Lords Sitting of 11 July 1907

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 followings Bills have been complied with: — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3). Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13).
The same were ordered to lie upon the Table.
London United Tramways Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.];(Fleetwood Victoria Pier Order). Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDIAN (TEXTILE FACTORIES).
  Report of the Textile Factories Labour Committee, appointed by the Government of India December, 1906, to inquire into the conditions of factory labour in India; with Appendices.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3856. United States (Philadelphia).
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND), 1906.
  Part II. Civil Statistics.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
  Tables which have been prepared in connection with the question of old-age pensions, with a preliminary memorandum.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1: —
  Lord MONK BRETTONmoved an Amendment which, while enabling women to be elected aldermen, would prevent them from being elected as councillors. He reminded their Lordships that the Lord President of the Council in introducing the Bill described it as a modest measure, whereas the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out that all the arguments which had been urged in its favour might equally apply in regard to the Parliamentary suffrage. Whether or not the noble Earl considered the Bill was an instalment of woman suffrage, he thought it would be agreed that the woman suffrage party in the country regarded it as an important measure, a conclusion which was borne out by the position it had been given in the Press. It was a curious thing that a Bill which actually did so little should attract so much attention, particularly when they had the example of the urban district councils before them, and found that on the urban district councils, which were the bodies most nearly resembling the county and borough councils, only two ladies in the whole of England and Wales sat as members. Whatever its object, the Bill would give a considerable impetus to the woman suffrage movement, and because he thought his Amendment an important one from that point of view, he desired to say a word on the broader question. The effect of woman suffrage in Australia had been to create a great disproportion in the representation of the different classes. It had been found there that the women's votes practically doubled the vote of the
  4
  Independent Labour Party, while it added only a comparatively small fraction to the vote of the upper classes, and a very small fraction to the vote of the middle classes. That tendency would be still more marked in this country, where the middle classes were far more numerous than in Australia. He did not wish in any way to suggest that they should strike a blow at the Independent Labour Party; he merely drew attention to the injustice of the disproportionate representation. He regretted that Lord Belper's suggestion for a Select Committee to inquire into the use of ladies on borough and county councils had not been accepted, as there was the greatest diversity in the various local bodies. In the recent debate Lord Londonderry had said that he knew a case in which a lady member of a board of guardians had been of great assistance, inasmuch as she had discovered that a child had no socks on inside its boots. That doubtless was a very useful function as a guardian, but it was no qualification for a member of a town council. Lord Belper had gone very fully into the functions of the various committees of county and borough councils, and had clearly shown that with regard to county councils only the education committee, the asylums committee, and the sanitary committee were those on which ladies could be of service. They were already on the education committee by co-optation; they might be of use on the asylums committees in regard to female lunatics; while on the sanitary committee there was the one small branch of midwifery in connection with which they might be of service. On the finance and the standing joint committees ladies would be of no special service. In regard to borough councils, there were three functions concerning which ladies would be useful, namely: Infant Life Protection, the Housing of the Working Classes, and the Shop Acts. The arguments in favour of putting ladies on any other committees would equally apply to the Parliamentary franchise. He regretted that the proposed Select Committee had not been appointed inasmuch as it would have shown what use women could be on the various councils, and the desire or otherwise of those local bodies to have their assistance. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack declared that the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee

  5
  would mean its loss for the session; consequently the proposal was not persisted in. It was in these circumstances he had decided to move his Amendment, under which county and borough councils would be enabled to obtain the advice of women on any of their committees. It would enable ladies who were members of the education committee to be co-opted on to the council, and thereby would meet the argument that ladies who had been allowed to state their views in committee should be enabled to reinforce them on the council. Further, county councils would be enabled to decide whether they wanted those ladies at all. One objection to the Amendment was that under the law as it stood, to be eligible for appointment as aldermen on county councils persons must be county electors. Therefore, the number of ladies who could be elected aldermen was very restricted. If, however, that was the only objection to the proposal, it would be very easy to surmount it, inasmuch as while the present clause was before the House it could be so amended as to enable county councils to elect as aldermen any ladies, whether electors or not. He believed that if the principle of the Amendment were agreed to, it would result in more ladies being elected to county and borough councils than would be the case under the Bill as it stood, as the number of ladies qualified to be councillors was very few, and consequently there would not be many aldermen elected. If the only way in which ladies could be elected to a county council was by being appointed aldermen, he thought the county councils would be much more likely to co-opt ladies who were now working on the education committees and to make use of them on other branches of their work. Therefore, the Amendment, reinforced by the further suggestion which he had made, would lead to far greater efficiency in the working of the Bill from the point of view of the Government itself. There was, however, one thing which such an Amendment would not do—it would in no way pander to the agitation in favour of universal suffrage. If their Lordships desired to amend the Bill for the purpose of improving the working of local authorities, it could be done in the way he suggested; but if they desired to pass the Bill in order to open the door a little more widely to the lady suffragists who were
  6
  coming along, his Amendment would not help them.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'a councillor or,' and to insert the word 'an.'" '—Lord Monk Bretton.)
  *The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe): I hope the House will forgive me if I do not enter into the somewhat wider discussion to which the noble Lord devoted a part of his speech—a discussion which I think would have been more appropriate in some ways to a Motion for the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading. In particular I do not propose to follow the noble Lord in his remarks on the question of women and the Parliamentary suffrage. Several noble Lords, of whom I was one, explained on the Second Reading of the Bill we did not admit that there was any real analogy or connection between the two matters, and 1 have no desire to repeat what was said on that occasion. As regards the Amendment before the House, I trust your Lordships will not accept it. In the first place, the form of the Amendment would not, I think, carry out the noble Lord's object. His proposition is to leave out the words "a councillor or," the intention being that the only office upon either a county council or a borough council which could be filled by a woman should be that of an alderman. But at present nobody can be an alderman unless he can be a councillor. Therefore, by striking out the words which enable ladies to become councillors, the noble Lord would also prevent them being aldermen. That applies both to county councils and to metropolitan borough councils. This, however, deals only with the form, and no doubt the noble Lord could devise words which would achieve his object in a different way.
  As regards the substance of the Amendment, I equally trust your Lordships will not accept it. The principal object for which I understand it is desired that women should be limited to the position of aldermen, is to avoid their being subjected to the turmoil of election. That argument was freely used on the last occasion when the question was before us. One would almost suppose that it was the custom in this

  7
  country when municipal and county council elections were going on for barricades to be erected and cavalry charges to take place. In ninety-nine cases out of 100 these elections are of the most quiet and harmless character, and have very little rowdyism connected with them. So far as the feelings of women are concerned, you must leave it to them to say whether or not they are too nervous or too frightened to take part in such contests. The noble Lord alluded to the analogy of the urban district councils, and gave that as a reason for supposing that very few women would be elected to county or borough councils. If that is so, the noble Lord will, no doubt, be perfectly satisfied. He objects, apparently, to ladies getting on to these councils at all by election, and if they do not stand, or if they are not elected, the noble Lord's view will be largely carried out. But as regards the curiously small number of women who have been elected to urban district councils, there is this reason for supposing that this small number does not represent what might happen after this Bill passes, as I trust it may. An urban district always hopes to become a borough, and it tries to be as like a borough as possible. Women cannot sit on borough councils; therefore, there is a distinct indisposition on the part of urban district councils and those who elect them to stamp themselves as being in some way different from a borough council by electing woman members. I can well believe that this fact has had a considerable effect in limiting the possibility of women sitting on those particular bodies.
  The noble Lord would limit the election of women to the position of aldermen—that is to say, only one-fourth of an ordinary council and only one-sixth of a London county or borough council being aldermen, the effect would be to reduce by three-fourths or five-sixths the possibility of women getting on to these councils. You have further to consider that you would limit it even more, because it is not proposed to increase the total number of aldermen, and the indisposition to stand for election so far as it exists at all applies also to a considerable number of men. There are always a certain number of men put on these councils as aldermen because they do not want to go through an election.
  8
  Either those men would have to stand out because of women being put on or the women would not get on at all. Therefore the limitation is really greater than appears at first sight.
  Another argument used was that the method proposed in the Amendment is the way to get the right kind of women on to these councils. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent women of the right kind being put on as aldermen, and I do not know what reason there is to suppose that the women who would stand for election would not be of the right kind, The women who went through the School Board elections, which were sometimes of a fairly animated character, were by common consent very much of the right kind. It is a very old argument—as old as the Reform Bill of 1832. It was always said that if you did away with the nomination boroughs you would do away with the chance of getting the right kind of men into the House of Commons. Whatever that argument may be worth, we now in all forms of government in this country rely to a very great extent upon the method of popular election. The noble Lord suggests that something might be done to enable women to be elected aldermen whether qualified to be councillors or not. That is a compromise we could not accept. It would be a very serious interference with the whole system of the franchise, and one which I do not think this House would be willing to make. It opens up a very wide question indeed. We simply stand on the ground if you once admit—and the House has undoubtedly admitted—that it is desirable that women should sit on these bodies, the burden of proof rests with those who decline to allow them to go through the ordinary methods of election. I do not believe that a very great number of women will stand or be elected to any of these councils, but if they desire to do so, I cannot conceive what sound reasons there are why they should not be permitted so to do.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:When this Bill was under discussion on a previous occasion I indicated to your Lordships—I hope with sufficient clearness—the reasons which led me to prefer, to the plan embodied in the Government Bill, the plan suggested by my noble

  9
  friend Lord Belper—a plan under which women should be co-opted to a greater extent to committees connected with these municipal bodies. We deferred the further consideration of the measure for a considerable time partly in hopes of obtaining from the Local Government Board information which might serve to enlighten us upon the subject. That information has not been of a very satisfying kind, but in the meanwhile we have lost three weeks of the Session, and the position of the Bill would certainly become much more precarious if we were to insist on referring it to a Select Committee: the course recommended by Lord Belper. But quite irrespective of that, I am bound to say that, having paid some attention to the arguments which I have heard, both in and out of this House, I have come to the conclusion that the case in favour of the Government proposal is stronger than I had supposed it to be. If I may summarise what I conceive to be the argument in favour of the employment of women on these councils, I would say in the first place that women feel that the councils are constantly in the habit of varying and reviewing the decisions of their committees, and that therefore it does not follow that because they have been fully consulted in the committees they have any opportunity of following up in the council the advice they have given and of obtaining adequate consideration of their views. There is also this to be said, that the subjects in which women are so largely interested are discussed, not in one committee alone, but in a number of committees, and it is only when the matter comes before the whole council that it is possible to take a general and comprehensive view of them. In these circumstances women desire, and I think naturally, to be in closer contact at one end with the councils and at the other with those by whom the councils are elected. They also plead, and I think with force, that so long as they are merely co-opted to these committees, they are serving, as it were, on sufferance, and that their tenure of office is necessarily precarious. Therefore, I am not ashamed to confess that I am to a great extent a convert to the view embodied in the Government measure. I have said these few words because they seem to be a natural preface to what I have to say in regard to the Amendment of my noble friend. I feel
  10
  that if this Bill is to be accepted, and if women are to be given a place upon the councils themselves, it would be an unwise and unfortunate restriction to say that they should serve only as aldermen. There is, of course, the technical difficulty which the Lord President has pointed out; but quite irrespective of that it is obvious that to say that women shall be able to serve as aldermen, but not as members of the councils, would be a very great curtailment of the rights to which they attach so much importance, and which this House, I believe, is ready to give them. For that reason if my noble friend presses his Amendment I shall with regret vote against him.
  * THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid he would not have intervened but for the fact that that was the only opportunity which the thirty-three Members of their Lordships' House who voted against the Second Reading of the Bill had of endeavouring to make the situation as favourable as possible from their point of view. The number voting against the Second Reading would probably have been considerably larger had it not been for the expectation of the appointment of a Select Committee. He believed that the Amendment, if inserted, would go a long way to meet the views of many who were opposed to the Second Reading of the Bill. If the number of ladies now serving on county councils was not greatly increased, it was extremely probable that all those who were now co-opted members of committees would be elected as aldermen, and so have an opportunity of expressing their views at meetings of the whole council. A cogent reason why the Amendment should be accepted was the fact that a limitation was imposed upon what a lady might or might not do. Under the Bill she was to be allowed to be a councillor, but although she might have all the necessary qualifications she could not be a justice of the peace. As far as he could make out, there was no real mandate for the Bill; he believed the number of ladies who wished to serve on county and borough councils was exceedingly small, and that those who had that wish had raised a very loud cry. He was asked the other day by a lady who was strongly opposed to the principles embodied in the Bill why the House of Lords had taken such a

  11
  favourable view of the measure; and this lady answered herself by saying that she supposed they were afraid that the gentle sex would repeat those persuasive measures which they had adopted in another place. He hoped their Lordships would not be deterred from voting for the Amendment even though they took the risk of having their proceedings disturbed as had been the case elsewhere.
  LORD JAMES of HEREFORDsaid he was unwilling to come into conflict with both Front Benches, and perhaps it was rather a hopeless thing to do, but he wished particularly to express his view that those who opposed the Bill ought not to take up a non possumus attitude, but should accept the decision of the House in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. He thought, however, that the discussion afforded justification for those who wished the Bill to be remitted to a Select Committee. Several matters had been raised which might, with advantage, have been thrashed out before a Select Committee. Those who opposed the extension of the Parliamentary suffrage to women did not in the least wish to hinder or restrict the good and efficient work of women in municipal affairs. So long as the majority of the children in the schools were girls, women ought to be allowed to assist in the educational arrangements. So long as under the Poor Law there were more female paupers than male, it was an advantage that boards of guardians should have the assistance of women. He only desired to see the utility of women's work extended, and the opposition to the Bill was not an opposition to the due extension of that work. He believed that if it were properly considered, the Amendment before the House would assist that work. The Lord President of the Council had himself admitted that if the Bill were passed, very few women would get on to those councils by popular election. What then was the object of the Bill? It was not to satisfy a sentiment, or to serve any political tactics, or any Party object. He assumed that the object of every Member of the House was to utilise, as far as they could for the general benefit, female efficiency and female control, and if the Lord President of the Council was right that they would not obtain any substantial number of women on these councils
  12
  because they would not go through an election.
  *THE EARL OFCREWE: They can also be elected aldermen under the Bill.
  LORD JAMES of HEREFORDsaid that the noble Earl's statement was that they would not get any large number on the councils by election. He had also said that municipal contests were of the mildest character and did not represent party strife. If the noble Earl would attend some evening about ten o'clock upon the 1st of November in certain localities in Lancashire or Yorkshire, he would find party spirit running in the highest degree and feeling excited to almost as great an extent as in a Parliamentary election. Further, if he would read the newspapers on the 2nd of November he would find the result of the elections claimed as a proof of the extension of party power on one side or the other, and as showing that there was a wave of popular opinion going against a particular Party. What was wanted upon these local authorities were good administrators, and if women were placed upon them they should be persons of good judgment and tact, and persons whose influence would be beneficial. Was it thought that the electors who entered into these political contests and followed the "caucus" would be good selectors of women of the type required? He would have thought that the councils themselves, who knew the duties to be discharged, and the object with which the assistance of women was required, would be far better selectors of the persons whom they should elect. The electors would simply select a woman because she wore a red or a blue colour, and not because she was a good administrator. If the method of election were insisted upon, they could only elect persons who were ratepayers. That would involve shutting out a great number of women whom they would wish to see on the councils. At present in most cases the husband was the ratepayer, and so married women would be practically shut out. Surely that was exactly the opposite of what they who desired to obtain the benefit of women's work on administrative bodies wished to see. The proposition of the Amendment was that the councils themselves should choose their aldermen, and he

  13
  understood that they would go further than selecting people who were eligible as councillors, and would appoint any whom they thought fit. That would enable to be appointed those married women who at present devoted themselves to educational and social work. These considerations caused him to think that the Amendment was well worthy of consideration. It would meet the objection of those who desired to keep women out of the sphere of political contest and controversy; it would enable county councils who knew the class of women required to select suitable persons. The opposition to the Bill did not arise in the slightest degree from any antipathy to the good work which women might do; in his belief they would do much to further that good work if they accepted the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid that the attitude of supporters of the Amendment was rather curious. They were opposed to the Bill and would like to see it thrown out altogether, and yet they supported the Amendment because they said it would ensure the presence of more women upon the councils. They freely admitted the good service which women could perform upon the various local authorities, but they seemed to forget or to leave out of account the great strength which people had on a representative body when they were freely elected. That was why he was in favour of the Bill as it stood. He believed the object of the measure was to ensure that women should not be debarred from asking their neighbours whether they would support them upon these councils, and it surely could not be a good thing to leave it entirely to the councils to co-opt women as they chose or not. He himself was an alderman and not an elected councillor, and he was sure his position would be much stronger if be were elected. It seemed to him that there was only one course open to the House. They had passed the Second Reading of the Bill and rejected the idea of a Select Committee mainly because the appointment of such a Committee would have meant the postponement of the Bill for this year. Therefore he held that they ought now to pass the Bill through Committee as it stood and not try to minimise its effect.
  Earl RUSSELLdisagreed with Lord James of Hereford as to there being no demand of sentiment for this Bill. The measure was demanded by the sentiment of ordinary justice for women, and it was that sentiment which led many Members of their Lordships' House to support the Bill on grounds quite apart from the question of whether or not women would do useful work on these bodies. The point of view from which women regarded the question was that they were cut out from a certain portion of public life. They were rated and taxed, but they were not allowed to sit on the bodies which had the spending of the money and the administration of affairs. Women did not wish to sit upon these bodies by the favour of the men already there. They wished to sit as ordinary members with exactly the same mandate and authority as the directly elected representatives of the electors. That was a matter of mere abstract justice, and women were entitled to that concession.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDagreed with the noble Earl that there was a great principle lying at the bottom of the Bill. But it was a principle which would lead to conferring the Parliamentary suffrage upon women. There was not one word which the noble Earl had said but would be equally valid in support of the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to women. He understood that His Majesty's Government had repudiated that view. Consequently they had two sections in the House supporting the Bill upon totally different grounds. He was amazed to hear Lord Jersey say that since he had been an alderman he had not had the authority and the confidence which he would have had if he had been elected.
  *THE EARL OF JERSEY: I said that I should have been in a stronger position.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDwas astonished to hear it. He could only say that that was not his experience. He had been a councillor of a county council for several years before he became an alderman; he had since had the honour of being chairman of that council for a number of years, and had uniformly received the utmost support and confidence.

  15
  He was certain that his being an alderman had not given him less power or authority than he had as a councillor. A very curious picture of municipal elections had been drawn by the Lord President of the Council. It was true that no barricades were erected or soldiers called out, but he had not known that that was the usual experience in Parliamentary elections. If the noble Earl had ever sat in the Lower House he would have found that a contested election was a very rough-and-tumble affair. The object of the Amendment was to save women from these rough-and-tumble contests, which did no good to them, or their characters, or their influence. He did not believe that the women of the country were increasing their proper influence by the modern fashion of engaging in work which had hitherto been confined to men. He did not mean to say that every lady who took part in public affairs necessarily lost that influence. It was a matter largely dependent upon personal character; but looking at the question as a whole, he believed that women were losing their influence through the modern fashion of engaging in public affairs. It was rather unfair to charge the opponents of this Bill with inconsistency because they supported the Amendment. What they objected to mainly was not the presence of certain ladies upon these councils; they all admitted that there were instances— he believed they were exceptional—where the advice, knowledge, and experience of women were useful. But what they wished to avoid was the friction and the hardening and roughening effect involved in passing through contested elections for seats on the councils. They were asked why, if a lady was sufficiently "un-nervous" to stand at an election, she should not be allowed to do so. His answer was that he would like her to be sufficiently nervous not to do it. His opinion was that if women shrank from public struggles and contests they would be the better and not the worse for it. All this legislation had a bad tendency from beginning to end. The Lord President of the Council appeared to have the very curious view that all urban districts aspired to be boroughs. If that were so, they must be the most sanguine of public bodies. A large number of urban districts with which he was acquainted were very difficult so far as area
  16
  and population went to differentiate from rural districts. They were somewhat more populous, and there were certain reasons which made it desirable that they should have urban rather than rural district council powers. But it was an extraordinary statement to say that they all aspired to be borough councils, and that that was why they had not elected women. The adoption of the Amendment would be an advantage as an experiment. He would have thought that those who were anxious to see women taking part in public affairs would have gladly gone step by step and proved their ground, and for that purpose the Amendment would have been valuable. If they were to embark on this new extension of female operations he supposed they must do it, but he hoped the noble Lord would divide on the Question in order that those who objected to the proposals of the Government might record their protest.
  *THE EARL OFCREWE: I do not desire to make anything in the nature of a general reply, but merely to touch upon two points which were mentioned by Lord James of Hereford. The first was in regard to my observation that I did not think the number of women elected under the Bill would be very large. That was in reply to a statement made on a former occasion that there was a risk in some cases of these bodies being swamped by women. As a matter of fact, while I hope there are some councils where a very fair proportion of women would gain seats, I quite admit that there are others where that is not likely to happen. I do not expect, for instance, that many women, although I should hope that here and there there would be a few, will be elected to' the councils of our great cities. Nobody would expect that there would be a large proportion there, but I was anxious to make that statement in view of what the noble Lord said. The second observation is with regard to the proposition that all women, irrespective of qualifications, should be allowed to become aldermen. If you are talking of revolutionary changes, I should have supposed that to place on a public body to spend the ratepayers' money people who are not ratepayers was an infinitely more revolutionary proceeding than anything we proposed to do.
  On Question, whether the words "a councillor or" should stand part of the clause,

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Halifax, V.

  Elgin, L (E. Elgin and

  Hill, V.

  Kincardine.)

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Knutsford, V.

  Eversley, L.

  Milner, V.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Glantawe, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  [Teller]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Allendale, L.

  Hindlip, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Armitstead, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Carrington, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Boston, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and

  Macnaghten, L.

  Craven, E.

  Kinghorn.)

  Muskerry, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Newlands, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Burghelere, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Onslow, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Russell, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Churchill, V.

  Dingy, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Esher, V.

  Dunning, L (L. Rollo.)

  Weardale, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Northbrook, E.

  James, L.

  Romney, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and

  Northumberland, D.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Mount-Earl.)

  Somerset, D.

  Westmeath, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Killanin, L.

  Camden, M.

  Cross, V.

  Leigh, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Monk Bretton, L. [Teller.]

  Goschen, V.

  Newton, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Ponson by, L. (E. Bessborough)

  Cathcart, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Barnard, L.

  (E. Galloway.)

  Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Barrymore, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  THE EARL OFCAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment to provide that a woman shall not be elected chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough. It seemed to him that though a woman might perfectly well be a councillor or alderman, it was not desirable that she should be put in a position where questions of order arose, and where it would be necessary for her to exercise authority. One or two ladies who had written him in regard to the Bill had declared that they would be content with a limitation of the
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 73; Not-Con tents, 46.
  kind proposed, and that they would not consider it as in any way derogating from the position they would obtain as members of the council.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'if,' and to insert the words 'shall not be.'" (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *THE EARL OFCREWE: This is not a very large matter—not nearly so large as that on which the House has just

  19
  expressed its opinion. The noble Lord proposes that so far as the chairmanship of a county council or borough council is concerned, a woman should not be eligible. We have simply gone on the analogy of the district councils. By Section 22 of the Act of 1894 it is provided that the chairman of a district council should be a justice of the peace, unless a woman or personally disqualified, and that is the same limitation and restriction that we have adopted in this Bill. My own view of the matter is that it is a pity to place any grudging limitations of this kind in such an Act. I do not think the cases in which a council, either county or borough, would elect a woman as chairman would be otherwise than rare; they would be so few, in my opinion, that the effect of the limitation would not be great. It is really a matter for the House to decide; I have no very strong feeling either way, except on the ground that as we are doing this it seems a pity to place any limitations upon it. But I am quite content to abide by the decision of the House in the matter.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped the Government would accept the Amendment. The noble Earl had admitted that it was not probable at all that a woman would be elected chairman of a county council; and it was even less probable that she would be elected mayor of a borough, and there was no doubt whatever that there were some public functions which a woman could not perform. That was admitted by the Bill itself: she could not be a justice of the peace, and it was proposed to exclude her from that office. There was no real reason, as far as he could see from the arguments which had been advanced, why it should be possible for her to be elected mayor of a borough. She could not be knighted, as all proper mayors desired to be; therefore, by the very nature of things, she was excluded from that which was the object of everybody in attempting to arrive at the position of mayor. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid there were two material and substantial reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted. By the division just taken the House had decided that in the matter of being elected councillors or aldermen women
  20
  should be on an equality with men. It was now proposed that quite unnecessarily they should go out of their way to stamp such women councillors with a special little mark of inferiority. It was admitted that the contingency was very remote, but the stigma was quite unnecessary. The second consideration, which ought to weigh very much with the House, was from the point of view of the local authorities themselves. The effect of the Amendment was really this: A council of thirty persons might be unanimously of opinion—it was unlikely, but it might happen—that a particular woman was most fitted to be chairman of the council, but Parliament interposed and said they should not have the right to manage their own affairs and elect their own chairman. He could not see why the local authorities should not be trusted to do what they thought best, and he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
  LORD COURTNEY of PENWITHsaid that while he did not regard the Amendment as one of practical importance, agreeing with the Lord President that it would come into operation only in the rarest possible instances, he thought there was some weight to be attached to the argument that it in effect declared that if a particular member of a county or borough council had shown herself so capable of managing business that the council desired to place her in the chair they should be incapable of doing so. He might give, as an illustration, an analogous case. As their Lordships were aware, many women were members of school boards. In one distinguished school board—a body not inferior to any in Great Britain—a lady who had served as a member of the Board since its inception, a period of more than twenty years, so proved her capacity as a woman of business and sense, and so acquired the respect of her colleagues, that, on a vacancy occurring in the chairmanship, she was elected to the position, which she retained down to her death. In such a case as that of Miss Flora Stevenson, were the School Board of Edinburgh to be disqualified from electing to be their chairman a woman who had proved her capacity for the position by her services on the board? Surely it was not worth while to make these little niggling Amendments! The

  21
  larger and better policy was to allow freedom of action to the councils themselves.
  THE EARL OFCAMPERDOWNsaid the Amendment was not of much practical importance either way. Personally he was rather in favour of it, and he would be guided in the course he took very much by the relative volumes of sound when the Chairman put the Question.
  *THE EARL OFCREWE: I am very much in the same position. After what I have said I do not think I should record my vote either way, but, under the belief that the noble Viscount
  opposite represents the majority of the House, I am disposed to ask my noble friends not to divide. Of course, if they are of a different opinion, it is within their competence to take a division. As regards the noble Viscount's statement that ladies were incapable of being knighted, I am not sure that he is historically correct. At any rate, there was one case in history—I am not sure whether it was in the reign of King Charles—in which a lady was made a Baronet.
  On Question, whether the word "if" should stand part of the clause,
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents. 49; Not-Contents, 61.
  On Question, the proposed words "shall not be elected" were there inserted.
  THE EARL OFCAMPERDOWNmoved to omit the words declaring that a woman shall not by virtue of holding or having held the office of chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough be a justice of the peace. He pointed out that this Amendment was consequential on the decision just taken.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word 'borough' to the end of the sub section"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported to the House.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 109.)

  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2: —
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved an Amendment limiting the power of local authorities to make by-laws for the regulation and control of hoardings and similar structures used for the purpose of advertising to cases where such hoardings or structures "exceed twelve feet in height." He pointed out that the effect of the Amendment would be to restore the Bill to the form in which it passed their Lordships' House two years ago and in which it was introduced in the House of Commons in the present session. The limitation had been a matter of general agreement and acceptance, but in the Committee of the other House the words were omitted against the desire both of the promoters of the Bill and of the representative of the Home Office. He
  24
  hoped the House would restore the Bill to its original form, in which it would do all that was necessary, and be less in restraint of trade.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 9, after the word 'advertising' to insert the words 'when they exceed twelve feet in height.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD BELPERasked what was the particular virtue of twelve feet. As far as he understood, the proposal related to those hideous advertisements which were put alongside railways and in places where they spoilt the amenities of the neighbourhood. If the effect was simply to compel those who erected the advertisements to make them 11 feet 6 inches instead of 12 feet, he did not think it would improve the situation to any great extent.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the whole Bill had been a matter of considerable discussion between the bill-posting industry and the promoters of the measure. Twelve feet was a very well-known height in the trade, many advertisements being printed for hoardings of that size. As the particular height was a compromise between two parties, in consequence of which the bill-posters withdrew their opposition to the Bill, he thought the noble Lord was well advised in seeking to restore the words.
  LORD BELPERsaid it was no answer to his question to say that two people had agreed to a proposal. Nothing would be easier than to cut off a few inches from the bottom of these advertisements, and if the object of the Bill was to secure control over advertisements, it seemed to him that that object would be largely frustrated by limiting the height in the manner proposed.
  LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGHsaid that, so far as abstract principle was concerned, there was nothing in the regulation as to 12 feet, except that many urban district councils and other authorities already had control over advertisements above 12 feet in height, and it was not unreasonable that, as the principle was to some extent established, general control should start at that height. He did not like to plead agreements made outside Parliament, as the

  25
  House might naturally say that people had no right to make agreements interfering with the freedom of either House of Parliament. The promoters, however, were under an honourable obligation not to proceed with the Bill if the omission of these words was insisted upon. The Bill passed by their Lordships two years ago contained these words; it was introduced in the House of Commons in that form, and those interested in the trade abstained from opposition on the understanding that the words would be adhered to. While he could not fetter the absolute freedom of the House to do as it chose in the matter, if the omission of the words was insisted upon the promoters of the Bill would be placed in an extremely difficult and delicate position, and would feel honourably bound not to proceed further with the measure.
  LORD BELPERdid not think the answer which had been given was a very satisfactory one for those who had hoped there would be power in the Bill to deal with the unsightly advertisements to which he had referred. He did not wish to wreck the Bill, particularly at that stage, but he would take the opportunity of considering whether at a later stage words could not be introduced to make the provision more effective.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to amend the provisions exempting hoardings and similar structures in use for advertising purposes for a period not exceeding two years, by substituting "five" for "two." The period of five years was originally in the Bill, and the case for its retention was very strong, inasmuch as some of the individuals interested in advertisement display had made contracts for a period of years, most of which would expire before five, but not before two years had elapsed. Under these circumstances, it being a matter of considerable importance to the trade he thought it expedient that the words; should be restored, and ho moved accordingly.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'two,' and insert the word 'five.'" —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to insert the following new subsection: "The expression 'pleasure promenade' shall not include any road or street mainly used for business purposes." He said that the Amendment had been suggested by the London Chamber of Commerce. Some of those interested in the trade feared that the words "pleasure promenade" as they stood in the Bill were too vague and might lead to litigation. A member of the deputation of the Chamber of Commerce declared that the advertisements in certain thoroughfares in London were to him a source of positive delight, and that he went along those streets for the purpose of looking at them. It was a somewhat curious taste, and the fear was expressed that such a street might be termed a "pleasure promenade." He thought the argument rather far-fetched, but the words could not do any harm, and in order to show that it was really intended to confine the strict regulation of advertisments to places which were for pleasure and not for business he suggested that the Amendment should be accepted.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new sub-section: 'The expression 'pleasure promenade' shall not include any road or street mainly used for business purposes.'" —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNpointed out that no allusion had been made in the course of the debate to the right of the private owner of a house or shop or land with which a local authority under the Bill might interfere. He did not want to defend the hideous advertisements which were to be seen in some parts of the country; he would be very glad if the Bill put an end to them; but there must be cases where purely business advertisements had been put up almost from time immemorial on private houses or at the corner of a street which would not be covered by the proposed Amendment.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that in the view of the Home Office the Amendment was somewhat superfluous. Roads and streets used mainly for business purposes would not in any case naturally become pleasure promenades, but there might

  27
  possibly be difficult cases. For instance, it was always a pleasure to walk along Piccadilly, which was also a place of business. Perhaps the noble Lord would think it better to reconsider the matter and propose words more carefully thought out in Standing Committee.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsaid he was in the hands of the Home Office, who had given him considerable help both two years ago and in the Standing Committee of the other House. Personally he did not think the Amendment necessary, but it was put down in good faith to allay the apprehensions of those who thought the Bill would unduly interfere not only with what they thought was legitimate business, but with things ornamental in themselves. With regard to that point raised by Lord St. Aldwyn, he could not conceive that advertisements which were purely temporary in their nature would ever be subject to regulation by the local authority. They must assume good sense on the part of the local authority, regulated by the superior power of the Government Department. He was anxious to get the Bill through with as little friction as possible, and if the noble Viscount would, at a subsequent stage, suggest words to carry out his view he would endeavour to accept them.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he would rather the words now proposed were not inserted.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that under the circumstances he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and if the noble Viscount could at a later stage suggest words which would not be objectionable he would be glad to consider them.
  THE EARL OFHALSBURY,in the interest of those who would have to decide the question, asked what was supposed to be meant by a "pleasure promenade." Could the noble Earl give an instance in London of what he considered a pleasure promenade where advertisements might be displayed?
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpointed out that the clause was not confined to London, but dealt with other places also.
  THE EARL OFHALSBURYsaid he had only mentioned London for the purposes of illustration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid he had been requested by the Borough Council of Islington to ask why the powers given to Scotland under Clause 5 should not be given to England under the clause now before the House.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHreplied that as first drafted the clause referred to had application to England also, but the Home Office pointed out that the law as it stood was strong enough to meet the case, whereas in Scotland it was not so. In England the owner of private property had sufficient power to stop the advertisements in question, but that was not the case in Scotland; hence the difference in the clauses.
  LORD BELPERsaid the question seemed to bear on the point he had raised earlier in the debate. The local authority would have power under the clause to make by-laws for two purposes —first, for the regulation and control of hoardings and similar structures used for the purpose of advertising when they exceeded twelve feet in height, and, secondly, for regulating, restricting, or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such places and in such manner, or by such means, as to affect injuriously the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade, or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape. Those two provisions naturally ran side by side, but did the limitation of twelve feet apply to the second? His objection would be very largely met if it did not. The advertisements to which he referred were those which disfigured the natural beauty of a landscape or injuriously affected the amenities of a public park and so on. If in those cases the local authority could absolutely do away with advertisements whether they were over twelve feet or no the would be to a large extent satisfied.
  Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he thought the point was so obvious that he had not mentioned it. The restriction applied only to the first part of the clause. There was no restriction as to height in the second subsection, except

  29
  that the by-laws had to be confirmed by the central authority.
  LORD BELPERdid not think the point was so obvious as had been suggested. The first part of the clause referred to hoardings generally, and they might be supposed to include hoardings in the places referred to in the second part.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  LORD KILLANINmoved the insertion, after Clause 3, of a new clause providing that it should be the duty of every metropolitan borough council within its own area to enforce the by-laws made under the Act, and to defray the expenses incurred in connection therewith. He had been asked by the London County Council to propose the Amendment, which carried out a resolution passed unanimously by that body. The object was to meet a difficulty which it was anticipated would arise. It appeared that in other Acts of Parliament, especially under Section 84 of the London Building Act, 1894, powers as to hoardings were given to and exclusively administered by the metropolitan borough councils. It was thought advisable, therefore, that the administration of by-laws made under this Bill dealing with hoardings should also be in the hands of the borough councils, otherwise there would be a certain amount of dual control which might be very confusing and lead to the inefficiency of the Act.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause, 'In the application of this Act to the administrative county of London, outside the City of London, it shall be the duty of every metropolitan borough council within its own area to enforce the by-laws made under this Act, and any expenses incurred by a metropolitan borough council shall be defrayed as part of the expenses of that council.'"—(Lord Killanin.)
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsaid he would like the advice of the Home Office in this matter. Two years ago the Home Office and the Local Government Board had a conference with the promoters of the Bill, and as a result of that conference the Bill, so far as it concerned the action of the local authorities, was drafted in its present form. Since the resolution to which reference had been made was passed by the County
  30
  Council he had received a representation from the borough of Southwark that if it were given effect to they would want something else. He hoped the Bill would not be imperilled so far as it affected the rest of the country by any contest between the different authorities in London. Doubtless they each had their own rights and privileges to conserve, and he would be guided by the advice of the Home Office, who had expert knowledge as to how far the different authorities were in the right.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he must ask the House not to accept the Amendment, largely on account of the dual control it would set up. The Bill provided that the authority to make the by-laws should be the county council and the noble Lord proposed that those by laws should be enforced by the metropolitan borough councils. The view of the Home Office was that on the whole it would be better that the body which made the by-laws should also enforce them. That was the usual custom in regard to bylaws of this description, and it would be advisable to adhere to it in this case. The powers with regard to hoardings given to the borough councils under Section 84 of the London Building Act, 1894, had no reference whatever to advertisements, but concerned the safety of the erections and the length of time they were to remain; hence there would be no dual control in the matter of advertisements. The Bill affected considerably more than mere hoardings. It referred, for instance, to the advertisements mentioned by Lord Belper, and it was not thought advisable that the metropolitan borough councils should have the control of those advertisements, for the reason that their area of jurisdiction was not very large, and it might very easily happen that the advertisements would disfigure a promenade or public walk in the area of another borough council than that in which the advertisement itself appeared. On the whole it was better that the matter should not be considered as one of purely local concern, but that it should be in the hands of a larger authority than the borough council. No request had reached the Home Office from any metropolitan borough councils asking that this power should be given them, and under the circumstances he hoped

  31
  the proposed new clause would not be accepted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHmoved the insertion, after Clause 4, of a new clause with the objection of making it perfectly clear that this general law would not repeal provisions in local Acts of special importance to the localities concerned. Edinburgh, for instance, had power to prevent advertising on the Castle Rock; and Dover had a right to restrain a syndicate from the other side of the Atlantic from advertising a certain preparation on the cliffs above Dover. Other places had local provisions of special importance to themselves, and while it was not certain that the clause was necessary, it could do no harm, and it would ensure that those places which had been foremost in securing their own protection would not be placed in a worse position than at present.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause: 'The powers and provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers or provisions of any local Act of Parliament, and the powers and provisions of any such local Act may be exercised and enforced in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed.'" —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6: —
  LORD KILLANINmoved to amend the definition by making the London County Council the local authority within the "administrative" county of London. He pointed out that the administrative county of London included portions of three counties.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 3, line 15, after the first 'the' to insert the word 'administrative.'"—(Lord Killanin.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Home Office were not responsible for the exact wording throughout the Bill, but in Standing Committee they proposed to move the omission of the words "and within the county of London outside the city of London the London County Council," as being unnecessary.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsuggested that as the Home Office were going to move certain drafting Amendments the noble Lord would do well to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DENMANmoved to omit the words "or Ireland" from the subsection defining the expression "local authority" within any municipal borough in England or Ireland to mean the council of that borough. He explained that words already in Subsection (4) included municipal boroughs in Ireland, and therefore, in order not to overload the clause, it was proposed to omit the words "or Ireland" from Subsection (2).
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'or Ireland.'" —(Lord Denman.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7: —
  LORD DENMANsaid the Amendment he now proposed was merely a matter of drafting, the substitution of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts for the Public Health Acts being necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 31, after the word 'State' to insert the words the Public Health (Ireland) Acts 1878 to 1900, 'shall be substituted for the Public Health Acts, and any references to a borough shall not have effect.'"—(Lord Denman.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. [No. 110.]

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL, [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order); Drafting Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Three o'clock.