Lords Sitting of 28 May 1906

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1); London Government Schemes (London and Penge, etc.). Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill. Ritz Hotel [H.L.].
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
2
Ascot District Gas; Brixham Gas (Electric Lighting).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kesteven, etc.) Bill [H.L.]. Order for the Third Reading To-morrow, discharged.
Dover Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Bill, on being reported, should be referred to the Chairman of Committees, in order that certain proofs and consents may be

3
given in respect thereof; read, and agreed to. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments; and re-committed for To-morrow.
Kent Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill [H.L.]; County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]; Cumberland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]; Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]; Warboys (Union of Districts) Drainage Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Electric Supply) Bill [H.L.]; Crellin's Patents Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Churches Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a; and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Great Eastern Railway Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
New Mills Urban District Council Bill; North East Lincolnshire Water Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Marriages Provisional Order Bill. House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill (No. 104); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (No. 105); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (No. 106); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (No. 107); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill (No. 108); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill (No. 109); Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill (No. 110); Local Government Provisional Order
4
(Poor Law) Bill (No. 111). Brought from the Commons and Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

PETITIONS.
  ELECTIONS (MEETINGS IN SCHOOL ROOMS) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for amendment of; of metropolitan borough of Wandsworth; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for secondary schools (from 1st August to 31st July, 1907).
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  No. 3600. Bolivia.

  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1898.
  Return showing the total payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) account, for the financial year 1905–1906.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Orders made by the councils of the following boroughs fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the respective boroughs. Borough of Hyde. Borough of Merthyr Tydfil. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ELECTIONS (MEETINGS IN SCHOOL ROOMS) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  GROUND GAME BILL.
  Read 1a and to be printed. (No. 103.)

  BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHIPPING.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the existing competition between foreign and British ships, and to ask whether His Majesty's

  5
  Government will furnish a Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Italy, Russia, Denmark, Spain, Austro-Hungary, Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium towards their captains, officers, and seamen with regard to the following:—old age pensions, pensions to widows and orphans, accident compensation, Sunday labour, daily hours of labour at sea and in port, payment for work performed in excess of fixed hours of labour, medical treatment, accommodation, and passages of distressed seamen; also including in such a Return the regulations of these different countries for the preservation of discipline on board their merchant ships.
  My chief reason for asking for a Return of this kind is that it would prove a very valuable document to anybody interested in what is not only our greatest industry, but also our first and most important auxiliary force in the time of war—I mean the merchant service. Without it, our Army is useless for any operations outside these islands, and on it the Navy has to depend for coal and other supplies. I am sure we should all be anxious to encourage and support our mercantile marine and also to have a due regard for the welfare of those who man the ships of that marine. It has always been my most earnest desire that we should attach importance to the three aspects of the service—first, its national importance; second, its importance to the shipowner; and, third, its importance to our captains, officers, engineers and seamen, who are debarred from exercising the Parliamentary franchise although paying rates and taxes, and so have little opportunity of bringing their requirements before Parliament.
  We are all very well aware—in fact it is now a cry of "wolf"—that immediately anything is introduced to enhance the safety of the seafarer or to improve his conditions, there is a great outcry on the part of the shipowners against what they term further restrictions and burdens being placed upon them. The bogey of "foreign competition" is freely trotted out, and if the State proposes to legislate in favour of our sailors the shipowners predict ruination to our merchant shipping, just as if other trades and industries in this
  6
  country were free from legal obligations towards their employees.
  To take the debate on the Workmen's Compensation Bill in another place, I see that one shipowner stated that an additional burden of the kind would drive sailing ships out of existence, and if the measure was passed British owners would be better off if they transferred their vessels to foreign flags. Another owner said that if the burden of the Act was entirely thrown on British shipping the effect would be that competing foreign ships would be benefited to the extent to which British shipping would be handicapped. In the shipowners' deputation which waited on the Home Secretary, similar complaints of the kind were given vent to very freely.
  I am afraid that many of us are disposed to accept without question the pessimistic utterances of the shipowners of this country, without understanding in the slightest the conditions under which the shipowners of other maritime Powers carry on their business. It seems to be generally assumed that they have an absolutely free hand, but a greater mistake than this was never made. For instance, several of them are already required by the laws of their countries to grant compensation to injured seamen; and, furthermore, they are required to contribute to pension funds for their seaman as well as to adhere strictly to regulations as to Sunday labour and the number of hours during which their seamen are supposed to work. I think, therefore, that a Return such as I suggest would give us most useful information as to whether foreign shipowners are unduly favoured to the detriment of British shipowners.
  I do not think that at the present time British shipowners have very much to grumble about. According to the estimate of the marine insurance correspondents of The Times the carrying capacity of the mercantile marine has been increased to the extent of from 2 per cent, to 3 per cent, by the revision of the load-line regulations. Under the Merchant Shipping Bill the "safety" regulations are to be imposed upon foreign ships in British waters, and furthermore, under the self-same Bill it is proposed that the permissible deck-loads carried in the winter-time shall be increased. I see that one shipping

  7
  company says that under the new regulations as to the load-line the fact of their ships being able to load deeper will mean an increase in their freight returns of about 5 per cent.
  To show that things are not as black as they are painted by British shipowners I would like to quote a few remarks from one who occupies a foremost position amongst them. I refer to Mr. W. Runciman, father of an esteemed member of His Majesty's Government, who, in addressing his shareholders, said:—
  "So far as shipping was concerned, he thought the indications were that we would have a fairly good year. He did not commit himself to saying that we were going to have any better results than the last, but he thought it would be no worse. To show his confidence in that view he was investing largely in shipping. He did not know anything that paid better than a shipping investment, taking it all round."
  Touching upon the subject of discipline, I may say that one of the greatest evils in the merchant service is the deplorable amount of insubordination which exists. Both the shipowners, as represented by the Shipping Federation, and the Merchant Service Guild, as representing captains and officers, are cordially in agreement with me in this. It is stated to be due to the fact that our shore authorities show most mistaken leniency in dealing with delinquents, and that there are no really effective powers for preserving discipline. For instance, if a seaman signs an agreement to serve in a vessel and fails to join her, all that can be done with him is that his discharge book is marked "voyage not completed." If a seaman in the merchant service uses insulting or mutinous language towards his superior officer he is liable to a fine of 5s. If he committed a similar offence in the Royal Navy it might very easily mean a couple of years' imprisonment. Seamen and firemen desert in a wholesale manner in ports abroad, and the prosperity of the shipping industry is very seriously injured by the deplorable amount of insubordination existing.
  We hear very little of lack of discipline on board foreign ships, and I am very much inclined to believe that it is because other countries take great care that the vitally important factor of discipline at sea is given special attention. Therefore, if we can get some reliable information as to the regulations of foreign maritime
  8
  countries in this respect, it might give us the means of elucidating what is a very serious problem in connection with our own merchant service. Altogether a Return of the kind I ask for would be most enlightening and of great use, simply because we, and I do not except British shipowners, are very much in the dark as to the exact obligations of foreign shipowners to their seamen.
  I have found a useful precedent for what I desire in the Commercial Return, No. 4, 1895, in which is given the educational standard required for candidates for positions as masters, mates and engineers in certain foreign navies. The necessary information was supplied by Her late Majesty's representatives at Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburgh, Brussels, the Hague, Stockholm and Washington, so I hope that His Majesty's Government will enter no objections to obtaining the information in a similar way and giving the Return which I have asked for.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Italy, Russia, Denmark, Spain, Austro-Hungary, Netherlands, Greece, and; Belgium towards their captains, officers, and seamen with regard to the following:—Old age pensions, pensions to widows and orphans, accident compensation, Sunday labour, daily hours of labour at sea and in port, payment for work performed in excess of fixed hours of labour, medical treatment, accommodation, and passages of distressed seamen; also including in such a Return the regulations of these different countries for the preservation of discipline on board their merchant ships.—(Lord Muskerry.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend I have to say that His Majesty's Government have no objection to granting the major part of the Return moved for. I would ask my noble friend to leave out Spain and Japan. There are several reasons why these Returns are hard to obtain; and I should also be glad if the noble Lord would omit the last few lines with reference to the regulations of the different countries for the preservation of discipline on board their merchant ships. If these lines were

  9
  omitted the Return would be able to be presented much sooner than would otherwise be the case. However, I do not press my noble friend on that point, and if he wishes them to remain on the Paper I have no objection to the granting of the Return in that form.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I accept the exclusion of the two countries named by the noble Lord.
  On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS (REGISTRATION OF PATENT AGENTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Report of Amendments received.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for bringing forward Amendments at the present time, but my excuse must be my want of knowledge of the procedure of your Lordships' House. The object of my first Amendment is to provide that the penalty shall be imposed only if the title is used "with intent to deceive." This Amendment was not moved last year, but a letter to that effect was written to the Board of Trade by Lord Halsbury, who suggested that the Bill should be amended in the way now pro posed. Communication was opened with the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, and he consequently then with drew the Bill. I understand that the present Lord Chancellor is also in favour of this Amendment. As the Bill stands at present, a person prosecuting under it could get a conviction if a person other than a registered patent agent held himself out to be a patent expert or used any of the other titles referred to. The words which I propose by this Amendment to insert would make it necessary also to prove that the title was used with intent to deceive. The Board of Trade would like to make a suggestion. They think it would be a good thing if the Patent Office were in some way able to discriminate so as to be in a position to refuse to deal with persons who had been guilty of misconduct.
  Amendment moved.
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'If' to insert the words 'with intent to deceive.'"— (The Earl of Granard.)
  LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment which has just been moved on behalf of the Board of Trade, the effect of which would be practically to destroy the purpose of the Bill. If my noble friend's Amendment is carried, I cannot conceive of any conditions in which a prosecution would be possible. Before a man holding himself out to be a patent export could come within the Act he must by this Amendment use the title with intent to deceive. What does intent to deceive mean? A man who has been struck off the list of patent agents for disgraceful professional conduct continues to practise, using the title patent expert instead of patent agent. He describes himself to persons as an expert. He has perhaps devoted all his life to this business, and therefore is an expert. I have in my hand the actual advertisement of a man who has been struck off the roll of patent agents for disgraceful professional conduct and who is now issuing the same advertisement as before, simply substituting the word "expert" for "agent." He has a perfect right to say he is an expert, and if this Amendment is inserted he will not be touched under the Bill, for he would not be deceiving anyone by saying he was an expert. This is the very class of case which the Bill was framed to hit, and if the words proposed by the noble Earl are inserted the Bill becomes waste paper. If that pleases the Board of Trade so be it, but at any rate the object with which the Bill was introduced will be entirely destroyed.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I desire to join in the appeal of the noble and learned Lord, and to ask His Majesty's Government not to insist on this Amendment. I have had this matter before me officially and unofficially for many years, and I sent a Memorandum to the Board of Trade which led to this class of legislation being suggested. If these words are inserted, not only will the Bill fail to be of any use, but there will be no possibility of protecting those persons who do get taken in by fraudulent patent agents. There is already in the ninth line of the Bill the word "knowingly." Therefore to constitute an offence under the Bill not only must a man who is not qualified call himself a patent agent, but he must have knowingly done so. The word "knowingly" in the clause would

  11
  prevent any person being hit for an innocent mistake; but the words "intent to deceive "would give no protection to the public. I had for many years a great deal to do with patent agents and the patent law, and I know what the mischief is. I should like to add that in regard to previous Bills in connection with which I had the honour of advising the Board of Trade dealing with the prevention of the improper use of titles, I am not aware of these words having been inserted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I take exactly the same view on this subject as was expressed last year by the noble and learned Earl who preceded me in my present Office, that this is a class of legislation which, though it may be necessary and beneficial, has to be safeguarded against abuse. The Act of 1888 enacts that if a man describes himself as a patent agent and is not registered he may be prosecuted. That is a kind of legislation which, as I say, ought to be rather carefully watched. It turns out that people avoid the use of the precise term "patent agent," but represent themselves as such by employing other titles. Thereupon my noble and learned friend proposes in this Bill that if any person other than a registered patent agent knowingly takes or uses, whether by description on his place of business or elsewhere, or by advertisement, or in or on any paper or document, or otherwise, and whether in his own name or any other name, the title of agent for obtaining patents, or patent registration agent, or patent attorney, or inventor's agent, or patent expert, or any other name, title, addition, or description stating or implying that he is a patent agent, or uses on his place of business, or elsewhere, the words patent office, office for patents, patent agency, or any other words implying in any way that he acts or practises in any part of the United Kingdom as an agent for obtaining patents, he shall be liable on summary conviction for each offence to a fine. The Board of Trade now propose the addition of the qualification "with intent to deceive." Unless it can be shown that a man does use the title with intent to deceive, why should he be prosecuted and made liable to a fine? I share the dislike which was expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hals-
  12
  bury to laying people open, by a clause of this kind, to conviction unless you can show that they committed the offence with intent to deceive. If they do not use the title with intent to deceive, I repeat that I do not see why they should be prosecuted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I feel very great reluctance in saying even a few words to your Lordships on this very technical subject, especially in view of the fact that the learned lights who advise your Lordships' House are not agreed as to what ought to be done. I have already had occasion once to be reproved by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—very kindly and courteously reproved, I admit —for venturing to hold an opinion upon a legal point, and I shall certainly not incur his reproof on the present occasion. The question is evidently a very difficult and very subtle one. We have on the one side the Lord Chief Justice of England and the noble and learned Lord opposite, who declare that no change in the Bill in this respect is required. We have, on the other side, the late Lord Chancellor and the present Lord Chancellor and the whole force of the Board of Trade, as represented by the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite. In those circumstances, my Lords, so far as we are concerned who sit upon these benches, we can hardly advise your Lordships to do otherwise than support the Government. They have access to the official advisers to the Board of Trade, they have the great legal acumen of the noble and I learned Lord on the Woolsack, and they have also the important assistance of the noble and learned Earl the late Lord Chancellor. Under these circumstances, so far as we are concerned, we shall not resist the Amendment moved on behalf of His Majesty Government.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My next Amendment, to leave out the word "knowingly," is consequential.
  Amendment moved —
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'knowingly.' "—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: The object of my Amendment to Clause 3 is to provide that this Bill, when it comes into operation, shall not apply to any person who was prior to the commencement of the Act bona fide practising as an agent for obtaining patents in the United Kingdom, and whose name is for the time being entered on a list to be kept by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade are of opinion that those who have been practising in the past should be allowed to go on doing so, but they also think there should be some means of preventing such persons being in a better; position than registered patent agents, who are liable to be removed from the list for misconduct, and they have, provided accordingly.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 1, line 21, to leave out from the word 'any' to the end of the clause I and to insert the words 'person who was prior to the commencement of this Act bona fide practising as an agent for obtaining patents in the United Kingdom, and whose name is for the time being entered on a list kept by the Board of Trade in the prescribed manner. (2) Every person who proves to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that prior to the passing of this Act lie had been practising as an agent for obtaining patents shall, on making application for the purpose within six months after the passing of this Act, and on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to have his name entered on the list unless his name has been erased from the register of patent agents or the Bond of Trade are satisfied that he has been guilty of such an offence or misconduct as would have rendered him liable, if his name had been on the register, to have his name erased therefrom. (3) The name of a person on the list may be erased therefrom on any ground on which a name on the register may be erased therefrom. (4) In this section 'prescribed' means prescribed by general rules under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, as amended by any subsequent enactment.'"—(The Earl of Granard)
  LORD COLERIDGE: I accept the Amendment, which seems to me to be an improvement of the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My next Amendment is on Clause 4, which provides that in and for the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, person includes a body corporate. I beg to move to leave out the words "unless the context otherwise requires."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'unless the context otherwise requires.'"—(The. Earl of Granard.)
  LORD COLERIDGE: What is the object of omitting these words?
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: The words are proposed to be omitted so as to make it quite certain that in this Act person includes a body corporate.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD COLERIDGE: The object of the Amendment standing in my name is to meet the case of a reconstruction merely, where the body corporate is exactly the same though legally it may be a different thing.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 5, after the word 'corporate' to insert the words 'and its successor.'"—(Lord Coleridge.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: I accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  VOLUNTEER RIFLE RANGES.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to discontinue the practice of contributing towards the cost of the construction of Volunteer rifle ranges. I have been prompted to place this Question on the Paper by a case which has been brought to my notice relating to some Volunteers in Essex. There is a Volunteer corps at Maldon who a short time ago possessed a range, the range was closed on account of its being unsafe, and in consequence the members of this corps are now put to great inconvenience. They have, I understand, to make long journeys to perform their target practice, and altogether they are subjected to considerable expense and inconvenience.
  Naturally these Volunteers determined to construct a new range, and the estimated cost amounted to between £400 and £500. I understand that about £150 or so was subscribed locally,

  15
  and thereupon they applied for Government assistance. Under an Act passed a few years ago, I think when Mr. Brodrick was Secretary of State for "War—the Military Works Loans Act—grants of money were occasionally made for the purpose of aiding the establishment of rifle ranges for Volunteers. In view of the ecstatic admiration which is so constantly expressed by members of the present Government for the Volunteers, they applied with confidence for a grant, and they must have been singularly disappointed when they received this letter, the chilly terms of which I will read to your Lordships—
  "In reply to your letter, I am desired to inform you that no provision is made in the Estimates for 1906–7 for Volunteer rifle ranges. A portion of the fund provided under the Military Works Loans Act was allotted for the purpose of grants in aid towards such ranges, but this money is now exhausted."
  It is quite obvious that this is a question which does not concern solely this particular Volunteer corps in Maldon, but it is one of considerable importance to the Volunteer force generally, and I am particularly anxious to obtain a categorical answer from my noble friend as to what the actual intentions of His Majesty's Government are.
  I may explain that I do not bring this question forward out of any particular solicitude for the Volunteer force. I candidly own, and I am not ashamed to admit it, that I hold the opinion that the establishment of the Volunteer force was one of the greatest mistakes that we ever committed; and for this reason, that so long as these patriotic men continue to give their services as Volunteers they will always be made an excuse by whatever Government happens to be in power for not urging upon the country to carry out that one measure which is universally recognised, except in this country, as being necessary for a nation's security. I really bring this case forward as an instance, and not an uncommon instance, of what I may describe as the absolutely contemptible spirit in which we face questions of home defence in this country.
  This is not altogether without its humorous side, because I observe that numerous eminent people, from the editor of the Spectator upwards, when they make, as they frequently do, speeches upon our military weakness, always conclude in the
  16
  same strain. They end by saying that, whatever happens, we must form ourselves into what they are pleased to call a nation of marksmen, and with this great end in view we are all invited to establish rifle ranges in our cellars or upon our housetops, or in any place that may be convenient; and I am only awaiting the moment, which no doubt will shortly arrive, when Lord Esher's military Duma, if I may be allowed to give it that name, will recommend that provision shall be made for shooting with pop-guns or air-guns in Ministerial anterooms, station waiting rooms, and many other places which no doubt will occur to them before they have concluded their labours. But when, however, a body of serious and patriotic men asked to be allowed to have a rifle range on which they are to shoot with real rifles, what do the Government say? The Government in effect, reply, "Oh you want a rifle range? Well no doubt, that is a very estimable desire on your part, but we are not going to do anything to help you. If you want a range, why don't you get up a bazaar, have a raffle or a jumble sale, or get the neighbouring landlord to let you have his ground rent free, so that you can shoot upon it?" Personally, I hold that this justifies what I venture to term the contemptible attitude of the country with regard to the question of home defence. To my benighted understanding there can be nothing more grotesque and absurd than to hand over what is admitted to be a public and a national necessity to a few public-spirited individuals. Either you believe in the Volunteers or you do not. If you do not believe in thorn, you had better honestly say so at once, and let us create something in their stead; but, if you do believe in them, and you are always saying you do, then I contend that it is your bounden duty to make them as effective as possible, to grant their reasonable demands, and above all, not to try and throw upon private individuals what is a public and national liability.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The EARL of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I must thank my noble friend for having also given me private notice of this Question, and I shall endeavour to give him a categorical Answer. I wish to

  17
  take the earliest possible opportunity of assuring my noble friend that His Majesty's Government, as I believe were the late Government, are very well disposed towards the Volunteers, and I am not aware that this Government any more than the last look upon the Volunteers in the deprecatory light in which my noble friend does. I am afraid, however, that my noble friend will not consider as satisfactory the Answer which I have to give to his Question. I would draw his attention to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on May 1st †in the course of the discussion on the Budget proposals. His pronouncement on the practice which had grown up of contributing to the cost of Volunteer ranges out of the funds provided under the Military Works Loans Act was very definite, and I fear no financial assistance from this source can be expected for such purposes in future. If my noble friend will refer to that discussion in the House of Commons he will find that the Military Works Loans Act was abused to such an extent that small sums like £and £5were lent for this purpose, to be carried over a term of thirty years. Neither has any money been provided for the purpose in the Army Estimates for the current year. While I can, therefore, hold out no hope that the practice of contributing to the cost of Volunteer ranges out of loan funds will be continued, I can assure him that the Army Council are fully alive to the importance of range accommodation for the Volunteers.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, we have no right to complain of the frankness of the reply of the noble Earl, but I think people interested in the Volunteers have a right to complain of the decision to which His Majesty's Government have come. We are quite aware that the money allotted under Military Works Loans for this purpose is exhausted, but I am sure the noble Earl opposite will do us on this side of the House the justice of admitting that when we, His Majesty's late Government, announced that we did not intend adhering to the general policy of Military Works Loans, nobody ever imagined for an instant that all the services which had previously been
  †See (4) Debates, clvi., 469.
  18
  carried out on Military Works Loans were to be dropped. It has been announced that no more money is to be spent on such services out of Military Works Loans, but that does not prevent His Majesty's Government putting down a sum in the Estimates and giving Volunteer corps on an average about half the cost that they incur in providing themselves with ranges.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I think my noble friend is labouring under a misapprehension. I did not make any statement as regards the future. I only said that there was no provision in the Estimates for the year 1906–7. I said I could not hold out any hope that the practice of contributing to the cost of rifle ranges out of Military Works Loans funds would be continued. That is quite a different thing.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am obliged to the noble Earl for the correction. I earnestly hope His Majesty's Government will consider very seriously the advisability of continuing this help to the Volunteers in the future, though I admit that it ought to be done out of Estimates.

  THE CASE OF MR. J. A. NELSON.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the case of Mr. J. A. Nelson, chief officer of the R.M.S. "Aro," who was tried in Sierra Leone and sentenced to nine months imprisonment with hard labour, for shooting a Kroobey, at Monrovia in Liberia, and whose sentence was subsequently reduced in this country, it would be possible to give instructions that in future where the officer of a British ship is charged with a crime committed in a foreign port, that officer shall be brought to the United Kingdom for trial, and not taken for trial, as was Nelson in the case referred to, to a colonial court. I wish to express my thanks to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies for his kindness and courtesy in the case of Mr. Nelson, and I beg to assure him that his action in this matter is very strongly appreciated, and will be gratefully remembered by the captains and officers of the merchant service.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, as the noble Lord has referred to the case of Mr. Nelson, I think it right to say that I have noticed some statements with regard to this case which might imply that I had thrown some discredit on the court in the colony. I wish emphatically to say, that in directing the release of Mr. Nelson, I did not intend in any way to reflect either on the fairness of the trial itself, on the judge who tried the case, or on any of the officers concerned. On the contrary, I endeavoured to avoid any imputation on the justice of the conviction, but having regard to the further information which had reached me and which was not before the court, I think I was justified in holding that the case was one in which the clemency of the Crown might be exercised, and I so humbly advised His Majesty.
  With regard to the Question which the noble Lord has now placed on the Paper, I have to reply that Section 689 (1a) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Cap. 60, provides that whenever a complaint is made to a British consular officer that any offence against property or person has been committed, either on shore or afloat, out of His Majesty's dominions by any master seaman or apprentice who at the time the offence was committed was employed on any British ship, the consular officer may inquire into the case on oath and send the offender in custody to the United Kingdom, or any British possession at which there is a court capable of taking cognisance of the offence. The section goes on to give the necessary ways and means of sending offenders for trial.
  I imagine it is for the Foreign Office to consider whether they would direct a consular officer, in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon him by the Statute, in all or certain cases to send the accused person to this country rather than to a British possession. But it would be undesirable to do so in all cases, because the witnesses would have to be sent home too, and this would cause great inconvenience, and in the case of native witnesses possibly danger to health, and if they refused to come the case might break down and a guilty man escape. Moreover, it is desirable that criminal proceedings should be taken as
  20
  speedily as possible, and it saves time, trouble, and expense to conduct them in the nearest British Colony. I have also to inform the noble Lord that once an accused person has arrived in the jurisdiction of the colonial court that court is required to institute proceedings in the case of any person charged with an offence committed in the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, as Nelson's offence was, and I know of no power, statutory or otherwise, to enable the case to be withdrawn from the colonial court.

  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL [H.L.]
  Moved, that the following Lords be named of the Select Committee, viz., E. Dartmouth, V. Selby, L. Bp. Ripon, L. Aberdare, L. Heneage.—(Lord Denman.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before the Motion is put I desire to say one word with regard to the proposed constitution of the Committee. No one could for a moment take exception to the names of the five Peers on the Paper, but I observe that the noble Lord who moved for the Committee is not to have a place upon it, and that it comprises no one representing or connected with His Majesty's Government. In an inquiry of this kind, it has, I think, always been usual for the Poor who moved for the inquiry to take a part in it. Presumably, before moving for a Committee that Peer had made himself thoroughly aware of the general bearing of the case, and he is therefore able to some extent to bring it before the Committee, and to guide their deliberations. If there is any particular reason for which the Peer who moved for the Committee cannot take part in it, then one would rather have expected that some noble Lord connected with the Government and in relation with the Home Office would have been given a place upon the Committee. I think it worth calling the attention of the House to this matter, and I invite an explanation.
  LORD REAY: As regards my not being included on this Committee, I should like to say that it is at my own request. The matter is not an intricate one, and the Peers who are proposed to be appointed to serve on this Select Committee are quite competent and able to deal with it.

  21
  I hope the noble Marquess will accept that explanation as satisfactory.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to ask what will be the terms of reference) to the Committee when it is appointed. I understand that the Committee will meet to-morrow. I shall not be able to be present at that meeting, but I should like to know, if possible, what the terms of reference are to be, and whether the Committee will have to consider this Bill and suggest Amendments or whether they will report on the whole question.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am disposed to join in the regret expressed by the noble Marquess opposite that my noble friend Lord Reay did not feel himself able to join the Committee. Perhaps in the circumstances it might be satisfactory to the noble Marquess if the Motion were to stand over for a day, in which case we might consider the whole subject further.
  On Question, debate adjourned.

  CHINESE CUSTOMS.
  LORD REAYrose to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could give any information with regard to the alterations which the Imperial Government of China intended to make in the administration of the Customs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Imperial Maritime Customs Service of China, to which my Question refers, controls not only China's import and export trade as carried on in foreign ships, but the collection of dues and duties on much of her coast Trade, her internal transit trade, her riverain trade, and some of her salt and other monopolies. The lighting and buoying of her coasts, the care of her harbours, and a postal service lately established are also under the energetic, able, and tactful supervision of Sir Robert Hart, the Inspector-General.
  The service has its origin in the Treaty with China of 1842, when a fixed import and export tariff on all goods carried by vessels under a foreign flag was agreed upon. The first war indemnity was secured on this revenue. About 1855 a
  22
  committee of consular officials supervised the Customs House at Shanghai. This proved so satisfactory that the system was extended to all open ports. The Treaty of 1858–60 increased the number of open ports and extended and readjusted the tariff. Subsequent treaties between China and the Powers have enlarged the field of operations, and at present forty ports are open to foreign trade with Customs houses under the Inspector-General's administration.
  The first Inspector-General was Mr. H. N. Lay, and since the early sixties Sir Robert Hart has been the distinguished head of this important Department. He is responsible for the efficiency of the service to the Foreign Office, the Wai-Wu-Pu, formerly known as the Tsungli-Yamen. He makes his Reports to and receives his instructions from the Foreign Office. English and Chinese are the official languages of the service. Friendly relations exist between the officials and the people. The duties and dues are paid into Chinese banks. When a loan was required by China for the Japanese War Indemnity in 1896–8 one of the conditions of the loan was the grant by the Chinese Government of a guarantee that the present conditions of the Service should continue so long as our loans remain outstanding, and that the Inspector-General should be a British subject while British trade retained its paramount place.
  A recent Edict raises the question whether the efficiency of this administration will be impaired. By this Edict Tieh-Liang, President of the Board of Revenue, is appointed superintendent of Customs, and Tong-shao-Yi, Junior Vice-President of the Board of Foreign Affairs, is appointed Associate Minister of Customs. All Chinese and foreigners employed at the Customs offices are placed under their control. This seems to imply that Sir Robert Hart is no longer under the direct supervision of the Foreign Office, but that he will report to and receive his instructions from this new Board. As many questions will have to be referred by this Board to the Foreign Office, the Wai-Wu-Pu, there will be delay, and there is considerable apprehension that the relations between the Inspector-General and the Government and of the Inspector-General and his subordinates may be altered.

  23
  As the good administration of the Chinese Customs is the sole guarantee for a debt of £40,000,000, the Powers who are the creditors of China are deeply interested in the maintenance of the guarantees of good administration and in defeating any attempt to weaken the authority of Sir Robert Hart. It is also against the interest of China that the financial credit of the country should be shaken. I am aware that His Majesty's Government have taken immediate steps to enforce the fulfilment of the stipulations of the loan contracted in 1898, and that the American Minister at Pekin has been instructed to join in the protest made also, as I understand, by other Powers against the proposed changes. I trust that my noble friend will be able to give the House some reassuring information on this very serious controversy, and perhaps communicate the answer—if it has been received—to the second Note of our Chargé d' Affaires at Pekin.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I "think your Lordships will agree that it was very natural, especially as the House will very shortly be adjourning, that the noble Lord should ask a Question on this matter, which is exciting such great interest in commercial circles, and, I may say, in other circles besides. My noble friend has quite correctly described the origin, position, and duties of the Chinese Board of Customs, which is popularly known as the European service. The Chinese loans of 1896–1898 have also been quite correctly described by my noble friend. The exact stipulation which those loans contain is that—
  "The Chinese Imperial Government under-take that the administration of the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs shall remain as at present constituted daring the currency of this loan."
  The 1896 loan was to be current for thirty-six years, and the 1898 loan for forty-five years. An Imperial Edict was promulgated at Peking on May 10th last, appointing Tieh Liang, President of the Board of Revenue, to be Superintendent of Customs Affairs, with Tong-Shao-Yi as Associate Minister of Customs Affairs. All Chinese and foreigners employed at
  24
  the various Customs offices were placed under their control.
  It will be seen from the nature of the Edict that a dangerous atmosphere of ambiguity was immediately thrown around the existing staff, and especially the superior staff, involving a doubt as to whether they were in future- to occupy the independent position which hitherto they had occupied. The subject received the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government, and they at once asked for an explanation of the decree, stating that they could not suppose that its object was to interfere with the powers now exercised by the Inspector-General, Sir Robert Hart, but that, if that were the intention, it would be a distinct breach of the engagement given in the loan agreements. The reply which very shortly followed from the Chinese Government was to the effect that they disclaimed any intention of not adhering to the loan agreements. His Majesty's Government understand this to mean that the terms of the decree will not make any change in the present administration of the Customs, but we were not altogether satisfied with the reply received and have asked for a definite assurance to the effect which I have just described. In taking this step His Majesty's Government are acting with the knowledge of the other Powers interested, with whose representatives His Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Peking is in communication. I believe the House is aware that Sir Ernest Satow is at this moment on his way back to this country, and that Mr. Carnegie is Chargé d' Affaires at Peking.
  My noble friend has very naturally asked whether the reply from the Government of China to the second Note has been received. It has not yet been received, but communications are still proceeding, and we expect a reply to the Note very shortly indeed. There is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government, I can assure the House, to allow this question to be involved in any undue delay. We fully realise the great interest which is taken in this subject and its great importance to the trade and commerce of this country in China, and indeed of all nations trading with China. We are acting in perfect harmony with the other Powers on this subject, and I include amongst them the United States

  25
  and Japan. If, however, the maintenance of the present arrangements is desirable, from the point of view of the trade and commerce of this country and other countries trading with China, it is, if possible, even more desirable in the interests of the Chinese Government itself. My noble friend indicated that as his opinion. The benefit and advantage to the Chinese Government of the present system can hardly be exaggerated. It can undoubtedly be described as a model of efficiency and economy not only absolutely and by itself, but in contrast with the confusion of the provincial revenue services, in the midst of which it is carried on.
  The training of Chinese by Sir Robert Hart and his staff, able to take the place of foreigners in the Chinese service, may doubtless be said to be itself in a certain way one of the aims of the Foreign Inspectorate, and it may be that in the course of time the Chinese Government may desire and may not be unable to administer this branch of the Civil Service of the country itself. But that day has certainly not yet come, nor do I think any one would be justified in saving it was even near. Meanwhile, no hand should be lightly laid on the Imperial Customs Service which has been recently, and, as I think aptly, described by a writer very familiar with China and its system of Government as the "one reliable and efficient administration, the one bright spot in surrounding chaos." I hope your Lordships will not think that in reserving any further statement I am acting in any way unfairly to the House. I feel sure your Lordships will realise that it would not be desirable for me to convey to the House the substance of any further reply from the Chinese Government until we are fully informed of its nature and are perfectly certain of its meaning.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the statement to which we have just listened seems to me entirely satisfactory. The announcement that the Chinese Maritime Customs were likely to pass under Chinese control created some thing like consternation in this country, and the consternation would, I think, have been even more general and more marked if we could really have brought ourselves to believe that the rumour was
  26
  entirely true. I rejoice that His Majesty's Government have put their foot down with regard to this most important question, and I hope they will keep their foot down, and that we may look before long for some reply from the Chinese Government less evasive and more definite than that with which they characteristically attempted to put off His Majesty's Government at first.
  A change in the administration of the Chinese Customs would be disastrous to air parties concerned. It would be most prejudicial to our commercial interests, which greatly exceed those of any other country; it would be prejudicial to the interests of other Powers who, like ourselves, are concerned in the trade of that part of the Asiatic continent; and it is satisfactory to know that all the Powers are at one with us and are giving us their diplomatic support. Last, but not least, as the noble Lord has truly told the House, a change would be disastrous in the interests of China itself. In the wilderness of Chinese maladmistration the Chinese Maritime Customs is the one oasis in which is to be found honest and scrupulous administration; and if that department were to be allowed to fall under the influences which prevail in connection with other departments of the Chinese Government, the Chinese themselves would be the greatest losers of all. We have, as we have been told this evening, a very distinct right to insist upon the retention of English management at the head of the Maritime Customs administration so long as our trade continues to be the largest European trade done with China; and I feel quite sure that His Majesty's Government will see that this right is insisted upon and carefully maintained.

  TURKEY AND PERSIA.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information in regard to the settlement of the frontier dispute between Turkey and Persia near Vazneh and Suj-Bula. I only wish, in putting this Question, to express the hope that my noble friend will be able to inform the House that in these rather delicate negotiations we have, as we had on a recent occasion, the diplomatic support of

  27
  Russia, which has also an interest in the settlement of this question. I believe that under the Treaty of Erzerum both Russia and ourselves are arbitrators in any difficulties arising with regard to the demarcation of this frontier.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, some additional apprehension was a short time ago rather generally expressed during the currency of the controversy with Turkey, now terminated, with regard to the Sinai Peninsula by those who had observed that, concurrently with those events, there was, apparently, a very disagreeable, and possibly dangerous question between Turkey and Persia with regard to the Eastern frontier of Turkey, and that there was a tendency on the part of Turkey to take the law into her own hands. I am glad to be able, in regard to this question, which is not one of such burning interest to us as was the question of the Sinai Peninsula, but is, nevertheless, a question of very considerable importance, to make, on the whole, a favourable and reassuring statement.
  The facts are these. A dispute has arisen between Persia and Turkey in regard to the boundary in the neighbourhood of the places mentioned by my noble friend in the Kurd districts on the borders of those two countries. Negotiations are now proceeding, and there is every reason to believe that an amicable settlement of the question will be arrived at. We understand that the question will now be decided locally between the two Governments, and we have received information that a Persian Commissioner has left to meet the Turkish Commissioner on the frontier. This, evidently, is the most desirable solution. The question has been treated at Constantinople, and the Persian Ambassador there has had the benefit of receiving advice from the British and Russian Ambassadors in regard to the matter.
  In 1851 Lord Palmerston proposed that the general line of frontier between Turkey and Persia should be traced by the agents of those two Powers at Constantinople, assisted by Commissioners, in conformity with the stipulations of the Treaty of Erzerum of 1847–48, leaving doubtful: localities to be settled in detail in the, future. The Russian Government agreed to this proposal, and the work of surveying
  28
  the country from Mount Ararat to the Persian Gulf was then commenced. When this was done, the preparation of a map of the Turco-Persian frontier, embracing territory 700 miles in length by from 20 to 40 miles broad, was put in hand. This work lasted from November, 1857, to March, 1865, and will doubtless be the basis of the present settlement.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.