Lords Sitting of 27 July 1906

VISCOUNT MOLESWORTH.
Petition of George Bagot, Viscount e Molesworth and Baron Phillipstown, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
St. Pancras Electricity Bill. The King's consent signified; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Hackney Electricity Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill; South Lincolnshire Water Bill; Hampstead Garden Suburb Bill. Read 3a, with the
2
Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Poole Corporation Water Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Crediton Gas Bill [H.L.]; Kent Electric Power Bill [H.L.]: Truro Gas Bill [H.L.]; Havana United Railways and Regla Warehouses Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Justices of the Peace (No. 2) Bill; Rochester, Chatham, and Strood Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Paisley Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a(according to order), and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3aon Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  Report from the Committee (with proceedings of the Committee and an appendix) made, and to be printed. (No. 180.)
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Reports by the High Commissioner on his visits to Basutoland and the Bechuanaland Protectorate in 1906.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Annual Report of the proceedings under Acts relating to sea fisheries, for the year 1905.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3681. United States (Savannah).
  No. 3682. Persia (Kerman).
  No. 3683. Persia (Kermanshah).

  MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 653. German Ceramic industries and Gorman trade in Ceramic products.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE (STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, 1906).
  No. 511. The Inland Post Amendment (No. 4) Warrant, 1906, dated 30th Juno, 1906. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments to be printed. (No. 179.)
  REVENUE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Monday next (The Lord Privy Seal [M. Ripon]). (No. 181.)
  DEAN FOREST BILL.
  Read 2a(accordingly to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3aon Monday next.
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read 2a(according to order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3aon Monday next.

  SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  *EARL, CAWDOR: My Lords, I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes before the recess to make any statement in your Lordships' House with reference to the shipbuilding programme for the coming year. The statement which has been made to-day in another place emphasises in no small degree the great importance of your Lordships having an opportunity of discussing the shipbuilding programme of the Government at an early date.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, I agree that this is a question which is deserving of the closest attention of your Lordships. The only difficulty appears to me to be the way in which the time of your Lordships' House is taken up next week, at the end of which we are going to adjourn for a short recess. Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are to be taken up by the Second Reading of the Education Bill. On Tuesday there is an important question to be raised by the Duke of Marlborough in regard to the granting of responsible Government to the Transvaal Colony. On Monday there is a Motion down by Lord Wemyss with regard to our land defences, and Lord Mayo has a Question with regard to Ireland. Lord Brassey has also a notice on the Paper to call attention to the recommendations of the Admiralty Committee on Naval Reserves. Perhaps one or both of the noble Lords who precede Lord Brassey might be willing to postpone their Questions, or, at any rate, make the discussion on them short. In that case I think it would be convenient if the Notice by Lord Brassey were taken as the text for a statement and discussion on the Shipbuilding Vote.
  EARL CAWDOR: Will the First Lord make those suggestions to the noble Lords who have the Notices on the Taper?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: They do not belong to my side of the House. Perhaps the noble Lord will give mo his help.
  EARL CAWDOR: I am perfectly willing to do that. But I hardly think the question of shipbuilding arises on the Notice by Lord Brassey.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: the ordinary practice of this House does not tie your Lordships very closely to the exact terms of the Notice- on the Paper, and I think it is pretty certain that Lord Brassey in his speech will touch on questions affecting shipbuilding.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Surely the Naval Reserve is not in any way connected with shipbuilding. The shipbuilding programme is in itself a very important matter, and I should like to ask whether it would not be better if Lord Brassey could be approached and asked to postpone his question. We might consider the Naval Reserve on any future occasion, but the shipbuilding programme of the Government for the coming year is a very important Vote, and your Lordships should have an early opportunity of discussing it.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I will approach Lord Brassey on the question.
  EARL CAWDOR: I understand we may take it that in some form or another, either regular or irregular, we shall be able to discuss the Shipbuilding Vote on Monday next.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Yes.

  RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN COUNCIL SCHOOLS.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence in rising to set right a misunderstanding on a question of figures which arose during the discussion on the subject of religious education in council schools raised yesterday by the most rev.
  6
  Primate. In the course of my remarks I stated that there were thirteen schools in England in which no religious instruction was given. I was, of course, referring to the Return, and my observation was limited by the amount of information which the Return conveys, which is, in fact, the whole of the information on the subject which we have at the Board of Education. What I intended to convey was that authorities had replied in the negative to the fifth question, which was put to all the local education authorities, to the extent of thirteen schools in which they stated that no religious instruction was given. The most rev Primate corrected me and mentioned the case of Huddersfield and certain other places in which the Bible is simply read without note or comment. I think it might possibly be argued that when the Bible is read by the teacher within the hours of regular attendance it must be regarded as a form of religious instruction, but I have no wish to press that point. I merely desire to make it clear what the difference in regard to the figures was between the most rev. Primate and myself. In his speech the most rev. Primate alluded to the figures of Wales. He referred to the counties of Carmarthen and Cardigan and quoted the figures given in the Return of the number of schools in those counties in which, on their own showing, no religious instruction was given, and it was in comparison between Wales and England that I stated the figure as I did.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am sure the last thing the noble Earl desired was to convey a misleading impression, and I accept his explanation absolutely. Lest I should be thought to have twisted the point as to whether religious instruction is given when the Bible is simply road without note or comment, I would point out that the Huddersfield local education authority state explicitly, for I will quote their actual words, that in the council schools it is provided that "no religious teaching shall be given."the Huddersfield local authority then go on to say that for fifteen minutes there may be what they call "religious observances," which consist of the reading of some verses from the Bible, chosen by the teacher, without note or comment, and the singing of a hymn. Question 5, to which the noble Earl has referred, is, "are any council

  7
  schools in the authority's area known to give no religious instruction?"the Huddersfield local education authority replies practically—
  " We give none, but we have religious observances"
  I think that when Huddersfield says it gives no religious teaching we may take Huddersfield at its word. There are seventeen hoard schools in Huddersfield alone. I turn almost by chance to another authority, Todmorden. There are here nine schools, and the only difference is that ton minutes instead of fifteen minutes are devoted to religious observances. The number of such cases might be largely added to from other parts of the Report.

  NATIVE LABOUR IN TRANSVAAL MINES.
  *LORD HARRISrose to ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on June 29th, upon what information he is depending for his communications with the Portuguese authorities, and in what respects the operations of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association have caused discontent.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, a few weeks ago I put a Question to the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary on the subject of a rumoured competition to be set up with an association which is responsible for supplying Kaffir labour to the mines on the Witwatersrand; and the noble Earl, in his reply, stated that all depended on the association having at its back the force by which it was originated, and that if it were found that there were substantial interests connected with the mines of the same nature as those for which the association was formed or that some of those who took part in the formation of the association were not satisfied with the state of things as they now existed, then the position of this co-operative or voluntary society became considerably modified. It is evident, from the further statement in his reply, that the noble Earl is already, through the usual channels, of course, in communication with the Portuguese authorities, I presume upon the subject of another association for the same purpose; and the Question I have to ask him is what has caused him to take
  8
  these steps? He says that it is possible some of those who were connected with the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association are now dissatisfied. We shall be glad to know who are dissatisfied. I am informed that no complaints have been made by any members of the association, and we should like to know upon what information the noble Earl is proceeding.
  In the course of the reply from which I have already quoted, the noble Earl said there was nothing whatever to conceal in this matter. In these circumstances I am sure he will be prepared to tell us the whole story as to why he is preparing to set up this competition with the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. As I explained to your Lordships when I spoke last, the effect of competition before the war was by no means satisfactory, and I am not prepared to believe that at this moment competition would be any more satisfactory than it was then. There is no information whatever upon this subject in the Blue-book recently issued. There is a mass of information upon the subject of recruiting Chinese and employing Chinese, and of repatriating those few who are prepared to cancel their agreements and be repatriated. But there is not a word of information upon the system of recruiting Kaffirs for labour on the Witwatersrand.
  I confess I do not understand why, if this subject has been under discussion between the Colonial Office and the High Commissioner, no reference is made to it in the Blue-book. Who are the persons who are dissatisfied? I have heard rumours that a certain gentleman named Wilson, who is distinguished from other gentlemen of the same name by the sobriquet of Kaffir, is very anxious to get permission to recruit in Portuguese territory; but he is not one of those to whom the noble Earl referred in his reply. He is not a person having substantial interests; neither is he one of those who took part in the formation ef the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. I suppose there is some influential body behind who is urging the noble Earl to take these steps. I hope he will be able to tell us what that influential body is, and why it it so anxious to set up this competition.
  Another question which I hope the noble Earl will be able to reply to is this,

  9
  Is the High Commissioner in favour of the proposed competition being set up? There is nothing in the Blue-book about it; but, after what the noble Earl said the other day about trusting the man on the spot, I presume that he would not have commenced negotiations with Portugal on this subject without finding out whether the High Commissioner was satisfied that the setting up of another association was wise and likely to lead to satisfactory results. I can hardly believe I that the Government is very anxious to help us as regards Kaffir labour. Nobody ' can be more anxious than we are to get as much Kaffir labour as possible. It would relieve us of many accusations and and of a proportionate part of the odium which is heaped on those who have to manage the mines. We should be only too glad if the noble Earl could point out to us a safe way of securing more Kaffir labour.
  I can suggest to him a way in which a small number of Kaffirs could be set free. In the Blue-book which I have referred to it appears that some inquiries have been made by Government as to the possibility of substituting white labour for coloured labour, and we know from the speeches that have been made by various members of the Government that they were at one time, and possibly are still, under the impression that to a great extent white labour could be substituted for coloured labour. I observe that in this Blue-book there is some correspondence on this subject, in particular as regards the Premier Mine, the only diamond mine in the Transvaal. It was asked, why should not white labour be substituted for Kaffir labour on the Premier Mine? The Government is largely interested in the mines of the Transvaal. It takes 10 per cent, of the profit in the case of gold mines and 60 per cent, of the profit in the case of this diamond mine. One of the reasons given for not substituting white labour was that the Government would lose £240,000 a year thereby. I observe that after that there is no further discussion about substituting white labour for Kaffir labour. But if the noble Earl will give directions that such Kaffirs as they have on the Premier Mine should be set free to go to the Witwatersrand I can assure him we shall be very grateful.
  10
  There is a strong suspicion that underlying the proposal for another association to compete in the supply of Kaffir labour there is a political movement. I am perfectly certain that it is absolutely unknown to the noble Earl and that he is entirely innocent in the matter. But there is a very strong suspicion that this is purely a political movement engineered other by extremists in this country or by those in the Transvaal who are interested in diverting the loyalty of as many Europeans as possible. It would be extremely useful to certain people if it could be said that owing to this association having been set up some influential mining association or some influential mining person could now say, "Ah ! thank Heaven I have got rid of this monopoly. I no longer want Chinese, for I can get enough Kaffir labour through this competitive supply."That is a suspicion which some people entertain with regard to this movement which is being assisted by the Secretary of State. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give such a complete and satisfactory reply as will entirely brush away this suspicion.
  I ask, Why should there be any such hurry over this matter? On Tuesday of next week the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies will make, I suppose, one of the most momentous statements in this House that has over fallen to the lot of any Colonial Minister to make, one upon which decades hence —seventy, eighty, or a hundred years hence — his reputation will be judged, as his relative, Lord Durham, is now judged as regards Canada. The Government have deliberately decided that so far as Chinese labour is concerned they will leave the matter to the Transvaal. Why is there this hurry to interfere as to Kaffir recruiting when what is a matter of far greater interest to this country is left to the Transvaal? Why cannot this matter of Kaffir recruiting be also left to the Transvaal? These are questions which I venture to put to the noble Earl, and I hope he will be able to give a complete reply regarding them.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I wish in the first place, to thank my noble friend for postponing his

  11
  Question at a time when it would have been impossible for me to have answered him as completely as I can now. I think there is a little misunderstanding in the Question as the noble Earl has put it. he asks upon what information the Secretary of State is depending for his communications with the Portuguese authorities, and I noticed that in his speech he dwelt again upon communications with the Portuguese authorities. What I did say was that in these circumstances we have had to consider the necessity of communications, not only with the High Commissioner, as the noble Lord suggested, but also, possibly, with the Portuguese authorities.
  The noble Lord again asks, with regards to the operations of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, in what respect they have caused discontent. That part of the Question it seems to me I answered, as far as I possibly could, on the last occasion. The noble Lord said that I then explained that we regarded the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association as a voluntary association, and that therefore any of its members had a right to say that they were not satisfied with it and wished other arrangements. His Majesty's Government have recognised that right, but they are not responsible for the reasons which those who wish to separate may have for their separation. But what they are responsible for—and I admitted it to the full on the last occasion—are the conditions under which recruitment takes place. I quoted then, and I refer again, to an answer given in another place, in which we laid down that we must be satisfied as to the status, the substance, and the responsibility of those who are given a second agency, and that that must be established to the satisfaction of the High Commissioner. It was because I was awaiting the decision of the High Commissioner on these points that I asked my noble friend to postpone his Question; and I hope he will rocognise that on this point, at any rate, I have observed the authority of the man on the spot.
  I am glad to say that on July 7th two telegrams, one from Downing-Street and the other from South Africa, crossed each other which were expressed in such
  12
  exactly parallel lines that I do not think it was necessary to give a formal answer to either; and on July 12th the High Commissioner expressed his complete acquiescence in the policy of the establishment of the second agency which we have proposed should be set up. With regard to the matter of agreement, it is briefly this—that there shall be a second agency established, the management of which has, as I have said, been approved by the High Commissioner; that we accept the position that the establishment of this second agency is sufficient in the meantime to satisfy the requirements of those who are not prepared to continue under the management of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association; and that we shall not establish any further agency, or approve of the establishment of further agencies, until there has been such an inquiry into the whole question of recruitment as His Majesty's Government and the High Commissioner may think desirable in the circumstances.
  I hope the noble Lord will admit that in those circumstances there is no justification for the suggestion, which I do not think he repeated to-day though he mentioned one particular name but which he did put forward on the last occasion, that we were going back to the policy of indiscriminate and unlimited recruitment in the interests of men who had found themselves out of an occupation which they considered profitable I do not wish, as I said on the last occasion, to conceal anything in this matter. The application came to us from a group of mines which I believe goes by the name of the Robinson group; and that is the group, with which I believe certain others may be associated, for whom the agency is proposed to be established and of which the High Commissioner has approved. With regard to the Portuguese Government, I pointed out on the last occasion that under the agreement of 1901 it was laid down that both parties should concur in the appointment of collectors of labour. In those circumstances it is, of course, necessary that the Portuguese Government should concur in this arrangement, but as it has the assent and approval of the High Commissioner I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in the matter.

  THE LAUNDRY INDUSTRY.
  *THE EARL OF LYTTONrose to call attention to the exceptional position at present occupied by the laundry industry under the Factory Act, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the declared policy of successive Governments, they would undertake to introduce legislation in the next session of Parliament for the effective regulation of all laundries, or whether if a Bill were introduced into this House similar to that which was passed in 1902, they would give special facilities for its passage through the other House of Parliament.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, my object in placing upon the Order Paper the Notice which stands in my name was, first of all, to draw attention to the present position of a question which, though not of very general interest, is one, nevertheless, upon which many strong opinions are felt, and which is considered of considerable importance, not only by the laundry interest as a whole, but also by a large number of people who take an interest generally in factory legislation; and secondly to try and elicit some definite statement from His Majesty's Government as to their intentions in the matter. The subject may be divided into two distinct branches. First of all there is the question of the regulation of the hours of labour in all laundries; and, secondly, there is the question of the inclusion within the law of two special classes of laundries which are at the present moment exempted.
  Let me take, first of all, the case of ordinary laundries. In 1895 a Factory Act was passed by a Liberal Government which extended to ordinary commercial laundries, and certain clauses were embodied in that Act that were intended to regulate their hours of labour. the object of those clauses was to prevent excessive hours been worked in an industry which is exceptionally severe and which entails very considerable hardships on those who are engaged in it both as regards the character of the employment and the conditions under which that employment is carried on. That was the object of the clauses, but in practice they have entirely failed to carry out that object; in fact, they have proved altogether unworkable. As many as fourteen hours a day may be worked on any three days in
  14
  the week, so long as the weekly total does not exceed sixty. Year after year the Factory Reports have testified to the impossibility of finding out whether or not this weekly limit has boon exceeded, or of preventing very excessive hours being worked upon particular days.
  In the Factory Report for 1905, which has just been issued, mention is made of one firm where several young women were employed for twenty eight hours, from 8 o'clock on Friday morning till 12 o'clock noon on Saturday. An interval of two and a half hours was given during the night when the girls were allowed to lie upon the floor with their coats for pillows in order to take a rest. In another firm one worker had been employed for thirty-seven consecutive hours and another for thirty-two and one-half. These hours are, of course, illegal, and the firms were prosecuted for allowing them; but those cases are mentioned in order to show how necessary it is for the hours of labour to be strictly, regulated. The Report goes on to mention that a great increase has taken place in the legal hours in laundries, owing to the fact that of recent years employers have come to find out how very elastic the law is, and what a very largo margin is allowed to thorn. In fact, the Report shows that it is quite legal for young girls to be kept employed for sixteen hours at a stretch, provided they have had two hours in that time for meals. Mr. Ritchie, when he was Home Secretary, frankly admitted that the law had been found unworkable. Speaking in 1901, he said—
  "the law has been found practicably incapable of enforcement, for many reasons."
  On another occasion he spoke of the almost complete failure as regards the working of the Act in reference to laundries.
  The law, as it stands at the present moment, is not defended by any one. It is condemned by the factory inspectors. Year after year they protest against it and urge that it should be amended. Those who are engaged in the industry itself, whether as employers or employed, are equally agreed in condemning it, and it has boon declared unworkable and unsatisfactory by the spokesmen of both political Parties. Not only that, but clauses have been already drafted for its amendment, which were agreed to by the

  15
  Employers' Federation of Laundry Associations, and received the unanimous approval of the Grand Committee on Trade in the House of Commons. Was ever a stronger case made out for legislative change? Yet we have still the unsatisfactory state of affairs left unchanged, and we are no nearer an amendment of the law to-day than we were in 1901, when this general agreement was arrived at. So much for ordinary laundries. I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have made up their minds to take up this question, and whether they will introduce legislation making all laundries either factories or workshops.
  Now for the exemptions. Under the law at present two classes of laundries are exempted from the law, namely, those which are attached to religious or charitable institutions and those in which not more than two persons are employed. I am aware that on this question there is less unanimity than there is upon the question of ordinary laundries. Some opposition still remains to the inclusion of these two classes, but even upon this point there is a greater measure of agreement than is usually found on any question of importance. Proposals for the inclusion of both these classes were submitted to your Lordships in 1902, and received the support of noble Lords opposite as well as noble Lords on this side of the House. Support was further given by the most rev. Primate, who was at the time Bishop of Winchester, and by other members of the Episcopal Bench. With regard to the smaller laundries in which only two persons are employed, I have only this to say, that the worst cases or overwork and also of insanitary and unsuitable premises are reported from this particular class. It will surely be agreed that it is most undesirable, in the interest of the community as a whole, that clothes should be allowed to be washed under the conditions which prevail in some of those places; and, moreover, no logical argument can be brought forward to sustain the position that you may employ two persons for longer hours and under worse conditions than you would be allowed to employ three persons. The distinction is both arbitrary and unjust.
  The opposition to the inclusion of institution laundries is another matter.
  16
  The opposition to this arises, I think, from three sources. First of all, it arises from ignorance as to what is exactly meant by inspection, and by a fear that inspection might lead to some interference with the authority of the sisters in these places. That this fear is chimerical has already been proved. During the last two or three years many of the most reasonable of these institutions—and let me say that it is not a question between Catholic and Protestant institutions, but it applies equally to institutions of all denominations—have voluntarily submitted to a system of inspection by factory inspectors. They have found in practice that whereas they have been able to receive advice as to the guarding of their machinery, as to the nature of their premises, and the hours of their workers, no attempt has been made, and no attempt is likely to be made, to interfere in any way with the authority of the sisters over their inmates; and the opposition which arises on that score is already breaking down. The second reason for oppostion arises, I think, from a consciousness of the very genuine difficulties of applying the law to these particular places owing to the character of the women who are kept there. But these difficulties it has already been shown might easily be overcome, either by special provisions in the law or else by giving to the Home Secretary a very wide discretion. The last ground of opposition comes from those who claim that there is no need for the inspection of these places; but that cannot be maintained for a moment in view of the overwhelming case which, as I shall show presently, can be made out against it. But if that opposition were ten times greater than it is I should still insist that a change in the law was necessary, first of all, in justice to the laundry interest as a whole, and, secondly, in the interests of the institutions themselves.
  It is urged by those who are the supporters of those particular institutions that since their laundry business is carried on not primarily for profit but for the good of the inmates, they cannot be said, in the ordinary sense, to compete with commercial laundries. I am very anxious not to be misunderstood on this point. I was misunderstood when I spoke on the Second Reading of the Factories and Workshops Acts (Amendment) Bill in 1902, and I am anxious to use this

  17
  opportunity of clearing up any misunderstanding which my words gave rise to on that occasion. For instance, I spoke of the House of Mercy at Clewer as being in competition with a commercial laundry for the washing of Eton College. I received a few days afterwards from the warden of that institution a letter pointing out that my remarks were untrue, and that they were very unjust to the institution of which he was in charge. He pointed out to me that no attempt had ever been made by their institution to take away the business of the commercial laundry; that, in fact, they themselves were the first in the field, and that as the commercial laundry had come upon the scene many years later it was unjust to say that his institution was competing with the commercial laundry. Indeed, he thought, it was rather the other way about. What I meant to imply was this, that where large profits are made, as they are made, by these institutions out of their laundry work it is impossible to urge that they do not compete with other establishments. That large profits are made I showed in 1902, but I will quote some passages from the Factory Report for 1905, which has just been issued, bearing on this particular point. On page 260 the following passage occurs—
  " Knowing as we do the great pressure which often occurs in commercial laundries, and the amount of organisation which is needed to deal with it, we feel that either a great deal more overtime is worked in commercial laundries than is needed, or that the information obtained in institution laundries is quite unreliable, for one fact we very clearly ascertained, viz., that the work in both classes of laundries is identical. We found washing being done for clubs, restaurants, hotels, private customers, ships, colleges, schools and churches, involving the difficulties which attend contract and seasonal work."
  A few pages further on an appendix is inserted, in which are quoted some of the sums made by these institutions. The Report says—
  " We have been unable to obtain any evidence on this subject in any of the large and nourishing places, but we append a few notes gathered from the smaller places."
  These figures, therefore, apply only to the small institutions. The first institution referred to is a Protestant rescue home. The receipts by laundry work amounted to £1,275, and the receipts from other sources to £113. In the case
  18
  of another rescue home, the laundry receipts amounted to £1,207 and the receipts from other sources to £104. Next we are given the figures of a female penitentiary. The laundry receipts were £1,711 and the receipts from other sources £58. I only quote these figures to show the extent of the business carried on and that very large sums are made in this industry. It is not fair, when two laundries are engaged in doing a particular business and are in a state of competition with each other—I will use the word in a passive rather than an active sense — that you should impose on the one restrictions and limitations which necessitate the spending of considerable sums of money and the working of shorter hours, and that you should leave the other one entirely free.
  It is particularly unfair when the branch of the industry which is exempted starts with the advantage of not having to pay any wages. It is perfectly true that instead of wages they provide board and lodging for their workers which is not done by the ordinary commercial laundry; but I would point out that the provision of accommodation is qua home and not qua laundry, and that the provision would be made whether the laundry was conducted as part of the institution or not. I say it is unfair, in the interest of the trade, that laundries which do such a large amount of business should be exempted. I went on to show, on the last occasion that I addressed your Lordships on this question, that an amendment of the law was required in the interests of the inmates of these institutions themselves. In 1902 we could only guess at the conditions which prevailed in many of these places. Now, in 1906, we have positive evidence on that point. As I mentioned just now, many of the institutions have lately submitted to voluntary inspection, and we have in the Report which has just been issued evidence as to the state of affairs which that inspection has revealed.
  Though long extracts from Factory Reports and Blue Books are generally tedious I must ask your Lordships' indulgence if I read one or two from this Blue Book. I am sure that the facts here disclosed will be far more conclusive than any arguments I could bring forward. First of all, I am happy to find among the

  19
  reports of the men inspectors a very high testimony to the excellent manner in which a good many of those places are managed. I will quote one as typical of what I mean. Mr. Shuter, of Plymouth, writing about laundries connected with religious institutions, says—
  "the buildings are admirably suited for the purpose for which they are used, being lofty, well lighted, and well ventilated. The greatest attention is paid to cleanliness, lime washing, etc., while the hours worked are very few compared with those permitted by law in other laundries. The inmates present a most comfortable appearance and, so far as I am able to judge, these laundries have nothing whatever to fear from being placed under ordinary inspection."
  There are several other Reports of the same kind showing that many of these laundries are well conducted, and—and this point I ask your Lordships to notice especially—that inspection has been welcomed by the authorities of the institutions.
  But, if we turn later on in the Bluebook to the Report of His Majesty's lady inspectors, we find the matter treated far more exhaustively, no less than ten pages being devoted to this one subject. Twenty-seven English institution laundries and 59 Irish institution laundries were inspected. There were examples of places well conducted, but there are many accounts in these pages of conditions which can only be described as far from satisfactory. For instance the hours of labour are often found to be excessive, and mention is made of one Magdalen asylum, founded in 1765, where laundry work has been abandoned in favour of less trying and exhaustive work on the advice of the consulting physician, whose experience has led him strongly to disapprove of laundry processes as an occupation for these particular women. There is an interesting passage on this point, to the effect that the statement which is most generally made with reference to penitentiaries, that laundry work is beneficial for the development of the character of the inmates, is one which cannot be accepted without grave consideration. It is said to be a question whether women, many of whom are inebriates, are best employed in a kind of work which not only induces thirst but provides them with a trade in which the temptations to drink are rampant.
  20
  On another page we have further testimony as to the need for inspection. I will quote the passage —
  "In another orphanage laundry reported on by Miss Deane, after three years' voluntary inspection (also English), one unfenced power-driven wringer was found being fed by a girl of 15, another by a feeble-minded girl; a girl of 16, with loose hair, was tending the dangerous uncovered hydro, with friction cones and driving belt totally unguarded. The sister-in-charge stated that she put the new-comers to feed the unguarded calendar ' in order that they might get accustomed to the heat of the ironing-room,' and added that in any case only ' the stupidest girls' tended this machine. Miss Deane reports that on being informed that this was a very unsafe arrangement, the sister was ' greatly surprised.' "
  Mention is also made on another page of a laundry connected with an institution which has been built almost entirely of galvanized iron and has been planned with every defect possible except that of being underground. It is impossible, with a voluntary system of inspection, to get any reforms carried out.
  There are many other passages showing the urgent need for legislation in this matter. Yet we stand in exactly the same position to-day as we did in 1902. I submit that these extracts make out an absolutely overwhelming case; that they bear evidence of a state of affairs which cries aloud for further regulation and reform, and that no Home Secretary, after having road this Report, would be justified in allowing the matter to rest where it is. My object in speaking this evening is not to convince your Lordships that there is a case made out for reform. The action which this House took in 1902, when a Bill containing provisions for reform was passed through all its stages without a single division, is sufficient to prove that your Lordships do not stand in need of conviction. My object is to induce His Majesty's Government to take up this question. Let me remind them that their predecessors for the last five years have altogether neglected their opportunities, and have failed to carry out their promises; and let mo say this to the members of His Majesty's Government that, although they may find in the action of their predecessors many admirable qualities which I am sure they will be anxious to imitate, I would ask them not to choose their action in regard to this question as one for imitation.

  21
  The case was first made out by a Liberal Home Secretary and it was afterwards stated even more strongly by a Conservative Home Secretary. In the first instance the case was not dealt with because the Government had not a sufficient majority. In the second case the majority was there, but the Bill was introduced so late in the session that sufficient time was not allowed for the discussion of this somewhat contentious question. But it was on the distinct understanding that the Government would return to this measure at the earliest possible opportunity that they were able to get their Factory and Workshops Bill through in 1901. That was five years ago, and we are still waiting for that earliest opportunity. I hope that noble Lords opposite will take note of these two facts. They are pledged up to the hilt to deal with this question. They have an oven larger majority than the late Government and therefore cannot plead want of support as their excuse; and I trust that if they bring forward proposals dealing with this question they will not allow them to be crowded out for want of time.
  They are pledged up to the hilt to deal with this question, not only by the words of their own Home Secretary but by the remarks which were made by their responsible loaders in this House in 1902. In that year the present First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Tweedmouth, used these words—
  " If there was one trade in which the Factory Act should be applied more than another it was the laundry trade. He did not think that because a laundry was under religious or charitable management it should escape inspection. Indeed, history went to show that it was exactly in those institutions that it was cesirable there should be publicity in order to secure the institutions dealt with from suggestions of abuse."
  The Bill having been supported by the thon Government and no guarantee given that facilities would be provided for its discussion in the other House, Earl Spencer, who at that time led the Opposition in your Lordships' House, rose and said—
  " I confess I heard with dismay the statement of Lord Belper that the Government would not give any facilities in another place for carrying this Bill into law. I have risen to enter an emphatic protest against the course which the Government propose to follow."
  In view of those words I do sincerely trust that if this Bill is again introduced
  22
  next session, or a Bill on similar lines, for I think the measure is now capable of some improvement, the responsible Leader of the House will not make a statement which was heard with dismay in 1902, or propose a course which at that time they themselves protested against in the most emphatic manner.
  It may be asked why, if so good a case has been made out, this matter has been allowed to rest for the last five years. It is not due to any indifference or to any slackening of interest on behalf of those who care about this matter. It is simply due to the fact that in 1903 the Fiscal question came upon the scene, and from that moment held the field almost to the exclusion of any other question, and that for the last two years of its tenure of office the existence of the late Government was, to say the least of it, precarious. It was not thought desirable to ask a Government, which was in such a condition, to take the question up. But we have now a now Government—a strong Government—and I therefore take the earliest possible opportunity of reminding them of their obligations in this matter.
  The questions I have to ask are perfectly explicit. They are, first, Will they undertake to introduce legislation so as to establish effective regulation of all laundries? Secondly, Will they definitely promise to undertake this legislation next session, and include it in their programme? Let me make this clear—that we who care about this question will not be satisfied with vague expressions of hope that some indefinite measure may be produced at some indefinite time. If the noble Earl who represents the Home Office has nothing more to tell me than that, I hope he will keep it to himself. We have lived upon hope for many years and are rather tired of the diet. Let me tell the noble Earl who represents the Home Office that unless he has something more satisfactory than that to give us, unless some quite definite promise is given, we, who care about this question, will return to it again and again, and that we will make use of every opportunity which the machinery of Parliament affords us for inducing the Government to take up reforms, which they themselves approve of, and which they have no excuse for neglecting any longer.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not intend to intervene at any length between your Lordships and the debates upon the Bills which are before you tonight. I shall answer the noble Earl as shortly as I can. I am sure it will not be any surprise to your Lordships, who know for how long the noble Earl has taken an interest in this question, that he should have urged the Government to take steps in this matter. This is not a question of Party controversy, though I was sorry to hear some of the words which fell from the noble Earl, which tended to make this a matter of Party difference between one side and the other. I am quite sure that members of your Lordships' House on both sides are concerned and interested in this question, and the noble Earl who then led the Opposition, Earl Spencer, spoke very strongly on this matter in the debate in 1902.
  With regard to the question of the noble Earl, I may say that His Majesty's Government are not able to promise that facilities will be given to a Bill introduced by a private Member; and for this reason. They consider that this question is too important to be left to a private Member either of your Lordships' House or of the other House. The wish of His Majesty's Government is to introduce next session a Bill to amend the Factory Acts, and it is their intention when that amending Bill is introduced that the position of the laundries shall be effectively dealt with, and, they hope, dealt with in a manner which will be satisfactory to all parties.
  At the same time it is obviously impossible for any member of His Majesty's Government to give, on behalf of the Home Office, the definite promise that the Factories Acts (Amendment) Bill will be introduced next year. I do not think that such a course would even be a usual one to take at this period of the session. I should like to refer the noble Earl to a speech which was made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on March 19th, which seems to have escaped his notice. Speaking on the laundry question to a deputation from Scotland the Home Secretary said that the position of laundries under the Factory Act seemed to him to be the weak spot in the Act, and that he was in favour of progress being made. I do not know whether what I have said is sufficient to satisfy the noble Earl, but I can assure him that
  24
  the objects he has at heart have the sympathy of His Majesty's Government, and that if possible they do mean next year to deal with the matter.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, my noble friend who has presented this subject to your Lordships in such a clear and interesting speech has received an answer not very dissimilar from that which he no doubt partly expected. I do not know whether my noble friend is very satisfied with it. The reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government was hopeful and sympathetic, but marked by a good deal of indefiniteness. I daresay that is all that in the circumstances could well be expected. I am quite aware that with the present distribution of business in Parliament it is practically impossible for a private Member to expect with anything like certainty to be able to pass a Bill without Government assistance; but I hope, after the speech in which the subject has been introduced and after the reply of the noble Earl who represents the Home Office, that every reasonable effort will be made to deal with this important matter at an early date.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am anxious to endorse most strongly what has been said by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. The noble Earl who introduced the subject said that we had lived long upon hope in regard to this matter. I trust we may think to-night that the hope may now possibly be described as expectation, in view of the emphatic though guarded terms of the reply given by the noble Earl who represents the Home Office. It is because that expectation is held out that we are content now to wait a little while in patience in the trust that that expectation will be readily fulfilled.
  The difficulties are not small, but promises have been so repeatedly given that the matter shall be dealt with at the earliest possible moment that I feel it would be almost mockery if it were postponed beyond the time which has been foreshadowed, I hope I may say, in the speech of the noble Earl. The noble Earl has asked on behalf of the Government that private Members should not press this matter forward because the Government wishes it to be dealt with

  25
  in a Government measure. That it must be remembered, is the position. We are asked to abstain until such time as the Government move in the matter, and I trust we shall not have to wait long. I speak in this matter, not only on behalf of charitable and religious institutions to which laundries are attached, but also on behalf of laundries elsewhere, in which grave wrong is daily being done to the workpeople by lack of additional regulations.
  *THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, having taken great interest in this question in 1901, and having been instrumental in obtaining a promise on this subject in that year from those with whom I was generally in accord, I should like to say a word or two on the present occasion. For my part I certainly shall not introduce Party spirit into the few words I shall say, and I do not think, by the way, that my noble friend behind me (the Earl of Lytton) said anything which could be described as introducing Party feeling. Having myself afterwards become a member of the Government which gave this original promise, I certainly am very sorry that we were not able to deal with the question. I am afraid it is one, of which there are not a few presented to Parliament, where both sides agree that the subject should be dealt with, but where there is not sufficient driving power behind it in the matter of general interest to induce the Government to give up valuable time in another place at the expense of some other measures which they think of more importance. I was glad to hear the undertaking which was given by the noble Earl who represents the Home Office that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill of a larger nature in which this question will be dealt with, and I trust that at the earliest opportunity this measure will be brought before Parliament and carried into law.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I am sorry that we have not got something-more like a promise from the noble Earl on behalf of the Government. I think the noble Earl who has just addressed us rather misunderstood what my noble friend Earl Beauchamp said, for, although he stated that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to amend
  26
  the Factory Acts, of which this question would be part, he guarded himself by saying that the time next session was very much mortgaged, and the Government might not be able to introduce the Bill. Therefore we are left in a state of uncertainty as to the intentions of the Government.
  The area of the question has been fully covered by the noble Earl who raised it but I should like to say one word about the small two-handed laundries. As a visitor under the Ring Edward VII. Fund, I was to day visiting a large hospital, and I remarked to my co-visitor, who is a doctor, that I was obliged to got back to the House of Lords because of this debate on the laundry question. My co-visitor at once replied that the fact that no legislative action had been taken in connection with these small laundries was a hazard to the public health. We have it, on the authority of Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Asquith, that the law as it stands is incapable of enforcement, and I think that is a great slur on our legislation. I venture to think that the declarations of Mr. Asquith in the other House and of Lord Spencer in this House, constitute au obligation which the Government cannot put aside by a nebulous promise of the kind that has just been given.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I cannot help expressing regret that we can got no definite undertaking from the Government on this subject. Those occupying the Ministerial bench are represented as the Party of progress; yet they are standing in exactly the same position on this question as was occupied ten years ago. I was a member of the Standing Committee of the other House which investigated the Bill of 1901, and I know well that at that time the question had reached a degree of agreement on the part of all sections which really made it a matter of general and not of party concern. We now have in power a Government which, at any rate, commands a large majority, and here is a useful measure which is demanded by all sections of the community and by noble Lords of every shade of opinion in this House. Yet we can get no definite undertaking from the Government beyond shadowy and vague words.
  The noble Earl who represents the Home Office referred us to a speech made

  27
  by the Home Secretary. I have taken the trouble to look up certain remarks by the Prime Minister in answer to questions in the other House. In one answer the the Prime Minister said—
  " I understand that the Home Secretary contemplates legislation next Session dealing with convent laundries."
  After that definite statement by the Prime Minister further questions were put, and the Prime Minister was asked what he meant by his statement. He replied that a Bill would be introduced—
  " If it is found to be within the competence and the necessities of the Government to introduce it."
  That is a phrase which means everything or nothing. I do not think we on this side would place the competence of the Government highly, but I suppose they are the best judges of their own necessities. What we have heard to-day, however, amounts to no undertaking of any kind whatever. I sincerely hope that my noble friend who has raised this question will not relinquish his efforts until some more definite undertaking on the subject has been given by His Majesty's Government.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the noble Viscount who has just sat down should have introduced into this discussion an element of Party discord. The whole of his speech was an attack on the Government of the day. The subject was introduced in an excellent and exhaustive speech by the noble Earl opposite, and I think it would have been better if the tone of the debate had been kept to that standard. It is perfectly true that the noble Earl who represents the Home Office did not give a definite promise on the part of the Government, but he certainly led us to believe—and the most rev. Primate so interpreted his statement— that if private Members would not press upon Parliament their own measures there would be every chance of the Government taking up the matter in the future. The object we have at heart is supported by both sides of the House, and has been supported in Opposition both by Mr. Asquith and by the noble earl Lord Spencer, whose absence from this House we all regret. Although it is perfectly true that the noble Earl who replied to-day on behalf of the Government did not give us any definite promise
  28
  on the subject, we may hope that the Government will give it their anxious consideration and that next session they will bring in a measure dealing with it.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading road.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, this is a Bill which I believe will moot with very little opposition at the hands of your Lordships. Its object is to amend the law with respect to the sale of agricultural fertillsers and feeding stuffs, and it simply carries out the unanimous recommendations of a Departmental Committee on the Act passed in 1893. That Committee was presided over with great ability by my noble friend Lord Burghclere, to whom the entire credit for this measure is due.
  The provisions of the Bill are somewhat technical, but are absolutely necessary. The initiative in putting the Bill into operation is to be on the local authorities. The Bill cheapens and simplifies the procedure for taking analyses and samples, and it compels the seller to give a warranty as to the quality of the article sold. The Earl of Durham expressed to me some alarm with regard to one of the provisions—Clause 6, Subsection 3—which gives powers, under certain circumstances, to the Board over which I have the houour to preside. Clause 6 enacts that if any person who sells any article for use as a fertiliser of the soil or as food for cattle or poultry commits any of the offences set forth in the clause, he shall, without prejudice to any civil liability, be liable, on summary conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding £20, and for any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £50. As this is a criminal prosecution the offender would, of course, be brought up before the magistrate and be placed in the dock. Traders feel that there would be hardship about this, and that some prosecution might be brought forward which was not quite fair, and, though the dealer would be acquitted with flying colours, it would always be possible for his enemies to say

  29
  that he had been brought before the magistrates, and this would be a slur on his character.
  Many of the dealers in those fertillsers and feeding stuffs are men of great reputation and honour, and they somewhat object to the possibility—I admit the small possibility—of such a thing as I have referred to happening. It is therefore provided in the Bill that a prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except with the consent of the Hoard of Agriculture and Fisheries. I firmly believe that this is an adequate safeguard, and one of which, under the exceptional circumstances, your Lordships will approve. I am convinced that the Bill will be a protection of agricultural interests, and as it is introduced by one who is the grandson of the first man connected with commerce and trade who had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House I hope that the traders in this great industry will believe that the Bill is not altogether unfair to themselves.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a— (Earl Carrington).
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, as I had the honour of being the author of the Act of 1893, which I piloted through the House of Commons, and as I was also president of the Committee on whose recommendations this Bill is founded, I think I should be wanting in respect to your Lordships' House if I did not address a few words to you upon it. The Act of 1893 was founded on the recommendations of a Committee appointed by my predecessor, Mr. Chaplin. That Committee did not produce a unanimous Report, and we founded our Bill of 1893 on those recommendations which were thought best suited to the purpose we had in view. The Act of 1893 was of considerable benefit to farmers and agriculturists generally; but, as happens to the best of legislation as time goes by, it has been found that some alteration in it is decidedly necessary. My noble friend Lord Onslow appointed a Committee of which, as I have said, I was chairman, and, unlike the Committee of 1892, we unanimously recommended certain distinct provisions, and when I toll your Lordships that that Committee had upon it both producers and consumers, both traders and farmers, I
  30
  think you will agree that a unanimous decision from such a body is deserving of consideration.
  The measure contains the recommendations which that Committee made, and as I may claim to be not only the father but perhaps the grandfather of this particular measure I have nothing but words of praise for it. With regard to the point which Lord Durham brought to the notice of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, I entirely agree to the condition that prosecutions should only be instituted with the consent of the Board of Agriculture, and I think this is sufficient safeguard to the traders concerned. We had on the Committee of whom I was chairman very distinguished representatives of the trade in question. They were delighted that this provision was put in, and I am certain I am speaking in their name when I say they are perfectly satisfied that such a provision will safeguard thorn from any frivolous prosecution. There may be one or two points to which I shall draw your Lordships' attention in Committee. For the present, I congratulate the noble Earl on having introduced the Bill, and I believe it will be of considerable service to that great industry of agriculture which we find it extremely difficult to help except by legislation of this kind. I hope that in the circumstances your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  OPEN SPACES BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is simply a measure to consolidate the existing enactments relating to open spaces. The Acts which it consolidates are simply permissive. The Bill is strongly supported by Lord Meath and I the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, and the Commons Preservation Society have also expressed themselves in its favour. It has passed through all its stages without the slightest difficulty in the House of Commons, and it is the same Bill as that which passed your

  31
  Lordships' House last year. In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will again this year give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" (Earl Carrington).
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): Do I gather from the noble Earl that this is absolutely a Consolidation Bill, and that no new provisions are introduced?
  EARL CARRINGTON: I can give that absolute assurance to the House. It is merely a Bill to consolidate the existing Acts on the subject, which are in a very confused condition.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  GROUND GAME BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I hope I am not too optimistic in expressing the hope that it will pass into law, but as the Bill has been amended by your Lordships it will have to go back to the other House for their consent to those Amendments before it can become law. I do not know whether your Lordships' Amendments obtain a hearing in another place without any special provision being made for that purpose by the Government, but if it is not so, I do trust that the Government will give the trifling facilities necessary for the passing of this Bill. It would be a matter of deep disappointment and regret to many of the tenant farmers and the small sheep farmers of Scotland if, through the action of the present Government, who are the political descendants of those who passed with great difficulty and great courage the original Ground Game Act, they were deprived of the benefits they hope to secure from this small measure.
  Moved "That the Bill be now read 3a "— (Lord Burghclere.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLmoved to amend Clause 2, which extends the right of occupiers of moorlands, etc., to kill ground game between September 1 and December 10, by the addition of words providing that this should be without prejudice to the occupiers' existing rights under the Ground Game Act, 1880. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper is a purely drafting one. Its object is to make clear that the additional period of three months during which farmers on moorlands are allowed to kill ground game is really in addition to, and not in substitution for, the period during which they already exercise that right. The necessity for these words was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord James of Hereford, and I understand the Amendment has the full approval of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and also of Lord Saltoun.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line II, after the word 'shall ' to insert the words ' without prejudice to his existing rights under that Act.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."— (Lord Burghclere.)
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: Before the Bill passes I should like to be assured that this Amendment does not increase the penalty on the landlord, as would appear from the drafting, or interfere with the right of free contract. If that is thoroughly understood I think the House might pass the Bill, although at the same time I have no doubt that it will do great injury to grouse moors in Scotland.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I can assure the noble Lord who has just sat down that the Amendment which has been inserted on the motion of the noble lord who represents the Scottish Office is purely of a drafting character and has been inserted on the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord James of Hereford. Personally I do not think it is necessary, but at the same time it can do no harm. It merely ensures that the provisions of the Bill, which have been

  33
  accepted by the whole House, shall be carried out.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I shall be obliged to trespass for a few moments on the attention of your Lordships, in the first place because this Bill was one of those mentioned in the gracious Speech from the Throne; and, secondly, because it is the most important Bill dealing with Ireland that will be laid before Parliament during the present year. It came to your Lordships' House in a somewhat unique position, as it passed through another place without opposition from any Party or any section. It received the commendation of all parties and the blessing of Gentlemen so widely apart in politics as the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Redmond, 'Colonel Saunderson, Mr. Dillon, and many other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are not usually unanimous in giving praise to any particular measure. With regard to its introduction here, I may say that it has made its appearance rather suddenly in this House owing to its unexpectedly rapid passage through another place, and I have to thank the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and certain other noble Lords who take a keen interest in Irish affairs, for assenting that this measure should not be unduly delayed, if, indeed, it may not be accelerated, in its passage through this House.
  I had intended to say a few words regarding the defects of former Labourers Acts, and how it was hoped the present measure would remedy those defects; but I think I shall be better consulting the convenience of the House if I pass at once to what are, after all, the most important proposals under this Bill— namely, the financial proposals. This Bill proposes to sanction the building of 25,000 cottages in Ireland at a cost of some £4,250,000 sterling. The
  34
  Chief Secretary has estimated for the purpose of the Bill that these cottages will cost on an average £170— that is to say, £130 for the building and £40 for the plot of land up to an acre which goes with it; but it has been represented to him that the probable cost of the cottages will be rather less, and that he has if anything over-estimated the expenditure under this heading. It is therefore to be hoped that more than the 25,000 cottages named in the Bill— possibly nearer 30,000—may be erected for the £4,250,000 which the Bill provides. To meet interest and sinking fund an annuity at the rate of 3¼ percent, is to be provided for. This will amount to about £138,000, which will be an annual charge that will have to be met. It is proposed to meet this charge in the following way. A certain sum is realised by the reduction in certain judicial appointments. One judgeship is to be suspended, which gives us £3,500 a year; another has already been suspended, and the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has been reduced from £8,000 to £6,000.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Not yet.
  LORD DENMAN: Well, it is proposed that it should be reduced.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: It has been proposed for the last 20 years.
  LORD DENMAN: It is proposed under this Bill that it should be reduced from £8,000 to £6,000.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: It is not done under this Bill; it is referred to as an expectation.
  LORD DENMAN: I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord is correct. At all events there is an expectation that the reduction will take place. It is hoped that under the heading to which I have just referred £9,000 a year may be realised. Then it is proposed to take from the Petty Sessional Clerks' Fund in Ireland, which at present stands at something like £170,000, the sum of £150,000, and to invest it and use the interest in the part payment of this annual charge. It is also proposed to take a sum of £70,000 from the Irish Development Grant after the end of March of next

  35
  year. Up till that time I understand the money is required under the provisions of the Land Purchase Act. These two sums together amount to £220,000 and they will furnish some £7,000 a year. It is then proposed to take £6,000 a year from the grant from the Treasury to Irish County councils, which is for the purpose of building cottages. These three sums together give us a total of £22,000 a year from Irish sources. Then it is proposed that £28,000 a year should be paid from the Treasury into the Irish Development Grant Fund and should be taken from that fund for the purpose of this Bill. That gives us £50,000 a year, and leaves £88,000 to be found.
  The task of levying the rent will be left to the rural district councils in Ireland. They will fix the amount of the rent, but the Chief Secretary has calculated that on an average the rent of these cottages will be at the rate of 1s. a week. No doubt in some localities the rent will be considerably more, and possibly in some it will be less; but, taking this as an average rent, it will give a sum of £65,000 a year which we can devote to the part payment of the annual charge. A sum of £23,000 is therefore left to be provided, and the Chief Secretary hopes to get this by throwing it as a charge on the rates. If we compare this charge of £23,000 on the rates with the charges which previous Labourers Acts in Ireland have imposed upon the same source it will be seen that it compares very favourably. Under previous Acts 17,400 cottages have been built and have thrown a charge upon the rates of about £60,000 a year. Under this Bill it is proposed to provide 25,000 cottages at a cost, not of £60,000 but of £23,000. That, I think your Lordships will agree, is a very considerable improvement. Your Lordships will, perhaps, notice that the most striking of these financial proposals is the grant of £28,000 from the Treasury. It was, I believe, foretold by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Wyndham, that no Chancellor of the Exchequer would ever agree to contribute such a sum from the Treasury. Well, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is contributing this sum, and I hope your Lordships will argee that a grant of money could not be employed for a better purpose than for ameliorating the lot of
  36
  this poor and hardly-pressed class of the community. That is a brief outline of the financial proposals of this Bill.
  I will now touch briefly upon one or two other matters which, though they are not of such magnitude in themselves, are nevertheless points of considerable importance. I will first of all take the question of appeal. This is a question which has received the very earnest and careful consideration of the Chief Secretary. Under the existing law an appeal can be made from the Local Government Board to the Privy Council, but it is considered essential to abolish this appeal so far as this Act is, concerned on account of the delay and expense, which would be entirely out of proportion to the small sums and the comparatively small area of property dealt with. His Majesty's Government have very carefully considered the matter, and have come to the conclusion that the most reasonable course to pursue is to follow the precedent of the English Local Government Act of 1894, where, in the case of Orders conferring power to acquire, land compulsorily for the purpose of the Allotment Acts and other local purposes, the decision of the Local Government Board is final. It is proposed to follow a similar procedure with regard to the present Bill.
  It may possibly interest noble Lords if I state what the exact procedure under this Bill will be. An inspector of the Local Government Board will hold a preliminary inquiry and will consider all objections made by persons interested. He will then make a Provisional Order confirming the scheme, but, if an appeal is lodged, the Local Government Board will consider a full report of the evidence taken at the original inquiry and they may make such further local inquiry as they think necessary, and may then confirm or disallow the Order of the inspector. It is hoped that by this means a decision may be come to by an impartial authority, which will have the advantage of speed and economy, as compared with the costly and somewhat lengthy procedure of the old system of appeal to the Privy Council. As in these cases the question will be one of fact rather than of law, it is obviously unnecessary that the authority of such a high judicial tribunal, as the Privy Council should be invoked for this purpose.

  37
  Amongst other reforms contemplated in this Bill, I might mention the simplification of title to land under Clause 11, which it is hoped will considerably reduce legal procedure, and the expenses attendant upon the building of cottages, by the furnishing of model schemes from the Local Government Board to rural district councils. I think I need not dwell at any length at this stage of the. Bill upon these particular points. I may mention, in passing, that it is proposed that the Act should become law on November 1st of this year. Among other provisoes in the Bill is one which it is hoped will effect a great improvement—namely, that which provides for the compulsory registration of all land taken by the district council for the purpose of the Labourers Acts. These, I think, are the chief points in the Bill.
  I will only say, in conclusion, that if this Bill, when it becomes law, succeeds in realising the hopes which have been founded upon it in Ireland, it will do much. It will substitute decent dwellings where hitherto frequently only hovels have existed; it will introduce new methods of sanitation; it will help to check the spread of disease, and it will contribute, to what degree of course it is impossible at present to forecast, but to some degree at all events, to the general well-being and prosperity of Ireland. And if it is possible for it to achieve so much, I think that in doing so it may achieve even more. It may tend to stem the tide of emigration, which has been ebbing steadily from the shores of Ireland to other countries for more than forty years. It may serve as some inducement to this class of Irishmen to live their lives in the land they love instead of leaving it, and it is in the earnest hope that in its passage through this House the Bill, far from being weakened, may rather be strengthened to meet the purposes for which it was framed, that I now beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be read 2a."— (Lard Denman.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, your Lordships will have gathered from the clear statement which has just been made by the noble Lord what are the main provisions and intentions of this Bill.
  38
  I am sure there is no one in this House who does not entirely concur in the aspiration that the passing of the measure will achieve such good results, for I do not think there is in any part of the House the slightest difference of opinion as to the propriety of passing any measure who will tend to the improvement of the condition of Irish labourers and give to them better and more sanitary homes. I know, from a very wide experience in Ireland of administering such legislation, that there is a very urgent need, in the interests of the health and general well being of our population, for providing better dwellings.
  Your Lordships will, of course, consider, if your attention is invited to them, the different clauses of the Bill. I am not sure how far it may be competent for your Lordships to review the financial proposals that were so clearly stated by the noble Lord, but a good deal of money is required to carry the Bill out. Whether 25,000 houses with an acre of land attached can be provided at the moderate figure suggested I do not know. I only hope that the money mentioned will, be adequate. I do not propose to discuss any of the financial proposals now, although I believe extreme dissatisfaction has been expressed in Ulster on the ground that the Bill will remove from that province and send to other parts of. Ireland money deliberately appropriated to certain portions of that province.
  It is necessary to bear in mind, in considering this question, that you have not only to provide the money for the erection of the cottages and the acquisition of the plots to go with them, but you have to consider how you are to get the land. So long as it is a matter of agreement there will be no difficulty; but it is a different thing when it comes to the taking of land compulsorily. That is a matter which will have to be very closely watched in the interests of those whose property may be affected. It may be, and often is, necessary in the public interest—before which everyone must bow, but bow under just, fair, and reasonable conditions—that land should be acquired compulsorily for certain purposes. But this is a matter which should be adequately safeguarded. The question is of importance to every one of your Lordships, even to those who have not the privilege of coming from Ireland, because a prominent

  39
  member of His Majesty's Government has recently stated in the House of Commons that he contemplated the extension of the provisions of this Bill to England at an early date. That may possibly induce a wider and closer attention to the observations and criticisms that may be nude with regard to the compulsory taking of land.
  The Irish Labourers Code is not a Code of yesterday; it is a very old one —it started in 1883. I well remember its introduction. Mr. Gladstone was at that time Prime Minister, and so jealous was Parliament about taking away a man's land compulsorily against his will that the full machinery of Provisional Orders that had to be laid before Parliament and passed as Acts of Parliament was invoked as a safeguard. It was thought, and I assented at the time, that that was too long and too expensive a machinery to be applied in the case of land that might be required for purposes of erecting labourers cottages, and another mechanism was substituted to meet the case. A hearing before the Privy Council was substituted where an owner was dissatisfied with his land being taken compulsorily. I have had the honour of sitting at the hearing of 19 out of 20 of those appeals, because the president of that tribunal is the Lord Chancellor of Ireland assisted by Judges of the High Court. That is the tribunal now in existence. I admit that it is too strong for the purpose of this Bill, but I contend that there must be a judicial tribunal to consider under what conditions the compulsory taking of land should be sanctioned.
  The points to be decided here are not points which can be dealt with off hand. The Code comprises a great many Acts of Parliament. It is not legal to put a cottage where it would interfere with the amenity of residence, and it is not legal to erect one in a demesne or home farm or on lands usually enjoyed with them. There are other legal points to be considered, and there are also facts as to the site. A site might be selected owing to the unpopularity of a certain person or for other indirect motives. Sites have been selected in the past in some cases in a way which did not commend themselves to impartial persons. Therefore there will be many points to be considered by
  40
  the appellate authority. Originally Parliament decided these points. At present the tribunal in Ireland is the Privy Council. For that it is now proposed to substitute an inspector of the Local Government Board, who shall have power to make a Provisional Order. The like of it was never known before in any legislation.
  At present this is in the jurisdiction of the highest legal tribunal in Ireland. Under this Bill it is proposed to substitute an inspector of the Local Government Board, from whose decision there is to be an appeal to his own Board. I have every respect for the Local Government Board—I have the honour of knowing all its members —but it is not stated in the Bill that there is to be an appeal to them. As I understand an appeal, the tribunal should hear the parties and see the witnesses. The Local Government Board will not see either of the parties or hear any of the witnesses. They will be given for perusal a copy of the evidence and the report of the inspector. But is that an appeal? If they do not like what they read they can send down an inspector to make another report; they may have a cartload of reports, but they will not see either of the parties or hear any of the witnesses. In no sense of the term can that be called an appeal. I wish to be perfectly frank upon this question, and I must say it is impossible to regard any appeal as satisfactory which does not give the parties the option of getting at a judicial mind, of going before some persons accustomed to weigh and balance evidence. I do not now take any absolute stand as to the form the tribunal should take, but I shall not be satisfied if an opportunity is not given to the parties of submitting their case to some judicial mind.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I fully concur in what has fallen from my noble and learned friend as to the excellent objects of this Bill. I am sure every one would desire to see the labourers of Ireland living in proper sanitary houses instead of the miserable hovels in which in some places they are still condemned to live. But it sometimes happens that a measure of this kind, which may have originated with the best intentions, is diverted from its ordinary course and made to assume one which was never

  41
  anticipated and which the originators would most strongly deprecate.
  The previous Labourers Acts have undoubtedly done great good, but proceedings under them have been taken from unworthy motives. My noble and learned friend has had great experience, having presided at the meetings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and he has pointed out that what he described as indirect motives have very often actuated the promoters of schemes for labourers cottages. I have had the honour of sitting once or twice on the Judicial Committee, and it is in my recollection that cases have come before us where sites for cottages have been chosen from purposes of spite, owing to the farmer or the owner having become unpopular in the neighbourhood, possibly through not adhering to the policy of the United Irish League or something of that kind. I remember great surprise being expressed on one occasion that such a scheme had been sanctioned by the Local Government Board. It is therefore most necessary that there should be some court of appeal where such matters would be thoroughly scrutinised, and were all the legal aspects of the case would be considered, so as to prevent the chance of a measure intended for the benefit of one class of the population being turned into a sort of engine of oppression on other classes.
  Apart from motives such as I hive described, it often happens that unreasonable representations are made for cottages, and increased facilities will now be given for making these representations. In the original Act the representation that came before the board of guardians, the body whch then had the conduct of those matters, had to be signed by 12 persons. By the Purchase Act of 1903 that number was reduced to six, and now it is, by this Bill, to be reduced to three. The greater the facilities given for these representations the greater will be their number, and the more unreasonable it may be anticipated will be some of the demands. As it is, the Act has not been always worked in the most reasonable manner and mistakes have been made. I have heard of cases where labourers cottages are now standing vacant owing to difficulty in finding occupants. I have heard of a cottage being occupied by a fiddler, and of a case
  42
  where it was attempted to give a cottage to a coachman on the ground that he might be considered an agricultural labourer because his wife had planted a crop of potatoes. I must, I however, add that in the latter case I do not believe that the application was attended with success. But it shows how carefully all such matters should be scrutinised.
  My noble and learned friend the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland alluded to the provision respecting the taking of land by compulsion. There is a very remarkable sub-section in the Bill which prohibits the question of compulsion being taken into account in fixing the price of the land. It has always been the custom, in taking land compulsorily for any purpose, to make allowance for the fact of its being so taken. Whether or not the fact of compulsion ought to be taken into account in every case, it certainly seems to me to be a very strong measure to fetter the hands of the arbitrator and prevent him taking this course where he thinks it necessary.
  It may be said that these are small plots of land and that the difference in the amount awarded by the arbitrator, whether he took compulsion into account or not, would not be material. But it is a most dangerous precedent in view of future legislation; and I commend this to the attention of all noble Lords, whether they come from Ireland or not, because we are told on high authority, as my noble and learned friend reminded the House, that a measure drawn on the lines of this one is to be introduced at an early date for England. I would impress upon the House the danger of laying down that no allowance shall ever be made in respect of the purchase being compulsory. There are several other points in regard to which Amendments will be proposed. But these Amendments will not affect the structure of the Bill, and will, I hope, have a favourable reception at the hands of His Majesty's Government. If they are adopted the result may be a Bill which will confer great benefit on the class concerned without inflicting injustice on any other class.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I think it is a matter for congratulation that even at this late period of the session a first-class Government Bill has

  43
  at last come up to this House, and a Bill which in its character is likely to commend itself generally to noble Lords on both sides of the House. Speaking personally, as an Irish ex-landlord, or a limited occupying owner—I am not quite sure exactly what I am—but speaking as an Irishman, I would like to express my personal satisfaction that a Bill has come up to your Lordships' House which, if passed, will, I am sure, be capable of adding materially to the prosperity of Ireland.
  It has been mentioned both by my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne and by the noble Lord who has just sat down that legislation of a similar character will probably be undertaken as affecting Great Britain, and that being so it is quite proper that your Lordships should look at the provisions of this Bill rather with a view to the effect that similar legislation may have in this country. But I would ask your Lordships at the same time to remember that the circumstances of Ireland in every respect, financial, social, and economical, are quite peculiar, and that this Bill is only applicable to that portion of the United Kingdom. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be considered by your Lordships on its merits, and with a view to seeing how its provisions will meet the peculiar requirements of that portion of the United Kingdom to which it applied.
  I have said that circumstances in Ireland are pecular. They are peculiar in this respect, as affecting this Bill, that it is absolutely impossible to draw a distinct line, as can be done in England, between the labouring class and the farming class. The two classes merge quite imperceptibly one in the other, and it has always been felt that legislation interfering in any way with the relations of landlord and tenant of necessity required remedial legislation also affecting the other class interested in land—the labouring class, otherwise injustice would be done. I think, therefore, that your Lordships should look upon this Bill as not only a Bill designed for the benefit of the labourers of Ireland, but also a measure which is really a necessary complement of the Act of 1903—a Bill necessary to round off the corners of that Act and complete it. I think that has been generally recognised.
  44
  Parliament has occupied itself with this question for the last twenty or twenty-five years. There have been six or seven Acts passed and one Bill dropped dealing with this subject, and not one of those passed has been anything like a complete success for the simple reason that the procedure was too costly, too cumbersome, and too dilatory, and that the financial support given to the Bill was not sufficient. I think all these defects will be remedied under the measure which is now before your Lordships. The financial arrangements, I imagine, will be ample, but there are one or two points which I should be glad if some member of His Majesty's Government would explain a little more fully. After all, the financial part is the most important of any Bill of this sort. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill mentioned the Development Grant. That grant crops up continually in the Bill, and I should like to ask whether the Development Grant is capable of bearing the additional strain that will be put upon it under this Bill. I think there is a lump sum of £70,000 or £80,000 to come out of it, and then there is an annual sum of £28,000 to be drawn from it. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill said, I think, that £28,000 would be placed to the credit of the Development Grant by the Treasury, and that this £28,000 would be drawn from the Development Grant for the purposes of the Act. But it is the other way about. The £28,000 may be drawn from the Development Grant and afterwards the money will be refunded by Parliament It may be six months afterwards, and in the meantime the Development Grant Fund may not be able to find the money. It must be remembered that the Development Grant, which was intended for educational purposes, is applied to every conceivable purpose under heaven except education. It is already hypothecated to meet losses on floating loans to finance the Land Purchase Act; and the losses made on flotation have been heavier than they ought to have been. There are other large demands in this Bill on the Development Grant, and I should like to know whether there is any security that the Development Grant will be able to bear this extra strain without becoming exhausted.

  45
  Then there is a capital sum of £150,000 to be paid from the Petty Sessional Clerks' Fund, the interest on which is to be used for the purposes of this Bill, but I understand that this money is already granted to the local authorities for another purpose. If so, it is obvious that it is not in the nature of a grant to the local authorities. It is merely taking the money out of the one pocket and putting it into the other. I imagine that nothing of the kind will take place as regards the lump sum of 4¼ millions that may be provided out of the Land Purchase Fund. I assume that the operations of Land Purchase will not be in any way impeded on that account; that is to say, that sufficient money will be found from time to time, as required, to finance, not only the Land Purchase Act, but this Act; because, however desirable it is that the just claims of the labourers should be satisfied, that would be dearly purchased if it caused any additional impediment to the working of the Land Purchase Act, and added to the disappointment and vexation which already exist owing to the long delay which takes place in completing sales That is all I have to say on the subject of finance.
  But there are one or two other questions I should like to refer to at this stage of the Bill. The Bill, as your Lordships know, is not retrospective. In my humble opinion it ought to have been made retrospective, but that is a matter which this House cannot concern, itself with. It is not retrospective, and the consequence is that the district councils who have done their duty and availed themselves of the existing Labourers Acts and built cottages will be placed at a great disadvantage as compared with those district councils which have not done their duty in this matter. In the first case the district councils will be paying interest of 4½ or 5 per cent, and providing a sinking fund, probably 6 or 6½per cent, in all; whereas, in the second case, the district councils will obtain money at 3¼ per cent. It is very hard lines upon those councils which have done their duty that they should be placed at this disadvantage, and it is a very bad example to set to the country. Of course that cannot be remedied by this House. I would only express a hope that at some future time
  46
  His Majesty's Government will consider the whole question of loans, with a view to seeing if they cannot put them upon some uniform basis. At present the whole of what I may call the internal finance of Ireland is in a confused and complicated condition. There is a clause in the Bill which I imagine to be designed as a relief to this injustice. I refer to Clause 18. Lender that clause I take it that the residue of the Exchequer Grants which remain unexpended in certain counties will be divided among other counties according to the proportion in which cottages have been built. That seems to me an exceedingly fair arrangement. Where these residues have accumulated to a large extent they have accumulated in the counties in which the district councils have refused to build cottages. It seems to be reasonable that in such cases this unexpended balance should be given in relief to the counties where the district councils have done their duty in the matter. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government to what extent that is likely to give relief. Of course it is impossible for me, or for any private member of your Lordships' House, to judge how far those sums will assist the district councils who have raised loans in liquidating those loans. I take it for granted that councils which have raised loans for the purposes of former Acts will continue to have to pay the interest of those loans even after the passing of this Act. Therefore it is important, I think, to know how far they will get any relief under Clause 18.
  This Bill deals with two quite distinct subjects. It aims at assisting the district councils to provide decent houses and decent accommodation for the labouring population, and it has a provision whereby certain meritorious and selected labourers can be allowed to obtain conveyances for the purchase of holdings. That is quite a different thing. To the principle I have not the slightest objection to raise. On the contrary, I think it is a very legitimate and good thing to hold out a sort of premium to the labourer to be thrifty and industrious in the hope of becoming the owner of a holding. But I think the way in which that is administered ought to be most carefully considered.
  Parliament has been occupying itself, not with any very great measure of

  47
  success, for a long time in trying to solve what is commonly called the Western problem—the existence of a great number of utterly uneconomic holdings, principally in the West of Ireland. The Congested Districts Board are labouring at it; the Estates Commissioners are labouring at it; and a Royal Commission has been appointed to inquire into the subject. The only remedy is to endeavour to turn these uneconomic holdings into economic holdings, and if the State is to assist in doing that on the one hand it surely would be the height of folly were it on the other hand to create other equally uneconomic holdings. I do not think myself that that clause will have a very large area of operation, because the country is not big enough; but at any rate the labourer must be safeguarded against becoming the possessor of a small and uneconomic holding. The labourer lives practically by his labour hired out. It is quite a proper thing that he should have a plot of land on which to occupy himself when he is not working and at odd hours. But as soon as you give him beyond one acre of land I am perfectly certain that in Ireland the man will cease to be a labourer, and will consider himself a small farmer.
  I do not know whether the provisions in the Bill for simplifying the proving of title, conveyance, and so on, are sufficient or not. Your Lordships must remember that the district councils will have to deal with a most peculiar state of things in Ireland. There are, and there will be, absolute owners, limited owners who have not sold, tenants who have bought and tenants who have not bought, and there will be an immense number of landlords and tenants in process of selling and buying, and with all these different classes of people the district councils will have to deal. It therefore seems to me essential that there should be some simple and efficacious means of proving title and conveying land. I wish to impress on the House the great importance of this, because it would be a thousand pities if this Bill were to be in any way marred by delays through difficulties in connection with the proving of title or legal matters of that kind. It would be very regrettable if anything occurred to destroy the value of the Bill, because it is a good Bill, a very good Bill.
  48
  This is a Bill which I believe is capable of effecting an immense improvement in. Ireland. It deals, to my mind satisfactorily, with the very just claims of the labouring population, and there is no portion of the population in Ireland who are more deserving than the labourers of the consideration of the State. There is no class in Ireland, either, more capable of availing themselves and making the most of any assistance that the State will give them. Taking them as a whole the labouring population of Ireland are sober, industrious, and intelligent men. Anyone who knows Ireland at all will bear me out in saying that where cottages have been provided for the labourers they have been well kept. In that the labourers have set a very good example to many of those who are above them in the social scale. There is, I repeat, no class more deserving than the labouring class, and I believe this Bill will be of great assistance to them, and, working together with the Act of 1903, will add greatly to the prosperity and contentment of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, coming from the extreme west of Ireland I should like to state the views which are held in that part of the country with regard to this Bill. The Bill when it first appeared in another place was greeted as any Bill which tends to ameliorate the condition of any class of Irishmen must be, with entire approval. So far as one can see, this Bill aims at, and will succeed in many ways in bringing about, this amelioration, though in some details it may not quite meet with the approval of every class in Ireland. The landowning class in three parts of Ireland are practically unrepresented in another place, and it is only when a measure reaches your Lordships' House that the views of the land-owning class can be fully heard and due weight given to their opinions, which I venture to urge are worth listening to. Any measure which, however indirectly or in however small a way, affects the question of landownership, as. undoubtedly this Bill does, must receive the very gravest attention. There are two points as to which I would venture' to endorse the opinions of Lord Ashbourne and Lord Cronbrock. First of all, there-is the alteration in the Court of Appeal. I will not enter into detail upon that, but

  49
  I venture to support most earnestly what was said with regard to it by Lord Ashbourne. I venture to think that amongst the landowning and what is called the loyalist class in Ireland the Local Government Board as a Court of Appeal is not looked upon with universal approval. As a Court of Appeal we would urge the appointment of either a county court Judge or a Judge of assize.
  The second point is as to the question of compensation for compulsory sale. Although the question of condensation for the compulsory taking of land under this Act must be very small, a very dangerous precedent is involved. I venture to hope your Lordships will alter this clause or even omit it, so that a dangerous precedent in regard to future legislation may not be set up without the point being fully considered upon its merits. The Bill as it stands requires some alterations, but when they are made I believe it will serve the object for which it is intended and ameliorate the condition of the labouring classes of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I desire at the outset to congratulate the noble Lord in charge of the Bill upon the very lucid manner in which he explained the first Irish measure he has had the pleasure of expounding to this House. We admit that this is a necessary Bill, and, as my noble friend Lord Dunraven said, it follows on the Act of 1903. He will remember that the Land Conference on which we both sat expressed the opinion that the labourers question should be dealt with.
  As regards the finance of the Bill, I do not consider it very satisfactory. There are rumours that one of the judgeships is to be done away with, and there are certain parties who do not wish that course to be taken. With regard to the proposed reduction in the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, an endeavour in this direction has been made for twenty years without success. There is, however, one point in the Bill which I consider rather satisfactory. We are to get £28,000 from the British Exchequer. As one who feels that Ireland is excessively overtaxed, that part of the Bill appeals to me very much. This is the cheapest form of Labourers Bill that we have had yet.
  50
  As to the question of appeal, it must be quite clear to His Majesty's Government, after the speeches to which they have listened, that we are not satisfied with appeal from the Local Government Board inspector to the Local Government Board. It is not a judicial appeal; indeed, it is no appeal at all. It is an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, and we are not likely to see the Local Government Board upset the Provisional Order which their inspector has allowed under this Bill. With regard to the compulsory taking of land, the Government must realise that we shall offer an Amendment to that clause. In no other case where land is compulsory taken is the arbitrator precluded from taking into consideration the fact of compulsory purchase. We do not, therefore, consider the provision in this Bill at all satisfactory.
  My noble friend Lord Dunraven mentioned the matter of the purchase of other plots of land for labourers, but there is a safeguard in the Bill with regard to that, inasmuch as the labourer cannot get the new plot without vacating his cottage. I am rather glad that that provision is in the Bill. We know that when there is an opportunity of acquiring land the Nationalists take good care to acquire all they can, and it is therefore our duty, as representing the landowners, to look after the interests of those belonging to that class. For that reason we shall put forward Amendments when the Committee stage of the Bill is taken, and I hope His Majesty's Government will see their way to accept our proposals. They will not affect the principle of the Bill in any way, but on the contrary, will render its working more easy.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think my noble friend behind me has every reason to congratulate himself on the reception which this Bill has had at the hands of your Lordships. Its career in another place was also very pleasant, and quite the opposite of stormy, and I hope, although certain Amendments are hinted at by noble Lords opposite, its career here will not be of a very eventful kind. I most thoroughly endorse what fell from my noble friend Lord Dunraven as to the admirable character of the people whom this Bill is intended to

  51
  benefit. They are a most frugal and hardworking class, and I venture to think that they have no superior among the labouring class in the whole of the British Isles.
  This Bill is designed to do three distinct things. In the first place, it is designed to simplify all procedure connected with the acquisition of labourers houses, to reduce charges of all kinds, legal and other, and to simplify matters of title. My noble friend Lord Dunraven, without going deeply into the question of title, expressed the hope that that simplification was carried as far as was necessary to make the Bill work. I am no authority on these matters, but I am inclined to think that the hair of an ordinary solicitor would stand on end at the manner in which titles are dealt with in this Bill, and I think my right hon. friend has gone certainly as far as he is likely to go in that direction. The second object of the Bill is to place pressure upon district councils who in the general opinion have not done their duty in this respect; and the third object is the provision of cheap money to carry out the measure.
  My noble friend Lord Clonbrock stated that sometimes in the past action had been taken under former Labourers Acts for the purpose of annoyance. That may have happened in some instances, but I hope that it belongs to a state of things which has really passed away in Ireland, and that there is no danger of anything like a general repetition of conduct of that sort. No duobt, too, mistakes have been made, but that is inevitable when minor local authorities are entrusted with duties of this kind. Two special objections, I think, were taken by noble Lords to the provisions of this Bill. The first was in relation to compulsory purchase, that no extra payment was to be made in respect of that compulsion.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: That it was not to be taken into consideration by the arbitrator.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That the arbitrator was not to make an additional allowance in respect of the compulsory purchase. That was dwelt on by noble Lords not so much on the ground of the actual effect it would have as of the danger of creating a precedent of this kind
  52
  in respect to larger transaction. I do not know that the danger is a very serious one, but if it is serious I am afraid it exists already, because in the Local Government Act for England, 1894, a precisely similar provision is added to to the section enabling parish councils and other bodies to acquire allotments.
  The other point to which special exception was taken was the question of appeal in cases of land being taken. I am certain that the only objects which my right hon. friend had in introducing that provision into the Bill were simplicity and saving of time. He had certainly no intention of destroying any safeguard which might be really necessary. At the same time there is a similar precedent in the very same Act to which I have just alluded, the English Local Government Act, 1894. In the case where land is compulsorily acquired for allotments in this country there is an appeal to the Local Government Board, but it goes no further. However, I can assure noble Lords that their representations will be carefully considered by the Chief Secretary before the question arises on any Amendment which they may wish to move.
  The noble Lord at the Table (Lord Dunraven) asked one or two Questions with regard to finance. I am told that as regards the Development Grant it has to be borne in mind that this money will not be required all at once. The operations of the Act will take some time before they are in full play, and there is no fear whatever in the minds of those who have conducted the finance of this Bill but that the Development Grant will be perfectly able to bear the strain which is placed upon it. As regards the Petty Sessional Clerks' Fund, it is no doubt the fact that n sum of something like £5,000 a year is lost to the local bodies in Ireland, taken as a whole, under the rather complicated scheme of finance in this Bill. But, however, spread over the whole country it forms such a very small fraction that, although noble Lords from Ireland mentioned the fact, I do not think it can tend seriously to interfere with the financial scheme of the Bill. It is, of course, most clearly to be understood that the Land Purchase Fund cannot and must not be allowed in any way to suffer owing to any operations

  53
  under this Bill. It would be the worst possible policy in regard to Ireland to allow it to be supposed that what we hope will be the valuable operations of this measure should interfere with the equally valuable operations of another
  LORD ASHBOURNE: It is only intended to be an advance?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Precisely. The Land Purchase Fund is treated as a bank to be drawn on for this particular purpose, and the money will be paid back, I suppose by fresh borrowing. A word of caution has been uttered by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, as to the danger of creating a small class of uneconomic holdings. This is a matter on which I find myself in general agreement with him in so far that it is necessary it should be carefully watched. The distinction between a farmer and a labourer in Ireland is very vague. You see a man described in newspapers as a farmer who would be described in this country as a labourer. It is important that the danger referred to should not be allowed to arise.
  Then the noble Earl complained, rather after the parable of the vineyard, that those counties which had done well in the past and borne the heat of the day were not getting the same consideration as those which were coming in at the eleventh hour. It is hardly necessary to attempt to argue here the question of the possibility of making the Act retrospective. It would not fall to us to do so if it were possible; but I must remind the noble Lord that he himself in his following sentence suggested what is the real set-off to that—namely, that the counties which have done the greater part of the building in the past, and have therefore in this matter presumably deserved the best of the community, will get a much larger share of the Exchequer contribution than the counties which only come in now. I am sorry to say I have not the figures which would enable me to reply to the noble Earl's Question as to the amount of relief which particular counties receive, but I understand that it will be very considerable in some cases, and therefore it must, I think, be taken as a set-off to the complaint which the noble Earl made that these counties were not receiving any special consideration. I think I have dealt with all the points raised by noble Lords opposite,
  54
  and I can assure them that we shall give the fullest consideration to the Amendments they bring forward on Monday, with every desire to meet them if possible without destroying in any way the structure of the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  DOGS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Bill is entirely uncontroversial, and noble Lords opposite have shown their approval of it in their endeavours during the last ten years in every Session of Parliament to put it on the Statute Book. The Bill provides protection for live stock from injury by dogs. The worse injury was inflicted in Scotland and in Wales, but in 1904 as many as 308 sheep were worried in one English county. One farmer lost 50 lambs in one single night. We have received resolutions from all parts of the country in favour of the Bill. It consolidates and amends the law. It assimilates the law in England, Scotland, and Wales, and makes owners liable for injury done without proving that the dog was mischievous. Under it magistrates can order the destruction of of dogs or order them to be kept under control, under a penalty of 20s., and the Board of Agriculture can make orders requiring collars to be used except in the case of hounds and sporting dogs. There are also provisions to prevent dogs straying.
  This Bill is not designed to act against shepherds or crofters or in any way in the interest of game preservers. It is supported by nearly all the farmers clubs and most of the chambers of commerce. I may mention that in one year, in Cheshire, there were 2,230 dogs seized by the police, out of which only 196 were claimed; in Liverpool 3,000 were- seized, and only 111 were claimed. Under this Bill the police can notify to the owner the seizure of a stray dog, if it has an owner, and if it is not claimed within seven days it can be destroyed. There are, of course, exemptions in the Bill, and crofters are protected. No objection has been offered to the Bill from any source, and therefore

  55
  I confidently hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Earl on having induced those who think with him and who are in the majority in the other House to give their sanction to this Bill. It is a measure which in substance has been placed before Parliament by his predecessors in office, including myself; and in the year 1904 I thought that a measure, not perhaps quite so ambitious as this one, might have been got through the House of Commons without any controversy, but ' an accident happened to it and it did not pass into law that session. The noble Earl has been able to persuade his friends in the House of Commons to pass legislation from his Department which I regret to say I found it impossible to get passed when I had the honour of being at the head of the Board of Agriculture.
  This Bill will be productive of great advantage in all rural districts. It has been said that it is a measure for ringing the curfew on the dogs and that they are to be confined after certain hours on the premises of their masters. But I do not think that is a provision of which anyone can complain. The regulations will be in the hands of the Board of Agriculture, and I think they may safely be entrusted to deal with the matter fairly. With regard to the clause which deals with exemption from licences, I venture to think that there is a very grave scandal indeed in the enormous number of dogs which are kept without licences on grounds wholly insufficient, and I am glad that the noble Earl proposes to minimise that scandal by making the conditions under which exemption can be obtained more stringent than at present.
  I should like to know what is the object of Clause 7 which provides that until the first day of January, 1912, the Bill shall not apply to Scotland. I should have thought that it was precisely in the mountainous districts of Scotland and Wales where the great majority of exemptions from licences existed, and: that the provisions of the Act should be enforced there without delay. I have no doubt that when we reach the Committee stage the noble Earl will explain
  56
  the reasons why Scotland is specially favoured and is to have this five years exemption. There are one or two clauses here which were not in the Bill as introduced into the House of Commons when I had the honour of being President of the Board of Agriculture. One is that a register is to be kept of all dogs received in any home—a provision which is a distinct improvement. The second is that farmers and landowners are to be required to bury carcases of animals that die on their farms to which dogs gain access. I do not quite know whether there are any words which will require the burying of the carcases within a certain time, but I observe in the Bill that it is provided that any person who shall "knowingly and without reasonable excuse" permit the carcase to remain unburied shall be liable, etc. I take it that the intention is that if it is done within reasonable time the penalty will not fall upon the offender. On the whole, I congratulate the noble Earl on having got this Bill through the other House of Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will give it your sanction and that it will pass into law.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am very glad that this Bill has been brought in and that it applies to Ireland. The provision with regard to the wearing of collars is that the Board of Agriculture may make an order requiring this. I think it would be better if it were made absolutely mandatory that all dogs should have collars. If the noble Earl would consider that suggestion I should be very much obliged. Although you suffer in England from stray dogs you have no idea what it is in Ireland. It is something fearful; they go about the country killing sheep in all directions. Poison is laid down wholesale, and I have known of nine or ten dogs belonging to farmers and others being killed by these poisons when taken out for walks by their owners. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will endeavour to make what I will call the collaring order a little stronger.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.