Lords Sitting of 14 May 1907

Preamble
The Earl of Liverpool sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

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:—Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway; Great Yarmouth Port and Haven.
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with.—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [H.L.].—Committed.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.—Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, Bill [H.L.]; Keswick Urban District Council (Water) Bill; Harrison's Patent Bill [H.L.]; Maidstone Gas Bill; Heywood and Middleton Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.].—Reported, with Amendments.
London and North-Western Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill; Plymouth and North Devon Direct Railway (Abandonment) Bill; North East London Railway Bill.—Reported, without Amendment.
St. Neots Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Kensington Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth Corporation (Water) Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Staveley Coal and Iron Company Bill [H.L.]; Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3782. United States (California, Nevada, and Utah, and the territory of Arizona).
  No. 3783. France (Calais).

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  I. Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade authorising the construction of:—Light Railways in the borough of Mansfield and in the urban districts of Mansfield Woodhouse and of Sutton-in-the-Ashfield and in the rural district of Skegby, in the county of Nottingham, in extension of the Light Railways authorised by the Mansfield and District Light Railways Order, 1901, and for other purposes; A Light Railway in the West Riding of the County of York, from Sharow to Kirkby Malzeard; Light Railways in the urban district of Llanelly and in the rural district of Llanelly, in the county of Carmarthen; Light Railways in the West Riding of the County of York, from Ackworth to Kirk Smeaton.
  II. Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade amending:—The Dudley and District Light Railways Order, 1898, and the Dudley and District Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1900; The Brackenhill Light Railway Orders of 1901 and 1904; The Leicester and District Light Railways Order, 1904; The Robertsbridge and Pevensey Light Railway Orders of 1900 and 1903.

  MINES AND QUARRIES (EXPLOSION AT URPETH COLLIERY).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by J. B. Atkinson, M.Sc., one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred at Urpeth Colliery, near Birtley, Durham, on 17th December, 1906.

  RAILWAY RETURNS (PRELIMINARY STATEMENT).
  Return relating to the railways of the United Kingdom, for the year 1906. Preliminary Statement.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Order made by the council of the West Riding of Yorkshire altering certain polling districts in the Sowerby, Barnsley, Doncaster, and Holmfirth Parliamentary Divisions.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it will probably be for the convenience of the House if, before stating the provisions of the Bill which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to read a second time to-night, I say something about the history of this question, because that, I think, will go a long way towards explaining at once what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government in introducing this measure. The present position of laundries is that they are subject to the Factory and Workshop Act of 1895, which was introduced in another place by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that time he was anxious to subject all laundries to very much the same conditions as factories and workshops are subject to now; but, unfortunately, the majority which followed him in the other House then was not so large as it is at the present time. There was a combination of those interested in institutional laundries and those interested in commercial laundries, and they insisted upon the insertion of the clause under which laundries are now worked. The Home Secretary at that time foretold that it would not have satisfactory results, and I think all those who take an interest in industrial legislation are now quite agreed on that point.
  736
  Then in 1901 a large Bill dealing with all the various Acts, a Factory and Workshop Consolidating Bill, was introduced by Mr. Ritchie. That Bill had a curious history. There was considerable amendment in Grand Committee, and in the end Mr. Ritchie, on the Report stage, moved the omission of the whole of the laundry clause. That was agreed to by the House of Commons, and then the Bill came to this House. It reached your Lordships on 14th August, and was read a first time on that day. Then the Bill, with its 162 clauses was read a second time in your Lordships' House on the next day, and, having read it a second time, your Lordships suspended the Standing Order and proceeded to consider it in Committee. In Committee various appeals were made by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, and, I think, by the most rev. Primate, and by one or two other Peers, to Ministers to reinstate the clause which was originally in the Bill as the Government had introduced it in another place. The noble Lord who then represented the Home Office was, however, obdurate and explained that if such a thing were done it would be impossible to pass the Bill at all during that session. The only alternative, if the Bill was not allowed to go through as it stood, was that it would have to be dropped, and a large number of artisans throughout the country would lose the benefit of the Act. Accordingly, with very great regret, and after protests from both sides of the House, as well as from the Episcopal Bench, your Lordships agreed to that measure, and the Bill, with the somewhat technical addition of the clause from the 1895 Act, was passed. The Committee stage having been finished on the same day, your Lordships read the Bill a third time and passed it, and it was then returned to another place. I hope that when in future we are told that His Majesty's Government do not allow sufficient time for the discussion of Bills in this House, the passage of the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901 will be remembered as a standard of the way in which the late Government used to deal with your Lordships' House.
  But in the passage of that Bill through this House the noble and learned Lord, Lord James of Hereford, promised that

  737
  His Majesty's Government would, at the earliest opportunity, take steps to deal with the question of laundries. For various reasons the late Government did not see their way to deal with it at once, and I think there were good reasons why certainly for two or three years after that they should not have dealt with laundries. But last year, as your Lordships may remember, the Government were urged to bring in a Bill dealing with the question, and they gave a pledge that they would, if possible, do so, and the Bill which is now before your Lordships is the result.
  Perhaps I should say, briefly, why it is that the present condition of the law relating to laundries is so unsatisfactory. The clause in the Act of 1895, which was re-enacted in the 1901 Act, allows a great deal too much latitude in regard to both commercial laundries and institutional laundries; in fact, the latter go without inspection at all. Commercial laundries are obliged to fix in the laundry a statement of the hours between which employment takes place, but that, in practice, is not found to be sufficient. In the ordinary factory or workshop the employer is not allowed to change the hours more than once every three months, but in a laundry, under the present law, he can change his time table every day, so long as he puts up the new time table before the beginning of the day's work. The result is that, whereas in the case of the ordinary factory the inspector knows at what hour to visit the factory to find out whether the rule is being observed or not, it is impossible for him to say, with regard to a laundry, what is the hour at which he ought to visit.
  Then the latitude which is given to commercial laundries is very considerable in various other directions, and the method in which His Majesty's Government propose to deal with the question is, as your Lordships will see in the first clause, to bring all laundries under the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901. There is this difference between the factory and the workshop, that those are factories in which there is power used, and those are workshops in which no power is used. That is a rough definition which I think is sufficient for the present purposes. One great alteration follows
  738
  from this clause. It is that all tenement laundries will be inspected whether there are two or fewer employed in the laundry. There has been, I understand, an increase of this tenement system by which the power is created at one end of a long row of houses and communicated right through at the back, and in each of these tenement houses very few people indeed are employed, perhaps only the people who live in the house. These will be inspected in the future although they have not been inspected in the past. In fact, the result of this clause will be to subject all laundries to inspection in exactly the same way as all factories and workshops are inspected at the present time; that is to say, laundresses will be put on the same footing as dressmakers, milliners, and persons who follow such occupations.
  The second clause deals with the conditions which His Majesty Government offer to these commercial laundries, and which your Lordships will see afford them certain advantages which they would not have if they worked directly under the current Act of 1901. There are obvious reasons why laundries should be allowed latitude of this kind. The ordinary British householder, I believe, insists on the linen being back on Friday night, and, as a rule, it is not collected till Monday. That makes a considerable rush of work during the middle of the week, and it is not possible to distribute the work equally over all the working days. Therefore, although in this clause it is forbidden that the hours of work should consist of more than sixty-eight, including intervals for meals, there will be a certain latitude so that they may work more hours on one day and make it up by working fewer hours on another day. Your Lordships will see that the next clause will apply to all laundries. In the last Act the two sections (b) and (c), with regard to inspection of stoves for heating and the keeping of floors in good condition, did not apply to laundries if there was no power used. But now His Majesty's Government are of opinion that they should be brought into line in this matter.
  Then we come to the second part of this Bill, dealing with institutional laundries, and on that I may perhaps refer your Lordships to a deputation which

  739
  was received by the Home Secretary a short time ago on which there were represented, I think, all the various institutions—reformatories, and so on—in which laundry work is carried on. It is chiefly carried on by Roman Catholics and by the Church of England. Mr. Gladstone has been anxious, if he could, to put such provisions in this Bill as would meet their wishes. I do not know that it is necessary for me this evening to trouble your Lordships by going through the whole of the five clauses, but I think I may say generally that it is the wish and the intention of the Secretary of State to do all he can to meet the very legitimate desires of the managers of these institutions, by making special arrangements for them which will enable them to carry on work which is not only of an educational kind, but also of a kind calculated to improve the characters and generally the welfare of the inmates of these institutions.
  It is obvious, I am sure, to your Lordships that a great number of these institutions must be carried on on somewhat different lines from ordinary commercial laundries, and it is certainly the intention of His Majesty's Government to go as far as they think they can fairly go in the direction of meeting the wishes of those who are experienced in the management of these institutions. I venture to think that we may hope for this Bill a smooth passage, both through this House and another place. It has been printed for some time, and there has not, at any rate yet, been any sign that it is objected to by those who are engaged in this industry; and since employers do not seem to regard it with any disfavour I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading to-day, and I have no doubt that, if it is passed into law, it will be of considerable advantage to those who are employed in this industry
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp).
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a few words on this subject. The story of this measure is an odd one, and it affords a curious example of how what may seem like
  740
  a comparatively small matter maybe found to involve issues which materially and gravely complicate the actual working of our legislative machinery. It is not very easy to explain in a word, nor is it necessary to do it now, why it has been found that the incorporation of laundries under the ordinary regulations of our factory legislation is an exceedingly troublesome and difficult thing.
  The noble Earl who has so clearly introduced the Bill to your Lordships' notice to-day has explained in some measure what the past history of these difficulties has been. It has to be remembered that in 1895, when Mr. Asquith carried his Bill through the House of Commons, he quite openly professed himself dissatisfied with the clause in that Act—the clause which survives in substance as the law to-day—dealing with laundries; and when in 1901 the matter came up again while he was in opposition no one was more outspoken than he in saying that the Government ought to have been able to carry the matter through. The noble Earl has referred to the pathetic scene which took place in this House in 1901, when tears were almost brought to our eyes by Lord James of Hereford's appeal to us as to the disasters which would follow if anything were done to touch the Bill of 162 clauses which was then presented to your Lordships with the knowledge that unless it were read a third time within twenty-four hours it would not become law and the whole country would suffer in consequence. The noble Earl has called attention to that to show that it is not on one side of the House only, but on both sides, that difficulties are experienced in securing time for adequate consideration of important measures in this House. Mr. Asquith, in the appeal which he made at that time against the action of the Government, put it thus. He said—
  "I was unable in 1895 to carry this through in its proper form because we had not an adequate majority. Now the present Government have an adequate majority."
  He explained that he had been obliged to whittle down his clause in 1895, because he had not the advantage of a great and permanent majority, and he

  741
  pointed out that Mr. Ritchie had a large majority quite capable of overcoming any forces that might be arrayed against him. I should like those words to be borne in mind when this Bill goes to the House of Commons, should the Government say they are obliged, if objection is brought against it, to whittle down the legislation which they think necessary.
  Most of the difficulty in dealing with laundries by legislation arises from the fact that the work they perform is found to be the most suitable kind of work for philanthropic institutions, the main object of which is not the making of money, but the reform of their inmates. That complicates the matter considerably and accounts in a large measure, though not, I think, altogether, for the difficulty which has arisen. I was very glad to hear the noble Earl in charge of the Bill say that those institutions will no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the reform which is needed in the conditions under which the industry generally is carried on. For myself, I have from the first always failed to understand the objection raised in some, quarters by the supporters of these institutions to inspection. I have always urged inspection. I think the inspection of these institutions is not only possible, but proper and right. Every institution with which I have any connection, and they are many, at once took advantage of the offer made by the Home Office in 1902, that if institutions wished it, inspectors would be sent to inspect them. I welcome something stronger than that. I desire that such inspection should be universal and compulsory. The fact that some of the institutions which carry on laundry work declined to take advantage of the offer of the Home Office, and therefore are at this moment not inspected, is to my mind the strongest proof of the necessity which exists that some more stringent clause such as this Bill contains, should find a place on the Statute Book.
  It may be said that, if it be only these charitable institutions that block the way to reform of the conditions under which laundry work is carried on, why should we not leave institutional laundries
  742
  out of consideration altogether and deal with commercial laundries only? Such a course would be exceedingly unfair to commercial laundries. These laundries maintain that even now charitable institutions have some advantage over them. I do not agree with that; but there can be no doubt that if stringent restrictions are now applied to commercial laundries and none to charitable laundries commercial laundries will have a strong reason to complain of disparity of treatment. That is the reason why we cannot separate the two classes of laundries. I hold that charitable institutions need inspection, and that they gain from the help which such inspection gives. Therefore, for everybody's sake I most earnestly hope that some such provision as finds its place in this Bill may very speedily become law. At the same time I think it is indisputable that there must be some special arrangements in connection with the laundries managed by charitable institutions. Anyone who will look into the details will find that to apply to institutional laundries verbatim et literatim the rules which are applicable to ordinary commercial laundries would have consequences quite other than those which the Legislature desires, and that some modifications to meet their special and different conditions are absolutely necessary.
  It is of very great interest to read the reports by those inspectors, male or female, who have inspected the institutions which voluntarily asked for it under the Home Office circular of 1902. There are very ample reports given by some of those who conducted these inspections, and I doubt whether anyone would rise from reading those reports without seeing that, with the best possible intention to act rightly, the managers of these institutions require the help which inspection gives. For example, most of the laundries connected with charitable institutions were started in days when the work was not done by machinery at all. The introduction of machinery has resulted in this: that a large number of excellent and devoted ladies find themselves called upon to supervise work which involves the use of complicated machinery without having anyone to tell them how

  743
  to do it, and if it were not tragic it would be laughable to read the accounts in regard to this which are given by the inspectors. They quote instances to show how girls too stupid for anything else have been set to work the machinery, and this, of course, is liable to result in numerous accidents. I submit that inspection, wanted always, is more and more required as mechanical means are applied to these institutions.
  While I thoroughly give my support to the Second Reading of this Bill, there are a good many points which I am anxious we should carefully consider in Committee. When I remember the speeches which have been made by Mr. Asquith and others about what ought to be done, I feel that the Bill ought to go a little further. It seems to me, for example, that under Clause 5 (2) (d)—
  "(d) The provisions of the principal Act as to sending notices to the inspector shall not apply, except so far as an order made by the Secretary of State may otherwise direct"—
  it might be possible for an institution, by merely never sending in any notice at all, to escape inspection altogether. I have no doubt that if that is the result of the wording it is accidental. At all events, it is a result which cannot be intended, and it is desirable that the point should be looked into. Then I have some suspicion about the subsection which allows the ordinary medical officer of the institution, I suppose whether the authorities like it or not, provided the institution desires it, to be appointed the certifying surgeon for the institution. No doubt that can subsequently be explained. It is a question of the interpretation of the word "may," which, as we all know, frequently means "shall" in an Act of Parliament.
  Then in the final clauses of the Bill there are provisions into which I am anxious we should look closely. We know how difficult it is to regulate executive work where the different Departments of the State overlap one another, and there is some amount of overlapping between functions belonging to the Local Government Board and functions belonging to the Home Office when we are dealing with this question. There are institutions now inspected by officials of the Local Government Board
  744
  which have connected with them buildings and workshops which properly fall under factory inspection, and should therefore come under the Home Office; but, presumably on the ground of avoiding overlapping and possible jealousy between the two Departments, it is provided, as I understand the Bill, that where there is such an institution it shall be possible for the Local Government Board inspector to be the person to examine the factory department of that institution. A great many of the inspectors under the Local Government Board, who are admirably qualified for examining and inspecting philanthropic and other institutions, have no knowledge whatever such as would enable them to inspect adequately places in which complicated machinery is used, and which fall properly to the factory inspector. That is a point which requires looking into if we are to be sure that the inspection is to be carried out as it ought to be.
  These, of course, are all points which will have to be dealt with in Committee. I rose, on behalf of those who in the Church of England are responsible for our philanthropic and charitable institutions to which laundries are attached, to say how cordially I welcome the Bill, how earnestly I hope its provisions will be strengthened, and how gladly I, for one, shall co-operate in making inspection universal.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, having had occasion to introduce this subject to your Lordships in previous years, I should like to make a few remarks on the Bill which has just been introduced by the noble Earl. In the first place I would like to congratulate His Majesty's Government on having so speedily fulfilled the promise they made last session to introduce such a Bill at the earliest opportunity. It is now thirty years since a Royal Commission first suggested that laundries should be brought within the Factory Act, and, in view of the fact that since that time everybody who has had anything to do with the actual administration of the existing law has testified to the inadequacy of it, one may fairly say that this measure of reform has been long overdue. I should, like to express my

  745
  great pleasure that the Government have dealt with the two classes of hitherto exempted laundries—namely, institution laundries and the smaller laundries in which only two persons are employed. As far as its general principles and objects are concerned the Bill follows very much the same lines as the one which I had the honour to introduce to your Lordships five years ago, and which passed through all its stages without a Division. But in respect of the machinery by which those objects are carried out, this Bill differs from that one in several important details. It differs from it, I think, in some respects so unfortunately that some of its details diminish considerably the pleasure which I feel at the introduction of the Bill. Such criticisms as I have to make of those details will be more suitable to the Committee stage, but it would perhaps be convenient if I indicated briefly at this moment the points upon which I think this Bill will need some Amendment.
  The object of the Bill, as the noble Earl explained, is to apply the provisions of the Factory Act to all commercial laundries and also to provide for the inspection and regulation of laundries attached to certain charitable institutions. Clause 2 is the one which deals with commercial laundries, and the various paragraphs of Sub-section (1) deal with the hours of employment and the amount of overtime to be worked. Under the provisions of this sub-section the proprietor of a laundry may choose to work under Section 49 of the principal Act, or he may adopt Paragraph (b) of this clause. If he chooses the latter, Paragraph (b) would enable him to work overtime on three days in every week, except Saturday, provided that a corresponding reduction is made in the periods of employment on other days of the week. I would like to draw your Lordships' special attention to these words, because they are new to factory legislation. Though the principle may be perfectly fair and reasonable I submit that it will prove to be unworkable in practice.
  The principle which has always been adopted in factory legislation hitherto is that those regulations which deal with
  746
  overtime should be so framed that an inspector can tell the moment he enters any premises whether the law is being carried out or not, and the introduction of these words will make it difficult for an inspector to carry out his duties. There is no provision made in the Bill that notice should be given to the Home Office of the overtime which is to be worked on any particular day or of the corresponding reductions which are to be made on other days. I understand that the Government are relying upon Section 60 and Section 32 of the principal Act, which are supposed to govern the sending of notices with regard to overtime allowed under this clause. It is very difficult to understand a Bill of this sort. This is another case of legislation by reference, and it is extremely difficult for any one reading the Bill to know exactly what it does and what it does not do. We shall have to go very carefully into this in Committee to see how the question of notice is dealt with, and I hope the Government will then explain on what sections of the principal Act they are relying in this matter. It appears to me that under this Bill an inspector might go into a laundry, and, finding overtime being worked there, might lodge a complaint, and be then answered by the proprietor that he was going to make up the overtime by corresponding reductions on other days. There is no provision that the corresponding reductions are to be notified before the overtime is worked. If however, this is provided for in the principal Act it seems to me that even then it would be extremely difficult for a laundry to meet its emergency work if its proprietor had to say beforehand upon what days emergencies would arise necessitating the working of overtime, and on what other days the corresponding reductions would be made. The noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, explained how very complicated and difficult to enforce the existing law is, and I am afraid that if the Government adhere to the provisions of this clause as it stands, its administration in the future will be attended by no less confusion and even more friction.

  747
  As to the question of the institution laundries which come under Clause 5, here, again, I fear that the machinery which is set up in this Bill will to a large extent defeat the object of the Government in introducing it. Sub-section (2) of Clause 5, for instance, provides that the managers of any institution may submit for the approval of the Secretary of State a scheme for the regulation of the hours of employment, intervals for meals, and holidays of the workers, and that scheme may take the place of the corresponding provisions in the principal Act, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provisions of the scheme are on the whole not less favourable than the corresponding provisions. Your Lordships will understand what an enormous amount of extra labour will be placed on the Home Office by this. Some Home Office official will have to investigate every scheme sent in by the different institutions, and will have to decide whether they are more or less favourable than the corresponding provisions of the principal Act. We are often told that the Home Office is at present doing work which in other countries is entrusted to two, if not three, Departments, and I am surprised that the Government should go out of their way to place fresh burdens on this already overworked Department. I am not using this argument in the interests of the Home Office. That Department can safely be left to look after its own interests; but I have a fear lest if the Home Office should prove unable, through pressure of work, properly to check all the schemes put forward on behalf of institutional laundries, these institutions will not be adequately regulated. I think it would be a much better system to lay down in general terms what are the exemptions which, in consequence of their special character, ought to be allowed to these institutions, and then to apply the Factory Act to them as a whole.
  There is one other point, to which the most rev. Primate alluded. I refer to the words in the beginning of Clause 5, which exempt from factory inspection any laundry connected with an institution which is at present inspected by or is under the authority of any Government Department. These words
  748
  will exclude all laundries attached to reformatories, workhouses, orphanages, industrial schools, and so forth, which are at the present moment in respect of their other work under the authority of either the Board of Education or the Local Government Board. I believe it is customary in legislation of this kind to exclude the work of one Department from interference by another Department, and as a general principle that may be a very sound rule to adopt; but I submit that when you are dealing with laundries where dangerous and complicated machinery is used it is imperative that they should be inspected by the only Department which is competent to do it. If it were only a question of needlework and occupations where no machinery is employed though technically a workshop the inspection can well be carried out by the Department to which the institution belongs. But with laundries it is different, and it does seem to me that machinery cannot properly be inspected either by an education officer or a sanitary inspector. I know, for instance, of a case in which feeble-minded children in an industrial school were placed in charge of laundry machinery attached to that institution; and of another case in which a woman in a workhouse lost her arm in an unguarded machine in a laundry attached to the institution. The mutilated woman remained in the workhouse, but the machine was not encased. It will surely be admitted that if an institution of this kind is engaged in work which necessitates the use of dangerous machinery, that part of its work ought to be under the inspection and authority of the Department whose business it is to inspect machinery. My Lords, these are points which will require to be considered in Committee. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will examine the clauses of the Bill very closely when we reach that stage, and that you will consent to insert some Amendments at any rate into the Bill before it is carried into law.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 4th of June next.

  COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  Report of Amendments received.
  Clause 11:—
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the object of his Amendment to this clause was simply to impose a penalty, by reference to the Companies Act, 1862, on every director and officer of a company who refused to allow the inspection of a register of mortgages.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 11, page 10, line 24, to leave out from the word 'company,' to the word 'provided' in line 26, and to insert the words, 'in like manner as the register of mortgages under section forty-three of the Companies Act, 1862, and the provisions of that section (including the penal provisions thereof) shall apply accordingly.'"—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17:—
  LORD AVEBURYmoved to amend this clause, which dealt with the power to re-issue redeemed debentures in certain cases, by adding, after the words—
  "Where either before or after the passing of this Act a company has redeemed any debentures previously issued."
  the words—
  "Or reissued under this Section."
  He said he had placed this Amendment on the Paper on behalf of the Central Association of Bankers, who were advised by their legal representatives that the words ought to be inserted in order to carry out the intentions of His Majesty's Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, page 12, line 9, after the word 'issued,' to insert the words 'or re-issued under this section.'"—(Lord Avebury).
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the legal advisers of the Board of Trade were of opinion that the section as it at present stood covered the point raised by the noble Lord. In these circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would not be Dressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AVEBURYexplained that the Central Association of Bankers were advised that the words in his next Amendment were also necessary to carry out what was understood to be the intention of His Majesty's Government. He bagged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, page 12, line 13, after the word 'do' to insert the words 'contained in such debentures or in any trust deed securing the same.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the point raised by the noble Lord would be dealt with in an Amendment which he (Lord Granard) would next move—viz.: to insert, instead of the words proposed by Lord Avebury, the following words—
  "and not being an obligation enforceable only by the person to whom the redeemed debentures were issued."
  The object of the Government was to secure the protection of second debenture holders or other subsequent creditors.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid that if the noble Earl thought his words met the case batter he was prepared to leave the matter in his hands.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDthen moved the Amendment to which he had referred.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, page 12, line 13, after the word 'do' to insert the words 'and not being an obligation enforceable only by the person to whom the redeemed debentures were issued.'" —(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURYmoved to omit the following proviso at the end of Subsection (1) of Clause 17—
  "Provided that nothing in this section shall prejudice the operation of any judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction pronounced or made before the seventh day of March one thousand nine hundred and seven as between the parties to the proceedings in which the judgment was pronounced or the order made, and any appeal from any such judgment or order shall be decided as if this Act had not been passed."

  751
  In his opinion the words would come in better later on. He understood that that was also the view of the Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, page 12, line 22, to leave out from the word 'issued' to the end of Subsection (1)."—(Lord Avebury).
  THE EARL OF GRANARDaccepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid the insertion of the words which he proposed was in accordance with Amendments which had been introduced in other parts of the Bill. He believed the Amendment had the approval of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, page 12, line 31, after the word 'have' to insert the words 'whether before or after the passing of this Act.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARDaccepted the Amendment, which he said was necessary in order to make it clear that the clause was intended to be retrospective. He had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURYmoved an Amendment to Subsection (3). This subsection ran—
  "(3) Where a company has deposited any of its debentures to secure a current account, the debentures shall not be deemed to have been redeemed by reason only of the current account having, whilst the debentures were so deposited, been in credit."
  His Amendment was to omit the words "a current account," and to insert the words "an advance. The clause as it stood would only apply to advances by bankers. In many cases companies obtained advances from insurance companies, and it would be very hard if they were precluded, as they would be unless his Amendment were accepted, from going to insurance companies for advances. Moreover, insurance companies would be deprived of a profitable business. But, more important still, a company would be deprived
  752
  of the guarantee of the validity of debentures. If a company had deposited debentures with a bank and had redeemed them, those debentures would be perfectly good; but, unless his Amendment were accepted, they would not be good if they had been deposited with an insurance company and subsequently redeemed. It would be impossible for an ordinary purchaser in the open market to determine whether or not a debenture was good, because it would be impossible to ascertain whether it had been deposited with an insurance company for an advance, in which case it would be bad.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, page 12, line 35, to leave out the words, 'a current account,' and to insert the words 'an advance.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)said that this Amendment and two other Amendments which were consequential had only just been handed to him. They were not on the Paper, and therefore he had not had an opportunity of examining them, critically; but, as far as he could see, the Amendments seemed to be in the right direction. The purpose of the noble Lord was to secure that a debenture should not be vitiated by reason of any advance being repaid. That appeared to be sound, and he would accept the Amendment, reserving to himself the right to reconsider the point on further inquiry.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid his next Amendment was a purely technical one. It did not alter the Bill in any way, but he was advised that the words were desirable in order to carry out the intentions of the Government. He would not, however, press the Amendment if the words were considered unnecessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, page 12, line37, after the word 'credit,' to insert the words, 'or cease to be in debit, nor shall other holders of debentures of the same series or class or any subsequent encumbrancers be entitled to treat payments into such account as in reduction of the amount for which the debentures in security may rank

  753
  as against such other holders or subsequent encumbrancers.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid that, so far as the Government were concerned, they accepted the principle of the first part of the Amendment, but not the second part, which would create an exception in the general law of mortgage in favour of a particular class. For this reason it would be inadvisable for the Government to agree to the Amendment.
  LORD ALVERSTONEsubmitted that something of the kind was required, but agreed that the words in the Amendment as they stood would not do. With regard to the latter part of the Amendment, there was, he thought, some necessity for a proviso to meet that case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he had some misgivings on the point. It seemed to him that the effect of the Amendment would be to violate what he regarded as a very fair rule. Therefore, while he was prepared to consider it, he at present inclined to the view that it could not be accepted.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid that if the noble and learned Lord would consider the point he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AVEBURYmoved the insertion of a new subsection to meet a case, which, he said, was more common in the country than in London, in which debentures were issued in blank. It had been pressed upon him very strongly from the country that words of this kind were desirable.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, page 12, after Subsection (3) to insert the following new subsection: —(4) The foregoing provisions shall mutatis mutandis apply and be deemed to have applied not only to debentures or debenture stock issued as completed securities, but also to debentures or certificates for debenture stock deposited or issued in blank with or without power to fill up the blanks, and to provisional certificates for debentures or debenture stock.' "—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid the object of the Amendment seemed to be that in cases where there had not been what in ordinary parlance was called an issue, but where there had been debentures or certificates for stock deposited in blank, the fact that the debt had been paid off should not vitiate the debentures. He thought the Amendment was unnecessary, on the ground that it had been decided, and rightly decided, that a transaction with debentures of that kind was, in fact, an issue, and, accordingly, would fall within the provisions stated earlier in the Bill, which prevented the issue of debentures being vitiated by the process in question.
  LORD ALVERSTONEentirely agreed with the Lord Chancellor, but asked the noble and learned Lord to consider, in connection with this matter, the last words of the Amendment. He doubted very much whether the cases referred to applied to provisional certificates for debentures.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he would give the point his attention. It might be that it would require consideration.
  LORD AVEBURYstated that as this was a highly technical point he would leave it in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AVEBURYmoved the re-insertion of the proviso which had been deleted from an earlier part of the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that nothing in this section shall prejudice the operation of any judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction pronounced or made before the seventh day of March one thousand nine hundred and seven as between the parties to the proceedings in which the judgment was pronounced or the order made, and any appeal from any such judgment or order shall be decided as if this Act had not been passed.' "—(Lord Avebury.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord AVEBURYmoved an addition to the proviso just added to the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 17, at the end, to insert the words, Provided also that nothing herein contained shall derogate from or prejudice any power to issue debentures in the place of any debentures paid off or otherwise satisfied or extinguished reserved to a company by its debentures or the securities of the same.' "—(Lord Avebury.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21:
  LORD AVEBURYreminded their Lordships that there was some discussion on this clause when the Bill was in Committee, and said that one or two noble Lords imagined that he was proposing to leave out an obligation on the part of the company to give notice to the shareholders when there was proposed to be any change of auditor. But the real effect of the clause, as it stood, was that unless the directors chose to give such notice there could be no change of auditor. If his Amendment were agreed to the subsection would read—
  "A person, other than a retiring auditor, shall not be capable of being appointed auditor at an annual general meeting unless notice of an intention to nominate that person to the office of auditor has been given by the nominator to the company not less than fourteen days before the annual general meeting, and the company shall, at the expense of the nominator, send such notice to every shareholder and to the retiring auditors not less than seven days before the annual general meeting."
  He understood that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was prepared to accept the Amendment with the exception of the words requiring that the notice should be given "at the expense of the nominator." Unless the notice were given at the expense of the nominator anyone might nominate an enterprising young man as auditor to a particular company and therefore impose on the company the unnecessary expense of sending a notice to every shareholder advertising the person nominated. It was agreed that, if the proposed auditor should be elected, then the expense of the notice should be borne by the company; but he did not think companies should be put to the expense of sending round notices of the nomination of an auditor who had really no chance of being elected.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 21, page 14, line 23, after the word 'days' to insert the words 'before the annual
  756
  general meeting,' and leave out the word 'by, and after the word 'company' to insert the words 'shall, at the expense of the nominator, send such notice,' and after the word 'shareholder' to insert the words 'and to the retiring auditors.' "—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the Government were not prepared, without further consideration, to accept the words "at the expense of the nominator." They thought it rather hard that, in the case of a shareholder wishing to nominate an auditor, all the expense should be borne by him. The Government proposed to submit several of the points that had been raised to the Committee on whose recommendations the Bill had been drafted, and this point would be one of those referred for consideration.
  LORD ALVERSTONEsuggested that the question of notice being given to retiring auditors should also be considered. It was a small matter, but he thought the provision might lead to canvassing and other undesirable results.
  LORD FABERdid not like the idea that the shareholders who proposed an auditor should have to pay for the issuing of the notices. In the case of a very large company the expense would be almost prohibitive, and, therefore, it would come to this, that the auditor would only be proposed by the company. As the auditor was appointed for the protection of the shareholders this would be a very awkward result. He agreed that it would be hard on a company if a shareholder, in a frivolous spirit, proposed an unfit person as auditor, but of the two difficulties he thought they had better face the second.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he was prepared to agree with Lord Faber, but, as the Board of Trade wished to consult the Committee on this and kindred points, he thought it would be best to allow them to do so.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid he was quite ready to leave the point in question to be considered by the Committee, and he moved his Amendment without the words "at the expense of the nominator."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURYmoved the insertion of a new sub-section dealing with the question of auditors. He said it had been held in some cases that the auditors named in the prospectus had not really been appointed at all, and therefore some such provision as that contained in his Amendment was obviously necessary.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 21, page 14, line 32, after the word 'pounds' to insert as a new subsection: —" (6) Where in any prospectus issued by a company any person is named as the auditor, the said person shall, unless he resign the appointment, continue to be the auditor of the said company until the first annual general meeting succeeding the issue thereof.' "—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid he would be obliged if the noble Lord would not press the Amendment. The whole subject would go before the Committee, and the Government would act on their recommendation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 41:
  LORD AVEBURYmoved to omit the words "independently of the presence or votes of any shareholders or any other class" from the following proviso—
  "But provided always that no preference or special privilege attached to or belonging to any class of shares shall be interfered with except by a resolution passed and confirmed by shareholders of that class, independently of the presence or votes of any shareholders of any other other class, and every resolution so passed shall be a valid special resolution binding all shareholders of such class."
  As the clause stood, the holder of preference shares could not vote upon a matter affecting ordinary shares, and vice versa; but, unless the words which he proposed to delete were omitted, a person who held both classes of shares would not be able to vote at all.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 41, page20, lines 40 and 41, to leave out the words 'independently of the presence or votes of any shareholders of any other class.' "—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the Government thought the Amendment
  758
  of the noble Lord greatly improved the clause, and they had much pleasure in accepting it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved to insert a new clause after Clause 46. He explained that the object was to secure that all extraordinary resolutions should be filed with the Registrar in like manner as special resolutions.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After Clause 46, to insert as a new clause: 'An extraordinary resolution for the purposes of the Companies Act, 1862, and this Act, moans a resolution which is passed in such manner as would, if it had been confirmed by a subsequent meeting, have constituted a special resolution, and section fifty-three of the Companies Act, 1862, shall apply in the case of an extraordinary resolution in like manner as that section applies in the case of a special resolution, with the substitution of a reference to the date of the passing of the extraordinary resolution for the reference to the date of the confirmation of the special resolution.' "—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 50:
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked the Lord Chancellor, before the Bill finally left their Lordships' House, to reconsider the subsection which he (Lord Balfour) had suggested should be added to Clause 50, but which the noble and learned Lord desired should not be pressed at a former stage. The proposed new subsection to which he referred read—
  "The provisions of this Act with respect to the registration of mortgages and charges shall not apply to companies registered in Scotland."
  The noble and learned Lord refused to accept that subsection when the Bill was in Committee. The point he wished the Lord Chancellor most carefully to consider was whether or not the clauses headed "Mortgages and Charges" (11 to 20 inclusive) would apply to Scotland. If they did so apply, Scottish companies would be put to serious and unnecessary expense. There was no doubt that at present mortgages and charges created by limited companies had not to be registered with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies in Scotland, but such mortgages and charges were already registered

  759
  under the law of Scotland in the Register of Sasines, and it would be unfair to make a second registration necessary. Section 34 (2) of the Act of 1900 provided that the provisions of that Act with respect to the registration of mortgages and charges should not apply to companies registered in Scotland. This subsection was inserted on the Report Stage of that Bill, and the insertion was due to the sudden discovery that under the Scottish law there were not, and never could be, any floating charges the iniquities of which were so eloquently denounced by Lord Lindley and which it was intended to put a stop to. Section 14 of the Act of 1900 containing the principal provisions as to the registration of mortgages and charges was repealed by this Bill, and there was some doubt whether the saving clause for Scotland would or would not apply to the new provisions in this Bill. Great importance was attached to Scotland being excluded from the provisions of this Bill as to registration of mortgages and charges, and he hoped that point would have the careful consideration of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he would consider the point. The mischief against which the registration of mortgages by companies was directed was that people dealing with companies which had a limited liability sometimes found, when they tried to enforce their claims, that there were mortgages which had been undisclosed to the public, and the disclosure of which would have prevented any person giving the company credit. As soon as the unfortunate creditor attempted to enforce his claim for a just debt down came the mortgagor, who was often the promoter of the company, and swept off all the assets under a mortgage which no one had ever heard of. That was a flagrant and a great wrong, and clauses had been inserted in this Bill to secure that there should always be publicity in regard to any such transactions, so that no one should be cheated in consequence of the apparent prosperity of a company which was, in fact, mortgaged up to the hilt. The registration of mortgages and charges on heritable property was required under the Scottish law, but the mortgages to which he had referred had no connection
  760
  with heritable property. They referred to book debts, uncalled capital, and so forth; and the result was that the registration of heritable property only would not provide the necessary security. He wished to know whether it was desired that companies in Scotland should not be obliged to register mortgages on movable property. If that was the real wish of the people of Scotland, well and good; but he thought they ought to be satisfied, in the face of the great mischief to which he had alluded, that this was the wish of the people of Scotland before inserting any such provision. For himself he would not, in this matter, accept the view of the legal profession, for this was a part of high public policy. If Lord Balfour would elucidate that matter he would be very grateful to him, and would promise the best consideration to any view put forward.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that so far as mortgages and charges on heritable property were concerned there was nothing between them. But his information went to show that in Scotland no effective mortgage or charge could be given upon assets remaining in the hands of a company such as could be created in England by a mortgage or charge on uncalled capital, a bill of sale, or a floating charge; and registration of charges other than those affecting heritage, already provided for, was therefore unnecessary. If that was right it was clear that this part of the Bill should not apply to Scotland. His information came from those who had carefuly considered the matter, and not from company promoters or persons against whom the Bill was directed. He hoped the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would ascertain for himself whether the law was as he (Lord Balfour) had stated it.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW)said he had carefully abstained from rising until the noble Lord had resumed his seat. But a, Committee of their Lordships' House had been appointed to consider the question of order in debate, and he would be greatly surprised if that Committee did not find that it was out of

  761
  order for a noble Lord to address the House more than once on Report.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHagreed that he had been out of order in speaking again on the same matter, but said it would be in the recollection of the House that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had appealed to him for information. But for that fact he would not have risen again.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)said the noble Earl the Lord Chairman was quite right. Their Lordships had got so demoralised in consequence of the latitude during the discussions on the Education Bill last year that they appeared to have forgotten the rule of the House. He only rose to press upon their Lordships the fact that the rule was that no Peer could Speak more than once on the Report Stage.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope I shall not be out of order if I say one word about this Bill now that it is through Report. I have been asked whether it is possible that the Third Reading could be taken the day after to-morrow. That request is made on the ground that it would be possible to find a really early day in the House of Commons before this House meets again after the Whitsuntide recess. It would be a great convenience if your Lordships would agree to this course, and it would enable us to get on with the Bill. If the House will consent to that I will promise my noble friend Lord Balfour that the point he raised shall be fully considered with a view to its being dealt with in the House of Commons.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I most readily respond to the appeal of the noble and learned Lord. I am sure it is
  762
  a matter which he could deal with in consultation with others much better than on the Third Reading in this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: In the ordinary circumstances, considering that the Bill this evening has been dealt with somewhat freely and without the House having always a full opportunity of knowing what was proposed, I think we should have asked for a longer period in which to reconsider the Bill in its amended form. But I understand that the Bill receives the consent of your Lordships on both sides and that some of my noble friends behind me, who have taken a closer interest in it than we have been able to take, are in favour of the course proposed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. If that is so, we on this Bench shall raise no objection to that course being taken.
  LORD AVEBURY: I quite agree to the course proposed, and I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and Lord Granard for the courtesy with which they have met the Amendments that have been suggested.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 55.)

  THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, who had given notice "To call attention to the Answers given by the Under-Secretary for War to Questions addressed to him on Monday the 29th of April last regarding the 'hoped for' 'speculative' Territorial Army; and further, to give the Answers to the Questions to which the Undersecretary failed to reply," said: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Portsmouth to postpone the Notice standing in my name until after Whitsuntide. I shall be very glad to do so.
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  PRIZE COURTS BILL [H.L.]; EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.

  MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Courtney of Penwith, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Paper.
  Moved, That the following Lords be named of the Select Committee—

  E. Hardwicke.

  L. Ampthill.

  E. Cathcart.

  L. Avebury.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Haversham.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Pirrie.

  L. Monteagle of Brandon.

  L. Courtney of Penwith.

  L. Belper.

  L. Allendale.

  —(Lord Avebury.)

  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I had been given to understand that one of the right rev. Prelates desired to serve on this Committee. The suggestion seemed an excellent one, and if that desire is still felt on the Episcopal Bench we might substitute the name of a Bishop for one of the names in the Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The only difficulty is that Lord Courtney is not here. It is his Motion and his Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But he has placed himself in Lord Avebury's hands.
  LORD AVEBURY: I speak for my noble friend, and I am quite prepared to move the Motion without the name of Lord Pirrie. The name of a right rev. Prelate could be added at a subsequent stage.
  On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to, and the Lords following were named of the Select Committee—

  E. Hardwicke.

  L. Ampthill.

  E. Cathcart.

  L. Avebury.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Haversham.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Courtney of Penwith.

  L. Monteagle of Brandon

  L. Allendale.

  L. Belper.

  The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at half-past Three o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

  QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the capacity of women to be elected and act as members of county or borough councils—was presented by The Lord President (E. Crewe); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Thursday, the 30th instant. (No. 56.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.