Lords Sitting of 29 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:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3); Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company [H.L.].
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
2
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway. (No 1).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Tramways Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dublin Corporation (Superannuation) Bill; South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill; Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill; Otley Improvement Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Liverpool Corporation Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Clyde Navigation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Gammons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Great Eastern Railway Bill; Lough-borough Corporation Bill; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Gamble'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.
Dundee Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for amendment of; of St. Marylebone Corporation; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of Ark of Safety Lodge of Good Templars; Never Die Lodge of Good Templars; Bristol Band of Hope Union; Bristol Temperance Federation; Barnsley Christian Endeavour Union; Folkestone Women's Temperance Society (2); United Kingdom Alliance; Victoria Bar Methodist Church (2); London Sons of Temperance; London Cadets of Temperance; Aldershot Women's Total Abstinence Association; Leicestershire Temperance Union; Emmanuel Tent of Rechabites; Greenland Street Sunday School; Wesleyan Methodist Conference; Wesleyan Methodist Church Synod; George Bird Lodge of Good Templars; Nil Desperandum Lodge of Good Templars; Islington Wesleyan Bible Class; Ashton-under-Lyne Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Society; Oxford Diocesan Church of England Temperance Society; Camberwell Girls' Friendly Society; National United Temperance Council; London United Temperance Council; Erdington Pleasant Sunday Services Association; Yardley Congregational Chapel; British Temperance League; National British Women's Temperance Association; Evesham Wesleyan Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Society; Gwyther Lodge of Good Templars; Kent Band of Hope Union; Educational and Mission Sections of Church of England Temperance Society; Wesleyan Reform Temperance League; Pembroke Sunday Guild; Hope of New Trindon Lodge Good Templars; Crescent Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Meeting; Howard Street Band of Hope and Temperance Society; Sunderland United Temperance Society; Crossfield Tent of Rechabites; Lancashire and Northern Counties Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Societies; Star Tent of Rechabites; Rescue Tent of Rechabites; Shrewsbury Circuit Sunday School Union; Shrewsbury District Sunday School Union; Friend Lodge of Good Templars; Daventry Wesleyan Society; Berkshire Lodge of Good Templars; Penrith Branch of Church of England Temperance Society; Silvery Streamlet Lodge of Good Templars; James Rewcastle Lodge of Good Templars; St. Matthews' Christian Endeavour Society; Nelson Welcome Lodge

  5
  of Good Templars; Public Meetings at Sheerness-on-Sea, Liverpool (3), Ledbury, Walworth, St. Leonards, Wigan, Charlesworth, Manchester, Royal Victoria Theatre; and persons signing (8). Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3383. France (Nice).
  No. 3384. Venezuela (Caracas).

  ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
  Return for the year ended March 31st, 1905, of pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Army Pay Warrant.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Report of Messrs. F. H. Dale and A. Stephens, His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, Board of Education, on intermediate education in Ireland.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered lie on the Table.

  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consents of the South Hayling Parish Council and the North Hayling Parish Meeting in the case of the Hayling Island Gas Provisional Order. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I shall not find it necessary, I am sure, to trouble you with any lengthy speech, partly because the matter is in itself so simple, and partly because the subject with which I am dealing is
  6
  already familiar to most of your Lordships. Those especially of your Lordships who are accustomed to take your place in the county business on the licensing bench are familiar already with practically everything that this Bill contains, and know he arguments that may be used on either side. The proposals that I now make are entirely consonant with the discussions which took place in this House last year, and which are clearly within the remembrance of your Lordships. There is one point upon which I desire first to say a word. I find, from remarks which have come to me from outside, that it has been supposed that what took place last week in the other House was by some kind of conjunction or arrangement to synchronise with what your Lordships are asked to do to-night. There is no foundation whatever for that idea. The date for the Second Reading of this Bill was fixed long ago, and I had no idea that a similar subject was going to be ventilated within two days in the House of Commons. But it is impossible to deny that the reception which proposals very much more drastic than anything I suggest met with in another place, and in the country, ought to be an encouragement to those of us who desire to see this very modest Bill passed into law.
  Quite briefly, this Bill proposes to give power to the licensing bench to regulate the hours of week-day closing according to the popular demand, but within certain very clearly-defined limits, so as to avoid any thing that can reasonably be called hardship either to the drinking public or to the sellers of liquor. Under the existing law public-houses in London are open, not by the will of the magistrates but by statutory provision, from five in the morning till half an hour after midnight. They are open in towns and populous places from six in the morning till midnight, and in the country from 6 a.m. till 10 p.m., speaking roughly. By this Bill magistrates may control the hour of closing, but, however enthusiastically inclined they may be to proceed in this direction, they must not direct a public-house to be closed before nine o'clock in the evening on any day other than Saturday or Sunday, or before eight o'clock upon Saturday at the very

  7
  earliest; and I myself have no anticipation that magistrates would be very apt to use the extremest power so given to them. In the next place, this Bill would give power to magistrates to limit the hours of Sunday opening to one hour at mid-day and one hour during the evening, and, if they think it desirable, to order that the drinking then should take place only off the premises. Do not let any of your Lordships suppose that the Bill provides that this is what shall be done; it merely provides that the magistrates shall have the power to do this if after consulting public opinion they find it desirable. The third main provision of the Bill is that in every case the magistrates shall take steps to satisfy themselves as to public opinion in the locality. The object, then, is perfectly clear, and I need not dwell further upon it.
  What is the demand for this Bill? If your Lordships pay any attention at all to petitions presented to the House, you will have found that that demand is pretty far-reaching and widely spread. I myself have presented sixty petitions to-night, and very many more on previous occasions, and a large number of your Lordships have, I know, presented other petitions on the same subject. I have no doubt that many noble Lords—I think I see it in the face of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Wemyss—will say that these petitions all come from temperance folk, and that they do not really represent the popular demand; but we can go a great deal further than the mere petitions from temperance societies, though I should be the very last to discount their importance in the way it is sometimes discounted outside this House. The petitions that come from temperance societies largely come from men who have devoted quite an exceptional amount of attention to this subject in all its branches, and, as the petitions which I have presented show, they emanate by no means from fanatical and extreme partisans alone, but from those who avoid those characteristics altogether. But, quite apart from that, I can show a very large amount of support for what is here proposed from other sources than what is ordinarily called the temperance party. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission, signed by representatives of the
  8
  trade as well as other people, spoke quite strongly on the subject. With regard to the hours of closing, they say—
  "We should welcome some further curtailment, but we do not think that public opinion will sanction any earlier hours of closing in the evening on week-days at present."
  I call your Lordships' attention to the careful reserves that are there. They do not think that public opinion will support it "at present." Well, since then there has been a very large voice of public opinion which has made itself felt on this subject; and, in the event of public opinion being hostile to what is here proposed, the magistrates under the provisions of the Bill would not interfere. The Minority Report of the Royal Commission, signed by nearly half of the whole Commission, speaks on this subject in a strong and clear way. It says—
  "Less attention than the question deserves and leas than is given to it in Ireland has been paid in England to the important subject of evening closing hours. It is generally acknowledged that drunkenness is greatest in the last hour or two of the day, the "fierce drinking," as one witness characterises it, occurring between ten and eleven o'clock, and this is especially the case on Saturdays, days of leisure and of money, without the restraining influence of the prospect of early work next morning. … Conditions and habits are so various that it is not prudent to lay down an absolute limit without exceptions, and here, again, we would recommend that the licensing authority should be invested with the discretion to close two hours earlier than the present hour."
  The Act which was passed through Parliament last year gives to the licensing magistrates power to do this in all cases, of new licences. Therefore, the new licences which will be issued henceforth may contain such a restriction as is here proposed, and that seems to show that there is nothing wrong in the principle of the licensing magistrates having this discretion. Public opinion has in very many of the large cities and large districts been directed to this subject, and I will read to your Lordships two of the many resolutions connected with this subject which have been passed by various public bodies. In July of last year the London County Council passed the following resolution, nemine contradicente—
  "That this Council, being of opinion thas licensed houses for the sale of intoxicating liquor are kept open till too late an hour, urges

  9
  His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department to promote legislation to confer powers on the licensing justices, enabling them to make regulations with respect to the time of opening and closing such premises in the County of London."
  To take an example from a distance, I quote from the city of Liverpool, where the following resolution was passed by the corporation and signed by the Mayor—
  "That this council being of opinion that houses licensed for the sale of intoxicants are allowed to open at too early an hour, and are kept open till too late an hour on week-days, and believing that these arrangements are detrimental to the best interests of the community, a petition be presented to His Majesty's Government praying that power may be conferred on licensing justices to close at their discretion all or any of such licensed premises in any portion of the whole of the city of Liverpool at an earlier hour than 11 p.m. on week-days and 10 p.m. on Sundays, and also to keep the same, or any other licensed premises, closed on week-days beyond the present hour of opening at 6 a.m., and that the Lord Mayor be requested to affix the Corporate seal to the petition."
  I have quoted a great city in the North as well as the London County Council in the South. Again I repeat that the general point of this Bill is to leave discretion with the licensing magistrates.
  And this is to be noted, because people talk as though, if the Bill became law, all public-houses would be closed early, whatever the popular inconvenience.
  It is said, for example, that it would be simply intolerable if places of refreshment in the neighbourhood of theatres were to be closed at the time the performances conclude. Of course it would be; and no magistrates in their senses would think of bringing about a condition of things which would be a legitimate grievance to a very large number of English citizens; but the power to close at an earlier hour in places where such closing would not be detrimental ought not to be withheld merely because there are other places in which no bench of magistrates in their senses would think of exercising their power in a direction which would inflict so much hardship.
  I would ask your Lordships' attention for a moment to the object-lesson set by Scotland. Your Lordships will remember that in Scotland up to the year 1887 the hours of opening and closing were regulated by statute, but in that year the
  10
  discretion was given to the licensing magistrates to curtail, within certain clearly-defined limits, the hour of closing in the evening. The House of Commons passed a measure making that provision applicable to the whole of Scotland, but in your Lordships' House an Amendment was carried providing that the large burghs, those over 50,000 inhabitants, should be exempt from this measure. Sixteen years passed, and in the year 1903 it was moved and carried through Parliament that the power of exemption in the case of these large cities should be taken away. It had been found that the provision worked so well in other places that it was felt it would work well in the large cities also, and from that time the magistrates in those cities have taken advantage of this provision. It is impossible to find a better object-lesson of the way in which this kind of thing works. I rest strongly upon the example which has been set in Scotland, and the way in which it has been found to correspond with the public taste and public inclination that the evening hour of closing should be an earlier one.
  So much for the week-day part of this question. I now come to the portion of the Bill which deals with Sunday. Under the existing law public-houses in London open from on to three o'clock and from six to eleven o'clock. Elsewhere they are open from 12.30 to 2.30 and from six to ten o'clock. This Bill would give the magistrates power to restrict the hours of opening to one hour in the middle of the day, if they thought such a restriction necessary, and to one hour in the evening, if they thought that restriction necessary. It would further give them the power, if they thought it to be right, to say that the Sunday drinking should be done off the premises and not in the public-house. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission was in favour of some curtailment of the hours of opening or Sunday, partly in the interests of the public, and partly in the interests of the employees in those licensed houses. The Minority Report was in favour of almost exactly what I am asking your Lordships to accept to-night. It is not, I say again, suggested for a moment that the rule should be made applicable all over the country,

  11
  but that the licensing magistrates should have power to take local conditions and circumstances into account, and in the extremest case to reach the point I have mentioned. That is the utmost extent to which the Bill goes.
  It will be open to your Lordships in Committee to limit still further the powers of the licensing magistrates. I need not say I shall be perfectly ready to listen to Amendments in that direction, provided the principle of the Bill is carried out and the licensing magistrates are allowed this discretion. Will your Lordships notice how widely different that provision is from the provision which only escaped being carried by six votes in the House of Commons on Friday last? It was there proposed that there should be practically complete Sunday closing. The arguments brought against it came to this, that you must not take the example of Scotland; that in Scotland people drink whisky, in England they drink beer; whisky will keep, beer will not; you cannot draw your beer on Saturday and drink it on Sunday. I quite agree, and my Bill accordingly provides that the public-houses should be open at the time when working men want their beer. I provide for all that. This Bill will not enable the magistrates, even if they desired to do so, to close the public-houses throughout the Sunday, but it does enable them, remembering that the public-house is the poor man's cellar, and that beer will not keep, to allow public-houses to remain open at the hour when the beer is wanted for meals at home.
  This is a moderate measure. I am not one of those who have ever been able to join the advance wing of fanatical temperance reformers; and this Bill is one which enables, in the most moderate, reasonable, and restricted manner, the popular demand to be met by the licensing justices.
  What are the obvious objections to this Bill? We shall at once be told that we legislated only last year upon this subject, and that we cannot reopen the whole question now. Certainly not; but will your Lordships carry your memories back to what passed in Committee last year, when we were
  12
  suggesting careful Amendments? The noble Lord representing the Home Office and others urged us not to overload the Bill with fresh matter, however excellent. We were told that there was no such thing as finality, and that if we wanted other things we must proceed separately later. It was said that the powers of magistrates could always be strengthened if it was found necessary. It is in obedience to that kind of suggestion that I bring forward this independent measure. It is entirely harmonious and consistent with what we did last year, when we were giving increased power to licensing magistrates and trusting them to exercise that for the good of the community as a whole. That it would be good for the community as a whole to diminish the late evening hours at which public-houses are open, I do not believe any one of your Lordships who knows the condition of the country will deny.
  This is one of the cases in which we are dealing, not with the use, but with the abuse of places of public refreshment and entertainment. The spectacle which is presented by the public-houses in the more densely-populated parts of our towns at a late hour on Sunday night or on Sunday afternoon after the midday meal is over, when men and women gather there certainly not for legitimate refreshment, but for something else, is of itself, I believe, quite sufficient to justify us in giving the magistrates power to deal with this illegitimate and unwholesome drinking, should the community so desire it. I appeal without hesitation to those of your Lordships who are most familiar with the sights which our great cities present either late at night, or on Sundays, and I ask you to bear those scenes and sounds in mind in the votes you will give on this Bill. It may be said that the Majority Report of the Royal Commission distinctly thought it would be better that the hours should be definitely fixed by statute than that there should be a permission to magistrates to vary the hours in different districts. That was at the time a plausible argument, but at all events it has gone now, because by recent legislation you have given this power of magisterial variation

  13
  in all cases of new licences. The uniformity which was the sole basis upon which the Majority Report objected to give that power to magistrates has now for ever disappeared.
  In recommending my Bill to the House I have not thought it necessary to base my advocacy of it on moral grounds. Of course, the religious and moral aspect of the question appeals most to me, but I know that your Lordships are all of one mind on that matter, and that it does not require argument. I have endeavoured to argue the question on practical, ordinary grounds in the interest of the community at large, and for the reason that, as the responsibilities of the licensing magistrates have been increased by recent legislation, their discretionary powers ought also to be increased; and it is with confidence that I submit the Bill to your Lordships.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose the Bill of my right rev. friend and archiepiscopal fellow-countryman; but although it is, as he said, a modest Bill, it would impose further restrictions upon human liberty, especially upon that of those who are cellarless—the great mass of the population. The public-house is an essential element in one present social state, and we have no right to unduly interfere with it. The publican is a public servant, the licensee of the Government. Interference with liberty began with Mr. Gladstone's Irish legislation, and every year legislation in this direction places further restrictions upon liberty. Now it would be well for your Lordships, when you are told the great evil that results from drink and drunkenness, to study the figures. Some years ago I was told that a very distinguished medical man, a countryman of mine, had said that of the total number of deaths more were caused by over-eating, by eating unwholesome food, and too much of it, than by alcohol. I wrote last night to this gentleman—he is a most distinguished professor—and got this wire from him this morning—
  "Am of opinion that over-eating and bad food cause as serious effects as excessive drinking."
  14
  Further, I saw my own medical man to-day, and he endorses this view. Moreover, I hold in my hand official data on the subject which cannot be disputed. It is the Monthly Return of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages registered in eight of the principal towns of Scotland, with the causes of death; and I find from this that during the month of April, 1905, there were registered in the towns of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Paisley, Leith, Greenock, and Perth, 2,446 deaths. "Alcoholism" is one of the many headings under which deaths are here registered and I should like to ask my right rev. friend who has brought in this Bill how many of those deaths he thinks were from alcoholism. Will he give a guess? He prefers not to. Well, I think he would be very far out in his estimate if he did. There were only five deaths from alcoholism out of a total of 2,446, my Lords, in the whole of these towns throughout the month of April.
  Then I have recently read in newspapers that it has been shown by scientific medical inquiry that taking fifty-one as the age to which the pure-water drinker lives, it is found that the unmitigated drunkard lives two years longer. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack doubtless remembers the case of Jane Cakebread, who was convicted hundreds of times for drunkenness; yet people of that type it is shown live longer than water drinkers. And it is further shown that the moderate users of alcohol, such as your Lordships, live twelve years longer than water-drinkers. These are remarkable facts, and should be borne in mind by those who declare that alcoholism is a great injury to the human race. But what I feel very strongly is the way in which the publican, who, after all, is as said a public servant, is spoken of and dealt with. There is no feeling of justice towards him by those who are in favour of suppressing all alcoholic drink. The Government last year brought in a Bill to do justice to the publican, and were, and are still, denounced for it; and the story goes that in the new Newcastle programme of my noble friends on my left they are going to make an assault on that Act. My impression is that they will leave it alone. I believe there will be

  15
  fewer votes to be act by touching it than by leaving it alone. You cannot but deny that justice was not done to the publican before, and that all that the Government did was to put him in the same position that publicans occupy in Ireland, where, if they lose their licences through no fault of their own, they are compensated.
  There is another point with regard to alcohol which should be borne in mind. Nature, more or less, demands alcohol, and it has been found that flowers, if they are inclined to fade, benefit if alcohol is put into the water in which they are placed—it is a pick-me-up to them. Do not imagine, my Lords, that I do not sympathise with those who wish to suppress drunkenness; I think the drunkard is a great nuisance, but he will not be put an end to by this sort of legislation. He will get his drink somehow, while the sober man will be made to suffer by his means of ordinary enjoyment being restricted. There are three reliable remedies for drunkenness. The first and the real remedy for the state of things which the right rev. Primate desires to alter would be found in a Bill to excise surgically the gustatory nerve, so that people could not distinguish between the taste of beer and water, or champagne and porter. The operation might be performed on children at the same time as vaccination. That would be an effective course, but I do not think my noble friends who favour this legislation would be likely to bring in a Bill for the purpose.
  Then it must be admitted that time in this matter shows a great improvement in the habits of the people. I can go a long way back, and can remember the time when there were what were called "four-bottle men"; that is to say, men who would sit down after dinner and soak and get rid of two, three, or four bottles. There is no such thing now. It is difficult to find "four-glass" men now, and perhaps a couple of glasses of claret or a glass of port is all that is drunk after dinner. Depend upon it, all these things go by example; and just as the customs of the upper and middle classes have improved, so gradually will those of the working classes, and that without restrictive legislation. There is another cure,
  16
  and it is, I believe, the only one that we can practically use—that is, the police. I hold that a drunkard is a nuisance. Dr. Wallace, in another place, said that a thorough drunkard, if he was drunk and incapable, was no nuisance. The nuisance is the drunken man who goes "serpentining" in his walk, and butting up against people. I hold that any man who is in that state should be arrested as a nuisance, shut up, and confined, and those who manufacture these nuisances should lose their licencés if it could be shown that they habitually turned out drunken men. That, I believe, is the only practical and sensible way of dealing with the question.
  I have not entered into the details of this Bill. I object to it as a further restriction of human liberty. Those who have watched the legislation of this country must have seen how, since 1870, it has, as I have said, more or less interfered with liberty. We used to boast that we were a free and unbureaucratic people. We are becoming less so every day. There is interference going on in every direction, and if it is continued we shall probably become, instead of a free and unbureaucratic people, one of the most Government-ridden people in the world. I wish, before sitting down, to read a quotation to which I am sure your Lordships will give the weight which the bravery and the eloquence of its author demand. Let me first read the quotation and then say whence it comes—
  "I entertain the strongest dislike to the permissive Bill. I cannot, perhaps, express it in a stronger form than by saying that, if I must take my choice—and such it seems to me is really the alternative offered by the permissive Bill—whether England should be free or sober, I declare, strange as such a declaration may sound, coming from one of my profession, that I should say it would be better that England should be free than that England should be compulsorily sober. I would distinctly prefer freedom to sobriety, because with freedom we might in the end attain sobriety; but in the other alternative we should eventually lose both freedom and sobriety."
  He winds up—
  "If I was compelled to choose between a law which destroyed liberty, and a law which left intemperance, to a certain degree, untouched, I should vote against the law that destroyed liberty. I believe liberty to be the life of a nation; you cannot destroy the liberty of a

  17
  nation without destroying all its noblest qualities, and if you destroy all the noblest qualities of a nation, and turn the people into slaves, in the end you promote intemperance, as you do also almost every vice that belongs to slavery."
  I think my right rev. friend knows whence that passage comes. It comes from one of the ablest, and, as I have said, bravest and most eloquent of men. That statement was made in 1872 from these benches by Bishop Magee, of Peterborough, who subsequently became Archbishop of York; and it is because I agree heart and soul with those eloquent words that I venture to oppose the Bill now before the House on the broad principle here stated, and to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion the words, 'this day three months.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I am entirely with the noble Earl who has just sat down, in the matter of human liberty, but in all civilised countries we must be assured that a man does not exercise his liberty to the detriment of his neighbour. The noble Earl himself allows that he would in certain cases curtail that liberty; he would curtail it in the case of the "serpentine" walker, and in the case also of the man who offends in regard to his licence by manufacturing the "serpentine" walker. It is obviously clear that there must be limits to liberty in certain directions. What are the factory laws but limitations of liberty? Why do you object to one man sleeping on another man's doorstep? That action is an interference with the man's liberty. The whole history of legislation in regard to the drink traffic has been one of restriction and not of extension. The noble Earl spoke of overeating. When we find that the fact of butchers' shops being open up to a late hour at night sends men home to "beat their wives and illtreat their children I think it will be time then to bring in a measure to shut up those butchers' shops at an earlier hour. I have never heard that if a man offends by taking another plate of meat he loses self cont-
  18
  rol and is inclined to go on ordering plate after plate of meat to the detriment of his health and the impoverishment of his family. The noble Earl spoke of the object of those who support this Bill as being really prohibition.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: On the road to it.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I doubt whether we shall ever reach the end of that road. I have no such object. I do not think that if I had the power of shutting up every public-house in England I would exercise that power. I recognise that there must be these public-houses. The only thing that we ask is that they should be conducted under restrictions which seem to be good for those for whom these houses are opened. That really underlies the whole purpose of the Bill. I would point out to the House that the Bill, after all, is only a permissive Bill. What does that mean exactly? It means that those for whom these houses are supposed to be opened shall have the liberty of appealing to the magistrates in order that their wishes may be endorsed by the action of the magistrates themselves.
  I believe from my own knowledge of the working classes that a very large proportion of them would very gladly welcome the passing of such a Bill as this. This is no new idea, as has already been pointed out by the most rev. Primate. Magistrates have already, in the case of new licences, this power, and this Bill only proposes to place old licences on exactly the same footing as new licences. I am not at all sure that I should recommend Glasgow as a place that we should look to in the matter of the regulation of our drink customs, but already the shortening of the hours in Glasgow has done great good. I find from the police reports that the streets are quieter, property is safer, and that the police are able to look after property at an earlier hour, in the night. As we all know, it is during the last hour that the worst kind of drinking and the most unnecessary kind of drinking takes place. My own belief is that if there were one law for

  19
  all, the publicans would heartily welcome the restriction of hours. They are people who like their liberty just as much as anybody else. The shortening of the hours would, in my opinion, very greatly benefit the physical well-being of the nation. We can hardly read the Report of the Committee on Physical Deterioration without very grave misgivings, and in spite of what the noble Earl has said the fact still remains that an undue use of alcohol does tend to a very serious deterioration of the physical well-being of our people. It also affects trade and commerce, because we learn from innumerable employers of labour that the late hours of drinking on Sundays do most seriously affect the recommencement of work on the Mondays. This Bill is exceedingly moderate in its tone; it will allow the working classes themselves to speak through the licensing magistrates, and I hope your Lordships will not turn a deaf ear to the wishes of the people of this country.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, your Lordships will expect that I should make a few remarks on behalf of His Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill. In the first place let me recognise, as I am sure the whole House does, the great moderation with which the most rev. Primate explained the Bill to the House. I have no wish to enter into any contest with regard to the main part of his remarks, but shall address myself mainly to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is to change the law which has prevailed in this country for a long number of years that the hours of closing of public-houses should be fixed by statute, and to transfer that power to local authorities within certain defined limits. We are not entirely without some experience of the working of a Bill founded on those lines. By the Act of 1872 discretionary power was given to justices with regard to the closing of public-houses. That Act, however, did not remain long in force. When the present law was passed in 1874 a good deal of discussion took place in Parliament with regard to the repeal of the Act of 1872, in the course of which it was stated by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that one of the gravest difficulties in the Act of 1872 had arisen from
  20
  the discretion given to magistrates to fix the hours of closing. It was also stated that the Act had not worked well, because in many cases the magistrates, had refused to exercise their power.
  The effect of passing the Bill now before the House would be to give absolute discretion to magistrates not only to fix hours in one district different from the hours in another district, but also to fix hours for one public-house different from the hours of another public-house in the same district; and it would go so far even in country districts as to enable different hours to be fixed in regard to different public-houses in the same village. I do not think Parliament would be well advised if they passed a Bill which would have an effect of that kind. How would that affect the Metropolis? I understand that in London there would be fifteen different authorities for fixing the hours of closing. In a large number of these districts the divisions between the different boroughs are not defined, so that anyone walking about the streets could not tell whether he was in one borough or in another, and in many instances, I believe, the houses on one side of a street are in one borough and the houses on the other side in another. His Majesty's Government hold the view that the greatest inconvenience would arise in the Metropolis if we adopted a system under which the hours would be fixed by different authorities.
  The Majority Report of the Royal Commission recommended on these grounds that the regulations as to the hours of closing should be laid down by statute. I am perfectly aware that the most rev. Primate got over that by saying that we had in Clause 4 of the Licensing Act of last year given a power to local authorities to make conditions in granting new licences, and that amongst I those conditions they had the power to fix an earlier hour for closing. I would only remind the House that we had considerable discussion last year on a proposal to extend these powers to magistrates in the case of existing licences as well as new licences, and that these powers were expressly sanctioned as only to refer to new licences. But I if it is argued that the use of I this power at present causes equal

  21
  confusion, let me point out what is the case with regard to new licences. The strongest possible arguments were used last year to show the enormous number of unnecessary licences that exist, and a great part of the Bill was addressed to doing away with a large number of them. New licences are practically never granted now except in the case of new districts where there are no licences already, but where the public require some opportunity of obtaining alcoholic liquors. I am speaking not only of what I imagine must be the case, but I know that in my own neighbourhood no new licences have been granted except in a new District. If in the case of those new licences the magistrates fix the condition that the hours of closing shall be earlier there is no other house in competition and no injustice is done. I cannot see, therefore, that the provision in the Act of last year with regard to new licences does away with the argument in favour of the hours of closing of public-houses being fixed by statute.
  The conditions in Scotland are so different from the conditions in England that, so far as I can understand, the objection to giving the power to magistrates in England does not exist in Scotland. In Scotland you have one licensing authority for the whole county, and therefore none of the inconveniences I have referred to occur in Scotland. I have been given to understand that in Scotland there is a good deal of consumption of the national drink in private houses, and therefore earlier closing would not affect Scotland in the same way. If the Act passed for Scotland is to be quoted for the success of this proposal, as it has been to-day, we ought to have been given time to learn by experience what the effect of earlier closing has been. The report of the Chief Constable of Glasgow states that although the streets are quieter and property is safer, there has been no substantial decrease of drunkenness as a result of earlier closing.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBUKY: My argument was not that there was less drunkenness. There has not been time to ascertain whether that
  22
  is so or not. My argument was that fourteen years ago the smaller towns obtained the power of closing at an earlier hour, and that after watching that for fourteen years the bigger towns asked leave to follow their example, and have followed it, seeing how well it worked.
  LORD BELPER: I only mentioned that because, as the case of Scotland was being quoted, I thought it would be more satisfactory if the introduction of this Bill had been postponed until we had had some further experience as to the success of the Act in Scotland. I have particulars to show that in many parts of the country there has been a large increase of clubs. A strong feeling prevails that some restriction should be placed upon them. The conditions under which drinking takes place in them are less satisfactory than in public-houses, and there is some fear that if public-houses are closed at an earlier hour you will be driving persons to clubs in order to obtain drink. It is true that requisitions have been received at the Home Office in favour of the granting of earlier hours of closing, but I do not think that any of these requisitions express a wish for any particular mode of giving effect to the principle of early closing, or that the licensing magistrates should have the power conferred upon them as provided in this Bill. Further experience may show that earlier hours are desirable, but I think it would be better in the meantime to wait and see what the effect is of the legislation recently passed before a fresh Bill is agreed to.
  I think the most rev. Primate was conscious of the Government's difficulty in this matter. It is quite clear that no large measure, no measure likely to be contested, could pass through Parliament this session. We have had licensing legislation in two sessions of Parliament, and the Government feel that it would be wise to give time for considering the effect of those measures before passing further Bills. Fully recognising the moderation and the sincerity with which the most rev. Primate brought forward this Bill, I have to inform him that the Government regret that they cannot give their support to the Bill for the reasons I have stated.

  23
  We do not believe that the particular mode suggested by him in the Bill is one which would form a satisfactory solution of the question, and we feel it would be desirable to allow further time before again passing a measure with regard to licensing reform.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I should not myself have intervened in this debate were it not for the fact that I represent the views, not only of the Church of England temperance bodies in London, but the whole of the Nonconformist bodies as well. I can speak also from the fulness of nine years experience of a London slum district in which the evils of the drink traffic could be seen. Opinion, in London at any rate, among the bodies interested in this question, is united in favour of united action being taken by the magistrates on this question. The noble Lord who represents the Home Office said that it was true that petitions had been presented in favour of the granting of earlier hours of closing, but he did not think that any of those requisitions expressed a wish for any particular mode of giving effect to the principle of early closing, or that the licensing magistrates should have the power conferred upon them as provided in this Bill. I would: call his attention to the petitions from the London County Council and the Liverpool Corporation, in which they pray for the conferring of a power on the justices to close the public-houses at their discretion.
  LORD BELPER: I expressly said that I only spoke of the petitions that had been sent to the Home Office. I do not know the contents of the other petitions.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I contend that the provision of facilities to obtain drink after ten o'clock at night is bad for the people, bad for the publican, and bad for the community at large. The ordinary working man obtains his drink usually before ten o'clock, and when it is obtained after that hour it tends to the demoralisation of those who gather in the public-houses. Your Lord-ships have no conception how strongly the publican feels on this subject. When
  24
  I had charge of a poor parish in Bethnal Green I used to call on publicans to show them that the Church did not look upon them as outcasts, and every publican I spoke to complained that he led a dog's life and had no time wherein he might attend to higher personal matters. If your Lordships could see, moreover, Sunday drinking in a public-house in a slum district between one and three o'clock in the afternoon, I am certain that you would never wish to see the spectacle again. These public-houses are crowded with people, and it is not pleasing to see the condition in which they leave the premises when closed at three o'clock. The Bill allows the working man to have his beer "fresh" on Sunday, but we are anxious to prevent the "soaking" that goes on in the public-houses between the hours of one and three o'clock. On the subject of liberty, is it liberty to bind a traffic on the community which it wishes to get rid of? If the provision of facilities to obtain drink after reasonable hours is bad for the people, bad for the publican, and bad for the community at large, for whose benefit is it kept up? I certainly do not entertain the view that the brewers wish to demoralise the community by having unrestricted liberty to continue the sale of drink in the public-houses; and as the present state of things is against the highest interest of everyone concerned I heartily support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, up to the present moment it has only been from the Episcopal Bench that a defence of this Bill has come. I, therefore, think it right that I should explain the view I take with regard to it. I cannot agree with the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government. I shall not go into that great question which the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, so often brings before the House—namely, the great subject of liberty. I am inclined to share the views of the speakers on the Episcopal Bench, especially in respect of the argument that we are infringing the liberty of the people by such measures. Parliament has not recognised this principle in previous legislation, as may be seen in the case of the Factory Acts. When those Acts were introduced, there

  25
  was just as much opposition to them on the score of infringing liberty as is to be seen in respect of the present Bill. Yet no one will now say that the Factory Acts have not tended to promote health and the moral well-being of the community.
  The noble Lord who represents the Home Office did not argue against the necessity for this reform, but rested his case on the fact that the Bill would infringe what had been hitherto the practice—namely, that the hours of opening and closing public-houses should be uniform and should be fixed by statute. I share the view of the right rev. Prelate that the noble Lord did not urge that, argument with any force in regard to the statute that was passed last year. In the case of new licences the power was given to the licensing magistrates to shorten the hours during which public-houses might remain open. I submit that the Scotch case, as well as the Act of last year, justify the principle now proposed to be extended, while, with regard to clubs, it has not been established that by diminishing the hours during which public-houses are opened, there has been an improper use of clubs, or that drunkenness has increased. I do not wish to go any further into this matter. I leave it to the right rev. bench and others to enforce the great necessity for further legislation in this matter. But I shall be exceedingly sorry if this Bill does not meet with support from a majority of your Lordships.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I recognise the moderation and the wisdom of the remarks of the most rev. Primate, and I suppose no one will question the desire your Lordships all have to do anything in your power for the diminution of drunkenness. My objection to the Bill, however, is that it will do nothing in that direction. Indeed, I think it objectionable on many grounds. It is an annoying thing to any trade to be continually harassed by Parliament as to the conditions under which its members carry on their trade unless something is proved against them. I do not deny that cases of excess occur; on the other hand, there may be cases in which it is a relief to a working man to spend an
  26
  hour, not for "soaking," but to meet with his friends and associates, just as your Lordships may associate with people in your own clubs. A public-house, properly conducted, is the working man's club, and it is a most unfair thing to try to entirely change a man's course of life because he happens to be of a different class from yourselves. I was surprised to hear the example of the Factory Acts cited in support of the present measure, because those Acts were designed to protect women and children against those who improperly interfered with their health and morals. There is one class of the community I really must appeal for in connection with this measure, and that is the magistrates themselves. Let me read Clause 4 of this Bill to your Lordships—
  "In considering the matter of reducing the hours of opening licensed premises under this Act, the licensing justices shall have regard to representations made to them in any licensing meeting by the inhabitants of the locality, or to any resolutions thereon which may be adopted by any local authority within their licensing district."
  In what way are the magistrates to ascertain the opinion of the locality? Are they to take a plebiscite or what? If I were asked to construe this part of the Bill I should be obliged to say that I had not the least idea how the justices were to "have regard to representations made to them." Magistrates have a difficult duty to perform. They discharge those duties most admirably, and, though many people seem to forget it, gratuitously. They do not, however, always give satisfaction as it is. Imagine their difficulty when they are required by statute to have regard to any representations made by the inhabitants of the locality. How is that to be done? Is it to be by a public meeting, or in what way are the magistrates to ascertain the opinion of the locality? I submit that it is a very undesirable thing to be always tinkering with this particular trade. After the attention Parliament has so recently given to it, we ought at least to allow a year or two to elapse before further legislation is proposed. I heartily regret that this subject is so continually before the House, and I shall certainly vote with my noble friend who moved the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I did not intend addressing your Lordships to-night, but after the speech of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack I may perhaps add a little to the evidence that has already been given in favour of this measure. In the first place I do not think that we need have any fear about burdening our magistrates with duties which they cannot perform. After all, charging the magistrate with these duties is not a new thing. On the contrary, it has been already tried in Scotland, and there has been no grumbling on the part of the magistrates there. They have done their duty extremely well, as magistrates always do. The Acts that have been passed have worked very smoothly. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack says he objects to tinkering with this question. It seems to me that it is almost time for this country to do something more than it has done in the past in order to put an end to what we all know to be a national curse. I do not wish to use exaggerated language, but I do not think that anybody can have an idea of what is going on in our midst unless they have done as I have done— visited the public-houses between the hours of eleven and 12.30 at night. I can only wish that the Lord Chancellor would do the same.
  The houses near the theatres and music-halls are very respectable and the people very nice indeed. But if one goes further afield into the small public-houses of the East End and other parts of London one sees a very different state of affairs. There one would see between eleven o'clock and 12.30, not men who had dropped in to see friends, but men who had already been to six or seven public-houses, who were already full, and who take a final glass too much at the latest hour of the night. If the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack would go and even stand outside one of these houses with the policeman on duty there and see the exit of the last man I think he would change his views about early closing. The experience of every individual who knows tends to show that the largest amount of drunkenness takes place late at night and not in the early hours of the evening. The Lord Chancellor stated
  28
  that it was most unfair to what is called "the trade" that we should go on meddling with their business unless we could prove something against them. These measures are not brought forward to punish the trade. On the contrary, if it is question of liberty, I cannot imagine a worse slavery than that to which the employés in the trade are subjected. Public-houses have been compared to our clubs. Do we treat the servants in our clubs as the servants are treated in public-houses, where they often work from five o'clock in the morning till half-past twelve at night? We all know that is not the case, and I think some protest should be offered against the attempt which has been made to prove similarity between our clubs and public-houses. The condition of the people employed in public-houses will be bettered by this Bill.
  Nothing surprises me more than that noble Lords from Scotland should speak against this measure. It may be said that this provision has not met with complete success in Scotland, but we are able to judge of that from the returns. It has been at work for months in Glasgow, and the returns of police offences during three months of this year show a decrease, and if that decrease continues at the same ratio for the remaining nine months of the year there will be a reduction of 3,400 police cases in one year in that town alone.
  LORD BELPER: I quoted the return for the whole year for the City of Glasgow, and in that return it was stated that no deduction could be drawn as to any decrease in drunkenness.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: Then I think the noble Lord ought to tell us why the police cases have suddenly been reduced by this large number.
  LORD BELPER: I do not know what your figures are. I quoted from the official return for the year 1904 for the City of Glasgow, and in that return it was stated that there were no figures from which one could draw any deduction with regard to any diminution in drunkenness.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: I ask the noble Lord whether he denies the fact that there has been a large reduction in police offences in Glasgow.
  LORD BELPER: I have not got those figures.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: I think we have a right to say that the large reduction which has taken place has been owing to the new legislation,,and that the experiment which has been tried is a successful one. Again, employers of labour unanimously tell us that in their own opinion it is doing good in Scotland. The unanimous opinion of those who are interested, not so much perhaps in temperance work as in religious work, who are heartily in support of doing everything they can to minimise the temptations of working men, is that since the original Scottish Act was passed to reduce the number of hours
  public-houses were open a better state of affairs has existed in Scotland, except in the large cities which, unfortunately, for a time were exempted. Then came the legislation for the large cities of Scotland; the magistrates at once adopted the earlier hour, and since then there has been a large decrease in the number of police offences in the large cities where the Act has been enforced. This is nothing more than a permissive Bill; the magistrates have the power to do certain things under the Bill. There may be a few details such as those mentioned by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack which may need amendment in Committee, but the principle of the Bill is a good one, and I hope your Lordships will support it.
  On Question, "Whether the word 'now' shall stand part of the Motion," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 66.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Crofton, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Davey, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Denman, L.

  Fife, D

  London, L. Bp.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard).

  Northampton, M.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Ripon, M.

  St. David's, L Bp.

  Heneage, L.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Inverclyde, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  James, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Addington, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Spencer, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Braye, L.

  Monkswell, L. [Teller.]

  Cobham, V.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  O'Hagan, L.

  Cross, V.

  Burgholere, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)[Teller]

  Reay, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Clinton, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Coleridge, L.

  Stanley of Alderley. L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E, (L. Chancellor.)

  Winchester, M

  Harewood, E.

  Zetland, M.

  Harrowby, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

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

  Manvers, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Rosse, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Waldegrave, E.[Teller.]

  Portland, D.

  Amherst, E.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Carnwath, E.

  ChurChill, V. [Teller.]

  Wellington, D.

  Coventry, E.

  Hampden, V.

  Dartrey, E.

  Hill, V.

  Ailesbury, M

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Hutchinson, V. [E. Donoughmore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Linlithgow, M.

  Feversham, E.

  Knutsford, V,

  Llandaff, V.

  De Mauley, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Portman, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Glanusk, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Aldenham, L.

  Iveugh, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

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

  Barrymore, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Belper, L.

  Monckton, L.(V. Galway.)

  Ventry, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Napier, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Newton, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

  LOTTERIES IN BRISTOL.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the issue of advertisements of large money prizes to be drawn for under cover, or supposed cover, of a sanction by the Board of Trade (Art Union Drawings) at a carnival to be held in Bristol in the month of June in the interest of the funds of the Bristol Royal Infirmary. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, in 1846 an Act had to be passed for legalising Art Unions,, for it was found that they came under the provisions of the Act against lotteries and other illegal games, and under that Act there was given to the members, subscribers, and contributors protection from pains and penalties so long only as their proceedings were carried on in good faith for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. That is the great point—they were only protected from pains and penalties so long as their proceedings were carried on for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. There was no possibility of partnership with any other object.
  The Bristol Royal Infirmary was very seriously in debt, and it was proposed to hold a great carnival for six days in the month of June next, of which I was asked to become a patron, and I gladly consented to do so. When I give my name for such a purpose I always stipulate that there shall be no raffles and that nothing alcoholic shall be sold. Shortly after I accepted the patronage I had a paper placed in my hands in one of our tramway carriages in Bristol, from which I will quote two paragraphs—
  "It has been disclosed that one of the methods will be the holding of a summer carnival at the Clifton Zoological Gardens on a scale never
  32
  before attempted, and the arrangements for this are now afoot. One of its most unique features will be the combination of the Art Union drawing of the Bristol Fine Arts Academy (usually held annually as an independent enterprise) with the proposed Royal Infirmary carnivals The idea emanated from Mr. Samuel White, who is known to have the interests of the Royal Infirmary keenly at heart, and also is a supporter of the Fine Arts Academy. The scheme having heartily commended itself to Sir George White and Sir William Henry Wills, the respective presidents of these two institutions, received also the prompt approval of the Board of Trade, who are the Government Department responsible for the supervision of Art Union drawings."
  Further on there appeared this statement—
  "It is an important part of Mr. White's scheme that any prize-winner who is not perfectly satisfied with his prize will be free to elect to hand the work of art over to Mr. White, who will buy it back from the winner at the cash price for which it had already been purchased from the artist."
  I at once wrote to the infirmary committee to say that that, in my judgment made this Art Union drawing simply a drawing for money prizes, and therefore, in my opinion, illegal. I stated that that being so, I must withdraw from the position of patron. I then wrote a second letter to say that this had become known, and I was receiving communications from Nonconformists and Church people urging me to go further still. Finally, I wrote to tell them that as I could not get the slightest indication of any willingness to reconsider the matter, there was nothing left to me but to put myself at the head of those in Bristol who were anxious to make a very solid protest against this. We agreed upon a letter which we should write to the newspapers. But, first of all, I must read to your Lordships the actual sanction given by the Board of Trade. It was addressed to the hon. secretary of the Fine Art Union, and is as follows—
  "Sir,—In reply to your letter of February 18th, submitting to the consideration of this

  33
  Department a scheme for the drawing for prizes in the Bristol Art Union during the coming year, I am directed by the Board of Trade to inform you that they are prepared to approve of the necessary alterations in the rules and regulations to enable the drawing to take place in the manner proposed. For this purpose they approve of the subscription being 20 per cent. of the sums received for admission tickets to the carnival, entitling the purchasers to participate in the drawings under the scheme, instead of the subscription of one shilling prescribed by the rules, subject to the guarantee of a minimum prize fund of £1,000. They further approve of a drawing for prizes being held on each day of the carnival at the gardens of the Bristol, Clifton, and West of England Zoological Society, instead of one drawing being held in the year at the Exhibition Rooms."
  The plan was to use the Art Union for the funds of the infirmary, making the two interests into one, and giving one-fifth to art and four-fifths to the infirmary,and I contend that this constitutes an unlawful creation of a partnership. I will now read to your Lordships the letter which we sent to the newspapers—
  "Sir,—We have been hoping that the committee of the Royal Infirmary would withdraw the proposal to give the money value of pictures drawn at the approaching carnival in aid of the funds of that deserving institution. We now feel obliged to give public expression to the dismay which we feel at the prospect of its being carried out. While at the same time we recognise the great generosity of Mr. Samuel White's offer"—
  —may I say that the Messrs. White have been most generous to me in helping me in Church extension matters, and they have rendered much assistance to the poor people of Bristol generally—
  "we cannot but regard the drawing for pictures on so very large a scale as that indicated under the cover of the name of an 'Art Union Drawing' as a misuse of the Act of Parliament; and we are surprised that the Board of Trade has sanctioned it. Under the Act the lottery must be in good faith for the encouragement of the Fine Arts, and, apart from the offer to buy back at cost price pictures drawn, we feel a strong moral objection to the proposed lottery for the funds of the Royal Infirmary. The farther proposal to give the money value of a picture in the place of the picture itself to anyone who professes to be not perfectly satisfied with the prize he has drawn convert the drawing into a money lottery. Considering the terrible curse which betting and gambling and all forms of staking money on chance are known to be, and the breaking down of moral character which they entail in so many cases, we do earnestly protest against this part of the proposal being carried out."
  That letter was signed by myself, by the Dean of Bristol, the two archdeacons,
  34
  and four of the leading Nonconformist ministers. That, so far as we know, had no effect. Then a Question was asked in the House of Commons, and it was clear from the Answer that the Board of Trade had begun to see that this was going much too far, and had communicated to the Art Union that the offer to redeem the prizes for a money prize must be withdrawn, and withdrawn it was.
  I did not propose to do any more. But then came a flood of advertisements announcing money prizes to be given at this drawing. This was clearly the action of a third body not controlled by the Board of Trade and not protected by their sanction. The advertisements did not mention pictures at all, and only announced prizes of £250, £100, and so on. We began to find that Bristol was flooded with these advertisements, and especially the tramcars, of which the Messrs. White are the managers. I have in my hand a green bill on which there are two red lines, the one announcing "Bristol Carnival Week" and the second containing the words "To raise £50,000 for the, Bristol Royal Infirmary," and the bill proceeds to state that the minimum prizes on the Monday will be £400, on the Tuesday £200, on the Wednesday £100, on the Thursday £100, on the Friday £100, and on the Saturday £100. There was also a statement that season-tickets for the six days, for £1,000 in prizes, could be had at the reduced rate of 10s. 6d.; but from first to last the word "picture" is not even remotely alluded to in the Bill. How it can conceivably be legal I do not know. Here is a yellow circular with the same red lines on the front page. Inside there is a list of pictures, and opposite is stated the value of the prizes in money. I have here the season-ticket which is to be sold, and is to convey all these privileges. There is upon it in comparatively small letters "Bristol Art Union," but the heading is "Bristol Royal Infirmary Carnival." There are set forth on the tickets the minimum prizes for the week—£1,000: Monday, £400; Tuesday, £200; Wednesday, £100; Thursday, £100; Friday, £100; and Saturday, £100. It is announced on the ticket that it is a ticket of admission to the carnival once each day, and for one share each day in

  35
  the prize drawings; and the word "drawings" does not mean drawings for pictures, but drawings for prizes. Again the word picture is not mentioned. Then I have the actual card which, I believe, the Art Union has put up—
  "Bristol Art Union Drawings in connection with the Bristol Carnival week, June 26th to July 1st, 1905. Monday, 1st prize, £250,"
  and then there is printed at the bottom the name of the picture. I have here a few of the tickets with which we are supplied by the thousand in the tramway carriages of Bristol. There are some twenty of them, but I have only found one on which the word picture is mentioned at all. The only reference is to money. One ticket states—
  "This ticket will not give you a picture, but a carnival ticket may."
  That is the only case in which I have found any mention of picture on these various tickets. One of these tickets read—
  "Don't argue about methods, but help the infirmary by buying a ticket for the carnival."
  I do think it is time somebody put a stop to people being told that they are not to argue about methods, but are to take part in this gamble to help an infirmary. Here is another ticket—
  "Help the infirmary and buy a chance in £1,000 or more at the same time."
  Another one reads—
  "The prize fund will be £10,000 if £50,000 worth of carnival tickets are sold. Buy now."
  Now I come to exceedingly cruel advertisements. You will laugh at the first—
  "He won't be happy till he gets it! The £250 first prize. Buy his ticket now."
  The next one reads—
  "Mother will be pleased if you win the £250 prize."
  There you have an appeal to the child to give pleasure to its mother by staking its savings in this way.
  Occupying the position I do in Bristol, I am sure your Lordships will readily understand my feeling strongly on this matter. I wrote to the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Trade a fortnight ago; the letter reached the Board of Trade the day after the noble Marquess was taken ill. I feel convinced that the Board of Trade, on seeing this
  36
  notice on your Lordships' Paper, sent some messenger to Bristol, because there appeared in the tramway carriages a second ticket, the red line in this case reading—
  "Sixty picture prizes."
  Up to that time the red line had announced £10,000 in prizes. But, my Lords, the money advertisement was not taken down. The one announcing sixty picture prizes had been put up by the side of it, and the result of the intervention of the Board of Trade has been to make people understand that the carnival has two attractions—£10,000 to be drawn for in money prizes, and sixty picture prizes. As a matter of fact, the Board of Trade can only deal with the Art Union; there is a third body issuing these advertisements by the thousand, over whom, as I understand, the Board of Trade have no control at all; and, if that is so, it is their own doing, because they have let this thing; go out of their hands by the very large and, as I think, unwise concessions which they have made.
  I think I have said enough about these advertisements to show that it is contrary to public morals that this sort of thing should be allowed to go on. If the answer of the Board of Trade is that the Board is powerless to deal with the situation, then the logical answer of this House will be that the Board of Trade ought also to be rendered powerless to create such a situation; and if the answer is that the only remedy is a prosecution, then I hope this House will take the view that not we in Bristol, but those who created the situation, should enter the action. I am perfectly certain that the Board of Trade must have been heartily sick of this whole thing long ago, and wishes it had never been so foolish as to abate by one single jot the stiff restrictions contained in the rules. If nothing is done there certainly will be a rush, unless charity organisations are less wide-awake than I think they are, of applications to the Board of Trade to do the same thing for other towns which have infirmaries in debt. I do at least expect this from the Board of Trade, that they will give to the House this assurance, that this experiment, which, has led to such disastrous results, will, never be made again.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, before the representative of His Majesty's Government answers the Question which has been put to him by my right rev. brother, I desire briefly to supplement what he has said with reference to this case. I venture to do so because for more than forty-two years I have been personally very closely associated with the municipal life of the city of Bristol, and during the whole of that period, both in regard to the management of this great institution and kindred institutions, I have been led to admire the dignity and highmindedness of those who have conducted the municipal affairs of that city. Having still this close connection with the city of Bristol, I feel that the leading citizens do well to be angry at this gambling project. I venture to say that it is a danger to the standard of public morals that this should take place.
  I need hardly say more than what has already been said by the Bishop of Bristol as to the opinion of the most highly-respected citizens of Bristol on this matter. Not only have the representatives of the Church of England taken action, but Nonconformist feeling has also been aroused. I hold in my hand a letter from the leader of the Nonconformist bodies in Bristol, the Rev. Arnold Thomas. I might also quote other persons. The Dean of Bristol has felt himself obliged to withdraw from his connection with the infirmary as vice-president. Again, I find that Sir Edward Fry, formerly a Lord Justice of Appeal, who is universally known and honoured, has also withdrawn his support from the infirmary in consequence of this. I do not venture to say what his view may be on the legal question, but I have here some very strong words of his on the moral aspect of the matter which I will read to the House, because the opinion of Sir Edward Fry on a question of this kind is no ordinary opinion. He says—
  "There are two evils which stare us in the face in our country to-day—gambling, and the association of frivolity and vanity with works of charity, and to license such a project as that of the Bristol Infirmary is to foster both these evils."
  I venture to think that words of that kind from such a quarter deserve to be
  38
  carefully weighed by the Board of Trade. I was not aware that the assent of the Board of Trade had been finally and formally given, but I venture to plead that if it has been it ought not to have been, given. I have no doubt at all that it must have been given in perfect good faith, but I venture to say that it was given on imperfect information. I cannot conceive its having been given except on inadequate and misleading information. Unfortunately, this great institution has fallen into hands different from those that used to manage it, and here we have the first fruits in this immense carnival with bills such as the Lord Bishop has described flaunted all over Bristol—bills such as we have been in the habit of receiving through the post from such places as Hamburg and Middelburg, but such as I have never seen before in any respectable portion of English life.
  I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention a little more closely to the Act of 1846. It is an Act which a mere layman like myself may fairly claim to understand, and, as I understand it, it simply exempts Art Unions under certain conditions from the operation of the Lotteries Act. It is an Act giving privileges and exemptions on certain conditions. Under it drawings for works of art may be allowed amongst bona fide members of the Art Union. The persons who take part must be members of the Art Union, and the exemption is then to continue—
  "only so long as their proceedings are carried on in good faith for the encouragement of the Fine Arts."
  Further, they must have obtained a Charter, and it is provided in the Act—
  "that whenever it shall appear that any such association is perverted from the purposes of this Act"—
  the purposes being the encouragement of the Fine Arts in good faith—
  "the fact is to be certified to His Majesty, and it shall be lawful to revoke or annul the Charter."
  It seems to me—of course, I express my opinion with no little hesitation in the presence of noble and learned Lords—that the Art Union of Bristol has imperilled its Charter by this gambling project. This cannot be described as anything less than a barefaced gambling project,

  39
  and I cannot but feel that the Board of Trade must have acted on improper information. Therefore, before the noble Duke answers for the Government, I venture to appeal to him to give the matter further and fresh consideration under the advice of the highest legal authority. I desire to associate myself with everything that the Lord Bishop of Bristol has said as to the deplorable results of a scheme of this kind flung into the life of a great city, and I do trust that something may be done so that the persons who have obtained the management of this affair shall not snap their fingers at an Act of this kind and go shameless, apparently, and unrepentant in face of the best sentiment of that great city.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, the right rev. Prelates have certainly an advantage over me, inasmuch as they are better acquainted than I am with the local opinion and views on this question. I could not help feeling, in listening to the right rev. Prelate who raised this question, that he regarded the Board of Trade not in a very kindly or friendly light, and he seemed to have in his mind the impression that the Board of Trade had connived with the local authorities at Bristol in carrying out what he considered was an illegal act.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: It was not in my mind. If it was in my expression I am very sorry.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am glad to hear the right rev. Prelate disclaim any idea that the Board of Trade desired to associate themselves with a body of Bristol gentlemen in carrying out any kind of lottery coming under the Lotteries Act. The right rev. Prelate has stated the story pretty amply to your Lordships, and I do not think I need go over the history of the case except to allude to one or two brief points in connection with it. As the right rev. Prelate pointed out, at the beginning of this year the Art Union at Bristol reminded the Board of Trade that there was going to be a carnival in that city,
  40
  the proceeds of which were to be devoted to the Bristol Royal Infirmary, and they asked the permission of the Board of Trade to make an arrangement with the carnival committee, the arrangement being this, that 20 per cent. of the entrance money taken at the carnival should be given to the Art Union. Those people who bought entrance tickets were not only to get admission to the carnival but they were to be entitled also to use those tickets as tickets for the pictures which had to be raffled for. That proposal was made to the Board of Trade, and after due consideration the Board gave their consent to it. I do not know the local opinion on this matter, but I should assume that the Art Union said that the arrangement would be one which would bring very prominently before the notice of the people in that locality the advantages of the Art Union, and that a certain amount, perhaps an increased amount, would go to the Art Union; and in so far as these considerations are worth anything, they must have been of benefit to the Art Union. The public would not in any way suffer; because not only would they, after paying their shilling, get the advantage of admission to the carnival, but they would have the additional privilege of drawing possibly a favourable number in the lottery, it being remembered that the lottery was for prizes in the shape of pictures. I understand that the right rev. Prelate considers that arrangement to be an illegal one.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: Not quite as you put it, but as I put it.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: These prizes which were to to be raffled for were picture prize, the product, I presume, of artists in and around the town of Bristol, and therefore it was perfectly clear that the aim of the Art Union was a bona fide aim, and it was not their desire in any way to associate themselves with the carnival committee in carrying out a proceeding which could in any way be termed illegal. That was the condition of affairs to which the Board of Trade assented. They did so, believing that they were perfectly within the law in doing so, and

  41
  I am informed that they have no reason to alter their view upon that point. The Board of Trade, believed that the arrangement between the carnival committee and the Fine Art committee was in good faith and for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. Then, as the right rev. Prelate reminded your Lordships, this happened. A munificent gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, suggested that if anybody die not like winning a picture he would keep the picture himself and give the money value thereof to the individual who won the prize. Then at once objections were raised. Many persons pointed out that if that course was carried into effect, the proposal to redeem these picture prizes by money would be illegal, and I understand that the right rev. Prelate joined in that protest. This came to the knowledge of the Board of Trade and they at once suggested that the proposal which this munificent gentleman had made should be withdrawn. There was considerable correspondence in the matter. The Fine Art Union replied that the gentleman was not a member of their society, and that therefore they could take no action in the matter, and they denied responsibility. However, as the right rev. Prelate has informed the House, the offer was eventually withdrawn; but he forgot to tell the House that the offer was withdrawn as the direct result of the strong representations made by the Board of Trade itself.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: I did not, forget to mention it. I did not know it.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Matters were in this condition when further complications arose, as we have been reminded to-night, by the fact that many peculiar advertisements were published, presumably by the carnival committee. His Majesty's Government certainly join with the right rev. Prelate in deploring those advertisements. I think they were very silly ones. I cannot believe that they could have been in any way likely to add to the sources of revenue of the carnival committee. The advertisements were brought to the notice of the Board of
  42
  Trade, who saw that people in Bristol were trying to advertise money prizes instead of picture prizes. At once strong representations were made by the Board of Trade, and these people were told that their action was irregular and that they must alter their advertisements and put them in correct form. A reply was received by the Board of Trade stating that new posters had been issued in which full prominence was given to the fact that the prizes were picture prizes and not money prizes. Although I can quite understand the right rev. Prelate disapproving of many of the incidents connected with this affair, I think he ought to look with a favourable view upon the action which the Board of Trade have taken in this matter, unless, of course, he objects to the fact that the Board of Trade allowed the Fine Art Union to make any agreement at all with the carnival committee. But, in doing that, I understand they were acting legally within their powers under the Act.
  The right rev. Prelate will no doubt wish to know exactly the attitude of the Board of Trade at the present, moment on this matter. I understand that they have invited the Art Union to disclaim, the injudicious act of the carnival committee, and as the Board of Trade think that the Art Union has to a certain extent been the victim of the carnival committee, they do not consider that there is enough evidence to warrant their cancelling the authority which they gave them. But, as the right rev. Prelate pointed out, it is open to anyone who desires to get a decision upon this matter to go to the local Courts of Law and ask whether the advertisements which have been issued by the carnival committee do or do not constitute an infringement of the law. The right rev. Prelate suggested that the Board of Trade should do this. The Board of Trade do not consider that their duties, extend thus far, and if local feeling in Bristol is very strong on this matter, I think the Board of Trade will be wise in leaving it to those who are more conversant with these matters, and who feel the more strongly about them, to bring any action they deem necessary.
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, it was not my intention to take part at all in this debate, but there were some observations in the noble Duke's reply which I cannot allow to pass without some comment. I did not understand the right rev. Prelate to have suggested, and I am sure he would disclaim any such idea, that the Board of Trade connived with the unfortunate and ill-advised committee of this carnival in setting up the wholly illegal lottery which they appear to have done. But I must point out to the noble Duke that it was solely in consequence of the regulations issued by the Board of Trade that the committee of the carnival were able to do it. It was the Board of Trade which alone enabled them to do it, because the regulations of the Board of Trade authorised the committee of the Art Union to allow persons who were not members of the Art Union to compete for their prizes.
  THE DUKE OF MARYBOROUGH: The Act runs "members, subscribers, or contributors."
  LORD DAVEY: That is so. The Board of Trade allowed persons who merely paid their gate-money to go into the Zoological Gardens to compete for these prizes. They had no power to do that, in my mind. That a man who pays gate-money to be admitted to a carnival at which a public lottery is advertised to take place should be supposed thereby to be a contributor or subscriber to an Art Union within the meaning of the Act is a supposition which I should not have thought would have entered into the head of any person. I do not in the least degree suggest that the Board of Trade saw the consequences of what they were doing; but still their action in allowing persons who, in my judgment, were in no sense either members, subscribers, or contributors, to compete for prizes has led to what seems to be admitted by the noble Duke himself to be unfortunate and illegal proceedings.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, if I have a right of reply, I should like to say—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): The right rev. Prelate has no right of reply, but he may make an explanation.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: The noble Duke said that in consequence of strong representations by the Board of Trade an answer was received that posters calling special attention to the fact that the prizes were to be pictures were issued. That is quite true, but those posters were put up side by side with those announcing £10,000 prizes in money, so, as I pointed out, there is now a double attraction. The objectionable tickets to which I have called attention are still being circulated, and it appears to me that the Board of Trade have practically done nothing by their last step.
  EARL SPENCER: I would appeal to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House as to whether this matter should not be referred back to the Board of Trade. I think it is clear from the remarks of my noble and learned friend that they seem, no doubt unwittingly, to have done something irregular. A great Department ought to be very careful in a matter of this kind, and I think it would be as well that it should be referred back to them to see whether, after all, they have not connived at what is an illegality.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I think the noble Duke, in the course of his speech, admitted very frankly that these proceedings had been of a most irregular and improper description. With a very worthy object in view the Bristol Art Union appears to have entered into an ill-advised association with another body which, actuated no doubt by philanthropic motives, seems to have, if a layman may express a view, gone perilously near breaking the law. I gather from the noble Duke that the matter has been, to some extent at any rate, corrected, because it has now been decided that the persons who win these prizes are to receive works of art and not money.
  LORD DAVEY: But they are no members of the society.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The right rev. Prelate however suggested to us that the parties concerned were, in spite of the remonstrances which had been addressed to them by the Board of Trade, persisting in their irregular conduct. If that is so, I have no doubt that my noble friend will represent to the Board of Trade what has fallen from noble Lords during the course of this debate, and that the matter will be looked into further as suggested by the noble Earl opposite.

  LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS ON BRITISH SHIPS.
  LORD MUSKEREYrose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have been made aware of the decision of the Board of Trade Inquiry which investigated the circumstances of the loss of the trawler "Banffshire;" whether, previous to her leaving Aberdeen she was inspected by a Board of Trade surveyor competent to survey her compasses and life-saving apparatus, and, if not, why not; also to call attention to the general question of the surveying of life-saving apparatus on British merchant ships. He said: My Lords, my Question, also, has reference to the Board of Trade, Up to the present I had thought that, with the exception of the Marine Department, the departments of that Board were nearly immaculate; but I find I was mistaken.
  I think that you will agree with me that any matter which concerns the efficiency or otherwise of life-saving apparatus on board our merchant ships is worthy of our careful attention. We have to feel thankful for the institution of the Acts relating to life-saving appliances, as it is now the duty, not of private individuals, but of the State, to ensure that both our mariners and passengers sailing on the high seas should be provided with adequate and efficient means of escape in time of disaster. I have on previous occasions drawn attention to serious defects which exist in the manner in which the Board of Trade carries out the law in this respect, and,
  46
  consequently, it is not surprising that through want of proper official supervision the life-saving apparatus, consisting of boats, life-buoys, life-belts, and other things, in many merchant ships is often a source of danger to human life instead of being a source of safety.
  To refer to the case mentioned in my Question I find that the Board of Trade Inquiry into the loss of the "Banffshire" attached blame to the manager for the owners of the vessel in not seeing that, before she left Aberdeen, she was provided with good and properly-adjusted compasses and sufficient life-saving appliances. There was only one life-buoy, which was useless, and there were no life-belts on board. I see that the master of the, trawler was fined £10. Now, my Lords, it is all very well to fine an individual or individuals for being privy to or taking a vessel to sea and jeopardising the lives on board in such a scandalous way, but what I want to know is, what have the Marine Department of the Board of Trade to say in their own defence in themselves permitting such a vessel to go to sea? They are supposed to have proper staff of expert surveyors who, under the Merchant Shipping Act, have certain duties and certain powers vested in them to prevent this sort of thing. From what I understand from statements of officials of he Board of Trade, it is not possible, nor, they say, is it found necessary for their surveyors to inspect the life-saving appliances of every vessel which is about to proceed to sea. One can hardly have much confidence in statements of this character when we see this case of the "Banffshire" which was possessed of one useless life-buoy, and no life-belts. Furthermore, I have contended that it is imperative to increase the number of the surveyors at our different sea-ports so that proper inspection of life-saving apparatus can be carried on.
  The Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships stated in their Report in 1874 that some additional nautical assistance was requisite for the due performance of the duties now entrusted to the Board. The Marine Department of the Board, however, has, as it usually does with recommendations of Committees or

  47
  Commissions of the kind, ignored it, and the nautical assistance nowadays is even less than it was then. I would point out to your Lordship's that the nautical surveyors to the Board of Trade are less in number than they were in the year 1876, although the tonnage of British foreign-going vessels entered and cleared with cargoes and in ballast at ports in the United Kingdom has increased by over 20,000,000 tons. Throughout the whole of the United Kingdom there are fifteen nautical surveyors only. Your Lordships will, therefore, see that at many ports there is no nautical assistance at all.
  In addition to these few nautical surveyors I should inform your Lordships that there are also what are termed engineer and shipwright surveyors, and these number 104. In advocating an increase in the staff of nautical surveyors, I do not wish to minimise in the slightest degree the importance of the services carried on by engineers and shipwrights— that is, in their own particular department. What I contend is that the Board of Trade have no right to relegate to these gentlemen duties which do not come within their sphere, and in which they have no practical experience. For instance, it would be ridiculous to ask a British merchant captain to undertake duties relating to the survey of a ship's hull or her engines, and so it is equally ridiculous for the Board of Trade to expect their engineer and shipwright surveyors to supervise in an expert way such technical matters as ship's boats, their tackle, and their masts.
  Under the rules relating to the Life-Saving Appliances Acts these boats must be fitted with a mast or masts, with at least one good sail, and proper gear, and also with an efficient compass. Sea anchors must also be provided. The lowering apparatus of the boats should be carefully overhauled, and the compasses and other navigational appliances of the ship herself should be inspected. All these matters can only be thoroughly and practically attended to by men possessing long nautical experience. I would ask your Lordships, is it not reprehensible, in the interests of the safety of life at sea, that such duties
  48
  should be handed over to engineers and shipwrights? To furnish an illustratration. The Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of the "Banffshire" attached blame to the manager for the owners in not seeing, amongst other things, that, the vessel was provided with good and properly-adjusted compasses. As I have said before, the primary responsibility for this rests with the officials of the Board of Trade, but, in all probability, even had the ship been inspected by a Board of Trade surveyor, it is almost certain that these very compasses would have been inspected, or have been alleged, to have been inspected, by an engineer or shipwright. I understand that there is only one nautical surveyor in the whole of Scotland, and he, I believe, is in Glasgow.
  The Board of Trade, in defence of what is an indefensible system, say that their newly-appointed surveyors are instructed in duties such as the surveying of boats, compasses, etc., by the more experienced surveyors in their service. This is tantamount to saying that the men they appoint do not know how to survey boats and such like. The still more curious part of it is that those who instruct these young surveyors are most probably engineers and shipwrights themselves, and consequently theorists at the work. I hope no word I have said will be taken as against engineers or shipwrights, for I have a sincere admiration for them both as men and as officials. In this matter it is not their fault, but their misfortune, that the Board of Trade should cause them to perform duties in which they have had no practical experience. In these matters, which affect what I may call the safety conditions of our merchant cargo and passenger ships, I always like to obtain, if I can, the views of those serving on board of them. It is ofttimes very difficult to obtain such views, as our mariners are afraid to express themselves individually, and Parliament does not give them the means to have a direct representative voice in the Legislature. I can, however, give your Lordships the collective views of over 12,000 captains and officers of the merchant service who are embodied in the Merchant Service Guild. It is, they say with regret, a fact that the life-saving apparatus on board far

  49
  too many ships is in a woefully bad condition, and they comment very strongly on the deplorable condition of the boats buoys, and belts, and other life-saving and navigational appliances which are provided.
  I understand that since the "Genera Slocum" disaster happened in New York the American marine authorities have issued very strict regulations on this subject of life-saving apparatus, and British ships are required to conform to them equally with their own. I have heard, for instance, on the best authority, that one of our newest and largest liners has been made to carry two additional boats, her fire-hose was required to stand an additional 100 pounds pressure, and her life-belts had to be made more durable and satisfactory. What I am endeavouring to prevent is a "General Slocum" disaster' to one of our own ships, when we would see what public opinion would be and would do. I do not wish to strike a note of alarm, but I have no hesitation in saying that the Life-saving Appliance Acts are not efficiently carried out for the reasons I have adduced. I hope that your Lordships will approve of my action in endeavouring to press this matter and to urge that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade should have due and proper regard to the duties and responsibilities imposed upon them by the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act which deal with life-saving appliances on board ship. Were any of your Lordships in need of medical or surgical assistance, would you trust yourselves to a gentleman whose knowledge of medicine and surgery was derived from reading books and from what he was told by other gentlemen, and who had had practically no experience? I do not think you would. I beg to put the Question standing in my name.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH: I will not follow the noble Lord into the various matters which he has raised during the course of his speech. I am sure he would rather that I confined myself to one or two of the main points upon which he is anxious for information.
  50
  The noble Lord has asked the Board of Trade whether the "Banffshire" was, inspected before she left port, and whether the compasses and life-saving apparatus were examined as well. The reply to that is in the negative. The ship was not examined, for the simple reason that there is no obligation on the part of the authorities to examine a ship of that class.
  LORD MUSKERRY: The "Banffshire" is over 80 tons register.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am coming to that in a moment. If the noble Lord had refreshed his memory on the Merchant Shipping Act he would have discovered that the "Banffshire," to which he rightly attaches importance, could not be described as a vessel—it was only a registered fishing-boat. She was a very small boat indeed, and never carried any passengers on board; consequently there was no need at all that I all this life-saving apparatus to which the noble Lord alluded should be carried. If he will turn to the Merchant Shipping Act he will see that all that was necessary for this particular ship to carry in the way of life-saving apparatus was a single boat. There is no need for craft under a certain size to carry life-belts or any other kind of life-saving apparatus except a boat. It is true that the "Banffshire" only had one life-belt, but she had a boat in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act, and as this fishing-smack had conformed to the law, there was no need to examine her before she left port. If the noble Lord will look into the matter a little more closely he will see that all the rules and regulations with regard to these small fishing-smacks were complied with.
  LORD MUSKERRY: The "Banffshire" was a steam trawler.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I understand that her proper description is not that of a steam trawler but a registered fishing-boat. Then the noble Lord suggested that the compasses of this particular boat ought to have been examined and their correctness certified.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I do not suggest that. I said that the Board of Trade's own inquiry said it should have been done.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The result of the Board of Trade Inquiry was that the manager was blamed for not having adjusted his compasses. It is the duty of the manager to do that. The Board of Trade has not a sufficient number of officials to see that every compass in every little fishing-boat is properly adjusted. That would require an amount of supervision which no Department of the State could possibly be prepared to undertake. The noble Lord may think that this vessel ought to have had some life-saving apparatus upon it; he may say that it ought to have had more life-belts and other machinery for saving life; and if he thinks that advisable I should not quarrel with his suggestion in the least. If he would like the Board of Trade, the next time the regulations are framed, to examine into this matter I dare say they will take a suggestion of that sort seriously into consideration. I hope the noble Lord will see that several of the points he put forward should not be given quite the same amount of importance which he desires your Lordships to attach to them.
  Let me deal for one brief moment with the larger question of surveying all life-saving apparatus on British merchant ships. The noble Lord is aware that provision for life-saving apparatus on British merchant ships is carefully laid down in various sections in the Merchant Shipping Act. It is specifically laid down that the onus of maintaining in proper order all the appliance for life-saving shall rest on the master and owners of the ship. That is a principle which is definitely laid down, and I do not think it is one which the noble Lord will quarrel with. Furthermore, a penalty can be inflicted for non-compliance with these regulations. I rather gathered from the remarks of the noble Lord that he thinks the regulations require revision.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Hear, hear!
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: If the noble Lord is under that impression—and, of course, it is a view which he is perfectly entitled to hold—I would point out to him that under the Merchant Shipping Act all such rules made under the Act have to be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and cannot come into operation until they have been laid for forty days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament during the sittings of Parliament. The noble Lord has been a Member of your Lordships' House for a considerable number of years, and surely if the regulations were in his opinion inadequate, or not good ones, he has had an opportunity in previous years of commenting upon them.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I have done so.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: So much for the rules and regulations and the penalties under them. The noble Lord is equally dissatisfied with the inspection employed to secure that the rules and regulations are carried into effect. I understand that it is quite impracticable for inspectors to make a systematic inspection before the voyage of every ship leaving dock. The system adopted is that the officials of the Board of Trade visit vessels wherever opportunity arises and call attention to any defects they find and to anything not in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act. Moreover, if these defects are not at once rectified and the protests of the Board of Trade paid attention to, they have it in their power to detain the ships until the rules and regulations have been complied with by the owners. I think the noble Lord must admit that there is a considerable amount of supervision employed by those who are responsible for carrying out the rules and regulations made under the Merchant Shipping Act. I will give an instance in support of my contention. During the last four months 674 vessels have been visited and examined by the officers of the Department at the port of Liverpool, and in seventy-eight cases the life-saving appliances were found defective and ordered to be put straight. That is a concrete instance to show that great care is taken to protect

  53
  people who are passengers on board these ships from carelessness or insufficient control on the part of those responsible for seeing that there is an adequate amount of life-saving apparatus on board. With regard to passenger steamships, the noble Lord is aware that the surveyors are bound to inspect the appliances at each annual survey for the renewal of passenger certificates; they will not pass any ship for a renewal of her passenger certificate unless that ship has complied with all regulations laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act. I do not think I can give the noble Lord any further information, but I do think he ought to admit that the Board of Trade has taken every precaution to safeguard the lives of those who travel on British ships.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." —(Lord Davey.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  LORD DAVEYsaid the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was for the object of removing ambiguities in Section 4 of the principal Act which related to sub-contracting. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, pages 3 and 4, to leave out the whole clause and to insert, 'Section 4 of the principal Act (which relates to sub-contracting) shall be repealed, and in lieu thereof the following section shall be substituted:—(1) Where any person, being an undertaker within the meaning of this Act (in this section referred to as the principal) contracts with any person (in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of any work, and the principal would, if such work were executed by workmen immediately employed by him, be liable to pay compensation under this Act to those workmen in respect of any accident arising out of and in the course of their employment, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed by the contractor in the execution of the work
  54
  any compensation which he would have been liable to pay it the workman had been immediately employed by him; and where proceedings are taken against the principal, then in the application of this Act references to the principal shall be substituted for references to the employer, except in the provisions relating to the amount of compensation. Provided that the principal shall be entitled to be indemnified by the person by whom the workman was immediately employed and by any intermediate contractor, and any intermediate contractor called on to indemnify the principal shall be entitled to be indemnified by the person by whom the workman was immediately employed, and by any contractor intermediate between him and that person, and so on, and any such indemnity shall, in accordance with rules of Court, be enforceable in a County Court. (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman recovering compensation under this Act from the contractor instead of the principal, if the contractor is an undertaker within the meaning of this Act. (3) This section shall not apply to any contract with any person for the execution by or under the contractor of any work which is merely ancillary or incidental to and is no part of or process in the trade or business carried on by the principal, nor shall it apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on, or in, or about the premises, work, or building in respect of which the principal is the undertaker within the meaning of this Act.'"— (Lord Davey.)
  LORD BELPER: I admit that the Amendment which has just been proposed by the noble and learned Lord does not alter the sense of the clause in any way. It, no doubt, does away with some of the ambiguity which he complained of in the former stage, and as the Government think it will improve the Bill we are very glad to accept it.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I only wish to say, before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, that I opposed legislation of this character in 1895 on the ground that it tended to lower wages. About two years ago I met a great supporter of this legislation and pointed out to him that the plain English of it is that 100 or 1,000 men employed in a factory receive less wages on the off-chance that one of them may lose a finger. "That is true," was the reply, "but the men do not know it." I answered that it would be my business to make it known to the men, and, therefore, I hope this

  55
  short observation will be reported in the public Press in the morning.
  Drafting Amending agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Bill do now pass."— (Lord Davey.)
  On Question. Motion agreed to, and Bill sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.