Lords Sitting of 22 June 1906

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

1. Finance.

2. Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters.

3. Metropolitan Police (Commission).

4. Police (Superannuation).

5. Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1).

6. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders; (No. 2).

7. Marriages Provisional Order.

8. Great North of Scotland Railway Order Confirmation.

9. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1).

10. Holyhead Water.

11. Norwich Union Life Insurance Society.

12. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Superannuation Fund).

13. Mersey Railway.

14. North Sussex Gas and Water.

15. Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways.

16. New Mills Urban District Council

17. North East Lincolnshire Water.

18. National Assurance Company of Ireland and Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company.

19. South Lancashire Tram ways (Ex-tension of Time).

20. Scottish Provident Institution Buildings.

21. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

Lord Graves—Henry Cyril Percy Graves' claim to vote as Lord Graves at the election of representative Peers for Ireland. Committee for Privileges to meet on Monday the 2nd of July next.
Earldom of Norfolk. Committee for Privileges to meet on Monday the 2nd of July next.
Lord Chaworth (E. Meath) took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5). Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6).
The same were ordered to lie upon the Table.
Standing Orders Committee. Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Metropolitan Water Board Bill; ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed.
Read, and agreed to.
Merthyr Tydfil Gas Bill. Reported with Amendments.
Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [H.L.]. Presented, and read la.
Huddersfield Corporation Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 17th and 29th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.
North East London Railway Bill. Committed.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Metropolitan Water Board Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 26th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; and Bills read 2a accordingly.
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [H.L.].; Nettlebed and District Commons (Preservation) Bill [H.L.].; Ritz Hotel, Limited, Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas Bill. Read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Committed, the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill. Committed.
London County Buildings Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Corporation of London (Blackfriars and other Bridges); London Government Schemes (London and Penge, etc.) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), E. Camperdown (chairman), L. Clinton, L. Monk Bretton, L. Sudley. (E. Arran), L. Leith of Fyvie; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Poole Corporation Water Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill: Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the examiners.
Maryport Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [H.L.]; Hull Joint Dock Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Southampton Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill. Returned from the
468
Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, (No. 132); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, (No. 133); Water Provisional Order Bill, (No. 134). Brought from the Commons. Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ASTRONOMER ROYAL (GREENWICH OBSERVATORY).
  Report of the Astronomer Royal to the board of visitors of the Royal Observatory. Greenwich, read at the annual visitation of the Royal Observatory, 30th May 1906.
  AUSTRALIA.
  Report of the Royal Commission on the Navigation Bill of the Australian Commonwealth, 1904.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3648. China (Wuhu).
  No. 3649. Paraguay.
  No. 3650. Austria-Hungary (Fiume).

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Report and recommendations of the Committee appointed to investigate and advise the First Commissioner of Works with regard to the improvement of the ventilation of the House of Commons.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND)
  Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1907. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 131.)
  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  The Lord Balfour discharged from serving on the Select Committee.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  House of Lords Offices. Second Report from the Select Committee considered (according to order), and agreed to.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (NO. 2) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, before the House resolves it-self into Committee I desire to say a few words upon this Bill, as circumstances over which I had no control prevented
  470
  my being present to take part in the debate on the Second Reading. I do not propose to utter one jarring note after the harmonious discussion which took place upon the last stage. I concur entirely in all that was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House, and I sincerely hope that with the disappearance of the property qualification in England we shall not see the dignity or efficiency of the Bench impaired.
  The property qualification was instituted many years ago for the purpose of preventing any possible corruption on the part of those appointed as magistrates. I think I am justified in saying that our system of an unpaid magistracy has worked exceedingly well for many years, and to my mind it would be a very deplorable thing if, owing to assimilating the qualification in England to that in Ireland and Scotland, the dignity of the Bench were lowered. It is, therefore, with great regret that I should see appointments to the local benches made simply as a reward for services of a political character. I have read with great interest the debate which took place in your Lordships' House a week ago, and I noticed that in the very lucid, and may I say moderate, speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the statement was made that Members of the Party to which I have the honour to belong predominate on the Bench. I do not deny that. My own experience tells me that that is the case, but I think it is generally found that the reason for that is that those who have been more specially qualified to occupy a seat on the Bench in the various districts have as a rule belonged to that Party.
  I have had the honour of being His Majesty's representative in the County Down in Ireland, and until recently in the city of Belfast, and I have always endeavoured to appoint gentlemen to the Bench, regardless of what their political or religious views were, so long as they could perform satisfactorily the duties of the position. But in the County Down I have been obliged to select Protestants because I have experienced difficulty, in that Protestant county, in finding gentlemen of the opposite faith who were in every way qualified for the fulfilment of the duties. The debate which took place the other day was undoubtedly a very interesting one, but I

  471
  confess I read it with a certain amount of surprise. I am one of those who consider that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory, and I had hoped that we should have heard from someone how justices of the peace discharge their duties in Ireland and Scotland where no property qualification is insisted upon. I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would have given us his experience on that point.
  Of Scotland I know very little, but I have had some experience with regard to Ireland, and in the part with which I am particularly associated there is no complaint whatever to be made of those appointed to the Bench. But I am sorry I cannot speak in the same congratulatory tone as to the south of Ireland. It is well known that in the south of Ireland, between 1892 and 1895, there were appointed a large number of magistrates solely on political grounds. I believe that will not be denied. They are now recognised as Morley's magistrates; and I do not know that they added very much to the credit of the various benches to which they were appointed. I have heard it said that some of the gentlemen appointed to benches in the south of Ireland had themselves in previous years appeared before those benches. I have also heard that so little confidence was felt in those gentlemen that the inhabitants would rather appear before the resident magistrate. There is one occurrence I should like to bring before your Lordships for which I can vouch, though I will not mention any names. The present Lord Chancellor, of whom I speak with the greatest possible respect, in the days to which I allude sent a list of names to a Lord-Lieutenant in the south of Ireland asking him to recommend them to be justices of the peace for his county. The Lord-Lieutenant asked for an interview, and explained that he could not take upon himself the responsibility of recommending those gentlemen, as many of them had themselves appeared before the magistrates.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): The noble Marquess is referring to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY: Yes, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
  472
  The Lord-Lieutenant came upon two names and absolutely declined to recommend them. The Lord Chancellor urged that he should do so, but the Lord-Lieutenant still persisted in his refusal. "Why not recommend them?" asked the Lord Chancellor. "Because," replied the Lord-Lieutenant, "they died a fortnight ago of delirium tremens, one of them a bankrupt." I mention this to show what might be the condition of things on the Bench if appointments are made to the magistracy purely as-a reward for political services. The dignity of the Bench should be maintained, and I mention this instance to show that if we do assimilate the condition of things in England to that in Ireland, we must not go to the extreme of rewarding, political services by putting on the Bench gentlemen who are not qualified. I trust that Lords-Lieutenant will be very careful in submitting names to the Lord Chancellor. I do not oppose the Bill now before your Lordships, but I have brought this matter forward in the hope that nothing will be done to impair the dignity and efficiency of the Bench.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to the appointment of magistrates, which may no doubt often have been pressed on the Lord Chancellor of the day or the Lord-Lieutenant of a county, on account of political services. But there is one point in connection with this question which does not seem to be touched by the Bill, to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention. As Member for a large city, I have often had the names of gentlemen brought before me for recommendation to the Lord Chancellor, and those recommendations have usually come, by arrangement, from both political parties. As a rule, I think, there is a feeling that appointments of this kind should be recommended, to some extent at any rate, on political grounds, I do not say in the minds of those who make them, but in the minds-of those who recommend them. I think everyone must have noticed, in looking into this subject as it affects the English counties and boroughs, that there is an extraordinarily high proportion of names of persons who appear on the lists but who never do a stroke of work. They probably have been appointed for some such reason as I have alluded to.

  473
  These persons when appointed probably thought of nothing beyond the fulfilment of their desire to have what is locally considered the great honour of writing "J.P." after their name; they never thought that the honour also carried with it the fulfilment of duties. If it were possible for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or for Lords-Lieutenant from time to time to remote such names from the list, I think that a great reform might be achieved.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, when the duty devolved upon me of exercising the office now discharged by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I repeatedly requested that an undertaking should be given by the person appointed to the magistracy to do his duty as justice of the peace, and although I have not actually removed the names of those who have not done their duty I have caused letters to be written to them from time to time pointing out that if they did not do their duty they were not fit to be magistrates and should be removed, and I have found that the hint has been invariably adopted. Undoubtedly the person appointed should undertake to perform the duties.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words in view of what has fallen from my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn. I entirely concur in what he says as to the difficulty of procuring the regular attendance of magistrates on the Bench, and I have been impressed in Ireland with the fact that this is a growing difficulty in the manning of the county benches. A somewhat different system prevails in Ireland from that which obtains in England with reference to the appointment of magistrates, and I am not sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack might not find it desirable to inquire of the very efficient officer who is in charge of that branch of the Lord Chancellor's duties in Ireland what are the actual details connected with the appointments there.
  For a great many years we have had no such property qualification in Ireland as that which has existed in England; but the custom has been, ever since I was first appointed Lord Chancellor and for many years before, for I did not initiate it, to send to Lords-
  474
  Lieutenant in Ireland forms which they would forward when they desired to invite a gentleman to join the magistracy. This form, which would be filled up in the candidate's own handwriting, would contain a statement as to his name, age, residence and property in that particular county or in other counties, and information on various other matters which would be of assistance both to the Lord-Lieutenant and to the Lord Chancellor when the time came for considering his fitnessfor appointment. One of the questions asked of a candidate was as to the petty sessional districts he proposed to attend, and personally I have very rarely sanctioned more than three. Another question asked was whether, if appointed to the magistracy, he proposed to give a regular attendance in the petty sessional districts named. All these questions are in the direction of getting that regular attendance which my noble friend has indicated.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury has stated that he occasionally directed the attention of those who were negligent to their duties as justices of the peace, but I am afraid it is not very easy to secure compliance with such requests. My attention on one occasion was directed by Lord St. Aldwyn when Chief Secretary for Ireland to this matter, and I applied myself to ascertaining those magistrates who had gone away and those who had ceased to take any part in the work of the county, and I was thus able to remove many names that had become perfectly useless so as to obtain a more effective list. The matter is one beset with a great deal of difficulty and requires much tact and prudence.
  LORD HENEAGE: I should like to ask whether the law is not perfectly clear on this point, that clerks of the peace are obliged to make out a list of magistrates who have not attended for two years, and that these magistrates are put on the nonresident list.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I may state, in view of the observations of the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor for Ireland, that personally I have never appointed any magistrates without asking for the information referred to, and an undertaking that the persons whom I recommended would perform their fair share of the duties attached to the position.

  475
  That undertaking has invariably been given, but I am sorry to say it has not always been carried out. With regard to the remarks of my noble friend below me, I think one word ought to be said in defence of the magistrates themselves. It is this, that many of our benches are now so crowded that there is not seating accommodation for all of them.
  LORD HEMPHILL: My Lords, I have had considerable experience of the magistracy of Ireland and full opportunity of knowing how the justices generally have discharged their duties. I am not aware that there have been any complaints at all against the unpaid magistracy of Ireland, either in regard to non-attendance or insufficient attention to the discharge of their duties; and if there were any grounds for supposing that improper persons had under the existing law in Ireland been appointed to the Bench surely instances could have been adduced to your Lordships. I would remind noble Lords that the existing property qualification is not of such a nature as to prevent the abuses apprehended. If corruption, political or of any other nature, could creep into the appointment of magistrates the existing qualification would not be sufficient to prevent it. Therefore it occurs to me that no argument whatever has been advanced against the present Bill.
  No qualification has been necessary in Ireland for more than a century at least, and after long experience, having lived all my life in Ireland and had the opportunity of knowing how the magistrates act in the southern counties, I can hardly call to mind any instance where abuses have been shown to exist. If we search the records of the Court of the King's Bench in Ireland it will appear that it is very rarely indeed that the decisions of the magistrates are called in question, except in occasional differences of opinion on questions of legal niceties. I think, therefore, that this is one of the cases in which, if possible, the laws of the three countries should be assimilated, and there is no fear of abuse. It is necessary that the people should have confidence in the magisterial administration of justice, and it is desirable therefore that the justices
  476
  should not all be of the same way of political thinking.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: The noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland has informed your Lordships that in Ireland there is a form which has. to be filled up by the applicant and is sent by His Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant to the Lord Chancellor. That is perfectly correct, but I wish I could say that it was of much use. Unfortunately, although the applicants do sign this form and say they will give as much of their time to the actual work on the bench as is compatible with their other duties, they do not fulfil their promise. The result is, at all events in my own county, that at least, one half of the magistrates do not attend at all. I always feel most reluctant to recommend anybody to the Lord Chancellor, because I know that the bench is already overcrowded. Yet at the same time there are many whose claims are brought before me who ought to be magistrates, but I cannot see my way to recommend them. I am sure I am speaking what is in the minds of a great number of Lords-Lieutenant in the populous districts both of Ireland and of England when I say that it would be conducive to the public service if some arrangement could be made by which magistrates who did not attend should automatically cease to be magistrates after a certain time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess who spoke first appealed to me to say something with regard to one or two points. As to the point raised by the noble Viscount, that there ought to be some means by which magistrates who do not attend should cease to be justices of the peace without any reflection upon them, I agree that this suggestion is well worthy of consideration. I am afraid, however, that I am myself disqualified from expressing any opinion on the subject, because I am one of the delinquents, I was appointed eleven years ago a magistrate for the county of Kent. I did not give- any undertaking that I would attend, but the real pressure of work has prevented me from putting in one solitary appearance from that day to this. Therefore, my first duty would be to remove myself.

  477
  There ought, I think, to be an understanding, if not an undertaking, that when a magistrate accepts the position it should be with the intention of discharging the duties. It is quite correct that there is a constant correspondence on matters relating to the magistracy going on in the Lord Chancellor's office, and there are frequent requests to know whether gentlemen intend to perform their duties or are willing to be removed from the Commission of the Peace, but they never display any alacrity to be removed. With regard to the absence of qualification in Scotland and its effect, it must be remembered that in Scotland justices of the peace have fewer duties to discharge than in England; the Scottish analogy, therefore, is not absolutely to the mark. I believe the absence of qualification makes no difference there, nor would it make any difference here. It must be remembered that there is no qualification necessary now in great boroughs like Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds. The magistrates in the boroughs are appointed without qualification; they discharge most important duties, and I have never heard that the absence of the property qualification has made any difference.
  I do not think there is any real advantage in any money test. It is not a question of how much money a man has, but whether he is a man of education, of firmness of character, and one who is looked up to and respected by his neighbours. About the relations of politics and the magistracy, I wish there were no such thing, and that we heard no more about the political opinions of the magistrates than we do of the political opinions of doctors. But we all know the actual situation, and it would be uncandid if we did not admit it. There is an enormous preponderance of one political opinion on the Bench in the counties. I cannot accept the suggestion thrown out by the noble Marquess who spoke first that persons of the Conservative party are more likely to administer justice than those of the other Party. Personally I do not think there is any difference between fair-minded men on one side of politics and the other. My feeling is that this preponderance causes a sense of injustice which ought to be redressed. For my part I have no sympathy whatever with the idea of
  478
  appointing as magistrates, as a reward for political services, undeserving persons. I really do wish to see the administration of justice in this country carried out in a way that will secure the affection and the respect of the people at large, and I would not be a party to placing on the Bench a man who was not an honest man and a proper person for such a position.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair].
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsuggested that the words requiring residence within seven miles should be struck out, and that a man should not be disqualified for being a justice of the peace for a county on account of residence outside the county area. What happened, especially in large industrial districts, was that the persons engaged in them who were most qualified to act as magistrates resided elsewhere. In these days of rapid locomotion seven miles was practically no distance at all; it was merely a twenty minutes journey in a motor-car. He therefore hoped, before the Third Reading stage was taken, the Local Government Board would consider a provision in this form— that a person, if otherwise qualified and having a large interest in an industrial centre, should not be disqualified as a justice of peace on account of residence outside the county area. He thought that would be a far more satisfactory provision.
  LORD HERRIESsaid there was some danger of the county bench being swamped by the incursion of gentlemen who did not live in the county. He thought they were quite sufficiently governed by the towns already, without enabling gentlemen resident in the towns to become county magistrates and interfere in the administration of justice in the counties. He agreed that there were circumstances under which it was to the advantage of the public that gentlemen living outside the county should be appointed magistrates, but he was afraid that if the clause were passed in its present form it would open the door too

  479
  widely. There would be the danger of a great many magiatrates being appointed from outside, with the result that the county magistrates would be swamped. He suggested that the clause should read—
  "A person, if otherwise qualified, may tie appointed a justice of the peace for any county, notwithstanding that he does not reside in the county, if he resides within seven miles thereof and if it is for the public interest in the administration of justice that such an appointment should be made."
  THE EARL OF JERSEYhoped the rather vague Amendment suggested by Lord Dartmouth would not be accepted. He was of opinion that those who sat on the local bench should be gentlemen residing close by. They were more likely to attend regularly, and to be in real touch with the neighbourhood. It rested with the Lord Chancellor and the Lord-Lieutenant whether too many magistrates were appointed, and he thought that in this matter both would be guided by what they considered best for the county.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the Amendment suggested by Lord Dartmouth was too vague, and that the clause as it stood would be more useful. The direction to the Lord Chancellor was in the Statute of Henry V., that justices of the peace henceforth to be appointed within the counties of England should be "most sufficient persons dwelling in the same county" That was the old law, and he imagined that it was as binding upon him as it was upon his predecessor in the time of Henry V. The persons to be appointed should be competent, trustworthy, and reliable individuals.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid he did not move his Amendment. He only offered it as a very humble suggestion, and was sorry it had not met with any favour.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHmoved an Amendment stipulating that solicitors, "if otherwise qualified," might be appointed. According to the clause as it stood, a person, if otherwise qualified, might be appointed, but a solicitor could apparently be appointed whether he
  480
  was qualified or not. Those who lived in the counties did not want to have any cuckoos in the home nest, and it seemed to him that this suggestion of dumping down outside solicitors on local benches was not one that would meet with approval. It seemed to him to extend the principal of Free Trade in a manner that was never intended by the originators of that system, and he thought that without treading on anybody's corns in this particular instance they might ask to be allowed to adopt the principle of Protection.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'solicitor' to insert the words 'if otherwise qualified.'"— (The Earl of Dartmouth.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdid not understand the clause to mean that solicitors, merely because they were solicitors, could be appointed without any other qualification. He would not enter into the point as to whether or not that was a true construction, for he saw no objection to accepting the Amendment in order to make it quite clear that no such special privilege was intended to be accorded to any particular class.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid that probably the reason why the words in the clause were used was that a solicitor was, under certain circumstances, disqualified, and it was proposed to remove that disqualification.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 135.)

  ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE COMMISSION.
  LORD KINNAIRDrose to ask His Majesty's Government—1. If they can explain to the House the cause of the repeated delays in presenting the Report of the Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline to His Majesty the King, and why it has not been presented before

  481
  Whitsuntide as promised in March in another place? 2. Would the Government endeavour to hasten this Report, as it would be of the greatest value during the Education debate? 3. Does not the prolonged delay involve the Government in considerable additional expense? 4. Could the Government also further the matter by recommending to the Commission the advisability of getting the volumes of evidence or some of them printed off and bound at once, so that there will be no printing delays after the Commission have made their report? The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for not being in my place to put the Question last week, and I am very sorry if my absence caused any of your Lordships any inconvenience. There was a long list of notices on the Paper, and I thought my Question would not be reached until after five o'clock. When I got down to the House, however, your Lordships had adjourned. I fully recognise the difficulty of this subject and that the amount of evidence given before the Commission was considerable. I feel that those who have given so much time and thought to this matter deserve our best thanks and gratitude. The fact that the Chairman of the Commission was called away on a very important inquiry connected with our Indian Empire may have caused delay; but I have put the Question down in order to allay any feeling in people's minds that there has been considerable delay in this matter; and especially at this juncture, when there is considerable anxiety with reference to the education of the country, it is desirable to have some authoritative statement as to whether the numbers of those clergy who are disobeying the law of the Church and of the land as given by the Low Church Party are correct. The Report, I think, may influence a good many people in judging how far those clergy who do not obey the law ought to be given considerable power under the Education Bill in educating the children in our elementary schools. I should be very sorry if the wording of my Question in any way led to the impression that there had been needless delay in the bringing put of the Report.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I am very glad that the remarks of the noble
  482
  Lord who has just sat down have to a certain extent removed the somewhat unpleasant impression which the wording of his Question as it stands on the Paper was calculated to cause. I certainly did feel that, evidently unintentionally, the noble Lord's Question implied distrust, not to say suspicion of the proceedings of the Commission, which I believe to be entirely without justification. I do not think, from the information in my possession, that there has been any avoidable or unnecessary delay in the presentation of the Report. When we recollect that the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, presided over the Commission, we shall not be likely to believe that he is a man to let the grass grow under his feet. At least I have never formed that conception of his character, and I can certainly say that His Majesty's Government do not feel that there has been any undue delay in the matter.
  When my noble friend opposite, Lord Kinnaird, speaks of a promise given to present the Report before Whitsuntide, he puts the matter very much more strongly than the facts justify. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister gave no promise, but expressed a hope, and all the hopes which one expresses are not to be converted into promises, for life consists very greatly of unrealised hopes. With respect to the date at which the Report will appear, I think it will be published soon enough to satisfy the noble Lord. I will not, however, venture, as a hope has been treated as a promise, to express an opinion on this subject, but will leave it to the noble Viscount opposite, who, no doubt, will speak. As to expense, the cost involved by the difference between the presentation of the Report at the beginning of June and the end of June is infinitesimal. I am told that it is nothing more than the salary of the Secretary, which may be prolonged for a week or two. The question of cost is, therefore, altogether unworthy of being considered. I believe that steps have been taken to carry out the wishes expressed in the fourth inquiry of the noble Lord. Efforts are being made to produce the evidence as quickly as possible, either with or immediately after the publication of the Report. I quite agree that this is highly desirable in a matter of this kind.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords perhaps, as I had the honour of presiding

  483
  over this Commission, I may make a few observations in reply to the Question placed on the Paper by the noble Lord. I appreciate the sentences with which he commenced his observations, but I am bound to say that it is difficult to reconcile them with the terms of his Question. The first paragraph of the Question contains two untrue statements. In the first place, it is not true to say that any promise was given that this Report would be presented before Whitsuntide. All that was ever said was what the Prime Minister was authorised by me, on behalf of the Commission, to say in the House of Commons in February last, † that I had hopes that we might finish the consideration of our Report before Whitsuntide. In the second place, it is not true to say that there have been repeated delays in presenting the Report; not only have there been no repeated delays, but there has been no delay at all.
  I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever served his country upon a Royal Commission. Perhaps his not having done so may excuse the way in which he has referred to those who have given gratuitous services in a difficult and most unpleasant duty. Personally, having myself given services of this kind on many occasions, I may say that I have never known a Commission which worked harder, with a greater desire to bring its labours to as early a termination as was consistent with their proper performance, than this Commission. We commenced our inquiry a little more than two years ago. The previous Ritual Commission took nearly five years in considering the matters referred to them. This Commission was composed of fourteen members, including three members of the Episcopal Bench, three Judges, and three Members of Parliament; and the remaining members were all men busily engaged in their respective avocations. I venture to say there was not one member on that Commission who could not be called a very busy man. In those two years we sat on something like 120 days—long sittings on each day; and of course many of us devoted a great deal of time besides that to the work of the Commission. That is what we did.
  Now it is suggested that there have been delays. I repudiate that suggestion
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 519.
  484
  as strongly as it is possible for me to do so, consistent with language proper to be used in your Lordships' House. But that is not all. The noble Lord has insinuated in the terms of his Question that the delay has been needless, and that it has been done purposely in order to prevent the country from obtaining in the debates on the Education Bill whatever information might be gathered from the Report and evidence of this Commission. I do not know whether the noble Lord really means to make that insinuation.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I did not mean to make the insinuation.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I very gladly accept that denial. But such an insinuation has been made in the gutter Press, and I can only say it is an absolute lie. I can use no other term to characterise it. I do not know—and I do not very much care—what effect anything in the Report or the evidence given before the Commission may have in the debates on the Education Bill. But this I do know, speaking for myself, that nothing could be more unjust, or more illogical than to appreciate the denominational teaching generally given in Church of England schools by the misguided action of a certain number of clergymen, very few in number as compared with the total body of the clergy of the Church.
  With regard to our proceedings, I am thankful to say they have been brought to a termination. Our Report is, I am afraid, rather a large volume. It has been unanimously agreed to, without reservation or dissent on the part of a single Commissioner. It has been signed by all the Commissioners but one—the Lord Chief Justice, who was unable to sign it at our meeting because he was on Circuit in Somersetshire. His signature will be obtained either to-day or to-morrow. The Report will, I believe, be presented to the Home Office on Monday for submission to His Majesty, and, of course, it will rest with the Home Office how soon it is circulated. The evidence, the index, and the rest of the Papers will be presented, I believe, in a fortnight from Monday next, and will be available—of course by the permission of the printers,

  485
  who are rather difficult to deal with in these matters—as soon as may be possible to the public after that date. I hope I have said enough to show that we, the members of this Royal Commission, have done our work to the best of our ability, and that we do not deserve the gross insinuation contained in the Question of the noble Lord.

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time, I wish to say a few words upon it. The proposal herein contained will go down to another place fortified by the opinion of perhaps the strongest, man who could be summoned in support of it. I refer to the late Sir Robert Herbert, who was for so long Under-Secretary for the Colonies. Seven years ago I made the proposal to Sir Robert Herbert which is contained in this Bill, and suggested that he should use the machinery of the Empire League to obtain an opinion in favour of the establishment of a Reserve in the Colonies. Sir Robert Herbert took up the question with his usual eagerness, and promised me that the Committee of the Empire League should inquire into the details. I will read his letter—
  "Your suggestion as to the enrollment of men in the Colonies in the Imperial Reserve is, I think, sound and practical, and I will bring it before the Council of the Empire League. After the present South African war is over it might be possible to settle a number of time expired soldiers on the land, giving them grants on condition of their being ready for service anywhere."
  I am glad that this proposal, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, is about to be carried out.
  But this Bill does various other things which are equally useful. In the first place, it enables the Government to pay men of the Reserve in the Colonies. During my time at the War Office we were not allowed even to pay pensions outside the United Kingdom. That difficulty is now removed. The second great advantage is that we shall be en-
  486
  abled to enlist men direct into the-Reserve. I understand that there are no less than 3,000 men in India who are now in the Reserve, but who are not under any control whatever. These men will be under the same control in the future as Reserve men at home, and will be a strong addition to the Reserve Forces of this country.
  Lastly, there is a provision to give greater elasticity to the various branches of the Reserve. At present it is impossible for a man in the Cavalry Reserve to serve in the Remount Department or to join the Mounted Infantry, for this reason, that both of those services are regarded as dismounted services. It is of the greatest possible importance that these men should be so employed. Many of them are incapable any longer of serving in the Cavalry and would be of the greatest possible service in the Remount Department and in other ways. It may be said that it is a difficult thing to make a cavalryman into an infantryman and vice versa, but we may be sure that the authorities will not use this power unless it is of service to them. This Bill will also give us a much larger Reserve in the Colonies than we have had before. It will enable us to use our Colonial Army in a much more effective way, and it will create a greater connection between the Colonies and the mother country. Above all, the Bill will enable the Colonies in time of stress to come forward with a much larger Reserve to aid our forces in matters which may be of equal importance to them as to ourselves. I hope the Bill will go down to the other House fortified by the sanction of the Government and that they will use all their efforts to secure its passage into law this session.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The EARL OF PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I should like to express a few words of thanks to my noble friend for what he has said on behalf of this Bill. I think I ought also to say, in fairness, that the reason the Bill has made such satisfactory progress in your Lordships' House is not only the merit of the Bill itself, but also the fact that it is in almost all respects the same Bill as was introduced by the late Government and which your Lordships passed through all its stages. It was one of the Bills which, owing to pressure

  487
  of business at the end of last session, was massacred in the House of Commons. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Third Reading. It will then go down to the House of Commons with the necessary Amendments that have been introduced, and I trust there is every prospect of the Bill being passed into law this Session.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed. with the Amendments, and sent to the Commons.

  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade in this House (the Earl of Granard) I beg to move that the Earl Beauchamp be added to the Select Committee. I am given to understand that owing to the regrettable absence, through indisposition, of Lord Balfour of Burleigh it has been found necessary to obtain the services of another Member.
  Moved, "That the Earl Beauchamp be added to the Select Committee."—(Lord Denman).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SERVIA.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to make a statement with reference to the renewal of diplomatic relations with Servia. When the barbarous murder of the late King and Queen of Servia took place, and when the perpetrators of that crime were not only not punished, but actually rewarded by high positions and influential commands, Lord Lansdowne, who was at that time Foreign Minister, withdrew our representative at Belgrade, and since that period diplomatic relations between the two countries have been suspended. This action of His Majesty's Government was not only unanimously approved here, but it produced an excellent effect, throughout the Continent, possibly owing to the fact that some Powers entered into a kind of ignoble competition as to which should be first to recognise the regicide Government. I think you could have no better evidence of the wisdom of the action of his
  488
  Majesty's Government than that the Servian Government has been endeavouring ever since to resume diplomatic relations with this country.
  The attitude of the late Government was something of this kind. They intimated that so long as the Servian Government identified itself with the regicides they preferred to have no communications with it. No demand was made that any punishment should be inflicted upon them, and I venture to think this was a wise reservation, because if we had endeavoured to insist upon punishment these men would probably have been converted into patriotic martyrs. I think it was pointed out that His Majesty's Government, naturally regarding Servia as an independent country which it was not our business to interfere with, thought it ought to recognise its own duty in the matter, and that we should not maintain any official relations with it until the Servian Government had done what was obviously fitting and right under the circumstances.
  The Servian Government continued to make inquiries as to what our wishes were in the matter, and on April 11th of this year Sir Edward Grey, departing in a very slight measure from the attitude previously adopted by this country, announced in another place that until the regicide officers were removed the question of reopening diplomatic relations with Servia could not be discussed. This clearly meant the retirement of eighteen persons who were prominently associated with the crime in question, and who, I believe, had actually personally taken part in the murder. The then Servian Prime Minister submitted to the king a decree proposing to place eleven of the principal regicides on the retired list. The monarch, however, preferred rather than grant this demand to accept the resignation of the Prime Minister and his Government. Thereupon appeared on the scene another Government, and the new Prime Minister appears to have also approached the Foreign Office through intermediaries, who, I understand, were Italians.
  Unofficial inquiries were made with the new of ascertaining how many retirements would satisfy our views, and somehow or other it was conveyed that if

  489
  five of the regicides were retired, and retired in such a manner as to indicate clearly that the Servian Government disapproved of their crime and dissociated itself entirely from them, nominal diplomatic relations with Servia would be resumed. It was clearly intended that the Servian Government should distinctly dissociate itself from these men, and that they should be retired under such circumstances as one might reasonably expect. What actually happened was this. I have here the translation of a decree which appeared in the official Servian organ of May 30th. The decree runs as follows:—
  "We, Peter, on the proposal of our Minister of War, having heard and taken cognisance of the decision of the Council of Ministers, do resolve that"
  and here follow the names of five officers—
  "are, at their own request, and on the ground of Section 22 of the law on the Army, placed in a state of peace."
  The Section 22 referred to in the decree is, I understand, a provision by which officers who have rendered distinguished service to their country are allowed to retire on pensions amounting to the full salary which they are at the time receiving. The decree proceeds to state that out of consideration for their good will, by which they have placed their positions at the disposal of the Government, their pensions shall amount to their full salary.
  What has actually happened, therefore, is that five of the principal members of the regicide party, so far from having been retired in what I may venture to term a somewhat ignominious manner, are allowed to retain their present salaries as full pensions and to leave the Army without a stain on their characters. I am also informed that in order that there should be no unpleasantness the King has recently appointed two members of the regicide party to the position of aide-de-camp, in which capacity they no doubt would come occasionally in communication with our representative when he goes there.
  Speaking for myself, I should like to see diplomatic relations reestablished with this country. We have no quarrel with the Servian nation, and it is, so far as I am aware, just as much entitled to our respect as any other nation; but I must say I do resent a state of things
  490
  which appears to have brought about a resumption of diplomatic relations under somewhat unsatisfactory circumstances. If what I have stated is correct, and I have every reason to believe that it is, then I venture to think this country has not been overwell treated in this matter. I observe that an English Minister ha? been appointed, but has not yet been gazetted. I venture to ask whether it would not be well, before this gentleman actually proceeds to his post, to suggest to the Servian Government that it should show rather better evidence of goodwill in this affair than it has demonstrated up to the present time.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I think it is natural that my noble friend, who possesses great knowledge of the affairs of the East of Europe, should call attention to the facts connected with this incident. Undoubtedly the situation that has existed in Servia since the great crime committed in June, 1903, has been; a very difficult one. It was the bounden duty of the Government of this country to mark its sense of the terrible character of the events which took place in the Palace of Belgrade. We had strict precedent for our action in suspending diplomatic relations with Servia. Personally I was mixed up many years ago in the complicated negotiations which ended the suspension of relations between this country and Mexico consequent on: the death of the Emperor Maximilian, when nearly all the Great European Powers suspended relations with Mexico for a longer or a shorter time, and we were almost the last, if not the last, to renew relations. Therefore, had the Government chosen in the case of Servia, which was an infinitely graver matter than that of Mexico, we would not have been without argument to show that we could take up a still' stronger attitude.
  On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that if the duty of a country like ours is to make a clear assertion of the dignity of the public right of Europe—if I may use the expression—it has also to bear in mind that the suspension of diplomatic relations with any country is always a matter which bears rather hardly on our own "nationals" We ought always to

  491
  be careful that, while punishing other countries, we may not possibly be inflicting considerable injury on our own subjects. As to Mexico, for example, it was forcibly borne in upon my mind, especially through communications in the House of Commons, where I at that time sat, how very serious a condition of things the suspension of diplomatic relations was for British subjects in Mexico.
  The Secretary of State thought it was his first duty in the case of Servia to see that there should be some clear acknowledgment on the part of the Servian Government by some public act that the crime of June, 1903, was not to be passed over without notice. It is impossible on the other hand in a matter of this kind for a foreign Government like ours to interfere in details; but the broad fact is that, out of deference to the sole and unsupported action of this country, the Servian officers have been removed from the active list, and an assurance has been given that they will not be employed again. I believe it will be felt that by our action this country has sufficiently vindicated what we consider to be the public law affecting the case. One point has weighed with His Majesty's Government. Servia is in a very unsatisfactory condition, and the presence of a British Minister may in itself be the means of helping towards the restoration of a more satisfactory condition of affairs. The: people of Servia may thus be reminded by the presence of our Minister that there is a country in Europe where liberty and order can exist together, and perhaps in time they may be able to realise and to follow our example.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure your Lordships will have heard with satisfaction the statement which has just been made by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs. I do not think that any of your Lordships could have been in any doubt as to the opinion of the Government, or of any British Government, in respect to the odious crime which was committed a few years ago in Servia. But it is a matter of satisfaction that, not only in the House of Commons, but here, there should be a formal pronouncement by the Foreign Office to the effect that the present advisers of the Crown are entirely in
  492
  accord with the policy which we pursued in this matter when we held their places.
  It was impossible for a British Government to continue in a relationship of courtesy with a Government which had been guilty of so heinous a crime, for if we had done so it would have appeared to Servia and to the world that Great Britain condoned the crime. Accordingly we took the only step which was open to us to take. My noble friend behind me who raised the question has complained that the Servian Government have not made full reparation, that they have been not a little grudging in acknowledging the heinousness of the error they committed, and that His Majesty's present Government have been too kind in overlooking their fault. I agree with my noble friend that the behaviour of the Servian Government from the beginning to the end of this unhappy business has been in the highest degree deplorable and shocking, and it is only of a piece with their previous conduct that their reparation should have been of so hesitating and grudging a character.
  I also think that my noble friend opposite, the Under-Secretary, was justified in saying that we have not only Servian interests to consider in this matter but British interests as well, and it is of the highest importance, from a British point of view, that the ordinary means of diplomatic intercourse should be resumed as soon as reasonably may be. I gather from my noble friend behind me that he entirely concurs in that view. With regard to the reparation, that is not a matter with which we need concern ourselves very greatly. There remains upon record the fact that in consequence of the action of the British Government, and that action alone, public justice in Europe has been vindicated, and the Servian Government have been compelled by our action publicly to admit that a great crime was committed, and that those who were principally responsible for that crime are no longer worthy of the confidence of their country and of the King who reigns over it. That is a great achievement upon which the Government of this country are to be congratulated.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I only rise for the purpose of saying that, if this

  493
  question is a very difficult one, it has clearly been solved very much to the advantage of the Servian Government; and if any people have a special right to be satisfied with the arrangement arrived at it is the regicide officers themselves, who are no worse off for what has happened, but, if anything, are in a better position.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six O'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.