Lords Sitting of 24 October 1906

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Metropolitan Electric Supply 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 Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; of parishes in Stoke-upon-Trent; Buckland Newton; Trustees of Church Schools in parish of Harting-fordbury. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition for amendment of; of Dorsetshire Voluntary Schools Association (signed by the Secretary). Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS).
  Statement showing number of voluntary schools, on 1st January, 1906, in urban areas with a population of 5,000 and over, in urban areas with a population of less than 5,000, and in rural areas in England and Wales respectively, and their average attendance for the statistical year ended 31st July, 1905, with approximate percentages to the total number and average attendance of all the voluntary schools in England and Wales for the same period.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 30th June, 1906, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871); together with reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE (STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, 1906).
  No. 625. (Foreign Written Press Telegrams)—The Telegraph (Foreign Written Press Telegram) Regulations, 1906, dated 16th August, 1906.
  No. 731. (Money Orders)—The Postal Order (Foreign and Colonial) Regulations, 1906, dated 29th September, 1906.

  LUNACY (SCOTLAND).
  General rules for the management of the Dundee District Asylum. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  *LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK moved to amend this clause by providing that a person should not be deemed a bona fide traveller unless the place where he lodged during the preceding night was at least six miles distant from the place where he demanded to be supplied with liquor. The noble Lord explained that as the Bill was originally introduced into the Lower House the bona fide traveller limit was fixed at seven miles. This was in accordance with the recommendation of Lord Peel's Commission, and it was also one of the recommendations made in a memorial to the Lord-Lieutenant from a very large and representative conference in Dublin over which he had the honour to preside,

  171
  and presented to His Excellency by a deputation which he was pleased to receive. Seven miles was therefore the limit which he as Chairman of that conference would naturally have proposed. But while the Bill was in Committee a compromise was made whereby the limit was reduced to six miles. This was agreed to by the contending parties, and the Bill passed through Committee in the House of Commons in that form.
  Subsequently, however, there was a great deal of obstruction on the Report stage, and the limit was changed to five miles in the case of persons residing or lodging within the five cities not affected by the Sunday Closing Act, leaving the limit at three miles for the rest of the country. This was the provision in the Bill as it now stood. He thought it was hardly necessary to comment on the absurdity of a man who had only travelled three miles along a road being considered a bona fide traveller. It appeared to be such a preposterous limit that he could not understand how anybody except those directly interested in the liquor trade could defend it. When he mentioned this matter during the Second Reading debate on the previous night, he stated that he was anxious to learn the opinion of His Majesty's Government. They were always told that the present Government were very much interested in the cause of temperance, and he had hoped to hear that if no objection on principle to the Amendment was entertained by them the Government would do their best to further the passage of the Bill so amended into law. The response, however, from the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government was by no means encouraging. He (Lord Clonbrock) did not wish to imperil the passing of the Bill, but at the same time he thought his Amendment was well worthy of consideration. He would very much like to hear what His Majesty's Government had to say on the matter.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 16, to leave out from the word 'person' to the word 'shall' in line 18; and in line 20, to leave out the word 'five' and to insert the word 'six.' "—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  LORD DENMANsaid it would be very difficult and he would not attempt to
  172
  refute the arguments which Lord Clonbrock had used in favour of his Amendment. Indeed, he thought that the great majority of their Lordships would prefer to see the larger limit inserted in the Bill. But he must again remind the noble Lord that this was a case where there had been a compromise. It certainly appeared somewhat inconsistent, but compromises were frequently inconsistent, and in this case he did not see how it was to be avoided. He would remind the noble Lord that this was a private Bill, and it was quite impossible for the Government to undertake to give time in the other House for what would become a highly contentious measure. If the Amendment moved by Lord Clonbrock was inserted by their Lordships it would be exceedingly improbable that the Bill would pass through the other House this session. Therefore, on the ground of expediency alone, and on no other ground, he trusted the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that although his noble friend Lord Clonbrock had expressed his desire not to imperil the passing of the Bill, the Amendment now before the House would, if agreed to, have that effect. He (Lord Mayo) was in a most difficult position with regard to this clause, and he thought the best thing to do would be to leave the decision upon the Amendment to their Lordships' House. He had the greatest confidence that the House would arrive at a proper conclusion with regard to this matter. He had been assured that the Government had no time to attend to private Bills during this portion of the session. Therefore, if the measure went back to the House of Commons amended in any way it would have to drop. In the interests of temperance reform, although he admitted that this was a mild measure, he hoped his noble friend would withdraw his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he had not intended taking any part in the discussion, but being closely associated with Ireland he had had brought to his notice by the Irish Temperance League their sincere support of the Amendment moved by Lord

  173
  Clonbrock. He quite admitted that it was a question more for the Government than for private Members to decide on the present occasion, but at the same time he did not gather from the remarks which fell from Lord Denman any good reason for retiring from the compromise which he said had been effected, and which, as far as he could gather, had given general satisfaction in Ireland. The noble Lord had said that occasionally a compromise might be gone back from, but he would be sorry himself to make a compromise under such circumstances. While he did not recommend his noble friend Lord Clonbrock to divide their Lordships on the question at the present moment, still he thought they must bring home to the supporters of temperance in Ireland that if temperance was not advocated and supported in their Lordships' House it was due entirely to the action of noble Lords opposite. If his noble friend had gone to a division he should certainly have supported him. He repeated that if temperance was not to be recognised as the policy of noble Lords opposite, they, and they alone, must be blamed.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, with reference to the remarks that nave just fallen from the noble Marquess, I am afraid we cannot undertake to bear the blame for what he considers an indifferent attitude towards temperance. On the contrary, I think it is exceedingly possible that before this Parliament is very much older the noble Marquess will have opportunities for showing his enthusiasm in the cause of temperance, applied not only to Ireland but also to England.
  As regards this particular case, I say frankly that, personally, I should be very glad to see the Amendment moved by Lord Clonbrock carried. I think the merits of the case are with him. But when we are told that we have gone back from a compromise I must remind the noble Marquess and the House of what occurred in another place. When the Bill left the Grand Committee it was in that form which it would assume if the noble Lord's Amendment was carried, but in a full House a debate took place, confined entirety, I think, to Members from Ireland who were interested in the
  174
  Bill from different points of view, and in which His Majesty's Government did not take, at any rate, a prominent part; and I am not sure that they took any part whatever. It is a private Members' Bill and the Government were not bound in any way by the compromise which took place—a compromise between two opposing sections of Irish opinion displayed in the Grand Committee.
  Very reluctantly, as I understand, those who took the stronger temperance view acquiesced in the passage of the Bill in the form in which it has come up to this House, but they did acquiesce, and there was something in the nature of a second compromise. That being so, and in view of the assurance that the passage of the Bill would be imperilled by the insertion of this Amendment, I would certainly appeal to the noble Lord not to press it. He must remember, as I think the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Long, said in another place when speaking of temperance, that there is no subject in connection with which reform proceeds so gradually. That has been our invariable experience, and therefore I would join in the appeal to those who are interested in this question to take what they can get rather than jeopardise the Bill altogether.
  THE EARL OF MEATHexpressed himself in favour of the Amendment moved by Lord Clonbrock, but, in view of all the circumstances, appealed to their Lordships to pass the Bill in its present form. He was deeply interested in the temperance question and exceedingly anxious to see even this small measure placed on the Statute Book, and he therefore hoped their Lordships would give no cause to those who desired that no temperance legislation should be passed to oppose the Bill when it went back to the other House.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYhad two Amendments standing in his name on the Paper which, if agreed to, would have made the provision in question read as follows, viz.:—
  "For the purposes of this Act and the other Acts relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, a person residing or lodging within the metropolitan police district of Dublin, or any of the cities of Waterford, Cork, Limerick, and Belfast, shall not be deemed to be a bonâ fide

  175
  traveller unless the metropolitan police district or any of the said cities where he lodged during the preceding night is at least live miles distant from the place where he demands to be supplied with liquor, such distance to be calculated by the nearest public thoroughfare from the boundary of the said metropolitan police district of Dublin or the municipal boundary of each of the said cities, as the case may be."
  The noble Earl said he thought it would save their Lordships time if he explained that he intended to withdraw his Amendments and to support Lord Clonbrock's Amendment. The Amendments which stood in his own name would, he believed, go far to improve a measure which was in itself a step in the right direction, and a step towards establishing decency and order on the Sabbath. His Amendments would make the Bill far more effectual in removing existing abuses, but he was faced with the difficulty that if any material change was made in the Bill as brought to their Lordships' House it would seriously jeopardise any chance it might have of becoming law this session. In those circumstances he withdrew his Amendments and supported that of Lord Clonbrock, as it was based on the lines agreed upon in the compromise which took place in Grand Committee of the other House, and which was apparently reversed at the eleventh hour on the Third Heading of the measure. He hoped the noble Lord would press the Amendment, because it was the least they could do in the cause of temperance, and especially in removing the chaos which existed in the city of Belfast on the Sabbath day.
  *LORD CLONBROCKfelt that, after what had been said, there was no course open to him but to withdraw his Amendment. He did so solely in consequence of the attitude assumed by His Majesty's Government, and he wished to lay the responsibility, as far as he could, entirely upon them. If the present Government, with their large majority, would not move a finger to assist the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons in the event of the Amendment being carried, he could only say that he hoped they would hear less than they had of late of the fervour and enthusiasm of His Majesty's present advisers and their followers in the cause of temperance, and less of the moral obliquity of their
  176
  political opponents who were supposed to be swayed by the influences of the liquor trade.
  *THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I would point out to the noble Lord who has just sat down that he is not justified in laying blame on the shoulders of His Majesty's Government. If it is so very wrong to support this compromise in order that the Bill may be passed, why does not my noble friend opposite, who has quite as large a majority, if not a larger one, at his back than we have in the House of Commons, persist in and carry his Amendment? Nothing would be easier. The blame lies upon him as much as it does upon us. I have no doubt that my noble friend takes the same view as we do, that the Amendmend in itself would be advantageous, but its adoption would imperil the passing of the Bill, and that it is better to have the Bill in a less perfect condition than to lose it altogether. But to throw the blame entirely on His Majesty's Government is really the most unjust and the wildest proposition I have heard for a long time.
  THE EARL OF MAYOthanked his noble friend Lord Clonbrock for consenting to withdraw his Amendment. He fully endorsed what had been said by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. This was entirely a private Member's Bill, and one in which His Majesty's Government took no part whatever. He felt that the Bill, though it did not go as far as many wished, was a step in the right direction, and would have the effect of removing from the rising generation in Ireland many temptations to drink.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Remaining Clause agreed to, and Bill reported, without Amendment, to the House, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half past Ten o'clock.