In the case of Public Acts public opinion is brought to bear on their procedure through both Houses of Parliament, and they are discussed on their merits by those who know what public opinion is; but in the case of Private Bills no such procedure takes place except in a very modified form, and if this principle is to prevail you may have a Public Act, the principle of which has been discussed in both Houses of Parliament repealed by a Private Bill, at the consideration of which by the Committee the public were totally unrepresented. The promoters of a Private Bill and the opponents might,
1084
for instance, come to terms as to a clause, and that clause might repeal a Public Act. The principle is altogether a bad one, and I hope your Lordships will not sanction it. If the contention of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill is right, let them remedy the matter by a Public Act.
There is another objection—a practical objection—in referring to which I am certain I shall receive the support of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. The Judges who have to administer the law have records of every Public Act, but no library, except a few local libraries, possesses copies of Private Acts. Judges have no records of Private Acts, and yet they are supposed intuitively to know that a clause of some Private Act has repealed another clause of a Public Act. This mode of legislating places those who have to administer the law in a false position, and I hope, for the reasons which have been stated, the Motion moved by Lord Avebury will be carried.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords. I should like to offer a few remarks with regard to what has just fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite. I think he has put the case in rather too strong a light. He says that Clause 20 of this Bill proposes to repeal a Public Act. I think that is far too strong an expression to use. I quite admit that it proposes to modify conditions which hold good under a Public Act, but only in order to bring it in accordance with the London Government Act, 1899, which has been passed for the whole of London. These conditions which it is now proposed to apply to the Borough of Woolwich are conditions which were applied by a Public Act to the whole of the rest of London. You have at this particular moment the Borough of Woolwich alone in which these particular corporations are exempt from the payment, of a certain share of the rates.
The noble Lord who moved the instruction to the Committee argued this question rather on the justice of the case. He said it was hard on the dock and railway companies that they should be subject to these rates because they did not use the baths and washhouses or the public library, and derived no benefit

1085
from the objects of the rate; but I do not think that is a good argument. It does seem to me that whoever holds property in a particular district is bound on that property to pay for the benefit of the whole district and for the services which apply to the whole district. Therefore, I say it is a fair thing and common justice that these great corporations should be brought in to contribute fairly to the general rate of the Borough of Woolwich. I had thought it was accepted by all parties that one of the great desideratums was that in London the burden of the rates should be equalised. In every other part of London, as I have already informed your Lordships, the rates fall on corporations of the kind which my noble friend now endeavours in the case of Woolwich to exempt, and I do not think it is fair that they should be so exempted in the case of Woolwich.
As the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading has pointed out, the Bill has passed through the House of Commons, has been examined by a Committee of that House, and has received the support of the Treasury and the Local Government Board there. I should like to know what the view of the representative of the Local Government Board in your Lordships' House is with regard to this Bill. We are now asked by Lord Avebury to pass an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out Clause 20. All we are asking is that this particular clause should be allowed to go to a Committee of your Lordships' House to be discussed, in order that the whole merits of the case may be brought before the Committee and thoroughly threshed out. I had always thought that there was nothing this House was more opposed to than limiting the discretion of its own Committees. The Committees of this House have deservedly obtained a high reputation for the way in which they deal with Private Bills, and I urge your Lordships not to depart from the ordinary practice in this case, but allow the Bill, without this instruction, to go before the Committee and be discussed and decided on its merits.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I only rise to point out the view of Sir
1086
Erskine May in regard to the repeal of Public Acts by Private Bills. Sir Erskine May says that it had been questioned whether a Public Act might be amended by a Private Bill, but that—
"No rule has been established which precludes the promoters of a Private Bill from seeking to amend a Public Act,"
though such a proposal required proper supervision. He gives a good many precedents, and states that in 1887 the Dover Harbour Corporation Bill was passed through Parliament repealing the Dover Harbour Public Act of 1861.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I only wish to say that I entirely associate myself with the remarks made by my noble and learned friend Lord James. It may be, where some great case has been made out and where there is an overwhelming necessity for it, that a Private Bill may, as Sir Erskine May says, be allowed to repeal a Public Act; but it is idle to say that there is any such overwhelming necessity in this case. The Borough of Woolwich wishes to obtain more rates, but that is not an overwhelming necessity such as would justify the repeal of a provision in a Public Act. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not sanction the clause in question going to the Committee.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rather regret being obliged to say anything on this matter, but I feel some difficulty in agreeing to the course urged by my noble friends behind me. I am not going into the merits of the matter as to whether the clause is a just one or not, and I will not even go into the question which Lord Tweedmouth has so clearly put with regard to the general Act, and the bringing of Woolwich into line with the other boroughs in this matter; but I do confess I feel strongly that the view put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord James is the correct one, that a, Private Bill should not be allowed to repeal a clause in a Public Act. The Act in question is a very important general Act, and I feel very great difficulty in the matter. This is a case of a Private Bill seeking to set aside a clause in a Public Act, and, without going into the merits of the case at all,

1087
I should feel great difficulty, if it came to a division, in following my noble friends behind me and voting against the instruction proposed by the noble Lord.
There is another matter which I cannot help referring to as a layman who does not find it always easy to interpret Acts of Parliament. I allude to the fact that in this clause there is a greater sin of reference than almost any that has been committed. I consulted a very distinguished lawyer on the question, and he said he was ready to look into it, but the clause was so complicated that even he could not in a few hours give a clear view upon it. That, I think, is a good example of what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and my noble and learned friend opposite referred to last night—the evil of legislating by reference. I regret to have had to make this statement, but I feel that there is considerable force in what has been said against overriding a Public Act by a Private Bill. If it is unjust to exempt Woolwich in this matter, that injustice should be remedied by a Public Act, and not by a clause in a Private Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (HOURS OF SALE) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of inhabitants of Gloucester; Chillenden; Liverpool (2); Stockton-on-Tees; Derby; Glasgow; Reading; Leytonstone; Birmingham (2); Atherton; Croydon; Dorset and Southern Counties Temperance Association; Welsh Good Templars, East Anglia Lodge; Probus Society; Bible Christian (Methodist) Church; Summerfield Latter Day Saints; London Good Templars; Kent Temperance Federation; Durham Good Templars (2); Midland Temperance League; Scottish Temperance League; Scotch Good Templars. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3379. United States (Porto Rico); No. 3380. Western Pacific (Samoa).
  COMMERCIAL No. 2 (1905) (SUEZ CANAL).
  Returns of shipping and tonnage, 1902, 1903, and 1904 (in continuation of "Commercial, No. 4 (1904)").

  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
  Correspondence relating to merchant shipping legislation in Australia and New Zealand.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade to the 31st December, 1904, and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners to the same date. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  LORD MONKSWELLmoved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 3, the object of which was, he said, to bring the Bill in conformity with other Bills of the same character which had been passed from time to time. The clause which he proposed was the ordinary one to prevent compensation being claimed in respect of improvements made after a Bill for compulsory purchase had been introduced. A precisely similar proviso was inserted in the London County Council General Purposes Bill of last year, and he was told that the clause was the ordinary one in those cases.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 3 to insert as a new clause, the words 'In settling any question of disputed purchase-money or compensation payable under this Act by the Council, the Court or persons settling the same shall not award any sum of money for or in respect of any improvement, alteration, or building made for or in respect of any interest in the lands created after the 18th day of October, 1904, if in the opinion of such Court or person the improvement, alteration, or building, or the creation of the interest

  1089
  in respect of which the claim is made, was not reasonably necessary, and was made or created with a view of obtaining or increasing compensation under this Act.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the noble Lord has stated with clearness the object of his Amendment. The Board of Education were not prepared to introduce a clause of this kind themselves, inasmuch as it did not come within their sphere, but as it has been proposed by the London County Council we do not offer any opposition to the Amendment. I understand that the clause is intended to protect the ratepayers, which is a very important matter at the present day, and to prevent any land which is taken compulsorily being built upon in order that a heavy compensation may be obtained when the Act comes into force. On behalf of His Majesty's Government; therefore, I accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to. Standing Committee negatived: the Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday next.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, the measure which I venture to submit for your Lordships' consideration this evening is, in my humble judgment, as simple as it is necessary and as necessary as it is simple. Its object is to enable the people of a district, when there is no other suitable provision in the neighbourhood, to hold public meetings in the rooms of public elementary schools in order that they may be able to hear the views of their candidates for Parliament or for the local bodies of the district in which they live. I venture to hope that I shall be able to show your Lordships in the first place that the measure is necessary; secondly, that its principle has had the
  1090
  direct sanction of both of the great Parties in the State; and thirdly, that it can be carried into effect without damage to the educational value of the schools or financial loss to the ratepayers or the school managers.
  In order to show your Lordships that the measure is necessary at the present moment I shall have to trouble you with a short history as to how the necessity came about. The necessity far this measure arose in consequence of the Franchise Act of 1884, when, for the first time, agricultural labourers became the majority of the rural electors in county constituencies. Previous to that time the majority of the electors in those constituencies were farmers, or other well-to-do people, and their candidates or Members were accustomed to take advantage of the farmers' ordinary or some similar occasion in order to address them; but when the agricultural labourers became electors it was necessary for candidates to go into the various villages in order to come face to face with those who were to have the power of returning them to Parliament; and when I mention to your Lordships that in a large agricultural constituency which I had the honour of representing for many years, though it comprised eighty villages, there were only five places which it was possible to hire in which to address meetings, I think it will be seen that in that constituency at any rate the rooms of the elementary schools were the only places available for meetings.
  A difficulty arose in 1885, because it was found in some of the villages that while the managers granted the use of the school to one of the candidates they objected to letting it to the other political candidate, or else put such conditions upon its use by him as to make it practically prohibitory. In the autumn of 1885 the question of disestablishment, which had not previously been very much before the electors, suddenly came to the front, and in a constituency which I myself know well the Conservative candidate went down to a certain village, obtained the use of the school, and made an attack on his opponent with regard to his views on disestablishment, although that opponent had never put disestablishment in the forefront on his programme.

  1091
  Yet when the Liberal candidate asked for the use of the schoolroom, the vicar granted his request on condition that in the course of his speech he did not mention the word disestablishment, and so the unfortunate man had to go down to that village to answer an opponent who had attacked him a week before, and the main point in the attack was to be barred.
  I want to say at once that I bring no accusation whatever against Conservative candidates. On the contrary, I am quite certain that they are just as anxious as we should be that their opponents should have full opportunity of putting their views before the electors. Nor do I bring any sweeping charges against school managers generally. I believe the class to which I refer are in an absolute minority, but at the same time in the small out-of-the-way places which this measure would practically affect, political hostility is often of a bitter nature, and it is in those places that it is necessary that agricultural labourers, who, after all, are not the best educated of the electors generally, should have an opportunity of hearing both sides of those great political questions upon which Parliament has given them the right and the duty of voting. And here I would mention a fact, which I would venture with all humility to commend to the right rev. bench. It is this, that the chairman of the managers is in many cases, if not in most cases, the vicar or the rector of the parish, and as I do not believe for a single moment that the majority of the clergy take such a view as I have pointed out of refusing their schools to particular political candidates, I think it is very hard that on account of a few political zealots there should be an injustice done to the clergy at large. It is on that account that I would ask, with all submission, for the support of the right rev. Prelates to my Bill.
  There have been several Resolutions and Bills brought in on this subject. There were Resolutions in the House of Commons in 1887, in 1889, and in 1892. In 1887 and 1889 interesting discussions took place on the subject, but no vote was taken. But in 1892, on the eve of a general election, I was fortunate enough to persuade the House of Commons to
  1092
  unanimously pass a Resolution of which this Bill is the embodiment. More than that, with the assent of the present Prime Minister a Bill was brought into the House of Commons by the Government which was practically on all fours with this Bill. But, as your Lordships know, a general election shortly afterwards took place and the Conservative Government had not the opportunity of placing the Bill on the Statute-book, as no doubt they very ardently desired. It may be said that the succeeding Gladstonian Government ought to have brought in a Bill of their own on this subject. I do not know that it is necessary to remind your Lordships that during the somewhat strenuous Government of 1892–5 the House of Commons was occupied with a good many very large and far-reaching measures, and owing to the gallantry and eloquence of the Opposition of the day those measures took considerable time to debate. That may form an excuse for their not having dealt with the matter in a special Bill; but, as a matter of fact, the principle was embodied in the Local Government Act, 1894, which is generally known as the Parish Councils Act. Therefore I claim that the Government of 1892–5, busy as they undoubtedly were, yet embraced the only opportunity at their disposal of placing this principle on the Statute-book.
  It may be said that in consequence of the Bill which was brought in by the Conservative Government and the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons of 1892 the necessity for this measure, after all these years, has practically passed away. It is, of course, impossible for me or any private individual to obtain accurate information with regard to what has taken place throughout the whole of Great Britain, but I have been able to obtain some information with regard to the home counties, and though I do not pretend for a single moment that the information I have received is entirely complete, yet it goes to show that in the limited area of the home counties during 1904–5, at the by-elections that have taken place and at other elections, there have been eighty-four refusals of schools when they have been applied for, and that, I venture to think, is a very large

  1093
  number. I would also mention that there are cases among those I am referring to in which the schools have been refused to both political candidates. Then there have been cases where the charges for the hire of the schools were so high as to be practically prohibitive, and the managers of the schools have been able to avoid the obloquy of direct refusal of putting a prohibitory charge on the schools.
  Then there are cases, not at all uncommon, in which the managers do not like the political opinions of the persons who apply for the use of the schools. I do not wish for a single moment to gibbet any particular place or any particular person, and if I venture to give some instances of replies that were received in answer to applications for schools I do not intend to mention names, but the authority, of course, is at the disposal of the noble Marquess or anyone else who desires to see it privately. One of the refusals was to this effect. A rev. gentleman wrote that the Conservatives had had a meeting at the "Red Lion," and he added—
  "I presume that is available for you, too."
  I venture to think that advocates of temperance on both sides of the House will agree that a public-house or an inn where wine, spirits, and beer are sold is not a very desirable place for a political meeting. The heady wine of politics is sufficiently exciting in itself, but if it is leavened by the beer of the "Magpie and Stump" it may have disastrous effects. The vicar of another place wrote to this effect—
  "Not being myself a Liberal, but, on the contrary, a staunch Conservative, I cannot accede to the request contained in your letter."
  Well, my Lords, that is very much to the point. I should have preferred that his answer had been of a more judicial character. Then there is a case which concerns a member of His Majesty's Government, and the story I am going to tell is immensely to his credit. A meeting was held by this gentleman, who was the Member for the constituency, and shortly afterwards his Liberal opponent applied for the use of the same school, but it was refused to him, and the gentleman to whom I refer intervened on behalf of his Liberal opponent, obtained the use of the school for him, and the meeting was held.
  1094
  But what a condemnation of the system that very fact is! The amusing part, however, is the result, for the clergyman said there should be no political meetings, held in the school at all for the future, I think I have said enough to show that there is, even at the present moment, a necessity for this measure.
  The principle of this Bill has the direct, sanction of both political Parties. I have referred to the unanimous reception by the House of Commons of the Resolution moved in 1892, to the Bill which was brought in by the Conservative Government of that day at the instance of the Prime Minister embodying that Resolution, and, finally, to the Local Government Act of 1894, which received the assent of your Lordships' House and the House of Commons, endorsing the principle. The Bill of 1892, which, as I have said, was brought in by a Conservative Government, was practically on all fours with this measure. It provided that schoolrooms might be used for meetings in respect to elections to Parliament and the local bodies free of charge. I would emphasise the words "free of charge," because a noble Lord who criticised this measure pointed out that there ought to be some charge for the use of the schoolrooms. My answer is that when I originally drafted the Bill I had considered putting in a limited charge, but when I read the Conservative Bill of 1892, which, as I have said, was sanctioned by the present Prime Minister, and found that it provided that the use of the room should be granted without any charge, I felt that it was impossible for me to do other than follow that example.
  As recently as 1902, when a debate took place on this subject during the discussion of the Education Bill, a Member of the other House moved a clause by which the schoolrooms would be at the disposal of Parliamentary candidates, and the Prime Minister said:—
  "He was not saying that a provision of the kind, made universal—"
  in that proposal it was restricted to voluntary schools—
  "Could not be so safeguarded as to make it a reasonable and proper addition to the Statute-book, but he ventured to suggest that it should be introduced as a separate Bill and at a time when the House would have an opportunity of discussing it."

  1095
  I have introduced it as a separate Bill this evening, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will find time to discuss it if it be necessary so to do. When Mr. Balfour accepted the Resolution of 1892 he said—
  "We are all agreed on both sides of the House that it is in the highest degree desirable that these schools, in districts where no other public place of assembly is obtainable, should be open to every side of politics."
  I have every hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will accept this Bill. It can be adopted without interference with the use of the schools for educational purposes, and without loss to the ratepayers or the managers of the schools. It is laid down that any expense incurred shall be borne by the person in whose behalf the school is taken, and he will also pay for any damage that may be done. Moreover, except during elections, the use of the schools in these villages is to be limited to twice a year. Therefore, I claim that the Bill contains adequate safeguards. I do not know what the attitude of the Government will be, but I am sanguine that they will accept the Bill. If they do not I shall be curious to know on what ground the noble Marquess will base his refusal. If he opposes it on principle he will be opposing a principle which has been affirmed by his own Prime Minister and by his own Party in both Houses of Parliament. I venture, on my part, without hesitation to commend the measure to the common sense and justice of your Lordships' House and of the country.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Burghclere.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down, in the course of his exceedingly interesting, pointed, and lucid speech, appealed specially to the Episcopal Bench in the hope of obtaining their support for the Bill which he asks your Lordships to read a second time to-night. I am not empowered to speak as the representative of the Bishops generally on this subject, for we have not had an opportunity of jointly considering the measure; but, speaking for myself, and simply for myself,
  1096
  I wish to say that I believe the principle of the Bill to be sound, and one which your Lordships ought to accept. The noble Lord, in speaking of rural schools, presumably had in his mind the schools which are now described as "non-provided," and formerly as "voluntary," but he did not touch at all on the question of the ownership of the buildings in which the school work is carried on. It was, perhaps, not necessary for his argument that he should do so; but I would remind your Lordships that, while the buildings are largely used for public purposes—and those purposes are largely dependent upon public funds—the buildings still remain private property, and that fact has to be borne in mind when considering the difficulties with which this subject is surrounded. But, in whomsoever the actual ownership of the schools is vested, I maintain that they ought, in fairness, to be available for such purposes as this Bill describes, under careful restrictions against possible misuse and with definite limitations: the condition being carefully observed that they ought not to be so used except in places where no other suitable building is available. Holding that principle to be sound, I am prepared to vote with the noble Lord in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill.
  But I desire to point out that the Bill will require a great deal of consideration in regard to its details before it can, without harm, become an Act of Parliament. It gives so great an extension of the right which now exists on the part of the public to the use of school buildings for other than educational purposes, that difficulties of no inconsiderable kind might, to the detriment of education, arise in some villages. I believe that those difficulties ought to be faced and can be overcome. The noble Lord stated that except during elections the use of the schools in these villages was to be limited to twice a year, but the Bill provides that after reasonable notice given by any Member of Parliament, county councillor, or member of any public body elected by the ratepayers of the area in which such district is situated, or any Parliamentary candidate, or candidate for the county council or other

  1097
  elective body for such area or district, the schoolhouse may be used in pursuance of the candidature of such person on two occasions during the year, which is a very different matter. There might be a very large number of individuals in the course of the twelve months who might wish to take advantage of this Bill.
  I am all in favour of facilitating the ventilation of public questions on all sides, both in town and country. I believe that by carrying out that principle alone can we expect to advance the popular intelligence on public questions; and, holding that opinion most strongly, I am prepared to go as far as possible to meet the necessities of the case. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill spoke of the measure as being as simple as it was necessary. Necessary it may be, but simple in working, I venture to think, it certainly is not as at present drafted; and I believe a great many of the provisions will require much careful consideration before they can be satisfactorily placed on the Statute-book. I do not think that the safeguards which the Bill provides against the harassing use of the buildings are sufficient. The noble Lord quoted letters which had been received; from the chairmen of boards of managers, before, I think, the passing of the recent Education Act.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: No; during the years 1904 and 1905.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The letters the noble Lord quoted were from the chairmen of managers respecting the use of buildings, and the writers of those letters were clergy in charge of parishes. Now it is doubtless true that there are a good many men who in matters of this kind are not very far-seeing, not very widely sympathetic, and possibly not very wise; but this is not confined to one class of men or to one side of politics. I could mention case after case of obstructive action taken at this moment by authorities with respect to schools which provide that kind of religious education which Parliament in its wisdom allows to be given; and I venture to think that a candidate for a county council who, like one who came the other day
  1098
  under my own observation, was a large employer of labour and declined to employ anyone who came from a Church of England school, would not be at all careful to avoid difficulties in the demand which this Bill would enable him to make on those in charge of the school buildings. Again, in the Bill there is a very invidious distinction drawn between secular and religious instruction, for there is this proviso—
  "Provided that such public meeting shall not be held at such times or in such manner as to interfere with the hours set apart for secular instruction."
  I maintain that religious instruction is an inherent part of instruction as a whole, and must be placed in no such secondary or insignificant position as would be implied by the proviso as it stands. Very emphatically shall I—if the Bill goes forward as I hope it will—vote against the retention of any such distinction. The noble Lord gave us no explanation of that very remarkable and somewhat prominent distinction, and I should be curious to know on what ground it is made part of the Bill.
  I am merely pointing out difficulties of detail and not in the least opposing the principle of the Bill. But the difficulties are not imaginary. For example, there is a provision in the third clause that if any question arises under the Act as to what is reasonably suitable or convenient it may be determined by the Board of Education. I daresay the Board of Education is as good an authority to refer educational questions to as could be found, but I should feel a little sorry for the Board of Education in London if it had to decide such local problems as whether or not there was any building in a parish suitable for the purposes of a particular meeting. That is not necessarily an educational question at all. For example, suppose there is in the village a public hall which can be hired for, say, ten shillings. Does that charge render the building unsuitable or unavailable, or inconvenient, and necessitate falling back upon the school. Or again, is the existence of a chapel which has hitherto been used for political meetings an adequate provision of another building? Those are the kind of details that will require to be carefully

  1099
  considered before this Bill is finally passed into law; but as regards the large principle embodied in the Bill, I believe it to be laid on sound lines, and I see no reason why such facilities should not be made practicable everywhere, provided the necessary limitations, which cannot be beyond our wit to devise, are carefully thought out and worded.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced this Bill in words of a most practical character, and his speech showed that he has the interests of the measure thoroughly at heart. The House also heard from the most rev. Primate a speech of a broad-minded character and one which will be of practical use in considering the important details in the future stages of the Bill. Lord Burghclere has been a consistent supporter of the cause of affording facilities for the holding of public meetings in schools. I am not going to follow him back to the year 1884 as to the facilities afforded to agriculturists for listening to political speeches, but I quite agree with him that the extension of the franchise has entirely altered the system of addressing electors.
  I noted with interest how Lord Burghclere alluded to the fact that in 1892 he, as a then Member of the House of Commons, was responsible for a Resolution which was passed through that House without opposition from the Government of the day. The noble Lord did not exaggerate in the slightest degree the manner in which that Resolution was received in the House of Commons, but when he went on to say that the Bill introduced afterwards by Sir William Hart Dyke was on all fours with the Resolution for which he was responsible I am afraid I must differ from him on one point. The Bill of Sir William Hart Dyke was based on the speech he made when he accepted but criticised the Resolution of Lord Burghclere. In that speech Sir William Hart Dyke pointed out that there must be certain safeguards, and in the Bill which he introduced all those safeguards were provided to which Sir William alluded
  1100
  in his speech on the Resolution. Moreover, the Bill of Sir William Hart Dyke did not interfere with schools which were under private ownership. It is there that the difference comes in between the Bill of 1892 and the Bill which Lord Burghclere is now asking your Lordships to pass. In the speech in which Sir William Hart Dyke criticised the Resolution of the noble Lord he laid great stress on the fact that those who were responsible for the school must have security for damage done to the premises. I think that last objection has been met sufficiently by the noble Lord in the Bill now before your Lordships, and therefore on that question I will say no more.
  I recall to my mind that when the noble Lord introduced an Amendment into your Lordships' House on this subject during the passage of the Education Bill of 1902 I was privileged, under the direction of the noble Duke who was responsible for the measure, to reply to that Amendment. Lord Burghclere said with great truth that that Amendment was not altogether on all fours with the Amendment which was moved in the House of Commons. Mr. Trevelyan in the House of Commons proposed that the obligation to give these facilities should apply only to voluntary schools, but Lord Burghclere differed from that in his Amendment and his proposal embraced all schools. I remember pointing out at the time that even though the noble Lord felt so strongly that these facilities should be given, the Government could not accept that proposal as an Amendment to a Bill which was already overloaded, and following the example of the Prime Minister, I said that if Lord Burghclere felt so strongly on the matter he might introduce a Bill in your Lordships' House. Therefore I would be the last person to complain of the introduction of this Bill. But it does not follow because the Prime Minister in the House of Commons and myself in your Lordships' House suggested that a separate Bill was the proper way of dealing with this subject, that we agree with the whole of the provisions now before us.
  The noble Lord in this Bill lays stress on the fact that where there is no other

  1101
  suitable building the school should be available for meetings of all sorts and kinds. He alluded to the Parish Councils Act which gave facilities for the use of these schools, but solely for parochial or district council matters. This Bill goes a great deal further. The noble Lord also laid stress on the fact that a certain number of those who were capable of granting facilities for meetings had objected to schools being used for political purposes. He referred to the home counties, but evidently the home counties are different from that part of the country in which I live. There we have always given the greatest facilities, and I have myself lent a hall for the purpose of political meetings at which I have been very much abused. Great consideration must be shown towards the owners of schools, who perhaps do not share the opinions of those desiring to hold meetings. Everyone has a right to his own views, and it might be objectionable to some that a school of their own should be used by a political opponent for the purpose of abusing them.
  Undoubtedly the noble Lord has a stronger case now than before 1902, because the ratepayers now subscribe to the maintenance of the schools, which before enjoyed no assistance from the rates. On this ground the claim of the ratepayers, therefore, cannot be ignored. They have a right which they did not possess in years past to the use of the schools. But it must be remembered that many of the schools are the private property of individual owners, and although they now receive rate aid the requirements of the local authority are so heavy that the advantage they derive from receiving rate aid places them on no better floting than in 1902. These are matters which should be very carefully considered before we decide on giving virtually free access to the schools by Act of Parliament. I endorse what has been said by the most rev. Primate as to the lack of any provision in the Bill to prevent interference with religious instruction, and I consider it a most important omission. The most rev. Primate has declared himself in favour of the principle of the Bill, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government I have to say that we offer no opposition to the
  1102
  Second Reading. At the same time I think your Lordships will realise that there are many of the details of the Bill which will require most careful consideration. I therefore suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I did not catch the last words of the noble Marquess, but noble Lords beside me tell me that he proposes that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I think it is a very unusual course for a short and simple Bill like this to be referred to such a Committee. I admit that there may be clauses in the Bill which require alteration, but it seems to me almost unparalled to refer so simple a Bill as this to a Select Committee. I therefore hope His Majesty's Government will not insist on that course. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be ready to consider any proposals made to check injustice and to meet the criticisms of the most rev. Primate. In the circumstances I can only suppose that the object of referring the Bill to a Select Committee is to endanger its passing by causing delay.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I greatly regret that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition cannot accept the considerate proposition made by the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The noble Marquess told your Lordships that His Majesty's Government were favourable to the principle of the Bill, The principle of the Bill is no doubt a simple matter enough, but when you come to consider the proposed application of that principle you at once find yourself face to face with a number of points of detail of very great difficulty. I am sure those of your Lordships who listened to the speech of the most rev. Primate must have felt that the matter was by no means so simple as the noble Earl supposes. The principle of the Bill, I take it, is this, that it is desirable that Parliamentary candidates and others should be given an opportunity of making use of these schoolrooms in connection with their candidature when no other

  1103
  suitable rooms or places are available, and the noble mover has made it clear that that privilege is not one to be exercised constantly but only on rare intervals. But when you come to the manner in which that simple principle is to be interpreted the matter ceases to be so easy, and I cannot help thinking that the feeling of your Lordships will be that the difficulties in points of detail require the kind of examination which they will be more likely to receive in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I must say I listened to the earlier parts of the speech of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education with the greatest gratitude, but the sting unfortunately came in the tail. For my part I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government require a Select Committee on this Bill, when in the year 1892 they produced a Bill of their own on this subject in eight or ten days without a Select Committee at all. It is open to the noble Marquess and His Majesty's Government in Committee to move stock and block, as Amendments to my Bill, the very precautions they themselves brought forward in 1892. The proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee can only be explained by a desire indirectly to defeat the Bill. I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for accepting the principle of the Bill, which, after all, is the only question before the House on Second Reading, but the proposed reference to a Select Committee is a dilatory process and absolutely unnecessary. I do not wish to take up an unreasonable attitude, but I do make an urgent appeal to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, seeing that the Government have accepted the principle of the Bill, not to persist in the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee. I am perfectly willing to meet the most rev. Primate and His Majesty's Government in any Amendments they may bring forward in Committee of the Whole House, which is surely the proper place for questions of this sort to be dealt with. I hope the Government will reconsider their decision and allow the Bill to be read a second time and considered in the usual way by the Standing
  1104
  Committee, which I think is better than any Select Committee, and the Committee of the Whole House.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it is only by the indulgence of the House that I can say another word, but I should be sorry to have it supposed that the suggestions I had made were of a character to render necessary the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee. It may be that I may have led His Majesty's Government to suppose that I, for one, as possibly representing many outside, thought the Bill could only be adequately amended by a Select Committee; whereas, so far as I know, there is nothing in the Bill which may not be dealt with satisfactorily in the Committee of the Whole House, and in the Standing Committee; and I therefore venture to hope that the proposal to commit the Bill to a Select Committee may be reconsidered.
  LORD NEWTON: I must confess that I share in some measure the surprise expressed by noble Lords opposite at the proposal of the Government to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. The principle of the Bill is generally accepted; all that is required are certain Amendments in Committee which I cannot believe are of so complicated a nature as has been represented. Take one, for instance—the point as to religious instruction. The clause at present provides that the public meetings shall not be held at such times or in such manner as to interfere with the hours set apart for secular instruction. Surely the point raised by the most rev. Primate could be met by the simple omission of the word "secular." That is an instance of the kind of Amendment which would be required. I am afraid that the prospects of the noble Lord's Bill passing are not of the brightest in any event, but if it is referred to a Select Committee it will have but a small chance. I would add that there is considerable difficulty in finding Members of your Lordships' House to serve on these Committees, and that is an additional reason why the Bill should be considered in the Committee of the Whole House.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships

  1105
  that nothing is further from our thoughts than to defeat the Bill either by dilatory tactics or vexatious opposition. We proposed the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee because we believed there would be a number of comparatively minute points which would be better disposed of by such a Committee; but in view of the feeling which has been expressed by some of your Lordships, and particularly in view of the appeal made by the most rev. Primate, by whose arguments I was certainly influenced in favour of the Bill going to a Select Committee, I propose not to press the Motion.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole, House.

  CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES (CHRISTMAS DAY) (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading, resumed (according to order).
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE, BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I have, to thank the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Avebury, for the courtesy he has shown in allowing the Motion for the Second Reading to be further adjourned until to-day, and I regret any inconvenience that may have been caused him. The Bill, as the noble Lord informed your Lordships in moving the Second Reading, has passed through all its stages in the other House without opposition. Its object is to amend the law as to the hours of closing of licensed premises on Christmas Day in Ireland, and it merely makes compulsory what I am informed is practically the general custom in Ireland—namely, the closing of public-houses on Christmas Day. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have no objection to the Second Reading.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess and His Majesty's Government for accepting the, Bill, and I should like to ask whether, as all the Amendments suggested by the Government were accepted in the other
  1106
  House, he will allow me to move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I was under the impression, from the course taken on a previous occasion by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and by His Majesty's Government, that the Bill would be resisted. As, however, the Government are in favour of the Second Reading it is no use attempting resistance, but I beg to give notice that I shall at a later stage move that Ulster be exempted from the Bill.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I think my noble friend, before he submits any such proposition, should ascertain whether the proposed exemption would be approved of in Ulster. So far as I know, the Bill has been received with a great deal of commendation throughout Ireland.
  THE EARL, OF WEMYSS: What, in Ulster?
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: The Bill, as I have said, has received a great deal of commendation in Ireland, and the leading clergy in every part of the country are, I believe, in favour of it. The General Synod of the Church of Ireland, the most representative body of Church feeling in Ireland, attended by Bishops from every part of Ireland, including Ulster, and by the leading clergy and laity from every part of Ireland, including Ulster, passed a unanimous resolution in favour of the Bill.
  LORD DE ROS: I can assure your Lordships, as an Ulster man, that the people in Ulster are in favour of the Bill and that much good is anticipated from it. I hope, therefore, that if the noble Earl at a later stage moves exemption in the case of Ulster the proposition will not be entertained.
  On Question, Bill read 2aa, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.