Lords Sitting of 14 June 1906

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Corporation of London (Blackfriars and other Bridges) Bill.—Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Bacup Corporation Bill.—The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 8th and 29th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.
North and South Shields Electric Railway Bill.—Read 2a and committed.
Ascot District Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill.—Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Brixham Gas (Electric Lighting Bill).—Read 2a, and committed.
Corporation of London (Blackfriars and other Bridges) Bill.—Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Dover Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Folkestone and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Lancashire Electric Power Bill; Metropolitan Water Board Bill; St. Pancras Electricity Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Bill; Kettering Water Bill; Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill; North West London Railway Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill;
Bristol Corporation Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill [H.L.]; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
National Assurance Company of Ireland and Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company Bill [H,L.]; South Lancashire Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Mersey Railway Bill [H.L.]; North Sussex Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
New Mills Urban District Council Bill; North East Lincolnshire Water Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
Tramway Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.] Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Ritz Hotel Bill [H.L.]. Committed.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Devon, etc.) Bill [H.L.].— Read 3a, (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. —Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a, to-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.—House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a, to-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. (No. 119); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. (No. 120); Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill. (No. 121); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. (No. 122)—Brought from the Commons, read 1a, to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill.—Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell), and reported from the Committee. (No. 123.)

GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Hamilton of Dalzell).
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I believe my Amendment has precedence of that standing on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnaird, because it is to amend the clause which the noble Lord proposes to expunge. This is a Bill which comes to your Lordships' House under the Scottish Procedure Act of 1899. Up to the Third Reading your Lordships have had nothing to do with the Bill, but I venture to
1064
suggest that at this stage your Lordships' House has and ought to exercise complete jurisdiction over it, and the Third Reading ought not to be considered merely a formal matter.
I quite understand that your Lordships might be inclined to defer to Scottish opinion, and that the Bill having passed in Scotland in this particular form your Lordships might be disinclined to amend it. I fully admit, therefore, that the onus lies upon me to show good reason why it should be amended. It cannot be said that Scottish opinion in this matter is at all unanimous inasmuch as the Corporation of Glasgow are very much against the particular clause in question; indeed, they would greatly prefer that Lord Kinnaird's Amendment should pass than that the one standing in my name should be adopted. Whether your Lordships accept my Amendment or not, an opportunity will be given of voting for the omission of the whole clause; but I think it is quite possible that some of your Lordships may think that the Amendment of my noble friend is too drastic and that a middle course ought to be pursued.
The question at issue in this Bill is as to the terms on which a railway company ought to be allowed to exercise powers over road traffic, either in connection with their railway or not in connection with their railway. Clause 3 of the schedule, which I propose to amend, appears to me in its present form to be absolutely inadmissible, being against all precedent. In 1899 the first case arose of a railway company being allowed to exercise these powers over road traffic, and there have been some eight or nine cases since. Quite recently, in the case of the Mersey Railway Company, a clause of this kind was struck out altogether.† The first precedent for the insertion of such a clause was in the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Act,. 1899.
There have, as I have said, been altogether ten instances of a clause of this description being inserted, but it has always been put in subject to two principles being observed. The first principle
† See (4) Debates, clvii., 433, et seq.

1065
is that this road traffic must be in connection with the railway, or in connection with some extension of the railway; and the second is that the road traffic must not be allowed to compete with the traffic facilities afforded by a local authority. And where it is at all necessary, there has always been a further clause providing that the local authority shall have some sort of veto over the road traffic; and in one recent case—that of the North Eastern Railway Act, 1905— there is a stringent provision to the effect that the local authority may from time to time prescribe the route for this road traffic.
As time has gone on it would seem that the conditions imposed upon railway companies seeking powers over road traffic have become more and more stringent. The last instance before the Mersey case was that of the Brighton railway. In the Brighton Railway Act, in order, I suppose, to make it perfectly certain that the road traffic was used bona fide for the purposes of the railway, a provision was inserted that the company might convey by road passengers, passengers' luggage, luggage, parcels, and merchandise, who or which had been, or were to be conveyed over some part of the railways owned, worked, or used by the company. That provision was, no doubt, a stringent one, but it has been very recently passed by the House of Commons. Clause 3 in the schedule of the Great North of Scotland Railway Order Confirmation Bill now before your Lordships' House offends against both of the principles I have referred to.
As regards the safeguard to local authorities, there is a provision in the Bill safeguarding the Corporation of Aberdeen, but that is the only local authority which is safeguarded. It is clear that that is not an efficient safeguard inasmuch as the Bill proposes to give the company powers to run road traffic anywhere they like, quite irrespective of whether it is in connection with their railway or any station on their railway. It appears to me that such a provision is absolutely contrary to all precedent. Clause 3 as it stands provides that—
"The company may provide, own, work, and use, in connection with or in extension of their railway system or otherwise—
1066
that is to say, they may use it not in extension of their railway system—
"in any district to which their said system affords access or in which they may find it expedient to afford improved means of communication," etc.
Under that very wide power it is perfectly clear that the company might set up road traffic anywhere in Scotland they liked, and the Corporation of Glasgow suggest that they might even compete with the excellent system of tramways now set up in Glasgow. I do not know whether that is likely to be the case, but at all events this power is a very much bigger power than has hitherto been granted to a railway company, and if it is to be given at all I suggest that it should be on the same terms as in the case of the Brighton Railway. My Amendment follows very closely the terms of the Amendment in the Brighton Bill, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.
Amendment moved—
"In the Schedule, in Clause 3, page 3, line 30, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to the word 'provided' on line 4, page 4, and to insert the words 'the company may provide own work and use to or from any railway station depot or hotel owned, leased, or worked by the company road vehicles to be drawn or moved by animal, electrical, or other mechanical power and may therein convey passengers, passengers' luggage, luggage, parcels, and merchandise, who or which have been or are to be conveyed over some part of the railways owned, worked, or used by the company, and may make and recover such charges as they think fit in respect of such conveyance and may enter into contracts or agreements with any company or person for the supply or working of any such vehicles."—(Lord Monkswell.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I hope the House will not be led away by the arguments to which we have just listened. The Amendment of the noble Lord who has just sat down is narrower in its scope than that to be moved by the noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Kinnaird), and I shall carefully avoid, in endeavouring to answer the noble Lord opposite, trenching upon the arguments which will have to be used in regard to the larger question. But, briefly put, the noble Lord below the gangway intends to delete altogether from this Bill the power to run omnibuses or motor cars,

1067
while the noble Lord opposite only proposes to amend the power to such an extent as to prevent the railway company from carrying in their road vehicles traffic which does not originate on the railway or go on to the railway after it has originated in the motor cars. I do not think that that proposal will bear examination for a moment.
If the railway company only desired to deal with traffic originating on the railway or going to the railway, there would be no occasion to have this power at all, because there is no limit to the distance of cartage or delivery which a railway company may undertake. But, looking at the proposal on the merits, if you are going, as the noble Lord proposes, to give power to a railway company to run omnibuses and motor cars for the continuation of traffic, is there any sense in preventing those vehicles picking up and setting down traffic by the way?
The case for the power is this. The Great North of Scotland Railway serves, generally speaking, poor, agricultural, outlying districts. Railway companies are constantly charged with not giving proper facilities for the picking up and delivery of agricultural produce and other articles of that kind. This is an effort on the part of the Great North of Scotland Railway Company to meet a real public demand. It may be said that light railways could be laid down, but in many of these cases there is not traffic sufficient for a light railway. This is a cheaper way of serving the outlying districts. The noble Lord, in moving his Amendment, said there were no precedents. Motor vehicles are a comparatively recent invention, and it is because of these inventions that you have from time to time to make new precedents. There is no danger in this precedent. It is on the lines of what has been done before, and I hope and believe that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees will say that, on the whole, it is a safe step for us to take.
The noble Lord who moved this Amendment seemed to hold some brief for the municipality of Glasgow. I cannot see what Glasgow has to do with this case. Glasgow is, and rightly, a tramway owner in its own district, though some of your
1068
Lordships have doubts whether municipal trading and tram-owning has not gone too far already. I do not raise that question. But it is a new departure if a municipality which has gone in for this trading is to set its face against legitimate opposition and legitimate trading even in another part of the country.
I submit that you must judge each case on its merits. If this were in the suburbs of some large town there might be a case against it. Why, because some large municipal corporation have started tramways to serve their own district, are they to come in the way of a legitimate extension of facilities to country districts? It is a strong point in my favour that there is absolutely no local opposition to this proposal. The Corporation of Aberdeen, as the noble Lord fairly said, have been met and have agreed with the promoters to this proposal. There may be other municipalities in the district. Any of them might have appeared, if they had chosen, at the preliminary inquiry. I am informed that none of them did appear. The inquiry was held at Aberdeen under the provisions of the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act. Two Members of your Lordships' House were concerned in that inquiry, and the decision of the tribunal was unanimous.
I submit that it would be unfair, I might almost say unjust, at this stage of the Bill, and after it has passed the other House, to make an alteration of this kind. The noble Lord seems to suggest that under the clause as it at present stands the Great North of Scotland Railway Bill might run motor vehicles all over Scotland and England. Now, is that a sane suggestion? Is it likely that this railway company will be so foolish as to do any such thing? I venture to think that their shareholders would soon look after them if they made any such proposal. I contend that the noble Lord opposite has not made out a shadow of a case for the proposal he has put before us, and I trust your Lordships will reject the Amendment.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I should like to add my testimony in favour of the provision in the Bill as it stands. The effect of the Amendment

1069
would be this: that the company might run motor vehicles to and from the stations on their system, but that if a wretched passenger wished to be taken up for a short distance along the route he would not be allowed to avail himself of this facility unless he could give an assurance that he would travel on the railway afterwards or had come from the railway, and no convenience in the carriage of goods would be given to the public along this route. Anything more ridiculous it would be impossible to imagine. This is a Bill which is unanimously desired by the county of Aberdeen and by the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, who serve that district. It is not opposed by the Corporation of Aberdeen, and it has received strong support throughout the district. The proposal of the railway company to run these motor 'buses will be of the very greatest advantage to the district, and I hope at this late stage of the Bill your Lordships will not accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
*LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: My Lords, knowing the district concerned, I can assure your Lordships that this scheme is much required. It is, indeed, a necessity in the interests of the farmers and the inhabitants of the district generally. It is to motor traction that farmers have to look for the more economical handling of agricultural produce. I can assure your Lordships that unless we give the powers asked for in the Bill the farmers and others concerned will feel that we did not consider their interests and the equities of the case. Those mostly interested are the people along the proposed route, and I venture to think that if the proposal in the Bill is agreed to and motor vehicles are allowed to run, the necessity for their existence will be very quickly demonstrated.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the Provisional Order which this Bill seeks to confirm was made last year by Lord Linlithgow, the then Secretary for Scotland. There was not time last year to bring in this Bill, and it was therefore introduced into the House of Commons this Session. It has passed
1070
that House without Amendment, and is now before your Lordships on Third Reading. The only opposition to the Bill, so far as we have heard, is in respect of the clause now under discussion, and in a similar case to this recently before the House of Commons the matter was left to the House. His Majesty's Government are desirous that in this case a similar course should be followed, and have every confidence in leaving the matter in your Lordships' hands.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I hesitate to trouble your Lordships on this subject, but after the speech of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and after the appeal of my noble friend behind me, your Lordships may expect me to say a few words. This Bill originated in the office of the Secretary for Scotland, and I had thought that we should have from the noble Lord some expression of opinion either for or against the Amendment moved by my noble friend. But we are not altogether unprepared to hear that in this case, as in others, the Government desire to leave the matter to the judgment of the House. If the Secretary of State did not take objection to it in the House of Commons I should have thought that the Bill would have been supported in the condition in which it come up from the other House.
I confess I was surprised when I heard from the noble Lord opposite that he opposed the Bill in the interests of the Corporation of Glasgow. As far as I know, the nearest point on the Great North of Scotland Railway is Aberdeen or Boat of Garten, both of which are over 100 miles from Glasgow. What the interest of Glasgow can be I fail to understand. The Corporation of Aberdeen have secured the insertion of a clause in the Bill which has been settled to their satisfaction, and which will protect that Corporation from any undue competition with the tramway business they carry on.
In my opinion Bills of this kind, dealing as they do with a somewhat novel mode of traction, ought in every case to be decided on their merits. The merits have been gone into, and there has been no objection raised. I see no reason for refusing to allow the Great North

1071
of Scotland Railway Company, which carries on its business in sparsely populated areas, to do something to encourage the agricultural interests of those districts. I do not see that there are any grounds to justify your Lordships interfering at this late stage of the Bill and inserting an Amendment which would necessitate its being sent back to the House of Commons. If it were a private Bill under my charge I should certainly urge your Lordships to consider that it had been decided on its merits, and not accept any Amendment on the Third Reading.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, after the speech of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees I do not desire to press my Amendment to a division, as it apparently receives no support. I shall be quite content to leave the matter in the hands of the House as between the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite and the Bill as it stands.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
*LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I beg to move the omission of Clause 3 in the Schedule. I understand that this is the only clause in the Bill on which there is any difference of opinion. I fully admit that the Third Reading stage is not an advantageous time to raise this matter or to impede a Bill which is evidently wanted, but I thought the general question was of sufficient importance to justify the step I am taking, especially in view of the action taken in the other House since this Bill was first introduced. I understand, too, that the omnibus clause with reference to the Glasgow and South Western Railway Order was withdrawn at the inquiry held in Glasgow.
As to the general question of motor traffic, I do not think your Lordships can have any doubt that before long, both in regard to towns and the country, some limit will have to be fixed as to speed and as to the damage which may be done by these, to many of us, instruments of torture which go about at all hours of the day and night making the roads and streets impassible and depreciating the value of property. In con-
1072
sequence of these heavy traction engines miles and miles of road around Aberdeen have been absolutely ruined, and it has been rendered extremely difficult for tourist traffic to go through many of the narrow roads. The companies sending out these great vehicles pay no rates for the roads, and I understand that if this clause passes there is no limit to any damage which may be done by these vehicles.
I know districts where whole rows of houses have been depreciated to the extent of 50, 60, and 70 per cent., and many of them are unoccupied, owing to the nuisance caused by the motor traction vehicles which are becoming the popular form of conveying goods. There are indications even in London that this is a question which will have to be seriously considered by Parliament. It has been thought that it would not be well to allow this clause to go through in its present wide form, and that the House of Commons has done well in putting a stop to the increasing tendency on the part of the great railway companies to run these motor vehicles. I submit the Amendment standing in my name, but if the feeling against it is anything like that shown to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Monkswell I shall not press it.
Amendment moved—
"In the Schedule, to leave out Clause 3.'—(Lord Kinnaird.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the proposal of the noble Lord who has just sat down is even wider than that of the noble Lord who moved the previous Amendment, and I think that any arguments which could be used against the present Amendment have already been used against, the former one. I am sorry that certain noble Lords have not been satisfied with the attitude taken up with regard to this Bill, but I think it has been justified by the event.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am not certain whether the noble Lord intends to persist in his Amendment. If he does I shall have something to say upon it.
LORD. KINNAIRD: I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."— (Lord Hamilton O) Dalzell.)
On question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed.

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational Teligious teaching in schools: Of parents and guardians of children attending schools at Thornham; Elton; Tarleton (two); Hulton; Chequerbent. Of teachers in schools at Tarleton; Thornham; Hulton.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY (NEW CONSTITUTION).
  Petition in favour of equality of franchise under a new constitution for coloured peoples in South Africa, of president and members of the Coloured People's Vigilance Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers, having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty, had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. CXI viz.:—

  TRADE REPORTS.—I. ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3605. Argentine Republic (Rosario).

  No. 3606. Italy (Finances of Italy).

  No. 3607. Spain (Cadiz). (May 30).

  No. 3608. Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul).

  1074

  No. 3609. Turkey (Basra).

  No. 3610. Russia (Rostor-on-Don).

  No. 3611. France (Pondicherry).

  No. 3612. Spain (Galicia, the Asturias, and Leon).

  No. 3613. China (Canton).

  No. 3614. France (Corsica).

  No. 3615. Costa Rica.

  No. 3616. France (Bordeaux).

  No. 3617. Greece (Thessaly).

  No. 3618. Roumania.

  No. 3619. China (Nanking).

  No. 3620. Guatemala (Quezaltenango). (June 6.)

  No. 3621. Greece (Piræus and District).

  No. 3622. United States (Chicago).

  No. 3623. Western Pacific (Samoa).

  No. 3624. Denmark. (June 8.)

  No. 3625. France (Silk Industry of Lyons and St. Etienne and Trade of Grenoble.

  No. 3626. France (Cochin China).

  No. 3627. Germany (Hamburg). (June 11.)

  No. 3628. China (Shanghai). (June 12.)

  No. 3629. France (Dunkirk).

  No. 3630. Bulgaria.

  No. 3631. Spain (Barcelona).

  No. 3632. China (Teng, Hueh). (June 13.)

  II. MISCELLANEOUS.
  No. 652. Germany (Agriculture in the Rhenish Province (May 30.)
  CONSULAR REPORTS.
  Index to the Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives abroad on trade and subjects of general interest (with Appendix) 1905. (May 30.)
  ARMY (VOLUNTEER CORPS).
  Annual return of the volunteer corps of Great Britain for the year 1905. (May 30.)

  POST OFFICE.
  Agreements between the Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Offices of:
  I. Peru for the exchange of money orders, dated October 22nd, 1904, and December 25th, 1904.
  II. The Dutch East Indies, dated March 30th, 1905, and June 3rd, 1905. May 31).

  TREATY SERIES, NO. 7 (1906).
  Treaty between the United Kingdom and Nicaragua for the mutual extradition of fugitive criminals; signed at Managua, April 19th, 1905. (Ratification exchanged in London, February 13th, 1906). (May 31.)

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  I. (Regulations as to Special Grants) Regulations providing for special grants in aid of certain local education authorities in England and Wales. (May 31.)
  II. (Pupil Teacher Regulations). Regulations for the instruction and training of pupil teachers (in force from August 1st, 1906). (June 9.)
  III. (Memorandum Register of Teachers). Memorandum on the registration of teachers and the abolition of the register. (June 9.)

  JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.
  Letters Patent issued under the Great Seal appointing Thomas Milvain, Esquire, K.C., to be Judge Advocate-General. (June 1.)
  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND).
  Reports to the Local Government Board for Scotland on the burden of the existing rates and the general financial position of the outer Hebrides. (June 7.)
  Forty-ninth Annual Report of the Trustee of the National Portrait Gallery, 1905–1906. (June 8.)
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Regulations for the preliminary education, training, and certification of teachers for various grades of schools. (June 8.)
  Second Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the year 1905. (June 12).

  COLONIES (ANNUAL.)
  No. 483. Ashanti (Report for 1905). (June 13.)
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland appointing the places at which examinations for 1906 shall be held.
  PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACTS, 1875 TO 1890.
  Two Orders in Council, dated 19th June, 1906, approving of amended regulations made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  The annual report on the state of the finances of the University of St. Andrews, under the provisions of section 30 of the Act, for the year 1904–1905.
  Annual statistical report by the University court of the University of St. Andrews to the Secretary for Scotland under the provisions of section 30 of the Act, for the year 1904–1905.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MEDWAY CONSERVANCY.
  Statement of receipt and expenditure of the conservators of the River Medway, for the year ended 25th March, 1906.

  PORT OF ARUNDEL.
  Account and report for 1905–1906.
  Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN COUNCIL SCHOOLS).
  Return (in part) respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of the 4th of May last), and to be printed. (No. 115.)
  AGRICULTURAL SETTLEMENTS IN BRITISH COLONIES (MR. RIDER HAGGARD'S REPORT).
  Report; minutes of evidence, with appendices, analysis, and index.

  SOUTH-EASTERN AND CHATHAM RAILWAY.
  Report to the Board of Trade by Major John Wallace Pringle, R.E., of the

  1077
  inquiry into the circumstances attending the fall of the roof of Charing Cross Station, which occurred on the 5th December, 1905.

  TRADE REPORTS.—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3633. Western Pacific (Friendly Islands).

  No. 3634. Portugal (Quilimane).

  No. 3635. Peru.

  No. 3630. United States (Porto Rico).

  No. 3637. Germany (Grand Duchy of Baden).

  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons (1) that the provisions of the Buck-haven, Methill, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Order and of the North British Railway Order are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bills and not by Provisional Orders; (2) that, save as aforesaid, the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as may hereafter be made with respect to the several orders.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Rules of the Supreme Court (May) 1906.
  The Middlesex County Council Act 1898, Rules.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minute, dated 5th June, 1906, granting a retired allowance to David Henriques, engineer, 2nd class, Engineer-in-Chief's Department, Post Office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act.
  Report of the Arklow Harbour Commissioners, and statement of accounts for 1905.
  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Account of receipts and payments under the Act during the year ended 31st March, 1906.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  Returns showing, up to 31st March, 1906—

  I. The amount of Consolidated Stock; the application of the money raised by such stock; the sums carried to the Consolidated Loans Fund; the application of the Consolidated Loans Fund; an estimate of the expenditure of the council for all purposes, for the year ending 31st March, 1907.

  II. All moneys raised by the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Council since the passing of the Act for the purposes mentioned in the Act; particulars in relation to every parish, district, union, or place in respect whereof a loan has been obtained from the Metropolitan Board of Works or the Council since the passing of the Act.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Orders made by the following councils and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  City and county council of Bristol fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the Horfield Ward of the city and county; council of the county borough of Burnley fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the borough.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow (The Lord Privy Seal [M. Ripon]). (No. 117.)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (COMMISSION BILL).
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow (The Earl Beauchamp). (No. 118.)

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (NO 2) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as your Lordships probably know, this

  1079
  is one of the measures which were promised in His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, and it has already passed through all its stages in the other House without opposition. The main part of the Bill is contained in the first clause, which abolishes the qualification by estate for Justices of the Peace; but the opportunity has been taken to include various other clauses from a Bill which was moved by the noble and learned Earl opposite, the late Lord Chancellor. The second and fourth clauses are taken from that Bill, and the third clause is inserted at the wish of the Incorporated Law Society.
  Qualification by estate was put into an Act passed in the year 1744, which provided that a Justice of the Peace must be possessed of land of the value of £100 a year, either freehold, leasehold, or copyhold. Then in 1875 there was this addition made, that as an alternative a Justice of the Peace might be in occupation of a house worth £100 a year. Both of those qualifications will go under the first clause of this Bill. Your Lordships will recognise how this qualification has restricted the appointment of Justices of the Peace in the past. In some places it has been impossible to discover gentlemen qualified in this particular way to become justices, and in some counties this has been a source of very real inconvenience in the administration of justice.
  Your Lordships will agree with me that the best qualification for properly carrying out the duties of a Justice of the Peace is a thorough and sound education. At the time when this qualification was first made obligatory it is not too much to say that only those people who had property were properly educated. But the happy diffusion of education and knowledge among all classes has qualified a large number of men for the office who, though they possess the confidence of their fellow-countrymen, do not possess the necessary property. There is the anomaly of certain gentlemen elected to occupy very responsible positions, and who, although they occupy the position of Justice of the Peace ex-officio for a certain time, cannot be permanently appointed to the Commission.
  1080
  I think your Lordships will agree that it will be a very happy thing if it is possible to draw more widely in the future upon a large and deserving class of the community who possess all the qualifications necessary for a good Justice of the Peace. Finally, I may point out that this qualification by estate is a very partial one, because it only gives the qualification to one particular kind of wealth, and people possessing wealth in other forms are not made capable of exercising the office. I venture to hope that in these circumstances your Lordships will pass this Bill and do away with qualification by estate.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(Earl of Beauchamp.)
  *THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I do not often intervene in your Lordships' Debates, but I should like to say a few words on this Bill, which affects very considerably the position I occupy. I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading, but I think we ought to remember that this Bill, short as it is and short as has been its introduction, does involve a very large issue.
  The noble Earl has not, I think, referred to the true reason why it was thought necessary to impose a property qualification for justices of the peace. In the old days quarter sessions controlled the local government of the country, and it was obviously very important that those who were responsible for the administration of the finances of the county should have some qualification which would suggest, at any rate, that they had a knowledge of the business which they were called upon to discharge. The Local Government Act of 1888 abolished the necessity for the qualification in that respect, and I for one cannot ignore the fact that circumstances to-day do point in a manner that they have never pointed before to the desirability of abolishing property qualification.
  We cannot ignore, and we do not wish to ignore, the experience we had at the last election, when representatives of a certain class were returned in considerable numbers, and in most cases by large majorities, to have a share in making

  1081
  laws. I do not think it would be easy to argue that representatives of the same class are unfit to administer justice under the laws which they them-serves have had a share in framing. This question of property qualification always seems to me to be something on the lines of the speed limit of motorcars. If you can devise a speed limit which ensures safety under all conditions, it is a very valuable thing; but, if not, you had better do away with it. As the noble Earl in charge of this Bill has said, a property qualification does not carry with it all other qualifications, and, therefore, I for one shall not offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  But the Bill, as I say, opens out a very wide question with regard to the character of the recommendations to be made to the Lord Chancellor for appointment on the Commission of the Peace. I think it is only right that, standing in the position we do, we should have some definite statement from the Government as to their wishes with regard to the political aspect of such appointments. There was a debate in your Lordships' House in the year 1893, arising out of a Resolution passed in another place. The noble Marquess who leads this House took a prominent part in that debate, and expressed opinions, with many of which I entirely agree. He said—
  "Whatever a man's opinions may be, the holding of those opinions ought not to have the effect of keeping him off the Bench. If it does, the result will be to shake confidence generally in the magistracy."
  With that we all agree, and I should resent as strongly as anyone the keeping of men off the Bench, simply because they held particular views. Whether that is done or not is another matter. If it is true, as has been urged in different directions, that the public has lost confidence in the impartiality of the Bench, the sooner that confidence is restored the better.
  The noble Marquess went further, and instanced the result of the Home Rule Bill. He complained that owing to the introduction of that Bill, a considerable number of magistrates had transferred their allegiance from one side to
  1082
  the other, thereby constituting a grievance which had to be redressed. But if, whenever there is any split in a Party, the principle is to be adopted that new appointments must be made in order to redress the balance, it will land us in considerable difficulties. In that case, in the near future, we shall have free food magistrates; we shall have protectionist magistrates; we shall have magistrates who desire secular education; we shall have magistrates who desire religious denominational education; we shall have magistrates who wish to feed the children of the poor; and we shall have magistrates who wish to feed the representatives of the people; and instead of there being, as in the old days, the simple division of Whig and Tory, there will be a complicated system of compound fractions. It seems to me that this is not a principle that will meet with general approval.
  The noble Marquess went on to explain the objects of the Resolution of 1893, which only meant that in future the Lord Chancellor would examine more closely the recommendations made and would not refuse to receive recommendations from other persons than the Lord-Lieutenant in regard to the appointment of justices of the peace. I believe that accurately represents the views of noble Lords opposite to-day. What we should like to know is, what are the other sources from which these recommendations are to come? I hope we shall hear definitely and distinctly from the Government whether it is their wish that the Commission of the Peace shall be a reward for active Party services. I take it that the other sources referred to are the ordinary wire-pullers in the various districts. If it is the wish of the Government that the Bench should be the reward of Party services, then, undoubtedly, that source is the best to which they can go; but if the object is at the same time to restore confidence in the impartiality of the Bench, which is supposed to have been lost, I venture to think that when it becomes known that those who recommend justices in the future are active partisans on one side or the other in the different counties, confidence will not be restored by that means.

  1083
  We hear a good deal about the preponderance of one Party on the bench. That is not denied, but I think it is largely exaggerated. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has received various statements from different quarters representing what is supposed to be the political complexion of the various benches. This is not the first time that it has been done. I was supplied with one myself by the late Lord Herschell when he was Lord Chancellor. It was grotesque in its inexactitudes, and if any argument based on figures is to be valuable those figures must be authentic and accurate.
  May I refer for a few minutes to the case of my own county? I have been Lord-Lieutenant now for fifteen years. The county I represent is a large one, large in area, large in population, with great centres of industry. The difficulty of selection to-day is very great, but when I was appointed I succeeded, with a few years interval, a series of Liberal Lords-Lieutenant lasting over fifty years. I found on the benches in Staffordshire 320 magistrates, of whom 260 had been recommended by Liberal Lords-Lieutenant. If there was the disproportion that is alleged, then it was obviously not because of Party appointments. I have always endeavoured to follow the example set me by the Liberal Lords-Lieutenant who preceded me. I have never inquired into the politics of any candidate recommended. I have always held that the administration of justice is an important duty, and that the men selected must be men of impartiality and men whom the county will trust no matter to which side they belong. With those views in mind I have always endeavoured to avoid Party extremes, and judging by the dissatisfaction expressed by the leaders of both Parties in my county, I can console myself with the sorrowful reflection that I have not been altogether unsuccessful.
  At present the responsibility of recommending rests with the Lord-Lieutenant. As long as that is so, he is, of course, solely responsible, but if the responsibility is to be taken away, if it is to be divided, you cannot leave him the sole and only target for those who think that improper appointments have been
  1084
  made. A Lord-Lieutenant recognises that the greatest of his responsibilities is the selection of fit and proper persons to recommend to the Lord Chancellor for appointment on the Commission of the Peace. As long as the responsibility is supposed to be his, no matter who recommends, no matter who appoints the Lord-Lieutenant will be held responsible if the appointment is a bad one.
  We hear a good deal to-day about trusting the man on the spot. Do not let us forget that in this connection the man on the spot is the Lord-Lieutenant; he resides on the spot, in many cases he has been born on the spot, and in most cases he hopes to die on the spot. If any great change is contemplated, before that change is undertaken let us remember the remarks that fell from the late Lord Selborne, himself a Lord Chancellor of a Liberal Government, in the debate to which I have already referred. Lord Selborne said there were many bad ways of appointing a magistrate; election was bad, but Party nomination was a great deal worse. While no doubt a Lord-Lieutenant has his limitations, and his shortcomings may be many, are we quite sure that the proposed alteration will be an improvement? At any rate, before we make any definite change in this direction, let us remember that we have it on high authority that it is sometimes better to bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, the immediate subject of this Bill is the removal of the qualification at present required by the law for the appointment of magistrates in counties. I have not heard the noble Earl express disapprobation of that proposal. I do not know that we shall hear such disapprobation, because the system of procuring men by means of a money qualification is an ancient system in this country which has been discredited by use. It used to be applicable to Members of Parliament, for example, but it is no longer so applicable. I hope that soon it will be no longer applicable either to the appointment of magistrates, because in this country, if there is one thing clear

  1085
  above others, it is that merit among men is by no means proportioned to the amount of money they happen to possess. That really is the subject-matter of the Bill so far as it is in the least degree capable of controversy. The other clauses, which have not been referred to, are, I think, drawn from the suggestions of previous Governments, and consist of minor proposals for the improvement of the administration of justice by magistrates.
  I am most anxious to present to the House, which contains so many lords-lieutenant, my view of my duty in this matter and of the way in which it should be exercised, in order that I may receive the assistance and support of the lords-lieutenant. I would first state quite frankly what is the situation which I have found. I have received large numbers of representations, from all parts of England and from some parts of Scotland, to the effect that an enormous preponderance of the justices of the peace in many counties are of the Conservative Party. Sometimes the proportion is five to one, sometimes twenty-five to one, and in one case it was seventy to one only a few years ago. That ought to be recognised as an unfortunate state of things by men of all opinions and Parties. For what is the result? It means that there is a sense of injustice among many persons competent to discharge these duties, who believe themselves to be excluded from the performance of them by reason of their holding a particular set of political opinions. I am thankful to believe that Englishmen will not sit down contentedly in a status of inferiority on account of their political opinions. I hope they never will do so, and it has been the strength of this country that they have always refused to do so.
  This state of things also impairs the administration of justice, for this reason. It is urged by some that political considerations ought to be excluded altogether. That is possible with the Judges. They are expected to observe a constant neutrality. Their whole time is taken, and you pay them for it; and they are under usage and custom obliged to observe neutrality. But with the justices of the peace the case is entirely different.
  1086
  They give gratuitous, if most valuable service. I have never impugned their desire to be impartial. But they are like their neighbours and unlike the Judges and stipendiary magistrates in being constantly, and properly, engaged in political work. It is not ignoble work—the effort of two or more Parties that their views should prevail according to the judgment of the country. Party conflict I regard as an honourable conflict, for the country must be governed by Party. But what is the effect? That the most prominent men in the county, selected for the office of magistrate, are also by reason of their energy and ability embarked in active political controversy; and when the public see that the active combatants in political controversy are, if they be Conservatives, upon the Bench, and if they be not Conservatives, mainly not upon the Bench, it may be left to the judgment of any candid man to say whether that is likely to increase public confidence in the administration of justice. That is the state of things which I found. It will not be disputed that there is a great preponderance in nearly all the counties of England. What is the source of this evil—for as Such I must regard it? I have been in correspondence with not a few lords-lieutenant, and I have received the most courteous and fair representations from them. Nearly all of them assure me that they have never known, or rarely known, what the political opinions were of the gentlemen whom they recommended for appointment. I most unreservedly accept that statement, and I believe that if they had known the political opinions of those recommended to them for the Commission, and whom they in turn recommended to the Lord Chancellor, the probability is that the present disparity would not have been so marked. But there have been two causes which have largely operated in producing this disparity. One is the existence of this property qualification which the Bill is intended to remove. Undoubtedly it has limited the choice, for it is the case that the wealthier part of the community are mostly on one side of politics. I profoundly regret it, but it is the fact, and it has necessarily a reflex action upon the appointment of magistrates.

  1087
  Another cause is this—that lords-lieutenant in the great industrial counties cannot possibly know all the persons recommended, and they have to act on the advice and recommendation of local people. The local people have very likely to act on the advice and recommendation of others below them; and so there is a constant delegation of authority and a constant diminution of responsibility the further you go from the original source. When names are sent up, what more natural if, among a number of capable persons to be appointed to the Bench, those who make the recommendation prefer the persons with whom they are more in touch, who are more agreeable for holding the same opinions, and to be reckoned, therefore, as more sensible? That is why the lords-lieutenant have been led to create this tremendous preponderance which many sincerely regret. The better course is that which has been in the main—I will not say always— followed by my predecessors. In appointing to the borough benches the Lord Chancellors have, as a rule, made themselves acquainted with the existing political complexion of the bench as well as with its composition in other respects, not for the purpose of procuring partisan appointments, but for the purpose of avoiding the giving of any partisan complexion to the bench, and of securing a fair balance of opinion. As far as I can judge from the correspondence with which I have been favoured, the lords-lieutenant seem to have acted on the reverse policy and to have made no such inquiries. They have said Virtute me involvo, and have refused to know what the political opinions of the persons, recommended were.
  THE EARL OR DARTMOUTH: I did not say I did not know. I said I did not ask.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really do not know why knowledge acquired by investigation is to be regarded as tainted. The communications that have passed between the lords-lieutenant and myself contain a disclaimer of any desire or intention to act in a partisan spirit, and I think that the better course is to know and to consider the recommendations for the purpose of preventing the
  1088
  very preponderance of which I have spoken. That is the wiser course.
  The noble Lord desired to know what was the position to be taken up by the Lord Chancellor in regard to the lords-lieutenant. In the recommendations that have come to me I have in every case, and will in every case, communicate them to the lords-lieutenant. I have done so repeatedly, and I shall always continue to do so. I believe, from the experience I have already gained, that I shall be met frankly and courteously, for, above all in these things we are both serving His Majesty in a public duty, and it is our duty as far as we can to assist each other. I will do what I can to represent to the lords-lieutenant the wish that the appointments of thoroughly suitable persons should be made to the county bench so as to redress the present undue preponderance of opinions of one particular kind. I think that it is a mischief that ought to be redressed, and I shall certainly, as hitherto, make respectful communications to the lords-lieutenant, believing that they are free to receive recommendations from all classes and conditions of men, and that the Lord Chancellor is not the only person who ought to be excluded from making recommendations. I hope that it is not necessary for me to disclaim any desire to act in a partisan spirit. My object is nothing more or less than to co-operate with the lords-lieutenant, if they will do me the honour of receiving in good part communications from me, in the work of making the bench such as will evoke the confidence of the country and lead to the effective administration of justice.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if my noble friend behind me travelled a little beyond the limits of the Bill on the Table, we are at any rate indebted to him for having elicited from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a speech to which we listened with the greatest interest, and to the tone and temper of which, if I may be permitted to say so, no one on this side of the House could take exception.
  The Bill contains, as has been truly said, only one clause of serious importance, that which puts an end to the

  1089
  estate qualification of county magistrates. This change in the law has been recommended to us on two grounds. We are told, in the first place, that the existence of the qualification inconveniently narrows the area of selection, and, in the second place—and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has enforced that argument—that the possession of the qualification affords in itself no security of the fitness of the individual selected, I desire to say a few words with regard to each of those points.
  I think it is on the whole true that the estate qualification does not afford a full and sufficient guarantee of the fitness of the person selected to serve on the bench. On the other hand, it seems to me that the existence of the qualification has served in the past a useful purpose. It has been an indication given by the Legislature as to the kind of persons to whom it was desired to entrust these judicial duties. Those persons were, above all things, to be persons of education and of independent position; and there can be no doubt—I think that has been admitted— there was a time when it was not unreasonable to look to the property qualification as affording, perhaps in a rough-and-ready fashion, some guarantee that the individual possessing the qualification possessed also a sufficient amount of education and a sufficient amount of independence of position.
  The Bill on the Table contains a clause which shows how necessary, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, that independence of position is. I refer to the clause under which solicitors are permitted to serve on the Bench, but are not allowed to practise as solicitors before the bench of which they are members.
  The property qualification served another useful purpose. It rendered the task of the lord-lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor somewhat easier by keeping within limits the area from which appointments to the judicial bench were made. The task of selection is difficult enough, and it will certainly become very much more difficult now that the area of choice is so greatly enlarged. While, however, there was undoubtedly something to be said, in favour of the estate
  1090
  qualification, I am yet bound to say that, in my opinion, the time has come when that qualification ought no longer to be insisted upon.
  Your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, and I have heard it from other sources, that there are some parts of England in which the existence of this condition so narrows the field of selection that it is difficult or impossible to find enough individuals to take their place on the county benches. I freely admit moreover, that we have arrived at a time when a test of this kind has become obsolete. It was invented, I believe, in 1744, and things have changed a good deal since that time; we can no longer pretend that either independence of character or position, or education, are to be found entirely or almost entirely within the class to which the property qualification was applicable. We have also to bear in mind that in the case of the borough magistrates this qualification is not insisted upon, and I believe that I am right in saying that in Ireland it is wholly unknown.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: And in Scotland.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: And also in Scotland, For these reasons I, for one, would certainly advise your Lordships to accept what I conceive to be the principle of the Bill. The only real security, after all, which we possess for the proper selection and appointment of magistrates is that care shall be taken by those who make recommendations to the lords-lieutenant, by the lords-lieutenant in making their submissions to the Lord Chancellor, and by the noble and learned Lord himself in dealing with them. If proper care is exercised in all these quarters, I say by all means let us accept as magistrates competent persons, whether they are found inside or outside the property test. After listening to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I am encouraged to express my confident opinion that we may look in the future for a full and sufficient exercise of that care.
  This Bill has created a certain amount of alarm—I think it alarmed my noble

  1091
  friend behind me—because many persons detected in it an indication of a desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to depart altogether from the old usage, and to fill the benches with gentlemen who would be appointed, not because more magistrates were required, or because those gentlemen themselves were fit and competent people, but in order to give recognition to Party services or Party fidelity which had not been, in the opinion of noble Lords opposite, sufficiently recognised in the past. All I can say is that if I could believe that these appointments were to be made in that spirit, I should feel that a very serious and a very unmerited blow was to be struck at the magistracy of this country. I believe—and the noble and learned Lord has, I think, very generously admitted it this evening—that the record of the county benches is a clean and honourable record. I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack nod assent to that. I referred, as did my noble friend behind me, to the debates which took place in 1893, and I noticed that the Statesman who now fills the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer went out of his way to express the conviction that, taking the magistrates as a class, they were entirely free from the suspicion of partiality or incompetence. I believe that to be the general feeling entertained by the people of the country.
  Now, what is the complaint, and the only complaint, which is made with regard to magistracy? It is that which has been indicated this evening by the noble and learned Lord. I mean the complaint that, owing to various circumstances, there is among the magistrates as a body what the noble and learned Lord described as an enormous preponderance of gentlemen belonging to one particular Party. How large that preponderance is I do not know. If it is indeed such an enormous preponderance, then I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that it is unfortunate, and I do not deny that the existence of such a preponderance may possibly give rise in certain quarters to a feeling of suspicion and injustice, But what I do venture to add is this. Let us beware, in our endeavour to put
  1092
  an end to that sense of injustice, lest we do something very much more dangerous to the common welfare, and that is redress the balance by adding enormously to the number of magistrates and appointing men selected not on account of s their fitness, not on account of the independence of their position, but because they have certain Party connections, or have rendered certain Party services which it is desired to reward and to recognise.
  The debate which took place in your Lordship's House, in 1893, and to which my noble friend referred, was a most interesting one. I may remind your Lordships that on that occasion this House resolved
  "That it is inexpedient to disturb the present usage for the purpose of putting on the Bench justices whose political opinions arc in consonance with those of the Government of the day."
  That Resolution was carried nemine contradicente, and although not less than the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I should rejoice to see a diminution of that disparity to which he referred, I should, I confess, greatly regret any attempt to give to these local Benches a representative character. I believe that the only result of an attempt of the kind will be to give them a partisan character. You would then have the magistracy of each county, and on every bench, a microcosm of Parliament. You would have, as my noble friend suggested, not two Parties but three or four Parties or cliques among the magistrates, and if that came to pass the want of confidence, if there be any, would be much greater than it is at present.
  I was glad that my noble friend recalled the late Lord Selborne's memorable warning when he told your Lordships that of all the bad ways of appointing Judges and magistrates Party nomination was the worst. That warning, coming from a Member of this House of Lord Selborne's high position, is not one which your Lordships can afford to forget.
  One word more with regard to the position of the lords-lieutenant. Speaking as one of them, I would say that we recognise that the final and

  1093
  ultimate responsibility for these appointments must rest with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but we feel our responsibility for the recommendations which we lay before him from time to time, and we earnestly hope that nothing will be done to diminish that feeling of responsibility.
  It is impossible for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to sift for himself the great mass of names which may be put forward from various sources, and if he will forgive me for saying so, I would add that he cannot expect us to help him, as we would desire, if we feel that our advice is liable to be perfunctorily set aside. I do not believe for a moment, after listening to the noble and learned Lord, that our advice will be treated in that manner, and holding that belief firmly I, for one, accept this Bill, not reluctantly, but ungrudgingly, feeling that it will do something to widen usefully the area from which magistrates are now selected, feeling that it removes a test which has ceased to be applicable to the present conditions of our public life, but at the same time upon the assumption, that in the future, as in the past, the primary questions must be whether any given individual is upon his merits, and from his character, his education, and the independence of his position, really fitted to take his place beside those who will be his colleagues.
  *THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, this discussion has wandered somewhat from the Bill before us, but I by no means regret that, because the debate has been an extremely interesting and valuable one. It is valuable if only for the speech of the noble Earl opposite, which elicited from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a statement as to the view he takes of this question and of his duties in regard to it, which I think from its tone and its spirit commended itself to the House. The noble Earl quoted some words of mine which I ventured to address to your Lordships' House some years ago. To what I said then I adhere. My noble and learned friend has put the ideas which at that time I had in my mind so very much better than I did that I have nothing to
  1094
  say on my own behalf, or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, further than that we take the speech of the noble and learned Lord as stating the principles on which this matter ought to be conducted.
  My noble and learned friend spoke of the very great preponderance in some counties of magistrates of one political opinion, and he said that in one case the preponderance was seventy to one, and in others forty or fifty to one. Such a vast disproportion I look upon as an evil. I think it ought to be the object of lords-lieutenant, whatever opinions they may hold—and it certainly would be the object of my noble and learned friend, I have no doubt—to take all reasonable means for the purpose of diminishing a serious disproportion of that kind. I agree entirely with my noble friend who has just sat down that no one ought to be appointed in regard to any Party or political consideration who was not fully and entirely fit for the important office of a justice of the peace, and I am quite sure your Lordships need entertain no fear that, as far as my noble and learned friend has authority in this matter, he will depart from that principle.
  I believe it to be the object of my noble and learned friend and of the Government to act to the utmost extent in friendly communication with the lords-lieutenant of counties. My noble and learned friend said so, and I observed that your Lordships accepted that statement, and that lords-lieutenant in this House are willing to act in that respect in relation to my noble and learned friend. Therefore, as far as that part of the speech is concerned, I need say no more. I distinctly think, as I have said, that such a disproportion is an evil, and I venture respectfully to hope that the lords-lieutenant themselves will endeavour, in co-operation with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to mitigate that evil.
  There really is very little to say in respect to the Bill itself. It has met with no opposition. It was very natural that my noble friend opposite should pronounce what perhaps might be called a funereal oration on the principle of estate qualification for magistrates. Whatever may have been the value

  1095
  of the qualification or the necessity for it, if it was a necessity, in past centuries it has entirely passed away. To lay down in these days a pecuniary qualication for the exercise of any description of office is altogether contrary to the spirit of the times, and I am delighted to think that this, which is almost, if not quite, the last remnant of that system, is likely to be abolished with the unanimous assent of your Lordships.
  When I had the honour to be lord-lieutenant of the North Riding, which position increasing years have obliged me to resign, I was often met by requests for the appointment of magistrates in the great mineral division of Cleveland, who would be drawn from the working classes of that district. I know that working men have been appointed in boroughs, and that they have been useful and have acted extremely well, but it was impossible for me to appoint any such men in that great district. The property qualification stood in the way, and I was obliged to say: "I am very sorry. Mr. So-and-So appears to me to be a man well-fitted for the office, but he has not the qualification, and the refore I cannot recommend him to the Lord Chancellor." I think that was a mischievous system calculated to create discontent, and I am very glad that Parliament is now about to put an end to it.
  On Question, Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the proposal contained in this Bill is one which I venture to think your Lordships will have no difficulty in agreeing to. The Bill has passed the other House of Parliament without amendment. It consists of two clauses taken from the Bill introduced last year by the late Government, and those clauses have only for their object the
  1096
  giving of power—it is not a compulsory obligation—to school authorities to do a little more for defective and epileptic children than they can do at the present time. There is a precedent for it in what the school boards can do for blind and deaf and dumb children at the present moment, and although I am afraid that those who are the particular objects of this Bill cannot in all cases be put in a position even by education to earn their livelihood, I believe their sad lot may be considerably ameliorated. I know from my own experience and from communications which have been made to me that this power is anxiously looked for, especially by some of the larger school boards. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will have no difficulty in giving the Bill a Second Reading and ultimately passing it into law.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a "—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: On behalf of His Majesty's Government I have to say that there is no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2*, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day read for the adjourned debate on the Motion for the House to resolve itself into Committee.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): I should like to know whether, in view of the new Clause I., which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intends to move, the noble Lords who have Amendments on the Paper to Clause 1 wish to persevere with those Amendments.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: What I would suggest is that the new Clause 1 standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor should take the place of the present

  1097
  Clause 1, and that the Bill should be reprinted in that form. We should then have it before us in a complete form.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendments to Clause 1 in its present form have been placed on the Paper by noble Lords opposite. I would suggest to the Committee that the new clause of which I have given notice, in substitution for Clause 1 should be agreed to. I may say that I am not specially enamoured of the drafting of the substituted clause, and if noble Lords think it needs amendment in order to carry out the common purpose we all have in view, Amendments can be moved either in the Standing Committee or on Report.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I have no objection to that course being taken.
  Clause 1:—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now propose the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved, —
  "To leave out Clause 1, and to insert as a new clause:—' 1.—(1) A person convicted on indictment may appeal within the time provided by this Act to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction on any ground of appeal which involves a question of law alone; and with the leave either of the court before whom he is convicted or of the Court of Criminal Appeal on any ground of appeal which involves a question of fact alone or of mixed law and fact. (2) A person convicted on indictment may also appeal within the time provided by this Act to the Court of Criminal Appeal against the judgment (other than judgment of death) passed on his conviction on the ground of illegality, or unless the judgment is one fixed by law of undue severity. (3) If on any such appeal the court are of opinion that the appeal ought to be allowed, the court shall: (a) If the appeal is an appeal against conviction, and the courtare of opinion that the appeal ought to be allowed on the ground only that though there was evidence proper to be submitted to the jury, yet the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence, direct a new trial of the case; and (b) In any other case, as the case requires, either quash the conviction and direct a judgment of acquittal to be entered, or quash the judgment passed at the trial, and pass such other judgment in substitution therefore as they think ought to have been passed. (4) If on any such appeal the court are of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed, the court shall dismiss the appeal accordingly.' "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As a consequence of the alteration that has been made I propose the omission of Subsection 1. This subsection provides that—
  "Writs of error, and the powers and practice now existing in the High Court in respect of motions for new trials, or the granting thereof in criminal cases, are hereby abolished (and save as provided by this Act, no appeal shall be from any judgment of the High Court in any criminal cause or matter)."
  My reason for moving the omission of this subsection is that appeal on questions of fact is hereafter to be with permission. There are certain appeals now allowed without permission, and certain appeals are also allowed at present by the fiat of the Attorney-General, and may come up even to this House. I propose to leave those ancient privileges of appeal untouched.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, lines 13 to 17, to leave out Subsection (1)."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I hope that before the next stage is taken the Bill will be re-printed, sothat when it does come on again we shall have the complete Bill in our hands.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble and learned Earl suggests that the Bill should be re-printed before it goes to the Standing Committee?
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Yes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 116.)

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The EARL of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH)moved to amend Clause 1, which provided that "notwithstanding anything in the Reserve Forces Acts, men might be enlisted into the Army Reserve in any part of His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom except a self-governing colony, "by inserting before the words" part of His Majesty's dominions "the words" British Protectorate or in any."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after the word any 'to insert the words 'British Protectorate or in any.' "—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDheld that the Amendment was useless inasmuch as Sub-section 3 defined the expression "His Majesty's Dominions outside the United Kingdom" as including British Protectorates.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): The explanation is that some Protectorates are not within His Majesty's dominions.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Then your definition is wrong; it says that His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom shall include British Protectorates.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHwithdrew the Amendment at this stage and said he would bring it forward again on Third Reading.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved to leave out the words "a self-governing colony" and to insert in their stead the
  1100
  words "in a colony possessing responsible government."
  Amendment moved—
  "In lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'a self-governing colony,' and to insert the words 'in a colony possessing responsible government.' "—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved to amend Sub-section 2, the latter part of which provided that regulations made under Section 20 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, might make such adaptations in the Reserve Forces Acts as might be necessary for the purpose of adapting those Acts to the circumstances of the several parts of His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom, by the addition after the words "United Kingdom" of the words "or of British Protectorates."
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 22, after the word 'Kingdom,' to insert the words 'or of British Protectorates.' "—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsaid this Amendment was open to the same objection.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthereupon withdrew it until the next stage.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHwas proceeding to move other Amendments, when
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsaid that evidently little attention had been paid to the Amendments, and he suggested that they should be reconsidered.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I understand that the Amendments have been carefully considered by the Colonial Office and the War Office, and that their object is to bring the definition into accord with what is the law on the subject.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsaid the carelessness of the drafting of the new Amendments was obvious from the fact that the words "a self-governing colony" had already been struck out and the

  1101
  words "in a colony possessing responsible government" inserted; yet the definition clause provided that the expression "self-governing colony" should mean any colony which was specified in the schedule. The expression "self-governing colony" now appeared nowhere in the Bill, and therefore the definition was an absurdity.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): Surely the term "a colony possessing responsible government" is the correct term. That is the technical description of the colonies in the schedule.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I would suggest the desirability of reporting Progress. I caught one phrase a moment ago to the effect that it was proposed to make a Protectorate part of His Majesty's dominions. That would be a very serious innovation.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that if the matter were left to the draftsmen the wording could be put right. He thought it would be better to allow the Minister in charge of the Bill, on his own Motion, to move that the Committe stage stand over.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he did not quite follow the objections that had been taken, but he was prepared to agree to the adjournment of the Committee stage.
  House resumed; Bill to be again in Committee on Monday next.

  SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.