Lords Sitting of 13 May 1907

Preamble
The Lord HOWARD DE WALDEN took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Boston Spa Gas; Bristol Corporation; Shanklin Gas; Bristol Corporation; Brighouse Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Pasley Children Legitimisation Bill [H.L.].—Presented, and read 1a.
Cavehill and Whitewell Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Report from the Select Committee, That the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Midland Railway Bill [H.L.].—The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Coventry Corporation Water Bill [H.L.].—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
North British Railway Bill [H.L.].—The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
North East London Railway Bill.—Read 2a, and committed for To-morrow.
Canal Tolls and Charges (New Junction Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Committed.
Great Northern and City Railway Bill.—Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Surrey, etc.) Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a (according to order).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.—Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 54.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Code of regulations for continuation classes providing further instruction for those who have left school, 1907

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3777. United States (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky).
  No. 3778. Italy (Sicily).
  No. 3779. France (Corsica).
  No. 3780. France (Dunkirk.)
  No. 3781. Italy (Genoa).

  MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT AND STATISTICS FOR 1906) (PART I. DISTRICT STATISTICS).
  Statistics of the persons employed, out-put, and accidents at mines and quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged according to the inspection districts.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom, during the three months ended 31st December, 1906; together with Reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the railway department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into. Part II. Reports on accidents.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March, 1907.
  INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES, 1907–1908).
  Explanatory memorandum by the Secretary of State for India.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Reports and tables relating to Irish migratory agricultural labourers, for the year 1906.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the numbers of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics, pursuant to the Lunacy Act, 1890, from 1st October 1906, to 31st March, 1907.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST) (CONSTANTINOPLE AND SMYRNA TO EGYPT AND BEYOND).
  The Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 5) Warrant, 1907, dated 25th April, 1907.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Order made by the council of the county of Lancaster, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the Clayton-le-Moors, Oswaldtwistle, and Church Urban Districts.

  INDIA.
  (Finance and Revenue Accounts)—Finance and Revenue accounts of the Government of India, for the year 1905–1906.
  (Home Accounts)—Home Accounts of the Government of India.
  (Progress and Condition)—Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1905–1906. Forty-second Number.
  (Estimate)—Estimate of revenue and expenditure of the Government of India for the year 1906–1907, compared with the results of 1905–1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private
  536
  notice, namely, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take part in the proceedings of the Select Committee which the House on the 7th instant decided, on Lord Cawdor's Motion, to appoint. I ask this Question because there is a certain amount of doubt as to the intention of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council at the outset of the debate stated distinctly that it would be useless for His Majesty's Government to take part in the deliberations of the Committee, and the Amendment which he subsequently moved pointed clearly in that direction; but the concluding words of the noble Marquess towards the end of the debate were not quite in accord with the earlier statement. The noble Marquess said—
  "Therefore we feel that you should wait until you know what are the principles of the proposals of the Government in regard to differences between the two Houses, and then, with full knowledge of the facts of the case, proceed upon the inquiry which you desire."
  The inference from the noble Earl's statement was that there should be no discussion until provision had actually been made for adjusting differences between the two Houses, while the inference from the noble Marquess's statement was rather that no discussion should take place until the Government proposals had been made known. The two things are not quite the same, and I should be glad if the noble Marquess could remove that element of doubt. I take this opportunity of asking him a further Question of which I have given him notice, namely, whether he is able to tell us how soon the Committee appointed on the Motion of Lord Burghclere to inquire into the Standing Orders of debate is expected to meet.
  *THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (the Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, the distinction which my noble friend has drawn between what was said by myself and by the Lord President seems to me extremely subtle. My noble friend will recollect that when I made my speech the other night it was under severe pressure. I was informed that some dreadful thing would happen if I did not stop at a particular time, and, in order to avoid that catastrophe, I was careful to say as little as I decently

  537
  could. But I did not at all intend to contradict what fell from my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. The view we take is that the inquiry of the Committee—and your Lordships having passed the Resolution appointing the Committee, I say it with all respect—is inopportune, and, that being so, in our judgment it would be quite out of place, indeed it would place us in a false position, if we were to take any part in the Committee. That, I hope, is a sufficiently distinct Answer. With regard to the other Question, I have been in communication with Lord Burghclere, and it has been agreed that it would be convenient to hold the first meeting of the Committee upon rules of debate on the first Thursday after the re-assembling of the House after Whitsuntide.
  THE EARL OFCAMPERDOWN: The noble Marquess says he is not prepared to take part in the Committee to which Lord Newton's Bill and other proposals are to be referred. Does he also intend to advise his friends behind him to take no part in that Committee?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I spoke for Members of the Government. I do not in the least intend to exercise any influence, if I have any, over my noble friends behind me.

  SAILORS' VOTES.
  LORD MUSKERRYrose to call attention to the disabilities of mariners in recording their votes, and to move to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House His Majesty's Government should appoint a Committee to consider and report as to feasible schemes, either by means of proxy voting or otherwise, which would tend towards removing these disabilities."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the grievance I bring to the notice of your Lordships is a very genuine one, and I feel sure that it will command your entire sympathy; for it is only consistent with reason and justice that, if we compel our seafaring population to contribute their quota to the National Exchequer, we should at least give them some opportunity to record their views on the
  538
  government of the country, just as other classes of the community in more fortunate circumstances ashore claim their vote as a right and exercise it as such.
  For reasons which will be obvious to your Lordships, mariners are at present, to all intents and purposes, disfranchised. And yet their calling is one upon which the British Empire mainly depends. Take away our merchant service and where should we be? And I would remind your Lordships of our seafarers in the Royal Navy, who have just as much right to their Parliamentary votes as men employed in dockyards and other naval establishments ashore. At times our seamen, both of the Royal Navy and the merchant service, receive great praise and admiration, but, when they ask to be given an opportunity to exercise the franchise, their request meets with a good deal of apathy. Yet to a certain extent the Legislature has already accepted the principle of giving special facilities to mariners to record their votes. Over six years ago the Second Reading of a Bill for this purpose was carried in another place by a majority of no less than 103. The Motion that it should be committed to the Standing Committee on Law was opposed by the late Lord Ritchie—then sitting in the House of Commons as a member of the Government—and was, in consequence, unfortunately lost by twenty-nine votes. This gave sore disappointment to seafarers, but by means of private Bills of Members they continued the struggle but without any luck in the ballot. Three years later Sir Elliott Lees succeeded in getting the first place for a Resolution on the question, and it formed the subject of an evening's debate. The then Government were sympathetic in the matter, and would, I understand, have agreed to appoint a Committee of inquiry; but the Resolution was over-loaded by a very mistaken Amendment of Mr. Bell, which included railway workers and others, and the efforts of those working for seafarers were again frustrated. It was pointed out that the grievance on the part of the mariners was far the greatest, and that anything done for them would be a useful precedent for others. But all to no purpose. Negotiations, however, continued, and ultimately the

  539
  following reference to a Committee was agreed to by the different parties interested—
  "Parliamentary Elections (Mariners', Fishermen's and Railway Servants' Votes).—That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether any practical facilities can be provided whereby mariners, fishermen, and railway servants may record their votes in advance at Parliamentary elections, when by reason of their calling they will be absent at sea or on duty on the day of the poll, and whether it is advisable to provide such facilities."
  The then Government were not averse to the appointment of this Committee if agreed to by the Commons, but they could give no time for a discussion on the matter. On the first occasion when the appointment of a Committee was formally moved it was objected to by Mr. Caldwell, who eventually withdrew his opposition. Yet this did not serve, for, on the Motion being again formally introduced, Sir Frederick Banbury entered an objection and declined to remove it, and the hopes of seafarers were once again dashed to the ground. Your Lordships will therefore see that unless His Majesty's Government are prepared to give that material assistance to seamen which they can give without any difficulty there is little chance of bringing about a most desirable and necessary reform.
  I do not think there is any necessity for elaboration of my case. The justice of it cannot be questioned. I will quote one instance which has come to my notice, and which is common to a great number of mariners. A commander of one of our largest merchant ships has been a householder for twenty years, but, as yet, has never been able to record his vote. When at home on one occasion he was required to proceed from his residence in the South of England to look after a steamer which was in course of building for his firm in Scotland. During his absence from home he was summoned to serve on a jury, and for non-attendance was fined £10. Through his solicitor it was partly refunded, though his absence cost him £5. This self-same shipmaster points out that last year he was unable to record his vote by a few days, whereas the doctor on his vessel, a young man who had only lately left his University, was able to send his proxy
  540
  vote from Marseilles. There is no equity in treatment of this kind.
  We specially legislate for the blind, the illiterates, and the Jews in the matter of the franchise, but we entirely ignore such a capable, intelligent, and worthy man as the British sailor. In him we find our first line of defence, to him we look for our food supplies; without him, we in these islands would be starving within the space of a few weeks. Even a comparatively small maritime country like Norway makes special provision for her sailors in the way of recording their votes. And yet we, who have the greatest and most progressive mercantile marine the world has ever seen, give no helping hand to those upon whom we are so supremely dependent.
  I am, of course, well aware of the difficulties which beset us in this matter, but I venture to submit that it is at least our duty to our seafaring fellow-subjects to make some conscientious endeavour either to overcome these difficulties or to meet them as far as we possibly can. If no satisfactory solution can be found I think that the suggestion of constituting special seafaring constituencies should be taken into consideration. The calling of a seaman is peculiar to itself and is, I would urge upon your Lordships, one requiring special and peculiar treatment. It is the height of inconsistency and injustice that a comparatively unimportant constituency of some two or three thousand votes should have the right to a Parliamentary representative when the men serving in the two greatest services of our Empire are denied any facilities whatever to take part in its political affairs.
  I feel I am not unreasonable in asking for the formation of a Committee to enable us seriously to tackle this most important question. I have avoided statistics and suggestions, as statistics are really immaterial and suggestions are better thrashed out by a Committee of the kind I ask for. Whatever the result of their deliberations might be—and I do not see why they should be in any way futile—it would at least show our brethren on the sea that we are not entirely unmindful of them. Owing to their lack of political representation

  541
  they merit all the more consideration and sympathy from your Lordships' House, and I trust to learn that His Majesty's Government—who, I must say, have so far given a good deal of consideration to the sailor—will give their most favourable consideration to the proposal which I now bring before your Lordships.
  Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House His Majesty's Government should appoint a Committee to consider and report as to feasible schemes, either by means of proxy voting or otherwise, which would tend towards removing disabilities of mariners in recording their votes."—(Lord Muskerry.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the question which has been raised by my noble friend has already been discussed on several occasions in the House of Commons. In 1904, as the noble Lord has stated, Sir Elliott Lees moved a Resolution in somewhat the same form. In the course of that debate Sir Elliott Lees stated that there were about 254,000 seamen of different kinds. He could not tell how many were voters, but on the whole he thought that there would be about 50,000. Mr. Bell afterwards moved that engine drivers, guards, and other railway servants should be included. I think he estimated there were 76,000 railway guards and engine drivers and that only about 25 per cent. of them were able to exercise their vote. I understand that Mr. Long offered no objection to the formation of the proposed Committee. The whole matter seems to me to be a very complex one. There is beyond question a certain hardship in seamen being unable to record their votes. I notice that in New Zealand a measure has been passed lately to meet the case of seamen recording their vote. I should like to bring to the notice of my noble friend a Bill which has been introduced in another place entitled the Absent Voters Bill, and which has for its object affording facilities for voting at Parliamentary elections to sailors, fishermen, and others whose vocations make them liable to habitual absence from home. I suggest that the noble Lord should try to get this Bill pressed forward in the House of Commons. I think that in every way that would be
  542
  a better course than the appointment of a Committee. If the noble Lord has not seen this Bill I shall be glad to send him a copy. I trust that, in the circumstances, he will not press his Motion.
  *LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I understand from the noble Earl who has just spoken on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that there is a Bill in another place dealing with this matter. The noble Earl calls upon the noble Lord who raised this question to use his influence with that Assembly to get the Bill passed, but I think it more natural to call upon the Government and the Front Opposition Bench to use their influence in that direction. If the Government will give facilities to secure the passing of the measure in another place, it is highly improbable that when it reaches this House it will meet with opposition.
  The greatest blot on the history of England has been her treatment of her seamen. At a time when the arrest of a civilian would have raised throughout the country an outcry sufficient to overturn a Government, seamen were being pressed and sent to sea against their will, flogged as much as the captain thought proper, caned as much as the boatswain considered necessary, and rope's-ended at intervals by the captains of their tops. Furthermore, they were fed on bad food by fraudulent contractors, kept waiting for their pay for years, and, worst of all, compelled to live at close quarters with gaol-birds who had been sent from prisons to fill up the complements of our ships.
  A century has passed since those days. The seaman's hardships have been considerably lessened, but there is still a differentiation between the liberties of the seaman and the landsman to the disadvantage of the former. The workingman on shore has the franchise and is able to make use of it; the seaman is nominally in possession of it, but, in consequence of his frequent absence from home, is unable to exercise it. Is there any class on shore whose duties are as important and as useful to the country as those of the captains, officers, engineers, and seamen of the Royal Navy and the

  543
  merchant service that is without Parliamentary representation? Why, it is on our commerce that we depend, not only to procure us food, but the income to buy that food. Yet the best of our working bees connected with that commerce remain as much unnoticed by Parliamentary candidates as if they had lived a century ago.
  If any proofs are required to show the necessity of extending the seaman's possibilities of voting they are to be found in the history of the Merchant Shipping Act passed last year. The three great grievances of the seamen were—first, insufficient and badly-cooked food; secondly, delay in payment of wages; thirdly, unhealthy quarters with insufficient space to live in. When that Bill was first introduced into Parliament it was a much better Bill, as far as the seamen were concerned, than it was when passed. The shipowners, who are well represented in both Houses, succeeded in getting a number of Amendments accepted by the Government, as regards both payment of wages and housing space, which will have the effect of rendering illusory the greater part of the benefits that the Bill as originally drawn would have conferred on seamen. Had mariners been in a position to record their votes this would probably not have happened. I endeavoured to remedy these grievances by moving Amendments in this House. I believe that several of them would have been accepted here, had it not been that a compromise had been made with a group of shipowners in another place, and the acceptance of my Amendments at so late a period of the session might have wrecked the Bill.
  But if seamen had had any voting power there would have been another Parliamentary group who, owing their seats to the seamen's votes, might have successfully opposed the shipowners. But there was only one man that I know of who had a seat in another place who was considered to represent seamen—Mr. Havelock Wilson. His views on many points are strongly antagonistic to those of a great number of mariners; so much so, indeed, that an association called the Mercantile Marine Guild, which has a membership of several thousand,
  544
  was founded for the express object of opposing him; therefore large numbers of voteless mariners were left without any exponent of their opinions. At present the chances of an officer or seaman on active service being able to vote are so small that agents scarcely trouble themselves to put them on the register. It would be otherwise if proxies were allowed.
  My suggestion is that every officer and man, whether in the Royal Navy or in the mercantile marine, who is on the register, should have power to fill up an official form, which should be noted on the register, giving some proxy in his neighbourhood the right to vote for him at any Parliamentary election after 4 p.m. for a certain number of years. This would leave the seaman an opportunity of voting in person if he were anywhere near at the time of an election. If he did so the proxy, on appearing at the polling booth after 4 p.m., would be told that the proxy vote could not be received. Some people consider that if you admit proxies for seamen you must do so for other professions. I do not agree with them. In other professions some few individuals may occasionally be prevented from voting who would probably be able to record their votes at the next election. But, in the case of seamen, the whole profession is permanently disfranchised. I appeal, not only to the Members of this House, but to all those who already possess the franchise, to take the earliest opportunity of doing an act of justice to seamen.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANDSOWNE: I hope we are right in inferring from the statement of the noble Earl opposite that His Majesty's Government will do what they can to facilitate the progress of the Bill to which he referred in another place. To suggest that my noble friend who moved the Motion should procure the passing of the Bill, or, indeed, any other Bill, considering the legislative programme before Parliament, is really a proposal with which I do not think my noble friend behind me should be put off. Therefore, unless we hear something to the contrary we shall infer that His Majesty's Government will do what they can to advance the Bill in question.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My noble friend is indeed a tempter. He took us to task rather sharply the other day for taking up other people's Bills. That is exactly what my noble friend now proposes. All I can say is that the experience of last session does not lead me to think that to take up other people's Bills would be a profitable course for the Government to pursue at the present moment.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I would point out, with regard to the Bill to which reference has been made, that it has been three months getting to the Second Reading stage, and it has not yet been read a second time. I therefore ask His His Majesty's Government to consent to the appointment of the Committee for which I move. The Committee need not be immediately appointed, and if the Bill in another place passes there will be no need for the Committee to sit. But if it is thrown out I submit there will be every reason for the Committee, and I therefore ask your Lordships to assent to my Motion.
  On Question, Motion negatived,

  SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of their expressed desire to promote remunerative employment in agricultural districts and check the exodus to the towns, they are now prepared seriously to encourage the establishment of a sugar beet industry in the British Isles, and thereby ensure that a portion of the £18,000,000 now paid annually for imported sugar shall be available for labour in rural districts at home; whether they realise that the main obstacles to the introduction of the capital necessary for the erection of factories are; (1) the threatened imposition of a heavy excise duty on any home-grown sugar; (2) the attitude of individual members of the Government towards the Brussels Convention and the possible re-introduction of bounty-fed sugar; and whether His Majesty's Government will now, by a rebate of excise for a term of years, accord to an English sugar industry the same en-
  546
  couragement as has been given to Irish tobacco, and also give such an assurance on the subject of the Brussels Convention as will tend to remove the feeling of uncertainty now prevailing.
  I ventured last year to draw the attention of the House to this question, and I am afraid I spoke at rather an unconscionable length. I can assure the House that I have no intention of making a long speech this evening. I have given notice of this Question on account of the additional interest which is being taken in the sugar beet industry in this country, and also on account of the desire which has been expressed by members of the Government to do something to stop the depopulation of the agricultural districts. I believe that this industry, if once started in this country, would do much to remedy those evils which are so much complained of. Agrculturists generally are very anxious that some step forward should be taken. I called your Lordships' attention last year to the fact that there were something like 50,000,000 tons of beetroot grown every year on the Continent, and that there were from four to five million acres under beet. The cultivation of sugar beet increases the fertility of the soil and gives a larger yield of succeeding crops, and it provides a most valuable cattle food in the residue of the beet-root. We have to face the fact that the raw sugar beet is not a good cattle food, and cannot be economically grown for any other purpose except the making of sugar; therefore you cannot expect people to grow large quantities in this country experimentally, except for that purpose, and for the making of sugar you want factories. That is the position in which we stand at present.
  All experiments show that English beet is quite equal, if not superior, to that grown by continental nations, but we are faced with the want of capital. In order to put up a sugar factory, a capital of at least £70,000 would be required. I pointed out last year the great difficulties in starting this industry; I demonstrated that new factories established here could not hope to compete at the outset with the old-established factories on the continent, and I asked His Majesty's Government

  547
  whether they would promise a rebate of excise duty in order to enable the industry to get upon its legs and be firmly established in this country. I received a certain amount of sympathy from His Majesty's Government, but I was met with a blank refusal, the reason for that refusal being that my proposals were described as savouring of protection. I can only say that that is not an excuse which is likely to commend the present fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government to the agriculturists of the country.
  The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture then tried to prove that sugar-beet could not yield a profit of more than £3 per acre, and that the farmers, therefore, would not think it worth while to cultivate it. But the farmer's profit depends upon the price he can get for his beet, and the price which the sugar factories will pay for the beet will depend upon the price they get for the finished article. If you are going at the outset to charge the full excise duty, either the factory must forego a considerable amount of profit, thereby rendering it more difficult to get the capital, or else they cannot afford to pay the farmers a price which would constitute an inducement to them to start beet-growing.
  After having been told that His Majesty's Government would not listen to this proposal because it savoured of protection, it was very interesting to us later on in the session to find that this concession had been allowed in regard to the growing of tobacco in Ireland. When I inquired how it was that the Ministerial conscience had permitted this concession, I was told by the Lord President of the Council, first, that there was no analogy between the case of tobacco and sugar-beet, and, secondly, that His Majesty's Government only wanted to prove that tobacco could be grown and that, as soon as that was done, they had the fullest intention of taxing it up to the full capacity. We will wait and see what the Irish Council has to say about that. We admire the Lord President's wide knowledge on so many subjects, but I have no doubt he has not had very much time to give to the technical details of a new agricultural industry. I can assure him that, if he
  548
  thinks that the matter has been definitely proved and that the industry is certain to be a success in this country, simply because we find we can successfully grow small plots of sugar beet, he is suffering from faulty information and is very greatly mistaken. There is a great deal to be done yet before it is proved that the beet-sugar industry can be established. The first factory put up in this country will be absolutely experimental. Of course, we know what the machinery is that is used on the Continent, and we know the methods adopted for making sugar from beetroot; but, as it will be an entirely new departure, the first sugar factory put up in this country must be an interesting, though a most important, agricultural experiment. If it is successful it will lead to many more, and I respectfully suggest that it is surely worth while for His Majesty's Government to strain a point in order to assist the establishment of the first factory.
  The great obstacle to the introduction of capital for this industry, apart from the question of price, is the attitude of various members of the Government towards the Brussels Sugar Convention. It is unnecessary to refer to the long negotiations and arguments which eventually led up to that Convention; but I should like, in view of the attempts which are made by many supporters of His Majesty's Government to secure a return to the sugar bounty system, to remind your Lordships that by nobody have these sugar bounties been more emphatically condemned than by Leaders of the Party opposite. The Prime Minister, speaking on this subject, said—
  "I regard bounties as merely another form of protective duties.… These bounties appear to me to be bad, they disturb trade, hinder the development of the country, and, above all, punish the very nations which employ them; so I do not know what there is to be said in favour of them."
  Mr. Gladstone was equally condemnatory of bounties. He said—
  "We do not regard with any satisfaction the system under which an artificial advantage is given in our markets to the products of foreign labour. … Some people say it is a good thing because the consumer gets the benefit, but no benefit founded on injustice and inequality can bring good to the consumer."

  549
  In view of those extracts and the inherent badness of the bounty system, and also of the fact that it is to the Brussels Convention and the abolition of the bounties that we owe the possibility of being able to start the sugar beet industry in this country, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask His Majesty's Government to give us some clear declaration of their intention on the subject.
  I do not ask them to pledge themselves to any definite adherence to the Convention as it stands, but I do ask them, when negotiating on the subject, not to agree to any provisions permitting the re-establishment of bounties or of what is known as the cartel system. The cartel system which prevailed abroad is very nearly as harmful to the sugar industry in other countries as direct bounties. Under this system sugar factories combined together for raising the price to the home consumer, so that they were able to sell their surplus to the British consumer at a price very often below the cost of manufacture. They were only able to maintain this system by the fact that they had import duties which were very largely in excess of the excise duties, so that it did not pay to import sugar from outside for the purpose of competing with them. But by the Brussels Convention the surtax was limited expressly to 2s. 6d. per cwt., and therefore, the cartels have been practically knocked out. There is no doubt that when the Convention is reconsidered very strong influences will be brought to bear to re-establish the cartels and, to a certain extent, direct bounties. If these influences win the day, those who may have invested capital in the establishment of sugar factories in this country would be entirely at the mercy of foreign trusts, and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that His Majesty's Government should give some assurance that they will protect investors in this country from that unfair competition.
  Unfortunately, soon after the Brussels Convention was signed there was a very short beet crop on the Continent. The consumption did go up on the Continent in consequence of the Convention, because sugar became cheaper to the continental consumer, but then the short beet crop took place, and there was a
  550
  sudden abnormal rise in price. Naturally the opportunity was rather too good a one to be lost, and certain politicians in this country ignored all the teachings of their leaders on the subject of artificial cheapness and the inequalities of bounties, and attributed the rise in the price of sugar to the machinations of the wicked Tory Government. The result is that various members of His Majesty's Government have declared, in the strongest terms, that they intend to do all they possibly can to upset the Brussels Convention on the first opportunity. Therefore, your Lordships will recognise what a state of uncertainty His Majesty's Government have created in this matter.
  Before I sit down I should like to point out how the industry is going ahead in America. In the United States in the last thirteen years the sugar produced has risen from 20,000 tons in 1894 to 433,000 tons last year, and although that has been the result of a very heavy protective tariff and is not a fair comparison with anything that is likely to obtain in this country, still it shows at any rate the importance which is attached to this industry in other countries. The other day an interesting report was published by Reading College upon experiments that were carried on in Buckinghamshire, and in that report reference was made to the great success which had attended those efforts and to the impossibility of doing anything further without factories There was a large and important meeting of farmers at Ripon not very long ago and they made particular inquiries into this industry. Steps have also been taken in Lincolnshire, and the East Suffolk Chamber of Agriculture have issued important information upon it On all hands agriculturists in this country are considering this industry, and are waiting for some encouragement from His Majesty's Government. Something like £18,000,000 goes out of this country every year in payment for imported sugar. If only £1,000,000 of that sum could be spent in the agricultural districts here it is not difficult to see what a great amount of good would be done.
  There is much talk of getting people back to the land, and we are told that the remedy is in small holdings; but one of the great difficulties in regard to

  551
  small holdings is the fact that in many instances a man cannot live on his small holding alone, and it is absolutely necessary for him to have some other means of subsistence. In the beet industry you have it, because it is the only important agricultural industry which provides employment in the winter as well as in the summer. In the summer they have employment on the land, and in the winter in the factories. Again, you have already established labour colonies, and the humble individual in the neighbourhood of these colonies who grows cabbages for the market finds himself considerably injured by the State-aided cabbages which are thrown on the market. But in this beet industry you compete with nobody in this country, and a remission of excise would not tend to raise prices to the home consumer. It would be impossible for the most advanced free trader to say that under such a system your food would cost you more. I earnestly suggest that what has been done for Irish tobacco might perfectly well be done for English beet.
  His Majesty's Government are believers in stimulating influences. I do not know whether it would be wrong to suggest that the Irish concession was granted under the influence of Irish ginger. Will it be necessary for English agriculturists to resort to similar means before His Majesty's Government will move in the matter? I hope that the question will receive the attention which it merits; that, at all events, His Majesty's Government will give earnest consideration to it, and do everything possible to let us have practical evidence as to whether or not the industry could be made successful in this country.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the noble Earl in the course of his speech made what was to us, on this side of the House, a very interesting admission, namely, that in his opinion the Irish Council Bill will pass through your Lordships' House. In this House, I represent the Irish Office as well as the Treasury, and I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the comfort he has given me on this point to-night.
  552
  This is not the first time that the noble Earl has raised the question of the sugar beet industry. Last year he brought the matter forward, and I gave him a direct statement in reply. He has asked the question again now, but has brought forward no new fact and no further combination of circumstances to show why the Government should reconsider the decision they came to last session. In replying for the Government on that occasion, I pointed out the difficulty the Government might have of withdrawing the rebate if once they had allowed it, and that view was endorsed by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the doctrine that infant industries might be encouraged by the State during the earlier stages of their career was one which must be applied with very great caution indeed, because experience had shown that those industries were apt to have the secret of eternal youth. It is obvious that industries which are unable to stand upon their own merits must be a source of anxiety to any Government, and experience shows that, once a rebate has been granted, it is not found possible to withdraw the rebate on the date originally intended.
  I will not go into the free trade arguments of the question, because I am well aware that I am addressing a protectionist House; but I will repeat one argument which I used on the last occasion, namely, that if we grew sugar in this country by means of a rebate, and undersold the West Indian planter, we should be dealing a very severe blow, probably a death blow, at our West Indian trade. At present this trade shows every symptom of being an increasing and prosperous trade, and last year 500,000 cwts. more of West Indian sugar came into this country than the year before. Another argument is this: the existing duty on sugar is 4s. 2d. per cwt., and, so far as I know, there is no probability in the near future that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in a position to mitigate that tax. But if we built up a sugar industry in this country by means of a rebate, the Chancellor would have to continue the sugar tax simply in order to give the rebate.

  553
  The noble Earl has asked what our attitude is towards the Brussels Convention, and he animadverted on the action of certain politicians in the matter. It was not alone by politicians, let me remind the noble Earl, that the Brussels Convention was disliked. It was loathed and detested by all the sugar-using trades. There are still at the Treasury protests in no measured terms from important bodies representing those trades. I will read to your Lordships an extract from one of the communications received at the Treasury, which will show what the attitude of the sugar-using trades was—
  "Despite all the professions of the authors the price of a prime necessity to the poor has been doubled, and the purchasing power of the worker's wage has thus been lessened; great industries are threatened with ruin, honest traders have their position jeopardised, and the gaunt army of the unemployed has been increased."
  This is from a gentleman who was president of a Mineral Water Manufacturers' Association, and it is a specimen of other protests showing the manner in which sugar-users generally regarded the Convention.
  I myself have a particular reason for disliking the Convention. I own a number of shares—not many—in Indian tea companies. When the Brussels Convention was signed, as noble Lords will recollect, Russia was one of the countries which refused to come within the scope of the Convention. Russia felt herself injured to a certain extent by the action which we took in joining the Convention, and therefore she put a countervailing duty on tea grown in India and Ceylon. Therefore we, the shareholders in tea companies, and the unfortunate tea planters in India and Ceylon, had to pay for the benefits conferred upon this country by the Convention. I do not desire to dwell further on this point. I think we on this side of the House have given it as our opinion that there were errors in the conditions of the Brussels Convention; but that is, after all, past history. I think it would be in the power of any one of us on this side to make perhaps a bitter speech on this subject, but I will refrain from doing so.
  "The EARL OF DENBIGH: May I ask the noble Lord whether his argument is
  554
  that he repudiates what has been said by the Leaders of his Party on the subject of bounties, and that he rather approves of bounties.
  LORD DENMAN: I am not speaking on the subject of bounties at all. I do not see that it comes into my argument. I say that the members of His Majesty's Government adhere to the opinions which they have given with regard to the Convention. The noble Earl then asks what is to be the attitude of the Government when we come to consider the Convention, as we are bound to do, in the y ear 1908. I do not suppose that he really expects a definite reply on that point, and clearly he can hardly expect that on a side issue the Government are likely in this House to make a declaration of their policy on this question. After all, this is a matter of taxation, and it is essentially, therefore, a House of Commons question; and I have no doubt that when the time comes the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a declaration on this point in the House of Commons and will obtain the verdict of that House upon it. As I have said, His Majesty's Government adhere to the opinions which they have expressed, and I think those opinions are pretty well known.
  Then the noble Earl asks whether we will give the same encouragement to sugar beet growing as has been given to Irish tobacco. It appears to me that the noble Earl is under a strange misapprehension on that point. I would like to ask him what facilities have been given to Irish tobacco growers that English beet growers do not already possess.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Remission of excise.
  LORD DENMAN: Until recently it was illegal to grow tobacco in Ireland at all, with the exception of certain small experiments on a small area. Permission for this was granted, and we extended the permission. Lately a Bill has been introduced—it is now before your Lordships' House—permitting tobacco to be grown in Ireland provided the excise conditions are imposed. Therefore, the beet grower in England is at present in a better position than the tobacco grower in Ireland, because he may freely

  555
  carry out these experiments. Naturally we say that if you are going to cultivate this industry on a large scale we shall impose the excise duty, as we are bound to do to protect our revenue. On his own showing the noble Earl is asking for a great deal. Last year the noble Earl stated that the rebate on the industry on such a scale as he wished to see in this country would amount to about £400,000 a year. I asked him at the time how long he wanted it for, and he replied "From five to ten years." I think anyone going into business with the credit of the British Government at his back and with a cash present from the Treasury of some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 would became a Standard Oil magnate very shortly. I have no doubt that the noble Earl is impervious to these or any other arguments that I may be in a position to bring forward. I can imagine him saying to himself, What matter the interests of the consumer, what matter the interests of low persons like bakers and confectioners, of base-born knaves such as mineral-water manufacturers, or unfortunate beings like tea-planters in Ceylon or sugar growers in the West Indies and British Guiana—what matter all these so long as it is possible, with great care and considerable pecuniary risk, and with rebates on taxes, to build up, I would rather say to bolster up, a necessarily restricted industry in these islands? Surely that is not a very comprehensive view to take of the needs of the Empire.
  I am bound to say that, whatever we may think of the views of the noble Earl, we cannot but admire the enthusiasm with which he has carried out these experiments and the energy with which he has pressed the case on successive Governments. It must always be an uncongenial task to endeavour to damp the ardour of an enthusiast, and I can assure my noble friend that this has been no congenial task to me. But I must say that if this industry is to be absolutely dependent upon a rebate of taxes, then the noble Earl is engaged on a forlorn hope. I am not quite sure that it would not be possible to build up this industry without a rebate, and I have some reason for this belief in a paragraph about the beet industry which
  556
  I read last night in the Labour Record, which states that—
  "In Lincolnshire, promoters, encouraged by the support received, are now engaged in making provisional contracts with farmers for the cultivation of this root. When an adequate supply is assured, the manufacture of sugar will be begun at a factory in Doddington."
  Therefore I assume that there is a factory already in existence there.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: No.
  LORD DENMAN: If, as I say, this industry is to be absolutely dependent upon a rebate, the noble Earl is engaged on a very forlorn hope indeed. He has received little encouragement either from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me that the noble Earl's only hope is to possess his soul in patience until the benches on which we now sit are occupied by a Labour Government. Until then I doubt whether the noble Earl will be in a position to wring from a reluctant Treasury the vast sums of money which, on his own showing, are indispensable to the successful cultivation of sugar beet in this country.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord who has just sat down imagines that the cold water which he has poured on the noble Earl is really going to damp his enthusiasm.
  LORD DENMAN: No.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble Earl has taken up this industry to the great advantage of agriculturists, and, even if he does have to wait till the happy millennium when we shall have a Labour Government in power, he need have no cause for relinquishing his labours or pressing this question on the Government of the day. I say this because—and I confess it with all humility—I have never heard a more inadequate answer to an important question given by any member of a Government. The only new argument which the noble Lord brought forward was that growers of sugar beet in this country would have opposition from our West Indian Colonies. I have had an opportunity this morning of refreshing my memory in regard to the

  557
  last circular issued by the West India Committee. That Committee is a representative body consisting of all those concerned with these important Possessions of the Crown, and, in the course of a paragraph dealing with this question, the West India Committee observe that they would welcome any step that would help the British grower, because the result of the Brussels Sugar Convention had shown that with stability of prices cane sugar could always be grown at a profit in fair competition with beet sugar, and they would be glad to see aprospect—I do not suppose they would expect that prospect with the present Government in power—of sugar beet being grown at a profit by farmers in England.
  The noble Lord repeated the old argument that this proposal savours of protection. It would not frighten me if it did, but I venture to say that there is really nothing in the proposal which my noble friend has brought forward that cannot be supported by the most, extreme free trader. All that is asked for is some guarantee that the existing state of affairs as regards the Brussels Sugar Convention will continue. At the time when the Convention was passed there was considerable misapprehension as to what was desired by the West Indies. What they wanted was a levelling of prices. Prices used to fluctuate from 9s. a cwt. down to 7s.; but the Convention has inaugurated steadiness in the price of sugar, which has settled down to 9s. or 10s. per cwt. more or less; and I am confident what the answer would be if the noble Lord were to ask the traders whether they now wanted their industry again disturbed and made subject to these fluctuations.
  With regard to tobacco growing in Ireland, the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Treasury denied that any facilities had been given, and referred to a Bill which is now before your Lordships and which he justly observed merely removes the prohibition against tobacco growing in Ireland—a measure to which there can be no objection from any fiscal point of view. Indeed it is essentially a free trade measure. The noble Lord, however, forgot to mention that one-third of the excise duty on tobacco grown in Ireland has been re-
  558
  mitted for a period of five years. That concession was made by the late Government, but it has not been withdrawn by the present free trade Government, but has been renewed for a further period of five years.
  LORD DENMAN: The rebate applies only to a limited area of 100 acres. It is only an experiment, permission for which was granted by the late Government and which we carried on. We could not very well do otherwise.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The granting of a concession of this kind is entirely within the province of a free trade Government, and all that my noble friend asks is that agriculturists in England should be given a similar concession.
  LORD DENMAN: They can already carry on experiments in this country as they please. They do not want any permission from the Government.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am informed that sugar beet can be grown in small quantities in this country, but it has not been proved whether over a series of years sugar beet growing could be made a profitable industry. For the purpose of that experiment it is necessary to have some guarantee that the Brussels Convention will not be disturbed for a certain number of years; and, if possible, the concession which has been given to tobacco growers in Ireland should be given, also for experimental reasons, to sugar beet growers in England. The noble Earl at the head of the Board of Agriculture told us the other day that experiments were being made in regard to land in the direction of small holdings. I would suggest that the noble Earl might carry on experiments in sugar beet growing, if not on the remainder of his own land, at any rate on Crown lands, and endeavour to get capital invested in factories so as to start the industry on a sound footing. The Central Chain her of Agriculture have been pressing for some time for a Departmental Committee to consider this matter, but up to the present have received no response to that request. There are many ways in which

  559
  the Government could show an inclination to meet this reasonable demand. It is admitted that people are leaving the land, and that agriculture wants a new stimulus. I submit that there is no industry more useful than the sugar beet industry in making small holdings profitable. Surely it is not too much to ask the Government to grant some facilities in this direction, and, if they cannot take active steps themselves, at the very least to appoint a Committee to go into the whole question.
  *THE UNDEE-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I only rise to make a very few observations in answer to what has fallen from the noble Viscount who has just sat down. My noble friend who represents the Treasury has replied very ably and clearly upon those important aspects of the Question which affect his Department. But the Question is so worded that there is hardly any Department which might not be called upon to take part in this conversation. The Board of Agriculture is affected, the Treasury is affected, the Colonial Office is affected, and, as so often happens in these cases, the Foreign Office finds itself in a way affected also.
  I am inclined to think, looking at this Question as a whole, that I shall not be in any way misrepresenting the noble Earl when I say that the real sting of it is at the end, which is not unnatural. It may be called a reconnaissance in force to try to ascertain from His Majesty's Government what their intentions are in regard to the Sugar Convention. I can only say that in the opinion of the Government the time for stating them has not yet come. This much, however, I certainly can say, that they will always look at this question from the point of view of free trade—that great principle to maintain which they consider that this Parliament was returned and this Government formed.
  I hope I may be excused, as representing only the Foreign Office, from following the noble Earl who asked the Question into the various complicated issues which it raises. At the beginning of the Question we are dazzled with a vision of giving remunerative employment to a vast
  560
  number of people, and the noble Earl thinks he has the secret of, in some mysterious way, accomplishing that. My noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has been attacked because he thinks he can improve the position of the labourer by establishing small holdings. But his plans are small and insignificant before the dazzling schemes of the noble Earl for the cultivation of beet-root. The noble Earl holds out a most striking and remarkable prospect, and I hope he will be able at some future time to justify the faith that is in him.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Does the noble Lord assert that none of the money which is now paid for imported sugar would be spent in this country?
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I venture to make no assertion of any kind. In the first place the Foreign Office has nothing to do with sugar; and, secondly, to prophesy is rash. The sugary vision of the noble Lord's Question becomes touched with acid as it proceeds, because there are suggestions as to the conduct of individual members of His Majesty's Government, and dark hints are thrown out as to the possibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposing an excise duty on home-grown sugar. That brings me back to the point from which I started. If I had to reply to these points I naturally could only do so if I were able to explain to the House what the settled policy of the Government in regard to the Convention is. But, as I have said, the time for that has not yet come. The Convention will have to be considered by the Government in all its aspects within the present year; and in this House or elsewhere—by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have no doubt—a full statement will be made, which I trust will be satisfactory to the country and to your Lordships.

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS BILL [H.L.]
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to insert, as a schedule to the Bill, so much of the text of the Destructive

  561
  Insects Act, 1877, as had not been repealed or varied by subsequent Acts of Parliament.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, before the Bill passes I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the terms and method in which it is drafted. They are singular and carry the practice which is known as legislation by reference a step or two further than it has ever been carried before. I have no doubt I shall be told that the proposal which I have placed on the Paper is without precedent. I shall not be alarmed at that, if I can show your Lordships that to make a new precedent would be for the convenience of those humble persons who have to understand the statutes which this House passes. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that the only operative clause provides that—
  "The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may for the purpose of preventing the introduction into Great Britain of any insect, fungus, or other pest destructive to agricultural or horticultural crops or to trees or bushes, and for preventing the spreading in Great Britain of any such insect, fungus, or other pest, exercise all such powers as may be exercised by the Board in relation to the Colorado beetle under the Destructive Insects Act, 1877."
  The first point is that the Board of Agriculture had no powers under that Act, because the Board did not then exist. I suppose the powers have been transferred from the Privy Council to the Board of Agriculture by a subsequent Act, but the whole of the Act of 1877 refers to the Privy Council. The powers given under that Act for the particular purpose of it are of the most arbitrary: nature. The Privy Council are empowered to regulate or prohibit the landing in Great Britain in any way that it chooses.
  My point is this, that any person purchasing a copy of this Bill as it stands, should it become a statute, would find himself but a very short distance on his way to understanding it. He would find that he had to pursue his researches into the Act of 1877. Having purchased that Statute he would again find himself no further, because parts of it have been repealed by three subsequent Statutes—the Acts of 1878, 1889, and 1898, though the last only refers to Ireland, and he would have all this trouble because the
  562
  draftsman or the Department for some reason or other finds it more convenient to refer in the present Bill to the original Act of 1877. I hope the Bill will not be opposed on its merits; but in the name of everything that helps the understanding of it, why is not so much of the Act of 1877 as is not repealed or varied set out in a schedule. It does seem to me inadvisable to put a wholly unnecessary burden upon market gardeners and agriculturists to understand unknown powers in the hands of the Department. I venture to make my protest against this method of legislation and to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a schedule so much of the text of the Destructive Insects Act, 1877, as has not been repealed or varied by subsequent Acts of Parliament.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am glad to find that the Amendment is noved only with the object of initiating a discussion, and to show the desirability of consolidation. With that object, I think we shall all agree, but I might point to a great many Acts where the need for consolidation is greater. I would respectfully ask my noble friend not to press his Amendment, for the Bill is urgently needed, and has been approved on both sides. As to the comments on the manner in which the Bill is drawn, I ask the noble Lord what would be the useful result, if what he desires were carried out in schedules to small Bills of this sort. I do not think the noble Lord is himself absolutely innocent in this matter. He will remember that in 1901 he brought in a very useful measure which was called the Burgh Sewage, Drainage, and Water Supply (Scotland) Bill. The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1888; the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892; the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; and the Town Council (Scotland) Act, 1900, were all referred to by name in the measure for which the noble Lord was himself responsible. I hesitate to think what would, have been the result if all the Acts affected had been scheduled in that case.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is not my proposal. My proposal is simply to schedule one Statute so far as it is unrepealed; not the Acts mentioned in the Bill.
  EARL CARRINGTON: What the noble Lord proposes is that there should be inserted as a schedule to this Bill so much of the text of the Destructive Insects Act, 1877, as has not been repealed or varied by subsequent Acts of Parliament. Upon that principle all the Acts referred to in that Scottish Bill would have been inserted. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with the discussion, and not check the progress of the Bill, which might have most serious results to agriculture.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I rather hope the noble Lord will not be satisfied, and that either in this form or in another he will obtain for the House and the country some wording which will explain the meaning of the Bill. We are not now discussing the question of burgh sewage. I daresay that the noble Lord when he was Secretary for Scotland may have committed the iniquities to which the noble Earl has just referred, but what we want really to know is what is the meaning of this Bill. If the course which is now proposed by Lord Balfour is not the most convenient, surely there ought to be some means of explaining to the public and to the Houses of Parliament what the object of the Bill is. Can the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture tell the House what are the powers which may be exercised by the Board in relation to the Colorado beetle under the Destructive Insects Act, 1877? If he will not consent to the Amendment it would be easy to prefix a Memorandum to the Bill, stating the effect of the proposals, and for that purpose we might adjourn the next stage of the Bill for a few days.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I think that so far as this particular Bill is concerned my noble friend the Minister for Agriculture has made good his ground. The Amendment would not, in my opinion, add to the clearness of the Bill, the perplexity of which would remain very
  564
  much as it is. My noble friend said, with perfect truth, that the practice of legislation by reference is not confined to one side or to any Department, and it has been the frequent subject of protest by myself in the House of Commons during the last fifteen or twenty years. I hope that good may result from the discussion, for the practice has been carried to an extent which makes it difficult for plain men to understand the statute and tends to confine to the members of the legal profession the interpretation of Acts of Parliament. Probably the real source of the practice is the immense pressure of business in Parliament. In your Lordships' House it is possible to carry out consolidation in Bills, but in the other House they cannot do so.
  EARL CAWDOR: I think the difficulty which arises is that many of your Lordships are not quite sure what the powers are that may be exercised by the Board of Agriculture in relation to the Colorado beetle under the Destructive Insects Act of 1877. The noble Earl is, of course, perfectly well aware what those powers are, and I think it would facilitate the passage of this Bill if the noble Earl would tell us in a few words exactly what those powers are.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As there is no response to the request of Lord Cawdor, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(The Earl of Camper down.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I hope your Lordships will not stop the progress of this Bill, which confers great benefit on the agricultural population. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has stated his view in regard to the question of legislation by reference. I appeal to the House not to let agriculturists, who are affected by these pests, suffer because of the usual, though inconvenient, method of drafting being adopted in this instance.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I quite agree with the noble Marquess. There is no desire on my part to check

  565
  the progress of this Bill. I have carefully examined the Statute to find out what, portion of the Act of 1877 is repealed or altered, and it would have saved much trouble had the effect been shown. Perhaps the noble Earl will give an assurance that a Memorandum shall be prefixed showing the result.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I will have that done with pleasure.
  Motion for adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  An Amendment (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is a small Bill which I think is sufficiently explained by the Memorandum prefixed to it. To repeat quite shortly the substance of that Memorandum, I may say that this Bill is necessary in order to repeal two obsolete exemptions under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, regarding the employment of women. The International Conference at Berne last year agreed to certain limitations with regard to the labour of women, and I think we in this country may congratulate ourselves upon the fact that only these two very small alterations have to be made in order to bring the laws of this country into harmony with the general agreement arrived at by the International Conference. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.