Lords Sitting of 13 June 1907

Preamble
King's Norton and Northfield Urban District Council Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 5th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill, Reported, with Amendments.
Armagh Urban District Council Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Bill. Head 3a, and passed.
Grays and Tilbury Gas Bill; Brighouse Corporation Bill; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] (unopposed Orders); Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.] (unopposed Orders); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.] Order for the meeting of the Committee on Tuesday next discharged, and Committee to meet on Monday next.
Murphy Grimshaw's Divorce (Validation) Bill [H.L.] Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken before this House, together with the documents deposited in the case. Ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [H.L]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  INDIA (SANITARY MEASURES).
  Report on sanitary measures in India in 1905–1906. Vol. XXXIX: Presented
  1542
  (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION HILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I beg to give notice that, on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill on Monday next, I shall move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, with an instruction to consider and report whether the co-operation of women in certain matters of local government entrusted to county and borough councils might not be more effectively secured by methods other than election.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a" — (Earl Beauchamp )
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I am anxious to make a few remarks of a general character about this Bill before it is read a Third time. Immediately after the Committee Stage I made an appeal to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to postpone the Report Stage for a week in order that I might have time to consider Amendments to Clause 5. I feel that some explanation is due to the noble Earl, and, indeed, to the House generally, of the reason why no Amendment to that clause appeared in my name when we reached the Report Stage yesterday.
  When we were in Committee I endeavoured to persuade your Lordships that Clause 5 was a blot upon the Bill and moved to leave it out. I did not receive any support from other quarters of the House on that occasion. My intention was to refer to the matter again on the Report Stage, and to bring up a number of Amendments which would have the effect of very materially altering the character of the clause. On reflection, however, I considered that as

  1543
  I had no reason to believe that I should receive more support on that occasion than I had received in Committee I should only be taking up the time of the House unnecessarily if I brought forward a number of Amendments which were not likely to receive general support; and, at the same time, since my objection was to the principle of the clause I felt that it would be impossible to remove that objection by any Amendments which would leave the principle unchanged. For these reasons, my Lords, I did not bring forward any Amendments to that clause when we reached the Report Stage.
  I hope, however, that your Lordships will allow me to explain as briefly as I can some of the arguments which I should have used and some of the objections which I do feel to this clause. I am quite aware that we have already reached the Third Heading stage, but, for reasons of which the Government have offered us no explanation whatever, the greater part of the session was allowed to pass before the Bill was introduced at all, and I should like to ask, in connection with this Bill, the same question which was asked by Lord Camperdown with regard to the Bill we were discussing yesterday —namely, why it is that we did not see the Bill at an earlier stage in the session. The result of the lateness of its introduction has been that it has been hurried through its various stages in a manner which has made any lengthy discussion or careful consideration of its provisions very difficult indeed.
  The Committee Stage and the Report Stage were put down upon days when the House was waiting to discuss two other very important matters —the land policy and the Irish policy of His Majesty's Government. Anything like a full discussion, therefore, upon those occasions was naturally undesirable. At the same time I feel that there were probably many noble Lords, like my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who had an interest in this Bill from quite different reasons and who would have been willing and anxious to take part in discussions upon it if it had not clashed with other more important subjects. And I do feel that it is really rather absurd, in view of the many days in the year in which this House has nothing whatever to do, that any matter
  1544
  in which even one or two of your Lordships take an interest should be crowded out by mere considerations of time.
  I do not wish to appear ungrateful to the Government for having introduced a Bill dealing with the subject, or, indeed, unreasonable for quarrelling with them over what may appear to some of your Lordships a mere matter of detail in one of its clauses; but I do wish to make it clear, if I can, that my objection to this clause, my difference from the Government about this Bill, is one of principle and not merely one of detail. The point I wish to make clear is this, that in a factory or workshop which is carried on as a commercial undertaking and for purposes of trade, what I may call the convent spirit ought not to be encouraged. I hope I shall be understood when I use the words "convent spirit." I mean that attitude on the part of the authorities towards the inmates which treats them, not as free and willing workers, but as reluctant penitentiaries, without any will or freedom of their own, who have to be kept to their duties under conditions which are intended to be in as great a contrast as possible to those which prevail in the world outside.
  Whether the disciplinary methods of convent life are or are not the best suited to the improvement of character is a question with which we are not concerned hero this afternoon. It is a matter which we need not discuss in connection with this Bill. But whether those methods are good or bad for that purpose, I do protest against their being extended into the industrial part of the work of the convent, into the factory which is carried on as accessory to the other work of the institution. Where the work is that of a factory I maintain that it is the spirit, the discipline, and the conditions of a factory which ought to prevail there; and by factory spirit I mean that the workers should have the right to a statutory limitation of the hours of their employment, and that they should have a right to full knowledge both of the conditions under which they work and of the name and address of the inspector of their district. But these are exactly the points which are refused by the authorities of these institutions. They wish that their inmates should never see the conditions under which their labour is carried on, that they should

  1545
  have no knowledge of the fact that their work is subject to the inspection of a Government Department, and that they should never be questioned except in the presence either of the mother superior or of one of the nuns of the convent.
  Now, my Lords, the Factory Act was passed in the interests of the workers who are engaged in industrial occupations, and this desire on the part of the good sisters of those religious and charitable institutions to conceal from those who work under them all knowledge of the benefits of that Act is, I maintain, an absolute negation of the whole spirit in which that Act was passed. It is assumed over and over again —it was assumed, I think, in a speech which Lord Balfour of Burleigh made in the Committee stage of this Bill —that in the case of these charitable bodies there is not the need which there is in the case of commercial undertakings for the application of a law of this kind. We are told that they are engaged in doing the work of God, and that in order that proper industrial conditions may prevail, they are under no need of the incentive of the factory law. I yield to nobody in my admiration of the work which is done in these places; nor do I desire for one moment to bring any accusation whatever against the authorities of these institutions. I do wish, however, to say very clearly, that the actual experience which has been gained in the last two or three years by His Majesty's factory inspectors, working under a voluntary arrangement, has proved beyond all question the fallacy which lies at the bottom of that view.
  The Factory Reports in the last two years have contained evidence of the great need for the application in the fullest possible manner of the factory law to these places, for not only have the conditions which prevail in laundries under the authority of these institutions been found to be far from satisfactory, but in many cases the inspectors have found that the information given to them on the part of the authorities is altogether of an unreliable kind. I would just quote this one passage from the last issued Factory Report for I905. The inspector says —
  "We felt strongly that the information received with regard to accidents was entirely
  1546
  unreliable, and wherever we had the means of checking it we found it was not upheld."
  A little later on, speaking of Houses of Mercy, the inspector says —
  "With regard to the period of employment we cannot feel that our information is any more reliable than that obtained in the penitentiaries."
  The suggestion was put forward by Lord Balfour of Burleigh when the Bill was in Committee that whenever information of this kind was given which was contrary to the truth the institution in question should be struck off the list of those coming under the provisions of the Bill and receiving benefits from it. I maintain that, in the case of these institutions, if his suggestion were to be carried out a very grave injustice would be done. The breaches of the law for which they are responsible or the unreliable character of their information are not due, I am perfectly certain, to any wilful desire to mislead the authorities or to work hardly upon their inmates; but, whatever the motives may be, the facts remain, and it is because of these facts that I insist very strongly that there is a grave need for the application of the law to these institutions in the fullest possible manner.
  What the Government have to decide is this, whether or not the Factory Acts shall be applied in spirit and in letter to the industrial work carried on in connection with these institutions, and if they decide that question in the affirmative they must be prepared to meet with a certain amount of hostility and opposition on the part of those who are very apprehensive of what the consequences may be. But, my Lords, if they are not prepared to meet that opposition, if they are not prepared to meet and to overcome opposition on the part of the authorities of some of these institutions and those who speak for them, I say they had much better have left the question alone altogether.
  My noble friend Lord Balfour, speaking in the Committee stage, said, or implied, at any rate, that what I was proposing by the Amendment I had brought forward was something quite new and harsh, and unjust with regard to these institutions. I cannot help thinking that he must have forgotten what has been the past history of the matter, for this

  1547
  is not the first time upon which this question has been raised. In 1895, after a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, the Liberal Government which was then in power introduced a Factory Bill with provisions applying the factory law to the laundries carried on by these institutions, without any exceptions whatever. It is quite true they were unable to carry that clause by reason of the fact that their majority was entirely dependent on the Irish vote, but in those days at any rate they had the courage of their convictions; and to-day, when they are not so dependent, it is a very different Bill which they are bringing forward. But in 1901, when a Unionist Government was in power, a clause was carried in Committee in the House of Commons on their Factory Bill also applying the law to these institutions. Again the clause was dropped, and on that occasion the Unionist Party was subjected to the severest possible criticism on the part of Liberal newspapers and Liberal Members of Parliament for having, with their very large majority, failed to grapple with the question. I will give your Lordships a specimen of what was said of the Unionist Government in those days This is an extract from the Daily News of August, 1901 —
  "If this be a Government of social reform we can only say that most genuine reformers would prefer a Cabinet of honest reaction. There is no use in blaming the Irish Members. …The sole responsibility rests with the Government, who have given up what they knew was right rather than face an Irish resistance they could easily overcome. Mr. Asquith, in 1895, was in a very different position. He and the Government depended on the Irish vote."
  The present Home Secretary, who was responsible for this Bill, speaking in reply to a Scottish deputation, said —
  "He considered that the difficulty of dealing with institution laundries had been perhaps rather exaggerated, and that the opposition was such as would be likely to yield if the question were taken up with firmness and decision."
  Then in 1902 similar proposals were brought before this House in a Bill which I had the honour to introduce, and it passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House without a division. Those facts prove that what I venture to ask this House to accept this year was accepted by both Houses of Parliament in former years. It was not only accepted by both Houses of Parliament; it was accepted
  1548
  also by a large section of those who are responsible and who spoke on behalf of the institutions themselves. I have in my hand a letter, published in The Times in 1902, written by the secretary of the London Diocesan Council for Rescue Work, and it gave a report of a conference held by that council to consider the Laundry Bill which I had introduced. This is the resolution that was passed —
  "This Conference approves generally of the Bill introduced by the Earl of Lytton, but considers that the Bill should be amended in Committee so as to secure (a) that the notices to be published under the Act should in the case of charitable laundries be of a form appropriate to the special conditions of the institutions, and (b) that option should be given to the managers to ask for a female inspector."
  Then there follow these important words —
  "The questions of the hours of labour and the allowance of overtime were laid before the Conference, but no resolution was proposed, it being generally felt that no representation respecting these points was called for."
  There was nothing which was said against the Unionist Government in 1901 for having dealt without firmness with this question which is not equally applicable to the present Government with its large majority in the House of Commons.
  Clause 5 of this Bill is a surrender of the whole position. It brings these institutions within the law, and it leaves the convent spirit paramount in them just as it was before. As the Bill stands no abstract of the conditions of labour need be put up in the workroom, none of the usual notices required by the Factory Acts have to be sent, and with regard to the hours of employment the whole matter is left to the discretion of the Home Office. It is quite true, we are told, that those hours are to be on the whole not less favourable than those of the principal Act, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill told me the other day that I ought to be satisfied with those words. But I am not altogether satisfied with those words on the whole. Can anybody tell me what they mean? I have no doubt the Government would say —they did, in effect, say the other day —that the condition of Ireland at this moment was on the whole satisfactory. They would, I have no doubt, also say that their conduct of the course of the Parliamentary business of this session had been on the whole successful. They would tell me, I have no doubt,

  1549
  that this Bill was on the whole a good Bill. The only conclusion I can draw from these considerations is that some thing which is good on the whole is at any rate not wholly good.
  And when I am asked to have this confidence in the Home Office I cannot help considering that their attitude, as shown by the drafting of this Bill, is certainly not indicative of that firmness and decision which Mr. Herbert Gladstone pleaded for in 1902. We have no guarantee whatever that the arguments which have already prevailed with the Government to withdraw from these institutions the obligation of putting up notices in their workrooms may not equally be used and equally prevail with them to allow the periods of employment to be so manipulated and so arranged that they can be used as a disciplinary measure to over come the resistance of a single recalcitrant inmate. I would much rather that these institutions remained outside the law altogether than that they were given the appearance of being institutions under Government inspection and subject to Government authority whilst the spirit of the convent was still left paramount in their commercial undertakings.
  It is upon that point, my Lords, that I take my stand. Where commercial work is undertaken for purposes of trade it should be the spirit as well as the name of a factory which should be applied. I apologise to your Lordships for having spoken at such length on the Third Reading of this Bill, but for the reasons I have already explained it was difficult to bring forward some of these arguments on a previous occasion. If the views which I have put forward have not been able to prevail in this House I am confident, nevertheless, that when this Bill goes to the House of Commons, if it ever does go there, very much the same criticisms as I have ventured to raise will be brought against it, and it will not be allowed to pass into law in its present shape.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, those who have followed the discussions of this subject will be aware that I am entirely in accord with the principle underlying the greater part of the noble Earl's remarks.
  1550
  As the representative of a large number of institutions connected with the Church of England —and, of course, I have no authority to speak for others —I may remind you that I have from the first welcomed the introduction of inspection into their industrial departments and the making of that inspection as thorough and adequate as possible. I welcome the play of fresh air and light on everything that happens in the industrial part, or indeed in any part, of these institutions.
  I venture to think that the noble Earl's speech to-night has left us a little in the dark as to what he exactly means by the introduction of the convent spirit into the industrial work of these institutions. I can only say that a state of things under which the inmates are kept in ignorance of their rights and prevented in some degree from letting facts become known about matters which are amiss, is not only not a state of things with which I have any sympathy, but I do not recognise it as existing in any of the institutions with which I have been connected. We want to have all our industrial arrangements thoroughly and authoritatively inspected. We have nothing whatever to conceal, nor any desire that mistakes, if such there be, should be shielded or excused. At the same time I do maintain, and I venture to think the noble Earl has a little forgotten it, that there are fundamental differences of conditions between factories and laundries conducted solely for the purpose of trade and factories and laundries connected with the kind of institution to which reference has been made. The noble Earl asked why the rules and customs laid down for the one should not apply to the other. In the main, my Lords, I hope they do. I desire the fullest inspection, every reasonable facility for complaints in connection with the management, and the fullest daylight on every part of the proceedings. As to the notification of accidents, I have obtained a declaration on behalf of the Government that rules on that subject applicable to trade laundries will also be made obligatory with regard to institutions. I am eager that the hours of work should be known to the authorities, and that anything which needs amendment

  1551
  should be amended. But, my Lords, when all this has been said, there does remain a fundamental difference between the conditions under which work is carried on in religious institutions and the conditions which quite properly subsist in the trade laundry. The object of the former is to effect reform of an educative kind. In the trade laundry, disorder or laziness or any other sort of wrongdoing is punishable, of course, by dismissal. But in the institution, the very object is to take in the disorderly and the ill-behaved and to train them, in spite of themselves, into reasonable, wholesome, and orderly workers. Surely, therefore, it is obvious that some of the rules which are applicable to the trade laundry require a little modification before they are applied exactly as they stand to these educative institutions. I entirely agree, however, that that modification should not be such as to interfere with freedom of examination and inquiry on the part of those who are qualified and commissioned to see that all is as it ought to be.
  After studying the Bill with all the care I can, I fail to see any probability that, on the whole, it will make wrong things possible which could have been avoided by another mode of wording. It is a question of administration, and if the administration be found to work badly I should be the first to desire to see a further remedy applied. I should deeply regret it if anything were done now which should throw this whole reform back. It does seem to me that, whether the words which regulate the special arrangements are exactly what we should have chosen or not, we have gained something in that we have secured the necessity of Government inspection for every laundry connected with these institutions, and that there shall be only such modifications with regard to notices and rules as the Home Secretary, subject to the pressure of public opinion, which will, I know, be watchful, feels to be right and necessary. After the assurances which the noble Earl has given us, I fully believe that we may trust the Home Office to deal with the matter fairly, that we may trust the inspectors to act with common sense and judgment, and that the best and wisest women among those connected with our institutions will be ready, after a short
  1552
  experience, to welcome the results of this legislation.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble Earl opposite began his remarks with a question and a complaint, with which I should like to deal first. He asked why the Bill had been introduced so late, and I think my reply must be based upon the speech which was made by the Prime Minister in another place. The Prime Minister explained how great a pressure the autumn session of last year had placed upon the public Departments, and how difficult it had been for them, in view of the extra work entailed by Parliament sitting throughout the autumn, to draft their Bills in time to be introduced early in the present session.
  Then I come to the complaint that we had rather hurried this Bill through. I am afraid I cannot plead guilty. This Bill was introduced and read a first time on 2nd May, and I do not think, that as to-day is the 13th of June, it is quite fair to charge His Majesty's Government with having hurried the measure through your Lordships' House. Let me remind the noble Earl of what, after all, is the principle underlying the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter. The noble Earl's remarks dealt chiefly with Clause 5. I think I may fairly ask your Lordships to remember that up to the present time there has been no effective inspection of institution laundries at all, though there has been a little voluntary inspection in some; and this Bill introduces effective inspection for the first time. In the circumstances, it was thought, and I think not unnaturally thought, that some elasticity was necessary, seeing that to put rigid conditions on all these institutions would arouse opposition and be fatal to the Bill in another place.
  The noble Earl commented on the great difference between the factory spirit and the convent spirit. I think the most rev. Primate has already dealt effectively with that point. I cannot see, however, that it is impossible for the two to be combined. In so far as the factory spirit means that you desire to protect your workers, and the convent spirit means that you wish to improve their character, it does not seem to me

  1553
  to be impossible in these institutions to combine the two under the elastic conditions provided by His Majesty's Government in this Bill. The complaint of the noble Earl was chiefly that the rules and regulations for the management of these laundries were not to be fixed in a prominent place in the laundries themselves. I venture to think that that is, after all, a very small matter as compared with the more important points —the hours at which they are to work, and effective inspection —which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, are provided for in the Bill.
  One of the most brilliant speeches ever delivered in your Lordships' House was made some years ago in moving or seconding the Address, and in it the noble Lord who was then speaking made special fun of some of his opponents on the ground of their gloomy predictions. He spoke of them as having created, not castles in the' air, but dungeons in the air. The noble Earl who initiated this discussion may remember that phrase, as it was one of his own, and I could not help thinking, as I listened to him this afternoon, that he himself was full of somewhat unnecessarily gloomy predictions as to what might be the result of this clause. It will be obvious to your Lordships that it is in the first place expedient that the Government should do all they can to meet the wishes of the institutions in this matter. As I say, they come under inspection for the first time, and it is not unnatural that some of them should be somewhat timorous of the results of that inspection. I think it is only expedient, therefore, that such provisions as can be placed in the Bill should be placed there in order to allay their fears, and I venture to think it is also in the circumstances right that there should be this greater elasticity allowed. His Majesty's Government in this matter have been guided by the experience of these institutions, who have asked for these provisions to be introduced into the clause, and for my own part I cannot associate myself with the noble Earl in his somewhat gloomy predicaments as to the results.
  In common with all those who are interested in this question. I regret that the noble Earl should not be able to give
  1554
  us a more wholehearted support of this measure. I had hoped that he would at any rate have associated himself with the most rev. Primate, who is able to give the Bill hearty approval, even though that approval is slightly qualified. But I trust that the noble Earl will carefully watch the effect of the s Bill if it becomes an Act, and I have very little doubt indeed that after he has watched it for some time he will come to the conclusion that the general advantages which it does confer on the workers in these factories far outweigh the fears which he, somewhat unnecessarily in my opinion, has expressed to your Lordships this afternoon.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed; and sent to the Commons.

PROHIBITION OF MEDICAL PRACTICE BY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  DENTAL COMPANIES (RESTRICTIONS OF PRACTICE) BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee (with Proceedings of the Committee), made, and to be printed. (No. 72): Prohibition of Medical Practice by Companies Bill [H.L.] reported without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House: Dental Companies (Restrictions of Practice) Bill [H.L.] reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 73): Minutes of Evidence and an appendix laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSION.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government if they can state how much longer the Royal Commission on the Duties of the Metropolitan Police is expected to sit, and whether any facts of importance have been elicited hitherto. I have put this Question on the Paper because I am quite unable myself to understand for what

  1555
  reason this Commission is now sitting. If it was appointed for the purpose of discovering that the police are human beings like everybody else and liable to make mistakes occasionally, it was unnecessary, and it was equally so if the purpose was to demonstrate that the Metropolitan Police are the best body of police in the civilised world. These are facts with which everyone is perfectly familiar. The immediate cause of the appointment of the Commission was a mistake made in the case of a lady of French nationality, and it is hardly credible, but nevertheless true, that this much-maligned person has not appeared before the Commission. Nearly the whole of the time of the Commission has been occupied in listening to tales told them by bookmakers, loafers, and persons whose professions and avocations are perhaps better left undescribed, and it has resolved itself into a vague, fishing kind of inquiry. In view of the terms of the reference to this Commission, which was appointed —
  "To inquire into and report upon the duties of the Metropolitan Police in dealing with eases of drunkenness, disorder, and solicitation in the streets, and the manner in which these duties are discharged,"
  it is perfectly obvious that it may go on indefinitely. At the beginning of the session I inquired privately of my noble friend who represents the Home Office whether the inquiry was shortly coming to an end, and he informed me that he was under the impression that it was about to terminate. I wish now to ask how many days the Commission has sat, how much it has cost up to now, and whether, in the opinion of the Home Office, any single fact of any importance has been elicited in evidence, and whether, in short, the noble Earl considers that anything worth the cost of a single day's sitting has yet been elicited by the Commission? It is a curious fact that, whereas our Metropolitan Police force appears to be the envy of every other nation —and foreigners are never tired of expressing their admiration for the methods by which something like 15,000 men control a population of 6,000,000, including some of the worst ruffians on the face of the earth —we are at the present moment apparently endeavouring to discredit the force by haling them,
  1556
  as if they were criminals, before the Commission in question and putting all sorts of ridiculous questions to them. If an inquiry into the condition of the police force is necessary, it should be conducted in the ordinary way by means of a departmental Committee. A fishing inquiry of this kind can only exercise a demoralising effect on the police. I hope my noble friend will be able to give me an assurance that this long-drawn-out farce is coming to a conclusion.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that the Royal Commission do not expect that it will be necessary to hold more than a few further sittings for the taking of evidence. They began to sit on 17th July of last year; and they have held fifty-seven sittings for the taking of evidence since that time. I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question as to cost, as that has not yet been accurately ascertained. The Commissioners are of opinion that the inquiry is not one which in the interests of the public should be prolonged for a longer time than is necessary to discharge; the duties imposed upon them; and they propose to present their Report and the bulk of the evidence as soon as the difficult and delicate character of the inquiry will permit. With regard to the expression of opinion invited from me by the noble Lord on the kind of information elicited, he will at once see that it is impossible for anybody who represents the Home Office to express such an opinion at the present time. The inquiry relates to a body of men under the control of the Home Office, and it would be very inadvisable that the Home Office should, before the presentation of the Report, express an opinion on the matter, which is still, so to speak, sub judice.

  HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
  EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the following Lords be named of the Select Committee to consider the suggestions which have from time to time been made for increasing the efficiency of the House of Lords in matters affecting legislation, and to report as to the desirability of adopting them either in their original or in some modified form.

  1557
  Moved, that the following Lords be named of the Select Committee —

  L. Abp. of Canter bury.

  V. Selby.

  V. St. Aldwyn.

  D. Norfolk.

  L. Clinton.

  D. Bedford.

  L. Brodrick (V.Midleton).

  D. Devonshire.

  D. Northumberland.

  L. Ribblesdale.

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Clonbrock.

  E. Jersey.

  L. Rosebery (E.Rosebery).

  E. Lauderdale.

  L. Belper.

  E. Onslow.

  L. Kenry (E.Dunraven and Mount-Earl).

  E. Cawdor.

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Lytton.

  L. Newton.

  E. Halsbury.

  L. Courtney of Penwith.

  L. Collins.

  — (Earl Cawdor.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.